I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
The electricity provider for about 400,000 people in New Mexico, Public Service Company of New Mexico, or PNM, issued a statement yesterday urging support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives soon.
The provisions in the Act are consistent with the Blueprint for Legislative Action issued earlier this year by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which PNM helped found in 2006, the statement said.
According to PNM CEO Jeff Sterba, the act strikes the right balance between the need to preserve the environment and the need to minimize costs to consumers and businesses.
“Addressing carbon emissions will not be free,” Sterba said. “But this bill uses a market-based, cap-and-trade system to achieve the most significant reductions possible at the lowest possible cost. It allows businesses responsible for producing carbon to decide where to spend their money to comply with the law, and it allocates allowances to protect our customers. These features are key to keeping energy affordable for our customers and critical reasons why we can support the bill.”
Sterba urged passage of the bill, saying if the country doesn’t act now we’ll pay the price in the future.
“We need to remember there is a cost to delaying action,” Sterba said. “Unaddressed, climate change and carbon emissions are expected to lead to more instability in water supplies through flooding and drought and increased risk to forests and agriculture. The bill before the House would reduce carbon emissions over decades; if no action is taken now and more drastic carbon reductions are needed in the future, the costs of doing so could be significantly more expensive,” he added.
