In 2025, America pivoted away from 100% renewable energy mandates and preservationist land policies at the federal level. But in some states, the opposite was happening. 

Three states—Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Mexico—have passed climate-focused or wildlife conservation bills that are solutions in search of a problem. 

Hawaii: “Green Fee” to Mitigate Climate Change

In May 2025, Governor Josh Green (D-HI) signed Act 96 (Senate Bill 1396) into law to create a first-in-the-nation “green fee” to mitigate climate change effects on the state.

“Today Hawaiʻi ushers in the first Green Fee in the nation. Once again, Hawaiʻi is at the forefront of protecting our natural resources, recognizing their fundamental role in sustaining the ecological, cultural and economic health of Hawaiʻi. As an island chain, Hawaiʻi cannot wait for the next disaster to hit before taking action. We must build resiliency now, and the Green Fee will provide the necessary financing to ensure resources are available for our future,” Governor Green said in a press release.

SB 1396 levies an additional 0.75% green tax—or Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)—to the state’s existing tax on hotel rooms and vacation accommodations. It’s now up to 11%, up from 10.25%. Additionally, the law adds a 11% tax on gross fares paid by cruise ship’s passengers each day their vessels stay in Hawaii. Governor Green claims the new law would generate $100 million annually for climate mitigation efforts. 

The law was slated to go into effect on January 1st, 2026. On New Year’s Eve, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked it due to a legal challenge from the world’s largest cruise trade association, the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). CLIA believes the green tax violates the Constitution and would be cost-prohibitive for travelers who book cruise trips to the already expensive state. The trade association’s lawsuit alleges individual Hawaiian counties could mandate an additional 3%, bringing the prorated fee for cruise passengers to 14%.

Hiking fees to fight climate change is historically unpopular. Most Americans are unwilling to pay more than a dollar each month, believing the costs far outweigh the benefits. In fact, the most recent joint EPIC and AP-NORC poll found that only 38% of Americans are willing to pay an additional dollar a month in utility bills to “go green”—down from 52% in 2021. Even the Hawaii Governor conceded “… fees may not be the most popular method of revenue generation ….” 

Hawaiian hotel prices have increased 29% between 2019 and 2024, yet visitation has steadily decreased to the Aloha State. This couldhurt the state’s tourism industry without delivering its promised climate benefits.

Massachusetts: Taxing Car Mileage to Fight Climate Change

This legislative session, Massachusetts lawmakers are likely to pass the deceptively-named Freedom to Move Act to cut emissions and discourage car driving in the Commonwealth. 

“The purpose of the Freedom to Move Act is to ensure that we are investing in all transportation options—both roads and highways and cleaner alternatives like trains and buses—to help align Massachusetts with its climate targets,” bill sponsor and Senator Cynthia Stone Creem said. “It does not in any way limit people’s choices about how to get around. It does not impose fines, penalties, or taxes on drivers. In fact, it gives people more choices.” Senator Stone Creems says the law would be modeled after legislation already adopted in Colorado and Minnesota.

The senator’s bill, if passed, would mandate: 

  • Alignment between the state’s transportation plans and climate mandates.
  • MassDOT establishes standards for reducing the number of statewide driving miles.
  • A whole-of-government plan “to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to transportation options other than personal vehicles.”
  • Government investment in public transportation options if emissions reductions aren’t fulfilled.

Currently, Massachusetts is tethered to California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations that require all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission. It adopted this rule in 2023. As of this writing, however, there are estimated to be between 91,000 and 107,000 battery-powered vehicles registered in the state, well below the 200,000 goal by 2025. Last May, Massachusetts announced a two-year pause on the program. 

Electric vehicle (EV) mandates are extremely unpopular with consumers and car manufacturers. That’s why the latter have pulled EV models from the market. 

New Mexico: 25% Discount on Hunting and Fishing Licenses for SNAP Benefits Recipients

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan (D-NM) signed a law last spring to give Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits recipients a 25% discount on hunting and fishing license purchases. Senate Bill 5 was signed in May 2025 and went into effect on January 1st, 2026.

“This discount will help make hunting and fishing more accessible to thousands of New Mexicans,” New Mexico Department of Wildlife director Mike Sloane said in a statement. “With this discount, eligible participants will have increased accessibility to healthy, natural food sources.”

Per Senate Bill 5, the NM Health Care Authority is required to provide the Department of Wildlife with a list of eligible residents between January 1st and January 10th annually. SNAP recipients applying after January 10th must show proof of eligibility to qualify for discounts.

Naturally, social media reaction from New Mexican hunters and anglers was mixed—even negative.

Typically, state wildlife agencies offer discounts to disabled veterans, active-duty military and reservists, youth and kids, individuals with disabilities, and seniors, not based on income status. 

In 2024, Maryland unsuccessfully mulled a similar bill to waive and exempt fishing license fees for residents on assistance programs. In 2009, Florida passed a law exempting some assistance program recipients from paying licenses for shoreline fishing.

There are two immediate concerns with this update. 

First, SNAP is a federal program. Hunting and fishing license costs are determined by individual state wildlife agencies in accordance with the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, respectively. Secondly, it could be argued that offering an income-based discount is counterintuitive, as hunting and fishing encourage less government dependence. These activities—especially hunting—can be expensive in the Land of Enchantment, too. 

Final Thoughts

While states are laboratories of democracy, experimental climate and wildlife legislation exported nationwide frequently invite higher costs and fewer access opportunities, respectively. 

The Center for Energy and Conservation will continue to monitor energy and conservation trends in 2026.