Senate committee members voted to advance legislation establishing a nonrecurring community benefit fund to finance local projects for climate mitigation, adaptation, clean energy infrastructure and workforce training.

The bill, described at the hearing as a seed program to support grid modernization, electric-school-bus purchases, weatherization, walkability projects and workforce apprenticeships, would route funds to existing state agencies and grant programs rather than create a standalone grant-making authority. Senator (sponsor), who introduced the measure, said the bill includes built-in reporting and evaluation by state agencies and a data-driven definition for “overburdened communities.”

The community-benefit concept is intended to focus state investments on communities the bill describes as experiencing disproportionate burdens from climate, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and workforce development. “You either document two meetings in the community or show a community benefits agreement,” the sponsor said, describing grant requirements that applicants must meet to receive funds.

Opponents focused on the bill’s cost and source of funds. Jim Winchester, representing the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, testified that the measure directs hundreds of millions to projects that “transition away from fossil fuels” while also increasing costs on the oil-and-gas industry. “We stand opposed,” Winchester said.

Supporters, including community groups and state officials, said the measure centers local needs and workforce outreach. Guero Bridal of Somos Un Pueblo Unido urged funding for training and stipends to help workers enter new industries. “We need to be considered when opening up opportunities for jobs in emerging industries,” Bridal said. Travis Kellerman, senior climate adviser to the governor, said the bill covers both adaptation and mitigation and would leverage federal and private investment into the state’s economy.

The bill directs the Department of Finance and Administration, in consultation with the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, to develop or identify a data tool to locate overburdened communities and requires agencies to include tribal and indigenous datasets. Committee members asked how the tool would work and whether it would delay grant awards; sponsors said the language allows agencies to adopt existing tools (for example, tools used by Colorado) and that departments would coordinate implementation.

Committee questions also focused on program scope, guardrails and equity. Several members pressed for clarity on how projects would be prioritized among departments and how the program would ensure training investments are matched to local job opportunities; sponsors said existing agencies and reporting requirements provide checks and that workforce funding is tied to the bill’s project categories. The sponsor emphasized annual or interim reporting to legislative committees as an oversight mechanism.

The bill as discussed would fund multiple areas: grid modernization; public-school electric-vehicle purchases and charging infrastructure; workforce training; energy-efficiency and weatherization programs; projects to address legacy pollution; and pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. The sponsor and staff provided examples pulled from an inventory of requested local projects, including a $60 million allocation for electric-vehicle infrastructure, a reported $7 million request for a solar technician apprenticeship in San Juan County, and a number of larger local project estimates mentioned during the hearing.

Committee members also discussed fiscal scale. The sponsor noted the original request list totaled about $340 million but said budget adjustments during the session changed the distribution of funds; the fiscal-impact estimate discussed in committee varied from the handout’s raw totals. The sponsor described the measure as nonrecurring seed funding over a two-year period.

The committee took a motion to advance the bill. Several committee members spoke for and against the measure during the roll call; Representative Murphy explained a no vote as opposition to what he called a “$350,000,000 experiment” on fiscal grounds. The motion carried and the bill was advanced to the next stage for further consideration.

What happens next: the bill’s proponents said agencies will develop implementation rules, perform outreach to overburdened communities and report progress to interim legislative committees. Supporters asked that the legislature and state agencies monitor the first round of grants closely and use lessons learned to inform future allocations.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a motion to advance Senate Bill 48; the motion passed (outcome: approved). The hearing record contains individual yes/no statements from committee members during roll call; committee members who spoke publicly in opposition included Jim Winchester and Representative Murphy, who explained a recorded no vote.