Media contact: Antoinette Reyes, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Organizer, antoinette.reyes@sierraclub.org 

New Mexico methane coalition condemns EPA rollback as state moves to strengthen methane protections

NEW MEXICO-— [10/07/26] — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft rollback of the 2024 federal Methane Rule, a rule that established new requirements to reduce methane and other harmful air pollution from oil and gas operations.  The New Mexico Methane Table, a coalition of community, tribal, health, and environmental organizations working to cut oil and gas methane pollution, condemned the proposal, calling it a giveaway to polluters that would worsen climate change and air quality and threaten public health in New Mexico, the nation’s second-largest oil-producing state.

The announcement came at today’s New Mexico Oil and Gas Association meeting, a large coalition of groups, led by Sierra Club’s Rio Grande chapter, protested the rollback plan.

The rollback proposal comes as New Mexico moves in the opposite direction. The New Mexico Environment Department has petitioned the state Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a new state Methane Abatement rule (20.2.51 NMAC). A public hearing is scheduled to begin Dec. 1, 2026.  The proposed rule would strengthen the state’s existing methane standards and establish a statewide super-emitter program requiring large methane leaks to be identified and repaired quickly.

In 2022, New Mexico became the third state to establish a comprehensive state-based methane program. While some oil-and gas-producing states have relied primarily on federal standards, New Mexico and other states have adopted their own requirements to reduce methane emissions. The proposed federal rollback could allow states with weaker methane protections to maintain or increase emissions while New Mexico and other states pursue stronger standards.

Methane is a potent climate pollutant, with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.  Oil and gas operations also release methane alongside other co-pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, carcinogens, and other chemicals that contribute to ozone, soot and other harmful air pollution, which disproportionately affect communities near oil and gas development in New Mexico.

Recent peer-reviewed research has linked elevated levels of ozone and radioactive materials in Loving, a town adjacent to the Permian Basin’s oil and gas operations. Meanwhile, New Mexico recorded tens of thousands of flaring events over the past year, despite state and federal efforts to limit routine flaring. Researchers also tied airborne radiation and ozone spikes in the Permian Basin town of Loving directly to nearby oil and gas operations.

In the San Juan Basin near Chaco Canyon, the inequitable impacts are significant with a large majority of the state’s oil-and-gas-related water contamination and some of its worst methane release plumes concentrated in and around Diné communities.

The low-producing wells the federal rollback would exempt from leak monitoring requirements are a significant source of methane pollution. New analysis using MethaneSAT satellite data finds that low-producing wells account for just 5% of U.S. oil and gas production but roughly 60% of production-related methane emissions. In New Mexico and Texas, low-producing wells make up the majority of oil and gas wells, making the proposed exemption particularly significant for the Permian Basin. Experts have documented significant public health risks associated with pollution from oil and gas operations, including increased risks of premature deaths and childhood asthma.  linked these emissions  to hundreds of premature deaths and tens of thousands of childhood asthma attacks each year.

The 2024 Methane Rule followed extensive public input, including more than 900,000 public comments and input from communities, health, legal experts, investors, environmentalists and industry. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, since theEPA stopped fully enforcing federal oil and gas methane standards, the industry has leaked, vented, or flared over 7 billion worth of natural gas.

The New Mexico Methane Table plans to defend the 2024 federal methane rule during the upcoming public comment period; will participate in the NMED’s December Environmental Improvement Board hearing. The table also plans continue pressing the administration for stronger methane protections, including through meetings with the Office of Management and Budget. Additional quotes from coalition partners are available in the accompanying quote sheet.

PRESS QUOTE SHEET

Antoinette Reyes, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Organizer, said: “New Mexico cannot afford a federal retreat on methane. The 2024 EPA safeguards were designed to do basic, practical things: find leaks, stop routine flaring, catch super-emitter events, and require operators to use cleaner equipment that already exists. Rolling those protections back — including protections for low-producing wells that make up a majority of active wells in both New Mexico and Texas — would create a sweeping industry loophole. Oil and gas pollution is like secondhand smoke from the industry: communities are exposed without consent, and the people closest to the source carry the heaviest burden. With the Permian spanning both Texas and New Mexico, pollution knows no boundaries, which is exactly why New Mexico and other states must codify these methane protections into state law and make them strong enough to withstand political rollbacks in Washington.”

“The weakening of the federal methane rule makes it easier for oil and gas companies to pollute New Mexico’s air. This impacts all New Mexicans who live and work near the industry. It  especially impacts the nearly 150,000 people living within half a mile of oil and gas infrastructure, and the 119 schools and nearly 30,000 students going to school within half a mile of oil and gas sites. It impacts people’s health – children’s health. There is no reason to rollback air pollution rules other than lining the pockets of billionaires at the expense of people. This decision is devastating, yet par for the course for the Trump Administration. New Mexicans are counting on our state government now to protect us from methane super polluters.” Mandy Sackett, New Mexico Lead Campaigner, Earthworks

“In southeastern New Mexico, communities in the Permian Basin are on the frontlines of methane pollution. The Permian Basin emits more methane than any other oil and gas basin in the country, placing nearby communities at increased risk from harmful air pollution while accelerating the climate crisis. Weakening methane protections means asking frontline communities to bear even greater costs. New Mexicans deserve strong safeguards that protect our health, our air, and our future.” Carlos Matutes, New Mexico Program Director, GreenLatinos New Mexico

“These rollbacks are a slap in the face to families who are exposed to methane pollution where they live, work, and play. For over a decade, Moms Clean Air Force has been fighting for protections—and we have made progress in states like New Mexico, but all families deserve clean air. Over 900,000 comments were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in support of the commonsense methane pollution protections that EPA finalized in 2024, including many of the moms, dads, and caregivers with Moms Clean Air Force. Now frontline communities must once again show up and demand EPA provide strong federal methane pollution standards that protect Americans from this known public health threat and climate super pollutant. It is outrageous that we have to fight so hard just for our children’s right to breathe clean air.”  Celerah Hewes, Senior Manager of State Field Campaigns, Moms Clean Air Force

“As New Mexico strengthens methane protections, federal rollbacks put our progress, and our kids’ health at risk. Communities near oil and gas production face greater exposure to pollution. New Mexico is doing its part to reduce methane, super-emitter events, and flaring, but we all share the same air. Strong EPA safeguards are essential to protect our children and hold operators accountable.” said Maya Anthony, with NM Voices for Children 

Contacts:
Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org
Robyn Jackson, Diné C.A.R.E., 505-862-4433, robyn.jackson@dine-care.org
Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson, Earthworks, 507-421-9021, andrewfg@earthworks.org
Bill Rodgers, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, 330-881-9918, bill.rodgers@sierraclub.org

New Mexico modernizes oil, gas industry bonding, cleanup rules, now among nation’s strongest

Commission vote ensures corporations pay to clean up wells

Santa Fe, NM – The New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission voted Wednesday to reform outdated oil and gas bonding and cleanup rules, adopting some of the strongest safeguards in the country to prevent orphan wells and ensure oil and gas corporations pay to clean up the wells they drill and operate.

“This decision comes down to the simple idea most New Mexicans agree on: If you drill it, you clean it,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “After a thorough, evidence-based process, the Commission acted to protect our water, our communities, and our state budget – ensuring the public isn’t left paying for industry’s messes.”

The Commission’s decision followed months of hearings, expert testimony, legal briefing, and negotiations among parties. In its deliberations, the Commission largely affirmed the legal and evidentiary basis for modernizing New Mexico’s bonding system and adopted most of the reforms included in the parties’ negotiated agreement, including reaffirming that HB80 complements, but does not replace, a modernized bonding system.

Why It Matters

New Mexico faces between $700 million and $1.6 billion in current and near-future oil and gas well cleanup liabilities, according to state data, with nearly 700 wells already abandoned and more than 4,400 likely to be abandoned in the near term.

When wells are not properly plugged, they can leak methane and toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater, threatening the climate, public health, drinking water, agriculture, and nearby communities.

State data show the average cost to plug a well is approximately $163,000, yet outdated rules have allowed operators to post bonds for far less – leaving taxpayers exposed when corporations walk away or go bankrupt.

What the Rules Do

The updated rules:

• Update bonding requirements to $150,000 per well for oil and gas wells at highest risk of abandonment – including low-producing and inactive wells – more closely aligning with the Oil Conservation Division’s actual plugging costs.
• Require operators with high-risk portfolios – more than 20% inactive wells – to post single-well bonding of $150,000 for all their wells, reducing the risk that large portfolios of aging wells are left without adequate cleanup funds.
• Strengthen well transfer rules to prevent poorly funded or noncompliant operators from acquiring aging wells – a common pathway to well abandonment.
• Require the most marginal wells (producing fewer than 90 barrels of oil equivalent in 12 months) to demonstrate they still serve a useful purpose or properly plug them.
• Tighten rules for inactive wells by requiring operators to show wells will return to production in the future, preventing non-producing wells from lingering indefinitely without cleanup.

Frontline and Community Voices

“After more than a century of living with oil and gas operations and seeing the remnants of aging infrastructure across Diné communities in the San Juan Basin, our communities know what happens when corporations fail to clean up after themselves,” said Robyn Jackson, executive director of Diné C.A.R.E. “These stronger rules are an important step toward ensuring oil and gas corporations are responsible for protecting our water, air, lands, and communities.”

“New Mexicans have been clear: Corporations should clean up the wells they drill,” said Ahtza Chavez, chief executive officer at Naeva. “These rules move us closer to that standard by protecting our communities, our water, and making sure the public isn’t left paying for industry’s mess.”

“In Carlsbad, we’ve seen firsthand what happens when corporations don’t have the financial backing in place to fix problems they create,” said Haley Jones of Citizens Caring for the Future. “These rules are a practical step to make sure corporations clean up their wells so communities like ours aren’t left with the costs or the uncertainty.”

Broad Public Support

The decision reflects strong, statewide support:

• 89% of New Mexicans support requiring corporations to pay to clean up wells they drill
• 91% say industry should be financially responsible for cleanup
• 90% say protecting drinking water and public health is essential
• Support spans political parties and regions across the state.

A Strong National Standard

With today’s vote, New Mexico establishes one of the strongest oil and gas regulatory systems in the nation to prevent orphan wells and ensure timely closure of inactive wells in the country, demonstrating that New Mexico is committed to protecting public health, safeguarding taxpayers, and requiring corporate responsibility.

Looking Ahead

The updated rules mark a major step toward preventing future abandoned wells and protecting New Mexico communities, land, air, and water. By requiring corporations to plan for cleanup upfront, the state reduces long-term environmental and financial risks. At its core, the decision reflects a simple principle: The people who drill and operate wells should be the ones who clean up.

In the coming weeks, the Oil Conservation Commission will issue a written Final Order and publish the rule in the New Mexico Register. Typically, rules become effective 30 days after publication in the Register.

Coalition Support

“Conservation Voters New Mexico (CVNM) Education Fund congratulates the frontline and fenceline communities who have been pushing for better bonding and other oil and gas industry rules for decades,” said Doug Meiklejohn, water quality & land restoration advocate at CVNM Education Fund. “Hard-working New Mexicans and their families and communities are resilient–they deserve clean air, land, water, and good health. These new financial assurance rules are a significant victory that will help ensure oil and gas companies benefitting from our state’s resources will pay to clean up their mess.”

“Low-producing wells can actually be very high-polluting,” said Mandy Sackett, New Mexico lead campaigner for Earthworks. “I’ve documented emissions near schools, improperly functioning flares, and continuous leaks with zero accountability for harms to communities from Counselor to Carlsbad. The new rules make corporations that drill in New Mexico put real money toward cleanup, and that matters for every community I’ve worked in.”

“Orphaned oil and gas wells threaten public health and safety, the water we drink, and the climate,” said Adam Peltz, senior director and lead counsel for energy transition at Environmental Defense Fund. “Far too often, New Mexicans have been left to foot the bill for cleaning up after oil and gas companies, and the state faces billions of dollars in decommissioning risks from low- and non-producing wells. Today, New Mexico finalized reforms to right-size historically insufficient financial assurance, inactive well management and well transfer regulations in order to ensure all wells are plugged in a timely manner at the end of their useful life by their operators. We commend the state for its strong leadership on this critical issue.”

“All religious traditions believe caring for Earth is an ethical and moral responsibility. The oil and gas industry has a responsibility to Earth, our communities, health, and future generations. These state bonding rules are a small way to be responsible and address pollution and harm in favor of the sacredness of Life,” said Sister Joan Brown, community advocate at New Mexico and El Paso Interfaith Power and Light.

“New Mexico families deserve clean air and the assurance that corporations, not hardworking families, are responsible for cleaning up the wells they drill,” said Celerah Hewes on behalf of Moms Clean Air Force. “These stronger protections help safeguard children’s health, reduce harmful methane pollution, and ensure communities across our state are not left with the long-term costs and consequences of abandoned oil and gas wells.”

“When oil and gas companies walk away from cleanup obligations, the costs fall to taxpayers, putting stress on local governments and diverting public revenue away from schools, infrastructure, and essential services,” said Jessica Pace, program director at Western Leaders Network. “By modernizing the state’s bonding program, the Commission establishes New Mexico as a national leader, holds industry accountable for its own mess, and stands up for the natural resources that local elected officials and their communities rely on.”

“New Mexico is finally starting to align oil and gas bonding with the real-world costs and risks communities are already facing across the state,” said Rebecca Sobel, climate and health program director at WildEarth Guardians. “In 2025 alone, industry spilled over 38,000 times, releasing over 9.4 million gallons of toxic liquids across New Mexico. Stronger bonding matters because spills are active, recurring risks tied to aging infrastructure, repeat bad actors, and fracking waste contamination. Today’s vote moves New Mexico closer to a system where corporations, not the public, are responsible for the damage they create.”

“New Mexicans should not be left paying to clean up oil and gas pollution after companies move on. Strong bonding requirements help ensure that taxpayers are not stuck stuck footing the bill plugging wells and restoring land, and that those responsibilities stay with industry. Oil and gas operators should be responsible for cleaning up their mess after they privately profit from extracting public resources. As a parent, I want our public dollars invested in schools and health care, not spent cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells. Updated bonding requirements are an important step toward protecting our communities, our water, and our future,” said by Antoinette Reyes, Sierra club Rio grande chapter organizer.

###

REPORT: Despite federal obstacles, New Mexico making progress on spending EV charging dollars

Amid high gas prices and Trump rollbacks, New Mexico has key opportunity to swiftly spend federal funding for EV charging to help drivers go electric.

SANTA FE — New Mexico has led on transportation electrification and made meaningful progress on rolling out federal EV charging dollars in 2025, but the vast majority of that funding remains unspent, according to a new Sierra Club report out today.

“New Mexico’s Department of Transportation moved quickly and decisively to set aside nearly $64 million for heavy-duty charging along the I-10 corridor, an important early win that is now shifting the state from planning to real-world implementation,” said Camilla Feibelman, Director of the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “This progress will help reduce toxic diesel pollution and climate emissions in frontline communities, including in the Las Cruces area and west toward Arizona. Now is the time to build on that momentum for light and heavy duty charging across the state. New Mexico should continue accelerating deployment and ensuring these investments deliver cleaner air, lower fuel prices,  and healthier communities.”

In February 2025, the Trump administration illegally froze the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program. Sierra Club, New Mexico, and other states and nonprofit partners challenged that action in federal court and successfully lifted the freeze. NEVI funds were unavailable to New Mexico for nearly five months in 2025 and only fully secured after a final court order in January 2026. Despite these months-long obstructions, 2025 was still the most productive year in the program’s four-year history.

States have to jump through a lot of hoops to implement and spend federal funds for EV charging — including developing statewide plans for NEVI, selecting projects, “obligating” funding (which legally binds the federal government to reimburse their spending), and moving ahead with permitting, design, and construction. New Mexico led in obligating funds and now has a key challenge of expending the funds and opening charging stations to the public. By the end of 2025, New Mexico had:

• Obligated 43% ($16.4M) and spent 14% ($5.6M) out of its $38M of available federal dollars for EV charging stations along highways
• Obligated 100% ($64M) and spent .001% ($.001M) out of its $64M of available federal dollars for public EV truck and bus charging stations
• Opened at least one NEVI charging station to the public

Crucially, New Mexico was able to obligate all of its Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) funding before the Trump administration unlawfully froze the program at the start of 2025. Sierra Club, allied organizations, and over a dozen states challenged the Trump administration’s freeze of the CFI program in federal court in December 2025. That litigation is currently pending and a decision from the federal court is anticipated before the end of 2026.

To speed up the rollout of federal EV charging funds, the report recommends New Mexico and other states use their attorneys general offices to address issues with access to funds, engage with utility regulators and public service commissions to stretch funding, set targets and timelines for rolling out funds, and maximize coordination between state agencies, project applicants and electric utilities.

The State of New Mexico has led on EV policy by enacting EV tax credits for new and used vehicles as well as chargers, passing clean cars and trucks rules to bring more EV to the state, and recently finalizing a clean transportation fuels program (CTFP) that supports transportation electrification. CTFP will generate tens of millions of dollars to invest in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure every year, which will help make the federal investment go further and help more New Mexicans acquire EVs.

Beyond federally-funded projects, 2025 was also the biggest year on record for deployment of privately-funded EV charging stations. According to data released by Paren, more than 18,000 new fast-charging ports were installed nationwide in 2025 (a 30 percent year-over-year increase). As of today, New Mexico has roughly 458 charging stations with 1,169 charging ports open to the public, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Roughly 344 of those ports opened in 2025, marking a roughly 30% year-over-year increase in fast-charging ports in New Mexico.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

###

New Mexico communities win stronger air protections as environment board approves historic fee update

Contacts:
Justin Wasser, Earthworks,  jwasser@earthworksaction.org
Morgan O’Grady, Western Environmental Law Center, mogrady@westernlaw.org

Today, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)’s Environmental Improvement Board approved a landmark update to its air quality permit fee structure that increases essential funding for inspections, monitoring, and enforcement. These changes will help deliver stronger protections to frontline communities who need them the most without creating additional burdens to taxpayers.

“The Permian Basin is one of the most active oilfields in the world, and Carlsbad families like mine have paid for that with their health and peace of mind, while oversight agencies were starved of the funding to protect our air quality,” said Haley Jones, organizer with Citizens Caring for the Future. “That imbalance ends today. This rulemaking is long overdue.”

The board unanimously decided in favor of the fee update following three days of public hearing. At the hearing, industry representatives argued that the fee increases were unnecessary, contending that taxpayers, rather than polluters, should shoulder the costs of administering the state’s air quality programs. The updated fee schedules should now be sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering New Mexico’s Title V and construction permit programs, as required by the Air Quality Control Act and the federal Clean Air Act. The updated fee schedule will take effect on June 1, 2026.

The public submitted hundreds of comments to the board. In-person testimony was provided by advocates and frontline community members who have been disproportionately exposed to industrial pollution and consistently left out of the decisions that shape their environment. All expressed the hope that this fee adjustment will translate to a more responsive NMED serving the people of New Mexico, including more air monitoring stations, faster enforcement and response to complaints. Twenty-nine state senators and representatives also joined the call for comprehensive funding by submitting a joint letter to the board.

The people of New Mexico have long borne the burden of pollution in the form of respiratory illness, dangerously elevated particulates, and degraded landscapes. This rulemaking begins to rebalance that equation. Industries, not communities and taxpayers, should bear the costs of inspections, monitoring, and enforcement.

“New Mexico’s air quality permit fee structure has been flat for about 20 years, meaning that each year, the Environment Department has had to perform its increasingly complex public health and safety duties with fewer and fewer resources,” said Morgan O’Grady, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “It is fair and proper for industry applicants to bear the true cost to ensure their enterprises do not endanger the communities in which they operate.”

“Current fees were insufficient to fund the enforcement staff that is needed to handle complaints in a timely manner,” said Haley Jones, organizer with Citizens Caring for the Future.

Recent enforcement actions have been related to complaints from nearly four years ago, which is unacceptable. Our communities deserve enforcement actions immediately following complaints, not years later. These enforcement delays cause real harm to people. They mean more asthma attacks and more premature deaths, as well as more costs to our healthcare system. We suffer the consequences of air pollution while corporations profit off our natural resources. These fee increases are critical for the Air Quality Bureau to be able to do its job for all New Mexicans and to enable them to increase their air monitoring network so we can know what is in the air we are breathing.”

“New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light has been working with communities in the Permian Basin for more than 10 years,” said Sister Joan Brown, community advocate with New Mexico and El Paso Interfaith Power and Light. “As people of faith and conscience we are called to care for our kin, our communities and sacred land, water, and air. The region has been in air ozone non-attainment for some time with many people suffering from asthma, bronchial and heart problems related to unchecked oil and gas industry pollution and terrible air quality. The Air Quality Bureau needs adequate and long-term funding for ethical actions, oversight, and accountability. The new fee rules will help our communities.”

“The Environmental Improvement Board’s decision today is great news for the people of New Mexico,” said Nini Gu, Senior Regulatory & Legislative Manager at Environmental Defense Fund. “This funding is essential to ensure the Environment Department has the necessary resources to protect communities from the impacts of energy development, which has grown exponentially over the last decade. With more resources, the Environment Department can expand monitoring efforts and build on its progress of cutting harmful oil and gas methane and air pollution. Businesses that profit from New Mexico’s resources have a responsibility to minimize harm, and today’s decision ensures industry, and not taxpayers, cover oversight costs.”

“For too long, New Mexico communities have been left to breathe the consequences of inadequate oversight while polluters faced no real accountability,” said Antoinette Reyes, Methane Campaign Organizer for the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “Today’s decision by the Environmental Improvement Board begins to change that. When industries profit from our state’s resources, they must also bear the cost of ensuring our air is safe to breathe — not taxpayers, not families in Carlsbad or Hobbs, not the people already living with ozone non-attainment and elevated methane emissions. This funding gives NMED the tools to do its job. Now we need to make sure those tools are used.”

“As a thermographer, I see firsthand how industrial activity impacts our land, our air, and our health,” said Mandy Sackett, New Mexico lead campaigner at Earthworks and certified thermographer. “This win isn’t just about fees, it’s about ensuring that the true costs of pollution are accounted for, and that our communities have the resources and the voice to demand better. NMED now has more capacity to protect our environment and our future, and that’s a victory for all New Mexicans.”

With the fees now finalized, Earthworks and its partners will push for robust enforcement, compliance and oversight of the oil and gas industry to ensure these resources translate into real, measurable protections for New Mexico’s most impacted communities. Earthworks’ petition to the Environmental Improvement Board in support of the fee adjustments is available here. Other documents related to the rulemaking are available here (click Environmental Improvement Board and then EIB 25-77 under that drop-down menu.)

Press Contacts:
Madeline Bove, Food & Water Watch: mbove@fwwatch.org
Gail Evans, Center for Biological Diversity: gevans@biologicaldiversity.org
Bill Rodgers, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter: bill.rodgers@sierraclub.org
Morgan O’Grady, Western Environmental Law Center: ogrady@westernlaw.org

Environmental Orgs File Protest Against Green Chile Pipeline in Southern New Mexico

ALBUQUERQUE — Today, the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, Center for Biological Diversity, and Food & Water Watch filed a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) challenging the Transwestern Pipeline Company’s attempt to fast-track the proposed Green Chile Pipeline. The 17-mile pipeline in Doña Ana County would provide gas to a new, massively-polluting power plant for the proposed “Project Jupiter” data center.

The organizations argue that Transwestern cannot proceed under a FERC “blanket certificate,” which is essentially a rubber-stamp permit that automatically approves minor projects and repairs; rather, FERC must instead conduct a full review of the project as required by section 7 of the National Gas Act. The organizations also urge FERC to deny the application under section 7 because it is contrary to the public interest.

In March, the New Mexico State Land Office denied Transwestern’s application for their project to cross state land, forcing the company to reroute a section of the pipeline. It is not possible for FERC to fully consider Transwestern’s application without knowing the exact route, and key information such as the cost of the project and the expected environmental impacts. If the reroute were to increase the cost of construction by even by 2.5%, it would no longer qualify for a blanket certificate review.

STATEMENTS

Camilla Feibelman, Director of Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter
“To approve this pipeline without a thorough and conclusive review could be a disaster for New Mexico families and their communities. We urge FERC to pace themselves and not allow major polluting industries, such as data centers, to skirt regulations when so much is at risk.”

Gail Evans, New Mexico Climate Director, Center for Biological Diversity
“We’re urging FERC to reject this pipeline because it would harm both people’s health and the environment. Its sole purpose is to feed a massive new gas plant that would produce twice as much air pollution as Santa Fe, Albuquerque and Las Cruces combined, just to serve a huge data center. New Mexicans are already burdened by extensive oil and gas infrastructure. It’s time to move away from filthy fossil fuels and invest in clean energy.”

Morgan O’Grady, Staff Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center
“Transwestern’s efforts to fast-track this proposed pipeline without environmental review are inappropriate given the massive impacts and uncertain future of the sole client it would serve, the Project Jupiter data center. Transwestern’s application is premature and should be rejected—New Mexicans do not need more stranded oil and gas infrastructure.”

Alexa Reynaud, Food & Water Watch Rural Organizing Manager, Food & Water Watch
“New Mexico has no need for more pipelines, and especially no need for more of this dangerous infrastructure to power the massive Project Jupiter data center. For too long, we have been treated as a sacrificial state, and this pipeline would only continue that legacy of corporate polluters taking our resources and threatening our air, land, and water. AI data centers – and the pipelines proposed to fuel them – have no place in New Mexico.”

Contacts:
Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, fox@westernlaw.org
Robyn Jackson, Diné C.A.R.E., robyn.jackson@dine-care.org
Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson, Earthworks, andrewfg@earthworks.org
Bill Rodgers, Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter, bill.rodgers@sierraclub.org

New Mexico regulators near final rules strengthening oil and gas bonding and cleanup

Parties in the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission (OCC) case to modernize oil and gas clean up and bonding rules filed their final post-hearing briefs on Friday, March 20, a key step as the OCC prepares to decide whether to update decades-old financial safeguards meant to prevent orphaned and abandoned wells.

“This case has made one thing very clear: New Mexicans expect oil and gas corporations to clean up the wells they drill and operate,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, who represents community and environmental organizations that filed the petition for new rules. “The Commission now has the opportunity to adopt smart, fair rules that protect our water, our communities, and our state budget while ensuring corporations meet the plugging and cleanup responsibilities they agreed to.”

Following weeks of hearings last fall, the OCC directed parties to negotiate areas of agreement where possible. Over the past several months, those negotiations have narrowed differences among stakeholders. The final rules proposed by the petitioners create a clear path for the OCC to adopt stronger safeguards to prevent oil and gas well abandonment.

Modernizing bonding requirements would better align financial assurances put up by oil and gas operators with the real cost of plugging wells, helping protect New Mexico families, drinking water, land and public funds.

New Mexico faces a growing unplugged well crisis with thousands of aging wells at risk of being abandoned without adequate cleanup funding. A June 2025 report from the Legislative Finance Committee estimates the state could have more than 5,000 abandoned wells and between $700 million and $1.6 billion in cleanup liabilities in the coming years. Strengthening the system will help prevent the orphaning of these wells in the first place and provide the state and the public with greater financial protection if the wells are orphaned.

“For many Diné families in the San Juan Basin, oil and gas wells sit close to our homes, our grazing lands and our critical water sources,” said Robyn Jackson, executive director of Diné C.A.R.E. “When wells are not properly cleaned up, they emit harmful pollution that threatens our air, our health and the land our communities depend on. Updating oil and gas rules helps ensure oil and gas corporations follow through on their responsibility to clean up wells so our communities are not left with the risks.”

“For communities like Carlsbad, we’ve seen firsthand what happens when corporations abandon oil and gas wells,” said Haley Jones with Citizens Caring for the Future. “These rules are about making sure corporations clean up their wells so our communities aren’t left with the bill or the risks to our health, our water and our land.”

“The system is broken when polluters can walk away from polluting oil and gas wells and leave taxpayers to clean up their mess,” said Andrew Forkes-Gudmundson, Senior Manager of State Policy at Earthworks, a party in the rulemaking. “The wells polluters leave behind can leak methane and health-harming toxics into people’s homes. Rules that prevent those harms and require that companies clean up the mess they made is simple common sense and common decency.”

“We need agencies that are funded to protect New Mexicans who stand to lose the most from abandoned or potentially orphaned wells,” said Camilla Feibelman, Director of the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter. “The industries doing business here must act as good neighbors, limit their impacts to our health, air and water, and provide the funding for clean up, up front.”

Why it matters

When wells are not properly plugged at the end of their productive life, they can leak toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater, posing risks to public health, agriculture, wildlife and nearby communities. Abandoned wells are also a major source of methane pollution, a powerful greenhouse gas that accelerates climate change.

Under the current bonding system, oil and gas corporations can operate hundreds or even thousands of wells while posting only a small fraction of the money needed to plug them. When operators walk away from wells or declare bankruptcy, the cost of cleanup falls on the state.

Recent enforcement actions by the state, including a lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Attorney General alleging that operators used shell companies and bankruptcy to avoid cleanup responsibilities, underscore the risks when financial safeguards fail.

Bonding functions like a security deposit: Oil and gas corporations must set aside funds in advance to ensure wells are properly plugged and cleaned up when drilling ends.

What the proposed rules would do

The rule changes under consideration would:

• Update bonding requirements to $150,000 per well for oil and gas wells at highest risk of abandonment – including low-producing and inactive wells – more closely aligning with the Oil Conservation Division’s actual plugging costs.
• Require operators with high-risk portfolios (more than 20 percent inactive wells) to post single-well bonding of $150,000 for all wells, reducing the risk that large portfolios of aging wells are left without adequate cleanup funds.
• Strengthen well transfer rules to prevent poorly funded or noncompliant operators from acquiring aging wells – a common pathway to well abandonment.
• Require the most marginal wells (producing fewer than 90 barrels of oil equivalent in 12 months) to demonstrate they still serve a useful purpose or properly plug them.
• Tighten rules for inactive wells by requiring operators to show wells will return to production in the future, preventing non-producing wells from lingering indefinitely without cleanup.

Broad public support

New Mexicans across the state have voiced strong support for modernizing bonding rules.

• More than 900 written public comments support reform.
• Twenty-five elected officials from across New Mexico signed letters and gave public comment supporting stronger bonding requirements.
• Statewide polling shows 89 percent of New Mexicans support requiring oil and gas corporations to pay to clean up the wells they drill.

What’s next:

The OCC will now review the post-hearing briefs as it prepares to deliberate on potential updates to the state’s bonding rules.

Commissioners now have the opportunity to adopt modern safeguards that better reflect today’s cleanup costs and ensure oil and gas corporations are responsible for cleaning up the wells they operate.

“Two Futures. One Vote” Addresses Climate Accountability

ALBUQUERQUE — A coalition of nonprofits launched a campaign addressing the urgent need for climate action and is asking the 77 percent of New Mexicans who support common sense climate policy for their help.

In February, the New Mexico Senate defeated the Clear Horizons Act (SB18), a bill which would have codified greenhouse reduction goals that have worked successfully for eight years. This bill would have reduced our pollution to what it was in 2005, reaching net zero by 2050. These goals were outlined in Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s climate initiatives set in 2019. New Mexico’s largest polluters, mainly the oil and gas industry, limited their pollution under this plan.

Oil and gas lobbyists, who represent industries that reap tremendous profits by extracting our publicly owned resources, launched a well-funded misinformation campaign to swing votes. These lobbyists would not have been successful had seven Democratic Senators not sided with every Republican against the bill. It was defeated 23-19 with the help of Senators Roberto Gonzales (D-Taos), Shannon Pinto (D-Tohatchi), George Muñoz (D-Gallup), Benny Shendo (D-Jemez Pueblo), Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), Martin Hickey (D-Albuquerque), and Antonio Maestas (D-Albuquerque).

As New Mexicans stare down another wildfire season with almost no precipitation, record-low snowpack, and the hottest temperatures recorded in 131 years, and as costs to taxpayers for dealing with climate disasters has crested billions of dollars, the Senate’s choice to side with oil corporations against New Mexicans demands accountability. We are disappointed in Democrats who ignore what their constituents want and buy into the misinformation of corporations. We are fed up with lawmakers of both parties who refuse to act as members of their communities deal with loss of life and livelihood, property damage, flooding, negative health outcomes and yearly recordbreaking wildfires.

Our campaign, “Two Futures. One Vote,” recognizes that we are standing at a crossroads. If lawmakers continue to be negligent, wildfires and climate disasters will get worse. On the other hand, New Mexico could instead embrace the values held by a supermajority of its people. It could enact climate reforms and protect our land, water, wildlife and health. This would not only save our state from the industries that are killing us, but would also benefit our economy through clean, safe, and reliable alternative energy.

Our coalition asks New Mexicans to join us. Would you please thank senators who stood with their communities or express your disappointment to senators who allowed themselves to be swayed by lobbyists and their misinformation? Please follow the links included in our advertisements. You can contact these lawmakers directly using the action alerts on the Sierra Club’s website.

The Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter is joined in this message by 350 NM, GreenLatinos, New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light and the Western Environmental Law Center.

To the Senators who voted YES: Thank you!

You stood up for New Mexico. For clean air, economic certainty, and technological innovation. You tried to protect families from costs related to extreme heat, wildfires, drought, health impacts and loss of livelihoods. You understood that no snow pack means no spring runoff. That extreme fires lead to profoundly dangerous flash floods. You recognized that climate solutions lead to economic resilience – and that planning ahead will benefit New Mexico’s workers, our communities and our economy. We are grateful for your leadership!

Contact your senator who voted yes

To the Senators who voted NO: We expected better.

At a time when families are paying more than ever for utility bills because of hotter and longer summers and more for homeowners insurance, especially after disasters, you chose to leave us with an uncertain future. Drought and extreme heat will continue to harm New Mexico. The costs of inaction are real: billions in taxpayer money. And these costs will continue to rise. You also chose to deprive New Mexico of the economic benefits of safe, plentiful energy, innovation and jobs. New Mexicans deserve leaders who confront challenges and seek new opportunities, not refuse to act in times of crisis.

Contact your senator to express your disappointment 

Next week the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) will hold a hearing on the New Mexico Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau proposal to modernize air quality permit fees — unchanged for more than 20 years. Updating these fees would help ensure the state’s clean air program remains sustainable, stable, and financially solvent, giving the bureau the independence and resources needed to protect public health and enforce clean air laws.  This is urgent and essential given the rush of extraction from the Permian Oil Boom, not to mention the need to oversee aging oil and gas infrastructure around the state.

Support Modernizing Air Fees
Thank the Air Quality Bureau for Taking Action to Protect our Health

We can support these fee updates and thank the Air Quality Bureau for the critical work they do to protect New Mexico’s air while encouraging support for this rulemaking. About 70% of the new funding would strengthen the enforcement division — funding inspectors, air monitoring technology, and programs that keep New Mexico’s clean-air protections in force.

Public Hearing: March 23 – 25 | EIB calendar here | meeting notice

Ways you can take action

Sign the petition to the EIB

Write a letter to the editor | see information here

Leave a brief public comment at the hearing (virtual meeting) | register here | background information and tips

1,500 New Mexicans Agree: “NO to Project Jupiter’s Air Pollution”

Data Center Power Plant Would Doom NM’s Climate Gains, Deepen Water Crisis, Release Cancer-Causing Pollution

SANTA FE — Thousands of New Mexicans submitted signatures and comments opposing an air pollution permit for a massive methane gas power plant proposed to power the “Project Jupiter” AI data center in Doña Ana County.

In just a few days, Sierra Club supporters from Santa Teresa to Aztec to Raton to Silver City sent more than 1,500 comments, and thousands more sent comments through other organizations. In addition to almost 950 pages of personal messages to the New Mexico Environment Department, the coalition also prepared technical comments, highlighting the applicant’s failure to comply with state and federal clean air laws, and detailing how the power plant would harm air quality and public health in New Mexico and neighboring El Paso, Texas.

Residents raised grave concerns about their water and air quality, expressing fear for the health and wellbeing of themselves and their neighbors.

In the technical comments to NMED, a coalition of community groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club said the power plant would be the single largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the state, emitting more than Santa Fe, Albuquerque and Las Cruces combined. The power plant would also release hundreds of tons of toxic and smog-forming pollutants into the atmosphere, including cancer-causing chemicals such as formaldehyde. It would make air quality significantly worse in Southern New Mexico and neighboring El Paso, Texas. These places already suffer from some of the worst smog in the country.

The coalition’s technical comments explained that the applications were “plainly deficient” and unlawful. Among other things, the comments faulted the developer for unlawfully requesting two separate permits for its power plant based on the legal fiction that they are unrelated facilities, even though the facilities are located in close proximity, owned by the same developer, and intended to power the same data center. The comments also faulted permits for “wildly underestimat[ing]” the pollution impact from the plant, and failing to demonstrate compliance with a wide variety of pollution control requirements that Congress and the New Mexico legislature apply to power plants.

Attorney David Baake, a Southern New Mexico resident who co-authored the technical comments, said:
“The attempt to split the power plant into two separate permits is flagrantly illegal. Honestly, it is baffling that they would even try this.  Project Jupiter’s own website says they are building a single power plant to power their data center. No one can say with a straight face that there are two separate, unrelated facilities just because they are using two plots of land on opposite sides of the Pete Domenici highway.”

Baake said he was confident NMED would reject the developer’s attempt to split the permitting process and require it to submit a single application for the whole plant. He said if the power plant is required to submit a single permit application, then the developer will need to implement the “lowest achievable emission rate” for smog-forming pollutants and obtain “emission offsets” for those pollutants, helping to mitigate the project’s harm to public health and regional air quality.

Other members of the coalition highlighted the impact the power plant would have on climate change, and questioned why the developer could not use solar instead— thereby avoiding the air pollution impacts and the massive water use associated with the gas plant.

“Southern New Mexico is one of the best places in the United States to install solar. It is often the cheapest and definitely the cleanest source of energy. It doesn’t contribute to smog or climate change, and uses far less water than gas power plants. It is simply a common-sense solution for our area,” said  Camilla Feibelman, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Director. “The power plant could emit a staggering 12.7 million metric tons per year— essentially wiping out New Mexico’s 29 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the last two decades.” 

New Mexico is experiencing a record snow drought, collecting just 6 percent of our median snowpack. This is a direct result of our present climate crisis and this project’s water use would waste more of this resource.

Sierra Club and commenters called on NMED to hold a public hearing to allow more community input on such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision.

Additionally, on February 27th Energy Transfer Partners filed an application to build a multistate pipeline from Texas to Arizona with a trunkline to supply Project Jupiter with methane gas to combust at the data center. Public comment on this permit is due by April 12th.

# # #

Federal Climate Rollback Raises Stakes for New Mexico Legislature to Pass the Clear Horizons Act

Rescinding the Endangerment Finding will harm millions of New Mexicans who live through climate impacts each year.

ALBUQUERQUE, NM – As the Trump administration moves to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding, New Mexico lawmakers face an urgent decision of their own. With federal climate protections being dismantled, the Clear Horizons Act (SB18) represents the state’s best opportunity to ensure long-term planning, protect families from rising costs driven by extreme weather and harmful pollution, and hold major polluters accountable here at home. SB18 will be heard on the Senate floor in the coming hours.

By rescinding the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which eliminates the agency’s requirement to protect people from the pollution that causes climate change, Trump and EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is removing its responsibility to regulate the pollution that causes climate change – a move that increases risk for states like New Mexico, where wildfire, extended drought, low snow pack, extreme heat, and flooding are already straining household budgets and state finances. Legislative interim committees in 2025 heard presentations that these impacts are costing families, communities and the state more than $4 billion.

“New Mexicans cannot afford to wait for Washington,” said Camilla Feibelman, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Director. “The risks are here now. Passing the Clear Horizons Act is how our Legislature ensures that families, farmers, small businesses, and communities are protected regardless of what happens at the federal level.”

In the absence of strong federal safeguards, state leadership becomes even more critical. The Clear Horizons Act provides New Mexico with a transparent, long-term framework to reduce harmful pollution from large industrial sources and manage the economic risks associated with climate instability. Unlike shifting federal policy, SB18 locks in predictability and accountability for communities and businesses alike.

Recent statewide polling shows that 77% of New Mexicans support government action to reduce climate pollution, reflecting broad public support for long-term planning to protect health, affordability, and economic stability.

By claiming climate change – and the pollution that causes it – pose no threat to public health or the environment, Trump and Zeldin are defying mountains of scientific evidence produced in thousands of studies that demonstrate how climate change, fueled by climate pollution, is causing devastating impacts on people’s lives.

Sixteen years ago, the EPA found that carbon pollution, methane, and four other climate pollutants endanger public health, a finding endorsed by both the Supreme Court and by Congress under the Clean Air Act. Trump and Zeldin are ignoring science and the law to hasten their plans to undo pollution limits for power plants, cars, trucks, and other sources of climate pollution.

Trump and Zeldin’s Polluters First Agenda will accelerate the climate crisis, leaving millions of Americans more vulnerable to deadly extreme weather. Health impacts from climate change are already evident: increased asthma attacks and heat-related deaths are becoming more frequent and severe.

Trump shamelessly begged the fossil fuel industry for $1 billion to fund his 2024 campaign and in return he promised to do their bidding. Rescinding this bedrock environmental finding is a win for the fossil fuel industry and a terrible loss for working people.

“Rolling back federal climate protections shifts the costs of pollution onto families and communities,” said Tom Solomon, co-coordinator of 350.org New Mexico. “That’s not what New Mexicans voted for. Families are already stretched thin, and weakening safeguards only increases the risks and expenses they face. The Clear Horizons Act is how New Mexico can protect itself.”

The Clear Horizons Act is supported by a broad coalition of 42 organizations, healthcare professionals, parents, business leaders, and community advocates from across New Mexico who agree that families deserve stability, clean air, and a future they can count on. Coalition members: 350 New Mexico; 350 Santa Fe; American Lung Association in New Mexico; Center for Civic Policy; Citizens Caring for the Future; Climate Cabinet; Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy; Coalition of Sustainable Communities New Mexico; Conservation Voters New Mexico; Devil’s Spring Ranch; Earthworks; E2; EDF Action; Equality New Mexico; GreenLatinos; GRID Alternatives; Healthy Climate New Mexico; Moms Clean Air Force – New Mexico Chapter; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); New Mexico & El Paso Interfaith Power and Light; New Mexico Climate Investment Center; NM Native Vote; New Mexico Sustainable Business; New Mexico Voices for Children; NM CAFe; NMVC Action Fund; OLÉ Education Fund, Positive Energy Solar; ProgressNow New Mexico; Prosperity Works; Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter; Sovereign Energy; Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP); The Semilla Project; Together for Brothers; Tribal Energy Alternatives; Vote Solar; Western Environmental Law Center; Western Leaders Network; Western Resource Advocates.

ABOUT THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING

The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect people from “any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines” that the agency deems “causes or contributes to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

In the 2007 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Massachusetts vs. EPA, the court found that carbon pollution and other climate-warming pollutants (greenhouse gases) are “air pollutants” as defined by the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to make a final scientific determination whether emissions of these pollutants from new motor vehicles endanger health or welfare.

In 2009, the EPA determined that carbon dioxide, methane, and four other climate pollutants do endanger public health, and that emissions from cars and trucks contribute to that danger. Over the years, EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public and that pollution from power plants, oil and gas operations, and other sources  contribute to that danger. The EPA’s Endangerment Finding was challenged in court by big oil and gas companies, fossil fuel producers, radical right-wing front groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and red-state political figures. The D.C. Circuit of Appeals upheld the finding based on the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it. The Supreme Court denied an additional review.

Later Supreme Court decisions have limited the scope of some of EPA’s climate protections. But none of those decisions undermined the original basis for the Endangerment Finding and the EPA’s duty to act under the law.

Read More about the Endangerment Finding from NRDC’s David Doniger HERE and EDF’s Peter Zalzal HERE.