AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico challenged the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board's adoption of a new regulation, Part 50, which regulates ozone precursor emissions from the oil and gas sector. The regulation aims to ensure compliance with national air quality standards by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The Association argued that certain provisions of the regulation were contrary to law, including the inclusion of specific counties and the definition of small business facilities (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board: Adopted Part 50, regulating ozone precursor emissions (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico): Argued that the Board exceeded its authority by including Chaves and Rio Arriba counties, that the small business facility definition was arbitrary, that certain monitoring requirements were outside the scope of the rulemaking, and that the Board failed to consider the rule's impact on ozone concentrations (paras 6-9).
• Appellees (New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board and Intervenors): Contended that the Board acted within its authority, that the regulation was necessary to meet national standards, and that the rulemaking process was properly followed (paras 10-11, 16-17, 20-22, 23-24, 33-34).

Legal Issues

• Did the Board exceed its statutory authority by including Chaves and Rio Arriba counties in the regulation?
• Was the inclusion of the gross annual revenue prong in the small business facility definition arbitrary?
• Did the Board exceed its authority in adopting certain provisions of the regulation?
• Were the proximity monitoring requirements outside the scope of the noticed rulemaking proceeding?
• Was the Board's adoption of Part 50 arbitrary and capricious due to a failure to consider the rule's impact on ozone concentrations?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's adoption of Part 50 (para 35).

Reasons

Per Bogardus J. (Yohalem and Baca JJ. concurring):

• The Board acted within its authority by including Chaves and Rio Arriba counties, as these areas were within regions exceeding 95% of national ozone standards (paras 10-15).
• The gross annual revenue prong in the small business facility definition was not arbitrary, as it balanced regulatory relief with the need to prevent early abandonment of wells (paras 16-19).
• The Board did not exceed its authority in adopting 20.2.50.125(G) NMAC, as it merely established factors for applying the small business exemption (paras 20-22).
• The proximity monitoring requirements were within the scope of the noticed rulemaking, as they did not change the emission sources regulated but only increased monitoring frequency (paras 23-32).
• The Board's adoption of Part 50 was not arbitrary and capricious, as it was based on substantial evidence and aimed to reduce ozone precursor emissions to meet national standards (paras 33-34).