Welcome to the Legislative Roundup, your update on the most important news from the Legislature

In Committees

Clean Fuels Bill Moves Ahead

HB 41, a high profile initiative by the Governor, seeks to implement a program to reduce carbon emissions from transportation fuels. The measure, sponsored by Representative Kristina Ortez (D-Taos) and Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (D-Bernalillo) was moved forward by the Senate Conservation Committee on a 6-3 party line vote. The next stop for the bill is the Senate Finance Committee. 

If enacted, the New Mexico Environment Department would be tasked with establishing rules that identify the "carbon intensity" of different fuels and to establish a marketplace for trading credits - producers of high carbon-intense fuels would have to buy credits from those that produce low carbon-intense fuels. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions 20% by 2030 and 30% by 2040 from 2018 emission levels. The program is modeled after west coast initiatives in California, Oregon and Washington as well as British Columbia, Canada. Technology neutrality is a key element in the design - the market will sort which approaches are best, not a government agency picking winners and losers.

Chamber Testimony



Chamber President and CEO Terri Cole reinforced this notion in her testimony:

This Clean Fuels Standard bill would reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels in an innovative way that encourages technological advancement across the private sector. It's a narrowly targeted bill and the implementation runway of about two years is appropriate. Assuming the carbon-intensity reduction targets remain reasonable, this bill's approach to improving air quality is more balanced and focused than many of the other environmental regulation bills we have reviewed. Cleaning our transportation fuels will go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our state and provide an opportunity for our state to be a lead-by-example Western State for innovation and collaboration. We urge your support for the bill. Thank you.

Support and Opposition

Support for the bill also came from Chevron, Exxon Mobil, PNM, the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and several environmental organizations. Opposition was expressed by the New Mexico Cattle Growers, the New Mexico Trucking Association, the New Mexico Independent Petroleum Producers Association and some environmental organizations.

Opponents assert that the clean fuels program will raise the retail prices of gasoline in the neighborhood of fifty cents per gallon which would work an especial hardship on rural residents who drive longer distances than their urban counterparts (though fifty cents a gallon would be significant for all motorists and truckers). 

Supporters, however, say that there is no correlation between a clean fuels program and the price of gasoline increasing. In truth, it is difficult to sort the data from the west coast states. Senator Steve Neville (R-San Juan) expressed his belief that there has to be added cost in producing and refining new fuels as well as purchasing credit all of which must be reflected in the retail price. Supporters of the legislation counter pointing to provisions in the legislation that would protect consumers from steep price flyups. 

For better or for worse, if the legislation becomes law, a lot of the details of how all this will work are to be established in rulemakings by the Environment Department. Rulemakings can go awry for sure, however, with a program this complex, there seems to be little alternative. As we noted in our testimony, this market based approach is superior to command and control options that have also been proposed. Harnessing the inherent creativity and innovation of the private sector to move towards a less carbon intense future seems the right path to us.

Matching Funds Bill Headed to Senate Floor

This Senate Finance Committee gave a resounding Do Pass to House Bill 177, the N.M. Match Fund, sponsored by Reps. Meredith A. Dixon (D-Bernalillo), Gail Armstrong (R-Catron, Sierra, Socorro and Valencia), Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Quay and Union), Rep. Susan K. Herrera (D-Rio Arriba, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Taos), and Sen. Pete Campos (D-Colfax, Guadalupe, Harding, Mora, Quay, San Miguel & Taos).

The N.M. Match Fund would use $75 million to set up a non-reverting fund to make grants to eligible entities such as universities and local governments to match funds for federal grants and to offset higher project costs incurred to comply with federal requirements. Debbie Hughes, Executive Director of the Water Conservation Districts, gave a real life example. A dam near Chimay is in need of repairs. There's $22 million of federal money available for the project if state entities can come up with $7 million - so far only $1 million has been identified. HB 177 could well drive this project home, leveraging 3 times the state investment - that's a pretty good rate of return!

While the original bill included a $100 million appropriation, Dixon explained to the committee that an amendment made in the House stripped out the appropriation as there is $75 million in the budget proposal.  

Supporters ran the gamut, from the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association to Conservation Voters New Mexico. All agreed the fund would help build/repair infrastructure in the state while putting more New Mexicans to work on projects from roads and water to clean energy and broadband.

The Chamber’s President and CEO, Terri Cole, testified:

HB 177 is all about smart money, the creation of a $75 million matching fund for use by state, local and Indian agencies to secure federal funding for much needed projects – think repair of existing, and construction of new, roads and highways, bridges, water systems and other high-dollar, and high-priority infrastructure needs. The governor referenced the need for this fund in her State of the State address so that New Mexico doesn't leave any money on the table. Ensuring our villages, towns, cities, counties, water associations, pueblos and more have the required matching funds to leverage federal dollars is just smart money.

HB 177 is now headed to the floor and, unless amended on the floor, to the Governor's desk.

Public Safety Return-To-Work Bill Advances

This afternoon the House Labor Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted 7-1 to advance Senate Bill 87, which is the Law Enforcement Retirement Changes bill and a mirror of House Bill 236.

The bills have some serious experience and power behind them.

SB 87 is sponsored by Senate Minority Whip Craig W. Brandt (R-Sandoval) and Sen. Daniel A. Ivey-Soto (D-Bernalillo). HB 236 is sponsored by House Majority Floor Leader Gail Chasey and Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (both D-Bernalillo) and House Minority Floor Leader T. Ryan Lane (R-San Juan). The bipartisan bills set up a short-term return-to-work program as a “bridge” to fill job openings until the training academies and recruiting efforts can catch up.

As the legislation has moved through its respective chambers, lawmakers have commented repeatedly that it's a 180-degree turn to see unions supporting a so-called “double-dipping” proposal. That’s true – the unions historically have wanted to preserve slots and safeguard advancement opportunities for new recruits. But per the testimony, and because the bills are narrowly tailored, they have allowed the staffing crisis to put those concerns on the back burner.

So when you can have interests as varied as these to not only agree, but advocate, on behalf of something, you know you’ve hit a sweet spot.

Carter Bundy, political action representative for the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), has testified repeatedly in strong support of the bills, as has the Albuquerque Police Officers' Association, New Mexico State Police and the Administrative Office of the Courts. He has explained that SB 87/HB 236 will allow some retired public safety employees to return to work under carefully crafted guardrails to not only protect their pension fund but also current mid-level and new incoming employees.

Eligible for rehire are:

Adult correctional officer, adult detention officer, courthouse security officer, emergency medical dispatcher, emergency medical technician or paramedic, firefighter, juvenile correctional officer, juvenile detention officer, municipal police officer, peace officer, public safety telecommunicator, sheriff's deputy, state police officer and protective services investigator.

And those rehired employees can:

• Return to work while still collecting their pension for three years. They and their employer would pay into the pension fund, but the employee would not accrue service credit. At the end of three years they could opt to continue working and stop collecting their pension or leave.
• Only fill entry-level, front-line positions provided the vacancy rate of the hiring entity is greater than 10 percent. The “retired member shall have no seniority based on pre-retirement employment for purposes of selecting shifts.”
• Be considered for rehire if they retired prior to Dec. 31, 2023, and subsequent employment begins prior to July 1, 2027.

Testimony has centered on the fact that staffing levels are at critical, crisis proportions. Earlier testimony this session revealed that corrections facilities’ vacancy rates are running from over 20 percent to 68 percent, and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center has 200 unfilled positions. And there are court staff, especially in our more rural areas, who have zero security and screening at their entrances are having to deal with armed folks walking into their buildings.

D'Val Westphal from the Chamber testified that “we’ve all read the headlines of how hard it is for our law enforcement agencies and jails to hire and retain officers. These bills offer a concrete, financial incentive to help encourage trained, experienced law enforcement, corrections and probation and parole officers to return to work. And, they have smart guardrails to eliminate any chance of abuse by double-dipping early retirees and put the rehires where they are most needed – in front-line positions. Let’s help get more officers in positions that will keep our state safe.”

Chasey and Ivey-Soto were in the committee this afternoon, and the lone “no” vote came from Chairman Eliseo Lee Alcon (D-Cibola and McKinley), who said he objected to re-hiring retirees because departments failed to hire and train new people. “We’re just working on the next three years,” he said. “We’re not worried about what happens after that.”

That’s why departments need to take the intent of the legislation – that it is a staffing bridge while they hire and train the next generation of officers – to heart.

The bill is headed to the House floor, and the Chamber believes it belongs in the pile on the governor’s desk that has her signature.

More Funding to DWI Grant Administration Could Be on the Way

Local governments and entities could get more support as they work to fight DWI and alcohol-related harms.

Senate Bill 144, sponsored by Senator Bobby Gonzales (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe and Taos) and presented today by Senator Leo Jaramillo (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval & Santa Fe) proposes to increase the cap on the amount of funds that can be used for the administration of grants to local DWI efforts by $500,000. The Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee passed the bill on a 7-1 vote.

This grant program funds local government initiatives that aim to reduce the incidence of DWI, alcoholism, alcohol abuse, and alcohol-related domestic violence, Jaramillo told the committee. SB 144 proposes a long-awaited update, according to the Local DWI Bureau Chief who acted as expert witness: this cap on administrative expenses hasn’t been increased since 2003, meaning the Bureau can’t hire to fill vacant positions.

GACC lobbyist J.D. Bullington spoke in support of the bill on behalf of the Chamber: “New Mexico continues to take top spots on the wrong lists – like for DWI rates, alcohol-related deaths, and pedestrian deaths. To break these cycles, we need to invest in programs that fight DWI and substance use disorder, and this bill will make sure our local DWI grant program can distribute sufficient resources to our local programs.”

Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) raised concerns over how this would impact grant distributions to local governments. The sponsor and expert witness said this increase would come out of the total allotment for the grant and admin costs, but also noted significant growth in revenue to the fund. Liquor excise tax revenues flow into the DWI Fund, and those revenues have more than doubled from 2003 to 2025 estimates of $22.8 million. The DWI Bureau Chief added that the grant program also has other revenue sources in addition to liquor excise tax proceeds.

After little committee discussion or debate, the bill passed on a swift 7-1 Do Pass motion. Wirth was the only committee member to vote against the bill.

Around the Roundhouse

The Senate Finance Committee was primed to fire the budget bill to the Senate floor when tech gremlins struck today. Apparently, there was a lot of good old fashioned manual labor going on to rescue the day. In any event, it looks like tomorrow the bill will be ready for prime time.

COMING TO AGREEMENT – CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

As we get to the part of the session where bills are “crossing over,” i.e. being passed to the other house, it’s important to know what happens if a bill is amended in the “other” house. This can happen, for example, with the budget bill. The Senate adds its amendments to House Bill 2, reflecting expenditures that the Senate wants.

The bottom line is a bill cannot be sent to the Governor for action until both houses have agreed to the same, identical version of the bill. Using the budget bill as an example, after the Senate passes the bill, it is then returned to the House for what is known as “concurrence in amendments”, i.e. determining whether the House will accept the Senate amendments. If the House concurs, then the bill is off to the Governor.

Non-concurrence

However, if the House refuses to concur, the Chief Clerk notifies the Senate. The Senate is asked to “recede” from its amendments, i.e. withdraw its amendments. If it does not, then a Conference Committee is appointed to work out an agreement.

Each house has three members of the committee appointed by the Senate President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House, respectively. Usually, this is two members from the majority party and one from the minority party. The “conferees” attempt to work out a solution. An agreement is reached only if at least two members from each house vote in favor. If agreement is reached the “conference report” is sent to each house, which can only accept or reject the report (the report is yet another version of the bill). If no agreement can be reached, such is reported to each house. New conferees might be appointed or the legislation may just die for lack of agreement.

Signing off from Santa Fe

You may be wondering where things stand with all the bills that have been introduced. Here's the down low: a total of 661 bills have been introduced, only 50 so far have left their house of origin and made it to the other chamber (i.e. House bills to the Senate and Senate bills to the House). That's 7.56% so far, so there's real pressure to move bills. And, so far, only two bills have passed both houses, the feed bill, which was signed by the Governor and another waiting for the proper paperwork to be completed before sending it to the Governor. Mad dash, rocket ride, whatever you want to call it - with now 6 days left in the session - hang on!

You also might be wondering what the most precious commodity is during a legislative session? Dinner? A good night's sleep? Good guesses but it's information - accurate information - when will a bill be heard? Are there amendments? Will the Governor sign it? What's the chances of it getting out of the XYZ committee? And on and on. There's a whole lot of speculation, rumor and just plain old gossip. So, getting accurate information is about as easy as nailing jello to the wall. Lots of oozy stuff. 

We do our best to bring you less oozy stuff - just the news and views that will keep you up to date on the most important business related issues. One piece of information we think is pretty reliable is that SB 3, the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act is very likely to be debated on the Senate floor tomorrow. We expect many hours of debate and some attempts to amend the bill. We'll bring you the scoop in tomorrow's LR - stay tuned. Thanks for joining us today and we wish you a wonderful evening.

The Legislative Roundup, published during the New Mexico Legislative Session by the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, provides information on local and state public policy and business issues that affect you.

For questions, please email D'Val Westphal at dwestphal@greaterabq.com.