Dialing up the regulations requires removing political economy barriers, and that will only happen when clean energy becomes much cheaper. The principal way to accomplish this is through innovation.
Energy & Environment
Debates about federal carbon control regulations and a solar-energy-induced "death spiral" for electric utilities have been heating up, but along separate tracks. Those two debates have now effectively collided.
The EPA's attempt to garner political support for its proposed carbon regulation actually casts climate change as a less-important problem than the administration has repeatedly asserted that it is.
It's about time both sides who argue only their perspective (economy or environment) recognize that to ensure the well-being of our world's population today and for the future, one must be honest and embrace that both are essential and not mutually exclusive.
Time is long past due for America to move on climate change.
It isn't just a single instance or two where the agency has failed to protect the public.
The U.S. now finds itself in a position to export both natural gas and petroleum.
Next week, the EPA is expected to publish the notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. This is a big deal.
In a little-noticed part of the opinion, the Supreme Court's decision in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation sheds light on a design flaw in the statute that most prominently features cooperative federalism — the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act may be structured, counterintuitively and unhelpfully, to discourage state participation.
There is a long history of using EPA rules as a catch-all conduit of culpability, a slight-of-hand smokescreen useful for setting up the agency as the dupe to mask the real reasons behind power plant shutdowns.