Looking for clean horizons: Greenhouse gas emissions limits bill passes first committee

SANTA FE — As one of her first moves in office, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2019 signed an executive order seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico.

Six years later, the state isn’t on track to meet the order’s first demand: 45% less greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.

That’s part of the reason Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, introduced a Clear Horizons and Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill, which passed its first committee Tuesday morning by a vote of 5-4. The three committee Republicans — who all live in or near the Permian Basin — voted against it, as well as Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces.

“It would be incomprehensible to look at this piece of legislation and think that it would not demonstrably impact the price of energy,” said Sen. James Townsend, R-Artesia.

Stewart repeatedly denied the bill would cause higher energy prices.

Senate Bill 4 would codify the governor’s 2030 emissions limit, as well as add new limits compared to 2005 levels: a 75% reduction by 2040 and a 100% reduction by 2050. Reductions would be prioritized in “overburdened communities,” meaning minority or Native communities, or other communities disproportionately harmed, according to the bill.

Additionally, it would add state emissions monitoring and reporting requirements.

Fossil fuel operators are the No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico, comprising of 41% of all emissions in the state in 2021.

But the bill doesn’t only call out the oil and gas industry in terms of limiting greenhouse gas emissions; it also specifies that emissions come from electricity generation; transportation and heating fuels; buildings and structures; residential, commercial and transportation fuels; manufacturing, extracting and processing of raw materials; and agricultural and forest products.

In response to concerns from Sen. Candy Spence Ezzell, R-Roswell, about the addition of all of these different industries, Stewart said they’re all where emissions are coming from.

“It’s not really fair just talking about one sector,” Stewart said. “Yes, oil and gas has the largest emissions in this state, but it’s not the largest around the country.” Transportation accounts for the most emissions in the U.S.

Over the next five years, the Clear Horizons and Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill would require New Mexico to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by about 9% annually. However, the state as of last year wasn’t on track to meet that demand.

By 2030, it’s expected New Mexico’s greenhouse gas emissions will drop 32% compared to 2005 levels — still 13% short of the 2030 limits outlined in Lujan Grisham’s executive order and SB4, according to data compiled for the New Mexico Environment Department by independent energy research groups.

Many people who spoke in opposition to SB4 voiced concerns about a lack of specificity in the bill and how exactly the state is supposed to decrease the emissions amounts.

New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney, who spoke in support of the bill, said it “sets a direction but doesn’t prescribe exactly how to achieve the results.” He said the Environmental Improvement Board, an entity within NMED that adopts regulations, will do that later.

Cervantes, the only Democrat to vote against the bill, said it would ultimately result in hundreds of millions of dollars of litigation due to its ambiguities and inconsistencies.

“One of the great concerns I have with this bill — again, is not the goals; … they’re laudable — frankly, is something the secretary said … which is, ‘We’re going to determine later what is doable,’” Cervantes said.

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, a coalition representing over 1,000 companies, individuals and stakeholders, doesn’t support the bill. It’s too burdensome, said Ashley Wagner, vice president of government affairs, though NMOGA appreciates the outreach from Stewart’s office on the bill.

“The goals are simply not achievable in a state with a large low-income population,” she said. “We are especially concerned that this bill will increase costs and adversely affect the communities that it seeks to help.”

Sen. Larry Scott, R-Hobbs, brought up an argument that countries with higher emissions levels have better gross domestic products. Indeed, Pacyniak said there’s a well-known curve in environmental economics that shows GDP and quality of life increase with higher emissions levels — “the beginning of the development of a country.”

“And after a certain point, as countries become richer and shift some of their economies to, for example, financial services, like we do, you’ll see continuing growth in the quality of life and improvements of the economy and the decline in emissions,” he added.

This bill doesn’t hurt the oil and gas industry, Stewart said, which is “a good industry.” Fossil fuel exploration funds upward of a third of state revenues and is the primary reason for a booming surplus in recent years, including this year.

Stewart has a package of climate-related bills she’s looking to pass this year; one measure would allocate $340 million for a “community benefit fund” to help the public reduce emissions and another would send $10 million to state agencies to help them think innovatively about how to address climate change.

“I believe the time is now. I believe the time has passed; really, it’s passed,” Stewart said. “We’re just in trouble. I think our world is in trouble.”