OPINION: Planning ahead is cheaper: The economic case for the Clear Horizons Act

New Mexico families are feeling the squeeze. Rising insurance premiums, higher energy bills and the growing public costs of responding to wildfires, floods and extreme heat are all hitting household budgets at the same time. These pressures aren’t abstract — they show up in monthly expenses and in state budgets stretched thin by repeated emergencies.

From an economic perspective, the question facing New Mexico lawmakers this session is not whether climate impacts carry costs. They already do. The real question is whether we will continue paying those costs reactively — or whether we will plan ahead to reduce them.

The Clear Horizons Act is best understood as a planning and cost-stabilization policy. It puts New Mexico’s existing pollution reduction goals into statute and gives state agencies clear authority to measure progress and guide reductions over time. In economic terms, it provides certainty — the kind that helps families, businesses and governments make better long-term decisions.

History shows that uncertainty is expensive. When states fail to plan for rising risks, costs tend to surface later in more disruptive ways: emergency appropriations, infrastructure damage, insurance market instability and sudden price shocks for consumers. New Mexico has already spent hundreds of millions responding to climate-driven disasters in recent years — $256 million in emergency spending in the last year alone. Those are real dollars diverted from schools, health care and other public priorities.

Planning ahead is almost always cheaper than reacting later. The Clear Horizons Act helps New Mexico do exactly that by setting clear statewide targets, requiring transparent reporting and allowing regulators to adjust course if progress falls short. That kind of accountability is basic fiscal prudence.

The bill also provides predictability for the private sector. Businesses and investors consistently say that clear, consistent rules matter more than short-term incentives. New Mexico’s clean energy growth over the past decade didn’t happen by accident — it followed clear policy signals that reduced risk and encouraged long-term investment. Codifying climate goals builds on that track record.

Importantly, the Clear Horizons Act focuses on large industrial sources of pollution. It does not create new taxes, mandate specific technologies or regulate individual consumers. Its purpose is not to burden families, but to avoid passing higher costs on to them through unmanaged risk.

Some critics worry that planning for emissions reductions could raise energy costs. That concern deserves serious attention — and it’s precisely why planning matters. New Mexico has the opportunity to avoid those mistakes by aligning emissions goals with affordability and transparency from the start.

From a fiscal standpoint, the alternative to planning is not neutrality — it is continued exposure to escalating costs. Insurance markets are already adjusting to wildfire and flood risk. Public infrastructure faces greater stress. Emergency spending crowds out long-term investment. Those trends will not reverse on their own.

The Clear Horizons Act does not claim to solve every challenge. What it does offer is a framework to manage risk, reduce uncertainty and protect both public and household budgets over time. That is sound economic policy.

New Mexico has shown that leadership, stability and planning can deliver real results. Codifying our climate goals through the Clear Horizons Act is a responsible next step — one that reflects the simple economic truth that planning ahead costs less than paying later.

Beth Baloff is the CEO of the New Mexico Climate Invetment Center.