Too-good-to-be true law short-circuits environmental goals

We live in a spectacular state where the beauty of our landscape is only outdone by the passion of our people. That passion drives us to change and leads us to transformations. I can’t tell you how inspiring it is to see the uncompromised determination of our neighbors and civic leaders to protect our natural resources.

The historic New Mexico Energy Transition Act (ETA) pushed the rest of the country to do more for the environment and do better by addressing not only greenhouse gas emissions but also the economic and social impacts that occur in any transformation. The ETA is working. Since its passage in 2019, or rather because of its passage, PNM, the state’s largest electric company, today has 55% carbon-free electricity — a feat implausible a decade ago. In fact, PNM is on track to beat the state’s 100% carbon-free goal. The ETA ensured that as the coal plant was closed, plant workers, coal miners, the local economy and the tribal community were respected and compensated.

The Local Choice Energy Act Senate Bill 165 sounds great, but to me it is full of more risk than I can tolerate. Energy would be provided from third-party brokers — no guarantee of local — with no vested interest in our communities and no long-term provisions for the all-important energy grid. Our neighbors to the east in Texas know something about a grid failure. The reports from other states don’t present a consistent message of what we are being asked to accept. Digging into the details of Local Energy Choice in Massachusetts,

Illinois and California, I find too much inconsistency to take the risk. Providing electricity is a complicated business. Recently, four contractors chosen by the previous PRC failed to replace energy after the San Juan coal plant closed, leaving the utility to cover the shortfall. If that can happen in the regulatory environment, just think what could happen with unregulated energy brokers who have no obligation to ensure the lights stay on. That risk is exactly why this proposal doesn’t have my support or that of the local trade unions I’ve talked to.

As a public servant, I know there are so many things our government does exceptionally well, but there are also times we need to realistically assess and accept that local government is not the proper service source. The city of Santa Fe has struggled with outdated software for utility billing. Moving to a new utility billing system has not been simple –– it has cost millions and taken years. I can’t imagine the process, time, expense and risk of a city-run electric utility, to say nothing of creating a workforce specific to this industry.

We currently have reasonably priced electricity, a stable grid that is constantly being assessed and improved, and a committed timetable to be carbon-free by 2040 or earlier. My ask is that you dig beneath the surface of the proposed Local Choice Energy bill. Let the Energy Transition Act work as intended — it was created through years of work with the regulatory body, the Public Regulation Commission. In my years of public service, I’ve learned a few important things –– if it sounds too good to be true, dig deeper, because it probably is too good to be true!