Michael Perry

New Mexico deserves an honest conversation about the Clear Horizons Act (S.B. 18). Not slogans. Not carefully worded press releases. And not policies that sound good until you look at who ultimately pays the price.

The Clear Horizons Act is designed to fundamentally reshape New Mexico’s economy by targeting and dismantling traditional energy production, particularly oil and gas, through aggressive emissions mandates, expanded regulatory authority, and long term restrictions intended to force a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Its stated goal is emissions reduction. Its real world impact, however, is far broader and far more damaging.

This legislation centralizes power, expands bureaucracy, and places New Mexico’s rural economies, state trust lands, and public school funding at serious risk.

It is important to be clear about what this bill is attempting to do.

The Clear Horizons Act seeks to impose statewide emissions caps across multiple sectors, expand regulatory authority over energy production, transportation, and industry, accelerate the phase down of oil and gas development regardless of economic or revenue impacts, and shift New Mexico toward a compliance driven climate model borrowed from states with vastly different economies and land ownership structures.

What it does not do is provide a realistic plan to replace the revenue that currently funds public schools, universities, and essential services across New Mexico.

The numbers tell the story, and they cannot be ignored.

In the most recent fiscal year, oil and gas generated approximately $2.6 billion for the State of New Mexico through royalties, severance taxes, production taxes, and lease payments. That revenue supports public education, health care, infrastructure, and state and local government services statewide. On state trust land alone, oil and gas production pays 20 to 25 percent in royalties, directly benefiting schools and other trust beneficiaries.

By contrast, clean energy projects generated roughly $8 million in state revenue during the same period. While wind and solar projects bring investment and construction jobs, their ongoing contribution to state revenue is comparatively minimal. Most clean energy projects on state trust land pay just 3 to 6 percent in royalties.

That is not a matter of opinion. It is a difference of $2.6 billion versus $8 million.

Equally important is what happens after the energy is produced.

Oil and gas operators are required to contribute to a reclamation fund and post bonds to ensure sites are properly cleaned up when production ends. That reclamation fund is not a tax on the people of New Mexico. It is paid for entirely by the oil and gas industry itself through fees assessed on production. When wells reach the end of their life, those funds exist to protect landowners, taxpayers, and the state trust from cleanup costs.

Clean energy does not operate under the same standard.

There is no equivalent statewide reclamation fund for wind turbines or large scale solar facilities. There is no guaranteed funding mechanism to restore land when projects reach the end of their lifespan or when companies sell assets, dissolve, or walk away.

So the question New Mexicans deserve answered is straightforward. Who pays when wind turbines rust, solar arrays are abandoned, or a clean energy company goes belly up?

If the answer is the taxpayer or the trust, then New Mexico has failed in its responsibility as a steward of public land.

I oppose the Clear Horizons Act because it punishes an industry that pays its fair share and funds the state, while giving a pass to alternatives that do not. It treats oil and gas, an industry that brings in $2.6 billion, pays higher royalties, and funds reclamation, as something to be dismantled, while replacing it with revenue streams totaling $8 million and carrying unresolved long term liabilities.

That is not environmental leadership. It is selective accountability.

New Mexico is a rural, land based state. We manage millions of acres of working lands held in trust for specific beneficiaries. Any climate policy that weakens the revenue streams funding education, land stewardship, and rural communities without a proven replacement is fundamentally flawed.

I am not opposed to renewable energy. I am opposed to unequal rules, unequal responsibility, and unrealistic math.

If clean energy is going to be part of New Mexico’s future, then it must pay royalty rates comparable to other energy producers, contribute to a dedicated reclamation fund paid by the industry rather than taxpayers, and be held to the same long term accountability standards as oil and gas.

Anything less is not a transition. It is a gamble with New Mexico’s land, schools, and future.

Clear horizons require clear thinking. This bill falls short on both.

Two-term Chaves County Commissioner is running for State Land Commissioner.