Arizona House Republicans are raising concerns about Governor Katie Hobbs’ recently released state energy plan, arguing it prioritizes solar development and government programs over housing availability and energy affordability.
In a press release, the Arizona House Republican Caucus said the plan advances policies that emphasize utility-scale solar projects, expanded renewable energy deployment, and the use of state-owned land for energy infrastructure.
The criticism follows the rollout of the governor’s broader energy strategy, which includes 31 recommendations developed by the Arizona Energy Promise Task Force to address rising energy demand, data center growth, and utility costs across the state.
According to House Republicans, the plan promotes solar development on state land, including areas near existing communities, rooftop solar installations on government buildings, and participation in virtual power plant programs.
Republican lawmakers cautioned that these proposals could affect the availability of land for residential development. Citing data from the Common Sense Institute, they noted that the Hobbs administration has “identified land closest to existing residential areas as ‘best’ for solar development,” adding that approximately 276,000 acres of state land within 10 miles of incorporated cities and towns could support up to 200,000 housing units.
House Majority Leader Michael Carbone (R-LD25) said the administration’s plan emphasizes renewable energy projects and related investments while raising concerns about impacts on housing supply and costs to taxpayers.
He explained in a statement, “Hobbs is calling this an all-of-the-above energy plan. It’s not. It’s a solar-heavy political plan that puts green industry insiders ahead of taxpayers, pushes utility-scale solar onto state land that could support badly needed housing, and says nothing about lowering gas prices for Arizona families. When Hobbs says ‘all of the above,’ what she means is more wind and solar.”
The governor’s office has described the energy plan as part of a broader effort to address affordability and reliability while bringing together stakeholders from utilities, industry, and government.
In separate announcements, the Hobbs administration has highlighted programs focused on lowering energy costs, including efficiency upgrades and rebate initiatives designed to reduce utility bills for Arizona households.
Carbone criticized Hobbs’ energy plan, stating, “You cannot claim to have an energy plan for Arizona while ignoring gasoline prices, fuel supply, and the infrastructure needed to keep this state moving. This report does not confront boutique fuel problems, does not address refinery or pipeline capacity, and does not even include the industry that supplies the fuel Arizona families and businesses rely on every day. That is not all of the above. That is selective politics dressed up as policy.”
He added, “Her report is long on politics and short on answers. It does not lower costs. It does not increase housing supply. It does not put taxpayers first. House Republicans are focused on affordability, reliability, and policies that serve Arizona families, not a narrow political agenda.”
It’s not an accident that the top issue talked about by politicians these days is affordability. Over the last 5 years the cost of pretty much everything has gone through the roof, largely caused by the trillions in reckless spending by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Washington.
Taming inflation must remain our top economic priority, and the good news is that Arizona Republicans are taking meaningful steps to bring costs down. After adopting a 2.5% flat income tax under Governor Doug Ducey in 2022, state lawmakers have fought to slash grocery taxes, residential rental taxes and eliminate regulations that are driving up the cost of energy and housing.
Yet while the Republican controlled legislature is doing everything it can to make sure hardworking taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, municipalities throughout Arizona are passing an avalanche of tax and fee increases that are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year…
January’s jobs report smashed expectations and signals a turning point in the labor market where job creation catches up with broader economic conditions. The report shows 130,000 jobs created, the unemployment rate falling to 4.3%, and labor force participation rising.
Economic growth last quarter was above 4% and is projected to be 4% again this quarter. The Dow Jones recently reached 50,000, as I predicted last fall. And gas prices and inflation are low.
Now workers are starting to feel the benefit in terms of associated job creation and wage growth. The jobs report shows workers’ real wages continuing to significantly rise, a stark contrast to their declines during the Biden administration.
An added bonus: Parasitical federal government jobs continue to decline, falling 34,000 last month and more than 10% since Donald Trump took office. Government jobs too often padded previous employment reports when the relevant metric should be productive private-sector job creation.
Strong labor-market, economic, and financial-market growth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s the result of good public policy that empowers Main Street over big government.
Exhibit A is last year’s Republican tax cuts. These tax cuts prevented the largest middle-class tax hike in history from occurring. They empowered small businesses by restoring and making permanent 100% immediate expensing and locking in a 20% deduction on earnings. These tax cuts are game changers for job creators, incentivizing them to expand, hire, and raise wages.
Despite delivering one of the most consequential tax cuts in modern American history, however, Republicans are somehow trailing Democrats on the issue of taxes, according to new Fox News polling. Even though every single Democrat voted against them.
This isn’t just backwards. It’s political malpractice fueled by a media ecosystem that has abandoned facts in favor of Democratic talking points. Voters have been told again and again — by headlines, by cable news panels, by progressive activists masquerading as journalists — that Republicans are the party of “tax breaks for billionaires.”
In reality, these are middle-class tax cuts that actually make the tax code more progressive.
A stronger economy, rising 401(k) balances, and higher living standards will help blunt the impact of this misinformation and convert some independents. But small businesses and conservatives have a responsibility to spread the word to right this polling wrong.
Every small business with a tax-savings story needs to speak up in their communities, with their employees, and on their social media, explaining how these tax cuts have helped them survive and thrive. That’s the least they can do in return for these tax savings.
Meanwhile, conservatives need to start singing from the same page on these uniting economic issues. A strong opportunity, affordability, and standard-of-living message, combined with a focus on deporting violent criminals and sanity on culture issues, is the winning approach Republicans need to boost their polling and hold onto Congress this fall.
The first step is connecting the dots between small-business tax cuts, job creation, and affordability.
Alfredo Ortiz is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, CEO of Job Creators Network, author of “The Real Race Revolutionaries,” and co-host of the Main Street Matters podcast.
Climate activists, frustrated by unsuccessful climate lawsuits, have increasingly turned to “climate superfund” legislation as a new tool to make oil and gas companies pay for climate damages.
Notably, these state-level bills seek to impose hefty fees or fines on energy producers for the costs of climate change, a punitive measure for energy producers for decades-old, lawful activities. But this punishing dynamic backfired when confronted with reality. In multiple states, climate superfund proposals have run ashore amid bipartisan concern that they would do more harm than good, particularly by driving up energy costs for consumers.
As of early 2026, only Vermont and New York have actually enacted climate superfund laws, both in 2024, with a dozen other states introducing similar bills, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, to name a few. However, about half of these attempts have stalled or died in state legislatures.
New Jersey’s experience is a prime example. Lawmakers there introduced an ambitious Climate Superfund Act in 2025, but even some initial supporters grew uneasy once they considered the practical impacts.
In a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the bill in January 2026, legislators from both parties openly questioned the premise of punishing companies for past legal emissions and warned the costs would simply be passed on to New Jersey residents . “Each and every one of us… [is] relying on [fossil fuels] in one way or another in your everyday life,” noted Democratic Sen. Paul Sarlo, highlighting the irony that the state itself remains dependent on the very fuels it was seeking to penalize.
Sarlo, the committee chair, reluctantly advanced the bill out of committee but bluntly warned he would vote “no” on final passage unless major changes were made. Republican Sen. Declan O’Scanlon was even more direct, blasting the retroactive fines as “unfair” and cautioning that “New Jerseyans themselves would end up paying the price at the pump or for their utility bills” if the state tries to punish energy producers.
In the end, New Jersey’s proposal never made it to a floor vote before the legislative session ended in January 2026, effectively killing the bill (for now).
New Jersey is hardly alone. In California, two “Polluters Pay Climate Superfund” bills (SB 684 and AB 1243) garnered significant attention in early 2025 but were quietly shelved after initial committee hearings, as lawmakers grew wary of the potential economic fallout. Connecticut’s climate superfund bill got a public hearing in March 2025 but then died in committee without a vote. In Hawaii, a proposed superfund never advanced at all before the 2025 session ended. Virginia’s attempt was “immediately rejected” after a bipartisan subcommittee vote to table the bill, effectively killing it. And in Maryland, lawmakers introduced an ambitious Climate Superfund-style bill (the RENEW Act) only to strip it down to a mere study of climate costs, with all polluter-pays provisions removed.
Taken together, these failures underscore how even in climate-conscious states, many policymakers got cold feet when confronted with the legal risks, economic trade-offs, and voter backlash potentially involved.
If this is the case, are climate superfund schemes really aligned with what the public wants policymakers to focus on?
Activists insist that making Big Oil pay billions is a matter of justice and necessary to fund climate resilience. But for most Americans, the more immediate priority is relief from high energy prices, not new climate-linked taxes that could raise those costs further.
A national poll of likely voters in late 2025 showed 83% reported that their energy bills had gone up in recent years, with a majority saying costs had increased “a lot.” Affordability is clearly top of mind. This doesn’t mean Americans don’t care about climate change at all; it means they aren’t willing to bear exorbitant direct costs for symbolic climate policies, especially when those policies won’t tangibly improve their day-to-day lives or might simply shuffle money to government coffers with little accountability.
Ultimately, the failure of these climate superfund proposals underscores a reality that many in the energy industry have long argued: energy policy must be grounded in economic and energy reality, as well as the needs of everyday Americans.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Governor Katie Hobbs rolled out her budget last month and, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t add up.
Not only because her “solutions” don’t match the problems she claims to be solving, like suggesting we can make goods and services more affordable by piling on new taxes and fees, but because her budget quite literally just doesn’t add up.
Hobbs’ budget is a $17.7B spending plan ($100M more than last year) that leaves a meager $37.8M balance at the end of FY27. That means her revenue projections leave very little room for error. Yet one of the more obvious facts about her budget is just how likely error-prone these projections are, a fact that Republicans during a joint appropriations hearing were sure to point out.
One of the most speculative assumptions Hobbs is making in her budget proposal is relying on $760 million of “reimbursements” from the federal government for expenditures the state has made for border security since 2021. That is a good chunk of change, and her budget is unworkable without it.
The problem is it is actually way more likely than not that even if the state receives something in the way of reimbursement, it will not be the full amount, and who knows on what timeline. Regardless, it is irresponsible tocommit money out the front door that may never come in.
This is nothing new for Hobbs. Just last year she continued a COVID-era program that neither had legislative authorization to continue nor the ongoing financial allocations to support it. That wound up blowing a $122M fiscal hole in the previous year’s budget mid-session that Republicans had to mop up.
The Governor’s budget also depends on tapping the State Land trust for another $1.5 Billion. Setting aside whether its a good idea to raid the land trust set up for various beneficiaries (K-12, Universities, deaf and blind, etc), changing the formula for trust land distributions requires a constitutional amendment that would need to be approved by voters in November.
Hobbs’ “Affordability” Plan is Really a Chaotic Tax-And-Spend Plan
Hobbs wants to brand her budget as improving affordability, but it does just the opposite. Every idea in her plan is built around $1B in new taxes and fees and the hope that the bureaucracy can “manage” the cost of living while literally contributing to its inflation…
