Committee tables bill that would bar negative carbon‑intensity credits for transportation fuels
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Senate Bill 99, which would prevent the Clean Transportation Fuel Standard from assigning carbon‑intensity values below zero (so‑called negative credits) to transportation fuels, drew intense debate among environmental groups, farmers and energy interests and was tabled on a 5–4 vote for further consideration.
Senator Sedillo Lopez introduced Senate Bill 99 to prohibit assigning a carbon‑intensity value below zero to fuels used in the transportation sector under New Mexico’s Clean Transportation Fuel Standard.
Proponents — including Food & Water Watch, 3 50 New Mexico, the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental and community groups — argued the rule could create perverse incentives for large manure‑producing operations and industrial‑scale digesters, and could in effect reward “paper” reductions that do not yield real decreases in greenhouse‑gas emissions. Alexa Reynaud of Food & Water Watch warned that avoided‑methane crediting can encourage factory‑scale operations and cited California experience where avoided‑methane policies correlated with herd growth in certain regions; she said the bill provides a guardrail against such outcomes.
Opponents — including renewable‑natural‑gas advocates, Chevron, dairy and agricultural groups, regional business coalitions and the oil and gas industry — argued negative carbon intensity calculations are scientifically valid when a waste stream’s methane would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere and that the credits are necessary to finance methane‑capture projects, biogas use and renewable hydrogen projects. Yannick Zerez of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas called the science ‘‘recognized by the EPA and states that lead on these issues like California, Oregon, and Washington.’’ Representatives from Chevron, dairy producers and the Chamber of Commerce said removing credits would chill investment in methane‑capture projects and harm rural economies.
Committee members pressed witnesses on the evidence and on how the rulemaking for the Clean Transportation Fuel Standard (administered by the Public Regulation Commission and the Environment Department) would interact with the proposed statutory change. Several members said they wanted regulatory agencies in the room; agency analysts had submitted written analyses but no agency witness testified at the hearing.
Action: A table‑the‑bill motion carried by roll call (5–4), leaving the measure in committee for further discussion and potential revision.