Governments shouldn’t determine which forms of energy are “good” or “bad,” using subsidies and mandates to boost the good while imposing restrictions to hobble the bad. Instead, decisions about the fuel mix should be left to the market as much as possible.
The risks posed by this concentration are worth taking seriously. The problem is that these tools may force taxpayers to take on unnecessary risk—leaving them stuck with the bill if the companies fail—without addressing the underlying problem.
The need to reduce fire risk is apparent, and we know how to do so through active forest management. Yet policy continues to slow those efforts down and that urgently needs to change.
The Department of Energy’s recent National Transmission Needs Study identifies several of these cases, where regions’ electricity costs would decline substantially if they were connected by a high-capacity transmission line. Providing these benefits to consumers, however, requires confronting not just the incentives that discourage utilities from building interregional lines, but the state laws that let incumbent monopolies control who builds them.
By rescinding the expansive regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and returning to Justice Scalia’s narrower textual reading that limits “take” to direct actions against individual animals, federal agencies have struck a blow for property rights, reduced unnecessary land-use controls, and restored freer market incentives.
Lawmakers in both parties are scrambling to address the issues revealed by data centers. President Donald Trump, his administration officials, and several governors (including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro) signed on to a statement of principles that encourage data centers to bring their own power or pay for the power they need.
Congress is running short on time to pass a comprehensive permitting reform package before the lame duck this fall. On the table awaiting votes are bills reforming the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Air Act. The National Historic Preservation Act, which has recently gained traction as a permitting barrier to projects, has received comparatively little attention in Congress.
Building more is no substitute for building smarter. At times, this has been a challenge for America's energy infrastructure, particularly transmission. It is evident that the U.S. needs more transmission, but which transmission lines it builds matters for protecting ratepayers and keeping costs in check. An overwhelming number of House Members just reaffirmed this guiding principle for how America should approach the development of electric transmission.
As Americans crank up their air conditioning bills in the summer months, the importance of affordable, dependable power is critical but often taken for granted. Especially today, families are more acutely aware of how much they’re paying as electricity rates have risen at a pace more than double the rate of inflation over the past year.
The 50-year era of “don’t-touch” conservation may have ended three weeks ago, after the Trump administration narrowed the definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harming an endangered species used to encompass damage to the land the species lives on. Landowners with endangered species were limited in how they could steward their plots of land. After all, endangered species’ recoveries relied on proactive efforts by landowners, which will remain intact regardless of the changing incentive structure of the ESA. The unnecessary penalties landowners had to incur were lifted, and conservation efforts will be able to fit the needs of the land and life rather than keeping the overburdening punishments of the ESA.
Thank you for signing up
Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.