The real intent of HB12 may be buried in the definition of “advanced energy technology” in the bill, which includes “carbon capture, sequestration, transport utilization and storage systems” (CCS). Unbelievably, it also includes nuclear energy. But CCS is at the heart of all grey hydrogen production because the economic and environmental viability of hydrogen production rests with successful sequestration of CO2, which is something that has never worked anywhere in the world.
HB 12 either needs to be rejected outright or must be substantially amended to address concerns outlined below. But to be clear, without these amendments or equivalent amendments from supporter Power4NM, we strongly oppose this gas and oil fantasy.
What Should We Do?
Our Feb 23 blog outlines the backstory and context, which is important to understanding the importance of blocking this effort. That discussion will help you understand the moving parts in a very complex process. But for speaking points you need brief statements, not paragraphs. What follows borrows heavily from the alert from Indivisible ABQ and from discussion with Tom Solomon, Co-founder of 350NM, and Bianca Sopoci-Belknap, Executive Director of Earth Care. We should also note that Power4NM leadership is working with Rep. Nathan Small and the other bill sponsors, seeking amendments, likely very similar to what we are proposing. Between now and the Feb 25 hearing of HB 12, an amended bill may be published and we will need to review that very closely. We will have conversations with allies as well to identify a unified front. So Read On, but Stay Tuned. We need to act in advance of Saturday’s hearing, but we may need to reframe our messaging as things evolve.
I strongly oppose HB12 and its hijacking of HB 188, which should have passed on its own merits and not be swept into this obvious hydrogen production effort.
Carbon Capture & Sequestration is identified as an “Advanced Energy Technology project,” despite there being no scientific evidence that it can work.
The State should be focusing on authentic advanced energy technology, like storage and geothermal energy generation, instead of hydrogen which is transparently the gas & oil industry’s effort to create a market for methane.
- Bill sponsors should remove all language indicating that nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are examples of “Advanced Energy Technology projects.”
- What’s more, language should be included stating explicitly that CCS and nuclear energy do not qualify as “Advanced Energy Technology projects,” and thus are ineligible for any benefits HB 12 bestows on those projects.
- Bill sponsors should remove entirely all language referencing how, if a company’s project fails and another company’s technology succeeds, the state can pay the failed company ”reasonable compensation.” [Sec 3, D, (9) & (11)].
- Remove all 21 Procurement Code exemptions from the bill.