Your Land is Fracked: The Untold Story of Drilling on Our Public Lands

Note: Tim Ream is WildEarth Guardians’ new Climate and Energy Campaign Director. He’ll be joining me in blogging here from time to time.  Enjoy his first post!  — Jeremy Nichols

I’ve spent a whole lot of days and nights in my life enjoying the beautiful public lands we have been blessed with across this nation. I’ve experienced the awe of waking in subalpine forests covered in new snow, incredible morning birdsong along desert riverbanks, and the diverse life and landscapes of myriad other wonderful places on our National Forests and on lands managed for us by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Still, my first night out with WildEarth Guardians’ Climate and Energy Program Director, Jeremy Nichols, was brand new to me. We set camp in a coal-bed methane drilling field that was unlike anything I had ever seen on public lands.

Think of your favorite wild place and then imagine one of these plopped in every direction.

Think of your favorite wild place and then imagine one of these plopped in every direction.

I had just started my first week as Guardians’ new Climate and Energy Campaign Director and Jeremy decided I needed some intimate acquaintance with the land it was now my job to protect. Guardians’ vision is that our U.S. public lands should be completely free of fossil fuel development. After all, more than one in three Americans rely on public lands as a source of their drinking water. If you travel just about anywhere in this country, you surely drink water that originates on our public lands. The last thing any of us want is to have our families contaminated by chemical concoctions used to frack for oil and gas – often secret chemical combinations that companies refuse to identify to doctors or researchers.

 

Well pads don't just make your public lands hike ugly, they can kill you.

Well pads don’t just make your hike on public lands look ugly, they can kill you.

Along with clean water, we expect our National Forests and other public lands to be sources of clean air. Just the opposite is happening in many rural communities near frack jobs on our public lands. Rural communities in Utah and Colorado have already been federally declared as unhealthy air zones with fracking, oil and gas transport, and oil and gas processing the culprit for excessive smog. Air monitors in rural regions in some other Western states, otherwise free from industrial sources or heavy traffic except for oil and gas production, are also beginning to ring alarms over their decline in clean air. I personally had a hard time breathing in the worst of the areas we visited.

Great open spaces aren't so great when tracking invades.

Great open spaces aren’t so great when fracking invades.

But even if public lands oil and gas could be magically fracked (and nearly all oil and gas produced in this country nowadays is fracked) in some pristine way that didn’t pollute our air and drinking water, we’d still have to fight it. That’s because just about every serious scientist who has weighed in on global warming policy prescriptions agrees that the bulk of the fossil fuel left in the world has to be kept in the ground.

The simple truth is most fossil fuels must be left in the ground or we risk runaway global warming.

The simple truth is most fossil fuels must be left in the ground or we risk runaway global warming.

So, how are we going to lockdown hundreds of billions of dollars of fossil fuel that every greedy oilman and gas developer in the world wants to get their paws on? The same way we have created large open spaces free from industrial or residential development; the same way we have preserved landscapes big enough for bison and wolves; the same way we have kept forests uncut for miles in every direction. Our precious public lands, and the fossil fuels found under them don’t belong to the federal government. They belong to us; they’re our birthright as citizens. The government only manages them at our direction. Those are our fossil fuels. That’s our carbon. And the way I read the polls, most Americans don’t want that carbon burned up into our atmosphere, speeding the pace to an unlivable world of runaway global warming for our kids and grandkids.

The biggest most protected landscapes in our country are all on our public lands because that is where we the people have the most influence to protect them. So it only makes sense that the place we will have the most influence in locking down the first extensive sources of carbon, and thereby turning the tide on climate change, is on public lands that hold publicly-owned carbon. We have to keep the oil and gas and coal industries from burning our carbon and destroying our climate. And as the greatest historical climate polluter, it only makes sense that the U.S. has the responsibility to lead on this carbon lockdown issue by locking down our public lands fossil fuels first.

Your public lands or just another cash cow for Big Oil and Gas?

Your public lands or just another cash cow for Big Oil and Gas?

With that as our mission, Jeremy took me out for a tour of what we are up against, specifically focusing on oil and gas. It isn’t pretty. We did an 1800-mile loop from Denver up through southern Wyoming, through Utah’s Uinta Basin, down to northwestern New Mexico and then back to Colorado. Despite the distance, we still only saw a tiny fraction of public lands oil and gas drilling. In fact, the U.S. currently has more than 32 million acres under lease. That is an area of public lands fossil fuel development leasing bigger than the size of New York State. Thankfully, not all of it is being developed at this time, but that is only because oil and gas companies bid on and then hold these leased public lands in speculation. One of Guardians’ goals is to stop this lease speculation on public lands by Big Oil and Gas.

Checkerboard land ownership can put public lands fracking right next to farms and ranches.

Checkerboard land ownership can put public lands fracking right next to farms and ranches.

Despite lease speculation, the amount of active development is still huge. About 25% of fossil fuels burned in this country come from public lands, those are fossil fuels that you own. Think about that: the overwhelming majority of Americans–heck, even a majority of Republicans–have told pollster after pollster that we want the government to do more to stop global warming, but what the Obama Administration is doing instead is selling off the public’s fossil fuels to speed the rate of global warming. Sarah Palin’s “drill baby, drill” turned into Barack Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy and the result is undoing all other government efforts taken to stop global warming combined.

Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy is making global warming worse.

Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy is making global warming worse.

Jeremy and I traveled landscape after landscape riddled with gas wells, pump jacks, pipelines and processing plants. We saw hundreds of miles of new roads built across vast, previously unroaded landscapes, with the sole purpose to let Big Oil and Gas pull money out of the ground. There are huge sections of public lands that have an oil well pad every quarter of a mile in every direction for hundreds of square miles. Where there are gaps, projects are proposed to fill in the blank spaces. These well pads are eyesores, dangerous, and dominate the landscape. You can’t hunt near gas tanks. You won’t picnic next to toxic industrial facilities. And you don’t camp in well fields, maybe with the exception of Jeremy and me on a mission. For all intents and purposes, we haven’t just sold Big Oil and Gas our fossil fuels, we have given away our birthright of public land.

It has to stop. Now.

Picnic anywhere you like, but please keep the kids and pets out of the toxic waste.

Picnic anywhere you like, but please keep the kids and pets out of the toxic waste.

On these pages, Jeremy has been describing what Guardians has been doing to fight coal, oil, and gas development project by project throughout the West. We are going to step up that work, with an added focus on oil and gas. We will expand on recent court wins and we have a few novel legal approaches to help us take back our lands.

In addition, we have a bigger vision. What if the young and growing climate movement, the mature and experienced public lands movement, and the fiery and surging anti-fracking movement all joined forces to shut down one-third of all oil and gas fracking in one fell swoop? Guardians is hoping to catalyze this three-way movement marriage into the biggest threat the U.S. fossil fuel industry has ever faced. Taking back our carbon on our lands is a winnable fight and would be an incredibly powerful step turning the U.S. into a leader in addressing climate change.

Stay tuned to these pages.

And of course, you can help. Please support our work in protecting our drinking water, our air, and our climate by joining WildEarth Guardians and lending your support to kicking the fossil fuel industry off our public lands for good. Become a member or make a donation today.

I look forward to working with you on this incredibly important campaign. Check out more photos of our public lands fracking tour here. And thank you for your support.

Tim Ream

Climate and Energy Campaign Director

The author is unhappy with oil and gas drilling on public lands.

The author is unhappy with oil and gas drilling on public lands.

Coalorado Plateau

Superlatives are an understatement on the Colorado Plateau.

Home to Grand Canyon, Zion, Arches, and more, the region is the American West’s defining collision of contrasts pushed to some of the most beautiful extremes.  The land, the water, the people, the air–they’re a mélange of unlikely proportions that over time (lots of time) have come together to create one of the most iconically paradoxical joinders of culture and geology, water and desert, even life and death.

(just check out this Flickr album of bryandkeith’s bike tour of the Colorado Plateau, wonderful point of view and awesome photography!)

Yet even in this landscape marked by stark contrasts, there’s some things that seem out of place.

Like coal.

Not the natural seams of coal that streak buttes with black stripes of a carboniferous past, but the mines and the power plants concentrated in the region that have turned this past into a present-day environmental disaster.

By our count, the Colorado Plateau, which spans five states and encompasses most of the Colorado River watershed, supports 12 coal-fired power plants that collectively account for 44% of all coal-fired electricity generated in the Western United States (check out our map below, as well as another one like it on our Flickr site).  Unlike many plants in the nation that get their coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, these 12 are fueled entirely by mines on the Plateau.

Collectively, these plants take a huge toll on the region’s air, water, and land.  And this where another set of less appealing superlatives come in.

Like largest coal-fired power plant west of the Mississippi River, a distinction that belongs to the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona.  At 2,400 megawatts, the power plant is capable of providing energy to more than 1.5 million households annually.

Or largest source of nitrogen oxide emissions, a byproduct of coal combustion that forms smog and haze, a distinction that belongs to the Four Corners Power Plant in New Mexico.  In 2011, the plant released more than 37,500 tons, as much as 1.96 million cars.

Or three of the top 25 largest sources of carbon dioxide in the United States–the Navajo Generating Station, Four Corners Power Plant, and Jim Bridger Station in Wyoming (13th, 24th, and 14th, respectively).

To that end, the largest source of carbon dioxide in every state in the region (with the exception of Utah) is located on the Plateau:  Arizona’s Navajo Generating Station, New Mexico’s Four Corners Power Plant, Colorado’s Craig Generating Station, and Wyoming’s Jim Bridger Station (the Hunter Power Plant in Utah is the second largest in the State).

But even more distressing is the fact that these plants collectively report more than 20.5 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air and water, and on the land.  To put that into perspective, that’s almost as much as was released in the entire State of Colorado in 2010 (23 million tons reported to EPA).

In other words, these 12 power plants spew almost as much toxic pollution as an entire state.  These toxic releases include more than 1,800 pounds of mercury emitted into the air from the plant’s smokestacks.

Perhaps it’s no wonder the Colorado Plateau has some of the highest concentrations of mercury in the West.  Studies in Mesa Verde National Park, an icon of the region’s rich pre-Puebloan history, have even confirmed the link between the region’s power plants and mercury contamination.

Check out our detailed chart of toxic releases for every one of these coal-fired power plants.

Not surprisingly, haze and smog are becoming major concerns.  Air monitors throughout the region have reported dozens of exceedances of federal limits on ground-level ozone, the key ingredient of urban smog.  In an area defined and treasured because of its remoteness, it’s clear vistas, and it’s lack of urbanity, that’s a big problem.

And while power plants aren’t the only source of pollution in the region, it’s becoming all too clear that the key to solving these problems is to tackle coal on the Colorado Plateau.

This imperative is especially urgent given there are still looming plans to expand the region’s coal footprint.  The proposed Desert Rock power plant in New Mexico is still on the table and there’s been a recent surge in Obama Administration support for expanding coal development on Navajo lands.  And Colorado has at least three new coal mine proposals developing, Oak Mesa, Red Cliff, and Sage Creek.

The list, unfortunately, is expanding.

Certainly, the Colorado Plateau is defined by its contrasts, but there’s been a certain harmony in all this.  The irony with coal is that is stands to overshadow even this region’s rich contradictions, especially as global warming makes this land ever drier, hotter, even dustier.

For anyone who loves the American West, there should be no question that there needs to be a move away from coal on the Colorado Plateau.

That may be the biggest understatement of them all.

Colorado Plateau Coal Map-March 2012

Shutting ’em Down

Yes, it’s no surprise that WildEarth Guardians would like to see a coal-fired power plant that can’t comply with the Clean Air Act shut down rather than see it continue to pollute.

After all, we yank licenses from people who repeatedly violate traffic laws.  Why wouldn’t we do the same with polluters that put our air at risk?

But what of a coal-fired power plant that can comply with the Clean Air Act?  Should they all be shut down?

Well, from a practical standpoint, yes.

The evidence showing that coal plants cost more than the benefits they provide is mounting.  Not only have more and more economic studies confirmed this, but as The Economist reports in its latest edition, coal is certainly on the decline.  And news of more coal-fired power plant retirements just keep coming.

The question then becomes, should we spend more money on making coal clean, or invest that money in energy that’s clean from the start?

Case in point is here in the West, where dozens of aging coal-fired power plants are facing multi-million dollar clean air upgrades.  Take the San Juan Generation Station in New Mexico where Public Service Company of New Mexico, or PNM, is facing the prospect of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make their coal-fired power plant cleaner than it is now.

Or take the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona, which the U.S. Interior Department says retrofitting with up-to-date clean air controls could “significantly increase water rates” for indigenous communities in the Four Corners region and Arizonans dependent upon the water pumped by this coal-fired power plant.

Sure, we need clean air, and we certainly need water, there’s no doubt about that.  But with the mounting liability of coal, the smarter choice seems to be to change course and start investing in energy that’s clean from the start.  And with the President himself calling for a national clean energy standard that will lead to a sharp reduction in coal use, the writing seems to be on the wall (true, there’s devils in them clean energy details, but the bottomline is it would mean less coal).

For the San Juan and Navajo Generating Stations, this means charting a path away from coal as soon as possible, rather than saddling New Mexico and Arizona citizens, as well as indigenous communities in the Four Corners region, with the cost of clean air upgrades that ultimately the debt of more coal.

This isn’t radical environmentalism, folks.  This is the plain and simple truth that coal carries liabilities that in this day of age, just aren’t acceptable.  As recent Colorado College polling data confirms, westerners overwhelmingly support clean energy over coal.

It’s one thing to violate the Clean Air Act.  That’s reprehensible.  It’s another to violate the laws of common sense.

As the liability of coal continues to mount, then yes, it makes sense to shut down coal-fired power plants and invest in a better way to generate electricity.  For those of us in the American West that cherish clean air and water, the shift can’t come soon enough.

Coal can do that?

The reality of coal.

Greed Trumps Clean Energy at PNM

At last, the truth is coming out.

PNM is fighting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to clean up the company’s coal-fired San Juan Generating Station not because they want to protect ratepayers and not because they have a better plan.

It’s because they don’t have any money.

In a motion asking the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to put the brakes on the EPA’s clean up plan, the company, which is New Mexico’s largest utility, stated that it “does not have sufficient internally generated cash flow to pay for the SCR project and will have to raise substantial funding for it in the capital markets.”

In other words, their pockets are empty.  And to pay to clean up the San Juan Generating Station’s air pollution would require fundraising in capital markets.

Now normally, that wouldn’t be a problem for a big utility, especially one that’s a regulated monopoly, like PNM.  Remember, under New Mexico law, the company is guaranteed to recover a reasonable rate of return from its customers, which makes it a “can’t lose” investment.

Except, somehow, investments in PNM are losing.

In testimony submitted to the 10th Circuit, PNM treasurer, Terry Horn, explained not only that “Standard and Poor’s currently rates PNM as below investment grade” but also that “PNM Resource, Inc. common stock trades well below its book value.”

Put another way, the company’s credit is in the pits, meaning the market has no faith that investments in PNM will pay off as expected.  As a result, the cost of acquiring new capital to pay for clean air retrofits promises to be enormous.

As if that wasn’t enough, PNM’s ability to recover the costs of financing the clean air retrofits would be questionable, at best.  Under New Mexico law, the company can only recover costs that are “reasonable and prudent.”  By any measure, it’s difficult to believe that exorbitant finance costs stemming from the company’s poor credit would be considered “reasonable and prudent.”

In the end, PNM’s shareholders will have to absorb the finance costs and possibly more.  It’s no wonder the company is freaked out.

Unfortunately, instead of coming clean with its financial predicament, PNM is resorting to greedy desperation.  Like attacking the EPA’s clean air plan.  And worse, they’re working to pass legislation that would impose a “non-bypassable surcharge” on New Mexico ratepayers, a scheme that would essentially force ratepayers to cover the costs of cleaning up the San Juan Generating Station, regardless of whether those costs are reasonable and prudent.

Worst of all, though, now they’re accusing the concerned public of being liars.

Case in point is a letter that PNM’s Executive Director for Environmental Services, Maureen Gannon, sent to WildEarth Guardians the day before Thanksgiving.

In the letter, PNM accuses WildEarth Guardians of being inaccurate.  What are these inaccuracies, you might ask?  Let’s take a look:

  • PNM claims that WildEarth Guardians is inaccurate in asserting that the “only alternative offered by PNM is to continue operating the plant as is with nominal pollution controls.”  Yet according to the numbers, this statement is not inaccurate.  PNM spurred the State of New Mexico to adopt a plan that would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by only 17%, whereas the EPA’s plan would reduce emissions by 83% (the baseline nitrogen oxide emission rate for the power plant is 0.28 pounds per million Btus—the EPA’s plan would reduce that rate to 0.05 pounds per million Btus whereas PNM’s pla would reduce that rate to only 0.23 pounds per million Btus).

I suppose “nominal” is in the eyes of the beholder, but a 17% compared to an 83% reduction in harmful emissions seems to speak for itself.

  • PNM further claims that WildEarth Guardians is inaccurate in asserting that “PNM has proposed to force ratepayers to cover the full costs of air pollution controls without determining whether such costs are reasonable and prudent,” which is interesting because, as mentioned, the company has proposed a scheme to foist a a non-bypassable surcharge upon ratepayers to cover the costs of the clean up.
  • Most significantly, PNM also takes issue with modeling showing that the San Juan Generating Station contributes to 33 premature deaths at a cost of more than $250 million annually.  The company is referring to a Clean Air Task Force report that modeled the health risks of coal-fired power plants throughout the country using the same methodologies used by the EPA to estimate the health costs of benefits of major clean air regulations.

PNM may disagree with the methods used by health and environmental regulators to estimate costs and benefits, but that doesn’t mean the modeling is flawed.  And it certainly does not mean there are no health risks from the San Juan Generating Station, as the company asserts.

Sadly, rather than face the truth, it’s just more hot air from PNM.

Despite their claims of inaccuracies, their claims that they are looking out for ratepayers, and their claims that their plan is somehow better than the EPA’s, PNM can’t hide the fact that it cares more about making money than about protecting clean air, public health, and our environment from the coal burning San Juan Generating Station.

WildEarthGuardians_PNMActionNov2011_AnaJune_IMG_5146

Singing Solar Telegram

WildEarth Guardians’ week of clean energy action in New Mexico peaked with the delivery of a singing solar telegram to Governor Susana Martinez and was capped not only by a great night with Bill McKibben in Santa Fe, but news the next day that the Obama Administration was thankfully delaying a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Even some in Congress are starting to question why this country is continuing to pay for the full economic costs fossil fuels, in particular coal.  It’s no wonder, the latest study in the American Economic Review found that the economic damage of coal-fired power plants outweighed the benefits by up to 5.6 times.

In other words, we pay $5.60 for every $1.00 in benefits that coal may provide.  That’s nothing short of insane.  It’s like paying someone to paint your house while they tear it down.

Or in New Mexico, it’s like paying PNM for electricity while they destroy our air and water.

In the meantime, enjoy our singing solar telegram video (check out the lyrics on our website) and stay tuned for more clean energy action.

The Nerve

We must be getting to PNM.

After a successful protest yesterday against PNM and their schemes to keep burning coal, WildEarth Guardians received a letter from the company’s corporate counsel, Madonna Bixby.

Of all things, Ms. Bixby asked us to “immediately” remove a presentation that we posted in a November 6th blog post detailing PNM’s plans to force ratepayers to cover the costs of operating the coal burning San Juan Generating Station, no matter how unreasonable or imprudent.

In case you need a refresher, here’s the presentation.

Not only did the letter ask us to take down the presentation, but it asked us to destroy any hard copies we might have in our possession.

It’s classic corporate scare tactics.

Because the fact is, we had and continue to have every right to post and distribute PNM’s presentation on this blog.  Despite being labeled “confidential,” the presentation in question was distributed by PNM to various stakeholders outside of the company.  That’s how WildEarth Guardians obtained it in the first place.

And that’s why any claim that the presentation is somehow “proprietary” or “confidential” is simply unfounded.  PNM shared this information already and we’re just sharing alike.

But although PNM has some nerve to try to pressure us to take down their presentation and keep their forced rate recovery scheme a secret, it just seems to be another example of the lengths the company is going to undermine a safe and healthy environment in New Mexico.

Not only are they fighting a clean air plan for the San Juan Generating Station, they’re also opposing greenhouse gas regulation in New Mexico.  And as far as progress toward meeting New Mexico’s modest renewable energy standard, PNM’s track record is pitiful–the company isn’t even on track to meet a 2012 goal of deriving 10% of its electricity from renewable sources, even though other utilities are already meeting this goal.

So no, we’re not going to take down PNM’s presentation and we’re not going to stop talking about how the company is proposing to force ratepayers to cover the mounting costs of the San Juan Generating Station.

And we’re not going stop calling on PNM to move beyond coal to clean energy until they actually do it.  Our future is too important to lose to corporate scare tactics.

DSC_9690
WildEarth Guardians delivers the message to PNM.

Paying PNM to Pollute

It’s bad enough that PNM is fighting efforts to clean up the San Juan Generating Station, now the company wants to force ratepayers in New Mexico to pay for this coal burning power plant to pollute indefinitely.

Last week, WildEarth Guardians learned that Public Service Company of New Mexico, or PNM, is seeking state legislation that would guarantee rate recovery for the utility.  In a presentation entitled “Limiting the Impact of Environmental Upgrades at the San Juan and Four Corners Generating Facilities,” PNM outlined its proposed “securitization” scheme, which is really nothing more than a plan to guarantee the company’s ability to recover costs from ratepayers.  As the presentation notes on page 8, a key component of the scheme is legislation to guarantee cost recovery through a “non-bypassable surcharge on customer bills.”

In simpler terms, the plan would force ratepayers to cover the costs of cleaning up the San Juan Generating Station, no matter how unreasonable or imprudent it may be to pass those costs along to ratepayers.

It’s an incredibly dangerous proposal.  Although certainly PNM has every right to ask ratepayers to cover the costs of cleaning up the San Juan Generating Station, the company isn’t entitled to recover a single cent unless and until the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission finds that those costs are “reasonable and prudent.”

In this case, PNM is sidestepping the whole “reasonable and prudent” assessment altogether.  Instead, they’re hoping that New Mexico’s Legislature will just give them a blank check.

But what this scheme really exposes is PNM’s shaky financial situation and their ability to deal with the fact that the San Juan Generating Station is more of a liability than ever before.

To be certain, air pollution from the San Juan Generating Station needs to be cleaned up.  Without a doubt, this pollution is imposing a terrible burden on the health and environment of New Mexico and the surrounding region.

What isn’t certain, however, is how the clean up should be paid for.  Despite PNM’s rhetoric about how the EPA’s clean up plan will jack up electricity rates, the reality is the company has no guarantee it will be able to raise rates to cover the costs of the retrofits.  Put another way, PNM is facing the very real prospect that it will have to cover the costs of cleaning up the San Juan Generating Station substantially, if not entirely, from its own pockets.

And with this uncertainty, the company is also facing the prospect of exorbitant financing costs for the retrofits, costs that would be difficult, if not impossible, to foist upon ratepayers.

It doesn’t help that PNM has one of the lowest credit ratings of any U.S. utility, making financing all the more expensive cost recovery all the more difficult.  It’s hard to believe that it would be reasonable and prudent for ratepayers to shoulder the burden of PNM’s poor credit rating.

Financially, PNM is in a pickle with the San Juan Generating Station.  Unfortunately, what they’ve proposed is to shift the burden to the ratepayer through its sneaky “securitization” scheme.

Ultimately, while the San Juan Generating Station may get cleaned up, the liability of the coal-fired power plant will be shouldered by ratepayers for years.  In the end, PNM and its shareholders will get the cash and the people will get the shaft.

That’s a really high price to pay for clean air.

And of course, PNM’s “securitization” scheme is belied by the fact that there is another option:  retiring the San Juan Generating Station altogether.  It’s not an unreasonable consideration.

Given PNM’s shaky financial footing, one seriously has to question whether it makes sense to continue operating this coal-fired power plant, especially given that PNM feels it has to sneak behind the public’s back to pass a “securitization” scheme just to cover the costs of cleanup.

And given the enormous public health and environmental benefits that ratepayers would reap from shutting down the power plant, the options seems more like a no-brainer now than ever before.

If the San Juan Generating Station is such a liability for PNM, then it’s time they start putting their money where their mouth is, instead of expecting ratepayers to do it for them.

In the meantime, PNM’s “securitization” scheme needs to be rejected.  There’s better ways to provide affordable energy and clean air for New Mexico than paying PNM to pollute.

DSCN2409

PNM’s San Juan Generating Station.