Amid federal pushback, Gov. Lujan Grisham enacts climate change funding bill
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has through April 11 to sign or veto remaining legislation. (Danielle Prokop/Source NM)
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Thursday signed into law Senate Bill 48, the Community Benefit Fund, which contains $210 million for communities to use for a series of projects to mitigate climate change impacts. These include: train workers in the oil and gas industry for other jobs; reduce oil and gas emissions; improve the electric grid; develop renewable energy projects; modify public buildings to be more energy efficient; reduce the impacts of climate change on human health, agriculture and the environment; purchase electric vehicles and develop charging infrastructure.
In a written statement Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, called the law 'a step in the right direction.'
'With the federal government abandoning its responsibilities to the states, there is so much work to be done,' Schlenker-Goodrich said in the statement. 'The Community Benefits Fund provides hope that New Mexicans can step into the void and get it done.'
Lujan Grisham signed the bill as the federal government makes moves to clamp down on state climate change work via an executive order signed earlier this week. Experts, however, say Trump's order violates the constitutional principles and would be unlikely to survive a court challenge.
Lujan Grisham, in her capacity as co-chair of the U.S. Climate Alliance, issued a joint statement with Co-Chair New York Gov. Kathy Hochul in response to Trump's order that said: 'The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states' independent constitutional authority. We are a nation of states — and laws — and we will not be deterred. We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans' fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer.'
The governor on Thursday also signed Senate Bill 23, which raises oil and gas royalty rates on prime tracts of state lands in the Permian Basin from 20% to 25%. The change is expected to generate $50 million to $75 million in revenue for the state's land grant permanent fund which primarily pays out to schools, universities and hospitals. The last time the Legislature last updated royalty rates was in the 1970s.
All told, Lujan Grisham signed an additional 22 bills into law Thursday, leaving 38 pieces of legislation in the balance, with one day left to act.
Outstanding bills include House Bill 2, which contains the $10.8 billion dollar budget for the state government, and the list of capital outlay projects, which may see line-item vetos, striking a certain project or item and leaving the rest of the bill intact.
So far, the governor has signed 157 bills into law — about 80% of the bills sent up to her desk — and vetoed two pieces of legislation. Lujan Grisham has until the end of Friday, April 11 to sign or veto legislation. Any unsigned bill after the deadline passes fails to become law, a power called the 'pocket veto.'
A full list of the bills signed:
House Bill 156: Increase Educational Salaries
House Bill 157: New School Licenses
House Bill 195: School Nurse Salary Tiers & Minimums
House Bill 487: Protection Of Hispanic Education
Senate Bill 11: Anti-Distraction Policy in Schools*
Senate Bill 133: Educational Retirees Returning to Work
Senate Bill 343: Teacher Salary Rates Changes
Senate Bill 345: Teacher & Instructional Support Licensure
House Bill 91: Public Utility Rate Structures
House Bill 291: Recycling & State's Circular Economy
Senate Bill 9: Pipeline Safety Act Violations Civil Penalty
Senate Bill 23: Oil & Gas Royalty Rate Changes
Senate Bill 42: Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Program*
Senate Bill 45: County Health Care Assistance Fund Use
Senate Bill 78: Certified Nurse Anesthetist Role
House Bill 352: Close & Relocate Certain Magistrate Courts
House Bill 493: Public Finance Accountability Act
Senate Bill 31: Zero-Interest Natural Disaster Loans (includes a line-item veto that was unavailable as of publication)
Senate Bill 36: Sensitive Personal Information Nondisclosure
Senate Bill 47: Santa Cruz De La Canada Land Grant
Senate Bill 48: Community Benefit Fund
Senate Bill 124: Superintendent Of Insurance Subpoenas
* Lujan Grisham's messages on SB11 and SB42 had not yet been published as of press time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm Oppenheimer's grandson. We can still go from crisis to conversation on Iran.
Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. So I'm proposing something unconventional. The war in Iran has been terrifying. It pushed the threat of nuclear weapons back to the forefront of global consciousness. And yet – somehow – we've made it through this conflict in better shape than many feared, assuming the ceasefire holds. We now have an unexpected opportunity to turn this narrow escape into something bigger: a chance to expand global peace and security. Like many, I have serious criticisms of how we got here. A nation that has never signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, Israel, used its undeclared nuclear status as leverage to launch a war against a country, Iran, that has no nuclear weapons and has submitted to international inspections. This directly sabotaged promising diplomatic efforts between Iran and America. When the United States entered the conflict with a military strike June 21, Americans braced for another endless war in the Middle East. And yet, remarkably, we've arrived at a ceasefire. That outcome wasn't inevitable. It required restraint from Tehran and surprising restraint from Washington. Credit must be given where it's due: President Donald Trump played a central role in stopping the escalation, using his signature unconventional diplomacy. That success offers a model ‒ if we're willing to learn from it. Lesson 1: Stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons fuel Since the first atomic breakthrough, one truth has remained: Safety in the nuclear age requires cooperation ‒ even with adversaries. Nuclear science is not a secret that can be kept, it's a fact of nature. From J. Robert Oppenheimer onward, scientists knew the only real safeguard was shared control of enriched uranium that can be used for bombs. We need more cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation ‒ not just in Iran, but everywhere. Gen. Wesley Clark: This is the moment for American leadership in Middle East. We can't miss it. Lesson 2: Strengthen the institutions that have kept us alive The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is more than a piece of paper. It is the backbone of the global nuclear order. It has slowed the spread of weapons, legitimized peaceful nuclear energy and built mechanisms for trust. The International Atomic Energy Agency ‒ through science and diplomacy, not force ‒ upholds this system. We must double down on supporting countries that respect these rules and hold accountable those, like Israel and North Korea, that operate outside them. The real nuclear threat before us The dangerous gamble to start a war in order to stop a single weapon from being developed must not become the global standard. Because the far greater danger isn't Iran or any one rogue nation ‒ it's a nuclear exchange between superpowers. That remains the true and growing risk, and it could even happen by accident. A false alarm, a cyberattack or a miscommunication could trigger an unstoppable chain reaction. Once missiles fly among the United States, Russia and China, no leader or even unconventional diplomacy can stop it. There won't be time. Opinion: Our nuclear weapons are much more powerful than Oppenheimer's atomic bomb So what can we do? We build on what has worked. Trump's success in brokering a ceasefire should now be expanded ‒ first to end the Gaza conflict, and then to revive stalled denuclearization dialogue. Trump has previously called for nuclear talks among America, China and Russia. That is exactly the right idea ‒ and this could be the moment. Charles Oppenheimer: I support President Trump's pursuit of nuclear diplomacy Some will call that impossible. They'll point to rising tensions, trade wars, proxy conflicts. They'll say the moment isn't right. But history teaches the opposite: It is precisely in moments of danger that real diplomacy must begin. Waiting for peace before negotiating peace is a contradiction. This is a time for bold action – of the Nobel Peace Prize variety – if done right. We are still living under a nuclear arms strategy called mutual assured destruction. Even its acronym ‒ MAD ‒ tells us how unsustainable it is. The threat is too vast, too fast and too complex for any one nation or leader to control. Most of us, as individuals, feel powerless in the face of such a system. But we're not without agency. Some people do have real influence, and that includes the leaders of the United States, China and Russia. They cannot be expected to make unilateral concessions, but they can be expected to sit down and talk. I'm not president. But I'm doing what I can ‒ using the name and ideas of my grandfather J. Robert Oppenheimer to push for a safer future. So I'm proposing something unconventional: an 'Oppenheimer Dinner,' inviting representatives from Washington, Beijing and Moscow to a private, off-the-record dialogue about how to reduce the risk of real nuclear war ‒ and discuss the positive side of nuclear energy. Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. The same technology that could destroy civilization can also power it, giving us clean energy, medical breakthroughs and global prosperity. It's up to us to choose which future we want ‒ and there is no time like the present. 'We can have each other to dinner. We ourselves, and with each other by our converse, can create not an architecture of global scope, but an immense, intricate network of intimacy, illumination, and understanding.' — J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1958 Charles Oppenheimer is the founder and co-executive director of the Oppenheimer Project. He is the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the Manhattan Project.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith. I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Supreme Court shows I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king Alito clearly doesn't want schools teaching kids that Trump exists As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Americans Are Moving From and To
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With declining births and slower immigration following the Trump administration's strict deportation policies, domestic migration is bound to become an increasingly more important driver of U.S. population change, a recent study found. Florida and Texas, which have both been among the fastest-growing states in the nation for years, know what a positive impact a booming population can have on the local economy and job market, as well as what happens when this demographic explosion starts to wane. This year's State of the Nation's Housing report, released earlier this week by the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) of Harvard University, found that the movement of Americans across the country has declined in 2024 all across the country, including in the states that are traditionally the most popular among movers. Last year, according to researchers, the nation reported the lowest rates of household mobility on record since the 1970s. Fewer Americans Are Moving Across the Country According to the latest Current Population Survey, about 8.3 percent of households (10.9 million) reported moving over the past year, a rate unchanged from a year earlier and down from 9.8 percent (12.6 million) before the pandemic, in 2019. In the same year, the homeowner mobility rate dropped to an all-time low of 3.1 percent, down from 3.7 percent in 2023 and 4.3 percent in 2019. That means U.S. homeowners made 24 percent fewer moves last year than in 2019, before the pandemic unleashed a surge of remote workers relocating from large, busy metropolises to smaller, more affordable towns. The South was the main beneficiary of this influx of people relocating to cheaper, more livable parts of the nation, with Florida and Texas adding hundreds of thousands of new residents over the past five years. The rate of domestic migration in Florida increased from 6.5 in 2019 to 8.1 in 2020, 11.4 in 2021, and reached a peak of 14.2 in 2022. In 2023, it fell to 8.2, and in 2024, it plunged to 2.7. In Texas, the rate increased from 4.2 in 2019 to 5.6 in 2020, 6.7 in 2021, 7.4 in 2022, and 6.3 in 2023, only to fall to 2.8 in 2024. While domestic migration remained the main source of population growth last year for 11 states, primarily in the South, net gains from migration fell in several of these states. In North Carolina, domestic migration decreased by 17 percent from the previous year, while in Tennessee, it decreased by 20 percent. Not only has in-migration—the process of relocating permanently to another part of one's home country—slowed down in the states that were most benefiting from it over the past five years, but out-migration from states that were hemorrhaging residents also slowed down last year. The number of residents moving out of California, for example, dropped by 30 percent in 2024, from −344,000 in 2023 to −240,000 in 2024. New York, another state where out-migration has surpassed in-migration in recent years, lost 121,000 people on net to interstate migration in 2024, about 30 percent fewer than in 2023 (−177,000) and 60 percent fewer than in 2022 (−296,000). Why Is Domestic Migration Declining? Since 2019, the cost of homeownership has skyrocketed nationwide, including in states that previously offered more affordable options. The median sale price of a typical U.S. home was $313,000 in the first quarter of 2019, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau; in the first quarter of 2024, it had surged to $426,800. As of the first quarter of 2025, $416,900. Mortgage rates have also gone through the roof since 2019. If historically low monthly payments during the pandemic spurred a homebuying frenzy nationwide, rates lingering around the 7 percent mark are now hindering demand, pushing buyers to the sidelines. The result is that packing up and moving to another state has become a trickier operation for many Americans, considering the overall cost of purchasing a new property. On top of that, return-to-office orders from companies that had been pressured to offer remote working options during the pandemic are now forcing many employees to go back to the same busy metros they had left. According to the JCHS study, last year there was a slowdown in moves out of urban centers across the U.S., which had accelerated during the pandemic. Net moves from dense urban counties, such as those in New York City, researchers found, fell for the third consecutive year in 2024, down 17 percent from the previous year. At the same time, net moves into suburban counties fell 16 percent year-over-year, while gains in smaller metros and non-metro counties declined by 12 percent and 31 percent, respectively, over the past year; however, these remain higher than pre-pandemic levels.
