Fee rulemakings for air programs in New Mexico and Colorado are an opportunity for the states to show they’re serious about continuing to improve air quality 

By Nini Gu

Cleaner air and climate progress aren’t about winning one big battle or passing one magic bill. They’re an outcome of steady improvements that prioritize healthy and resilient communities. Many of those improvements happen thanks to regulatory agencies and their air quality programs. 

Colorado and New Mexico are two of the nation’s standout examples for state-led climate action thanks to the regulatory leadership of the Air Pollution Control Division under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the New Mexico Environment Department. 

Both states are undergoing rulemakings to update the permit fees that companies pay before any development activities that could lead to air pollutant emissions, a category of chemicals including greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants and ozone precursors.  

The purpose of permit fees is to cover costs associated with air pollutant emissions, and these fees are a key source of funding for agency air quality programs. Many states use this mechanism to fund their air agencies and programs. In both Colorado and New Mexico, the current fees are not sufficient to sustain these important programs. If fees are not updated to meet the real cost of pollution control, communities will suffer while companies profit.  

It’s crucial that each state equips its agency with the resources and stability required to be more efficient, more effective and to continue delivering results. 

New Mexico  

The New Mexico Environment Department is seeking to increase both its emissions and construction permit fees in accordance with state and federal law, which requires NMED to collect enough fees to cover the operation of key air programs. In recent years, NMED’s workload has increased dramatically: oil and gas-related general construction permits have increased by roughly 2,100%, minor source permitting has increased by more than 200%, and total permitting actions have increased by approximately 126% overall in recent years. 

Each permit action requires technical review, analysis, and documentation. Permitting expansion has increased much faster than staffing has, leading to a multi-year enforcement backlog. Underfunding and understaffing does not lead to efficiency; it just leads to less oversight for companies, longer permit times and more pollution exposure for frontline communities. 

NMED’s proposed fee updates will shift the cost of dangerous air pollution from the public to the companies that benefit financially from state-issued permits. If the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board fails to adopt NMED’s proposal, the state will see staff reduction, less monitoring, fewer inspections and delayed enforcement – all to the detriment of New Mexicans who want to breathe clean air. 

NMED has a proven track record of progress indicating that air quality regulations can lead to better pollution outcomes. To continue that progress and prevent backsliding, EIB must support the NMED’s proposed fee increases.  

Colorado 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division is proposing to increase emissions permit fees to cover the direct and indirect costs of developing and administering its air quality programs, as the current revenue from fees has not increased as quickly as the APCD’s workload has. Like New Mexico, underfunding and understaffing leads to slower permit approvals for companies and less accountability for the public. 

Colorado has made a lot of progress reducing air pollutants, including a 70% reduction in methane emissions following the adoption of the nation’s first-ever set of oil and gas methane regulations. However, the state continues to struggle when it comes to ozone pollution in the state’s most populous areas, threatening the quality of life and health of millions of Coloradans.  

Colorado has continued to improve existing regulations while adopting new ones to fulfill state and federal requirements and address shortcomings in public health protection. However, air quality regulations only work if they can be reliably implemented and enforced. Due to the $7 million gap between expected revenue and estimated program costs, APCD’s updated fees will provide much needed funding security to ensure the agency meets its statutorily obligated requirements to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission should adopt APCD’s proposed updates to Regulations 3 and 7. Doing so would be a recognition that air quality programs and regulations are an indispensable part of protecting the public health, safety, and environment of Colorado. 

Clean air and climate progress take many shapes and forms. In Colorado and New Mexico, it’s a small group of hard-working regulators making steady improvements for the public. Both states now have a great opportunity to continue the path they’ve been on towards cleaner air and healthier communities if they ensure the funding their air quality agencies desperately need.