By SHERRY ROBINSON
All She Wrote
© 2026 New Mexico News Services

The Clear Horizons Act was another of those bills we’ve seen so often in New Mexico that balances the environment against the economy. In a floor vote, the Senate chose the economy.

Senate Bill 18 was one of those marquee bills that got a lot of attention before and during the session. Senate President Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, revamped the bill she carried last year. It would help reduce natural disasters driven by climate change if legislators could cement greenhouse gas reductions in state law, supporters believed.

I’m not a climate-change denier, but I do pay attention when chambers of commerce, agriculture, dairy, utilities, tribes, construction, restaurants, mining, and oil and gas line up shoulder to shoulder in staunch opposition.

This year’s version would have made the governor’s 2019 executive order a law that mandated reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030, 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2050. (The executive order remains in place, but when the governor’s term ends this year, a new governor could rescind the order.) And it would have set new methane emission limits for the oil and gas industry. Stewart tried to sweeten the bill by targeting the largest emitters and by allowing carbon offset programs for smaller oil and gas companies or those operating on tribal lands. The business sector wasn’t mollified.

Proponents and opponents spent heavily on advertising, not that you could learn much. Most of the ads predicted the sky would fall but didn’t explain what, exactly, the bill would do. After some searching I could see an outline of the arguments.

It begins with very big numbers. Keep in mind that New Mexico ranks second in oil production, behind Texas, and that the oil and gas industry generates about 35% of the state’s general fund revenue. In broad brushstrokes, the governor, Stewart and environmentalists figured that costs of the Clear Horizon Act would peel off a fraction of revenues, like sipping from a firehose. Stewart argued that we don’t have to choose between economic development and clean air. Industry countered that even a small percentage would be a big dent.

A similar law enacted in Colorado reduced production by 2%. That doesn’t sound like much, but in New Mexico a 2% reduction would diminish the state’s general fund by $53 million in 2030, according to calculations provided to the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association by the New Mexico Tax Research Institute. Also in 2030, it would ding the permanent fund by $183 million, and local governments would lose $48 million. The hits for 2050 are nearly $2 billion to the general fund, $1 billion to the permanent fund and $270 million for local governments.

Such a law in California reduced production by 6%.

That’s just the state revenue side. Representatives from agriculture, oil and gas, construction, rural electric utilities and conservation districts all testified that SB 18 would raise costs of energy, goods and services for consumers and lead to business failures .

Mind you, opponents don’t oppose a transition to cleaner energy. “These investments are good and necessary, but the timeline and mandates in SB 18 are too aggressive for our customers,” said Matthew Stackpole, speaking for the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce.

Supporters of Project Jupiter, the data center going up in Santa Teresa, also complained about costs to consumers, along with the strong potential for litigation.

Ultimately, Republicans and seven Democrats shot it down 23 to 19 on fears that it would strangle the state’s economy. Environmentalists are mad at the seven, but bills like these separate the moderates from the progressives. It’s telling that one thumbs down came from Senate Finance Committee Chairman George Muñoz, of Gallup, a businessman who has a better understanding of the state’s revenues than most people in the Roundhouse. Others were: Bobby Gonzales of Taos; Shannon Pinto of Tohatchi, Benny Shendo of Jemez Pueblo, Joe Cervantes of Las Cruces, and Martin Hickey and Moe Maestes, both of Albuquerque.

Republican Gabriel Ramos, of Silver City, said: “I do believe we do need clean air (and) we need clean water. I mean, it’s something that we all want, but I think we’re not at a point to be so drastic.”

Sponsors, no doubt, will be back with the bill next year, but between now and then they should have some serious conversations with business and industry. Clearly, that didn’t happen this year.