before becoming a state representative, rep. dyer worked in landscaping and forest management. being in that industry has allowed him to not only understand new hampshire values, but also gain real world understanding of the environment. while serving in the new hampshire house, rep. dyer also works as a graphic designer. “… working with various business owners and startups in new hampshire i have been able to… help their companies grow and become centerpieces of their communities,” rep. dyer said.

we chatted with rep. dyer shortly after new hampshire gov. chris sununu announced that his state would not be a part of the group of states planning to follow the guidelines of the paris climate accord. the reason for this is that new hampshire already has high energy prices, with new hampshire state director greg moore saying doing this deal “will hurt the economy, kill jobs, and drive up energy prices even further on families.”

as a libertarian and a member of the house, rep. dyer has a unique perspective on the environmental issues facing new hampshire, including climate change in a state economy that is reliant on carbon eminent forms of energy. what follows is an edited transcript of rep. dyer’s conversation with planet forward.

q: first, what do you think about your governor’s decision to not be a part of the paris climate agreement with states like california and virginia, etc.?

a: although i have my disagreements with gov. sununu, i actually support that. since the paris accord would focus still more on a lot of economic policy designed to combat climate change. and i don’t really think that new hampshire is in a position to afford those kinds of additional policies.

a policy that is openly discussed in the paris accord is the carbon tax that they wanted to implement, and you know that is going to cost (more) — especially for someone like myself; i heat my house with coal in the winter time. a carbon tax would disproportionately affect people who heat with carbon-based forms…

there are so many things that a carbon tax effects that (it) would make it hard for normal people to live. so, you know there are lots of parts of the paris accord that i just really couldn’t get behind… although i have my disagreements with trump and i have my disagreements with sununu, you know this wasn’t one of them.

q: federal guidelines, such as the clean power plan (cpp), have good intentions when it comes to saving the environment, but do you believe that the greater federal regulations and lack of free market control outweigh the good intentions?

a: i wish that they would do it in other ways. i think the best way is by tax credits. i think that if you incentivize companies to invest in clean energy by giving them tax credits that they can make use of, that would be the most productive use of policy, at least at the federal level.

certainly, i think we can have the discussion of tax credits at the state level, but one of the problems that exist is tax credits at both the federal and state level you start to have this disproportionate effect where the government is now starting to pick winners and losers in the market. and by the very nature of you having a tax credit, it’s almost acting as a subsidy to those companies — which is what it is designed to do, but by raising the cost of all the other forms of energy.

as a libertarian, i resist mandates that act as artificial controls in the market. but i understand why they exist, because if they didn’t exist then it would be very likely that new hampshire would become very reliant on one or two sources of energy, whereas realistically we cannot be so reliant on that. does it increase cost, yes, it does, but it has some value at least.

q: what policy can the federal government do that is environmental but libertarian in nature?

a: tax credits are one thing. the less money that the state takes from companies that are looking to invest in renewable energy is a good thing. does that mean that i think fossil fuel energy providers should be taxed at a higher rate? technically yes, but that’s the nature of tax credits. already the fossil fuel industry has a myriad of tax credits at their disposal that they can use to mitigate their business taxes, and other various taxes that they pay on their property and capital gains. you might as well extend and issue credits to renewable energy companies.

until we are out of the woods with the federal deficit we are not going to be able to make much headway on things that are important, like enabling investment in renewable energy… if i were to, say, go to congress and talk to my federal representatives they are all democrats. and say i want a renewable energy tax credit that’s broad based… they would probably say ‘that sounds like a great idea’ and then go to the congressional budget office and be very quickly disheartened to learn that they can’t afford to implement these types of credits…

q: do you believe actions that help the environment, recycling solar energy, etc., should be voluntary on the individual level, or are they so important that they should be mandatory?

a: obviously the only way that you can address the issue is to change things that you do in your everyday life, whether or not that’s recycling, making more efficient use of your land, growing your own food, buying less meat. there are so many things you can do in your everyday life that can reduce your carbon footprint that it’s really sad that more people don’t make those choices — but we can’t force them to and we shouldn’t. and the best thing we can do is educate people on what actions can reduce their carbon footprint.

implications of electricity prices indicate that access is not universally affordable. for low-income households, electricity costs make up a much larger share of their budget compared to more affluent families, even though lower-income users consume less electricity on average. electricity costs account for about 5.7% of the median low-income family’s budget versus 1.9% for the average family. if an impoverished household were to adopt solar as a source of power, their funds could be allocated to more critical investments, such as education. additionally, renewable energies are particularly attractive for poor families because they have the potential to become an additional source of income if excess power generation can be sold back to the utility. the problem is these households often do not have capital at hand to finance the installation. although the government spends approximately $6.3 billion on energy costs for federally-assisted housing, these expenditures often do not include renewable energy investments.

likewise, in terms of quality, consumers do not have the capacity to dictate how their energy is produced. if i wanted to power my home without releasing billions in co2 emissions or risking the world’s next oil spill, i could install solar panels on my roof. that is, assuming i have enough income to secure a mortgage, finance the installation, and reside in a suburban setting. the reality of the matter is that most americans do not have the luxury of these prerequisites. in fact, lower income earners are more likely to be renters in multi-family buildings with deferred maintenance that prioritize other upgrades before considering renewable power.

after considering socio-economic repercussions, universal access to electricity in the united states becomes a goal our nation has yet to reach. the next question this issue raises concerns the stakeholders responsible for our energy inequality. obviously, the government plays a crucial role in implementing policy and legislation that reduce the financial hurdles placed on low-income renters. in the new era of the trump administration, attaining comprehensive energy access becomes even more of a challenge. the newly elected president has already appointed scott pruitt to head the epa, an adamant opponent of obama’s clean power plan. in the coming weeks, significant cuts are expected in the department of energy’s office of energy efficiency & renewable energy, which provided millions in funding of clean technology research and development and solar-backed programs throughout the previous eight years.

however, the government is not the only contributor to energy equity progress. utilities play an indispensable role in creating incentives for distributed power generation and cooperation among homeowners, solar companies, and technology providers. this is not a problem that offers an easy solution, but with the collaboration across private and public sectors, significant progress could be achieved for equitable energy access.

to explain it in simple terms, community choice aggregation allows local governments and some special districts to pool (or aggregate) their electricity load in order to purchase and/or develop power on behalf of their residents, businesses, and municipal accounts. the idea is to cut costs for consumers and also shift to using more renewable energy. most ccas are “opt-out” entities, meaning that the customer is by default part of the aggregation unless the customer opts-out. this opt-out arrangement has given community aggregation entities much higher participation rates than utility green power programs. cca is an energy supply model that works in partnership with the region’s existing utility, which continues to deliver power, maintain the grid, provide consolidated billing and other customer services.

“it’s more than just cheap rates, more than just reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said jessica tovar, a coordinator for the east bay clean power alliance. “having a business plan for local build out? that’s huge.”

alameda county is the latest county to propose a cca in california, following the like of san mateo, marin, san francisco and sonoma county. the shift in buying power to new energy authorities is framed by advocates as a prime opportunity to take action on lofty social equity goals often discussed in the abstract. advocates of community choice say the new system will increase competition and allow more flexibility in shifting to renewable generation sources, although how many ratepayers are affected depends on how many cities in the county sign onto the plan. the proposal is currently being presented to the various cities within the county. if all goes well, the county could begin buying energy in the fall of 2017. if alameda county successfully decides to pass into effect a cca it would be on track to have the largest system in the nation. it would also, by the county’s estimates, create over 2,300 new jobs. and it has set personal goal of reaching 50 percent renewable energy goal by 2030.

california is one of seven other states with cca laws in effect, but it remains the only state with the first climate-driven cca program. the state provides an impressive 67 percent greenhouse gas-free power and offers a 100 percent renewables option. illinois, massachusetts, new jersey, rhode island, ohio and new york were all designed on the premise of encouraging energy competition and cutting consumer costs.

“what california has done with its cca program is create a government agency that allows us to decide where our power comes from and have it serve as a vehicle to transition to greener energy,” said luis amezcua, co-chair of the sierra club san francisco bay chapter. “at the same time it’s a local agency, which benefits the community with job creation and helps the state meet its climate action goals.”

community choice has become a central part of california’s strategy to achieve its climate change goals. in may 2010, the nation’s first cca committed to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increased use of renewable power launched in marin county. since then, marin clean energy has grown to serve over 100,000 customers with a minimum energy portfolio of 50 percent california qualified renewables.

if you do not live in a state that has passed a law allowing cca programs, you can start by calling or writing a letter to your local government officials to advocate for a better way to buy energy and to simultaneously cut costs and shift to cleaner energy. states that are currently considering allowing cca’s include utah, delaware, and minnesota.

but for now, california takes the stand to be a leading example of how communities can come together and find a better, more efficient way to put themselves on the grid.