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.
House lawmakers on Wednesday narrowly rejected giving power to state environmental regulators to consider a company’s past crimes and regulatory punishments in other states when deciding whether to revoke or deny an air quality permit.
The bill died on the House floor Lawmakers on a 32-33 vote after a lengthy, sometimes testy debate.
Supporters cast the bill in terms of protecting the poorest New Mexicans from pollution. Opponents countered that it changed the regulatory rules mid-stream and would send a anti-business message to firms that want to relocate here.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, would have empowered the New Mexico Environment Department and Bernalillo County to consider “bad actor” provisions when weighing decisions related to a permit.
New Mexico has “five or six bad actors” that continue to emit air pollution and contamination that could lead to death despite repeated sanctions, Egolf told his colleagues.
“If we can’t come together to help some of the poorest people in New Mexico get out from under clouds of pollution … then I don’t know what to say,“ Egolf said. “There are companies operating in New Mexico that shouldn’t be. We’ve got to stop it.”
But several lawmakers opposed the bill, citing, among other things, its retroactivity.
“We’re going to change the rules and do a look back provisions. We don’t do this anywhere else. It makes me suspicious,” said House Minority Leader Keith Gardner, R-Roswell.
Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad, meanwhile, asked Egolf to name the ‘bad actors’ he referred to on the House floor.
“Out of propriety, I do not feel comfortable listing the names,” Egolf responded.
While Egolf didn’t name names, around the Capitol the legislation is informally referred to as Helena Chemical bill. A Helena Chemical facility in Mesquite, south of Las Cruces, has been cited for multiple air-quality violations by the state of New Mexico. The company has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in state fines in recent years, including fines for not reporting spills.
“If they are so bad, I would expect them to be public so it would not be inappropriate to name them,” Heaton retorted. “It would be interesting to hear who they are. I’m surprised the gentleman would hide behind that.”
“You do me an injustice and accuse me of hiding behind something,” Egolf responded.
Heaton characterized the bill as “horribly arbitrary” and sets New Mexico up to be “unfriendly” to out-of-state firms.
The bill had its defenders, though.
“Knowingly misrepresented a material fact in the application for a permit – that does not sound arbitrary,” Rep. Benjamin Rodefer, D-Corrales, said, reading off a few of the proposed criteria the state’s Environment Department could have considered. “Being convicted of a court of a felony related to environmental crime — that does not sound arbitrary to me. This bill sounds very reasonable to me.”
The five facts the state would be able to consider when deciding whether to deny or revoke a permit deal with the company’s behavior. According to a legislative analysis, they are:
If the permit holder or applicant has been convicted in court of felony related to environmental crime or crime involving restraint of trade, price-fixing, bribery or fraud within 10 years immediately preceding the date of submission of the permit application;
knowingly misrepresented a material fact in the application for a permit;
refused to disclose the information required by the provisions of the Air Quality Control Act;
constructed or operated a facility without a permit when emissions from the un-permitted facility exceed required thresholds by 25 percent for any pollutant; or
had a permit revoked or permanently suspended for cause under the environmental laws of any state or the United States.
So-called “bad actor” provisions that address habitual violators of environmental regulations have become standard in state and federal environmental laws, according to the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office.
