OCC Case 25875: Proposed New Rules to 19.15.41, 19.15.42 and 19.15.43 NMAC

The issue: New Mexico is writing the rules that will govern permanent underground carbon dioxide storage wells for decades to come. Once EPA hands over “primacy” (state control of permitting), these rules — not federal ones — will decide how these projects are sited, monitored, and held accountable. This is a narrow window to get it right, and other states (Colorado, Louisiana, Wyoming, West Virginia) have already enacted rules New Mexico can take into consideration. “New Mexico doesn’t have to choose between a weak rule and no rule at all. Other states have already shown what strong rules look like, and New Mexico can meet or beat them.”

Dates: July 27-August 7. The hearing could end early, however.

Public comments: July 27 for one hour at 4:00pm, and then 9:00am each day July 28 and thereafter. A Spanish language translator will be available at 9:00 a.m. on August 4, 7, and 11, 2026.

In-person location: Pecos Hall on the first floor of the Wendell Chino Building at 1220 S. St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM, 87505.

Online participation:

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/295417415162748?p=nBNL1maxYlmCTkLIj6
Meeting ID: 295 417 415 162 748
Passcode: mB7R8JB7

Tone guidance:

• Lead with public safety, accountability, and fairness — not with opposition to carbon storage as a technology. The letter’s asks are about making the rules strong, not blocking the program, which makes this framing more persuasive to a regulator who is trying to get primacy approved.
• Rely on safety first and local control as core concepts.
• Use terms like “communities,” “families,” “drinking water,” and “decades/centuries” rather than technical terms.
• Instead of “guardrails,” say “public safety measures.”
• Cite the comparison states by name. Specificity builds credibility.
• Avoid overstating — say “the draft rules don’t currently require X” rather than “OCD is ignoring X.”
• These rules will not apply to carbon dioxide injection on the Navajo Nation.

 

1. Keep these wells away from homes, schools, and daycare centers

The draft rules look at the geology under a project site but don’t require any distance from homes, schools, or childcare centers above ground.

The ask: Adopt a minimum safety buffer — Colorado requires 2,000 feet from homes, schools, and commercial buildings, with no exceptions. New Mexico should do the same.

“You wouldn’t put a school next to an active industrial well site. The rules shouldn’t allow it the other way around either.”

 

2. Close the loophole that lets risky wells avoid the strongest safety rules

There are two categories of injection wells: old-style “Class II” wells (originally for oil recovery) and new “Class VI” wells (built specifically for long-term carbon dioxide storage, with much stronger safeguards). Because of a recent federal tax credit change, companies may choose to inject far more carbon dioxide into old Class II wells. The draft rules don’t clearly say when a Class II well has to “graduate” to the tougher Class VI standard — leaving a lot of storage happening without the stronger rules ever kicking in.

The ask: Set a clear, objective trigger for when a well must convert from Class II to Class VI — don’t leave it to a vague/subjective judgment call. Even Texas’ approach (convert once oil recovery is no longer the main purpose, or risk increases) is more protective than the current ambiguous language.

“A well doesn’t become less risky just because of what people call it. The public safety rules should address the risk, not a label.”

 

3. Don’t let companies “self-insure” against their own cleanup costs

The draft rules would let companies use “self-bonding” — essentially promising to cover cleanup and closure costs out of their own finances, with no independent backing — to prove they can pay for accidents, plugging wells, or long-term monitoring. This has failed before. In 2015-2016, three of the largest U.S. coal companies that were allowed to self-bond hundreds of millions of dollars all went bankrupt, leaving the public to shoulder huge industrial costs.

The ask: Eliminate self-insurance/self-bonding as an allowed financial assurance option, as Colorado has already done. Require real, independent financial instruments (bonds, insurance, escrow) instead.

“A company’s promise to pay isn’t the same as money set aside — and the state of New Mexico has already been left holding the bag too many times.”

 

4. Monitor these sites for the long haul.

Carbon dioxide injected underground is meant to stay there essentially forever, but the draft rules only require post-injection site care to take place until drinking water sources are not at risk. However, the carbon dioxide can continue to move underground for hundreds of years.

The ask: Require that a carbon dioxide plume stabilize before a company can walk away from monitoring responsibilities — following Wyoming’s model.

“Much is uncertain about underground carbon injection, and we would be better safe than sorry in case something unforeseen happens.”

 

5. Multiple wells close together create risks no single permit accounts for

When several injection wells operate near each other, the combined pressure and carbon dioxide movement can create leak risks that don’t show up when each well is reviewed on its own.

The ask: Require Class VI permits to anticipate interactions with all other operational or historic injection projects within a 10-mile radius.

“These wells don’t operate in isolation, and the rules shouldn’t treat them as if they do.”

 

6. The public should have transparency into how an operator modeled their project. 

When a permit application doesn’t tell the public how an operator predicted where the injected carbon dioxide will go, the public can’t tell whether the operator accurately anticipated the risk to drinking water sources or communities. Although state law already protects “confidential information” in a permit application, operators should not be able to claim publicly available information as confidential.

The ask: Require OCD to deny claims of confidentiality for any information that is already available in the public record (e.g. maps).

“Decisions that have the potential to harm water sources must not be made in a black box. Keeping people safe means making methodologies for these injection projects’ modeling public.”

 

7. Monitoring wells help show movement of carbon dioxide underground.

Monitoring wells tell an operator if the carbon dioxide is moving underground as predicted, but if a monitoring well is in the wrong place, it is useless. The draft rules do not specify how many monitoring wells an operator must install, and more will help prevent problems from going undetected.

The ask: Require that an operator install at least four monitoring wells to track movement of the carbon dioxide underground.

“Knowing where injected carbon dioxide is moving is essential to public safety. At least four monitoring wells are needed to keep New Mexicans safe.”

 

8. Old oil and gas wells are a leakage risk.

Old oil and gas wells that are unplugged or poorly plugged may leak brine or carbon dioxide to the surface when a nearby carbon dioxide injection project increases pressure underground.

The ask: Require operators to physically search for undocumented abandoned wells and provide detailed plugging records for all abandoned wells near the carbon dioxide injection project.

“Large swaths of New Mexico are Swiss cheese from a century of oil and gas drilling. We have to be sure when we inject carbon dioxide underground it’s not going to force pollutants out of those many holes.”

 

9. Carbon dioxide corrodes concrete well infrastructure.

Carbon dioxide injection wells must be constructed with corrosion-resistant materials because carbon dioxide corrodes concrete.

The ask: Require any type of well near a carbon dioxide project to be drilled (monitoring wells) or plugged (abandoned wells) with corrosion-resistant materials to prevent leaking of carbon dioxide to the surface.

“Safety and public health demand carbon dioxide injection must stay safely underground, which requires nearby wells be built and/or plugged with corrosion-resistant materials.”

 

10. Emergency response needs to be quick.

The draft rules require operators to maintain an emergency plan in case something goes wrong, but don’t specify that the operator must have at least one person available at all times to carry out that plan.

The ask: Require that an operator have at least one employee available at all times to carry out the emergency plan.

“Firefighters, plumbers, and electricians all have on-call hours to deal with emergencies. Corporations whose activities could harm our drinking water supplies should also.”

 

11. Injection should stop immediately when something goes wrong.

The draft rules require that injection operations pause when there’s evidence of a risk to drinking water sources, but don’t specify triggers such as communities experiencing earthquakes, carbon dioxide releases to the surface, unexpected carbon dioxide migration, or gauge malfunctions close to the injection site.

The ask: Require all injection operations to stop when there are situations suggesting the above risks – not just to drinking water sources, but to communities living above the injection projects.

“Just like any other industrial spill, when carbon dioxide injection shows risk of harm to communities or the environment, the rules must require injection to stop immediately.”

 

12. Surface air monitoring should be mandatory.

Surface air monitoring can detect carbon dioxide leaking to the surface and threatening communities. The draft rules do not require all operators to perform surface air monitoring.

The ask: Require air monitoring for all injection projects.

“Skipping air monitoring at carbon dioxide injection sites is short-sighted, could result in larger leaks, and could really hurt people. It is a small price to pay for public safety.”