expressly recognized that there is no rational basis for treating rural electric cooperatives and public utilities the same as to their rates because a rural electric cooperative is not investor-owned. Section 62-3-2(A)(3) (“Experience has shown that a rational basis exists to provide procedures for setting rates of rural electric cooperatives different from and more limited than those for settingrates ofinvestor-ownedutilities,”). The Legislature’s language in Section 62-3-2(A)(3) echoes this Court’s holding that there is not a rational basis for treating rural electric cooperatives and public utilities the same under the PUA — a rationale which also applies to G&T Coops. See Cmty. Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 1966-NMSC-053, ¶¶ 1, 11, 14, 76 N.M. 314, 414 P.2d 675 (<HOLDING>); see also Edington v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm
holding that extensively regulated public utilities are not state actors recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding loan programs constitutional because the city received sufficient bargained for consideration in the form of public benefit from electric conservation holding that the termination of electric service by a public utility for nonpayment of bills was not state action holding that a 1961 amendment to include rural electric cooperatives as public utilities under the pua denied equal protection to public utilities because there was no rational basis for giving rural electric cooperatives pua advantages without subjecting them to full pua regulation and the requirement to render service to the general public as prescribed for other electric utilities under the pua