Grid operators set the prices for energy markets and are structured to take the lowest prices – a disadvantage for coal and nuclear power.
Two moves by the Trump administration signal a dramatic shift in energy policy to favor coal and nuclear, but markets forces and legal challenges mean changes could take years.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is an unabashed ally of the fossil fuels – industry his agency is supposed to regulate.
AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar
The Trump administration is committed to deregulating industry, as it's done with the EPA Clean Power Plan. But a historian shows how regulations have actually benefited both industry and consumers.
TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee, site of a 1.1 billion gallon spill of coal ash slurry in 2008, photographed on March 28, 2012.
Rural development experts say the best way to help coal communities by is investing in people, infrastructure and a clean environment. Instead, President Trump's budget cuts programs in these areas.
Demolishing the coal-fired R.E. Burger Power Station in Shadyside, Ohio, July 29, 2016.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has proposed to reward coal plants for stockpiling fuel onsite – allegedly making the power system more reliable. Two economists give this idea a failing grade.
Public lands along the south fork of the Snake River in southeastern Idaho.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke calls himself "a Teddy Roosevelt guy," but supports many actions that critics call anti-conservation, such as shrinking national monuments and fast-tracking energy projects.
Coal power has long been a mainstay of the electricity system but has lost share as natural gas prices have gone down.
The Department of Energy's review of the electricity grid finds natural gas, rather than renewables, has hurt coal and nuclear power. But that's only half the story of the changes underway.
This 1899 drawing depicts Uncle Sam disciplining his newly acquired pupils/possessions, including Puerto Rico, following the Treaty of Paris.
Library of Congress
In Puerto Rico the Trump administration's 'energy dominance' policy echoes colonial practices by fast-forwarding fossil fuel projects over community resistance.
Having an antagonistic debate over climate change will not shed any more light on the fundamentals of climate science.
Why assembling two teams to debate climate change is all about political spectacle and sowing doubt – and has nothing to do with actual climate science.
After spending $9 billion on a nuclear power plant construction in South Carolina, project developers have pulled the plug.
Nuclear power plants don't just pump out steady, carbon-free electricity; they also help produce the people the US needs for nuclear weapons inspections.
The first U.S. offshore wind farm, near Block Island, Rhode Island, started delivering commercial electricity in December 2016.
AP Photo/Michael Dwyer
When utilities plan investments, they think decades ahead. A recent study shows why power companies should be spending more on renewables despite the Trump administration's tilt toward fossil fuels.
The surge in U.S. oil and natural gas production has transformed the energy picture in the country, but the influence is muted globally.
The Trump administration has set a new national policy: energy dominance. But can the US really dominate other countries through fossil fuel exports?
You may agree the U.S. should move to renewables, but how quickly can we do it and how?
How fast can the US transition to clean energy and with what energy sources? Here's why an impassioned debate among energy wonks matters to the rest of us.
A May Day protest in San Francisco. The state is at odds with the Trump administration on a number of policies, notably immigration and environment.
AP Photo/Jeff Chiu
Defiant against Trump's policies on immigration and environment, California finds itself defending its way of life – the California Dream itself.
There’s strong support for wind power, which aids in addressing climate change, in Kansas and other red states for economic reasons.
AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
The Trump administration has already sought to reverse several Obama-era climate change policies. Pro-environment people should now focus on threats to state climate actions.
On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States will leave the Paris climate accord.
A panel of academics and scientists explain the damages to the Earth, the economy and US moral standing in the world by Trump's decision to abandon the Paris climate accord.
Checking the power output of a photovoltaic concentrator array built by Martin Marietta, Inc., at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
President Trump's budget reportedly will slash funding for clean energy research and development. An energy expert explains the importance of government support and spotlights some key opportunities.
Lessons from the Lone Star State: A surge in wind power on the Texas grid didn’t cause reliability problems (and brought down electricity prices) because regulators improved the efficiency of wholesale electricity markets.
Sarah Fields Photography/Shutterstock.com
Energy Secretary Rick Perry wants to know if wind and solar are compromising the reliability of the grid and hurting coal power. The answer lies in his home state of Texas.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, northern Brooks Range, Alaska.
Oil production used to fall when prices were low. But a new drilling boom in Alaska, driven by technical advances and global partnerships, spotlights America's rise as a world oil power.
Alamosa Photovoltaic Plan, south-central Colorado.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, now leading a clean energy research center at Colorado State University, explains why clean energy will keep growing despite President Trump's focus on fossil fuel.
Trump signed the executive order surrounded by coal miners, saying it was ‘about jobs.’
AP Photo/Matthew Brown
Trump's executive order on climate will cede American leadership internationally and scores a political win. But reversing all Obama's work will require big wins in court.