A proposal to allow utility-scale solar operations for Washington Township in Delaware County is meeting with some setbacks and one nonpartisan group thinks it is time for more discussion.

Almost 200,000 Indiana homes are powered by solar energy, but the Delaware County Commission issued a moratorium on solar development last year. It created a study committee for further review and then, the unexpected death of a commissioner delayed creation of a new ordinance.

Linda Hanson, spokesperson for the League of Women Voters of Muncie-Delaware County, said the community needs to use the city's resources economically and responsibly.

"We believe that natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems," Hanson explained. "We need to conserve and protect those resources for future availability."

The League backs ending the moratorium and passing an ordinance to approve solar installations in the Muncie area, based on a responsible review of each proposal on its individual merits. Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 2.

Landowners in towns from Gaston to Matthews are voicing concerns about their property values potentially dropping if more solar farms are built. Some are also upset they were notified about a 2021 ordinance for another solar project, Meadow Forge, after it had been approved.

Hanson thinks the commissioners are leaning toward lifting the moratorium and allowing more solar development, with sufficient review.

"You try and look at how this can work responsibly, and that seems to be where we're getting pushback," Hanson observed. "When we track it, it seems to be coming from people who have investments in coal and petroleum."

Indiana is already home to the Mammoth Solar farm in Starke and Pulaski counties. The 13,000 acre facility is the country's largest. Built in 2021, the farm is expected to bring $1.5 billion in investment into the state over the next five years.


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."