Sentences with phrase «more electricity regulations»

Not exact matches

«While more remains to be done to optimize our electricity system — building transmission lines to carry more clean power to those jurisdictions still burning fossil fuels, investing in smarter grids in our towns and cities, bringing more clean power online — these regulations create a foundation as we transition to clean energy and an economy built to last.»

Combination of economic trends and policies Still, for now an array of Obama administration actions and economic trends are conspiring to cut emissions, according to EIA: Americans are using less oil because of high gasoline prices; carmakers are complying with federal fuel economy standards; electricity companies are becoming more efficient; state renewable energy rules are ushering wind and solar energy onto the power grids; gas prices are competitive with coal; and federal air quality regulations are closing the dirtiest power plants.

His group of heavy - electricity users — including producers of steel and aluminum — was one of the more vocal against the Obama regulation.

Perhaps instead of focusing on regulation and instead focusing on incenting positive behavior, we could get more digesters in place which would produce clean energy, reduce the amount of nitrogen and other nutrient pollution and provide farmers with another couple sources of revenue (electricity sales, fiber bedding sales (or savings) and increased fertilizer value of the liquid digestate as compared to raw manure.

Roberts argues that, at some point in the not too distant future, we're going to have to fundamentally revisit the rules and regulations that govern the electricity sector, transforming these behemoths from centralized, top down providers of energy to more nimble, sophisticated entities that manage and optimize the two - way flow of electricity.

An important question that political and climate analysts will be examining is how much bite is in the regulations — meaning how much they would curb emissions beyond what's already happening to cut power plant carbon dioxide thanks to the natural gas boom, the shutdown of old coal - burning plants because of impending mercury - cutting rules (read the valuable Union of Concerned Scientists «Ripe for Retirement» report for more on this), improved energy efficiency and state mandates developing renewable electricity supplies.

Power generators are turning away from coal for a host of reasons: In some instances natural gas is cheaper; many states are requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of electricity from renewable resources; individual cities (and even an entire Canadian province) have decided to stop purchasing electricity created by burning coal; and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are making it more expensive and less economical to use coal plants.

More specifically, how can we shift policy and regulation to scale up distributed renewable energy — for example, solar home systems or village - scale solar power systems — that could help many of the world's poorest get access to electricity for the first time?

It is far from clear whether Trump can do much more for coal than remove most or even all the climate - related regulations discouraging the use of coal, and this may not have a huge effect since to date the major adverse effects of the «war on coal» on raising electricity prices have not yet occurred because of the Supreme Court's stay on the so - called Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan might be more aptly named the Grab Power Plan — as its intent is to empower the EPA to grab power over electricity regulation and force a shift toward unproven renewable energy (if it were clearly a better deal, there would be no need for mandates).

• Kyoto Protocol • EU ETS • Australian CO2 tax and ETS • Mandating and heavily subsidising ($ / TWh delivered) renewable energy • Masses of inappropriate regulations that have inhibited the development of nuclear power, made it perhaps five times more expensive now than it should be, slowed its development, slowed its roll out, caused global CO2 emissions to be 10 % to 20 % higher now than they would otherwise have been, meaning we are on a much slower trajectory to reduce emissions than we would be and, most importantly, we are locked in to fossil fuel electricity generation that causes 10 to 100 times more fatalities per TWh than would be the case if we allowed nuclear to develop (or perhaps 1000 times according to this: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html • Making building regulations that effectively prevent people from selling, refurbishing or updating their houses if they are close to sea level (the damage to property values and to property owners» life savings is enormous as many examples in Australia are already demonstrating.

However, recent regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act threaten to upend the competitive markets that guarantee just and reasonable wholesale rates in many parts of the U.S. Those organized wholesale markets are based on using the least - cost generation to satisfy demand, whereas the EPA continues to impose tighter and more complex environmental constraints on the electricity generation sector.

By 2030 the regulations will cost 224,000 jobs, force US consumers to pay $ 289 billion more for electricity, and lower disposable incomes for American households by $ 586 billion, the US Chamber of Commerce calculates.

The only problem is that regulations give utilities a monopoly over the production of electricity, making it hard for more efficient alternatives to compete.

The change was made to comply with Ontario Regulation 405/12 and we surmise was to deflect on rising electricity costs caused by more and more renewable energy added to the grid.

Commenting on agreements reached on the Internal Electricity regulation, Molly Walsh said «Today EU governments have made the fossil fuel industry proud, by locking us into decades more of burning fossil fuels.

We will examine how public utility regulation and environmental law have traditionally balanced cost, reliability and environmental performance in the electric generation mix, and how that balance is changing as (i) wholesale electricity markets (and some retail markets) have come to rely more on competition and market pricing of electricity, and (ii) renewable generation replaces more traditional, dispatchable resources.

As a country, we should focus on ways to make electricity more affordable, not on implementing regulations that will raise energy costs, which hit the poor and middle class the hardest.»

Their citizens will be forced to pay greatly increased rates for less reliable electricity, probably three to four times higher in current prices under the new EPA «Clean Power Plan» (CPP) regulations (much more accurately described as the Skyrocketing Rates Power Plan or SRPP), and their manufacturing industries may be forced to move to states that do not succumb to the intimidation or to foreign countries in order to survive economically.

I can limit flood damage and improve health very simply: But I need lower cost energy (you don't want that), lower cost steel and transportation (you are working very hard to make both more expensive), more proper and safe rules and less excessive regulation (you want more regulation and more fees and more interferences from very propagandized zealots against work), lower costs for electricity, water and fuel (you seek more taxes and rules on all) no government corruption (The carbon taxes you want go ONLY to the corrupt third world dictators and NGO profit - seekers who are selling their ENRON - inspired carbon credits, none do anything for the people of each country forced into squalor and death.)

Thanks to EU energy - saving regulations, they use much less electricity than older models, instead cleaning more efficiently.