House committee reviews bill to phase out PFAS; substitute adds exemptions, labeling and producer responsibility

House members and agency staff on the House Judiciary Committee discussed House Bill 212 on PFAS regulation, with sponsors and the Environment Department presenting a committee substitute that phases out some PFAS chemicals on staged dates and adds exemptions, labeling requirements and a producer-responsibility option.

Supporters say the bill targets high-risk PFAS uses in food packaging, cookware and firefighting foam with staggered phase-out dates (Jan. 1, 2027; Jan. 1, 2028; Jan. 1, 2029) and includes an enforcement structure and funding request for implementation. Secretary James Kenney described the substitute as incorporating stakeholder-recommended exemptions and a fluoropolymer exemption being added by amendment.

The substitute’s supporters told the committee the measure is modeled on recent state laws and voluntary retailer commitments. “We are phasing out and then prohibiting certain types of PFAS chemicals in the state of New Mexico,” Secretary Kenney said, summarizing the bill’s architecture and its three compliance deadlines. He told members the Environment Department requested a special appropriation and the House had included $1,000,000 of a $3,000,000 request for FY 2026 to implement the measure.

Industry groups and trade associations testified in opposition or with concerns. Charlie Marcus of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said draft language could unintentionally capture automotive textiles and urged further work. “That language is still troublesome,” Marcus said, noting the auto industry’s concerns about textile and interior components. Lisonbee Riley of the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce said the bill’s broad definitions and short timelines could be difficult for smaller businesses to meet. Representatives of the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and cookware-sector groups likewise urged clearer scope, confidential-business-information protections for reporting, and more time to comply.

Committee members asked how exemptions and administrative rulemaking would work. Staff and the sponsor said broad statutory exemptions would be codified and additional exemptions could be adopted via rule through the Environmental Improvement Board, an existing administrative body that uses public notice and hearings. The committee’s discussion also covered emergency uses of aqueous film‑forming foam (AFFF) and cleanup obligations after emergency releases.

Members and witnesses traded technical details about fluoropolymers versus other PFAS. Committee supporters said a forthcoming amendment will explicitly exempt fluoropolymers — materials used in some nonstick coatings, wiring sheaths and other applications — while preserving the bill’s focus on higher-risk, smaller-molecule PFAS that are more likely to contaminate water and food.

No formal vote occurred; committee leaders said they expect a revised committee substitute to be filed and posted for review before a Monday meeting, and members indicated they would return to the item then.