Latest news with #Gosar
E&E News
4 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Unlikely champion notches green energy win in megabill
Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona has for years been trying to pass legislation to boost solar and wind power on public lands, but has met with little success. Now a little-noticed section of the House-passed Republican megabill includes portions of the House Freedom Caucus member's 'Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act.' Specifically, the bill would share revenues from renewable projects with counties and states where the projects are located. The hope is that spreading cash around will make renewables more attractive for local governments. Advertisement 'I'm a guy that's all about all of the above,' Gosar said during an interview this week. 'Arizona's got great solar. We can't turn our back on it.' Despite that enthusiasm, don't expect him to sign on to the Green New Deal just yet. He's more than happy to see renewable energy tax credits get rolled back in the reconciliation package, known formally as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' H.R. 1. 'As long as nobody's getting any subsidies, and everyone's playing fair and square across the board, I think we win,' he said. The Senate is now working on its own version of the budget reconciliation bill, with the hope of getting it to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Lawmakers there say they have been eyeing changes to some of the rollbacks House Republicans made to energy tax credits. Under budget reconciliation rules, only a simple majority in both chambers is needed to pass the legislation. Renewable energy backers have had little to cheer about in recent weeks. Aside from some nuclear and renewable fuel provisions, Gosar's language is one of the few green energy wins in the megabill. Still, what's in there now is a slimmed down version of the 'Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act,' reintroduced in March as H.R. 1994. Like many previous iterations over the past half-decade, that proposal includes provisions to speed up permitting and create a fund for conservation efforts, neither of which made it into the megabill. The former wasn't included because of Senate procedural issues, Gosar said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did not give a score for Gosar's portion of the megabill, though it seems likely to increase the deficit because money would be steered away from federal coffers. According to text of the House-passed package, 50 percent of bonus bids, rentals, fees, permits and leases for renewable projects would go to states and counties that host such projects, divided evenly between the two. Currently, 100 percent of that money goes to the federal government. The new revenue-sharing arrangement would begin Jan. 1. 'We wanted people to embrace this at the district and state levels,' Gosar said. 'That way, some of the money came back to them. It's what we call 'sniffle money.'' Group support Advocates like the American Clean Power Association have backed Gosar's past efforts, but they've had little to say this time around. Jason Ryan, a spokesperson for ACP, declined comment, though in March, Frank Macchiarola, chief advocacy officer for the group, hailed H.R. 1994 as 'key to harnessing' renewable energy 'to enhance energy security, improve grid reliability, and boost local economies.' The conservative Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, however, said it was 'pleased' to see a version of PLREDA make it into the reconciliation bill. 'It will be a positive driver of energy projects, especially in the West, that are crucial to securing American energy independence and national security interests,' Heather Reams, president of the group, said in a statement. 'Furthermore, we appreciate the preservation of flexibility for states and localities in how to best allocate funds and hope to see similar language come out of the Senate.' According to House Natural Resources testimony from an Interior Department official last July, the Bureau of Land Management under President Joe Biden had permitted renewable energy projects expected to power about 2.4 million homes. The chair of that committee, Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), deemed the revenue-sharing provision a modest win that should have widespread support. 'It is a bipartisan bill, and it is something Gosar was wanting to see in the package,' he said in an interview. Partisan rift It's not exactly bipartisan anymore. Ever since the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, the main Democratic co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) has refused to join with Gosar on the legislation, instead offering his own version each year. Gosar has called the rioters 'peaceful patriots.' Gosar seems to have moved on from all that, though he did have thoughts on Levin's parallel efforts. 'I think when you copy me, I think that's a … how should I say this? Great admiration. My work is pretty good.' Gosar hasn't exactly been trumpeting his legislative victory. In a statement following the House vote on the bill in May, he lauded the legislation's border security and tax provisions, but failed to mention the provision he succeeded in inserting. When asked if that was an oversight, he responded simply, 'Yeah.'
Mint
22-05-2025
- Health
- Mint
Why that deluxe hospital room could cut your insurance cover by 50%
Health insurance is meant to offer peace of mind—but a hidden clause called room rent limit can wipe out that comfort at the time of claim settlement. Most policyholders—and even some professionals—overlook this critical fine print, assuming it's a minor cost difference. But that assumption can cost you lakhs. Mint breaks down how this clause works, why it's so dangerous, and how you can avoid financial shock. Also read: In charts | The health insurance puzzle: 83% Indians aware but only 19% covered What is a room rent limit? Every health insurance policy specifies the type of room it covers—like a shared ward, single room, or sometimes, simply a price cap. Some plans don't mention a room type directly but instead set a daily spending limit. For example, your policy might say 'room rent and ICU covered up to 1% and 2% of the sum insured (SI), respectively.' Let's break that down: If your policy's total coverage (sum insured) is ₹10 lakh, your daily room rent limit could be ₹10,000 (1% of SI). Your daily ICU limit could be ₹20,000 (2% of SI). Other insurers might simply state a fixed maximum amount, like 'up to ₹5,000', regardless of your total sum insured. You might think if your room limit is ₹5,000 and the hospital room costs ₹8,000, you'll just pay the ₹3,000 difference. If you stay for 5 days, you'd expect to pay an extra ₹15,000 ( ₹3,000 x 5 days). However, this is where most people get surprised! Health insurers often don't clearly state in the policy that the room rent limit doesn't just apply to the room itself. It also applies to many other hospital expenses that are linked to the type of room you choose. This means if your room rent is higher than your limit, a much larger portion of your bill might not be covered, not just the room rent difference. Also read: Coming soon: Mediclaim cashless approval in an hour; claim settlement in 3 hours Why room rent limits are deadly If your policy has a room rent limit, the proportionate deduction will not just apply on the room rent, but also on additional expenses such as doctor's visits, surgeon's fees, anaesthetist, operation theatre (OT) and nursing charges, among others. So, if your room rent limit is ₹5,000 and the actual room cost is ₹10,000, the proportionate deduction factor will come in at 50%. All additional expenses linked to the room will get deducted by 50% when the insurance company will calculate the claim amount to be covered by the policy. CA Mayank Gosar shared a telling case: 'An individual with a policy that covered a single private room chose a single deluxe room, unaware of the difference," he said. The hospital bill for three days came to ₹36,000, but the insurer cleared only ₹23,400, a 35% deduction. 'This happened because the deluxe room wasn't covered under the policy. Charges like doctor visits and nursing tend to be higher in such rooms, leading to a proportionate reduction in the entire claim amount," explained Gosar. Also read: Why health insurance during and after pregnancy is essential Bill shock explained To illustrate, Mint created a sample hospital bill to explain the impact of the room rent limit better. Suppose you have a policy with a ₹5 lakh sum insured, a ₹5,000 room limit, and ₹10,000 ICU limit. You're hospitalised for five days—three in a room costing ₹10,000/day and two in an ICU charging ₹20,000/day. That triggers a 50% proportionate deduction (actual cost is double the policy cap). The insurer will apply this deduction on nearly all key expenses— ICU charges, room rent, nursing charges, surgeon fees, anaesthetist charges, OT charges, doctor visit charges, physiotherapy, blood transfusion, and OT equipment charges. Only medications (in-hospital) and diagnostics (USG, X-ray, labs) are paid in full. Consumables (like gloves, syringes) are often excluded unless you've bought a special rider. Result? Against a bill of ₹3.56 lakh, the insurer pays only ₹1.98 lakh, a deduction of 44%. What if you had a policy with no cap on the room rent limit? In that case, only ₹14,000 will get deducted from ₹3.56 lakh due to permanent exclusions, such as consumables (syringes, gloves), medical attendant charges, food and diet, and registration/admin charges, but other expenses will be covered fully. This is why you must avoid policies having room rent limits, otherwise your out of pocket expenses could be huge, irrespective of the sum insured in your health plan. Always opt for comprehensive health insurance policies without any sub-limits in the room rent. Practical limitations Suppose you have a policy of a base cover of say ₹10 lakh with no cap on the room rent. You get hospitalised and opt for a deluxe room. Your insurer may reject cashless approval saying you can only opt for a certain type of a room. If you still go for deluxe, it might make some deductions. This is because they find it impractical for a ₹5 lakh or a ₹10 lakh policyholder to opt for deluxe or a suite room. 'Insurance is a service, not a luxury," said Bhaskar Nerurkar, head of health administration team, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance. Explaining it further, Nikhil Jha, co-founder, Hercules Insurance Advisory, said if the same people are paying from their pocket, they are unlikely to opt for a deluxe but a normal ward because the former increases the total hospitalisation cost by 50-55%. "You buy insurance to cover the treatment cost, not for hotel-like services. From that angle, insurers are correct at taking this stance. If the base cover is high, say ₹50 lakh, one can opt for a suite, but a ₹5 lakh person doing it will not be justified," he said. Furthermore, policyholders should be aware that choosing an expensive room can deplete their coverage much faster, especially with extended hospital stays. Therefore, it's wise to be practical when selecting a room type, even if your policy doesn't have an explicit room rent limit, to ensure your coverage lasts for your actual medical treatment. Also read: The US' angst over health insurance: Lessons for India
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Solar energy bills target Arizona's La Paz County, with bipartisan support in Congress
Arizona lawmakers are pushing for more solar development in the state, particularly in rural La Paz County, even as the Trump administration advocates moving away from 'intermittent' renewable energy. Republicans and Democrats have introduced at least two bills promoting solar and wind energy in Arizona since the new Congress started work in January. Lawmakers say the bills promote economic development in rural parts of the state while boosting the country's power supply. 'Solar developments create jobs and power Arizona homes with affordable, sustainable energy,' said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., in a press release. One of the bills would transfer federal land in western Arizona to local control, while both could bring more money to local governments from renewable energy projects. Solar projects are controversial in western Arizona communities, offering economic opportunity while transforming local landscapes. The La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act would sell 3,400 acres of federal land to La Paz County to allow the expansion of a large existing solar park there. The transferred acres cannot include any 'significant cultural, environmental, wildlife, or recreational resources.' Solar projects: Federal funding will help tribes expand electric service, irrigation The bill has been introduced in both the House and Senate. The House version is sponsored entirely by Republicans, including Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who represents La Paz County. The Senate version of the bill is sponsored by both of Arizona's Democratic senators, Gallego and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. The second bill, sponsored by Gosar, is designed to encourage solar projects on federal lands across the country, including the vast areas of public land in Gosar's district. The bill would also use revenues from those solar projects — fees and rents collected by the federal government — to fund local governments and conservation efforts. This is Gosar's eighth time introducing the legislation, which he has put forward in various forms since he was elected in 2010. The previous bills have never reached a House floor vote, though they had strong support from Republicans and Democrats. Gosar's office says components of the bills have passed through other legislation. 'Congressman Gosar has led this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill for years and while much of the bill was passed in previous years, this legislation will finish the job Congressman Gosar started,' a spokesperson from Gosar's office said in an email. Federal officials are considering eight solar projects that would be located in Gosar's district or just outside of it, making up the vast majority of solar projects proposed on federal land in Arizona. If they are all approved, these projects would produce a combined 4.7 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power almost 800,000 homes when operating at full capacity. 'Looking ahead, renewable energy sources like wind and solar should be an integral part of the United States' all-of-the-above energy strategy. Our nation's public lands can play a critical role in lowering energy prices and can help meet our nation's growing energy demand,' Gosar's office wrote in a press release. Mohave County proposal: A solar ban, a gas power plant and the rural retirees firing back at dirty energy Solar was the fastest-growing energy source in the U.S. in 2024, though natural gas was the largest source. Gosar's district in western Arizona, with its flat, sunny expanses and high concentration of federal land, is seen as an ideal location for solar projects. The district, and Arizona broadly, has almost no oil or gas reserves. Western Arizona communities are divided on solar, but local officials in conservative counties seem supportive of the bill. 'This vital legislation is key to our strategic plan for La Paz County to be home to the largest solar project in the nation," La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin said in a press release. In an email to The Republic, Mohave County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter echoed support for energy development in western Arizona, so long as the projects are far from towns and cities. 'If we can work together to get the siting of these projects right and far enough removed from our rural population centers, I think there could be some big wins for everyone,' Lingenfelter said. 'Mohave County citizens support responsible and diversified energy solutions … but strongly believe that federally-managed lands close to our rural population centers should not be prioritized for industrial-scale renewable energy development.' The bills seem to align with the Trump administration's push to boost the national energy supply at a time when growing data centers and electric cars are straining power grids in some areas of the country. At the same time, the bills are pushing for a form of 'intermittent' power that Trump officials seem hesitant to support. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate in January, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said, 'We need baseload in order to allow renewables to be part of the system … we've stacked the deck, where we are creating roadblocks for people who want to do baseload and we've got massive tax incentives for people who want to do intermittent.' Solar vs. gas: In sunny Arizona, a relocated gas plant ignites questions over who profits and who pays Trump essentially paused any renewable power projects on federal lands during the administration's first days in office. Trump also excluded renewables from the projects he would support through his 'energy emergency,' which he declared in January to strengthen the national power grid, reduce energy prices and boost fossil fuel production. So-called 'baseload' power usually means fossil fuels, some hydropower, and nuclear power that can provide energy at all times of the day. 'Intermittent' power, in this case, means solar and wind, which produce power according to the movements of the sun and air. During Burgum's confirmation, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., argued that solar and wind can become baseload power sources when their electricity is stored in batteries for later release, a technology her state is advancing through research, manufacturing and mining. 'Isn't the combination of renewables plus battery storage baseload?' Cortez Masto asked Burgum. 'That's certainly the future,' Burgum responded, 'but until we get to that time, we have to sort of have two systems.' Austin Corona covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona lawmakers want more solar for the state
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Has an Arizona member of Congress ever been censured? What to know
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives censured Rep. Al Green this week after he disrupted President Donald Trump's joint address to Congress. Green, D-Texas, joins a list of more than two dozen lawmakers formally disciplined by the House. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who was censured four years ago for sharing an anime video that depicted him murdering a Democratic member of Congress. A censure, where House lawmakers vote to discipline one of their colleagues, is a relatively rare occurrence. Gosar was the first lawmaker to be censured in more than a decade when his colleagues took him to task in 2021. Green's censure passed largely on party lines this week on a 224-198 vote. Ten Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of the resolution. All of Arizona's House Republicans, including Gosar, voted to censure Green. Two of the state's three Democrats voted against the measure. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., did not vote. Green stood during Trump's address and shouted 'You don't have a mandate' before being drowned out by Republicans and removed from the chamber. Gosar was censured by the House for sharing a violent animated video on social media in 2021. In the clip, Gosar was depicted murdering Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and attacking President Joe Biden. All House Democrats and two Republicans voted to censure Gosar at the time. Lawmakers debated the measure for four hours. Gosar defended the clip as a metaphor for the Democratic Party's immigration policy. "For this cartoon, some in Congress suggest I should be punished. I have said decisively there is no threat in the cartoon other than the threat immigration poses to our country," Gosar said on the House floor before the vote. Ocasio-Cortez supported the measure, saying at the time that lawmakers should 'draw the line' against depicting and inciting violence. A censure 'registers the House's deep disapproval of member misconduct that, nevertheless, does not meet the threshold for expulsion,' according to the House historian. The House approves a censure by a majority vote. Then, the censured lawmaker must stand in the well of the House while the censure is read aloud as a 'form of public rebuke.' The first lawmaker to be censured was Rep. William Stanbery of Ohio, who was disciplined in 1832 for insulting House Speaker Andrew Stevenson. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., was reprimanded by Congress in 2020, a similar measure that is considered less severe than a censure. Schweikert was reprimanded on a voice vote. He was disciplined for ethics violations that included not complying with campaign finance rules, including reporting errors on his financial report, misuse of congressional funds for unofficial purposes and pressuring office staff to perform campaign work, House records show. Schweikert at the time was the first member of the House to be reprimanded in eight years, and is the 11th to be formally reprimanded since the modern system of ethics discipline was implemented in the 1960s. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Has an Arizona member of Congress ever been censured?
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rep. Paul Gosar grills 'sanctuary city' mayors on Arizona's SB 1070 at immigration hearing
Rep. Paul Gosar clashed over immigration with big city Democratic mayors in a congressional hearing, going as far as to quiz them on Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070 law. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, titled 'A Hearing with Sanctuary City Mayors,' included Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston. Gosar, R-Ariz., accused the mayors of 'disgracing a legal immigration system' and promoting a 'false narrative' on illegal immigration. He asked them if they supported Arizona's hardline SB 1070 immigration law that passed 15 years ago, most of which the Supreme Court struck down in 2012 because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 'Did you support the Arizona law called SB 1070?' Gosar asked New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Adams and the other mayors said they were unfamiliar with the Arizona law and assured Gosar that they comply with all state and federal laws. SB 1070 was passed by state lawmakers in Arizona in 2010, not by Congress. The hearing came as Republican President Donald Trump continues his immigration crackdown and looks to ramp up mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Trump border czar Tom Homan has taken aim at Boston and Chicago as places to carry out immigration raids. He has a warmer relationship with Adams of New York City. Boston, New York City and Chicago are sanctuary cities, where municipal laws protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and prosecution. The mayor of Denver calls his city 'welcoming' but does not use the 'sanctuary city' label. 'The federal government has jurisdiction and supremacy over all immigration laws, right?' Gosar asked the mayors. 'How can you get a comprehensive immigration policy when you're defining it from the very get go. You're building on false premises.' Wu, the mayor of Boston, responded by pointing to the sweeping Department of Government Efficiency cuts enacted by Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk. 'Respectfully, Congressman, you could pass bipartisan legislation, and that would be comprehensive immigration law. The false narrative is that immigrants in general are criminals, or immigrants in general cause all sorts of danger and harm. That is actually what is undermining safety in our communities,' Wu said. 'If you want to make us safe, pass gun reforms. Stop cutting Medicaid, stop cutting cancer research, stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our city safe.' This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Rep. Paul Gosar grills 'sanctuary city' mayors on SB 1070
