This space will be updated with ongoing developments from the rulemaking hearings for the New Mexico Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP). The first round of hearings is scheduled for Sept 22-Oct 3, 2025 and will be broadcast live.

Check out the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) events calendar for the daily details.

NOTE: Each hearing day has a different link for virtual participation.

22 Sept 2025

After getting through the various administrative particulars, the NM Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP) rulemaking hearings are officially underway. It is a more complex and multi-layered process than we have seen in other state programs, and structured more like a multi-stage legal trial than the usual final hearing and vote. However, from this non-lawyer perspective, it’s so far less intimidating in practice than in the detailed pre-hearing instructions.

This opening day featured a lot of lawyering, a bit of spice, a couple servings of wonk, some tactical posturing, and a few initial public comments on various topics that mostly reflected the issues on record in the online docket.

The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) led off the substantive part of the hearings. Their presentation and cross examinations are expected to last until Wednesday or Thursday. After NMED’s Michelle Miano laid out the big picture CTFP features and implications for New Mexico, they brought up staff experts to start digging more deeply into the rationale and technical details. One more witness is up tomorrow morning—specifically UC Davis’ Colin Murphy—before all the other parties get to cross examine them collectively. It should be interesting.

Sep 23 2025

NMED’s first witness panel concluded its testimony to start the morning. Cross examinations made up the rest of the day.

First cross was from counsel for American Petroleum Institute and NM Oil and Gas Association (API/NMOGA), followed by Oxy, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), HF Sinclair, and Growth Energy. Substantive policy topics that got the most attention were carbon capture/removal/project credits, indirect land use change (ILUC) and costs. More on all of these is certainly to come. A lot of time was spent on questioning about administrative matters like rulemaking rationale, staffing and program implementation. Honestly, a good chunk of it seemed to foreshadow future litigation rather than directly interrogate areas of disagreement for eventual resolution in these proceedings.

Sept 24 2025

Day 3 of the hearings really highlighted the unusual-ness of this process compared to other states that have enacted clean fuel standard programs. Because it is more like a courtroom process, even supporters with targeted asks can present as antagonists in the cross examinations. It also sets up mismatches in technical/policy expertise that can confuse the process.

All that being said, things are proceeding. Yesterday closed out the cross examination, redirect and EIB questioning of the first expert panel from NMED. Recurring lines of questioning of the panel were focused on [in no particular order] conceptions and applications of ‘technology neutrality’, program vs. project credits, implementation necessities and timeline, ILUC, biomethane, avoiding double counting, hypothetical intricacies of book and claim, and consumer costs.

Next up is NMED’s second a final expert panel, to present NMED and third-party modeling of CTFP economic implications, GHG and air quality impacts, and cost-benefit analysis.

Sept 25 2025

Day 4 really got into the meat of NMED’s case in support of the rule. Starting with their own economic analysis, followed by commissioned work on lifecycle carbon intensities, air quality modeling and benefits relative to costs of the CTFP program. Acronyms reigned.

The witness panel’s punchline was that benefits outweigh the costs by 2.7 to 1, even while limiting assessment of economic development to jobs and investment related to new fueling infrastructure. The bigger picture of economic benefits which would increase that ratio—including projects already underway in NM—was assessed by our friends at Adelante Consulting, but that analysis did not have a witness to discuss their findings in the hearings.

The most pointed questioning of the day focused on the third-party analyses. Some lawyers really dug into the weedy details of the modeling development, interconnected-ness, data sources, mechanics and underlying assumptions. One particularly deep dive was into electricity’s contribution to the expected carbon intensity reductions and social cost of carbon* benefits derived from the CTFP. [*Roughly defined as the cost of the broad economic damages for each ton of GHG emissions, and used in the policy world to calculate the monetized value of mitigating those emissions]

A recurring theme is the statutory provision giving NMED authority to determine conditions for intervening to defer/suspend the CTFP in response to ‘emergency’ or forecasted conditions, and how that might be applied in relation to costs. Parties are interrogating both what types of situations might apply (inadequate credit supply? pass-through costs?) and what types of intervention might be considered (eg suspend enforcement of the CTFP? freeze CI decline?).

Another notable addition to the record was the Bates White report commissioned by the LCFC in 2022, amidst a rigorous discussion of potential pass-through consumer costs. NMED made a very strong case to counteract the often inflated and apocalyptic claims that get disproportionate attention. More holistic analysis and effectively framed real-world data and experience from existing programs made for an effective counter. It also nicely teed up a few cross examination questions from me, to highlight the relatively minimal impact and lean into the value of all-of-the-above credit generation opportunities to maximize benefits and minimize costs.

Friday will prominently feature LCFC friends and allies. Graham Noyes is representing multiple LCFC members in his private practice: LCFC member Infinium, as well as a SAF producers group on behalf of LCFC members Gevo, World Energy and NXT Clean Fuels. David Zaziski is on the stand for Infinium and LCFC member Sean Newsum of Airlines for America is a witness for the SAF group, along with Jane Sadler of RMI.

Oct 1 2025

Catching up on the happenings during an unexpected off day for the proceedings.

The testimony and cross for the SAF Producers Group and Infinium went well on Friday morning, with little cross examination and no opposition from other stakeholders. The primary issues they highlighted are aligned with the LCFC’s own comments: 1.) Lack of clarity on the ability to stack NM CTFP program credits with Federal tax credits originally established by the Inflation Reduction Act, and 2.) The lower CI baseline for conventional jet fuel compared to petroleum diesel structurally disadvantages SAF relative to RD in NM.

The environmental group Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy (CCAE) began its witness testimony to wrap up the day and carried over into Monday. In addition to expanding electrification credit opportunities, CCAE is advocating for significant changes that discourage, disadvantage and/or preclude liquid and gaseous fuels from earning credits in the CTFP. Their asks range from eliminating book and claim to barring avoiding methane crediting to assigning the palm oil ILUC penalty to all crop-based biofuels including corn ethanol. These seem unlikely to succeed based on NMED’s repeated commitment and stated conception of the fundamental requirement for ‘tech neutrality’ from the legislative text. On avoided methane in particular, the NM legislature specifically voted down a bill to bar it from the CTFP program in 2025, providing a clear signal of legislative intent.

On Tuesday, witnesses from HF Sinclair kicked off the petroleum stakeholders. Sinclair owns the only refinery in New Mexico, and therefore came with an important voice in the process. They are asking for specific changes related to the implementation of the CTFP, including phasing in deficits to allow the credit bank time to grow and extending the timeline for temporary pathways (eg pathways don’t automatically expire if the agency is backlogged with review/approval). Other issues will be revisited in more detail in testimony to come from Oxy, API/NMOGA and AFPM on Thursday and Friday. To try and wrap up this week as planned, the hearings will start an hour earlier, and perhaps run later if facility access can be arranged.

Growth Energy’s presentation and witness testimony on ILUC will carry over to the beginning of the November rebuttal phase. TBD how that will impact the overall hearing process and timeline.