Representative Leo Ferrari presented the committee substitute for House Bill 212, a multi‑year phase‑out and prohibition of intentionally added PFAS in many consumer products. The sponsor described a three‑step phase‑out schedule and a set of exclusions that, he and agency witnesses said, are intended to avoid hampering critical industries.

The committee substitute sets staged prohibition dates: January 1, 2027 for cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products and firefighting foam that contain intentionally added PFAS; January 1, 2028 for carpets and rugs, cleaning supplies and fabric treatments, cosmetics, feminine hygiene products, textiles, upholstered furniture and ski wax; and January 1, 2029 as a broader catchall prohibition for other products that contain intentionally added PFAS. Secretary Jim Kenney and agency staff described three off‑ramps: exclusions for medical, pharmaceutical, agriculture and semiconductors and microelectronics (and their packaging), electronics, lab equipment, certain refrigerants, automobiles and many other categories; reciprocity for products regulated in other states; and a producer responsibility organization pathway for manufacturers to stand up stewardship or recycling programs to reduce landfill disposal.

Supporters — including the Sierra Club Rio Grande chapter, New Energy Economy and public health advocates — said the bill will reduce exposure pathways and lower long‑term remediation costs to municipalities and homeowners. Melissa Bernardin of the Sierra Club told the committee the bill aligns New Mexico with 13 other states that have enacted similar product restrictions.

Opponents and industry representatives urged narrower language and targeted exemptions. CropLife America and agricultural stakeholders asked for an explicit exemption for fluorinated pesticides regulated under FIFRA, calling them essential tools for crop protection and already subject to federal regulation. The New Mexico Chamber of Commerce warned the committee that broad prohibitions could affect clean‑energy and aerospace manufacturing supply chains and risk business flight if not carefully calibrated. Several trade groups representing oil and gas and dairy also requested work on narrow exemptions to avoid unintended liability or treatment of byproducts.

The bill directs the EIB to adopt product‑specific concentration ranges and gives the board discretion to adopt further exemptions through rule making; the committee substitute also contemplates labeling requirements to give consumers clearer information. Kenney said the state would rely on peer‑reviewed science to set concentration ranges and that rule making — not statutory lists — would implement most thresholds.

Committee members and the secretary discussed enforcement practicality and litigation risk. NMED general counsel told lawmakers that the department had removed a citizen‑suit provision from earlier drafts to reduce a predicted surge in litigation, but committee counsel and members continued to ask about duty, enforcement costs and whether adding duties would increase the state's exposure to lawsuits. The department said the bill was modeled on other states' laws and included many of the same exemptions those states adopted.

The committee voted to advance the committee substitute. A motion to "do not pass on House Bill 212 and do pass on the House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee substitute for House Bill 212" carried on a recorded committee vote (committee substitute advanced by recorded count 5–4). The EIB will be directed to adopt rules on concentrations, labeling and any additional exemptions.

Ending: Sponsors and agency staff asked stakeholders to submit draft exemption language for narrow technical fixes; the Environment Department said it will continue to accept suggested strike‑outs and red‑line edits to address agricultural and manufacturing concerns before the bill proceeds.