Committee approves bill to codify 98% methane capture rule; amendment and final motion pass 7-4

The House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee voted 7‑4 to advance House Bill 258, a bill that would codify the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department’s methane‑waste rules into statute and enshrine a 98% natural‑gas capture standard.

Ben Shelton, general counsel for the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told the committee HB258 is intended to make the existing methane waste rule more durable by placing the core targets into statute, not to reopen or substantially change the negotiated regulatory regime that operators have been implementing since final rules were issued in 2022. Shelton described the statutory provision as a concise codification of the rule (NMAC 19.15.27) and said the draft is not meant to broadly alter technical details that remain in rulemaking.

Industry groups urged rejection, arguing the rule already exists and that statutory codification could create unnecessary and costly new rulemakings. Ashley Wagner of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association warned the proposal is “unnecessary,” saying regulators and industry have made progress under the current rule and that further statutory changes could impose new compliance costs. Jim Winchester of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico said the draft inserts language he contends is not in the rule, including phrasing that could negate aspects of the stakeholder‑negotiated rule and affect pneumatic device handling.

Environmental and public‑health groups supported the bill. Melissa Bernardin of the Sierra Club Rio Grande chapter said putting the rule’s goals into statute is “important” to ensure continued emissions reductions. Felicia Guillen of the youth‑led climate group Yucca said HB258 will curb methane pollution and protect frontline communities. Travis Kellerman, senior climate policy adviser to the governor, testified in support and said codifying the rule offers “more flexibility” in some respects, and that automation of reporting could reduce both operator and OCD costs while improving accuracy.

Committee debate focused on the practical effects of codification and a disputed exception for pneumatic devices. Multiple legislators asked whether the statute would automatically change compliance status for operators that had invested to meet the rule as written. Representative Montoya and Representative Murphy raised concerns that statutory language could “move the goalposts” and disadvantage operators that complied with the current rule in good faith, particularly where field locations lack electric power and still rely on certain pneumatic equipment.

The committee considered and adopted an amendment (committee substitute 230605.1) that removed particular pneumatic‑controller language and reordered paragraphs; the amendment passed on a roll‑call vote, 7‑4. The committee then voted to report the bill out as amended on a do‑pass motion; that motion also carried, 7‑4. Roll‑call votes recorded the following positions: Yes — Representative Abeta, Representative Dixon, Representative Garcia, Representative Grolla, Representative Small, Vice Chair Senyana, Chair McQueen; No — Representative Henry, Representative Montoya, Representative Murphy, Representative Sena Cortez.

With the amendment adopted and a do‑pass recommendation recorded, the bill will move to the next stage of legislative consideration.