In 2004, Colorado voters bet on the outcome of costs dropping for wind and solar energy as they were used more — and it looks like the initiative’s promise is coming to fruition. Today, around 6,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of generation from Colorado coal plants could be replaced with 2 gigawatts of wind while reducing costs passed onto ratepayers — without threatening reliability.

Market failures, political barriers, and other challenges help illustrate why many policies affect only limited segments of the economy. A broad spectrum of policies designed to overcome these market flaws can better arm policy makers with the tools they need to tackle climate change.

The EPA and the U.S. Transportation Department on Tuesday issued regulations that require trucks become more efficient through 2027. The final rules achieve 10 percent more carbon emission and fuel-consumption reductions than last year’s proposed rules, likely raising the price tag price for such vehicles but cutting operating costs.

A carbon tax would be very useful to help solve climate change, but isn’t the only solution — and indeed, it actually works quite poorly in certain parts of the economy, for three reasons: Some sectors are essentially indifferent to pricing; some consumers (including most industries) are likewise largely indifferent; and the politically realistic ceilings of a carbon tax are below meaningful effects in many economy sectors.

Recent reports on California’s cap-and-trade program could mislead observers to conclude the system is “collapsing” and undergoing a “meltdown.” But hyperbole isn’t reality, and quite the contrary, the state’s climate policy is succeeding — California is just 3 percent above its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as required by AB 32. Meeting California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goal is turning out to be easier and cheaper than expected.

Recent reports on California’s cap-and-trade program could mislead observers to conclude the system is “collapsing” and undergoing a “meltdown.” But the most recent data show California is just three percent above its 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as required by AB 32. Meeting California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goal is turning out to be easier and cheaper than expected.

California companies that refine gas, make cheese and build satellites may face bigger bills in the state’s underperforming cap-and-trade market very soon. But their counterparts that extract oil from the earth, turn wood into paper or produce fertilizer are in line for a longer cap-and-trade honeymoon.

If we’re going to allude to Shakespeare in the debate over a carbon tax, let’s bring out the iambic pentameter. Our July 18 op-ed on the carbon tax (“To tax or not to tax”) continues to draw reader response, including this treatment from Jeffrey Rissman, who notes that “Hamlet was the Prince of Denmark, and Denmark is known for wind turbines….”

Like any corporation, investor-owned electric utilities have a duty to maximize shareholder profits. There’s no problem with this in principle – as long as what maximizes profits also maximizes benefits in the public interest, given their regulatory monopoly status. But today, how utilities make money must change to adapt to new grid needs, customer demands and technological realities.

A major player in California’s electricity system has opened its arms to the concept of using batteries — whether mounted on a garage wall or inside an electric vehicle — and other small-scale technology to help the grid.

The experts the Chinese government relies upon to advise on energy planning say the world’s largest emitter is on track to stop growing its greenhouse gas output as much as a decade earlier than promised. Jiang Kejun, a lead researcher at the Beijing-based Energy Research Institute, said China would “for sure” outperform its Paris pledge to peak emissions by 2030.

Transportation systems represent a huge portion of public and private spending — to the tune of $1.2 to $1.4 trillion globally each year. And, in an era rocked by climate change and other disruptions, those systems must be able to weather all kinds of shocks — from fuel shortages to flooding. They must be, in a word, resilient. Here are eight ways China is taking the lead on resilient transportation

On July 7th, the Chinese government endorsed a set of policies aimed at peaking greenhouse gas emissions by 2029 — at no additional costs. Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator measured the combined effects of 35 climate, energy, and environmental policies across more than 10,000 scenarios.

China could speed up its climate plans to peak carbon dioxide emissions in six years, under proposals presented to policymakers this week. Two Beijing-based government advisory groups – the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation and the Energy Research Institute – drew up an “accelerated low carbon scenario” with American consultancy Energy Innovation.

China, a country known for its smoggy skies and hazardous environmental conditions has rapidly become the global leader in developing and implementing renewable energy technologies on a mass scale. The country’s central government understands that there is a problem that needs to be fixed as fast as possible

Instituting a carbon tax and improving building efficiency are two of the most effective tools to cut greenhouse gases, no matter if its in China or the West, according to a report out tonight from China’s National Center for Climate Strategy and the Energy Research Institute (both government agencies) and the U.S. non-profit Energy Innovation.

Utilities face a host of rapid changes in a what used to be a staid business: new business models, changing supply and demand forecasts, new distributed architectures, etc. Meanwhile, difficult questions remain about how we’re going to manage our power transition, who the winners and losers will be, and what role consumers and “prosumers” will play in the future. We tackle all of these issues in this wide-ranging conversation about the “blocks and squiggles” of the grid of the future.

Most people are at least vaguely aware at this point that power utilities are the Bad Guys in the story of renewable energy — fighting rooftop solar, clinging to old coal plants, and generally slow-walking the work of cleaning up the grid. But the role of utilities is often badly misconstrued, read as a tale of greed or animus. While there’s plenty of greed and animus to go around, the fact is, utilities are just doing what they’ve been designed to do. The design is the problem.

Elon Musk announced last week that he wants Tesla, his electric-car company, to acquire SolarCity, the rooftop-solar company he helped found and now serves as chairman. Even assuming the merged company could get past its short-term challenges, its long-term fate rests on policy and regulatory decisions it can’t predict or determine. It’s a merger based on hope.

New York’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) initiative is transforming how utility stakeholders view the power sector’s future, but for the first time polling has revealed widespread support from consumers themselves. Evidence of strongly positive attitudes toward clean energy in general, and NY REV in particular has major implications for utilities and regulators.