Latest news with #JamesKenney
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Countdown to clean fuels: New Mexico targets 2026 for new standards
May 31—New Mexico could implement new standards for more environmentally friendly transportation fuels, everything from gasoline to electricity, as soon as next year if the state Environment Department gets the OK. Meanwhile, efforts are afoot in Washington to block state requirements around clean cars, something Republican legislators in New Mexico hope will successfully trickle down to transportation fuels, too. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham last year signed off on legislation to establish a statewide program around clean transportation fuel standards. The law requires annually reduced transportation carbon emissions — the top greenhouse gas emitter in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — in the coming years. The New Mexico Environment Department this month submitted proposed rules for the transportation program, and the rulemaking process is set to continue in early June. If approved, New Mexico would become the fourth state in the nation to adopt clean fuel standards. "Under Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's leadership, New Mexico is diversifying its economy while addressing climate emissions — proving once again you don't have to choose between the two," NMED Secretary James Kenney said in a statement. How it works The 2024 Democrat-backed legislation, House Bill 41, amended the Environmental Improvement Act to allow a state board housed within NMED, the Environmental Improvement Board, to enact a clean transportation fuel standard. NMED has spent the last year drafting the rules. The department submitted its proposal to the board two weeks ago, a draft that spanned more than 100 pages. Essentially, it sets up a market around transportation fuels, which are considered gasoline, diesel, petroleum gas, natural gas, hydrogen and electricity. Fuel producers and importers who bring in a fuel that exceeds the state's carbon intensity standard — a set measure of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — would have to buy "clean fuel credits" from those who produce below the standard. Entities can then sell, trade, retire or generate the credits. The clean fuel standard itself follows a 2018 baseline from carbon intensities generated by gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The proposed rule would mandate annual carbon intensity reductions in fuels, to meet legally required milestones: at least 20% below 2018 levels by 2030, and at least 30% below 2018 levels by 2040. "This is a hefty rule," said Michelle Miano, director of NMED's Environmental Protection Division. There are already entities waiting to participate in the market, Miano said. Participation is voluntary for entities generating credits, like utility companies. Public Service Company of New Mexico has voiced its support for the program, and other companies — like clean energy business 3Degrees and automotive tech and manufacturing company Rivian — that operate in other clean transportation fuel markets in the U.S. participated in a public comment period in January to support and influence how New Mexico's program will work. NMED officials also touted new economic opportunities that could come with the $3 billion alternative fuels market, attracting investments in industries like clean hydrogen or renewable propane. Not everyone is eager for the program rollout, though. House Republican Minority Leader Gail Armstrong of Magdalena warned the program risks higher fuel prices. It's an argument reminiscent of those during last year's legislative session, though Miano said larger market forces and oil prices drive rates at the pump, not clean fuel programs. "House Republicans had serious concerns about HB 41 from the start — and what's unfolding now confirms those concerns," Armstrong said in a statement to the Journal. "The governor's push for a clean transportation fuel program creates a costly new regulatory burden that builds an unnecessary framework of credit trading and compliance rules." She also said she's closely watching federal efforts to overturn mandates like this. Last week, the U.S. Senate passed multiple resolutions overturning waivers that allow states to adopt emissions standards more ambitious than at the federal level. It specifically targets mandates around advanced clean cars, trucks and heavy-duty engines — though not fuels. In response, a group of 11 governors, including New Mexico's, launched the Affordable Clean Cars Coalition of the U.S. Climate Alliance. It's an effort to defend states' clean transportation standards. "The federal government and Congress are putting polluters over people and creating needless chaos for consumers and the market, but our commitment to safeguarding Americans' fundamental right to clean air is resolute," the 11 governors said in a joint statement. Miano said since the clean transportation fuels program is state-based, it's largely insulated from "federal uncertainties." "That's the great part about this program, is that it is a state program and a state market," she said, "and that it will ensure that New Mexico is the place that receives the clean fuels and clean energy economic investments that are uncertain in other parts of the country."
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
NM environment department sues CRRUA water system
NMED filed suit against CRRUA on May 28, 2025 after what it characterized as a decade of mismanagement. (Danielle Prokop/Source NM) New Mexico's environment department on Wednesday announced it has filed a lawsuit against the Camino Real Regional Utility Authority and has asked the Third Judicial District Court to appoint an independent manager to oversee its operations. The suit follows more than a decade of 'mismanagement at the utility,' NMED states in a news release, including recent and repeated failed arsenic tests. As Source reported last week, tests the agency itself took at CCRUA on May 7 recorded arsenic levels at the Santa Teresa Industrial Park plant that violated the federal limit, marking the third overage recorded at the plant in recent weeks, although the other tests were from voluntary tests. New CRRUA arsenic violation prompts NMED to evaluate taking emergency action CRRUA serves approximately 19,000 people in the border city of Sunland Park, Santa Theresa and the southernmost portion of Doña Ana County, an area with naturally occurring high levels of arsenic in the groundwater. Sunland Park and Doña Ana County jointly operate the utility, which is governed by a seven-member board. At its May 13 meeting, the Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted to send immediate notice to Sunland Park to start the termination process of the Joint Powers Agreement. Environment Department Secretary James Kenney subsequently urged Sunland Park to also sever its ties with CRRUA, and acknowledged in an interview with Source NM it was an unusual step for him to take. 'We're weighing in at this point because we've had it,' he said. 'While we're exhausting our enforcement, our legal approaches, we have another approach: We have to speak about it.' Now, with its lawsuit, NMED is asking the courts to order CRRUA to: • implement real-time arsenic monitoring • distribute free arsenic test strips for all CRRUA customers • provide an alternative drinking water source if arsenic levels exceed state limits • conduct monthly public meetings • and pay civil penalties which, per state law, fund drinking water and wastewater utility operators for communities across New Mexico 'While the Environment Department has invested significant technical resources to assist CRRUA in fulfilling its duty to deliver safe and reliable drinking water, its failures continue to threaten public health,' Kenney said in a statement on Wednesday. 'Today's lawsuit and request to appoint an independent manager to oversee CRRUA signals a new approach in Environment Department efforts to protect the health of communities when they turn on their tap.' NMED's news release also notes that last July it placed 138 drinking systems across the state on notice, and that the City of Las Vegas and Cassandra Water System in Moriarity remain out of compliance.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Mexico awarded $2 million grant for environmental site assessments
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) — The New Mexico Environment Department is set to receive a $2 million grant to put towards local property assessments, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the places to undergo those environmental site assessments include Springer, village of Cuba, Clovis, and Artesia. Story continues below Crime: Juveniles wanted for armed robbery arrested after incident at an ABQ high school Digital Show: High-Speed RV chase ends in deadly crash – New Mexico Crime Files Development: Latest step forward for East Mountain's Campbell Ranch The EPA says these sites in particular are being prioritized: New Mexico Department of Transportation maintenance yard An old transfer station, the Cozy Motel, and a lumber yard in Springer The Saint Vincent de Paul Center, the Old Village Office Building, and the Old Credit Union Building in Cuba The Gran Quivira Harvey House in Clovis the Artesia General Hospital site, an historic dry cleaner facility, and a former movie theater in Artesia The funding comes in the form of a Brownfields grant. 'Brownfields projects are key to building economic prosperity in New Mexico, allowing rural and tribal communities to reclaim opportunities lost to pollution,' said New Mexico Environment Department Secretary James Kenney. 'We appreciate EPA's collaboration in this multi-million dollar project and look forward to continuing our partnership.' To receive funds from the EPA, federal grant recipients have to satisfy legal and administrative requirements. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
National Observer
15-05-2025
- Business
- National Observer
States are banning forever chemicals. Industry is fighting back
This story was originally published by Wired and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration In 2021, James Kenney and his husband were at a big box store buying a piece of furniture when the sales associate asked if they'd like to add fabric protectant. Kenney, the cabinet secretary of New Mexico's Environment Department, asked to see the product data sheet. Both he and his husband were shocked to see forever chemicals listed as ingredients in the protectant. 'I think about your normal, everyday New Mexican who is trying to get by, make their furniture last a little longer, and they think, 'Oh, it's safe, great!' It's not safe,' he says. 'It just so happens that they tried to sell it to the environment secretary.' Last week, the New Mexico legislature passed a pair of bills that Kenney hopes will help protect consumers in his state. If signed by the governor, the legislation would eventually ban consumer products that have added PFAS—per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, known colloquially as 'forever chemicals' because of their persistence in the environment—from being sold in New Mexico. As health and environmental concerns about forever chemicals mount nationally, New Mexico joins a small but growing number of states that are moving to limit—and, in some cases, ban—PFAS in consumer products. New Mexico is now the third state to pass a PFAS ban through the legislature. Ten other states have bans or limits on added PFAS in certain consumer products, including cookware, carpet, apparel, and cosmetics. This year, at least 29 states—a record number—have PFAS-related bills before state legislatures, according to an analysis of bills by Safer States, a network of state-based advocacy organizations working on issues around potentially unsafe chemicals. The chemical and consumer products industries have taken notice of this new wave of regulations and are mounting a counterattack, lobbying state legislatures to advocate for the safety of their products—and, in one case, suing to prevent the laws from taking effect. Some of the key exemptions made in New Mexico highlight some of the big fights that industries are hoping they'll win in statehouses across the country: fights they are already taking to a newly industry-friendly US Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS is not just one chemical but a class of thousands. The first PFAS were developed in the 1930s; thanks to their nonstick properties and unique durability, their popularity grew in industrial and consumer uses in the postwar era. The chemicals were soon omnipresent in American lives, coating cookware, preventing furniture and carpets from staining, and acting as a surfactant in firefighting foam. In 1999, a man in West Virginia filed a lawsuit against US chemical giant DuPont alleging that pollution from its factory was killing his cattle. The lawsuit revealed that DuPont had concealed evidence of PFAS's negative health effects on workers from the government for decades. In the years since, the chemical industry has paid out billions in settlement fees around PFAS lawsuits: in 2024, the American multinational 3M agreed to pay between $10 billion and $12.5 billion to US public water systems that had detected PFAS in their water supplies to pay for remediation and future testing, though the company did not admit liability. (DuPont and its separate chemical company Chemours continue to deny any wrongdoing in lawsuits involving them, including the original West Virginia suit.) As the moniker 'forever chemicals' suggests, mounting research has shown that PFAS accumulate in the environment and in our bodies and can be responsible for a number of health problems, from high cholesterol to reproductive issues and cancer. EPA figures released earlier this year show that almost half of the US population is currently exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. Nearly all Americans, meanwhile, have at least one type of PFAS in their blood. For a class of chemicals with such terrifying properties, there's been surprisingly little regulation of PFAS at the federal level. One of the most-studied PFAS chemicals, PFOA, began to be phased out in the US in the early 2000s, with major companies eliminating the chemical and related compounds under EPA guidance by 2015. The chemical industry and manufacturers say that the replacements they have found for the most dangerous chemicals are safe. But the federal government, as a whole, has lagged behind the science when it comes to regulations: The EPA only set official drinking water limits for six types of PFAS in 2024. In lieu of federal guidance, states have started taking action. In 2021, Maine, which identified an epidemic of PFAS pollution on its farms in 2016, passed the first-ever law banning the sale of consumer products with PFAS. Minnesota followed suit in 2023. 'The cookware industry has historically not really engaged in advocacy, whether it's advocacy or regulatory,' says Steve Burns, a lobbyist who represents the industry. But laws against PFAS in consumer products—particularly a bill in California, which required cookware manufacturers to disclose to consumers if they use any PFAS chemicals in their products—were a 'wakeup call' for the industry. Burns is president of the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, a 501c6 formed in 2024 by two major companies in the cookware industry. He and his colleagues have had a busy year, testifying in 10 statehouses across the country against PFAS restrictions or bans (and, in some cases, in favor of new laws that would exempt their products from existing bans). In February, the CSA was one of more than 40 industry groups and manufacturers to sign a letter to New Mexico lawmakers opposing its PFAS ban when it was first introduced. The CSA also filed a suit against the state of Minnesota in January, alleging that its PFAS ban is unconstitutional. Its work has paid off. Unlike the Maine or Minnesota laws, the New Mexico bill specifically exempts fluoropolymers, a key ingredient in nonstick cookware and a type of PFAS chemical, from the coming bans. The industry has also seen success overseas: France excluded kitchenware from its recent PFAS ban following a lobbying push by Cookware Sustainability Alliance member Groupe SEB. (The CSA operates only in the US and was not involved in that effort.) 'As an industry, we do believe that if we're able to make our case, we're able to have a conversation, present the science and all the independent studies we have, most times people will say well, you make a good point,' Burns says. 'This is a different chemistry.' It's not just the cookware industry making this argument. Erich Shea, the director of product communications at the American Chemistry Council, told WIRED in an email that the group supports New Mexico's fluoropolymer exclusion and that it will 'allow New Mexico to avoid the headaches experienced by decisionmakers in other states.' The FDA has authorized nonstick cookware for human use since the 1960s. Some research—including one peer-reviewed study conducted by the American Chemistry Council's Performance Fluoropolymer Partnership, whose members include 3M and Chemours, has found that fluoropolymers are safe to consume and less harmful than other types of PFAS. Separate research has called their safety into question. However, the production of fluoropolymers for use in nonstick cookware and other products has historically released harmful PFAS into the environment. And while major US manufacturers have phased out PFOA in their production chain, other factories overseas still use the chemical in making fluoropolymers. The debate over fluoropolymers' inclusion in state bans is part of a larger argument made by industry and business groups: that states are defining PFAS chemicals too broadly, opening the door to overregulation of safe products. A position paper from the Cookware Sustainability Alliance provided to WIRED lambasts the 'indiscriminate definition of PFAS' in many states with recent bans or restrictions. 'Our argument is that fluoropolymers are very different from PFAS chemicals of concern,' Burns says. Some advocates disagree. The exemption of fluoropolymers from New Mexico's ban, along with a host of other industry-specific exemptions in the bill, means that the legislation 'is not going to meet the stated intentions of what the bill's sponsors want it to do,' says Gretchen Salter, the policy director at Safer States. Advocates like Salter have concerns around the use of forever chemicals in the production of fluoropolymers as well as their durability throughout their life cycles. 'Fluoropolymers are PFAS. PFAS plastics are PFAS. They are dangerous at every stage of their life, from production to use to disposal,' she claims. Kenney acknowledges that the fluoropolymer exemption has garnered a 'little bit of criticism.' But he says that this bill is meant to be a starting point. 'We're not trying to demonize PFAS—it's in a lot of things that we rightfully still use—but we are trying to gauge the risk,' he says. 'We don't expect this to be a one and done. We expect science to grow and the exemptions to change.' With a newly industry-friendly set of regulators in DC, industry groups are looking for wins at the federal level too. In February, an organization of chemical manufacturers and business groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, sent a letter to the EPA outlining suggested 'principles and policy recommendations' around PFAS. The group emphasized the need to 'recognize that PFAS are a broad class of chemistries with very diverse and necessary properties' and recommended the agency adopt a government-wide definition of PFAS based on West Virginia and Delaware's definitions. Both of those states have a much more conservative definition of what defines PFAS than dozens of other states, including Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota. A federal definition like this could 'have a chilling effect on state legislation going forward,' said Melanie Benesh, the vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental activist organization. 'There would be this federal position that the chemical industry could point to, which might be convincing to some state legislators to say, well, this is what the federal government has said is a definition of PFAS. As you start excluding PFAS from the class, you really limit what PFAS are covered by consumer product bans.' Shea, of the American Chemistry Council, told WIRED that the group believes 'that the federal regulatory approach is preferable to a patchwork of different and potentially conflicting state approaches.' States with bans face a monumental task in truly getting PFAS out of consumers' lives. Vendors in Minnesota have been left with expensive inventory that they can no longer sell; Maine's law, one of the most aggressive, makes exemptions for 'currently unavoidable use' of PFAS, including in semiconductors, lab equipment, and medical devices. PFAS are used in so many of the products in our lives that it's almost unfathomable to think of phasing them out altogether, as soon as possible. For advocates like Salter, it's a change worth making. 'There might be essential uses for PFAS right now,' she says. 'But we want to spur the search for safer alternatives, because we don't want to give a pass to chemicals that are harming human health. By exempting them altogether, you are completely removing that incentive.'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
States battle with two major industries over potential threats to public health: 'We don't want to give a pass'
A growing number of U.S. states is taking matters into their own hands to restrict or outlaw per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — a group of chemicals colloquially referred to as "forever chemicals" because they don't break down and persist for thousands of years. This has drawn the ire of chemical and consumer products industries, as Wired reported. According to Safer States — an organization that advocates to protect communities from toxic chemicals — at least 29 states will likely consider legislation to reduce PFAS exposure in 2025. Eleven states already have regulations restricting certain PFAS in drinking water, while 12 have guidance, health advisory, or notification levels for some forever chemicals. However, Wired reported that the chemical and consumer products industries won't change their ways without a fight. They have begun pushing state policymakers to alleviate concerns about the safety of their products, and they argue that states with PFAS bans could face supply-chain disruptions. A cookware manufacturer even sued to prevent a Minnesota law to ban the sale and distribution of PFAS-laden cookware from going into effect, per Minnesota Public Radio. Because of their resistance to breaking down, PFAS can accumulate in our bodies. Peer-reviewed research has connected exposure to these chemicals to cancer, reproductive complications, hormonal disruption, reduced immune system function, higher cholesterol levels, and behavioral changes in children, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. James Kenney, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Environment Department, shared with Wired that a 2021 furniture shopping trip with his husband turned into a wake-up call. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. When a sales associate asked whether they were interested in adding a fabric protectant to their purchase, the couple asked to see a product data sheet. They were surprised that the protectant contained PFAS. "I think about your normal, everyday New Mexican who is trying to get by, make their furniture last a little longer, and they think, 'Oh, it's safe, great!' It's not safe," Kenney said. "It just so happens that they tried to sell it to the environment secretary." New Mexico is among the states looking to safeguard public health by tackling PFAS. According to Wired, it has two pending bills that would ban consumer products containing PFAS. And while the Food and Drug Administration has allowed PFAS — known for their water- and stain-resistant properties — in many products that come into contact with food since the 1960s, in recent years, it has taken steps to limit dietary exposure. In 2024, for instance, it ruled that grease-proofing materials that relied on PFAS could no longer be used in food packaging. The agency also announced standards to limit exposure in drinking water. As of April 15, the Trump administration hadn't announced whether it would roll back any water-related protections, but a week prior, The Hill reported a decision was expected soon. Gretchen Salter, the policy director at Safer States, acknowledged to Wired that phasing out PFAS wouldn't be an overnight process but underscored it was worth it. "There might be essential uses for PFAS right now," Salter said after a coalition of chemical manufacturers and business groups petitioned the EPA to recognize that PFAS have "very diverse and necessary properties," writing, "They cannot all be regulated in the same way." Salter concluded: "But we want to spur the search for safer alternatives, because we don't want to give a pass to chemicals that are harming human health. By exempting them altogether, you are completely removing that incentive." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
