HANOVER, N.H. – With the federal government now promoting fossil fuels, cities and towns in New Hampshire and across the nation are leading the way to boost renewable energy.

Last May, Hanover, New Hampshire, became the first municipality in the country to commit by community vote to achieving 100 percent renewable energy. It is one of the communities profiled in a new case study of 10 cities and towns that have made that commitment.

Allyson Samuell, associate organizing representative with the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign, says Hanover is on its way to getting all of its electricity from renewables by the year 2030.

"The town is investing $50,000 every year into energy efficiency improvements,” says Samuell. “They're also looking at opportunities for more solar power in the region, potentially partnering with Dartmouth College on that."

Hanover plans to be fueling its heat and transportation with renewable power by 2050. Nationwide, about 50 municipalities are now committed to 100 percent renewable energy.

And the movement is spreading in New Hampshire. Samuel says three other cities and towns are preparing to switch to renewables, including the state capital.

"We've been working with the Concord Energy Committee, and they're building up to a commitment in the City of Concord this year,” she says. “But it has spread to many, many communities across the state."

The New Hampshire towns of Cornish and Plainfield also are planning to vote on going 100 percent renewable at town meetings coming up in March.

Samuell adds that this year, Hanover hopes to hire a sustainability director to assist the community in reaching its goal.

"The town has made this commitment and is working to not only transition the town's power to 100 percent renewable energy, but also support our residents in making that transition," says Samuell.

At their May town meeting, Hanover residents will vote on an amendment to the town's zoning ordinance to allow for construction of large scale solar farms.


get more stories like this via email

A bipartisan group of current and former elected officials said the continued use of fossil fuels threatens global security and they want funding for climate investments restored.

Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, state director of Elected Officials to Protect America, is a member of the bipartisan group Elected Officials to Protect America. At the group's Energy Security Summit Tuesday, she emphasized the importance of provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Sariñana cited the 161 pumpjacks located within a mile of an elementary school adjacent to the oil-producing Permian Basin, exposing kids to cancer-causing chemicals.

"The hardest part of being a legislator is watching on this committee, where they have the representatives from their districts sitting there and they don't do anything, they don't say anything," Sariñana explained. "They don't see it as wrong because money is the most important thing about the Permian Basin."

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has asserted fossil fuels are better for energy security. The Biden administration's laws aimed to invest in domestic energy production while promoting clean energy and represent the federal government's biggest climate investments in history.

Sariñana acknowledged it can be a challenge to advocate for clean alternatives because New Mexico derives a significant portion of its revenues from fossil fuels. At the same time, the state's clean energy portfolio includes solar, geothermal and wind, with the state ranked seventh in the nation in wind generation. She noted funding for almost 1,000 state projects, covering everything from transportation to agriculture and wildfires are at risk.

"All these provisions and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan infrastructure Law and environmental regulations must be restored for the future of our people, for their prosperity and health, and security," Sariñana contended.

An executive order by President Donald Trump April 8 instructed the Department of Justice to eliminate the independent constitutional authority of every state to govern its own climate laws.


get more stories like this via email

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

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."