Senate committee advances community benefit fund bill, tables related appropriation measure

Senator Catherine Stewart’s proposal to create a Community Benefit Fund won committee approval after more than three hours of testimony and debate, while a companion bill that would have spelled out the appropriations was tabled.

The Senate Finance Committee voted to pass SB48 as amended after the sponsor described the measure as a state-level pool of money intended to help communities reduce greenhouse gas emissions, modernize electrical infrastructure and expand worker training. “The Community Benefit Fund is designed to help communities all over the state lower their greenhouse gas emissions,” Senator Stewart said, adding the bill “is designed to strengthen communities and get people into jobs that they want.”

The bill lays out a series of funding buckets and project types rather than sending every dollar to a single program. Stewart and supporters described roughly $340 million in proposed funding and gave examples of how it would be allocated: $100 million for grid modernization to the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD), $50 million for Department of Transportation projects (including EV and active-transportation infrastructure), a portion to the Public School Facilities Authority to support electric school buses and their charging infrastructure, and money for workforce training and energy-efficiency grants. Stewart showed a county-by-county list of unfunded projects she said total about $1.3 billion in requests; she and witnesses emphasized the Community Benefit Fund would address “shovel ready” local needs.

Proponents told the committee the measure would also help attract private investment. “For every dollar you invest as a government, dollars three to seven come in from the private markets,” Travis Kellerman, senior climate policy advisor to the governor, said in support. Community groups urged funding for rural programs, land and water restoration and programs targeted at communities disproportionately affected by extraction and pollution. Maria Rivera of Somos Un Pueblo Unido asked the committee to allocate funds for retraining and support services so immigrant and rural workers can access new clean-energy jobs.

Opponents argued the bill is too broad and lacks accountability. Jim Winchester of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico called SB48 “$340,000,000 of taxpayer-funded money to pick winners and losers,” and trade groups from the oil and gas sector warned the measure could be unaffordable or come at the expense of fossil-fuel jobs. The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce described the bill as “so broadly drafted that it seems like a rudderless ship,” and said it lacked measurable outcomes and sufficient oversight language.

Senators asked detailed questions about eligibility, oversight and reporting. Stewart pointed to language requiring administrating agencies that award funds to submit annual progress reports to an appropriate interim legislative committee by Dec. 1 each year; she said Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) would administer the fund (housekeeping and pass-through), while EMNRD, DOT, PSFA, the Economic Development Department and Workforce Solutions would receive and implement appropriations and therefore write rules and administer programs.

An amendment offered during the hearing removed a transfer provision (section 2) from SB48; the motion to adopt the amendment was moved by Senator Trio and seconded by Senator Padilla and was approved. After debate and public testimony, the committee adopted SB48 as amended on a roll-call vote of 7–4. The roll call recorded by the clerk shows Senators Campos, Gonzales, Padilla, Steinborn, Trujillo, Shandoh and Muñoz voting yes; Senators Brandt, Lanier, Tobias and Woods voting no.

The committee then took up SB49, the companion bill that detailed the distribution of the money described in SB48. Senators moved to table SB49; the motion to table was carried at the committee’s request and the bill was placed on the table for further consideration, pending the committee’s schedule.

SB48 now moves to the next stage of the legislative process with committee approval; because SB49 was tabled, the committee did not adopt the layering of specific appropriations in that separate bill during this hearing.

Votes at a glance: SB48 — passed as amended, 7–4 (committee roll call recorded); SB49 — motion to table passed and the bill was tabled (vote recorded in committee minutes; detailed tally not specified in the public transcript).

What’s next: SB48 contains annual reporting language intended to provide legislative oversight; implementing agencies would be expected to develop application and review procedures once appropriation language is finalized. Because SB49 was tabled, committee members said they expect further work on the specific appropriations and implementation mechanics before final passage.

Context and limits: The committee’s discussion emphasized that the funding in SB48 is nonrecurring in the current budget language and that several senators asked for stronger consolidated program evaluation, either by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) or through additional statutory reporting requirements. Supporters and opponents also disputed the fiscal and economic impacts of shifting state investments toward clean-energy programs.