[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6632019,"mediaKeyId","2676093-891ef84db0e0ffdad06f367267923206","parentId",2676093,"title","Senate committee backs technical fix to clarify RETA property-tax exemption","audioSeconds",362,"startMs",1557000,"endMs",1919000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676093-891ef84db0e0ffdad06f367267923206&start=1557&end=1919","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676093-891ef84db0e0ffdad06f367267923206/thumbnail_1557000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6632019/New-Mexico/Senate-committee-backs-technical-fix-to-clarify-RETA-property-tax-exemption","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6632019-425e7b6b6c06c5ac7e4d8ef2acb5adee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770916873&Signature=nnQPqS45vo3NgHNFMJtHlNgo3ouFopD38eTOhCipCp8ewBQUdbiNOlWb681I5H43kB1-SEZ-73iCsfFcjBKwuX-jA9YrfUAqIceH~m-1B8SEYF7HGwaoKULwM9Sv3GrJ0~VlMNqOgh4V8hDb8KsZcuI-JaRjZZIdvmkFQniHZQykqqQ4GVfhvVgBIo9uwSnjgLpL9snFrozHeVmDhO08l37ezPSOzMSAcQf4RlklGUig~ki9hab-FcwaPgRDqBHb6D3~sdsWrTNhlTO03YFFmDh4Upnndu-3Qv9XBEFBSj69g~OZ3ZFXeynFfejLAMsKHDqwEcfoxwHR0QwKTe8~Zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Mexico Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","At a Senate Tax Committee meeting (date not specified), the committee heard testimony on House Bill 295, a technical bill to clarify how the property tax code applies to property owned by the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA). Proponents said the clarification aligns the tax code with long-standing practice and constitutional exemptions and is necessary to continue attracting large-scale clean-energy transmission investment.

Representative Small introduced House Bill 295 and said the bill “clarifies the portion of the property tax code to align with current practice and the historical expectations around the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.” Lynn Mosteller, RETA executive director, testified that RETA was created in 2007 as a governmental entity and that the authority’s tax-exempt status in the New Mexico Constitution has been used by RETA to structure acquisition-leaseback transactions with developers. Mosteller told the committee the structure “allows a tax exemption just for RETA-owned projects, RETA-owned property, including the transmission lines and related structures, not for wind farms that use the transmission.”

Proponents argued the clarification is intended to preserve the state’s ability to attract tens of billions in renewable-transmission investment, ensure developers can rely on RETA’s tax-exempt status and avoid creating a new property-tax liability that could impede planned projects. They also said the change would not affect existing county revenues because counties currently receive payments through community benefit agreements rather than property tax from RETA-owned transmission.

During the roll call, multiple senators voted in favor and one senator voted against; several members were excused. The recorded tally in the committee was four yeas, one nay and four excused; the chair announced a do-pass recommendation for House Bill 295. The transcript records proponents present from RETA, including Jeremy Turner (former RETA executive director) appearing as an expert, and public attendees who stood in support when asked.

Votes at a glance: committee recorded a do-pass recommendation with a reported tally of four yeas, one nay and multiple excused members. The transcript contains individual roll-call lines but several members were excused or left during the call; the committee secretary called the roll and the chair announced the do-pass recommendation.

The committee adjourned for lack of quorum shortly after the vote; the transcript does not record subsequent floor action or final disposition beyond the committee recommendation.

Lynn Mosteller and other RETA representatives framed the bill as a cleanup measure to retain an established financing tool for large transmission projects and to allow New Mexico to continue positioning itself as a site for major renewable-energy transmission infrastructure.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate - Conservation Mar 18, 2025 2:05 PM - 2:40 PM","oneSentenceSummary","A Senate committee recommended passage of House Bill 295 to clarify property-tax code language for Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA) projects, with RETA directors testifying the change reflects longstanding practice and supports transmission investment.","taxTitle","Senate, Legislative, New Mexico","taxId",78419,"location","New Mexico","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6632024,"Senate committee deadlocks on carbon sequestration bill after tie votes",1545,1000,1546000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2676093-891ef84db0e0ffdad06f367267923206&start=1&end=1546","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2676093-891ef84db0e0ffdad06f367267923206/thumbnail_1000.jpg","/articles/6632024/New-Mexico/Senate-committee-deadlocks-on-carbon-sequestration-bill-after-tie-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6632024-b479d71e225646cd358ca9ec74832508/orig.mp4?Expires=1770916873&Signature=gAQb4vwBrIkLgsvF-Qe-f-dKIacxQ0Tumkv4Jef~OfapWCT36HZ9sX56thi97fUUuakmz-VjQTY7VDF-~SjoHKMJB4-RceUJ-Qa0pBETU2KYNyfvgm7f9Sy~QKoX9Zg9duaAzakFZSsvBMCquh4NQMXwmp0MMuYOdnaYf7LdDIXNkVgQaQ7MXESYqgmaAdObEg~GKsbB7Ua4swqvdkSRG4AUpV3DwrkGcz0wr~FsbNLnbd-6eLohlyFIf8~9vAy2Xad3ShNLnCOcTmI720DmivB3oKpYladJLjScAJQJVkpn29hHsifqIkv8~z0AGe2rajuD2Mx4yh7W8zQhFqH1Lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Senate Tax Committee hearing (date not specified), lawmakers and experts debated a bill addressing carbon capture and underground sequestration, including notification requirements for property owners, injection pressure limits and whether the state should set standards in addition to federal oversight. The committee voted on a do-pass motion and later on a motion for no recommendation; tie votes left the bill without a committee recommendation and the legislation did not proceed from the committee.

Committee members and witnesses discussed technical and administrative provisions that would require identifying and notifying owners of surface estates, mineral rights and pore space within a half mile of a proposed sequestration unit. Senator Izzo raised concerns that the notification and title-search requirements on page 6 — which would require names and addresses for owners of surface estate, mineral rights and pore space for lands within a half mile of a sequestration unit — would be “a nightmare for any title attorney.” An expert witness told the committee that the notification approach in the bill is modeled on current oil-and-gas practice and is feasible but acknowledged the complexity when ownership of surface, minerals and pore space is split.

Witnesses and lawmakers also addressed injection safety and storage permanence. An expert witness described maximum injection pressure as a calculation analogous to saltwater-disposal permitting and said pressure limits would be set by formula or modeling to avoid fracturing the caprock that seals stored CO2. The expert said, “You’re going to be well below what could break the rock at the injection interval,” explaining that regulations and permitting would be designed to prevent injection that would create new fractures.

Committee members and witnesses discussed carbon-capture technologies and climate rationale. Witnesses described direct-air capture as an extension of point-source carbon capture and said efficiency and net climate benefit vary by technology and the emission source. One witness noted that global storage projects have been operating in the North Sea since the 1990s and that the U.S. stored 6,750,000 tons of CO2 in 2023, largely in New Mexico and West Texas, citing the need for regulatory clarity and “room to grow” the industry.

On procedure, Senator Scott moved a do-pass recommendation; Senator Charlie seconded. The first roll call produced a 3–3 split among voting members (several members were excused or passed), and the committee later considered a separate motion for no recommendation by Senator Townsend, seconded by Senator Azelle. That motion also produced a 3–3 result; the chair announced that, with the tie, the committee would return no recommendation and the bill would not proceed from committee.

The bill’s supporters argued that state standards would allow New Mexico to require tribal consultation, community engagement and community benefits agreements in addition to federal requirements, and that legislative standards could encourage investment and jobs tied to carbon-removal projects. Critics and some members expressed caution about state primacy in permitting and deferred enforcement capacity, noting that federal standards (including EPA oversight) currently play a central role.

Votes at a glance: the committee recorded a split on the do-pass motion; the subsequent motion for no recommendation carried no net majority because of a tie, and the chair stated the bill would not proceed from committee. The transcript lists individual yeas and nays in the roll calls but multiple members were excused or passed during the calls; the committee report therefore shows no committee recommendation.

The committee hearing record includes technical exchanges about how pore-space ownership can be severed from surface or mineral ownership, how injection pressures are established in permit modeling, and how direct-air capture and point-source capture differ in scale and cost. Several senators sought clearer environmental and safety assurances; proponents emphasized economic and climate benefits, including potential credits tied to federal Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q incentives.

With no recommendation from the committee, the bill’s next steps are not specified in the hearing record.","A Senate committee heard extensive testimony on carbon capture and underground sequestration but split on a do-pass motion, leaving the bill without a committee recommendation after a tie vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee backs technical fix to clarify RETA property-tax exemption

Senate committee deadlocks on carbon sequestration bill after tie votes