Category: Energy and Environment

Democrats walk fine line on energy

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date April 19, 2021

The following appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on April 18, Santa Fe New Mexican, and other New Mexico media outlets.

If there were an overall theme for New Mexico’s current political situation it would be the ongoing attempts by Democrats to placate their environmentalist base which opposes traditional energy sources while at the same time keeping energy dollars flowing into the State’s coffers.

The Biden Administration’s moratorium on oil and gas permitting is the most notable example of this conflict. Gov. Lujan Grisham has publicly spoken out about it, but Attorney General Balderas has refused to join a lawsuit challenging the policy that was recently filed by a dozen states. None of those states have as much to lose as does New Mexico, but our elected leaders are unlikely to challenge a President of their own party.

The internal conflict was on full display in the recently-completed legislative session as well. Thankfully, the most radical bill on energy which would have banned “fracking,” (an oil and gas drilling process without which New Mexico’s oil and gas industry would be immediately decimated) failed without gaining traction.

Making it much further in the process only to fail unexpectedly was Sen. Mimi Stewart’s “clean fuel standard” SB 11. In 2019 Gov. Lujan Grisham made national headlines stating that New Mexico was going to increase vehicle mileage in New Mexico to 52 MPG by model year 2022.

SB 11 would have instead forced motorists to use “alternative” fuels with the goal of reducing carbon emissions while passing off the hard work of actually developing the technology onto the private sector. Presumably blame for higher fuel costs would have been shifted as well. The bill faltered after passing the Senate.

Anti-energy bills that did make their way into law included SB 8 which allows local governments to enact more restrictive air quality regulations than are imposed by the federal government. It is unlikely that conservative counties where much of the Industry is located (and people are far more supportive of the Industry than liberal Albuquerque or Santa Fe) will enact such regulations, but this is about politics, not policy.

Speaking of politics, SB 112 which also made its way into law creates a “sustainable economy task force.” The task force’s stated goal is “diversifying New Mexico’s economy while reducing reliance on traditional energy sources.” Of course, New Mexico Democrats have controlled the Legislature for decades and with total Democrat control under Lujan Grisham, they have had ample time to enact the public policies necessary to “diversify” New Mexico’s economy.

Unfortunately, Santa Fe has repeatedly failed to reform the gross receipts tax, eliminate Social Security taxes, reduce onerous regulations, and expand educational choice (to improve workforce preparedness). In recent legislative sessions we’ve instead seen tax hikes passed at times of big budget surpluses. During both the 2019 (HB 6) and 2021 (SB 317) sessions tax hikes were adopted. Such cash grabs do nothing to diversify New Mexico’s economy. At best they diversify government revenues. In addition to tax hikes, policies like minimum wage hikes, paid sick leave mandates, and ongoing COVID restrictions imposed by the Executive only hinder economic growth and diversification.

Finally, this session, while the Legislature continued its piecemeal attacks on energy, after a decade of attempts they passed an amendment to increase distributions from the Land Grand Permanent Fund (the fund is generated by oil and gas). HJR 1 not only increased distributions by 1% but added an additional .25% to that amount for a total increase of 1.25%.

Continued existence of the fund happens only if the oil and gas industry thrives, so Democrats’ plan to take more money out while less money is put in seem problematic at best.

Rather than killing off energy first, New Mexico’s elected leaders should focus on diversifying the economy. When we are no longer among the very poorest states in the nation the Legislature can address ways to make the New Mexico less dependent on oil and gas.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Economy Education Energy and Environment Health Care Legislature Notable News Oil & Gas Open Government Tax and Budget Taxes Top Issues

New Mexico session another missed opportunity

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date March 29, 2021

The following appeared in the Las Cruces Sun News on Sunday, March 28, 2021. UPDATE: Originally the article stated there was a production moratorium on federal lands. There is “only” a moratorium on new permits.

New Mexico is in one of the most unusual economic times in its history. Profound forces have impacted our State over the last year in unforeseen ways.

- The Gov. and COVID shut down much of our State for much of the past year. COVID is declining, but New Mexico remains among the most locked-down states in the nation;
- Oil and gas prices plummeted last April due to the pandemic and an international price war, but have come roaring back and produced $300 million in “new” money and a budget surplus;
- Democrats in Washington recently passed a $1.9 trillion dollar “stimulus” that will dump an astounding $9 billion on New Mexico State and local governments. Meanwhile the Administration’s moratorium on oil and gas permits on federal lands will cost our State more than $700 million over the next few years according to Gov. Lujan Grisham;
- While New Mexico governments are awash in money, businesses are struggling to recover. The State’s unemployment rate is 8.7 percent, 4^th-worst in the nation.

To say we are living through unpredictable times would be an understatement. Oil and gas have always been volatile but are now more unpredictable than ever. This reflects broader economic uncertainty, but with the Biden Administration targeting the Industry, the Legislature must diversify our economy (this does not mean simply new sources of government revenue).

The unprecedented stream of federal spending flowing into our state is currently augmented by a flow of people. Housing markets are tight in most of our cities as Americans from big, expensive, states like California embrace remote work or simply move to states like New Mexico where they can spread out and buy a house for a lot less money.

Current trends are favorable, but long-term economic prosperity requires enacting policies that make the State more attractive as a business destination. The 2021 Legislature had a few successes but ultimately failed to enact policies that will bring long-term prosperity to New Mexico.

Despite a big budget surplus, the Legislature raised taxes on health insurance (SB 317). They imposed a new sick leave mandate on businesses, including small ones (HB 20). And, passage of HB 4, the misnamed “Civil Rights Act” will impose massive new legal costs on New Mexico governments without actually improving policing or protecting civil rights.

There were bright spots. HB 255 reformed New Mexico’s liquor licensing to make it easier for bars and restaurants long-term. HB 177 passed which allows New Mexicans to start micro-businesses by making non-perishable food items in their homes for sale.

But the gross receipts tax and its taxation of busines inputs and services remains a stumbling block for businesses. New Mexico also remains among a relatively small group of states that tax Social Security. No significant tax cuts or reforms were adopted. Also, no widespread reform of burdensome regulations (like the State’s “prevailing wage” law that artificially increases costs on public works) projects was enacted.

Some will argue that (after a decade of trying) tapping the Permanent fund to boost various education programs will help improve our workforce, but the track record of governments (including New Mexico’s) spending more money to boost education outcomes is spotty at best. Empowering parents and families with the resources needed to choose the educational option that is right for them (especially after a year of Zoom education), is more likely to succeed and at a fraction of the cost, but legislation to that effect was quickly defeated this session.

Microchip manufacturer Intel just announced that it is investing $20 billion in neighboring Arizona to build two new facilities. Such “economic diversification” is exactly what we need and what the Gov. and Legislature claim to want. Until the Legislature gets serious about reforming our economy we’ll continue riding the wave of luck, boom and bust in the oil patch, and Washington debt.

Economy Energy and Environment Notable News Oil & Gas RGF Events Tax and Budget Top Issues Videos

Video of discussion: Kevin Hassett and Paul Gessing Evaluate the Impact of President Biden’s Energy Policy

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date February 25, 2021

On Wednesday Feb. 24, the Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation and Kevin Hassett of the National Review Institute discussed the impact of the Biden Administration’s energy policies on New Mexico. You can watch the discussion which lasts about an hour below:

Economy Energy and Environment Legislature Notable News Oil & Gas Top Issues

Hurting the Economy without Helping the Climate? We’ve Got this Inside-Out

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date February 12, 2021

In the last month, New Mexico and the United States as a whole have witnessed unprecedented attacks on the traditional energy sector. Nationally, President Biden’s ban — for now, just described as a pause — on new oil and gas leases on federal lands has been well documented. So too has his revoking of the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

While such decisions are undoubtedly popular with radical environmentalists and their well-funded allies, it is hard to see how they — or anyone likely to follow them — will achieve the reductions in CO₂ emissions necessary to make any difference to the climate. Look, for example, at the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline decision. With no available pipeline, Canada and its oil producers will simply load their oil onto trains or trucks, relying instead on modes of transport that are more risky and less energy-efficient. Indeed, doing so will involve higher greenhouse-gas emissions than the pipeline would have, especially considering the pipeline developers’ recent promise to use only renewableenergy to operate the project.

Overall, less than 10 percent of American oil and gas comes from federal lands. Cutting production from them won’t have a real impact on producers on private and state lands, nor will it reduce demand for foreign oil. Nevertheless, this new policy could end up inflicting significant economic pain on an already shaky U.S. economy.

Even if a relatively small amount of U.S. oil and gas production comes from federal lands, bans or restrictions there will have a disproportionate effect on a good number of states and their economies (like my own in New Mexico). Half of New Mexico’s oil and gas production — much of it fracked — is on federal land. Long-term curtailment of oil and gas drilling on federal lands would devastate the state’s budget.

Not to be outdone by the Biden administration, the Democrat-dominated legislature here in “deep blue” New Mexico is considering a number of proposals of their own. (Mind you, the state is one of the poorest in the Union and, thanks to fracking, is the country’s third-largest oil producer.) Chief among them is legislation that would require all new construction (homes and schools) in New Mexico to incorporate solar panels and mandate that 75 percent of all state-government vehicles be electric-only. Another bill would require dramatic reductions in “carbon intensity” for vehicles purchased by everyday New Mexicans. The technology to reduce carbon-intensity of New Mexico vehicles is left unsaid because the regulation would oblige fuel producers to work this out for themselves.

Writing for the Albuquerque Journal, two Democratic state legislators explained the proposals:

By requiring fuel providers that refine, blend, make or import fuel used in New Mexico to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel itself, we can reduce emissions by 4.7 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent by 2040. That’s like taking 44,000 cars off the road every year for 15 years. A clean fuel standard would not apply to retail gas stations or cause cost increases at the pump.

Yet, the heavy-handed, economy-killing efforts in New Mexico and in various state capitals across the country will do little to rein in global CO₂ emissions. In fact, CO₂ emissions are already being curbed in the United States through a combination of market forces and government policies. The real problem is that emissions are exploding elsewhere, most notably in China.

In late 2020, Forbes noted that U.S. CO₂ emissions already comply with the Paris agreement. Goosed by an 11 percent drop in CO₂ emissions in 2020 due to COVID-19–induced travel reductions, the United States has seen emissions drop since the mid 1980s. Nowadays, despite a population that is 40 percent larger than it was in the mid 1980s, U.S. CO₂emissions are approximately the same as they were back then. This is a remarkable feat.

Indeed, the combination of a long-term shift in electricity generation from coal to natural gas (in no small part thanks to fracking), along with the energy efficiency generated both by market competition and regulatory pressure, fuel-mileage mandates, and the Clean Air Act, have made the United States a more CO₂-efficient national economy.

China, on the other hand, is not just rapidly increasing CO₂ emissions, it is massively expanding coal-fired electricity production. According to Voice of America, “China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.”

Furthermore, according to research released on Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor, China’s coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020 (including decommissions), even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW.

China, which still has millions of citizens living in real poverty, certainly has a right to develop its economy. But if the Biden administration is serious about addressing climate change, it ought to use the bully pulpit to cajole China to move toward lower CO₂ intensity. After all, China is already the global “leader,” with CO₂ emissions approximately doubling those of the United States. Those emissions rose even during the pandemic year of 2020.

Even if the Biden administration and states such as New Mexico make a concerted and focused effort to reduce CO₂emissions (an open question to say the least), the United States won’t be able to halt climate change. Any CO₂reduction we make is only displaced by a doubling from China, who seems more serious about developing its own economy than the Biden administration and many “blue” states like New Mexico are about theirs.

President Joe Biden and New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham telling us to pay more for energy while destroying thousands of energy jobs is a hard pill to swallow even if we were to make serious progress toward achieving our climate goals. But to do immense damage to the U.S. and New Mexico economies while allowing American progress on CO₂ emissions to be undermined by our economic and geopolitical rivals in China is woefully misbegotten.

Economy Energy and Environment Issues Notable News Oil & Gas Top Issues Uncategorized

RGF’s Gessing appears on Institute for Energy Research Podcast to discuss the role of oil & gas in New Mexico’s economy

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date February 3, 2021

Shortly before the Biden Administration imposed a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands, the Foundation’s president Paul Gessing joined the Institute for Energy Research podcast to discuss New Mexico’s energy portfolio and what possible consequences the state could face from a ban on hydraulic fracturing instituted by the Biden administration.

Click below to listen:

Economy Energy and Environment Film Subsidies Health Care Legislature Local Government Notable News Oil & Gas Open Government RailRunner Top Issues Videos

RGF’s Paul Gessing talks New Mexico politics and policy w/ Mick Rich

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date December 21, 2020

The following conversation between RGF president Paul Gessing and Mick Rich (former US Senate candidate and owner of a construction business) aired on local television in Albuquerque, NM recently. It is split into four segments of about 10 minutes apiece.

In the first segment Mick and Paul discuss health care reforms made under ObamaCare, why it has failed, and how Biden plans to move forward with the same government-driven philosophy.

In segment two we discuss the evolution and economics of New Mexico’s film industry and its oil and gas industry.

In the third segment we discuss some of the crime issues at play in the City of Albuquerque.

In this segment we discuss the upcoming 2021 legislative session, the Rail Runner, Spaceport, and five things the Legislature SHOULD do to bring prosperity to our state.

Economy Energy and Environment Notable News Oil & Gas Top Issues

Haaland would be far to the left of Lujan Grisham on energy

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date December 17, 2020

UPDATE: Per several news reports, Haaland HAS indeed been chosen to head the US Department of the Interior.

New Mexico women appear to have the inside track in the Biden Administration for Interior Secretary. The post was apparently offered to Gov. Lujan Grisham who turned it down. Now, Albuquerque-area Congresswoman Deb Haaland is being promoted for the job by none other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have been critics of Lujan Grisham’s economic and COVID policies, but on energy issues, Lujan Grisham is actually a moderate while Haaland is on the far-left wing when it comes to energy issues. If implemented, her stated policies would be a disaster for New Mexico and other energy producing states.

Haaland told The Guardian, “I am wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands,” she said. She is also a staunch supporter of the Green New Deal.” According to a recent study of the issue, “New Mexico would see even steeper revenue losses under the study’s forecasts. The state would lose on average $946 million per year in oil and gas tax revenue in the first five years under a lease moratorium, and on average $1.2 billion per year in tax revenue in the first five years under a drilling ban.”

Lujan Grisham, on the other hand, voted FOR crude oil exports when she was in Congress. She also has said that she’ll ask for an exemption from any future drilling ban (on federal lands). While Lujan Grisham has said that New Mexico would “transition away from fossil fuels” and she even signed New Mexico’s own version of a “Green New Deal,” she is nowhere near as radical as Deb Haaland when it comes to energy.

If Haaland becomes Secretary of the Interior, energy-producing Western states better watch out!

Economy Energy and Environment Notable News Oil & Gas Top Issues

On energy policy Biden should take his cues from Obama

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date December 8, 2020

The following appeared recently in several New Mexico newspapers including the Carlsbad Current-Argus:

As states near the election certification date it appears the exact contours of the Biden Administration’s energy policies and how they will impact New Mexico remain open to debate. We must make sure that we don’t lose sight of how important natural gas has been in powering America’s economic resurgence and leading the charge to a cleaner environment.

Candidate Biden made numerous conflicting statements about his likely energy policies including on the issue of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” which enables oil and gas producers to access previously inaccessible oil and gas sources. Elimination of this important process, even on “just” federal lands would have devastating impacts on New Mexico’s oil and gas industry and its economy.

During the campaign Biden repeatedly pledged not to lease any more federal land for oil and gas production. That pledge, with its potential to cast irreparable damage on our economy, got the attention of Democratic Governor Michel Lujan-Grisham. Last year the Governor wasted no time in announcing she would apply for a waiver or exemption for New Mexico on a federal ban aimed at crippling the oil and gas industry’s ability to fund public education. Gov. Lujan-Grisham should maintain this position and make sure New Mexico is allowed to continue our development of natural gas on public land.

Biden’s old boss, President Obama also understood the need to support oil and gas activity in oil and gas states, particularly activity surrounding natural gas. Obama was of course considered an environmentalist by political opponents and supporters alike. His support for natural gas was hardly contradictory, rather it was right in line with his environmental track record. That’s because natural gas emits CO2 at rates from 50 to 60% lower than does coal.

In fact, the Energy Information Administration recently found that “U.S. electric power sector emissions have fallen 33% from their peak in 2007.” This was no coincidence or accident. These emissions reductions occurred because electricity consumers have increasingly sourced natural gas instead of coal. This progress would be reversed as a result of a federal leasing ban.

When it comes to energy and the benefits of home-grown natural gas resources, Biden should take his cue from former President Obama and the expressed wishes of Gov. Lujan Grisham. New Mexico energy, produced on federal, state, and private lands, can and should play an integral role in ongoing reductions to CO2 emissions.

Economy Energy and Environment Notable News Oil & Gas Top Issues

Biden Energy Policies Will Make Blue New Mexico See Red

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date December 2, 2020

The following appeared at National Review’s website on December 1, 2020 6:30 AM

The former territorial governor of New Mexico (and author of Ben Hur) Lew Wallace once said, “Every calculation based on experience elsewhere fails in New Mexico.”

In so many ways Wallace was prescient about this beautiful, poor, and utterly unique state in the American Southwest. One “calculation” about modern politics that would perplex Wallace is the fact that a relatively poor, but oil-rich Western state elects politicians that are so directly at odds with its economic best interest.

After Texas and North Dakota, New Mexico is the 3^rd– state in the US. The oil and gas industries combine to generate Furthermore, New Mexico’s oil and gas resources are heavily concentrated on lands managed by the federal government. The central role of energy, especially energy extracted within New Mexico’s borders and controlled by federal policymakers, might lead one to believe that New Mexicans would vote for pro-energy Republicans in federal elections.

Instead, New Mexico has become a safely blue state. It narrowly went for George W. Bush in 2004, but since then has gone for Democrats by wide margins. The situation is even more stark at the state level where Democrats have had “trifectas” (total control of both houses and the Governor’s mansion for 60 of the last 90 years. The GOP hasn’t had such governing authority in the State for a single year since 1931. Also, despite significant turnover, New Mexico has not elected a Republican to the US Senate since Pete Domenici retired in 2009. In 2020 Biden won the State 54.3 percent to 43.5 percent despite the very real fact that President Trump’s pro-energy policies were a boon to the New Mexico economy and the Biden Administration’s energy policies represents nothing less than a dagger aimed at the heart of New Mexico’s economy.

That “dagger” comes in the form of numerous, sometimes clear, often conflicting statements, candidate Biden made during the campaign. It is unclear what Biden will do regarding hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” which enables oil and gas producers to access previously-inaccessible oil and gas sources. He backed away from an outright nationwide ban late in the campaign. However, Biden has clearly stated that he would ban new gas and oil permits — including fracking — on federal lands.

Targeting federal lands would devastate New Mexico’s oil and gas industry and its economy due to the State’s large federal estate within its borders. According to the Institute for Energy Research, federal land represents 34.7 percent of the land in New Mexico. In fiscal year 2019, New Mexico received energy-related disbursement (from the federal Bureau of Land Management) at $1.17 billion, the highest payment made in any state (Wyoming was next with $641 million, and then Colorado on $108 million) This was the highest payment from the BLM in the state’s history and compares with $455 million in FY 2017. A vast majority of this increased revenue is due to the use of fracking.

Furthermore, data from the Global Energy Institute indicate that if energy production on federal lands were banned, New Mexico would lose 24,300 jobs (10,000 direct, 14,300 indirect and induced), a significant hit for a state with a workforce of around ). Making matters worse, a good number of the ‘direct’ jobs lost are good-paying, something that is not easy to find in New Mexico, a state that consistently ranks among the poorest in the nation and has been hard-hit by the Closing New Mexico’s federal lands to energy production entirely cost the State $496 million in annual royalty collections, representing eight percent of the state’s total General Fund Revenues.

Biden’s proposed fracking ban is even too much for New Mexico’s Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has said she’ll ask for an exemption from any future drilling ban. Acknowledging the tax revenue contributions to education funding, Grisham explained to the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association conference in Santa Fe last October that “without the energy effort in this state, no one gets to make education the top priority.”

Far from being an opponent, Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, is broadly supportive of Biden’s energy policies. Both of them have stated that they would like to “transition out of fossil fuels” despite New Mexico’s financial dependence on the Industry.

Biden’s aggressive anti-fossil fuels stance as relates to federal land not only puts him at odds with New Mexico’s Democratic governor (who is also on the short list to join his administration), it puts him far to the left of President Obama on the issue. In a 2012 presidential debate, Obama stated, “We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than the previous administration… And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically; we’re encouraging it and working with the industry.”

President Obama was of course considered an environmentalist by political opponents and supporters alike. His support for natural gas right isn’t difficult to reconcile with his environmental track record. That’s because (when used in a new power plant) natural gas emits CO2 at rates from 50 to 60 percent than does coal.

Obama understood the vast benefits of natural gas, including the fact that it was appropriate to drill for it on federal lands. During his tenure, from approximately 21 million cubic feet to more than 28.4 million cubic feet.

If he truly cares about the environment, Biden would be wise to follow his predecessor’s playbook. According to the EPA, more natural gas meant net greenhouse gas emissions went down by 10 percent from 2005 to 2018. But if natural gas prices rise – and a ban on federal leasing is likely to contribute to higher prices, this positive developments could go into reverse. The Energy Information Administration recently projected that higher natural gas prices would cause coal’s share of power generation to increase from 18 percent to 22 percent in 2021.

Obama also signed into law legislation that ended the US government’s restrictions on crude oil exports back in 2015.

During the campaign Biden faced tremendous pressure from the left wing of his political base to come out for policies like the Green New Deal and bans on fracking and other fossil fuel based energy production. Biden has never been associated with such hard-left stances against economic policy and growth in the past. As noted above, even Obama is to the right of where Biden campaigned.

Hopefully President Biden has a more realistic approach to energy than did candidate Biden. New Mexico’s economic future is at stake, but so is the recovery of our nation’s virus-hobbled economy.

Rather than instituting a blanket ban on production of oil and gas on federal lands, a better approach would be to recognize the benefits, and work to make sure that any production is handled responsibly and safely. The growing American energy sector and American energy independence have delivered wins for the environment, for consumers, and for the US and state economies like New Mexico’s. Let’s keep it that way.

Energy and Environment Legislature Notable News Top Issues Transportation Uncategorized

Time for an update on Michelle Lujan Grisham’s MPG mandate

Post author By Paul Gessing
Post date October 13, 2020

The following appeared in the Farmington Daily-Times on October 7 and several other newspapers.

Recently, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines with his announcement that by 2035 his State will ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles. That is an ambitious goal, but given the time line, it is hard to say what compliance will look like.

But for another, arguably even more ambitious car mileage proposal, one need look no further than New Mexico. Las September New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham announced that by just model year 2022 New Mexico would be increasing its fuel economy requirement for new cars to 52 MPG. The current average fuel economy rate is 25.1 MPG according to the EPA.

As we noted at the time, Gov. Lujan Grisham (at the time) had “out California-ed California” by adopting even more stringent fuel economy standards than those on the books in California.

Will California’s decision spur Lujan Grisham to action? Perhaps more importantly, is New Mexico REALLY going through with the Gov.’s 52 MPG standard? This was put forth at a time of a record (oil-driven) economic boom in New Mexico. That boom has evaporated thanks to COVID 19 and the Gov.’s lockdown of the State’s economy. She MAY not be as enthusiastic about such radical plans at a time of serious economic challenges.

If you’re expecting to find legislation on this topic from the 2020 legislative session, don’t worry, nothing was even introduced. We have never even seen a formal executive order from the Gov. formalizing this requirement. In fact, after the initial round of media discussion (led off by the New York Times) the issue has been completely forgotten about.

And just to be clear, if the Gov. completely backed away from her plan, we would be more than happy to support such a move. The number of automobiles on the market right now that achieve such a standard is limited to about a dozen or so hybrid models. Considering that “light trucks” now account for 69 percent of the new car market, getting to that 52 MPG average is going to require one or more of the following:

Unforeseen, drastic changes in automobile purchasing patterns among New Mexicans result in few trucks and more fuel-efficient vehicles being purchased;
Massive taxpayer subsidies will have to be handed out to support the purchase of small/hybrid vehicles and massive taxes will be levied on larger vehicles and trucks.
Large numbers of New Mexicans purchasing their vehicles in neighboring states and bringing them home (thus devastating New Mexico car dealerships and the State economy).

As much as our Governor desperately wants to virtue signal to radical environmental groups who so strongly support her, attaining 52 MPG is simply not realistic by 2022. California’s Gov. at least had the good sense to impose his regulations long after he will be out of office, but unless Biden wins the White House and picks her for a position in his Administration, she will have to make some hard decisions about whether to comply with this mandate (or not).

Perhaps it is already a forgotten promise that she never intended to honor in the first place? If so, that is certainly fine with us, but it would seem that New Mexicans should be given an honest explanation so they know what to plan for or expect the next time they walk into a car dealership.