Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, How the Trump EPA's plan to kill a 16 year old finding on climate change could ripple across our state.

>>Camilla: Pretend New Mexico is the ant and pretend that president Trump is holding that magnifying glass over the ant.

New Mexico feels the impacts of climate change much more strongly than the rest of the country.

>>Nash: And two local nonprofit leaders dissect the president's decision to strip money from housing programs and fatten up criminal enforcement against unhoused people instead.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Welcome.

Thanks for being here.

I'm Nash Jones.

This week, we are zeroing in on two of the most pressing issues facing New Mexicans.

A housing crisis and threats to our air, water and soil.

President Trump has issued an executive order shifting funding away from housing in a recent assessment of New Mexico's needs highlights big challenges.

Meanwhile, our state is dealing with contamination from forever chemicals and pollution from oil and gas operations, all while the Trump administration is rolling back and delaying environmental protections and regulations.

We invited Ben Shelton, deputy secretary of the state's energy, minerals and Natural Resources Department, endearingly but accurately referred to by the acronym MNRD and Camila Fiebelman director of the local chapter of the Sierra Club.

To talk through the federal changes and how they could show up here.

In part one of our conversation, we focus in on the EPA's proposal last week to rescind something called the endangerment finding, an Obama era addition to the federal Clean Air Act of 1963.

Thank you both so much for joining us on New Mexico Focus.

Let's start with some shared understanding about what we're about to discuss, which is the 2009 endangerment finding.

Camila, what is the finding?

>>Camilla: So basically, the EPA looked deeply into the science, to the economics, to potential policy and existing policy and said that climate change driven by greenhouse gases is a serious threat to the health and safety of Americans and to the globe.

Frankly, and that they had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

That includes carbon dioxide, which we all hear about.

But other molecule oils like methane.

And so that's been the real foundation for the policy that we've seen going forward after that, including clean vehicles, which, by the way, save us some money and keep our air cleaner, not just from a greenhouse gas standpoint, but from pollutants that impact our health on the ground.

>>Nash: So in terms of how this finding has been used by past EPA administrations, it undergirds some of these regulations.

Are there other regulations?

I believe it connects to power plants as well.

>>Camilla: That's right.

So basically in trying to manage the climate crisis that we're confronting that leads to fires, floods, the mosquitoes that have taken over my backyard.

The allergies that we're feeling worsen, in our kids and in our communities is saying we need to attend to the sources of pollution that we have in our society.

So that might be cars, it might be power plants, it might be oil and gas leakage of methane.

So it's basically saying the EPA can manage for climate pollution in addition to air pollution that causes health impacts on the ground.

>>Nash: Okay.

And now, the current EPA has proposed rescinding, this finding.

What would it mean, then for greenhouse gas regulations nationwide and here in New Mexico?

>>Ben: The big thing that I think I look at, because we spend so much time focusing on the New Mexico's methane, Camila mentioned these different climate, you know, greenhouse gases that are being emitted.

Methane is a far more potent insulator of heat than carbon.

It doesn't last as long in the atmosphere.

It is far more potent.

So that's where at least in New Mexico, we tend to attack this problem.

There's a nationwide methane rule that has been sort of proposed by EPA.

It's called quad OBC.

And removing that rule, and increasing methane emissions into the into the atmosphere from other states, will impact New Mexico.

>>Nash: And what do you think the prospects are that this proposal from the EPA is going to go through?

>>Ben: It's hard to say I mean, this this administration has, seems to be characterized by a little bit of chaos.

So what this is going to look like a month from now, two months from now, a year from now.

Hard to say.

The courts will be involved.

I'm sure.

>>Camilla: Yeah, I think that that's the key piece here.

Is that what we will show in whatever court filings we make once the decision is final, is that this is not based on sound science.

This is based on big polluters access to the administration, to President Trump.

These rules are in place based on sound science that are meant to protect us and our communities.

>>Nash: And Camila, you said that New Mexico could see heightened impacts compared to other states.

How so and why?

>>Camilla: Well, what we see in New Mexico is a real magnifying glass.

Pretend New Mexico is the ant, and pretend that President Trump is holding that magnifying glass over, over the ant.

New Mexico feels the impacts of climate change much more strongly than the rest of the country.

We're getting hotter faster.

We're getting drier faster.

Our climate is changing and really concerning way.

As I mentioned, the mosquitoes here in Albuquerque, our backyards are filled with a new species of mosquito that hadn't been here.

And it's the warming climate that is bringing that mosquito further north.

It's the same mosquito that holds dengue or yellow fever, which we haven't yet seen here, but it's uncomfortable and it's the day to day impact.

So when you think about rolling back vehicle standards to 2019 standards, what that does is basically mean that car companies can sell you whatever piece of junk, basically, that's going to cost you a lot more money, to fill up at the gas stations.

>>Nash: And you talk about how the finding is rooted in solid science.

When announcing the proposal, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin disputed the science behind the endangerment finding.

>>Lee: The EPA said that carbon dioxide, when mixed with a bunch of well-mixed gases, many of which aren't even admitted for mobile sources, That that contributes to global climate change.

They didn't say causes.

They say contributes.

Now you might ask how much?

They don't say how much.

The amount is north of zero.

We know that much.

And then they say the climate change endangers public health and welfare.

And if you're following all of the mental leaps there they then rely on assumptions that ended up not being true.

They ended up making predictions about the science that in many respects were not just pessimistic.

They turned out not to be true.

>>Nash: Now, Deputy Secretary Shelton, what's your reaction to Zeldin's assertion that the finding relies on mental leaps and assumptions?

>>Ben: The finding at the time that it was promulgated was extremely well papered, and researched with decades of data supporting it.

At the time that the endangerment finding, was made, it was a forward looking finding.

Some of these, you know, some of these impacts may accrue based on the data that we have collected and that we're seeing.

What I would say to everybody who's watching is that's done and dusted.

If you want to know whether or not the data supports the reality, look out your window.

You don't have to wait anymore.

We don't have to-- It's not you don't have to go and read a, peer reviewed academic paper to understand the impacts that climate change is having in New Mexico.

Our burn season window is moving earlier and earlier, Hermits Peak Calf Canyon was caused because the time of year when it's windy is no longer wet as well.

So we have hurricane force winds blowing through tinder dry forests.

The way that our monsoons land has changed.

We have seen this in the last two weeks with repeated rounds of extreme flooding events in Ruidoso and other places, even in Santa Fe, where we've seen huge amounts of water washed through.

And that's because the way that the monsoons hit in and affect these communities has changed drastically.

So this, this argument that, that Commissioner Zeldin is making is 15 years old and it's refutable You don't even need a science background or education to to understand that he's wrong.

>>Nash: And this isn't the first time that the finding has been challenged.

Camila, can you talk about what the courts have found over the years?

>>Camilla: Yeah, multiple times the finding has been challenged in court and upheld because of the sound science.

There have been attempts to bring it to the Supreme Court, which have been rejected.

And so we will once again go back to the courts, ask them to follow the proper procedures and and rulemaking, processes, to ensure that these aren't just arbitrary and capricious decisions that are being made.

But I want to get back to what Ben is bringing up.

You know, we are very clearly able to see the impacts of climate change.

Some of them hit close to home, some of them hit in the state, some of them hit globally.

But what I want to mention is what a huge economic opportunity the solutions are.

The rest of the world is not stepping back on carbon reducing technologies.

In fact, they're leading and getting ahead of the game.

While we're here in the States, doing harm to our own people through medical care rollbacks, environmental rollbacks, frankly, just mean policy making.

The rest of the world is investing in the technology that will bolster the jobs and the competitive, that competitiveness that we need to see in the future.

>>Nash: You talk about economic impact.

Administrator Zeldin also used economic arguments to justify the proposal, saying that if finalized, rescinding the endangerment finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.

Here he is again at last week's news conference.

>>Lee: Last November, the American public spoke.

They elected President Trump, president of the United States.

That was the will of the American public.

And when they voted, they asked for demanded that an agency like the EPA would be cognizant of their economic concerns, that all agencies would be applying common sense that we at EPA must choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy, that it's not a binary choice.

And we at the Trump EPA, under the leadership of President Trump, choose both protect the environment and grow the economy.

>>Nash: What would you all say to New Mexicans who voted for Trump and who, as Zeldin put it, want the EPA to be cognizant of their economic concerns?

>>Ben: I think about this from the perspective of some of the communities that my department touches through state parks, state forestry.

I think about the economic impacts to the village of Ruidoso as they deal with rounds of flooding and fire.

I think about the economic impacts to communities like, Elephant Butte, who are seeing lake levels or seeing reservoir levels dropping precipitously in a way that potentially may cut off access to recreational opportunities that drive the economy in that community.

The price that we are paying-- >>Nash: So climate change has an economic price to pay?

>>Ben: Absolutely the price we are paying for climate change right now far outstrips, even estimates say you have to have a very, very blinkered view of the, of the impacts of climate change to think that we are going to do better economically by ignoring it, not mitigating.

>>Nash: If the proposal was finalized What, if anything, changes at MNRD and the work that you all do her for the state.

>>Ben: the main way that we attack, climate emissions, at least in my department, certainly environment department as well, is through methane, because of the oil and gas industry in the state, because of its potency as a greenhouse gas.

That is where that is where we focus our efforts, the methane rules, which are promulgated that the governors of this administration promulgated in 2021, both are grounded in state law.

So, and that looks like a very prescient move, because things like this don't impact our ability to have authority and execute those laws.

>>Nash: And Camilla you mentioned that the Sierra Club may take, court action, litigation action if this were to be finalized.

In the meantime what can the public do?

What should the public do?

Who are concerned about what's happening at the EPA?

>>Camilla: There are lots of opportunities to actually participate in the process.

So on August 19th and 20th, there will be public comment hearings, and we will be engaging members of the public to join in those public comment sessions really strongly state our case for keeping the endangerment finding, making our case based on our climate experience here in New Mexico, on our concerns for our friends, family and communities and the science itself.

But at this moment, we need to be thinking towards our next state legislative session and getting ready to protect ourselves at the local level by passing comprehensive climate legislation that builds on all the great work this administration has done.

>>Nash: Thank you both for breaking all of this down for us I'm going to ask you to stick around to discuss another recent EPA decision dealing with, methane emissions and delaying the deadlines for compliance.

>>Ben: In New Mexico, we still got coverage because of the way the administration has led on methane.

The problem is that what happens in New Mexico, in terms of the impacts and climate change, are not just about our own emissions.

It's a national issue that hits us and it hits us first and it hits us worse.

>>Nash: The second part of my discussion on recent changes at the EPA is coming up in about 15 minutes, but right now we bring you insights from an investigative journalist who spent years researching a specific kind of environmental contamination, one that now spans the globe.

By now, you have likely heard of the group of toxins known as PFAs, or forever chemicals.

They first came into public consciousness about ten years ago, when communities around the country fought for compensation after nearby industrial projects contaminated their farms and neighborhoods.

Here in New Mexico.

Our former colleague Laura Paskus wrote extensively about pollution found near Holloman and Cannon Air Force bases caused by runoff from firefighting foam that contained PFAs.

That's all in just the last decade or so.

But these chemicals have been in production for about 70 years, and the companies that make them, along with the U.S. government, have known for more than half a century that they're poisonous to all living things and that they don't break down over time.

Investigative journalist and author Mariah Blake spent years reporting on PFAs and their impacts, conducting hundreds of interviews and digging up tens of thousands of documents.

She recently came to our studio to talk with senior producer Lou DiVizio about her new book, They Poison the World: Life and Death in the Age of Forever Chemicals.

>>Lou: Mariah Blake, thank you so much for being here on New Mexico in Focus.

>>Mariah: Thank you for having me.

>>Lou: Now, you did a ton of research into this book They Poisoned the World, Life and Death in the Age of Forever Chemicals.

I wanted to get to all of that, and we will during our conversation.

But I'm interested in how this all started for you.

The catalyst that motivated you to do this particular research.

>>Mariah: Well, in many ways it's been a very personal journey, so my interest in toxic chemicals dates back to 2010, when I was pregnant with my son.

I was aware that many chemicals like BPA, for example, were very damaging to develop developing fetuses in young children.

And so I delved into research to try to figure out how I could protect my son.

And I'm an investigative journalist, so I ended up digging pretty deep, and I wound up discovering a lot of alarming things.

Somewhere along the way, I stumbled upon a complaint for this lawsuit that a family of West Virginia farmers had filed against the chemical giant DuPont for polluting their farm, with runoff from a landfill.

As a result of this, their cows had had died off, and their case had wound up exposing this breathtaking cover up involving the forever chemical PFOA, which DuPont used to make Teflon.

So it turned out that DuPont had known for decades that this chemical was highly toxic, that it didn't break down in the environment, and that it was in the blood of almost everyone on the planet, almost every human being, and almost every animal as well.

It left me with a lot of questions.

And so I decided to to dig deeper and ultimately to expand the article into a book length exposé.

>>Lou: What are these forever chemicals that you talk about and how did they become so pervasive that they are in every human being?

>>Mariah: So there are a class of about 9000 substances that have some pretty remarkable properties.

They are extremely resistant to water, heat, electrical currents, grease stains.

They can stand up to chemicals that are so corrosive that they burn through most other materials.

They're used in thousands of goods that people use every day contact lenses, diapers, baby clothes, kitty litter, dental floss.

The list is is pretty much endless.

>>Lou: And the origins of these chemicals are particularly interesting, being from New Mexico.

When and why were they first developed?

>>Mariah: These chemicals were developed by the US government as part of the top secret Manhattan Project.

So most people know that the Manhattan Project was the secret project to develop the nuclear bomb.

And just as there were physicists and engineers working in labs all across the country to develop nuclear fuels and the bomb itself, there were chemists all over the country working to develop PFAs.

There were the known as fluorocarbons.

And the reason they were needed is because they were essential to uranium enrichment.

>>Lou: In the process of developing these chemicals how long did it take the US government to find out how harmful that they are?

>>Mariah: They began mass producing them around 1943 and in New Jersey, and fires and explosions were common at the plants where they produced them.

Workers were constantly being hospitalized with chemical burns and breathing problems.

But it wasn't just the workers who were affected, farmers downwind The plants began to complain that their peach crops were shriveling, that their their cows were so crippled they couldn't stand.

They had to graze by crawling on their bellies and in some cases, the farmworkers themselves were falling ill.

The farmers complaints really alarmed Manhattan Project officials.

They worried that the farmers would sue, that it would compromise the secrecy of the project.

So top Manhattan Project officials decided to launch a program to study the health effects of what they called special Manhattan Project materials.

Project scientists knew as early as 1947 that these chemicals were toxic and that they were accumulating in human blood.

They knew as early as 1970 that they were accumulating in the blood of people all over this country.

So all over the United States, including places where there was no known source of exposure.

>>Lou: So they were aware of the dangers in the mid 20th century, a decade or so later, they they realized how widespread this is.

Why has it taken so long for the public to find out about the impacts of PFAs?

>>Mariah: At that point, industry began intensively researching these chemicals and discovered that they didn't break down, that they were in the blood of people, not just all over the United States, but all over the world.

So after testing thousands of samples from people, even in the remotest regions of the world and, archived blood from past medical studies, the only blood they could find that didn't contain PFAs was archived samples that was collected from Korean War vets in 1952 or before 1952.

So DuPont and 3M monitored the health effects of workers and connected these chemicals with a host of diseases and with birth defects.

So in the 1980s, DuPont launched what it called a pregnancy outcomes study.

So they monitored women working in Teflon factories.

And it turned out that two of the seven women who gave birth during the course of the study gave birth to children with defects very similar to those that had been found in rats.

But rather than informing regulators or the public or even workers, the company had just canceled the study.

So this was a pattern that repeated over and over again, and it was only really, you know, when these West Virginia farmers filed their suit, that the the public and regulators began to even have any, any sense that these chemicals existed.

That was around 2000.

So it's only been 25 years, but it really wasn't until 2018, 2019 that they really entered the public consciousness in a big way.

>>Lou: Now here in New Mexico, like many other states, firefighting foam used at military facilities like Cannon and Holloman Air Force bases has contaminated groundwater and surrounding ecosystems in both of those places.

What was the US government's role in developing and spreading this fluorinated firefighting foam?

>>Mariah: So, and to be clear, that this fluorinated firefighting foam is is the leading cause of drinking water contamination all over the world are one of the leading causes.

And all of the known PFAs contamination in the state of New Mexico is a result of this foam.

The US government in the 1960s collaborated with 3M to develop this this foam.

The fire retardants that existed at the time weren't that effective for fuel for fires.

And this this fluorinated foam, which contained PFAs, was highly effective.

So by the 1970s, it was being used at airports, military bases and fire stations all over the world.

Now, the Air Force was aware quite early on, the U.S. military was aware quite early on that the, the, the foam was toxic.

>>Lou: Now, the state announced a lawsuit against the Air Force last month over the contamination.

What needs to be done to clean up areas like Cannon and Holloman?

What does that process look like?

>>Mariah: So, Holloman, the plants and wildlife around that site have the highest levels of PFAs detected anywhere in the world.

So one kangaroo rat that the site had levels in its body that were 30 million times higher than the EPA safety standard for these chemicals in drinking water.

We do not have the technology today to clean up that level of contamination.

In fact, we don't really have the technology to clean up these chemicals to dispose of these chemicals so you can filter them out of drinking water.

But then you have this concentrated stew of PFAs.

Which you have to dispose of in some way.

And either that that goes in a landfill, but all landfills eventually leak or they have to be incinerated.

But if they if they aren't incinerated at a high enough temperature, they just break down into smaller PFAs and are spread further afield.

So there's only three incinerators in this entire country that are hot enough to destroy these chemicals.

>>Lou: Now, earlier this year, the state legislature passed the PFAs Protection Act that classifies firefighting foams as hazardous waste.

It phases out some products with PFAs, some cookware, food packaging, things like that.

It also creates reporting requirements for companies who use PFAs disposal guidelines and penalties for violating we're only one of a few states to pass a law like this.

>>Mariah: Number three >>Lou: Is it enough?

>>Mariah: It's a big step forward.

It's a big step forward.

But they exempt entire types of PFAs, then exempt fluorinated plastics like Teflon.

And they exempt, fluorinated gases, which are used as refrigerants.

So they're used in heating and air conditioning.

And they're actually those are heat trapping gases.

And they break down into a certain type of PFAs that scientists are now discovering are more abundant in the environment, is more abundant in the environment than all other combined.

>>Lou: In terms of these, we've talked about West Virginia, Holloman, Cannon.

A large portion of your book focuses on Hoosick Falls, New York, where a Teflon coating factory contaminated, drinking water source.

These are all similar stories that are kind of focused on that local hyper contamination to do with, I guess, improper disposal.

What types of regulations need to be in place to prevent those types of disasters >>Mariah: In Hoosick Falls, the contamination was discovered because a local insurance underwriter began to suspect that the water was contaminated and tested himself in in West Virginia.

It was brought to light by this humble family of West Virginia farmers.

It's coming to light in many cases as a result of ordinary citizens.

We aren't.

We aren't even.

Testing for the majority of these chemicals in drinking water.

So there are a lot of there are a lot of things I could say about about how our regulatory system could be improved, to, to avoid these kind of situations.

One simple thing would be just to test chemicals for safety before they go onto the market and, and to systematically test existing chemicals for safety, because that does not happen under our current regulatory system.

So I think anyone who studies these chemicals will say the solution is to turn off the tap to quit producing them.

Anything downstream of that doesn't really address the problem.

>>Lou: To that point, what do these chemicals still currently accomplish that we wouldn't be able to do as a society?

Without them?

>>Mariah: You know, that's not entirely clear.

I mean, historically, they have enabled a lot of things.

Space travel, high speed computing.

They've led to life saving medical devices.

But in many states.

So, you know, states have banned PFAs in a variety of products.

And, you know, they have this policy of essential use.

So, so manufacturers have to go through and justify what uses are essential.

And really, the vast majority of them are not essential.

There are a few uses that they are essential for.

For example, lithium ion batteries.

So there's currently no way to produce lithium ion batteries without PFAs.

And obviously lithium ion batteries are essential to the green energy transition.

But the list of applications, for which the benefits outweigh the risks, I think, is we're learning quite small.

>> Lou: now, even now.

And you mentioned this a bit, maybe it's been about 7 or 8 years that this has been in the public consciousness.

And that's after journalists like you and our former colleague Laura Paskus started writing about PFAS.

Should the general public be more concerned?

And would you blame anyone who brushed this aside a bit because they feel like there's nothing they can do about it?

>> Blake: I mean, that's a very good question.

I think, yes, the general public should be concerned because there are lots of ways that ordinary people can be exposed.

There are water fowl at Holloman that are hunted all over the state.

They have astronomical levels, in their, in their bodies and, and wild game around their age.

That's sure to be true of the wild game.

So the oryx and the deer and whatnot.

So I think just for the for the purposes of protecting themselves and their families, people need to be aware of that said, I also understand the urge to to to tune it out because it it is a big problem, that can feel intractable.

I think the good news is that I think that we are making progress towards turning off the tap.

As a result of citizen activists, 33 states have either passed or weighing legislation to ban firefighting from the contents of PFAS So I think we are moving in a good direction and I think the more engaged people are with the issue, the more likely we are to continue making progress.

>> Lou: Mariah Blake, thank you so much for being here >> Blake: Thank you so much for having me, its a pleasure.

I would like to see a real commitment to, you know, to creating more affordable housing, to building it, starting it now.

It takes a long time to build.

And that's often politically unpalatable to invest in something that might not pay off before the next election.

Right.

But we need as a unit to make that a priority, right.

>> Nash: Lou's interview with the New Mexico Center for Housing Law is coming up in just about 15 minutes.

And thanks to author Mary Blake for coming in to talk about her new book.

Late last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it will extend some of the deadlines for states and the oil and gas industry to comply with the 2024 methane standards meant to cut emissions over the next decade or so.

With the EPA's decision to kick compliance down the road for up to 18 months, millions of tons of pollutants that would have been capped won't be.

For what this delay means for our state.

Let's head now to the second half of my discussion with Camila.

Feibelman director of the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club and Deputy Secretary Ben Shelton of the States Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

Welcome back.

Thanks for sticking around.

Secretary Shelton, what are the 2024 methane standards for the oil and gas industry, and what was the purpose behind them?

>> Shelton: So these are the federal methane standards that are called the quad OBC standards.

They're proposed by EPA, and they're actually informed in part by our New Mexico standards that we established in 2021.

Okay.

And they apply to everything to, to basically federally permitted wells now in New Mexico, unless it's a tribal.

Well, it is a state permitted.

Well, so our standards, even if the feds roll their standards back in New Mexico, our standards are still going to apply to Wells.

We are still going to be enforcing against methane waste.

It OK'd, which is our department, and we're still going to be enforcing against, leaks, which is what environment handles.

Okay.

Those rules are primarily leak focused.

So in New Mexico, we still got coverage because of the way the administration has led on methane.

The problem is that what happens in New Mexico, in terms of the impacts and climate change are not just about our own emissions.

It's a national issue that hits us and it hits us first and it hits us worse.

Nash: And the EPA has issued a, a rule, an interim final rule last week, extending certain deadlines within those standards.

Camila, what exactly does that rule do?

>> Camila: Well, it basically delays the implementation of the rule.

It delays the state compliance plans that need to be delivered by states like ours that do have their own rules.

And are there areas where we're going to want to see slight rule improvements or changes to comply with the federal rules?

We have already sued over this rule delay >> Nash: and that meaning the CR Club this, along with, I think you're one of a dozen environmental and health, organizations, community organizations.

>> Camila: That's right.

This rule, or change to the rule has been done outside of the required administrative procedures.

There needs to be a certain amount of notice.

There needs to be an opportunity to make public comment.

And although there are some exceptions for doing something fast like this, it does not meet the standard for doing that.

>> Nash: Its a civil violation.

Is that right?

>> Camila: a civil violation.

Well, so, well, what we're talking about is the how they go about making or changing these rules.

So the rules do have penalties for non compliance for polluters.

But what we're doing is suing the agency for the way in which it's trying to delay the implementation of the rules.

And while as Ben said, we are protected.

Let's take a look at the Texas New Mexico border in Texas.

Methane is basically an unregulated pollutant.

And that comes out with other pollution that creates smog.

So the air quality in New Mexico, if you live in the Permian Basin, is so bad that there's been a consideration of calling it out of federal compliance.

I mean, the American Lung Association is giving F grades >> Nash: and thats because of the actions of the state of Texas, because air doesn't know the border between our states.

>> Camila: That's right.

So while our wonderful state rules will stay in place, we remain exposed to what Texas is failing to do because of the lack of implementation of the federal methane rule.

>> Nash: You talked about a few of the arguments that the lawsuit makes, one of which relates to public comment.

Public comment is open for this rule that is already enacted.

Kind of, after the fact until September 2nd.

And the administration has said that they will accept public comments through early September and potentially amend the rule based on those.

>> Camila: That's right.

And so what we're saying is that they haven't properly followed the administrative procedure for letting people know, giving the proper amount of time for public comment.

And just to be clear, they're not justifying this delay via the rollback of the endangerment finding that we talked about earlier.

The two are related.

They're both about regulating methane.

But in this case, it's harder for the administration to break down these rules because under the first Trump administration, they tried to roll them back.

Congress disallowed that through what's called the Congressional Review Act.

And because that passed, the administration is very limited in what substantive changes they can make to their own rules.

In this case.

But at its essence, this natural gas is being extracted off public lands.

It belongs to all of us.

We set the terms for those extractions.

And what is happening is that the oil and gas industry has advocated at the federal level to have access and privilege for their own profits over the climate risks and health benefits that come from actually properly regulating an industry that is extracting our resources.

And that's what we're fundamentally concerned with.

>> Nash: And let's talk a little bit about what the potential impact of this delay would be.

The EPA itself estimates that because of this rule, over 3.5 million tons of methane, 960,000 tons of volatile organic compounds, and 36,000 tons of toxic air pollutants that would have been cut between 2028 and 2038, will instead be released into the air, because this rule has been delayed.

To me those sound like huge numbers, but are they, what what does that actually mean for our water, our soil, our air?

If that amount of emissions were to be released, that otherwise wouldn't have been, >> Shelton: it is a huge amount, to be completely clear.

I mean, methane, especially those things that come out attendant with methane because methane itself is odorless, color, but you use it when you turn your stove on.

But those VOCs, some of those other things that come out with volatile organic organic >> Nash: and that's related to o those are precursors.

>> Shelton: Yes, exactly.

Those are even without being ozone precursors, those are extremely harmful to human health.

And those are impacts that have really can have very, very drastic local effects.

And it does not take anywhere near the amount coming out that you just stated to, have some of those local health effects.

So any amount of this is too much.

I mean, especially when you are talking about, impacts on local communities.

People live in Carlsbad and Roswell.

Hobbs.

They live right in the middle of this incredibly productive oil and gas field.

So when you have any amount of that come out, you are you are worried about it from a from a health impact.

>> Camila: Well, it's interesting to us when the methane and ozone rules were passed here in New Mexico, the agencies were required to look at whether there would be a meaningful economic impact to implementing the rules.

But in reality, a lot of these technologies, some of which are innovated right here in New Mexico, are pretty cheap.

You know, we're talking pennies on the dollar.

And at the end of the day, if you're extracting gas, you probably want more gas in your system.

If you're extracting oil, there's probably some stuff you can do with that gas that sits on top of the oil, that is economically beneficial.

So, you know, this is just common sense.

It's like eating your leftovers, you know what I mean?

There's a good reason to do that.

It saves you some money.

They taste better the next day.

That's what methane rules are.

They're economically sensible.

And healthy too.

>> Nash: Well, the EPA argues that the extension provides, a more realistic timelines for owners and operators to meet requirements and for the states to create plans, and submit those for limiting emissions.

However, we've talked about how New Mexico, already had, you know, which is one of the top oil producing states, I think the second in the nation behind Texas, has already implemented methane standards.

So, Deputy Secretary, were the timelines within that, standard unrealistic?

>> Shelton: No, when we did our state methane rules, we saw most of the operators generating most of the production in the state come into alignment with those requirements.

Within months, I mean, these are industries that lay in miles and miles of roads on weeks notice.

These guys are used to moving huge amounts of machinery, doing significant industrial activity on very, very tight turnarounds, asking them to come in and update equipment, put new parts on.

This is small potatoes.

It is just not something that feels, true based on our experience here in New Mexico at all.

Okay.

>> Nash: And what does it mean?

Let's say this delay stays put.

And our operators, our producers in New Mexico, are already in compliance.

Could they backtrack and go back to their old ways?

If this were to be enacted?

>> Shelton: No, not under state Because remember, our our state regulations are underpinned by state law.

The floor that the federal rules provide applies to the entire nation.

And let's Camila mentioned just across the border, you know, when you when you drop that floor, it can impact New Mexico both locally and then just as a matter of global climate change as well.

>> Nash: Thank you both so much this discussion.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks to the Sierra Club's Camila finalmente and deputy secretary Shelton.

As the election for Albuquerque mayor approaches, homelessness is once again a key issue for candidates and for voters.

It's something President Trump is concerned with, too.

Late last month, he signed an executive order directing two federal agencies to adjust their approach away from housing development.

Instead, Trump wants his agencies to beef up mental health and substance abuse treatment and criminal enforcement against people living on the streets.

This week, senior producer Lou Divizio interviews two leaders of a local nonprofit that works to help connect people with affordable housing.

Lou asks what impact the executive order will have in cities like Albuquerque, and what else needs to be done to expand access to housing.

Lou: Serge Martinez, great to see you again.

Allison Friedman, thanks for being here.

>> Freedman: Thanks for having us.

Now, Serge, can you start by giving us a little bit of background on your organization, the New Mexico Center for Housing Law.

What kind of work do you do?

And who do you do it for?

>> Serge: Yeah.

So we formed this organization a couple of years ago with the intent of being a a place for a progressive housing policy, in New Mexico.

And, you know, we're trying to identify and advocate for and help folks with best practices around housing stability, housing affordability, housing, supply and, you know, dealing with some of the big issues that New Mexico is facing with the housing crisis that are New Mexico specific.

So we're a housing policy think tank that that tries to advocate for policies.

They're going to benefit primarily folks who are the lowest income New Mexicans, the ones who have the hardest time accessing or maintaining stable housing and high quality housing.

>> Lou: Now in Albuquerque, Allison, the median home price has risen more than 45% in the last five years $350,000 in 2024.

How do you navigate that reality in this role?

>> Freedman: Yeah.

So, we have sort of amped up our legislative, advocacy.

One of the big things that we do is, you know, serve as a resource to legislate ers.

You know, we have the only unpaid citizen legislature in the state.

And so oftentimes our legislators, are working day and night, but don't necessarily have, the capacity to, know about all of the data and, you know, all of the statistics around what's happening in the housing space or potential solutions.

So we aim to serve as a resource for legislators helping draft legislation and such.

That might, you know, sort of combat, the rising home prices, skyrocketing rents, and, you know, creating housing instability issues for folks across the state.

We also aim to collect lots of data.

This is a project that's in its infancy, but we don't even have a rental registry in New Mexico.

So we don't know, you know, strictly how many rental units there are.

And so in order to craft good policies and combat some of those, challenges that you're pointing to, we really need to have data around that.

So we're working on collecting data to make, you know, hopefully better, legislative policy and to work on solving solving some of the housing crisis issues.

>> Lou: Sure.

The only unpaid legislature in the country.

What's it like?

How receptive have they been?

To this new data and the information you're bringing them?

>> Freedman: Yeah, I think legislators are generally quite receptive.

There's a great group of of folks who are very dedicated and interested in, moving housing policy forward, both on the supply side, you know, increasing affordable housing units specifically, and trying to, create protections for, for renters, as well as engaging in housing first policies for, the unhoused folks.

So I think sort of across the board, legislators have been, you know, very responsive, receptive.

And of course, many of them are experts themselves.

You know, we're not the experts, but I think it's it's helpful to have an additional resource.

And, some folks who have a little bit of time to devote to that issue.

>> Lou: Now, last year, a study from the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority found that the state has about 32,000 affordable housing units short of where we need to be just based on population alone.

Are we still that far behind right now?

>> Freedman: Yeah.

And actually, I think the latest data shows that we're further behind than that.

So yeah, I think the number is closer to 38 to 41, depending on again, we don't have an exact count because we don't have that that data.

We're working on collecting it.

But yes, we are still in the hole, by that number.

And I want to just clarify.

That's the number of units, for extremely low income individuals, which means that they're at 30% or less of area median income.

And so that's the number of units that need to be available and affordable for that specific population.

So to this point, you know, we're looking to serve, primarily the lowest income folks when we're talking about, building affordable housing specifically to close the supply gap.

>> Lou: And can you just sharpen that term a little bit more affordable housing?

What does it mean in the greater context?

We hear it a lot, but if you could just define it.

>> Freedman: Yeah, sure.

So essentially it means, that there's generally some sort of, subsidy coming in to cover a portion of the rent.

And then the tenant is paying whatever the, the remaining portion of the rent is that can work in a bunch of different ways, whether that's a tenant having a voucher that they can take to a particular property or the property itself, being sort of having a certain number of units or the whole property being affordable, meaning that the rent to the individuals who are going to be renting there is going to be something less than the market rate.

>> Lou: So we're tens of thousands of units short, have been for some time.

What's standing in the way of filling those gaps?

>> Serge: There's it's not just one thing, right?

One of them is simply the.

It's expensive to build housing.

Right.

And we've, as a state, as a country said we're going to put this in the hands of the private private sector to build affordable housing.

And it's just a need that not that's not being met.

Right.

The private sector, left to its own devices, will build housing that's at the highest end of the market because that's the most profitable for them.

And between construction costs and, there are certainly some challenges to building any housing through zoning and other permitting and whatnot.

So I don't want to discount that, but primarily it's simply we've decided that housing is a commodity and we're going to leave it to the private market.

And what subsidies there are, the low income housing tax credit, for example, is again key to incentivizing the private sector to build affordable housing.

When they do that, it's for a particular period of time.

And then it, you know, leaves the affordable housing world.

And so we haven't really committed to supporting financing, streamlining building of housing that is affordable to folks at the lower end of the, of the market, whether purchasing or renting and making sure that it's available to those folks.

>> Lou: Now, with a combination of all these factors, can you draw a line from those to homelessness, which is up now 90% in Albuquerque since 2017?

How how direct is that connection?

>> Freedman: Yeah, I think it's a very, direct line.

There are, of course, a number of factors that contribute to, the homelessness crisis.

But there's really good research and data to show that low vacancy rates, meaning supply, a lack of supply and high rent prices, those two things in combination lead to an increase in homelessness.

And that's exactly what we have here in Albuquerque.

And throughout the state since 2017, rents have risen 70% and incomes have only risen, 15%.

So there's a huge disparity there.

And so we see, that combined with the supply issues that we've been talking about, lack of supply.

And as you said, there's been just a skyrocketing increase in homelessness in Albuquerque and across the state.

And so, yeah, I think there's a direct correlation and something that, you know, folks don't always necessarily focus on.

I think folks sometimes focus on other factors like, you know, race or weather or politics or social benefits or things like that.

But there's research now, sort of doing statistical analysis around all of those factors and has ruled out, those factors as the primary drivers of homelessness.

And instead, it's often those low vacancy rates and combined with high rental prices.

>> Lou: Okay.

Now Albuquerque is in the middle of a mayoral race here.

Have you heard enough from the various candidates about that relationship between housing and homelessness?

Homelessness is obviously a big topic that we hear a lot about.

But is that connection being made?

>> Serge: Yeah, I'm not hearing that.

As loudly and clearly as I think is warranted.

Right.

There's so much talk about the homeless population and encampments and enforcement and, and, you know, getting and clearing people out, rather than understanding, why is this what is happening here?

Why do we have this root cause?

What do we need to create affordable housing?

Why are folks, being pushed into into homelessness by the, you know, by the structure of what's going on in here in Albuquerque and the most for the most part, all the talk is about what are we going to do about this highly visible situation where there are homeless people out on the street, rather than how do we create more affordable housing?

How do we remedy the situation that has pushed these folks into homelessness to begin with?

>> Lou: You know, regardless of who's mayor, that seems to be the mentality coming from the federal government to, in a recent executive order, the Trump administration is instructing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to withdraw support for Housing First policies, mandate that recipients of homeless assistance participate in mental health substance abuse treatment as a condition of aid.

What does that mean for organizations like yours?

But also the people that you serve?

And folks trying to get off the streets into places to live.

>> Serge: Yeah, I think it's a cataclysmic misstep.

Right?

We know that Housing First has been very effective at helping folks, a stop being homeless, right, by helping them into housing.

And even folks who.

Right.

There's obviously this myth that all everyone who's homeless is there because they are mentally ill or have some sort of addiction.

Right.

And, those rates are similar, roughly similar to what you see in the general population, of people who house their unhoused.

But, you know, the folks who do need treatment are less likely to be successfully treated if they don't have a stable housing.

So even on its face, it's missing the point, right?

But what it does is says it's your fault that you're homeless.

This is not something that we, you know, as a society should be caring about, should be focusing on and turns the, you know, the governmental programs into, a stick to punish folks, by saying, you know, it's not just, withdraw funding, it's encourage folks to involuntarily commit people who are homeless, right?

To, you know, punish them for, for participating in, harm reduction programs or whatnot that are proven and meant to ameliorate some of the harms and the things that come with being homeless.

So it really says tries to, you know, send this message that, you know what?

Those people aren't our community.

Those people aren't, you know, the real residents of Albuquerque or any other town and sets up an us versus them, which is, you know, ineffective and inconsistent with everything we know about the the best ways to help folks who are homeless, but also the best ways to create a strong community.

>> Lou: Now to that point, is there any data that you're aware of, Alison, that shows that spending more on enforcing vagrancy laws leads to fewer homeless people on the streets?

>> Freedman: No.

So what I would say is the executive order is, billed as sort of a public safety, measure.

And I don't think that's what it is at all.

So, as mentioned, right, there's lots of data to show that Housing First really works, and Housing First, meaning putting individuals into homes and then offering supportive services such as, you know, treatment for substance use or mental illness, for example, doing the opposite, which is what the executive order does, you know, is not shown to, to, to be effective.

So housing First, in a series of 26 recent studies that were, reviewed in combination, those studies found that an 88% reduction in homelessness, and a 41% increase in housing stability when using Housing First principles.

As compared to treatment first principles.

And so it's clear, you know, from the from the data from lots of different studies from all over the country, with, with varied populations of unhoused individuals that housing first really does does work.

And in terms of the economic component as well, for every dollar that's put into Housing First programs, there's about a dollar and a half that comes back from that.

So it's actually economically advantageous as well.

And then finally I'll just add that it's, you know, a proven concept.

So the Department of Veterans Affairs, has engaged in Housing First policies for decades now.

And there was a large unhoused population of veterans previously that has come down so it's also a proven concept.

>> Lou: Now, given the reality of the federal landscape, is there anything that you'll be looking for?

I mean, like priorities in the state legislature or from city leaders to boost housing stock and help get a handle on the homelessness issue a little bit?

Yeah.

I would like to see a recognition that the people who we're talking about who are homeless are working, say, are, you know, Santa fans are people from their our community.

There are people that are not, others.

Right.

And that as part of that, we have a commitment and a desire to make sure that they're okay and that we're helping them out.

I would like to see a real commitment to, you know, to creating more affordable housing, to building it, starting it now, it takes a long time to build.

And that's often politically unpalatable to invest in something that might not pay off before the next election.

Right.

But we need as a unit to make that a priority.

Right.

The state has allocated some money for this.

So just this week, the city council said they were going to spend $7.5 million that they thought would create 275 units, right, which is great, but still a far cry from the 38,000 that we're talking about.

It's it's a massive, massive lift that only happens if we say we are committed to this.

And that's what I really think we need to hear from, from politicians, from city council, from from all levels of government that this is a priority.

This is something we want to focus on, and it's going to take a while, but we're going to commit to that.

>> Lou: Serge Martinez, Allison Freeman, thank you so much for being here.

>> Nash: Thank you to Serge Martinez and Allison Friedman and everyone else who contributed to the show.

And a quick note before we wrap up, I'm sure many of you saw the news last week that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, is closing up shop over the next few weeks.

That comes on the heels of Congress passing a bill and President Trump signing it to rip back more than $1 billion in federal funds already allocated for the next two years and a Senate appropriations bill that leaves CPB out for the first time in decades.

Now, we have fielded a bunch of questions about what this means for NMPBS in the last week.

So here's the answer CPB shutting down does not mean we are doing the same.

We've lost a big chunk of funding, but we will stay on the air.

Speaking of which, tune in next week when we will take you to a community forum about the Yazzie Martinez case, part of the state's sluggish compliance with a judge's ruling that the Public Education Department provides an insufficient education to native students, English language learners and other at risk groups for New Mexico PBS.

I'm Nash Jones until next week.

Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by Viewers like you.