EDITORIAL: Environmental zealots would have us cooking with wood stoves and washing our clothes in the Rio Grande

It was “a relatively quick discussion” as the Journal reported before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission unanimously rejected a proposed liquefied natural gas storage facility in Rio Rancho.

Let’s face it, lacking support from elected leaders and opposed by hundreds of organized activists, the New Mexico Gas Co. probably never had a chance to build a state-of-art LNG plant to boost its ability to deliver natural gas to our homes and businesses.

The 501(c)(4) industrial complex was just too strong. A 501(c)(4) is tax-exempt nonprofit social welfare organization, described in Internal Revenue Code, that must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. We certainly have our share of them in New Mexico, and their over-sized voices are often amplified by the media while the silent majority goes unheard juggling work with raising kids.

The utility with a legal obligation to provide natural gas to customers in 27 of New Mexico’s 33 counties had argued that building a $180 million state-of-the-art LNG facility in Rio Rancho would help protect against price spikes. Increasing natural gas supplies locally could stem skyrocketing costs like those seen during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021 because the utility could buy lower cost fuel in warmer months and store it locally at minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit.

It sounded like common-sense business for a utility.

The Arctic chill from the 2021 storm forced N.M. Gas to shell out $107 million to pay for extra, extremely expensive gas purchases on wholesale markets. Those costs, of course, were passed down to its customers and paid over a 30-month period that began in July 2021.

A new plant would have helped the utility secure energy stability.

But state regulators decided the LNG facility wouldn’t be cost-effective. That’s right, the three PRC appointees know better how to run a utility.

PRC Commissioner James Ellison said the storage facility would cost $20 million more a year initially for N.M. Gas to run compared to current operations. Ellison said the LNG facility would have only saved about $14 million of the $107 million the utility paid for high-cost natural gas during Storm Uri.

Only $14 million in savings to customers.

“It seems like a fairly hefty price tag to pay for something that should occur on a relatively infrequent basis,” Ellison said.

Commissioner Pat O’Connell said also the project didn’t seem cost-effective. “I’m sitting here balancing the certainty of an expensive facility against uncertain benefits. And so it’s hard to say yes to that,” he said.

All three state regulators voted to deny the LNG facility request, following the defective recommendation of PRC hearing examiner Anthony Medeiros.

Hundreds of environmental justice warriors had submitted written public comments to the PRC. Many of them attended a three-hour public comment hearing in November, a luxury of time working men and women who pay the gas bills don’t have.

The opponents threw out concerns like spaghetti against the wall to see what would stick.

The proposed plant on a 25-acre site within a 160-acre parcel could blow up and spew toxic fumes across the Metro, they speculated.

It could leak and form a “low-lying vapor cloud that drifts until it hits something that ignites it — caus(ing) a fiery inferno,” New Energy Economy executive director Mariel Nanasi told the Journal.

It would result in more trucking in already congested Rio Rancho, they erroneously conjectured.

There was widespread misinformation in the organized campaign against the LNG plant.

For example, the storage facility would have been built in a low-lying area just north of Double Eagle II Airport along existing natural gas pipelines, eliminating the need to transport natural gas by rail from the Keystone underground salt caverns in West Texas, where N.M. Gas currently stocks up excess fuel for withdrawal as needed in cold winter months.

In truth, the LNG plant would have actually cut carbon emissions. A fleet of trucks was never part of the proposal. But the misinformation was repeated so often it became second nature to opponents.

However, the opponents’ real reason for opposition was revealed in the signs they carried outside N.M. Gas headquarters during a Jan. 4 protest.

“End Fossil Fuel,” their signs read. “100% renewable energy for New Mexico,” another read.

The 501(c)(4) industrial complex is against any investments or progress in natural gas infrastructure.

The unelected PRC’s denial on March 14 is already having a chilling effect on the business community, much like it could have on all of us the next time a winter storm rolls through.

Business leaders, who were heavily outnumbered by the left-wing agitators, are rightfully dismayed.

Low-income households stand to suffer the most from the PRC denial, as noted by Matthew Gonzales, the New Mexico-based vice chair of the National Hispanic Energy Council. He noted Hispanics have a 20% average higher energy burden in New Mexico. That’s because a greater portion of their take-home pay goes to the basics, like the monthly gas bill.

Jerry Schalow, president and CEO of the Rio Rancho Regional Chamber of Commerce, says he hopes the LNG facility will be reconsidered.

It’s unclear if N.M. Gas will appeal the PRC’s decision.

But why should we believe the outcome would be any different in a state so openly hostile to economic development, job growth in the energy sector and out-of-state people making money through stock dividends?

So, where do we go from here?

The environmental zealots led by fanatical anti-fossil fuel groups like Santa-Fe-based New Energy Economy broke the project. Now, they own it. What is NEE’s solution other than banning gas stoves and ovens?

The Bernalillo County Commission did us all a great disservice when it stoked the hysteria in October and passed a resolution by a 4-1 vote asking the PRC to deny the LNG plant.

OK, what is the County Commission’s long-term heating strategy for N.M. Gas’s 540,000 residential and commercial customers, other than turning down the thermostats at Alvarado Square?

What is the governor’s proposal to keep the heat on and the costs down? More space heaters powered by fields of solar panels?

Green fascism capable of assembling a picket line at a moment’s notice or packing kids into the Roundhouse Rotunda by the hundreds for a staged die-in is impeding progress in New Mexico.

If we don’t get realistic about our energy needs, the 501(c)(4) crowd will set us back a hundred years to cooking with wood-burning stoves and washing our clothes in the Rio Grande

Progressive Democrats have created this monster, now it is up to them to rein in the 501(c)(4) industrial complex and provide realistic solutions to meet the state’s energy needs. Burning those farcical and crackpot “End Fossil Fuel” signs would be a start, but that alone isn’t going to warm the bath water.