¶ 13, 128 N.M. 728, 998 P.2d 564, but gross receipts taxes are excluded from the base rate and must be stated separately on customer bills. Section 62-6-4.5(B). The reasonableness of rates is analyzed on a statewide level. See City of Albuquerque v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm’n, 2003-NMSC-028, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 472, 79 P.3d 297. {10} This Court does not interfere when the Commission exercises its expertise in rate cases. See id. ¶¶ 18, 19 (concluding that the Commission had jurisdiction over tariff filed because the Legislature “has specifically provided that the [Commission] may review local land use laws affecting utilities” when reviewing rate cases); Cnty. of Bernalillo v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm’n (In re Adjustments to Franchise Fees), 2000-NMSC-035, ¶ 18, 129 N.M. 787, 14 P.3d 525 (<HOLDING>); In re Zia Natural Gas Co., 2000-NMSC-011, ¶¶
holding that nmsa 1978 section 411111 replpamp1986 the damage cap in the dramshop act was unconstitutional holding that based on franchise tax board grant of jurisdiction in section 502e is exclusive holding that the commission had jurisdiction to review rates and thus delay implementation of nmsa 1978 section 623a18a 1999 replaced by section 62645 in 2003 because the removal of franchise fee charges from the rate base necessarily required a modification of rates recognizing the creation of constructive employees under nmsa 1978 section 52122 1989 holding section 1325b did not apply to modification under section 1329 unless there is an objection from the trustee or from an unsecured creditor