Nevada is one of the largest solar markets in the nation and conservationists want Nevadans to be aware of available federal tax incentives.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, is also a homeowner who installed solar panels. He realized going solar is not cheap, but added with newly expanded federal tax credits, you can get 30% back on your investment.

Nevadans can also take advantage of net metering, which allows customers to use energy generated by their solar system to offset their monthly bill.

Kuhlman pointed out the Inflation Reduction Act also includes rebates for more energy-efficient appliances.

"When I bought my house, everything was about 20 years old in terms of appliances," Kuhlman recounted. "Now that I have solar installed, taking even more advantage of those discounts in buying an energy efficient fridge, dryer, etc. So I am hoping to compound all of these discounts and tax incentives."

The Inflation Reduction Act included $8.8 billion to help increase home electrification and access to more efficient appliances. The Department of Energy estimated the rebates will save households around the country up to $1 billion annually on energy bills and support more than 50,000 jobs.

Kuhlman noted as more residential and commercial solar systems get installed, there will be less of a demand for what he calls "large-scale solar projects" on public lands.

"Reno and Vegas are some of the fastest growing cities that do have high potential for solar development," Kuhlman pointed out. "Trying to figure out a way to incentivize those large-scale developments, I think, is another thing we should be trying to incentivize."

Yazmyn Pelaez, communications director for the Nevada Conservation League, said solar investments can improve lives and homes as energy costs increase. She added it is an opportunity to move away from fossil fuels and ensure investments are reaching more communities.

"Not just homeowners, but renters," Pelaez stressed. "We are really working to make this transition as equitable as possible because we want to make sure that nobody gets left behind in this new clean energy transition."

Pelaez acknowledged many do not have access to solar because they rent or have roofs unable to have a solar system on it but believes community solar could be a viable option. Such facilities are shared by community members who receive credit on their electricity bills for their portion of the power produced.

Results of a new study from Michigan State University suggest farmers no longer have to choose between growing crops and harnessing solar power. They can do both on the same land.

The 25-year study of California farmland found farmers who added solar panels, a practice known as agrivoltaics, made more money per acre than those who did not. The research shows crops and solar work together, especially when panels are placed on low-yield acres, or spots not growing as much food due to poor soil or too much shade.

The research indicates the approach helps farmers boost income without reducing food production.

Jake Stid, a graduate student at Michigan State and lead author of the study, said farmers can also benefit through a system called Net Energy Metering.

"A return structure where farmers can directly in many cases, interconnect so they can use the electricity to offset their own needs, as well as sell excess generation, excess electricity back to the utility for a discounted rate," Stid outlined.

Researchers estimate California land now used for solar panels could have fed 86,000 people had it stayed in crops. The study looked at the trade-off between farming and solar energy, while critics warned it could worsen food security by reducing farmland.

Stid highlighted his team chose California's Central Valley as the focus of the research due to its significant contribution to both national and global food production, particularly for a variety of orchard crops.

"It's a really, really agriculturally valuable state and it also happens to be a pretty water-stressed state," Stid pointed out. "Specifically, the Central Valley has been experiencing pretty significant drought, as well as over allocation of water resources."

Some farmers expressed concern about solar panels shading crops, affecting growth and reducing yields. Stid hopes to expand his research on solar arrays and food production nationwide, contributing to the ongoing debate among farmers on how to use land sustainably, without harming food production.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers and climate change activists are speaking out against a rumored executive action by President Donald Trump to revoke tax-exempt statuses from climate nonprofits. One rumored change includes the removal of climate change from qualifying topics for the exemption.

Last Thursday in the Oval Office, Trump hinted environmental nonprofits could have their tax-exempt statuses scrutinized by the administration. Federal law currently bars a president from directly or indirectly ordering the Internal Revenue Service to investigate specific tax-exempt organizations.

Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, said she found the rumored executive actions troubling.

"We should not be talking about removing tax-exempt status from the civic good that comes from the work of nonprofits to prevent environmental issues that impair and impact and are harmful on people's lives," Norton contended.

Climate nonprofits are not the only organizations in Trump's crosshairs. He has suggested Harvard University should lose its tax-exempt status over defying demands from the administration dealing with diversity, admissions processes and antisemitism.

Tax-exempt status allows organizations to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions and not pay federal income tax.

Joelle Novey, director of the nonprofit Interfaith Power and Light in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia, said the actions may target climate nonprofits first but all nonprofits are at risk.

"There is no attack on civil society groups in the United States that isn't an attack on every one of us who expresses who we are by forming, supporting, volunteering and taking action through nonprofit organizations," Novey argued.

A federal judge last week ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze billions of dollars in climate and infrastructure funds previously targeted in an executive order on Trump's first day in office.


get more stories like this via email

As of today, Earth Day, more than 50 elected officials have signed a letter urging lawmakers to make oil and gas companies bear the cost of climate change.

The California Polluters Pay Superfund, which goes before the state Senate Judiciary Committee today, would assess a fee on large oil and gas companies to pay for programs that mitigate damage from climate change.

Ahmad Zahra, a council member in Fullerton, signed onto the letter sponsored by the group Elected Officials to Protect America.

"Throughout the years, these large oil companies were really not necessarily telling the truth about air pollution," Zahra pointed out. "Just like we've seen in oil spills and ground pollution, the responsible party has to pay for it."

The Western States Petroleum Association opposes the bill, saying it would lead to higher gas prices. The bill directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to determine how much climate change has cost the state from 1990 to 2024. Federal data show California has suffered 46 natural disasters linked to climate change since 1980, each resulting in more than $1 billion in losses, with $250 billion from the Los Angeles firestorm alone.

Marisol Rubio, a council member in San Ramon, said 40% of the funds would be directed to low-income communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.

"Those funds can then be used to better manage and correct and abate the pollution that not only already exists but that will come inevitably in the future, until we are able to be independent of fossil fuels," Rubio explained.

Advocates said right now, everyday Californians foot the bill for climate change in the form of higher taxes, insurance rates and utility bills, as well as via medical expenses for pollution-related illness.