Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves $13.5M to beef up state agencies' climate capacity after debate on jobs and measurement
Summary
The House passed a bill to provide $13.5 million (one-time over two years) to state agencies for planning, staffing and grant-seeking related to climate resilience and economic diversification; debate focused on metrics, agency control and potential impacts on oil-and-gas jobs.
The House voted to send to the governor a bill that directs $13.5 million to state agencies to increase in-house capacity for climate resilience planning and to prepare agencies to pursue federal and private grants. The appropriation — split among several agencies including the Environment Department, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources (EMNRD), Department of Transportation, Department of Workforce Solutions and others — was part of the budget package the chamber concurred on earlier in the day.
Supporters said the funding will allow agencies to build master plans, hire experts, and coordinate across agencies on climate preparedness, workforce training and restoration-economy projects. Representative Angelica (Taos), sponsor of the floor debate, described the funding as “tools in-house” so agencies can “leverage federal dollars and develop strategies” for net-zero and resilience work.
Opponents asked how success will be measured and whether the money could accelerate the replacement of oil-and-gas jobs with jobs from a diversified economy. Representative Block (Otero) pressed for reporting, metrics and evidence-based requirements, and asked whether agencies could be required to show measurable effectiveness. Supporters pointed to reporting language and the Accountability in Government Act’s requirements; the bill requires agencies to submit annual reports describing how funds will be used and how they were spent.
The House passed the bill after extended floor debate, 31 yeas to 25 nays. Lawmakers also debated whether the appropriation could be undone if a future administration changed priorities; sponsors said the funds are in the enacted budget and could be reallocated only by later legislative action.
Ending: Supporters framed the bill as a near-term investment to prepare state agencies for federal grant competitions and to support sector-by-sector workforce and restoration projects; skeptics said metrics and protections for workers in energy sectors should be clearer.
