When Diane Metoyer, the office manager for Albuquerque-based Affordable Solar, asks for a customer’s Social Security number to help them apply for the state’s solar tax credit, they tend to balk.
The hesitancy doesn’t usually last long: All Metoyer has to do is explain the process they would face to apply for the credit themselves. “And then they just give me the social,” she said.
Affordable Solar is one of a handful of solar installation companies that walk clients through the rigorous application process for New Mexico’s tax incentive for home energy systems. The credit, revived by the state Legislature in 2020, offers up to $6,000 or 10% of the cost to install a renewable energy system at a residence or business.
Advertisement
With the Dec. 31 expiration of a larger federal tax credit — which covered 30% of a solar project’s cost — New Mexico solar companies are seeing a decline in business. In the absence of a federal credit, increased focus is on the state counterpart, which some lawmakers are seeking to increase during the current legislative session to make up for the lost federal incentives.
Santos Torres of Affordable Solar prepares solar panels to be installed onto the roof of a home in Albuquerque on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
A fiscal analysis for Senate Bill 55, which would increase the New Mexico income tax credit from 10% of a project’s cost to 30% and the individual reimbursement cap from $6,000 to $15,000, says the more enticing offer could lead to higher demand for the state program.
Solar companies and consultants say the federal credit was simple to apply for, but the state’s version may be more difficult for homeowners to navigate. Funds for the program initially were too low to meet demand, creating further frustrations for applicants.
“It’s supposed to be an incentive,” said Daniel Baker, who owns consulting firm EnviroKarma in Santa Fe. “So why should this form be so hard to use that someone has to hire me to do it for them?”
Advertisement
The state requires proof of ownership of a property where a system was installed; a building code inspection report; an itemized invoice for the installation, including labor, equipment, permitting and materials; the system’s schematic and specs; a bird’s-eye-view site plan; and an electrical diagram.
For the federal tax credit, before its expiration, documentation was only required if an applicant’s income tax return was audited.
Bill could boost demand
The state previously had a solar tax credit that expired in 2016. Lawmakers brought it back four years later.
Homeowners and businesses couldn’t get enough. A cap for the program, initially set at $8 million and later at $12 million, was met in fiscal years 2020, 2021 and 2022, leaving many applicants behind.
Advertisement
The Legislature decided to approve some supplemental funding, said Rebecca “Puck” Stair, director of the Energy Conservation and Management Division, which administers the tax credit. That led to a spike in the number of approved projects in fiscal year 2023, Stair said, which she thinks might create an artificial appearance of a decline in interest in following years.
The cap was also raised to $30 million in total credit value starting in fiscal year 2024. Distributions were about $8 million that year, far under the cap. In fiscal year 2025, about $6 million in credits have been claimed so far.
But Stair said that’s not necessarily an indication interest has declined; the department typically sees an influx of applications in the months before the tax deadline.
“I don’t want to speak for the legislators, but I suspect their intent was to set the cap high enough that we would never hit it again,” she said. “Because it was frustrating for a lot of folks involved.”
Not every New Mexican who installs solar on their home or business applies for the credit. The vast majority of the projects certified by the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department connect with Public Service Company of New Mexico’s power grid. Each year of the program, the number of people connecting their residential solar into PNM’s network has exceeded by a few thousand the number of projects receiving state credits.
Advertisement
According to the fiscal analysis for SB 55, demand from New Mexicans for the federal tax credit exceeded that for the state credit. Increasing the credit value could bring claims closer to that $30 million cap, the analysis stated.
“While the existing state credit resulted in only about $9 million claimed in FY25 with roughly 3,500 claims on average over the last three years, the substantially larger level of prior federal participation — about 12,500 federal claims totaling nearly $60 million in tax year 2023 — suggests a much larger pool of households and businesses have recently demonstrated demand for a solar incentive at or near a 30 percent credit rate,” the report states.
Stair said the state’s solar tax credit was cut when a federal incentive was put in place. SB 55, if adopted, would actually restore the tax credit to its previous levels, she added.
Stansfield said incentives remain an important part of the residential solar business. After the larger, federal tax credit expired at the end of the year, the Albuquerque-based solar company let go of about half its staff, predicting a decline in business of about 60%.
January is already the slow season for a solar company, Stansfield said — not many people are thinking about solar in the short, cloudy winter days. Although the business is still likely overstaffed due to projected declines, he added, it is closely watching the outcome of SB 55.
Advertisement
“We are putting a lot of eggs in that basket. We have maybe kept staff … in hope that that comes through,” he said. “If that doesn’t come through, then we’re going to be facing more challenges.”
System tough for some
Some solar energy professionals say helping clients apply for the New Mexico incentives — especially with the loss of the federal tax credit — has become important part of their business.
Affordable Solar already has a lot of the client information the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department requests for certification of eligible projects, general manager Wayne Stansfield said.
“We felt that in lieu of sending the information and … leaving them to fend for themselves, we could kind of shepherd that process through and probably just make it more efficient for both parties,” he added.
Advertisement
While some of the requested details may be foreign to a homeowner, he said, the process is relatively speedy when a company has all the documents in hand.
Dionne Shirley, permit and inspections coordinator and “jack of all trades” for Positive Energy Solar, which serves customers in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, said the company has adjusted its pricing to include the tax credit application.
When the credit was brought back in 2020, Shirley said, her colleague noted the employee-owned company would be “inundated with calls by customers for help” and suggested they get ahead of the curve.
At first it took at least an hour to apply, she said, but she’s been able to automate some of the process and cut that time in half. Without automation, she added, the process would be “so overwhelming.”
Metoyer said the process was “kind of nerve-wracking” when she first started about a year ago, due to the amount of information required from the state agency. But over time, she’s developed her own system, and the online technology has improved.
Advertisement
Stansfield, meanwhile, recalled when applications were only done on paper.
The online system had some kinks when it was first rolled out, he said, adding it’s a vast improvement over the previous system.
Though, he acknowledged, “Change is never easy.”
Baker, of EnviroKarma, is more critical. It’s always been difficult to get the 10% tax credit from the state, he said, and he doesn’t believe the online application has made the process easier.
“It’s been on the books and legislated and funded,” Baker said. “But the hoops that a homeowner has to go to get that 10%, it’s incredible.”
Advertisement
Baker said one of his clients had two eligible solar systems on one property, but when he tried to apply for tax credits for the second system, the online form wouldn’t take the address because it was tied to an existing an application.
Michael Standridge carries a solar panel to his crew during a installation at a home in Albuquerque on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
While some other solar installers said the online form was an improvement over the previous system, Baker thinks it’s now worse because there’s no paper workaround if the form glitches or people encounter other challenges.
Baker’s client, who declined to be named due to concerns his future applications could be stalled by the state, lives on a property with two small homes and installed solar energy systems on both in 2024. The promise of both state and federal rebates made the installation cost affordable, he said, but he encountered problems with the state system.
A delay in receiving the tax credits made repaying a loan for the project more difficult. On Wednesday — about a year after he had started the process — the solar project on the second building was finally certified.
Advertisement
State: Process streamlined
Stair said the state has streamlined the tax credit application process as much as possible, given statutory requirements.
Santos Torres hands off a solar panel to Michael Standridge during an installation at a home in Albuquerque on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
Her division manages 10 of the state’s energy and conservation tax credits, with four full-time staffers overseeing all of them.
“When we went from paper to digital, we really took a hard look at everything that we were asking and tried to reduce it to the absolute minimum, to make it easy for everyone,” Stair said. “And I think it’s gotten a lot more streamlined.”
Advertisement
Department spokesperson Sidney Hall said he’s heard questions from some customers who have had their installation company go out of business and have struggled to find some of the needed documentation. The department tries to guide them to support.
Stair said applicants are welcome to come to the office in Santa Fe, at 1220 S. St. Francis Drive, if they need assistance, a computer or a better internet connection. She also encourages New Mexicans interested in installing solar to apply for the credit early and review the requirements, even before putting in a system.
“We obviously have to follow the law,” Stair said. “So there’s certain things we have to request in the paperwork. … We really encourage people to read the user guide, which is like a step-by-step ‘what you’ll need.’ ”
Shirley, of Positive Energy Solar, said she thinks the new online form is easier. But she still gets calls from people who had their system installed by another company that doesn’t provide the same support.
“So, I think it’s still very difficult for customers to take this on themselves,” Shirley said. “… You have to know what the output is on the inverter, and that’s not on the plans, necessarily. So it’s challenging.”
Say the words “September 11” and every American instantly knows what you are referring to. The same is true for “Pearl Harbor.” Most Americans vaguely know that during the War of 1812 the British shelled Fort McHenry and burned down the White House. But mention the words “Columbus, New Mexico” and you will draw blank stares. Yet on March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary leader José Doroteo Arango Arámbula—better known to history as Pancho Villa—led a surprise attack on Columbus that left eighteen Americans and eighty Mexicans dead. Within days, nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers crossed the border into Mexico in search of Villa in what would become one of the more dismal chapters in U.S. military history: the Punitive Expedition.
The Mexican Revolution
The events in Columbus, New Mexico had a back story. In 1911, a popular uprising had ousted Porfirio Díaz as president (more accurately, dictator) of Mexico after thirty-five years in power. (Díaz is credited with uttering the line, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!”) His overthrow ushered in a decade of political instability known as the Mexican Revolution. Mexico saw several leaders come to power as conflict wracked the country.
From left to right: Victoriano Huerta, Emilio Madero, and Pancho Villa in 1912.Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
The first person to succeed Díaz was Francisco Madero. The son of a wealthy landowner in northeastern Mexico, Madero studied in the United States and France and became a democracy advocate. He was also, to say the least, odd. As the historian Robert Ferrell tells it:
Advertisement
At one meeting with the American ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, the president of Mexico placed a third chair in the circle and announced to the ambassador that a friend was sitting there. The friend was invisible, Madero explained, but there nonetheless.
In February, after holding power for less than two years, Madero was shunted aside by his leading military officer, General Victoriano Huerta. The general drank, and drank often; brandy was his preferred drink. (He died in 1916 from cirrhosis of the liver.) He had Madero and his vice president shot, possibly at the behest of Ambassador Wilson. Huerta had suggested to Ambassador Wilson that perhaps he should exile Madero or send him to an insane asylum. The ambassador responded ambiguously; Huerta “ought to do that which was best for the peace of the country.”
Madero’s murder outraged the incoming U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who was not related to Ambassador Wilson and who was inaugurated on March 4, 1913. (The tradition of inaugurating presidents on January 20 did not begin until after the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.) Once in office, Wilson refused to recognize Huerta’s legitimacy, saying the Mexican general led a “government of butchers.” Ever the moralist, Wilson told the British ambassador to the United States: “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” Wilson’s efforts to influence who would lead Mexico included using the Tampico Incident in April 1914 to order the U.S. invasion of Veracruz, Mexico. U.S. troops would remain there until that November.
Venustiano Carranza Takes Power
President Wilson got his wish for a new Mexican government in August 1914 when Huerta was ousted by Venustiano Carranza. Another son of a wealthy landowner and a Madero follower, Carranza was a former governor of the Mexican state of Coahuila. He quickly found his rule challenged by his former ally, Francisco (Pancho) Villa, who had led the “Division of the North” in fighting against Huerta loyalists.
Pancho Villa, commander of the División del Norte (North Division), and Emiliano Zapata, commander of the Ejército Libertador del Sur (Liberation Army of the South), on December 4, 1914. Villa is sitting in the presidential chair in the Palacio Nacional.DeGolyer Library of Southern Methodist University.
Villa at first had Carranza on the defensive. In December 1914, Villa’s forces briefly took control of Mexico City before being driven back north. Wilson thought that Villa might be friendly to U.S. interests, so he withheld formal recognition of the Carranza government. Villa in turn hoped that Wilson’s refusal to recognize the Carranza government would help his cause. He was soon disappointed, however. The war in Europe increasingly consumed Wilson’s time, and he wanted a way out of his confrontational policies toward Mexico. Carranza, as he put it, “will somehow have to be digested.” In October 1915, the United States did just that, formally recognizing his government.
Pancho Villa’s Revenge
Advertisement
Villa viewed Wilson’s decision as a betrayal, especially after Washington allowed Carranza’s troops to travel on U.S. railroads through New Mexico and Arizona to pursue Villa and his men rather than cross the harsh northern Mexican desert by horseback. German agents also urged Villa to turn on the United States. They hoped to bog the United States down in a war with Mexico that would prevent a U.S. entry into World War I.
With events having shifted against him, Villa devised a new strategy. He would seek to provoke the United States into attacking Mexico, thereby discrediting Carranza as a pawn of the United States. Villa put his plan into effect in January 1916. As Ferrell tells the story, Villa’s troops:
Met a Mexican Northwestern train at Santa Ysabel on January 11, 1916, carrying seventeen young American college graduates who had just come into Mexico from California under a safe conduct from Carranza to open a mine. Villa killed sixteen of them on the spot.
Villa spared one of the young Americans so he could tell his countrymen what happened.
The news of the Santa Ysabel massacre did not trigger the U.S. retaliation that Villa expected. So, he turned to something even more audacious. In the predawn hours of March 9, 1916, Villa’s men raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, three miles north of the border. A regiment of the U.S. Army’s 13th Cavalry was encamped at the town, and its munitions depot was a target of the raid. Despite being caught off guard, the U.S. troops quickly regrouped and returned fire—at one point setting up a machine gun in front of the town’s lone hotel. The fighting, as well as the fires Villa’s men set, left the town in ruins.
A soldier stands near the smoking ruins of Columbus, New Mexico, after the raid by Pancho Villa’s forces.Museum of New Mexico and the National Guard.
The Punitive Expedition
By the end of the day on March 9, Wilson had ordered General John J. Pershing to cross into Mexico to hunt down Villa. The incursion would have been an act of war, except that Carranza had reluctantly consented to it; he essentially had no other choice. He did, however, extract one face-saving concession: Mexico had the right, at least in theory, to pursue bandits across the border into the United States.
Advertisement
“I’ve Had About Enough of This.” Uncle Sam leaps across the border fence with Mexico to chase Pancho Villa. Made on March 10, 1916 by Clifford K. Berryman.National Archives Berryman Collection.
The Punitive Expedition began with much enthusiasm and moral righteousness in Washington. It proved in practice, like most of Wilson’s policies toward Mexico, to be a political and diplomatic blunder. Pershing’s troops trekked more than 300 miles through northern Mexico without setting eyes on Villa, who knew the unfriendly terrain and was a hero to the local people. Critics back in the United States began to call the incursion as the “Perishing Expedition.”
American soldiers cross the arid plains south of Columbus, New Mexico, March 1916.United States Army.
Rather than cut his losses, Wilson surged more troops into Mexico. Soon more than 12,000 U.S. soldiers had crossed the border. Carranza understandably wanted them all to go home. Even though General Pershing assured Washington that “the natives are not generally arming to oppose us,” in June 1916 U.S. forces clashed with the Mexican army, leaving a dozen Americans and forty Mexicans dead. Within days, Wilson had ordered nearly 150,000 National Guard troops to the border. War seemed likely.
Reversing Course
Wilson’s stubbornness and self-righteousness partly explain why he continued to dig his hole deeper in Mexico rather than stop shoveling. Politics also played a part—1916 was a presidential election year. Like many presidents who would follow him, Wilson did not want to hand an election issue to his opponent by looking “weak” in his dealing with Mexico.
Events on the other side of the Atlantic eventually forced Wilson’s hand. With relations with Germany worsening, and the likelihood of a U.S. entry into World War I growing, he ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops in early January 1917. The last U.S. soldiers left Mexico on February 5, 1917. Less than four weeks later, the American public would learn about the Zimmermann Telegram.
The 6th and 16th Infantry Battalions of the U.S. Army returning to the United States between Corralitos Rancho and Ojo Federico, Mexico, January 29, 1917.United States Army.
Today Columbus, New Mexico, is home to about 1,800 people. It lies thirty five miles south of Deming, New Mexico, and sixty-five miles west of El Paso, Texas. You can find it by taking New Mexico State Highway 11 south from I-10 or New Mexico State Highway 9 from El Paso. Should you ever visit Columbus, be sure to check out Pancho Villa State Park.
The United States celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026. To mark that milestone, I am resurfacing essays I have written over the years about major events in U.S. foreign policy. A version of this essay was published on March 9, 2011.
Oscar Berry assisted in the preparation of this post.
LOGAN, Utah – Utah State men’s basketball concluded its final season in the Mountain West with a championship Saturday afternoon in the Dee Glen Smith Spectrum, defeating New Mexico 94-90 to secure the outright regular season championship and the No. 1-seed in the upcoming MW Tournament.
This is Utah State’s third all-time Mountain West championship, and its second outright title since joining the league in 2013. The Aggies had secured at least a share of the title prior to the game, but were able to prevent the second-place Lobos from claiming a share with the victory. This is the second time USU has won the MW title outright, joining the 2024 squad as the only Aggie teams to do so.
The Aggies conclude the 2025-26 regular season 25-6 overall and 15-5 in conference play. This is the 12th 25-win season in program history, and the first time the team has ever won 25-plus in four-straight seasons.
Advertisement
The senior class showed up in a big way on senior night, combining for 62 of Utah State’s 94 points in the contest. In his final game in the Spectrum, senior guard MJ Collins Jr. led the way as he went for 27 points with a season-best six rebounds, an assist and a steal. This was the second-best scoring performance of the season for Collins Jr.
Other seniors honored following the game included guards Drake Allen and Kolby King, and forwards Zach Keller and Garry Clark. Each senior gave a major contribution — Allen going for 14 points, Keller for eight, King finishing with seven and Clark going for six.
The Aggies led from nearly start-to-finish in the victory, leading for over 38 minutes while trailing for less than one. USU shot an efficient 50 percent from the field and found its rhythm from deep as well, connecting on 10-of-27 3-pointers. Despite the hot shooting, however, the Lobos held strong and remained in the contest throughout, shooting 48 percent on their end of the court.
Utah State set the tone early with 10 makes in its first 15 shots, opening up a double-digit advantage six minutes in at 17-7. The Aggies remained decisively in front through the rest of the half, until a 7-0 New Mexico run to close the half gave the Lobos their first and only lead of the contest, going into the locker room up 94-90.
The second half started the same as the first, the Aggies pouncing to quickly regain control. USU opened the final 20 minutes with a 12-2 run out of the gates, sparked by back-to-back triples from Collins Jr.
Advertisement
While the Aggies never took another double-digit lead, they remained on top the rest of the way. Despite a cold streak where it made just three of 13 shots, USU kept itself in control at the charity stripe, connecting on 83 percent of its free throws including going 18-of-21 in the second half.
Along with Collins Jr.’s big scoring performance, junior guard Mason Falslev showed out for the Aggies with 15 points, three boards and four assists. Junior guard Karson Templin provided a spark in 23 minutes off the bench, going for 15 points and five rebounds.
Allen accompanied his 14 points with a team-best seven assists, while also pulling down five boards, two steals and a block.
In total, Utah State shot 50.0 percent (27-of-54) from the floor, 37.0 percent (10-of-27) from 3-point range and 83.3 percent (30-of-36) at the charity stripe. New Mexico shot 47.5 percent (29-of-61) from the field, 44.8 percent (13-of-29) from behind the arc and 73.1 percent (19-of-26) at the free throw line.
UP NEXT Utah State will now travel to Las Vegas for the Mountain West men’s basketball tournament, taking place next week from March 11-14 at the Thomas & Mack Center. The Aggies will be the No. 1-seed and will play at 1 p.m. (MT).
Advertisement
FOLLOW For more information on Utah State’s men’s basketball program, follow the Aggies on Facebook at usumensbasketball, on Twitter at @usubasketball and on Instagram at @usubasketball. Fans can also watch USU men’s basketball highlights by visiting youtube.com/utahstateathletics.
The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico after the military’s deployment of the lasers led the FAA to suddenly close airspace in Texas twice in the last month.
The newly announced testing was being carried out to “specifically address FAA safety concerns,” the military said Friday in a statement. It was to take place Saturday and Sunday at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
Lawmakers were concerned about an apparent lack of coordination after the Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use an anti-drone laser in early February without notifying the FAA. The federal agency that ensures safety in the skies decided to close the airspace over El Paso for a few hours, stranding many travelers.
The Trump administration said it was working to halt an incursion by Mexican cartel drones, which are not uncommon along the southern border.
Advertisement
On Feb. 26 the U.S. military used the laser to shoot down a “seemingly threatening” drone flying near the U.S.-Mexico border. It turned out the drone belonged to Customs and Border Protection, lawmakers said.
The incident led the FAA to close the airspace around Fort Hancock, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of El Paso.
“We appreciate the coordination with the Department of War to help ensure public safety,” the FAA said of the testing, in a separate statement. “The FAA and DOW are working with interagency partners to address emerging threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System.”
The military is required to formally notify the FAA when it takes any counter-drone action inside U.S. airspace.
Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the ranking member on the Senate’s Aviation Subcommittee, called previously for an independent investigation after the two February incidents.
