EPA plan would begin rolling back 'good neighbor' rule on downwind pollution from smokestacks - By Matthew Daly, Associated Press
The Trump administration on Wednesday took a step toward rolling back a rule that limits smokestack emissions that burden downwind areas in neighboring states.
The so-called "good neighbor" rule is one of dozens of regulations that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has targeted for reconsideration or repeal. The Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that the EPA could not enforce the rule, which is intended to block coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites from adding significantly to air pollution across state lines.
The EPA said Wednesday it is proposing to approve plans by eight states to regulate ozone air pollution as they see fit. If finalized, the states "would no longer need to worry about another 'Good Neighbor Plan'" subject to approval by the federal government, the agency said.
The affected states are Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico and Tennessee. Under President Joe Biden, the EPA disapproved or proposed disapproval of ozone plans submitted by all those states. The state-specific plans did not sufficiently control ozone emissions that travel across state lines, the Biden-era agency said.
Zeldin said Wednesday that under President Donald Trump, the EPA is committed to advancing what Zeldin called "cooperative federalism" that allows states to decide for themselves how to attain air pollution goals.
"Today, we are taking an important step to undo a Biden administration rule that treated our state partners unfairly," Zeldin said in a statement. If finalized, the EPA plan will ensure that "these states will be able to advance cleaner air now for their communities, instead of waiting for overly burdensome federal requirements years from now," he said.
Zeldin criticized what he said was the Biden-era agency's "heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all, federal mandate" to address air pollution from smog-forming ozone.
Under the proposal announced Wednesday, "EPA finds that the eight (state plans) have adequate data demonstrating these states are not interfering with ozone attainment" required by National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the agency said. The action also indicates EPA's intent to withdraw proposed error corrections for state plans submitted by Iowa and Kansas.
In the near future, EPA intends to take a separate action to address "interstate transport" obligations for the remaining states covered in the final, Biden-era "Good Neighbor Plan," the agency said.
Environmental groups said the EPA proposal would reward states for being bad neighbors. Air pollution from heavily industrialized Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio frequently reaches East Coast states such as Connecticut and Delaware.
"Once again, Donald Trump and Lee Zeldin are choosing to protect aging, dirty and expensive coal plants and other industrial polluters over strong federal clean air protections that address interstate pollution problems,'' said Zachary Fabish, a Sierra Club lawyer.
"Letting states off the hook while their pollution continues harming air quality in neighboring states is dangerous," Fabish said, and will make "Americans sicker and pay more for energy while doing so."
EPA will accept public comment for at least 30 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register.
Gun bill sparks emotional debate at Roundhouse - Dan Boyd, Albuquerque Journal
New Mexico lawmakers’ latest push to keep guns out of dangerous hands is causing a ruckus at the Roundhouse.
A Senate committee heard emotional pleas from supporters and opponents alike Wednesday on a Democratic-backed bill aimed at slowing the state's illegal gun trade by increasing security requirements for gun dealers and barring the sale of certain types of firearms.
After several hours of debate, the committee voted 6-4 along party lines — with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans in opposition — to advance the bill to its next assigned committee.
But the battle over the bill's fate could be just beginning.
Republicans insisted the legislation would be unconstitutional if enacted, and House Republicans sent a letter to U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon on Wednesday asking the U.S. Department of Justice to closely monitor the legislation and weigh in if necessary.
"These restrictions directly conflict with established Supreme Court precedent recognizing that arms in common lawful use are protected by the Second Amendment," said the letter, which was signed by all 26 House Republicans.
On the other side, a group of advocates wearing red Moms Demand Action T-shirts, pleaded with legislators to support the bill, which they said would prevent illegal gun trafficking and keep firearms out of the wrong hands by strengthening dealer securities, among other measures.
"Increasing the accountability of licensed dealers to reduce illegal firearm distribution will reduce both the senseless loss of life and economic costs," said Amy Butel, one of the advocates who testified.
Several lawmakers also cited the 2023 attacks on several elected officials' homes in Albuquerque. The chairman of the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee, Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, was among the officials targeted.
A former GOP state House candidate, Solomon Peña, was sentenced last year to 80 years in prison after being convicted of orchestrating the attacks.
Specifically, the bill, Senate Bill 17, would require licensed gun dealers to keep inventory records and implement security measures. Those regulatory requirements are similar to requirements imposed on recreational cannabis dispensaries authorized by the state.
It would also prohibit the sale or possession of certain "military-grade weapons," which include machine guns and gas-operated semiautomatic firearms.
The bill is sponsored by a group of Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Debbie O'Malley and Heather Berghmans of Albuquerque.
Tony Long, chief deputy district attorney in Santa Fe, said the bill would provide both gun dealers and law enforcement the tools to prevent the flow of illegal firearms in and out of the state. He added that the bill would force gun owners to provide documents to law enforcement officials to better help solve crimes and find out more information about shootings.
However, critics of the bill say firearms dealers already must comply with strict federal tracking requirements for all guns. They have also cited existing federal and state laws targeting “straw purchases” of firearms, which occur when someone is paid to buy guns for another person.
The bill was prompted by a report issued last year by the New York-based Everytown for Gun Safety that found that of the 4,847 guns used in crimes in New Mexico that were recovered and traced by law enforcement officials, about 78% were originally purchased from licensed firearm dealers, primarily within the state.
Local gun dealers describe bill as misguided
Local gun shop owners insisted Wednesday the bill does nothing but harm the rights of citizens, while also being a detriment to firearms businesses in the state.
“This is a way for them to impose undue regulations and undue stress,” said Arnie Gallegos, owner of Albuquerque gun shop ABQ Guns. “They’re basically wanting to shut down all gun shops and take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.”
Gallegos, a law enforcement officer who has owned the gun shop for 14 years and also offers concealed carry classes, said the bill would only propagate “anarchy” and promote the sale of firearms on the black market.
Gallegos said the cost and burden of complying with the proposed law would land on gun shop owners with little help or support.
“It’s going to cost anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000 to set up the security in the shop the way they want it, because they don’t even know how they want it,” he said. “There’s no guidelines or anything and then the law enforcement agency that’s going to run it can make up anything they want at any time and force us to follow up.”
The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association called the bill one of the “most sweeping gun control bills” in recent years and said it would do nothing to address criminal misuse of firearms, according to a statement posted on the association’s Facebook page.
“These provisions target law-abiding gun owners and small businesses, not criminals,” NMSSA said. “Public safety is achieved through enforcement, accountability and education — not blanket bans and overregulation.”
Bill latest in series of high-profile firearm proposals
The Legislature has already enacted several new laws dealing with guns since Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham took office in 2019. That includes bills expanding mandatory background check requirements for firearm purchases and allowing guns to be seized from individuals deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.
However, the state’s 2024 law implementing a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases is in legal limbo after a Denver-based federal appeals court ruled last year the law was unconstitutional.
Lujan Grisham has thrown her support behind this year’s legislation, saying in her State of the State address to lawmakers last week that “nobody needs a body-shredding weapon for hunting or self-defense.”
Meanwhile, New Mexico’s firearm death rate was the nation’s fourth-highest as of 2023, according to research from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Of the 530 gun-related deaths in the state that year, there were slightly more suicides than homicides. In addition, firearm-related deaths represented the largest cause of death for state children between the ages of 1 and 17.
Ex-Las Cruces police officer sentenced to prison in fatal shooting - Algernon D’Ammassa, Albuquerque Journal
Felipe Hernandez, the former Las Cruces police officer convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the 2023 shooting of Teresa Gomez, was sentenced in state district court Wednesday to 11 years in prison with nine to serve.
The 46-year-old is seeking a new trial, claiming prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and is due back in court next week. District Attorney Fernando Macias was not available for comment Wednesday.
Hernandez was charged with second-degree murder for shooting Gomez as she drove away from him during an early morning encounter outside a public housing complex on Oct. 3, 2023. Last October, a jury deliberated for four hours before convicting Hernandez on the lesser charge instead, with a firearm enhancement.
The sentencing followed the rare conviction of a police officer for an on-duty killing.
As of last year, only 1% to 5% of murder or manslaughter charges brought against police officers resulted in convictions, and prosecutions are themselves rare. Researchers with the Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database at Bowling Green State University in Ohio have tracked crimes involving police officers since 2005 and have reported that less than 5% of such cases result in jury convictions.
Third Judicial District Judge Richard Jacquez sentenced Hernandez to six years on the voluntary manslaughter charge, enhanced by an additional five years due to discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony, with two years suspended. The sentence includes a $5,000 fine and two years of parole and probation.
Hernandez’s defense had requested that the court consider the totality of Hernandez’s career rather than “solely by his worst day,” pointing to his service in the U.S. Army and war deployments in Iraq, as well as his work as a detention officer and eight years with the Las Cruces Police Department.
In a sentencing memo, defense attorney Jeff Lahann argued that Hernandez was a dedicated public servant who felt remorse over his actions that night. He requested that most of the statutory sentence be suspended and recommended supervised probation with a focus on treatment for combat-related trauma.
“Felipe Hernandez is a man who served his country in war and his community in peace,” the memo stated. “He carries the physical and invisible scars of that service. On October 3, 2023, those scars collided with a high-stress situation, resulting in a tragedy that he deeply regrets.”
At trial, prosecutors portrayed Hernandez as a “bully with a badge,” presenting evidence that included body camera footage of an angry, profanity-laced interview with Gomez, who had been sitting in her parked vehicle with a friend. Hernandez accused the pair of trespassing, threatened to have Gomez’s car towed and to make her life “a living hell.”
Later in the interview, as shown on Hernandez’s video, Gomez asked to sit in her car and Hernandez agreed. She then turned on her engine and backed her car out of the parking spot with her door open, as Hernandez stood in its path. While stepping back and ordering her to stop, Hernandez drew his handgun and fired three rounds into the car — one of which struck and killed Gomez. She was 45 years old.
“On this day, in that moment, that was conduct that does not rise to what this community deserves from any law enforcement officer — from any person, period,” Jacquez said before pronouncing the sentence.
In 2024, the city of Las Cruces settled a civil claim with Gomez's family for $20 million.
Hernandez seeking new trial
A week before the sentencing hearing, Hernandez filed a motion for a new trial that alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.
The law requires a prosecutor’s closing argument to the jury to focus on evidence presented at trial. When Macias began reading from the LCPD’s code of ethics during his closing argument, Lahann objected that the document had not been admitted as evidence or reviewed by the jury.
Jacquez overruled the objection and Macias proceeded to read from the document and tell the jury portions of it “are so relevant and applicable in this situation.”
Lahann argued in the motion for a new trial that Macias’ statement confused the legal standard by which jurors were instructed to judge Hernandez’s actions and interfered with a fair trial. On that basis, Hernandez is asking for the verdict to be set aside for a new trial.
In response, the DA’s office denied that the statement introduced new evidence and asserted that Macias was referring to “commonly understood aspirations” of ethical conduct by law enforcement officers.
The state’s response to the motion, authored by Deputy District Attorney Tomas Medina, argued, “The jury’s verdict rests on … bedrock evidence, not on a brief recitation of ethical duties in rebuttal.”
Macias was unavailable for comment Wednesday. A hearing on Hernandez's motion is set for Feb. 6.
FEMA official overseeing NM fire victims fund received six-figure payout, documents show - Patrick Lohmann, Source New Mexico
The federal official in charge of a multi-billion-dollar fund to compensate victims of New Mexico’s biggest-ever wildfire received a six-figure payment for smoke damage at his Angel Fire home far from where the fire burned, according to documents obtained by Source New Mexico and New Mexico PBS.
Internal records reveal that Jay Mitchell, who runs the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire Claims Office, received roughly $266,000 in compensation last July for smoke and ash cleaning costs for his home and adjacent casita in Angel Fire, a ski resort town more than an hour’s drive from the hardest-hit areas of the 2022 wildfire.
Mitchell’s wife Lisa, a licensed real estate broker selling property in the Angel Fire area, received additional payments totaling more than $250,000 last August for business-related losses she said she incurred during the fire, according to the documents.
Because the U.S. Forest Service accidentally ignited the wildfire with two botched prescribed burns, Congress in late 2022 passed the Hermits Peak Fire Assistance Act requiring FEMA to compensate people who lost their homes or livelihoods due to the wildfire or subsequent flooding. The claims office, which is overseeing $5.45 billion in compensation funds, also pays property owners in and around the wildfire perimeter for smoke and ash cleaning costs for both exteriors and interiors.
According to recent estimates from the claims office, 74 individuals or families who lost their homes in the wildfire are still awaiting final compensation offers more than 3 1/2 years after the fire ripped through their communities.
Mitchell and his wife did not respond to multiple recent requests for comment from Source New Mexico, including phone calls and text messages. Source NM attempted to contact Mitchell at his Santa Fe office and his Angel Fire home. At his home, Mitchell slammed the door after shouting an expletive at reporters for approaching him at his “private residence,” and his wife accused reporters of “harassing” her.
Adán Serna, communications director for U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), told Source that while he had no first-hand knowledge of the Mitchells’ payout, “It would be deeply disappointing and shows the need for greater transparency from FEMA. The senator, Serna said, “has repeatedly called for greater transparency, improved processes, and faster claims decisions. That is the sole purpose of the Claims Office: to get money out the door to people who need it. It must also answer to Congress. Unfortunately, FEMA has failed to meet those standards.”
Less than 1,000 feet from the boundary line
FEMA named Mitchell as its new director of the Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon claims office in April of 2024. A native New Mexican, Mitchell previously served as director of the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management under Gov. Susana Martinez. He took over the claims office at a time of deep public dissatisfaction among fire victims and public officials over delays in distributing funds.
Mitchell also began work one month after the claims office rolled out its smoke compensation program.
Mitchell applied for smoke damage compensation in July 2024, and indicated in his application that he needed the payout to clean his two-story, 4,800-square-foot home and a 1,700-square-foot casita with an attached two-car garage. Recent tax records value the Mitchells’ home at about $785,000.
On July 15, 2024, Mitchell signed FEMA’s application, which requires signatories to affirm under threat of perjury that they are telling the truth that the “reported structures, contents, and need for smoke, ash, and soot cleaning on this worksheet is true and correct.”
It’s unclear how much smoke Angel Fire experienced during the wildfire, which burned primarily in nearby Mora and San Miguel counties. Last week, Source New Mexico visited Mitchell’s neighborhood, which features numerous million-dollar houses, most of them vacation rentals, tucked between aspens and Ponderosa pines on a hillside overlooking the Angel Fire Country Club.
Two year-round homeowners along the winding dirt road through Mitchell’s neighborhood, Michael Martinez and Dan Brown, in separate interviews said they were paying close attention to the fire during spring and early summer of 2022. They said they remember a few days during which they could smell smoke, but said that it did not cause any discoloration or damage to their homes or to those of anyone they know.
“We didn’t have any smoke damage,” Brown said in an interview at his home. “Now, sometimes you could smell it. Sometimes you were breathing some of it, but not heavily.”
Martinez, who lives a half mile northeast of Mitchell, told Source that, “There was no smoke damage to my house at all. We never had a day where smoke was that bad coming in. We have pictures of it just blooming up over to the south of us, but never anything that really hit our neighborhood.”
According to a Source New Mexico analysis of the map officials consult when approving smoke damage payments, Mitchell’s home is less than 1,000 feet from a boundary line demarcating a roughly 2,200-square-mile zone in which claimants need only to sign a declaration form to receive smoke compensation payments.
Had he lived on the other side of the line, Mitchell would have been required to provide additional proof of smoke damage or discoloration as part of his claim, including photos, a site inspection or invoices for professional cleaning.
Burn scar victims left behind
After FEMA rolled out payments for smoke damage, the category quickly became one of the most expensive areas of loss the office paid out. By September 2024, the office had cut checks for $393.8 million in smoke and ash damage claims to 4,168 claimants, which works out to an average of $94,500 each. That was more than one-third of the total compensation the office had released to fire victims at that time.
Meanwhile, concerns grew among survivors and elected officials that even as it released huge sums of money, the office was leaving behind people who lost the most in the fire.
Those people reside in what victims refer to as the “burn scar,” the 534-square-mile wildfire that contains multiple communities. It stretches from outside of Las Vegas, through Rociada and other hard-hit areas to south of Taos. The fire destroyed more than 900 homes within that boundary, in addition to livelihoods and forestland.
Luján posted on social media in May of 2024 that he had met with Mitchell “on behalf of impacted New Mexicans” and emphasized the importance of “prioritizing people with total home loss.”
But those concerns continued into 2025 and in January of that year, Yolanda Cruz, a fire victim who moderates a Facebook page for fellow neighbors still navigating the recovery process, and Luján’s office pushed for a meeting with Mitchell to hear directly from those who had lost their homes.
According to Cruz’s notes, which Source NM reviewed, at the meeting, Mitchell committed to prioritizing compensation to fire victims living in the burn scar, and particularly those who lost their homes.
Serna from Lujan’s office said Wednesday that Mitchell, at a late January meeting last year, reiterated that commitment. Luján’s office “has repeatedly pressed FEMA for updates on that commitment and has received insufficient responses,” Serna said.
U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, who represents the state’s 3rd Congressional District where the fire hit hardest, said in a statement provided to Source NM that her office continues to hear from constituents “who are desperate for answers and aren’t getting responses, and every week of delay means more suffering for families.”
In an interview last week at her home in Sapello, Cruz sat on her living room couch and reviewed the records of the Mitchells’ payments, a picture window behind her revealing the charred remains of acres of trees.
She said she felt betrayed to see that Jay Mitchell would agree to receive any funds for himself. She said he had an obligation, even if he was technically eligible for compensation, to ask for his claim to be put “on the back burner” until everyone in the wildfire perimeter was compensated.
“It is really disheartening and disturbing that he received this,” she said, holding a document showing the $266,000 payment for smoke damage.
She rattled off names of people who live in the direct path of where the fire burned and are still waiting: her friends, the Silvas, whose adult children lost their home and had to move with young grandkids into their trailer. Their neighbor: a mechanic waiting on business compensation and funds to pay for equipment the fire melted. Down the road, Cruz has a neighbor who has since moved to near Albuquerque after losing her home and also has yet to be compensated. Then there’s the diner owner in Las Vegas who had to shut down for months.
“Jay Mitchell has not been honest with people. He is not putting the people in the burn scar first, like he said he would,” she said.
On a tour later of her scorched property, Cruz pointed to signs of progress in her family’s recovery. Her family has been able to remove the vehicles the fire destroyed, as well her granddaughter’s playground that it liquefied.
Her son had just completed downing hazard trees at the top of the hill, she noted, leaving the hilltop barren of trees and covered with blackened sawdust. Despite the lack of vegetation, deer visit her daily, she said.
As she walked slowly back down the hill toward her home, she stayed upright by placing her hands on the bark of scorched trees. By the time she reached the bottom, her hands were coated with soot.
“This always happens,” she said, wiping the soot off her hands onto her pants.
NM Senate passes emergency bill aimed at recouping money from Gallup schools - Joshua Bowling, Source New Mexico
The New Mexico Senate voted 36-1 on Wednesday to pass a bill with an emergency clause that could start the process of recouping millions of dollars from Gallup-McKinley County Schools.
Lawmakers have been focused on the district’s finances since December, when New Mexico Public Education Department Secretary Mariana Padilla informed them of a $35 million shortfall in her agency’s budget.
That shortfall traces to May 2025, when Gallup-McKinley canceled its contract with a virtual learning provider and accused it of breaching its contract with the district. As a result, about 3,000 students enrolled in the online learning program had nowhere to go. Two other districts in New Mexico stepped up and adopted about 1,500 students apiece into their virtual classrooms.
However, since school districts receive funding based on the prior year’s enrollment numbers, Gallup-McKinley continued to draw money for virtual students it no longer had, Padilla said at the December Legislative Finance Committee hearing.
Deputy Superintendent Jvanna Hanks previously disputed that characterization to Source NM.
Sen. George Muñoz (D-Gallup) on Wednesday said that Senate Bill 19, which he co-sponsored, would give state education officials the time they need to figure out how much money was overpaid to Gallup-McKinley and how they can get it back. It passed the Senate on a 36-1 vote and carries an emergency clause, meaning it will go into effect immediately if Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signs it into law.
“This was caused by one school district…I was so pissed off,” Muñoz said from the Senate floor. “They should have returned the money.” Currently, he added, there’s no law on the books that would let the state recoup the money.
The district did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The bill orders PED to consult with the state Department of Finance and Administration, the Legislative Finance Committee and the Legislative Education Study Committee to revisit allocations made under the current fiscal year’s budget. It would provide PED and the Legislature more time “to consider potential statutory changes to address” this issue during the 2026 session, according to an LESC analysis of the bill.
Several senators who supported the bill said that virtual learning is increasingly a necessity in a state as sprawling and rural as New Mexico but, as Sen. Michael Padilla (D-Albuquerque) said, “We have to do it the right way.”
Sen. Bill Soules (D-Las Cruces) did not hold back in his praise for the legislation.
“This will be one of the defining bills of the session,” he said.