MLG’s war on oil: Court upholds far-left emissions rules to harm industry

The New Mexico Court of Appeals, which is comprised entirely of Democrat judges, has upheld a contentious set of emissions regulations targeting the oil and gas industry in one of the nation’s most productive energy states. This decision reflects a broader push by far-left environmentalists to undermine the industry, even as experts point out the lack of tangible or scientific evidence that such measures provide meaningful public benefits, whether measurable or otherwise.

The case focused on a 2022 regulation requiring operators to monitor and reduce emissions of pollutants like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These chemicals can contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, under certain conditions, claim eco-leftists.

Proponents argue that high ozone levels can exacerbate respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis. New Mexico’s oil-producing regions are well within federal standards, casting doubt on the necessity of these regulations, not to mention the science used to attempt to correlate them.

Far-left Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration has ferociously pushed these rules as part of its agenda to combat “climate change.” This agenda is driven by political ideology rather than practical necessity, say many. Also interesting is that half of the judges on the Court of Appeals were appointed by the governor.

Lujan Grisham’s Environment Secretary, James Kenney, celebrated the court’s ruling, declaring that the regulations were developed with “substantial evidence” and urging the industry to cease legal challenges and focus on compliance. “These rules aren’t going anywhere,” Kenney stated, signaling the administration’s unyielding stance against the industry.

The Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico challenged the rule, contending that it disproportionately affects small, family-owned operators in New Mexico while allowing larger corporations to shoulder the costs more easily. The group highlighted how these burdens are part of an ongoing “death by a thousand cuts” approach that threatens the survival of independent businesses in the state. Its executive director, Jim Winchester, expressed frustration with the administration’s hostility toward local operators and indicated that the group is exploring further legal options.

The court dismissed arguments that counties such as Chaves and Rio Arriba should be excluded from the rule. Judges concluded that these counties were part of larger regions that reached the ozone threshold, though critics argue that including these areas stretches the scientific justification for the rule’s geographic application. This reasoning, some say, underscores a broader lack of concrete evidence supporting the regulation’s purported environmental and health benefits.

This decision adds to growing concerns about the ideological slant of New Mexico’s judiciary. With the entire Court of Appeals comprised of Democrats, many see this ruling as a reflection of partisan alignment with the Governor’s eco-left agenda rather than a balanced consideration of the rule’s economic and scientific merits. The lack of diverse perspectives on the court raises questions about the fairness of rulings that have far-reaching consequences for the state’s economy and residents.

The regulations require operators to invest significant resources in monitoring emissions and repairing leaks, with substantial costs that critics contend will yield negligible improvements in air quality. The burden falls hardest on smaller operators, potentially driving them out of business and consolidating power within larger corporations—an outcome that contradicts claims of supporting local communities and economies.

While supporters frame these regulations as essential for addressing climate change and protecting public health, detractors argue they are more about political posturing than achieving real-world results. The oil and gas industry remains a vital part of New Mexico’s economy, providing jobs and revenues that sustain the state. Policies that weaken this sector without clear, evidence-based benefits risk harming New Mexico more than helping it.

The court’s decision, celebrated by environmental advocates, is a stark reminder of how far ideological motivations can drive regulatory efforts. For an industry that plays such a critical role in New Mexico’s economic health, this ruling represents yet another hurdle—one that seems more aligned with far-left political priorities than with any demonstrable benefit to public health, the environment, or the state’s residents.