Bill to classify combined‑cycle natural gas as renewable stalls after committee public comment

Representative Pettigrew presented House Bill 273 and described the measure as aiming to include natural gas combined‑cycle generation within relevant statutes to attract energy‑intensive industry and provide reliable, lower‑emission generation during a transition away from coal. "House Bill 273 is a necessary step towards ensuring a balanced energy that is reliable, affordable, and sustainable," Pettigrew said, and cited examples of large data centers and corporate projects that plan natural‑gas‑fired generation.

Supporters in the hearing included Southwestern Public Service/Xcel Energy (Bernard Treat), the New Mexico Business Coalition and the Rio Grande Foundation. Testimony in support focused on combined‑cycle efficiency and reliability relative to intermittent renewables, and framed the bill as a tool to attract manufacturing and data center investments.

Opponents argued the bill would in practice redefine "renewable" to include nonrenewable fossil fuels. Environmental and public‑health advocates — including Animated Vote, Healthy Climate New Mexico/Earthworks, Conservation Voters New Mexico, Renewable Taos and the League of Women Voters — said natural gas, even in combined‑cycle plants, is a fossil fuel and does not meet standard scientific definitions of renewable energy. "If it relies on a dirty nonrenewable fuel, it is not renewable," a witness said, and several commenters referenced industry playbooks urging legislative redefinition as politically motivated.

Some witnesses disputed factual claims made during the sponsor presentation. Testimony from Renewable Taos and others countered a sponsor statement on renewable asset lifetimes, saying modern solar and wind installations commonly have operational lifespans well beyond 8 years and that storage and distributed resources can address reliability needs at competitive prices. Opponents also raised life‑cycle greenhouse gas concerns related to extraction, fugitive methane emissions, flaring and combustion.

After about 40 minutes of public comment, committee staff reported floor roll call had opened and the sponsor asked to roll the bill to a future hearing; the chair agreed to pause consideration and move the item to a later date. No committee vote was taken.

The session record shows the bill drew significant public attention with strong testimony on both sides. Committee members requested additional technical analyses on lifecycle emissions, cost comparisons between combined‑cycle gas plus storage and wind/solar plus storage, and the likely effects on the state's statutory climate objectives and executive orders. Representative Montoya asked the committee to put the bill early on the next agenda, and the sponsor agreed to return with additional materials.