Government agencies are supposed to listen to the industries they regulate, but what if they tune out everyone else? Scholars call this regulatory capture, and some staffers see it happening at EPA.
Air pollution could be the next battleground between California and the Trump administration, which is reviewing the Golden State's special legal authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.
Since the federal government started setting fuel economy standards, US-built cars have doubled their fuel efficiency, saving money for consumers and reducing pollution.
Manufacturers always have to make trade-offs when they design new cars, balancing the need to protect public health and the environment with their urge to wow customers.
The Trump administration announced a plan to relax fuel economy standards, but well-designed regulations can drive clean car innovations that make U.S. industry globally competitive.
It's all in the presentation: In studies, consumers were more apt to choose fuel-efficient vehicles depending on how the same pieces of information were displayed on labels.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the agency's purview should not include climate change, but a look at its history under both Republican and Democratic presidents says otherwise.
Many people thought U.S. gasoline consumption had already peaked. They were wrong. What happened?
Faced with stringent fuel economy standards but cheap gas, automakers may seek to delay CAFE rules. What's the best way to reevaluate these emissions-cutting rules?
American consumers just aren't prioritizing fuel efficiency in a time of low gasoline prices. Is there a way to reverse the trend and make progress on climate change?
Some worry that efforts to reduce energy consumption by increasing fuel efficiency cause a so-called rebound effect that eats into the expected savings. We tested the theory.