Nary a day goes by that doesn’t include some kind of anti-energy outrage from either the Biden Administration or New Mexico’s Democrats. Recently, New Mexico’s Democrat-controlled Legislature killed a bill that would have mandated more ethanol in gas tanks while increasing gas prices at the pump.

Now, the Biden Administration has taken it upon themselves to increase the amount of ethanol in gas tanks nationwide. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said “unachievable mandates will increase fuel production costs and keep consumer prices high.” This is yet  another anti-energy Biden Administration policy.

Something new to the author of this post contained in the ABC News piece is that ethanol consumes more than 40% of the nation’s corn supply.

The following is a lengthy post on the numerous problems with ethanol from a crop scientist.

The folks at Yahoo Finance recently took a closer look at Virgin Galactic’s finances. Virgin Galactic is the main tenant at Spaceport America. Here are some conclusions about Virgin Galactic’s business that can be gleaned from the report linked above.

1.) Virgin Galactic won’t break even at Spaceport America before FY 2031;

2.) Virgin Galactic will not meet the User Fee Structure required in the Spaceport America Facilities Lease;

3.) Virgin Galactic will use more than $2 bil to develop reliable passenger service at Spaceport America before FY 2031;

4.) Virgin Galactic will not sell enough tickets to show a profit before 2031;

5.) Virgin Galactic stock is not worth more than six dollars ($6.00) per share.

The liberal New York Times has been one of the primary supporters (and enforcers) of the conventional wisdom on COVID 19. But, at last there is an admission among some at the paper that mask mandates failed. New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham, herself an avid supporter of the establishment narrative on COVID had a statewide indoor mask mandate in place for the better part of the two years from March 10, 2020 through Feb 17, 2022 when she finally lifted the mandate.

The Times isn’t completely giving up on the IDEA of masks, just the mandates (full article linked above). Here are a few choice quotes:

After a brief discussion of the “effectiveness” of masks in a laboratory setting on dummies, the article notes:

Finally, after two years (and sometimes more) of mask mandates, the Times concludes with a shockingly (considering its track record) libertarian approach involving individual choice:

As we move beyond a contentious series of primaries in both parties and look to the fall election, it worth highlighting one of the big issues on the fall ballot: the plan to “tap” New Mexico’s permanent fund to provide universal preschool.

As written, voters will decide whether to: “allocate 1.25% of the five-year average of year-end market values of the money in the Land Grant Permanent Fund (LGPF) to early childhood education…” The Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) estimated that the additional allocation would be about $245.7 million in fiscal year 2023. Of that total, $126.9 million would be allocated for early childhood education, $84.6 million to public education, and $34.2 million for the LGPF’s other beneficiaries.

The advocates’ plan is to provide “free,” “universal” pre-K to all New Mexico 3 and 4 year olds.

But, while advocates and supporters tout all kinds of supposed benefits of government-funded pre-K, the best available study of the issue (involving a randomized control) of a similar program that has been in place for years in Tennessee found pre-K actually had NEGATIVE impacts on children.

According to the study, “Children who attended Tennessee’s state-funded voluntary pre-K program during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years were doing worse than their peers by the end of sixth grade in academic achievement, discipline issues and special education referrals. The trend emerged by the end of third grade and was even more pronounced three years later.” The following quotes from one of the study authors:

“[We] have let ourselves get into the idea that what these children need is a lot more academic instruction.” Farran said. “And I would say, no, it’s just the opposite. What you would like to give poor children is a feeling of being cared for and being successful.”

While other pre-K studies often seem to show positive results from massive government “investment” in pre-K programs, few of those studies feature a control group. Studies supporting pre-K in New Mexico and elsewhere simply compare voluntarily participating and non-participating students, not those chosen randomly.

As the Rio Grande Foundation has noted in recent  years (and the chart below highlights), Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) has continued to see its budget grow while its student population has shrunk.

Recently, the Albuquerque Journal reported that the APS School board had “balked” at adopting a $1.936 billion budget that would be spent to educate approximately 71,000 students. In FY 2022, the District spent $1,658,589,579 to educate just 72,500 students. That came to $22,877.10. If it had been adopted for FY 2023 along the lines of the numbers above, the District would amount to an incredible $27,267 per student.

The budget is not finalized yet. However, the APS board has limited authority over all the money that is flowing their way. That is largely set in Santa Fe. Either way, the Legislative Finance Committee has clearly stated that the District needs to reform how it does business. The question is whether the Legislature and Governor will push the District to reform itself or simply keep sending money.

On this week’s conversation Paul talks to Clif Horace owner of Horace Motors, a car dealer in Farmington. They discuss the Clean Car Standard that was recently imposed by Gov. Lujan Grisham’s hand picked Environmental Improvement Board.

The Board has imposed rules that will force New Mexico car dealerships to dramatically increase the number of electric vehicles sold in the State. But, California is considering imposing far more aggressive rules that could result in the elimination of internal combustion engines in cars sold in New Mexico.

Listen to this important conversation to find out more about this outrageous situation.

The following letter and books were received by a teacher at Albuquerque Public Schools for their “summer reading.” The books, sent to social studies teachers from NM PED, are of course meant to filter into the classroom in indoctrinating New Mexico students into PED’s new “CRT-laden” social studies standards.

Ibram X. Kendi is a well-known and controversial exponent of CRT. The other book is a history of Native Americans with a nod to the title of Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States,” a radically-negative/leftist take on much of American history. Are these books worth reading? Perhaps. But, our biggest problem with New Mexico’s new CRT-laden social studies standards is not that they teach about America’s warts (slavery/race relations and destruction of Native Americans), but that they emphasize those to the exclusion of other history.

The new standards (and these books) ONLY focus on these things to the exclusion of numerous, more positive aspects of American history of which there are many. May we recommend Larry Schweikart’s “A Patriot’s History of the United States.”

The following appeared in National Review’s Capital Matters on May 26, 2022.

New Mexico just became the 15th state to follow California’s lead in adopting “Clean Car Standards.”

Under New Mexico’s new automobile standards, roughly 7 percent of new cars sold in the state must be zero-emission in 2025. In the latest report available (3rd quarter of 2021) zero-emission vehicles amounted to just 2.29 percent of new vehicle sales in New Mexico. So, to comply with the new rule, sales of zero-emission vehicles will need to more than triple from Q3 of 2021 to 2025.

While the number of states adopting these standards is limited to mostly the West Coast and Northeast so far, anytime a Democrat is elected governor, this kind of policy could be on the table for adoption. That’s because, despite the impact that adopting such policies will have on everything from the automotive to the agricultural sectors, states often don’t need to push these policies through their legislatures for approval.

In New Mexico’s case, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham these standards through an unelected Environmental Improvement Board. California’s own in states with Democratic governors, this kind of policy could be coming your way if it hasn’t already been put in place.

The real kicker is that by subjecting itself to California’s political whims, New Mexico (and other states adopting these standards) could be forced to adopt even more aggressive “Clean Car” standards soon. California governor Gavin Newsom has issued an executive order that, if adopted by California’s Air Board, would end the sale of gasoline-powered cars in California by 2035. The board’s decision on final adoption of that rule could come in California as early as this August.

Under California’s proposed rule, 35 percent of new cars, SUVs, and small pickups sold in California (and thus other states following their policies) must be zero-emission starting with 2026 models. That number will increase yearly, reaching 51 percent of all new car sales in 2028, 68 percent in 2030, and 100 percent in 2035.

Tripling sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in two years in New Mexico means dealerships will cross-subsidize EVs by raising prices on gasoline vehicles or they will look to the state to further subsidize sales of EVs. This could make gasoline vehicles purchased in states following California more expensive, leading to more car buyers looking out of state. That would result in lost jobs, and tax revenues leaving those states. That situation will get far worse if California adopts the even more aggressive rules now under consideration.

There is nothing inherently wrong with EVs, but there are numerous public-policy implications in their mass deployment, especially if the tool is to simply mandate their sale at the state level.

• Current tax credits and subsidies include a $7,500 federal tax credit and various credits for upgrading connectivity to the electrical grid. Many states also have credits in place. Those credits and subsidies are paid for by shifting costs to taxpayers and utility rate payers, a situation that will worsen dramatically as EVs are forcibly introduced into the market.
• A single EV charging station requires tens of thousands of dollars in upgrades to the electrical grid. A recent report found New Mexico (a big, sparsely-populated state) to have just 401 public charging stations statewide. And those need to be maintained. A recent report from EV-friendly San Francisco found that 27 percent of the Bay-areas charging stations were not functional. Who pays for these charging stations becomes a much more important issue when they become a major component of vehicle fleets.
• And this assumes we have enough electricity to “fuel” a massive new fleet of EVs. New Mexico’s largest utility is keeping its coal-fired power plant open just to keep the lights on and says it won’t have half the solar/battery replacement power needed during the summer of 2023. California’s problems keeping the lights on are well-known, but according to a May 8 Wall Street Journal article, “electric shortage warnings are growing across the United States.” A 2021 New York Times report noted that if all Americans actually replaced their gas-powered vehicles with electrical ones it would increase electricity demand by 25 percent.

Additional issues with the widespread and aggressive adoption of EVs include the need for more mining. Will environmentalists who ostensibly support EVs support the mining of everything from copper to rare-earth minerals to go along with their deployment on a large scale?

Who pays to maintain the roads? It is a relatively simple task to apply a charge to the use of EVs for road maintenance, but politically speaking, owners of EVs are currently favored. Will politicians have the courage to apply fees to electric-vehicle users to pay for the roads?

Few advocates of free markets such as  myself oppose the deployment of EVs. But it should be an organic process driven by market forces, not government mandates and subsidies where the burdens fall on those who cannot afford or have no use for EVs.

Worse, the process of joining California on EVs is being done in the dark, absent the say-so of our democratically elected representatives.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

On May 16, 2022 Gov. Lujan Grisham renewed her public health order yet again. You can read the full order here.

The Whereas statement below is from page 2 of the Order.

On page 4 of the document is the following statement.

So, which is it? Is there a mistake? We fully expect the order to be renewed yet again whenever it is up, but what date will that be?

The Rio Grande Foundation is doing some research on the shortage of medical professionals in the State and ran across the following chart from Kaiser Family Foundation. We have known for many years that New Mexico has a lot of people on Medicaid, the federal/state health program for the poor.

What’s shocking is that 34% of New Mexicans are on the program. The percent of people on Medicaid in the next-highest state, Louisiana, is “just” 28%. Among New Mexico’s neighbors, 22% of Arizonians are on Medicaid which is the highest among our neighbors. Just 11% of Utahns are on Medicaid. It is unsurprising that Utah has a very high workforce participation rate while New Mexico’s is quite low.

New Mexico policymakers have tremendous financial incentives to boost Medicaid participation. The State receives a 74% federal match on traditional Medicaid Services and a 90% match on services provided under the “ObamaCare” expansion.

A few weeks ago we posted in this space regarding the unsolved issues facing New Mexico’s electrical grid moving forward and that PNM was going to struggle to replace the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station when it shuts down after this summer.

The following was posted by PNM on its Facebook page on Monday, May 23rd, 2022. Presumably these 700 MW will need to be steady “base load” power, not JUST wind or solar, but with battery backup.  Or, a natural gas peaking station. By way of comparison, the San Juan Generating Station coal plant generates 847 MW currently.

Anyone got a spare 700 MW of power sitting around for next summer? Anyone feel comfortable that PNM will find the power it needs? Seems like at the very least your electric bill is on the way up.

All of this is driven by Gov. Lujan Grisham’s pet Energy Transition Act.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we decried Gov. Lujan Grisham’s school “lockdown” policy from the start of the 2020-2021 school year once it was scientifically-accepted that classrooms and schools were not primary vectors of COVID 19.

Unfortunately, unions and Gov. MLG did not pay attention to “the science” and kept New Mexico schools in “virtual” mode until they were reopened to full-time, in-person learning on April 5, 2021. That made New Mexico’s lock-out longer than all but 5 other states’. Shamefully, as the following from the New York Times (using data from researchers at Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research points out, schools with high numbers of poor and minority students were most likely to go remote prompting a Harvard researcher to say, “This will probably be the largest increase in educational inequity in a generation.”

Gov. Lujan Grisham recently continued her attempt to simultaneously keep the oil and gas revenue spigot flowing while enacting enough policies from the radical environmental agenda to placate her political and fundraising base.

Her latest plan, known as the Clean Car Rule, was adopted by her handpicked Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). Governor-appointed boards are far more willing to do what they are told than are unruly and sometimes uncooperative (albeit overwhelmingly Democrat) legislative bodies with their own political calculations and aspirations.

Incredibly, New Mexico’s newly Clean Car Rule undermines democracy and self-government (along with our economy) by placing New Mexico automobile regulations under the control of another state, California. The current rules are California’s and if California changes them, New Mexico will have to go along with them or reverse course and opt out.

New Mexico’s new automobile standards will require roughly 7% of new cars sold in the State to be zero emission in 2025. In the latest report available (3rd quarter of 2021) zero emission vehicles amounted to just 2.29% of new vehicle sales in New Mexico. So, to comply with the new rule, sales of zero emission vehicles will need to just more than triple from Q3 of 2021 to 2025.

But the real kicker is by subjecting itself to California’s political whims New Mexico could be forced to adopt even more aggressive “Clean Car” standards soon. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has issued an  executive order that, if adopted, would end the sale of gas-powered cars in California by 2035. Final adoption of that rule could come in California as early as this August.

If California enacts this rule, 35% of new cars, SUVs and small pickups sold in California (and thus New Mexico) must be zero-emission starting with 2026 models. That number will increase yearly, reaching 51% of all new car sales in 2028, 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

“Just” tripling sales of electric vehicles (EV’s) in two years in New Mexico means dealerships will cross-subsidize EV’s by raising prices on gasoline vehicles or they will look to the State to further subsidize sales of “chosen” vehicles. This could make gasoline vehicles purchased in New Mexico more expensive leading to purchases made at out-of-state car dealers. That would result in lost jobs and tax revenues in New Mexico. That situation will get much worse if California (and New Mexico) adopt the even more aggressive rules being considered.

Current tax credits and subsidies include a $7,500 federal tax credit and various credits for upgrading connectivity to the electrical grid further help with deployment of electric vehicles. Of course, those credits and subsidies are paid for by increasing costs on taxpayers and utility rate payers.

Deployment of EV charging stations will be another expense associated with this plan. A recent report found New Mexico to have just 401 public charging stations statewide. And those need to be maintained. A recent report from EV-friendly San Francisco found that 27 percent of the Bay-areas charging stations were not functional.

All of this comes at a time when New Mexico’s largest utility (PNM) is keeping its coal fired power plant open just to keep the lights on and says it won’t have half the solar/battery replacement power needed to keep the lights on during the summer of 2023.

There are so many problems and costs with a drastic shift toward electric vehicles that at the very least New Mexico’s elected Legislature should have had a say, but instead we have a Governor in a tight reelection battle who wants to make big promises to environmental groups and their funders no matter how disruptive or damaging to New Mexicans and their livelihoods.

The fact is that the real costs of these unrealistic and damaging policies will be borne after this election. Sadly, that is all by design.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Biden Interior Secretary Deb Haaland struggles to explain a memo from HER department calling for the shut down of new oil leases.

“I am sorry, and am sitting in this hearing and not ………” pic.twitter.com/bLypsaAt8H

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 19, 2022

At a Senate hearing recently Democrat Senator Joe Manchin called out Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland over the Administration’s lack of oil and gas leasing. The Rio Grande Foundation has recently noted that Haaland (and by extension the Biden Administration) have expressed great reluctance to expand domestic energy production.

On the other hand, presumably in an attempt to reduce gasoline prices, the Biden Administration has begun eliminating sanctions on oil-rich Venezuela.

With out-of-control gas prices and increasing fears of electricity shortages (especially in the West), energy and energy prices are certainly underpinning America’s ongoing inflation problem, and if things get bad enough with the power grid this summer, inflation may not be the worst of our problems.

And, while Americans see the rapid increase in gasoline prices every day on the road and experience it in their pockets, the fact is that natural gas prices are rising rapidly as well. This situation is largely driven by Democrat politicians (sometimes with the help of GOP collaborators) and their anti-energy philosophy. Here are just a few examples:

1) The Energy Transition Act, pushed by Gov. Lujan Grisham, which became law in 2019 (see votes House here and Senate here) is the worst of the worst. No piece of legislation has had a more profound impact on reducing New Mexico’s electricity reliability than ETA. It will have further negative impacts after the election.

2) At the behest of Gov. Lujan Grisham, the Environmental Improvement Board has adopted a “Clean Car Standard” which mandates a dramatic increase in the sale of electric vehicles in New Mexico and ties New Mexico law to California. While not directly on “energy,” the regulation imposes costly new controls on the source of energy used in your vehicle, thus increasing costs.

3) Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland (a former Congresswoman from New Mexico) controls hundreds of millions of acres of land that could be leased to bring down energy prices. Instead, the Administration has vastly reduced energy leases and raised taxes (royalties) on energy production.

4) Gov. MLG pushed the so-called “Clean Fuel Standard” which would have raised gasoline prices by 35 cents per gallon is one of the very worst Democrat energy bills in recent years. The bill narrowly failed in 2021 and then in 2022 it failed again on a tie vote.

5) Just one year ago (on June 8, 2021), a group of 24 so-called “progressive” New Mexico Democrats sent a letter to the Biden Administration applauding his ban on new oil and gas leases. Given the abject failure (and unpopularity) of Biden’s Administration and energy policies, this letter certainly could be used by possible opponents in a primary election.

This list JUST scratches the surface. There are numerous other examples of both “adopted” and “failed” policies like Sen. Sedillo-Lopez’s (failed) ban on fracking. Lujan Grisham also pushed “Net Zero” legislation that would have, if adopted, dramatically increased energy prices.

New Mexico’s unemployment rate seems to have stagnated at a post-pandemic 5.3% rate, the highest in the nation. That is a reasonable rate by historical standards, but in a time of extreme inflation it seems to indicate that more New Mexicans than in any other state in the nation are able to continue filing for unemployment benefits even has jobs remain available.

And, of course, as we always remind our readers, unemployment rates are only part of the equation. New Mexico has always had and (this trend has both continued and worsened post-pandemic) to have a far lower workforce participation rate than do our neighbors.

On this week’s conversation Paul sits down with author and speaker Dr. Carol Swaim. Swaim is an academic, author, and writer who has taken on the issue of “critical race theory,” what it means, its “intellectual” beginnings, and why it is harmful to Americans of all races and classes. Swaim was recently in Albuquerque recently to give a talk and Paul jumped on the chance to sit down with her to discuss these important and timely issues. You don’t want to miss their conversation.

We have often disagreed with Sen. Martin Heinrich’s big push to eliminate use of fossil fuels, including natural gas. But natural gas is not just used for home heating and cooking, it is a leading feed stock in food production.

A new report quoting a leading food economist, Máximo Torero, the chief economist at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “has warned against moving away from natural gas production too soon, arguing more people will starve to death if the consequences are not thought through.”

Mr. Torero continued, saying, “If you switch the energy mix too quickly, you will increase the price of energy, then you will increase the price of fertilizers, you increase the price of food, more people dying of hunger. So what do you want?”

Natural gas is a key ingredient in the process used to make nitrogen-based fertilizers used on a range of crops, including corn and wheat. Natural gas accounts for 75% to 90% of operating costs in the production of nitrogen.

The City of Albuquerque may be “new and improved” as of last November, but a majority on City Council seem to believe that spending more money is the path to success. On Monday night the Council on a 7-2 vote passed a budget with an increase of 20%. Only Dan Lewis and Rene Grout voted “no.”

As the Journal article points out, “The budget includes 5% pay hikes for city workers – plus additional one-time incentives of up to $2,000 per employee – and significantly ups spending on rental support.”

Councilor Brook Bassan cited inflation as one of the causes of the massive budget uptick, but the final budget passed by Council is a shocking $15 million higher than the fiscal year 2023 proposal Mayor Tim Keller. The total city budget will total about $1.4 billion. The Keller administration estimates having over $100 million more in gross receipts tax to spend in 2023 than it budgeted for this year.

Alas, in February on a 1-8 vote, Council rejected a minimal 1/8 cent gross receipts tax reduction which would have reduced GRT taxes by $20 million dollars annually. Simply adhering to the Mayor’s budget outline and eliminating “free” bus service at a “cost” of $3 million would have nearly generated enough savings to reduce taxes.

Unfortunately, Albuquerque’s City Council seems more concerned about taking care of its own rather than helping average New Mexicans.

UPDATE: While not a large portion of the overall bill, the Council saw fit to add $250,000 to the budget to fund abortion provider Planned Parenthood through a “Council-directed sponsorship.” This has not been done in the past and the seemingly no-strings-attached nature of the grant raises all kinds of concerns from both moral and policy perspectives.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation genuinely HATE saying “I told you so” when the schemes of New Mexico politicians fail. The Rail Runner, Spaceport, and ART bus system are just a few of the schemes that have clearly not worked out for our State.

But all of those pale in comparison to the disaster that is potentially unfolding in our electrical grid. Unfortunately, the makings of the impending disaster were sowed in 2019 with passage of the Energy Transition Act (MLG’s top priority in that session). But, we all know that the PRC recently decided to extend the life of the coal-fired San Juan Coal-fired station to keep the lights on THIS summer.

Recently, PNM reported that  HALF of the replacement solar power/battery storage for the summer of 2023 won’t be available in time.

In addition to slowing delivery of “renewable” projects, prices have risen dramatically. According to UtilityDive.com, “A shortage of new renewable projects available to interested buyers has caused prices for power purchase agreements to rise 9.7% since the beginning of 2022, and 28.5% since the beginning of 2021, according to an analysis by PPA marketplace LevelTen Energy.”

Tariffs on Chinese solar panels are also driving prices up and there is seemingly little willingness among domestic producers to ramp up production.

Daniel Suhr is a Managing Attorney with the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative non-profit legal firm. Paul and Daniel discuss vaccine mandates, the judiciary’s performance during COVID, and numerous other issues relating to COVID and the government’s use of emergencies. They also discuss the Roe v. Wade leak (and apparent decision) and their implications for the Court.

Daniel spoke at a Rio Grande Foundation luncheon on May 5, 2022. Podcasts of the interview with Paul Gessing and a radio appearance with Bob Clark are below.

The Biden Administration’s Department of the Interior (led by former New Mexico Congresswoman Deb Haaland) has struck another blow on behalf of higher gas prices with their decision to cancel leases in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

While some news stories claim there was a “lack of interest” by industry in the Alaska lease issue, it is hard to understand what that could be driven by given record-setting gasoline prices across the nation.

The decision likely means the Biden administration will not hold a lease sale for offshore drilling this year. Environmental groups (naturally) praised the decision while Frank Macchiarola, senior vice president of the American Petroleum Institute noted that “the administration talks about the need for more supply and acts to restrict it.”

While not DIRECTLY impacting New Mexico, Biden/Haaland have already slashed New Mexico lease sales.

The forest fires now raging in Northern New Mexico are tragic. As with any tragedy the causes are myriad and there is ample blame to go around. However, we DO know that the largest fire was a result of a “controlled” burn by the US Forest Service.

And, we know that federal land management practices have left a lot to be desired for decades in New Mexico with needed management having been abandoned in favor of simply letting the forest grow.

RGF’s Paul Gessing wrote the following in an opinion piece back in 2014:

Our efforts to restore state control over certain federally-managed lands are by no means based entirely on economics. Climate change is often cited in the media as the cause of recent forest fires that have raged in New Mexico and throughout the West. The reality is that poor federal management (or the lack thereof) is a major contributor to rampant fires. Going back to the Native Americans, lands were intensely managed. That ended when environmental zealots took control of Washington’s land management bureaucracies, eventually putting a stop to timber production and engaging in aggressive fire suppression that has caused a buildup of flammable material on forest floors.

We have further written about the issue here and here. Here is an even more detailed analysis from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).

Climate change, drought, and numerous other issues all play a role in the fires we are seeing, but improved land management remains an important tool in preventing the tragic situation we are seeing unfold in our State.

New Mexico’s mandatory paid sick leave law was passed in 2021. We know many of the policy details such as:

• The Act applies to all businesses even those with a single employee;
• The Act requires businesses to give full time employees up to 64 hours of sick leave per year;
• Leave is accrued at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked;
• Leave must be paid at the employee’s regular hourly rate. Employees may carry over any accrued, unused leave; however, “an employer is not required to permit an employee to use more than [64] hours in a [12]-month period.”

But, with less than two months to go, the final rules have not been issued. you can go to the Department of Workforce Solutions website and find a link to “draft Healthy Workforce Act rules” but not final rules.

Those rules will define a number of important aspects of the law including how businesses must communicate with their workers. Small businesses in particular will struggle with this which the Legislature and Gov. seem unconcerned about.

Update: NM Department of Workforce Solutions will conduct a continuation of the public hearing to obtain input and public comment on proposed regulations for implementing and enforcing the Healthy Workplaces Act on May 24, 2022. More information available here.