Latest news with #CaseySnider
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Homeowners brace for daunting future as new threats escalate insurance costs: 'Increases as high as 300%'
The latest wildfires in California have left homeowners in and outside the state uncertain about insurance coverage and rates. According to The Park Record, homeowners in Utah may experience higher insurance rates as a result of the climate crisis. Over the past few years, homeowners in Summit County, Utah, have faced increasing wildfire insurance rates. In some cases, residents have lost their coverage completely, per The Park Record. With the recent wildfires in Southern California, experts warn homeowners that rates may increase even more. As The Park Record explained, insurance companies rely on national risk assessment formulas to determine coverage. So for homeowners in Summit County, more wildfires along the West Coast equals higher risk. Do you think your city has good air quality? Definitely Somewhat Depends on the time of year Not at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. While insurance companies used to evaluate homes on an individual basis, now updated software examines communities as a whole, using average statistics to assess entire areas. As rising global temperatures cause more intense and frequent wildfires, insurance companies have used their risk software to increase premium rates or remove coverage completely in high-risk areas. "Some Summit County homeowners have seen their insurance prices double," co-owner of C&W Premier Insurance Clair Christoffersen told The Park Record. "And homeowners associations are seeing increases as high as 300%." The wildfire insurance situation out West serves as yet another example of the consequences of the climate crisis. As temperatures continue to rise and result in extreme weather events, homeowners in vulnerable areas are struggling to maintain affordable coverage. Worse still, the continued use of dirty energy only exacerbates the globe's warming temperatures, which in turn yields more powerful storms that endanger communities. Politicians have proposed new legislation to address the insurance crisis in Utah. State Representative Casey Snider, for instance, proposed House Bill 48, which is specifically designed to retarget and outline risk zones using a state-run mapping system. With the state-mapping systems, homes would be evaluated based on individual neighborhoods and properties, creating fairer risk assessments for homeowners. Outside of policy action, residents can help combat rising global temperatures by making eco-friendly changes. Simple lifestyle adjustments, such as ditching single-use plastics, transitioning toward clean energy, and shopping secondhand, can make a big difference over time. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Wants to Prevent Anti-Hunter Takeover by Requiring All Wildlife Board Members to Have a Hunting License
Utah state Rep. Casey Snider says he doesn't want Utah's wildlife policies to go the way of Colorado and Washington, where philosophical divides over wildlife management have led to shakeups of state game commissions and a re-shuffling of priorities. To this end, Snider has introduced new legislation that would require all state game commissioners to be licensed hunters. Snider's bill, H.B. 309, would make several changes to the state's wildlife laws. Among other revisions, it modifies the definitions and regulations around night hunting for nonprotected wildlife, and it addresses livestock depredations and some big-game protections. The most significant change, however, is related to the Utah Wildlife Board, which functions the same way that state game commissions do in other states. Read Next: Colorado Adds 3 Animal Rights Professionals to Its Wildlife Commission The seven-member board 'makes the final decisions about hunting, fishing and how wildlife is managed,' according to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Just like in many other states, those board members are appointed by the governor, and they serve six-year terms. Snider's legislation wouldn't change this political process, but it would ensure that going forward, the only people eligible to serve on the Wildlife Board would be card-carrying hunters. The proposed legislation would require any board member to have held a hunting or combination license for at least three out of the last five years leading up to their appointment. It would also require board members to possess and maintain their hunting or combination license while serving on the board. It would empower the supervisor of the Wildlife Board to remove any board member who fails to meet this requirement; who has their hunting license suspended; or who fails to obtain a new hunting license. The law makes an exception for board members appointed before May 2025, but would require any reappointed board members to meet the same requirements. The rule also wouldn't apply to a board member who is appointed for the sole purpose of representing agriculture. Snider did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Outdoor Life regarding the proposed bill. But in an interview with St. George News Friday, he described it as a 'cleanup' bill and argued that possessing a hunting license makes someone a more knowledgeable, safe, and effective Wildlife Board member. (It is possible, of course, for an anti-hunter to go through hunter education and get a hunting license, but that person would at least be educated in the process.) 'The thought process here being to obtain a hunting license, you have to take hunter safety, which means you have to fully understand all the rules related and laws related to hunting,' he said. Snider also made it explicitly clear that the proposed legislation was inspired by happenings in other states. He said the new requirements are 'an attempt to not turn into' Colorado and Washington, where the makeups of state commissions have shifted in recent years to include more anti-hunting and animal welfare voices — as opposed to the pro-hunting and agricultural voices that have traditionally dominated these commissions. This has led to escalating conflicts among commissioners, to the point where Washington's Wildlife Commission is now considered 'dysfunctional.' The shift speaks to a larger philosophical divide regarding American wildlife management at a time when fewer Americans are buying hunting licenses and instead choosing other forms of outdoor recreation. Supporters of this shift would argue that it doesn't make sense for Washington's wildlife board to prioritize hunting interests when only 4 percent of Washingtonians bought a hunting license in 2022. (That number was closer to 12.5 percent in Utah in 2024, according to a DWR representative who spoke with St. George News.) Read Next: In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be 'Necessary to Manage Wildlife' Opponents, meanwhile, point to the highly successful North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, of which regulated hunting is a key tenet. They also worry that wildlife management is becoming increasingly politicized and less reliant on science as state game commissioners push their own agendas and ballot initiatives undermine the expertise of wildlife experts. The cancellation of Washington's spring bear hunt and the voter-led reintroduction of wolves to Colorado are prime examples. Both decisions disregarded the recommendations and advice given by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. 'In other states — Colorado and Washington — we are seeing an effort to undermine wildlife policy through the appointment of these boards,' Snider told St. George News. 'And so, in Washington, you're seeing predator hunts basically demolished because individuals who do not participate in the sport of hunting are gaining access to those and fundamentally rewriting the laws.' Snider's bill was introduced in the State House of Representatives on March 7. If it passes, it would go into effect May 7. There are currently four positions open on the Utah Wildlife Board, according to the DWR, and the deadline to apply is March 31.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Solar developers worry new conservation tax would render renewables unsustainable in Utah
Rendering of the Green River Energy Center, one of the country's largest solar and storage projects. (Courtesy of rPlus Energies) Tensions between Republican lawmakers and solar energy developers came into the public eye when a House committee debated a bill that expanded the funding mechanisms for the state's Species Protection Account on Thursday. While most agreed that the intentions of HB378 were noble, as it would broaden conservation efforts for Utah's endangered wildlife, the fact that it would impose a substantial tax on privately-owned solar and wind generation facilities woke concerns in the clean energy industry. Especially because the levy would apply for both new and ongoing projects. House Majority Assistant Whip Casey Snider, R-Paradise, who sponsored the bill, anticipated during his presentation that there would be pushback from people working in the renewable energy sphere, but stood firm on his proposal. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'The reality is wind, and in particular solar in this state, has very large and natural impacts to a landscape,' Snider said. 'Now there is this carbon neutral discussion that occurs, and that's probably what will be discussed at some point here. But they do not pay to mitigate their impacts like oil and gas does. They do not pay to mitigate their impacts like mining does.' Starting on Jan. 1, 2026, a new annual tax would be placed on wind and solar facilities, which would be calculated by multiplying the megawatts, or portion of megawatts of capacity, by $2,100, according to the bill text. The House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee voted 10-1 to recommend the bill to the House floor in its current form. 'We're trying to raise a nominal amount between $5 (million) and $10 million in aggregate, year over year, to help protect these critical species,' Snider said. 'And while most of the players on this bill have come to the table, there's still probably some contention with solar in particular. I think that's unfortunate, but hopefully we can find a way through this.' Snider patterned the bill after what Wyoming does in order to generate enough funds to make a difference, Snider said. Currently, the only other deposits in the account are brine shrimp royalties. Oil, gas and other energy entities don't pay the tax for this specific account, but they pay mitigation dollars, he added. Meanwhile, solar and wind operators 'are not assisting in the way that some of these other industries are.' Members of large solar energy companies, the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah Taxpayers Association said they had concerns about the effects of the legislation, arguing that it could disincentivize clean energy projects and big economic opportunities for rural communities. One of them was Theresa Foxley, chief of staff at rPlus Energies, the developer of the Green River Energy Center, an Emery County solar energy project — poised to be one of the largest in the country. New Utah solar energy park, one of the largest in the U.S., could power 88,000 homes While Foxley said the company has been involved in conversations with Snider on the bill, the concern over 'imposing new taxes on contracted, under construction, and operational solar and wind projects in the state' lingered. 'Changes like those proposed in HB378, can severely strain the economics of an existing project and send a negative message to developers in the financial institutions that provide capital for these projects,' Foxley said. 'Utah has a sterling brand as a safe and stable investment destination, and this legislation does threaten to tarnish that brand.' Since the Green River Energy Center has the capacity of producing 400 megawatts of solar energy and 400 megawatt four-hour battery power, the center would have to pay an additional $1.2 million a year to operate in Utah 'on a project that's already under construction and that was underwritten to a specific set of laws.' Two members of the Species Protection Account Advisory Committee, who also represent the Utah Mining Association and the Utah Petroleum Association, spoke in favor of the bill. One of them was Brian Somers, president of the mining association, who defended the fund arguing that the committee works in extensive plans to ensure that the endangered species list becomes smaller through mitigation efforts. An endangered species listing can be very problematic for mining operations, Somer said. 'And ensuring that we don't have unnecessary listings is incredibly critical to ensure that these industries that in most rural counties, where they have extensive extractive industries, are the largest private employers and by far provide the highest wages of any industries in these rural counties, is critically important.' Most members of the committee defended Snider's intentions, saying that he had a precedent of working with those affected by his bills to reach an agreement. 'We've heard from the solar groups how they've dumped millions and millions of dollars back into the local communities and jobs,' Rep. David Shallenberger, R-Orem, said. 'What we haven't heard is helping be stewards of the land and helping look after some of these other aspects, like the wildlife.' After the debate, Snider seemed to grow more frustrated with the lack of consensus between the Legislature and the clean energy groups that opposed his bill, which he called 'the irony of ironies.' 'Green energy, just so the committee and the public is aware, is fighting a bill to improve conservation in this state,' Snider said. He added that he tried to work something out before the legislation was heard by the committee, but with little success. 'When I approached solar about finding a way to pay for this that keeps them whole, their first response to me was, 'yeah, we'll give you $25,000 per project,'' he said. 'Go to Washakie, go to Promontory, go to Emory County, go to Carbon County and tell me that $25,000 is a worthy impact fee for what you have done to that landscape.' Snider said he's optimistic about finding a way forward with the issue. But, ultimately, he wanted his colleagues to know — 'Solar is not paying its fair share. They are free-riding off of every industry in this state. They contribute nothing to conservation, and I think it's about time that they step up like every other industry has done.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
