HILLSBORO, N.M. - Renewable energy sources in New Mexico and the West are plentiful and may be headed toward gold rush-style exploitation by developers. That raises some concerns about the impact, but New Mexico sportsmen believe the reintroduction of the Public Lands and Renewable Energy Development Act will create a framework for responsible development.

John Cornell is a sportsmen coordinator for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. He called the Act "smart from the start," unlike the General Mining Act of 1872.

"What foreign that did is allow people and companies to come mine on our public lands," he said, "so domestic and companies have been able to extract our natural resources probably to the tune of many billions of dollars over that time."

That lost compensation is something that would be corrected by the new legislation. It would make sure the counties, states and the general public benefit from development on public lands. It will also offset damage to wildlife habitat from renewable energy development.

S. 279, introduced by Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Risch (R-ID), is receiving bipartisan support and has the backing of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), who said the bill incentivizes development while protecting natural resources, wildlife and public lands. He described the distribution of the royalties.

"It's 25 percent to the state where the project is located; 25 percent to the individual county; 15 percent to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) for the first 15 years," he said, "and the balance goes to the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund for improving fish and wildlife habitat."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) calls the Act a "good stewardship bill."

"The bill dedicates a significant amount of the royalties to the protection of fish and wildlife, so the public can enjoy both of them," he said. "This is a crucial way to find a balance between energy production with the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat."

Congressman Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) is seeing support from both sides of the aisle in the House.

"I'm hopeful, now with Congressman Gosar's support (Paul Gosar, R-AZ), that it's a bipartisan bill," Lujan said. "We're hoping that more Republicans will join us Democrats to get this done."






get more stories like this via email

Virginia officials support the Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions rule. The federal clean truck standards will reduce emissions by up to 60% in 2032 and prevent 1-billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia and nationwide.

Phillip Jones, Newport News Mayor, said the new rule helps end the city's environmental disparities.

"We have a very large multiple coal company in downtown Newport News in the southeast part of our community," he said. "That's going to lead to higher rates of asthma for that community. There's a lot of air-quality issues in downtown Newport News."

Jones noted the city has taken steps to reduce emissions. The city's school district has been using propane-powered buses and Newport News is purchasing alternate energy-powered vehicles. He added any opposition to this work centers on larger upfront costs, but the long-term benefits are worthwhile. The EPA's rule goes into effect in 2027.

Transportation agencies are also working to cut emissions. Hampton Roads Transit has been working to cut emissions with cleaner buses.

Sibyl Pappas, chief engineering and facilities officer with Hampton Roads Transit, said the agency's upcoming bus maintenance facility furthers its emissions-reduction goals.

"It's very near where Dominion Energy is bringing offshore wind onshore. So, we've talked with Dominion about buying wind power. So, potentially, those buses are zero emissions at the tailpipe and zero emissions at the generation point," Pappas said.

The facility will open in 2029 and be net zero-ready upon completion. While HRT had some hiccups with electric buses, Pappas feels the EPA rule encourages climate-smart initiatives for all economic sectors.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.