By Vince Torres & Ted Ellis
New Mexico does not need a new way to make energy scarce. Senate Bill 18, branded as the “Clear Horizons Act,” would write an economy-wide emissions mandate into law and then hand regulators the power to re-engineer how New Mexicans produce and use energy. The bill sets statewide emissions caps pegged to 2005 levels and ratchets them tighter, to “one hundred percent less,” by mid-century, effectively turning “net zero” into a legal requirement. In plain English, it is an energy-rationing bill dressed up as a feel-good slogan.
To see why, start with what the bill actually does: far more than to simply “set goals.” It orders a statewide plan and creates a new regulatory system to force compliance, including emissions tracking, verification, and enforcement backed by fees and penalties. It also opens the door to trading, averaging, and offset-style mechanisms, meaning the practical result is similar to a cap-and-trade program even if lawmakers avoid that label.
The worst pain point would be the cost to New Mexican families. When a state starts policing energy use across the economy, the first effect is higher bills. Electricity gets more expensive when utilities are pushed away from the most affordable, dependable supply and toward a narrower menu of options that prioritize ideological targets over cost and reliability.
Just as important, SB 18 defines “statewide emissions” to include emissions from electricity generated outside New Mexico but used in the state. That is a bureaucratic way of saying regulators can reach beyond New Mexico’s borders to put their thumb on any power that you buy. If your utility wants to purchase more affordable electricity from another state, New Mexico can treat that purchase as an emissions liability and pass the cost back to ratepayers.
Meanwhile, reliability is not a theory in New Mexico; it is a basic public-safety requirement. When the wind is not blowing, the sun is down, or a heat wave drives demand through the roof, the grid still must work. But policies that reward paperwork compliance over physical performance increase the risk of tight reserves, emergency imports, and other higher costs embedded in your bill. Such risks inevitably grow into potential grid instability and blackouts.
Then there is the reality of New Mexico’s abundant oil and gas–and the many benefits that energy brings to the state. New Mexico’s budget is heavily supported by oil and gas production, generally 35-40% of general fund revenue. This revenue helps pay for classrooms, roads, and public safety. If legislators want to create a statewide legal framework where long-term success requires driving down fossil-fuel production and use, they should be transparent about the fiscal impact.
At this point, the bill becomes a double whammy for working families.
On one hand, costs go up because energy becomes harder to produce, buy, and use. On the other, the state risks weakening a major revenue stream that funds core services, which often leads to the oldest political play in the book: raise taxes, cut services, or both.
An energy policy that puts the people of New Mexico first is built on abundance: dependable power, affordable fuel, and the freedom for families and businesses to prosper without asking for a bureaucrat’s permission. SB 18 moves New Mexico in the opposite direction, toward a system where energy is treated as a controlled substance and prosperity is treated as a problem to be managed.
New Mexico can protect air quality, support innovation, and reduce waste without declaring war on the energy systems that make modern life possible. If lawmakers want better outcomes, they should start with policies that expand supply, allow faster construction, harden infrastructure, and reward performance.
The people’s demand should be simple. This or any future proposal must meet a basic standard of transparency: spell out what will happen to electricity rates, fuel costs, grid reliability, and state revenues before regulators are handed sweeping new powers. If New Mexicans want clear horizons, they should reject policies that manufacture scarcity and call it progress.
Vincent Torres serves as executive director of the America First Policy Institute’s New Mexico state chapter.
Ted Ellis serves as director for the Power America campaign at the America First Policy Institute.
