Claudia Borchert

The special meeting began with roll call and introduction of guests. Key discussion points included procedural guidance regarding member interaction during the meeting and public comment etiquette. The board reviewed and approved the meeting agenda after excluding the approval of previous minutes. The board received public comments, though no action was taken. Significant focus was placed on agenda item five regarding the utility operator certification advisory board seat vacancy, involving the review of candidate resumes and allowing candidates to introduce themselves and speak regarding their qualifications. Discussions among board members highlighted the importance of ethics, integrity, and safety standards in the utility operation field, especially concerning emerging contaminants and operator training/retention.

The hearing, EIB 25-61 (R), focused on the proposed new rule concerning Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Key discussions involved the qualifications of a testifying expert regarding PFAS chemistry and health effects, the global status of PFOA and PFOS phase-out, and the risks associated with fluoropolymers, including emissions during manufacturing and contamination from disposal via landfills or incineration. Proposers also debated the specifics of proposed labeling requirements, advocating for exemptions for complex durable goods, internal components, and automotive/marine vessel products, arguing that current proposed specifications (like referencing the NMED website or including requirements in specification sheets) were impractical or confusing compared to standard consumer product labeling.

The meeting commenced with roll call and approval of the current agenda, followed by the approval of the minutes from the February 12, 2026 meeting. The main discussion involved a public hearing for EIB 25-61 concerning the proposed adoption of a new rule regarding per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products. Preliminary matters included discussions on hearing procedure, witness location, and exhibit sharing via WebEx. A motion in limine was heard from the American Chemistry Council seeking to exclude technical information from the Environment Department that was not disclosed during the public notice period; this motion was denied by the hearing officer, who cited experience that rulemaking is informed by technical information developed throughout the process. Subsequently, the Complex Products Manufacturers Coalition raised arguments against the Environment Department's motion to exclude portions of their testimony, arguing that the witness, Martha Maripese, was not properly qualified regarding economic, health, or environmental impacts.

The session, which is day two of the hearing for EIB 25-61 concerning a proposed new rule on PFAS, involved continued testimony from department witnesses, including both direct and rebuttal presentation. A public comment period was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. Preliminary matters addressed included granting a motion because an involved party was not opposing it, and adjusting the witness schedule to allow Dr. Richard Melstrom to testify remotely first thing the following morning. The primary witness presentation featured Dr. Jamie Dwit, a toxicology professor, who summarized his written testimony regarding the life cycle concerns of PFAS, exposure pathways, and documented adverse health effects linked to well-studied PFAS, such as increased risk of cancer (kidney and testicular), low birth weight, decreased vaccine response, liver damage, increased cholesterol in humans, and endocrine disruption (thyroid effects). Dr. Dwit emphasized that understudied PFAS are also a concern and that consumers have the right to know about PFAS content in products.

The key discussions and actions centered on Agenda Item Number Four concerning EIB25-23R, which involved the proposed adoption of 20.2.92 ENMAT Clean Transportation Field Program. This involved addressing a joint objection and motion to strike submissions outside the record filed by industry parties, including the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. The Board voted to deny this motion. Following this, the Board considered the draft Statement of Reasons (SOR) for the rule, incorporating minor edits discussed by board members, and subsequently voted to adopt the SOR. The final administrative step for this agenda item was the transmittal form, which formalizes the adopted rule and SOR from the Board. An update was also provided regarding the rule review status with the state records center.