Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Night Sky Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables Night Sky Protection bill after debate on safety, costs and local control
Summary
Senate Bill 34 to tighten outdoor lighting standards and expand the Night Sky Protection Act was tabled after debate over worker safety, business costs and exemptions; proponents argued it protects health, wildlife and astrotourism while opponents warned of retrofitting costs and public-safety impacts.
The committee voted to table Senate Bill 34, which would tighten the state’s Night Sky Protection Act by requiring fuller shielding of outdoor fixtures and narrowing several exemptions, after extended testimony from industry, conservationists and municipalities.
The sponsor said the bill updates a 1999 statute to reflect changes in lighting technology (notably LEDs) and to reduce sky‑glow by requiring most light be directed downward (witnesses described a 95 percent downward light metric below an 80‑degree plane). Peter Lipscomb of the New Mexico Dark Sky chapter testified that changes would protect nocturnal wildlife, human health and astrotourism; he cited research linking light at night to circadian disruption, and urged improvements that would reduce glare and light trespass.
Opponents, including representatives of the Outdoor Advertising Association, Clear Channel Outdoor, the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Hospitality Association, commercial real-estate and auto-dealer groups, argued the bill would impose large retrofit costs, harm businesses that operate at night and reduce safety in parking lots and other areas where illumination affects crime prevention. Clear Channel witnesses and other industry speakers said billboards and on-premise signs would be disproportionately affected even though the industry’s contribution to overall sky glow is small, in their view.
Proponents noted the bill includes grandfathering for existing fixtures but opponents pointed out the draft requires replacements after a specified date to meet the new standard, meaning equipment that wears out would have to be replaced to comply. Committee members asked about worker-safety and public-safety issues, possible regional approaches, utility and industrial exemptions, incentives or rebates for businesses, and whether federal requirements (for example, flag illumination and OSHA workplace lighting) would be affected. Sponsor discussions included outreach to businesses and utilities but committee members said they wanted more work on cost, exemptions and enforcement before advancing the bill.
Senator Hamblett moved to table the bill. The roll-call vote to table succeeded 7–2. Committee members said the bill could return after stakeholder talks and drafting changes.
