Measure to create PRC siting rules for large renewable projects stalls after split testimony and cost concerns

The House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee debated House Bill 435, a proposal to direct the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) to develop rules for siting renewable energy facilities, storage and intrastate transmission lines above 5 megawatts. Committee members described the bill as filling a perceived oversight gap for projects that fall between community-scale facilities and very large projects.

Chair McQueen said HB435 "fills a gap" in state oversight for facilities above 5 megawatts and described local situations where project siting raised concerns about cultural resources, scenic and public-safety impacts. "We had a situation where the developer...was free to put it basically wherever they wanted. There was no public process," he told the committee.

Industry groups urged the committee to oppose the bill. Ricky Lee Chavez of the Inner West Energy Alliance said counties already exercise permitting and siting authority and that an additional PRC review "will increase costs for industry, utilities, and consumers by creating an additional barrier to development." PNM’s Chair Kronhorst told the committee the measure was unclear about whether the PRC would become the primary jurisdiction and said PNM opposes HB435. Marco Gonzales of Pattern Energy listed concerns including potential loss of local control, PRC jurisdiction questions, and a PRC estimate that the bill could cost about $500,000 a year to implement.

Supporters pressed for statewide oversight in places where county processes are thin or inconsistent. Preservation and community witnesses said county review has been "spotty" and urged a state process to protect scenic, cultural and archaeological resources. Western Resource Advocates said it was neutral but welcomed more stakeholder dialogue; several community witnesses said existing local processes had not protected sensitive sites.

Committee members questioned scope and budget implications. Representative Montoya asked why 5 megawatts was chosen; Chairman McQueen said 5 MW is the upper limit for community solar, and he wants to fill the gap between community projects and very large projects the PRC already reviews. Members raised concerns over whether the PRC has in-house expertise for siting review and how transmission would be measured if the bill moved forward.

Committee action: Representative Garcia moved to give HB435 a favorable recommendation; the committee voted and the motion failed, 4–6. Later, a motion to table the bill passed and the measure was tabled. Chair McQueen said the bill needed further work on funding, scope and rules development.

Ending: The bill was tabled; sponsors said they would continue discussions with stakeholders and agencies to narrow the proposal or identify funding and procedural details.