The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources will consider reversing Biden-era restrictions on oil and gas leasing in states like Nevada on Tuesday.

New polling found most Nevadans are opposed to proposals which could green-light more drilling.

Last year, the U.S. Forest Service announced plans to ban oil and gas development on public land in the Ruby Mountains for up to 20 years. The proposal was reversed by the Trump administration as it aims to prioritize domestic energy.

Russell Kuhlman, executive director of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, said the poll showed most Nevadans are not in agreement.

"Our habitat and wildlife populations are starting to show that ignoring conservation, sustainability and sound science have a price," Kuhlman explained. "That is why we can no longer prioritize these activities that do not make sense on our public lands, while letting our wildlife and our habitat degrade and assume everything will be there for future generations."

Kuhlman acknowledged Nevada's public lands have been targeted by Trump in the past. As a result, Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., has reintroduced legislation to restrict oil and gas extraction on land around the Ruby Mountains. The poll found more than seven in 10 Nevada voters believe drilling should be limited to areas where there's "high likelihood" of producing oil and gas.

Kuhlman would like to see the Bureau of Land Management's "multiple use doctrine" upheld. The rule requires the agency to balance conservation and extraction on public lands but has been targeted by the White House. Kuhlman argued research indicates Nevada does not have untapped fossil fuel resources.

"If those areas coincide with low wildlife conflicts, our organization, as well as most Nevadans, would say, 'Yes, let's responsibly develop that,'" Kuhlman stressed. "But we should not be putting mandatory lease sales for oil and gas in areas that don't have oil and gas."

David Willms, associate vice president of public lands for the National Wildlife Federation, said as policymakers push to expand energy production, the poll showed voters do not want to reduce bonding rates for energy developers.

"So that industry and not taxpayers are paying for cleanup after development," Willms underscored. "This really is a timely discussion, and the results of this polling couldn't be more timely and applicable."

Despite last-minute concessions in the Trump administration's budget, which removes alternative energy tax incentives, rural Alaska power providers now face huge obstacles to distributing power to the most rural and isolated parts of the state.

Investments in wind and solar power now face an uphill battle. Alaska's extreme weather and challenging geography already make power generation difficult and expensive. Now, with fewer incentives to diversify, the state's most isolated places will be forced to continue relying on fossil fuels for their electricity.

Pierre Lonewolf, board member of the Kotzebue Electric Association, said the loss of tax incentives means critical alternative energy programs are dead in the water.

"That has put the kibosh on our wind projects, which we are partnering with the local tribe to install two more megawatt wind turbines, another megawatt or so of solar," Lonewolf explained.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted for the budget bill but only after she worked to secure some alternative energy tax incentives and funding for Native whale hunters back into the measure in the debate's eleventh hour.

Lonewolf added village and tribal members have worked to move away from diesel fuel for power generation and said a lack of incentives to diversify to wind and solar will fall directly on rural Alaska's consumers who need affordable power to heat their homes.

"We don't want to have to raise our prices on electricity but we have to cover our costs to pay our people," Lonewolf acknowledged.

Kotzebue is a gateway for the diesel fuel powering 10 villages in rural Alaska. What Lonewolf called a war on renewable energy will only cause prices to keep rising in parts of the state that can least afford it.


get more stories like this via email

Renewable energy got short shrift in the budget bill passed by Congress last week and a New Mexico trade association said companies and their employees will suffer.

The bill quickly phases out tax incentives and investments for wind and solar power passed under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Jim DesJardins, executive director of the Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico, said both consumers and businesses in the solar industry have made huge investments due to the incentives.

"There's people who've got loans on their homes, and overnight this bill is going to pull the rug out from underneath them," DesJardins asserted. "This will destroy thousands of businesses, will put tens of thousands of people out of work, for what? Why are we doing this?"

Since passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, a boom in renewable energy has led to more than $300 billion in spending. Another $500 billion dollars was allocated for clean energy projects but those could now be abandoned.

New Mexico is the second-largest crude oil producer in the U.S. and with more than 300 days of sunshine, it is considered among the top 10 states for potential solar development. Most experts are not predicting a collapse in the renewable energy industry but without federal subsidies and tax credits, solar and wind farms could become more expensive.

After signing a contract, DesJardins pointed out it can take years to get a solar project off the ground and Trump's new bill would let incentives expire before the end of 2027.

"There's just so much uncertainty for a large solar project you can't say, 'Oh, we're going to put it into operation on this day.' It just doesn't work like that," DesJardins stressed. "We need to stop this herky-jerky way of doing policy whether it's for farmers, whether it's for renewable energy, it's just very counterproductive."

Despite the setback to wind and solar, DesJardins believes renewable industries will persevere, one way or another.


get more stories like this via email

After being debated for days, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, are among those who voted to advance the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" to push President Donald Trump's agenda forward.

Curtis was one of a handful of Republicans who wanted to preserve clean energy tax credits but the Senate made major cuts to tax incentives for wind and solar projects. Now, the bill does not allow for a project to get the tax credit if it does not begin producing electricity by 2028.

Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the change could reverse years of progress and innovation.

"It has really devastating impacts," Gallagher emphasized. "Not just to the solar industry, but to American energy security and national security. Solar energy is putting more new power on the grid than every other fuel source combined in the last several years."

Curtis was able to remove a provision that would've enacted a new tax on solar and wind projects and ended a ban on solar leasing. While Curtis expressed gratitude to Senate leaders for including his changes, Gallagher hopes the concessions do not hinder the industry's ability to meet demand. The budget bill now goes back to the U.S. House for what could be the final vote.

Projects started before the bill is enacted would be protected from penalties and setbacks. Current projects would also retain all of their tax-credit value through December 2027. Gallagher argued the tax credits, passed under the Inflation Reduction Act, are working.

"Every dollar spent on clean energy tax credits has a $2.67 return in the form of lower energy costs for consumers, and taxes paid by clean energy infrastructure projects, mostly property taxes," Gallagher pointed out.

The Trump administration has called for energy dominance and so far has focused on supporting more development of fossil fuels over renewable energy. And while wind and solar energy are still popular across the board, recent polling indicates some people, especially Republicans, are less supportive of renewable energy than in Trump's first term.


get more stories like this via email