Today, the Republican budget package on the nation's energy policy gets a closer look from the House Natural Resources Committee in Congress.

A new poll showed many of the proposed changes are unpopular among voters in Montana and the West. The proposals include reducing royalty rates paid by energy companies to federal and local governments, limiting opportunities for public participation and mandating the sale of oil and gas leases on all available public lands within 18 months.

Lori Weigel, principal at New Bridge Strategies, which conducted the poll said there is a trend in voter preferences about the importance of various public land uses.

"It stands out, really, that providing land to be leased for oil and gas development was significantly lower than every single other attribute that we tested," Weigel reported.

Among Montana respondents, 92% said keeping air and water clean is an important function of public lands. Outdoor recreation and providing wildlife habitat were about equally important, at roughly 86%. Only 34% of Montanans said they think providing land for oil and gas development is important.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said many oil and gas proposals coming from lawmakers right now promote a misconception.

"There's this belief that every inch that you walk on public land has this huge, untapped resource of fossil fuel," Kuhlman observed. "That could not be farther from the truth. It is very localized, in certain areas."

One proposal would cancel the $5 per acre nomination fee oil and gas companies pay to help cover the cost of a review process to determine whether land is appropriate for development. Among Montana respondents, eight in opposed canceling the fee, as did seven in 10 Montanans who self-identified as MAGA supporters.


get more stories like this via email

Thousands of Kentucky families face utility disconnections this summer, and the latest budget reconciliation bill would eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of Americans afford their heating and cooling expenses.

The move would significantly impact Eastern Kentucky counties, where many households spend more than a third of their income on energy bills, said Chris Woolery, energy projects coordinator for the Mountain Association. He added that many households are stressed over both paying their energy bills and providing for their families' other needs.

"We're talking hundreds of thousands of households across Kentucky," he said, "and some of them face disconnections."

In 2024 alone, the program was utilized more than 219,000 times by households across the state, who received up to $250 per season. Supporters of defunding the program have argued that lower energy prices are on the horizon.

Earlier this year, lawmakers introduced legislation aimed at preventing disconnections during extreme weather events.

Woolery said eastern Kentucky is one of the most energy-burdened regions in the country. Without the energy assistance program as a safety net for working families, elderly residents and people with disabilities, he said, state-level protections are critical.

"We're trying to get more Kentuckians involved in the conversation," he said, "and that's why we're pushing for disconnection protections at the legislative level."

According to state data, Kentucky's average energy burden is 3%, but for low-income and disadvantaged communities, energy costs can be as high as 18%. The federal government allocated approximately $54 million in safety-net funds to Kentucky in fiscal year 2025.

Michigan taxpayers may end up footing the bill to keep an aging coal plant open.

The J.H. Campbell plant was scheduled to close on May 31, but a last-minute order from the Department of Energy is forcing it to stay open.

The owner of the plant, Consumers Energy, says it wants the facility shuttered, but its hands are tied.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the Trump administration can use the Federal Power Act to force aging coal plants to stay open under emergency conditions.

"A really severe winter storm requires plants to continue to operate above what might be their normal generation levels," said Wamsted. "So there are provisions to operate plants or order them to remain online if there's a real emergency. This was not a real emergency."

Since 2021, Consumers Energy has built new solar and wind generation resources and purchased a natural gas-fired power plant.

These moves were made to replace energy produced by the J.H. Campbell plant and for a complete transition from coal production by the end of 2025.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April authorizing the Department of Energy to keep plants open using the Federal Power Act.

Trump said he wants to meet a rise in electricity demand due to an anticipated surge in domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.

Wamsted said he believes the taxpayer burden to support J.H. Campbell is unfair and expensive.

When estimating the plant's operating costs, he cited an example from 2023, when the owners of a West Virginia coal plant were forced to keep a site open.

Monthly operating costs were at $3 million. Wamsted called that a "good figure" for J.H. Campbell's operational costs.

"They have to pay the staff to keep the plant there," said Wamsted. "They have to pay to run the pipes and keep the turbine so it can actually produce electricity. So you end up paying that $3 million or more just to keep the plant able to operate."

Wamsted said he is not aware of any legal action taken to force the plant's closure, move upkeep expenses out of taxpayers' hands, or recover the money at a later date.

He said things could change if there's a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would allow outside intervenors to force the plant to close or challenge a tariff.

Pennsylvania's U.S. Senators are being asked to do what they can to safeguard federal clean energy tax credits, which are on the chopping block in the big budget reconciliation bill in Congress.

The nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation said repealing these credits could lead to a loss of 26,000 jobs in Pennsylvania by 2030 and even more by 2035.

Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis for Energy Innovation, said losing tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act would make clean energy manufacturing and clean power projects less viable and increase household energy bills.

"In Pennsylvania in particular, we found that the loss of the clean energy tax credits would lead to $60 per year in higher household energy bills by 2030 growing to $80 per year by 2035," Orvis reported. "That amounts to more than $2 billion more in spending on energy for Pennsylvanians between 2025 and 2035."

He added the lost incentives would also mean $5 billion in lost state gross domestic product by 2030, and $6 billion by 2035. In Congress, Senators are divided over whether to keep the Biden-era tax credits.

Aaron Nichols, solar policy and research specialist for the Bucks County system installer Exact Solar, said solar allows thousands of Pennsylvania homes and businesses to save on energy bills and gives them a choice beyond big utilities. The tax credits make the switch easier.

"Solar energy made up 66% of the new electricity-generating capacity added to the grid last year," Nichols pointed out. "As people have taken advantage of these incentives, the solar industry has grown, creating thousands of good-paying jobs."

Mike Zimmerman, senior attorney for electrification at the advocacy group EDF Action in Pittsburgh, said they have seen more than $1 billion in clean energy investments in the state from battery manufacturing in Turtle Creek to solar manufacturing in Leetsdale and grid technology production in Williamsport. He added 27 gigawatts of mostly solar, wind and battery projects are waiting to connect to the grid.

"These facilities are doing much more than creating jobs," Zimmerman emphasized. "They're cutting energy costs for families, meeting growing energy demand and reducing the pollution that threatens our health and our state's natural resources."

Backers of keeping the clean energy tax credits said repealing them would lead to more fossil fuel use, which worsens air quality and is linked to serious health problems.