Residents in Bowling Green continue to push back against the Ohio city's tax on residential solar panels.

One couple has filed a takings-claim lawsuit against the city. In 2021 Bowling Green's Board of Utilities passed a law charging panel owners a monthly fee for every kilowatt of electricity produced into the system.

Leatra Harper, managing director of the Freshwater Accountability Project and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and her husband argued the city is harming the return on their investment, more than $150,000 in rooftop solar and other green upgrades.

"There is no justification for this," Harper contended. "This disincentive for rooftop solar is harming everybody in Bowling Green that might have wanted to invest. So the very premise of what we were doing not only for climate change, but to at least pay back our upfront costs, was negated."

Harper pointed out they are now considering moving to a place without such fees. The city countered the tax is needed to help cover grid maintenance costs. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found 8% of homeowners said they have already installed solar panels, and an additional 39% have given serious thought to it in the past year.

Jensen Silvis, Harpers' attorney, said the local government's tax on solar may be reducing residents' real estate value, and claimed property owners should be compensated for the loss.

"They've actually made it what we think is impossible for some people to sell their houses," Silvis asserted. "Because no one's going to want to buy a house in a city that has these installations on them. So a very nice property could be rendered worthless."

The federal government is ramping up incentives for clean energy. The Inflation Reduction Act passed last year by President Joe Biden included a 30% residential tax credit for clean energy upgrades installed on homes from 2022 through 2032, and an additional 10% for purchasing solar panels made in the U.S.

Over the past 15 years, West Virginians have been shelling out more of their income each month on electricity bills. Now, as lawmakers continue to push a reliance on coal, with support from the Trump administration, advocates say they are worried about residents' bottom line.

According to federal data, U.S. production of coal has steadily dropped over the past two decades.

Emmett Pepper, policy director for Energy Efficient West Virginia, said coal is now an expensive choice for producing energy compared with renewable resources. He adds big coal's grip on the state is costing households.

"We have monopolies in West Virginia for our electric utilities, so they should be run in a way that is the most cost effective reducing the bills for West Virginians," he explained.

Residents have seen their average electricity price jump by 90% since the early 2000s, according to Conservation West Virginia. The West Virginia Coal Association argues ramping up coal production will lower consumers' bills.

Last month Appalachian Power, one of the state's largest utilities, asked state regulators to raise rates to make up for operating costs. If approved, residents' bills would increase by around $5 per month. Meanwhile, Pepper noted, grants for energy efficiency and assistance are shrinking, leaving residents with few options.

"The state and federal government could be doing more to help people who are struggling with their electric bills," he continued. "Instead, we've seen a budget come out that actually completely eliminates support that people have had in the past."

More than 60% of Americans support the goal of taking steps for the nation to become carbon neutral by 2050, according to a Pew Research Center survey released last year.

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