its jurisdiction. See N.M. Elec. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 81 N.M. 683, 685, 472 P.2d 648, 650 (1970) (finding no implied authority for the Commission to treat monies refunded to utility as a rate that the Commission could order passed through to customers); see also Plains Elec., 1998-NMSC-038, ¶ 12, 126 N.M. 152, 967 P.2d 827 (stating that the conveyance of land “which does not affect the utility services provided by” the utility was outside the Commission’s jurisdiction over the sale of utility facilities); United Water, 1996-NMSC-007, 121 N.M. at 275, 280, 910 P.2d at 909, 914 (concluding that the Commission improperly exercised jurisdiction over a municipality that had “not elected to submit itself to ... regulation”); Morningstar Water, 120 N.M. at 585, 904 P.2d at 34 (<HOLDING>); Summit Props., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of
holding that the amount of a commission to be awarded to the personal representative requires the exercise of judicial discretion and judgment by the clerk who has original jurisdiction in the matter holding that the industrial commission only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the payment of wages statute and not contract claims holding that the commission may only exercise jurisdiction over utilities expressly included in the scope of the pua holding that the texas legislature limited jurisdiction to the public utilities commission for disputes about rates operations and services of an electric utility by stating that the commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over these issues citing tex utilcode  32001 west 2007 holding that the legislature must expressly grant monopolies  before the commission may exercise such rights