This broadcaster has 213 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
November 6, 2017 12:00 am
From Cherokee to current attack from the largest city to the smallest and from the statehouse into the schoolhouse Carolina Journal radio your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most public policy events and issues welcome to Carolina Journal radio why Pacheco got during the next hour, Donna Martines and I will explore some major issues affecting our state experts can help us make better decisions in our lives, but expertise can be misused in some public policy debates and expert political scientist from North Carolina State University will help us learn how North Carolina's opioid epidemic is having a negative deadly impact on the state's youngest residents, the head of the state's child totality task force explains how the United States faces many high level foreign policy challenges a former top US Homeland security advisor detail them during a recent speech at Duke University to hear what she had to say in North Carolina. Electric ratepayers stand to benefit. Now that the feds have agreed to scrap a policy called the clean power plan, you'll learn why those topics are just ahead. But first, Donna Martinez joins us with the Carolina Journal headline since Pres. Trump was elected democratic state attorneys general have filed an unprecedented number of legal challenges to his executive orders North Carolina Atty. Gen. Josh Stein hasn't actually initiated any of those challenges himself, but recently he did add his name to a lawsuit filed by the California Atty. Gen.
This one relates to the affordable care act also known as Obama care John today.
The John Locke foundation's director of legal studies is following this case and others. He joins us to talk about John, welcome back to the program. What is this Obama care case all about. Well, the issue has to do with a section of the act is 1402, which authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to make subsidy payments to insurance companies to reimburse them for the cost of something that's also mandated on the back which is reduce certain costs and fees to certain insured people who are all low and middle income brackets. These are the subsidies that some folks signing up for Obama care would receive right out support to distinguish there's two kinds of subsidies under Obama care. There's a section 1401, which reduces premium payments and that's one form of subsidy, but that that applies actually to people all wrapped a 400% of the poverty level, but these are under 4002 also reduce things like copayments pursue prescription payments and things like that out-of-pocket expenses those are also reduced requires insurance covers the charge of a little less for these things but under the act's risk of his associate reimburse for the cost of those subsidies and that's what the issue is how to get reimbursed at the top administration has decided not to provide those reimbursements. They're gonna stop making them. That's right okay is that then the legal basis for the challenge by these number of state attorneys general, including Josh, while ostensibly it is what they said in their complaint is that these these payments are funded under Obama care and that the president has an obligation to make them, which is ironic because of federal judges already said that those payments are in fact unconstitutional. There's nothing in Obama care that provides funding for them and you know under our Constitution important check balances that all appropriations have to originate in the legislature. The president can't spend money unless it's been appropriated by Congress this is fascinating John because if those payments to the insurance companies are unconstitutional. They have been being made those payments to the insurance companies.
Up until now. So how is it possible for boat. Both of those things to be true what they can't both be true. And I suppose if this lawsuit ever reaches a federal court will find out which one is true, but it seems perfectly clean clear to me that in this case, the trust administration was right in the Josh Stein and the other attorneys general are just I can't even think of the right where they're just making trouble for the sake of making trouble or perhaps as a way of virtue, signaling its that's perfectly clear there's nothing in it about appropriations for these measures and there's no reason why there needs to be. There's lots and lots of federal laws that require expenditures but don't appropriate money, and when that happens, it happens all the time. The administration goes to Congress and asked for appropriation and if Congress wishes to. It makes appropriation of it doesn't it doesn't. And when it doesn't bend the president's hands are tied to Spend the money and the fascinating thing about down what you just touched on is that when the affordable care act was passed and Democrats were in control right and so spending think they could've approved spending but with Republicans in control of Congress. They don't want to prove the spending seven that's coming down. Yes that's right I mean the if they had wanted to. If they know what they were doing when they passed that activate Reddit. They probably would've noticed or they might've noticed that they had made appropriate although as I say, it's not unusual to pass a law and expect appropriations to be made later, but because of the way they did it baby. As everybody knows, now they alienated the Republicans in Congress and they lost any ability to expect them to cooperate in the also regulated the American public, which was adamantly opposed to this act so as a result, they lost control the house and once that happened in the first year in which those expenditures were supposed to be made. The Obama ministration went to Congress and asked for appropriation to make those payments. The Republican said no and so instead of accepting that if he could not, or perhaps going to court to try to get cortisol. He did what he always does he just acted on his own without congressional authorization. He made the payments anyway. I met Pres. Obama president Obama. He made the payments anyway.
The House of Representatives suited it went to court and federal judge said the house is right.
These these funds haven't been appropriated and so the president can't make those payments and she issued an injunction putting a stop to him.
However, she she stated she put on hold pending appeal because she didn't want to disrupt the medical insurance marketplace unnecessarily. The assumption being that there would soon be our ultimate determination on this matter. However, both parties decided this to put the whole appeal process on hold in the hopes of Congress were sorted out, which is of course what ought to happen. They made this problem, they should sorted out. But as we know, that hasn't happened either.
So the trust administration finally decided enough is enough. Were not going to go on making these illegal payments John conservative ahead scratcher because it appears that really this is an issue of whether representatives that the folks have been elected to Congress to represent different districts and in the country really make a decision yes or no in some trying to figure out how how this is a legal issue that the Atty. Gen. would sign onto my sound like it's just an issue of whether or not there's the votes. There in Congress to go forward with this well II think.
Although I was tempted first to say. Maybe Josh sighed all these other states attorneys general should be subject to rule 11 sanctions for filing a lawsuit that they knew was frivolous and just a form of harassment I guess are still colorable claim here. We haven't seen with their arguments going to be, but will either go to try to argue that somehow or other, there are the parts of Obama care, for which appropriations are permanent provisions have been made and that there presently go to try to argue that somehow those should be extended to include 1402, which is the part that these particular payments. A federal judge's order said that's not right. US Atty. Gen.'s office has also idolizes and said is not right but if it gets to court still cling to be answered John this lab called phenomenon you tell me if maybe that's an overstatement, but attorneys general states that attorneys general banding together to sue a presidential administration. Is this new or have I just haven't been paying attention to that. Well if it's been happier the past I haven't been paying attention either because II didn't was aware of is under for the Obama stretcher, which did this all the time they they Obama would make executive orders that many people thought were unconstitutional, but I don't limit state Atty. Gen. suing him but this is not repeatedly install the first time job site is gotten involved. He seems to like that opportunity to be in the spotlight as this hit on any issues of separation power for you as someone who knows the Constitution knows the law goes right to the heart of it.
I mean it's it's very important under our system that the executive branch can just spend money. Whatever it was to can only do it without money, but appropriated the founders set it up that way with a reason and the president can't go beyond that, simply because he doesn't agree or Congress will get what he wants and when it comes to this case. So were not. We haven't heard yet. Do we have any sort of sense of a timeline as to when this case will go forward it will be heard etc. well, we got no idea about that being the there's already the case that was decided by the federal judge that said these papers are illegal, theoretically back a go for.
But as I said, it's on hold. The interesting thing about this is say what you want about Donald Trump and his political skills but the fact is, this may in order to seems to be getting the attention of Congress or maybe Congress will finally do something in fix this part of the problem they created when they pass the affordable care act we been talking with John did say he is the John Locke foundation's director of legal studies. You can read this piece that we've been talking about, very much. I do this much more Carolina general radio to come in just a moment. Are you wondering where our country is headed while so are two of our most revered presidents spend an evening with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. That's right, Jefferson and Adams visit the Museum of history in Raleigh for a debate on the future of the United States by Jefferson and Adams think about national security, foreign engagement and the role of government. While time is passed since they let our country the issues and challenges, endure its living history, living history events during two incredible actors Monday evening November 20.
Brought to you by the organization dedicated to advancing freedom, the John Locke foundation find email@example.com that's John Locke with an E.org or call 866 JL FINFO Monday evening November 20 at the Museum of history and Raleigh tickets $10 per person but just five dollars for students Thomas Jefferson and John Adams live in Raleigh November 20.
Hope to see you there. Welcome back to Carolina general radio.
I Michiko guy. Many of us rely on experts to help guide us through complicated decisions, but is it always a good idea to turn to experts can expertise be misused. That was the topic of a recent column in Carolina Journal from our next guest.
He is Dr. Andrew Taylor political science professor at North Carolina State University and I would add an expert in his field. Thanks for joining us for so you should listen to anything you say that X is what prompted this discussion of expertise and whether it's used correctly or not in public policy tweets" to be honest, major, been thinking about it for a long time but immediate sort of influence for the for the CJ piece is talking about was an article I read a Member where maybe in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal about this guy in Colorado who sort of got fed up with the effect that smart friends Raven on his kids and decided to to try to create this movement to ban the use of smart phones by children under 13 in his state and where is an expert on this is inserted two ways. One is Dr. and it's easier the anesthesiologist to be exact, but a medical professional, and sort of felt that his expertise allowed him to observe these things. In particular, Allie's a father of five to the kind of professional father right as well and so he's sort of going out there and saying you know, I know these things are, you know these things are and therefore you shouldn't do it to be fed to him is going through the regular political and legal process to try to get this on the bow in Colorado and you know he does obviously care deeply about the children of the state, but there is a sort of sense that because he is an expert so he feels he has a sort of Judy or Eva may be right to assertive influence the behavior of of other people, and this is one example. But we see this often where people who have expertise in a certain area, say well because that expertise. Everyone should do X right and in fact, particularly at the local level. Experts are given special privilege, protected positions in the policymaking process.
This is where it really is a program it's one thing for a policymaker president Amera governor to surround himself with experts and say look, you know a lot about this advise me and the experts advise the policymaker of the decision-making decision-maker sort of measures up everything takes will be advice from from disparate sources and makes the call but in local rule, we often provide experts with because of their expertise. Privilege positions where they actually make the call themselves, and the decisions that they make have the force of rule and those of us who on experts, for example in land use decisions on planning decisions.
Those of us who on engineers on environmental scientists on even allow the table. The decisions made by those experts and that's where of courses to worry we are chatting with Dr. Andrew Taylor of NC State University. Some people might be hearing us and sink themselves will shouldn't the experts be the ones making the decision, shouldn't we just leave this to the experts was that not correct well know that's that's that's an awful thing to do. The experts can advise.
But they shouldn't be making decisions.
There are number of reasons. For the first of all, unless their elected in some way or directly accountable to the public than that you know about God's would be obviously I'm sorry Democratic we do you know that we we don't want to elevate people based upon what they know.
Want to elevate people to these positions based upon their accountability to to the church the people in the jurisdiction where the river via County estate will or the nation's as a whole or so since I think experts suffer from sort of two kind of sort of personality programs here one is in their relationship to generalists. I think generalists have a better ability to pulling in order sets of data and diverse voices to apply basic philosophical principles across the board to integrate issues which obviously compete with what one another in in the public policy realm. So I think that's very important and experts are unable to do that and I also think this is sentenced to die in our society that we've elevated experts on to this pedestal when they've kind of believe that they really know what's best for everybody when they on particular capable. Sometimes I think because there so that they they become the sort of evangelism is so drawn to what they know they haven't been able to do a very good job of putting their knowledge in Broda, economic, social, moral perspective, so no I in either. She wanted to do is know we shouldn't let them take over and Michael. The decisions for us.
In some respects the politics of recent years. I'm thinking most especially the 2016 presidential race shows that some people are seeing somewhat of a backlash to this relies on expertise and saying wait a minute, all of you experts have gotten us here. This is not where we want to bring exactly. I think some of you know there was a lot going on in 2016 and there are a lot of reasons why Donald Trump wanted Hillary Clinton lost but I think part of it was, as you said that there it is a backlash to this expertise.
We've we've elevated again were in a society where will sort of experts on one little thing, and that we we really look down our noses at the sort of rule be trained and educated person who understands the will broadly integrate things we we pooh-pooh that person we want to put the experts in charge, but there is a profound sort of disappointment with the, the direction of the country.
We we are not getting economic growth we not getting sort of satisfaction of the way things are going at the moment and I think Trenton Trump campaign did a really good job and so the saying is not necessarily to reclaim the self of sort of what she stands for is to put a lot of experts in control of government and look where it's goddess Obama was the same.
I'm going to assertive I'm I'm a generous. I sort of run a business but I will hire smart people, but I'll make the coal and that resonated lot during the campaign of your not saying we should be clear that we should get rid of the experts throw out the expertise. Just place the experts and their expertise in the proper setting. Yeah, I think you do you due to ice festival. You have a really smart generalist in charge who is skilled at picking experts.
I'm listening to them, but then also being able to filter what least diverse set of experts of said and then make the coal then secondly have a diverse set of experts who can in a sort of Madisonian checking and balancing wide who not know a lot about what they what they are dealing with her about their issue area and then spoke more around the table and have them hash it out with one another, rather than putting them in the drivers seat and sort of genuflecting that they then knowledge and expertise in deferring to the net clearly isn't the way that we should go. I'm guessing you would also add into that mix. Make sure that there's some sort of mechanism for normal folks who are bringing any expertise to weigh in and say look, all you experts.
Here's what how what you're talking about could affect us exactly exactly and hope that we need sort of feedback loops and accountability mechanisms to do that. And of course if you have a technocracy use that term you have is assertive that the academic term for a system like this. You have a technocracy were experts are in charge and unaccountable because we believe we should just defer to the knowledge you are no can have a place for the regular folks at Siebel will. He is an expert in the field of political science, but you should still listen to them anyway. Dr. Andrew Taylor is professor applicable sites at North Carolina State University, also a columnist for Carolina journal like doing things having more a Carolina Journal radio in just a moment.
Are you wondering where our country is headed while so are two of our most revered presidents spend an evening with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. That's right, Jefferson and Adams visit the Museum of history in Raleigh for a debate on the future of the United States by Jefferson and Adams think about national security, foreign engagement and the role of government.
While time is passed since they let our country the issues and challenges, endure its living history, living history events during two incredible actors Monday evening November 20. Brought to you by the organization dedicated to advancing freedom, the John Locke foundation find firstname.lastname@example.org that's John Locke with an E.org or call 866 JL FINFO Monday evening November 20 at the Museum of history and Raleigh tickets $10 per person but just five dollars for students Thomas Jefferson and John Adams live in Raleigh November 20. Hope to see you there. North Carolina is changing not just day-to-day but outward to our minute to minute and 2nd to 2nd, how can you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job, make the John lot foundation and Carolina Journal part of your social media diet on Facebook like the John Locke foundation like Carolina Journal. Follow us on Twitter at John Locke in C and at Carolina. Journal news, insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else. Thanks to the experts at the John Locke foundation and thanks to the first-class investigative reporting of Carolina Journal.
Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news if it's happening now it's happening here the John Locke foundation and Carolina Journal have you covered with up to the second information like us on Facebook the John Locke foundation and Carolina Journal. Follow us on Twitter at John Locke NC and at Carolina. Journal did you know you can now advance freedom and free markets just by shopping with Amazon it's true online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke foundation just shot using the Amazon smile program and designate as the work foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount that's right you shop and Amazon donates money to ask the John Locke foundation. So here's how it works lot time to smile.amazon.com Amazon smile.
It's the same Amazon you know same products same prices. Here's what's better. Amazon donates .5% of the price of your eligible purchases to pass the John Locke foundation to try to be sure to designate the Locke foundation is a nonprofit, you want to support. It's that easy.
So now not only will you enjoy what you buy will also support freedom. Don't forget log on to smile.amazon.com today by something nice and help defend freedom.
Support the John Locke foundation will go back Carolina Journal radio language coca North Carolina's child fatality task forces focusing attention on the state opioid epidemic Executive Director Kila Hatcher recently explained during a presentation to the John Locke foundation when it comes to harmful substances.
You can't tune into a new source lately think something about the opioid are only one of multiple types of harmful substances. The epidemic is certainly something that the task force has been paying close attention to in just 15 years.
We've gone from sitting under 200 deaths per year to seeing over a thousand, and that recently we've seen a dramatic increase in the wall. The number of kids who are 17 and under who actually die from an opioid overdose is very small, especially in comparison to the other age group. The act of this epidemic on the adults and kids lives has a huge impact on kids substance use impacts on children. There are very specific areas of the task force looks at that are impacted by harmful substances and one of those is child maltreatment as part of the task force efforts to reduce fatalities we have to examine and make recommendations concerning child abuse and neglect, and in recent years, we seen a rise in the number of kids entering foster care related to parental substance use. Another area is infant health a major folk of our focus of our parenting health committee is the impact of substance use on prenatal health and infants whether it strives alcohol or tobacco. These substances really do have a significant impact on birth outcomes. Infant mortality rate and child health and well-being poisoning is a topic of discussion in our unintentional death prevention committee where much of the discussion focuses on reducing access to substances or addressing poison first-aid when it occurs.
The unintentional death prevention committee also focuses on accident, many of which are connected to alcohol and drug use or could be connected to an North Carolina alcohol is involved in about one third of fatal crashes and it's estimated that drugs other than alcohol are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths and besides motor vehicle accidents impairment from substances can be a primary or contributing factor in other types of accidents, including those on watercraft falls and other injuries and then finally of course you got multiple potential negative impacts for you to use and abuse substances. Hatcher recapped the dangers of substance abuse. Substance use puts kids at greater risk for engaging in delinquent activities which can involve violent crime and substance misuse also puts kids at greater risk for suicide. That's Kila Hatcher, Executive Director of the North Carolina child fatality task force she's discussing the impact of the opioid epidemic on young people in the state will return with more Carolina Journal radio really influence you either have it or you don't and at the John Locke foundation. We do, and that's not bluster in a private survey of more than 250 North Carolina political insiders 87% said we influence them either a great deal a good amount. So while others talk and complain.
We get to work providing research solutions and help our team analyzes the pressing issues of the day jobs, healthcare, education, and more. We look for effective ways to give you more freedom, more options, more control. Our goal is to transform North Carolina into a growing, thriving economic powerhouse that is the envy of every other state are researchers actually help policymakers make decisions and ensure you keep more of what you earn. Expand your choice of schools for your kids. Widen your job opportunities and improve your access to doctors. The recipe for stability and a bright future. The John Locke foundation were dedicated to making North Carolina first and freedom were dedicated to you. Welcome back Carolina Journal radio amateur coca Duke University audience recently heard expert opinions on some of the top homeland security challenges facing the Trump administration. The expert was Lisa Monico. She was US homeland security advisor to Pres. Obama worked on similar issues in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Her first topic long-term recovery from major hurricane damage over the longer term from a White House perspective and having been in a role that had me juggling a number of different crises and not respond to the crisis and this sounds boring sitting on the long-term implementation right maintaining focus. This is a challenge for any White House right after the cameras go away after the breaking news banners go away.
There is a lot of hard work on implementing the recovery means bringing a full suite of tools to bear. It means housing recovery is the issue in Katrina. We ended up having then secretary of housing Sean Donovan sharing an interagency task force everybody from HHS Health and Human Services to the Army Corps of Engineers understanding and thinking about how they were going to provide housing rebuild and a resilient level. So focusing on on housing issues. Thousands of people being displaced in Florida alone. Environmental issues health issues toxins in the floodwater so there's a whole range of issues that the federal government is going to have to continue to focus on maintaining White House leadership and focus is a real challenge is the crises from foreign and mastic will continue to come officials in the White House and setting up a structure that can be led from the lighthouse with very clear goals and objectives to continue to implement anything to be nine weeks nine faceplates but months and years for this recovery.
Monico also turned to North Korea and dictator Kim Jong step back when we think about what I do PR objective here right and let's think about who is this guy who is can now I others have used words like these unhinged and trying to send the message that is not a rational actor will matter is he is exceedingly paranoid. He is indescribable violence. He's rational like I think he's rational. He's rational because he is in a get what you just he is focused on as his ancestry has been on maintaining the regimes hold on and he does view his nuclear capability is so I'm with Jim Klapper and other experts on this, which is to say that the nuclear denuclearization is is really not realistic does not seem, at least there's no seen any signs that's realistic we should be focused. I think on deterrence and I will also say that a key ingredient of deterrence is incredible threat of military action. So wow I differed with some of the rhetoric on this about fire and fury, and the like. I do believe a clear, consistent message one secretary recently delivered of military options being on the table as unattractive as they are is an important element of deterrence to the US live with a nuclear North Korea. I think we have to be acknowledge that he seeing this steady margin.
It has been a steady march right.
He has developed a nuclear capability seen the most significant test now for couple weeks ago for elements just to review here for a threat that we are focused on homeland right there.
Ability seen a very significant test missile delivery seen repeated steady march on testing of the missile delivery system. Miniaturization of a nuclear warhead that could be affixed to the missile system and we seen some leaked intelligence report that one element of our intelligence Defense intelligence agency believes that miniaturization ability type person would like to see what awful intelligence community says about that, but still very concerning element is reentry the ability to put that miniaturized ability onto the missile system reenter the atmosphere into the target and our intelligence is not, is there yet still getting march pediatric capabilities, but something is a threat to the homeland be very clear about their conjunction is on March and so we should be focused on in my view, deterrence, we should have a clear view about what it is I'm not a steady march to get this case, we should be increasing our defense capability and we are steadily doing that we should be reassuring our partners and allies and working with them.
First among them.
Quite obviously, we should be working on a covert and other means to sabotage, derail slow and roll back the gains that can has made applying steady and increased including sanctions and I give credit to think the administration should be given credit for the successes they have had unanimous Security Council resolutions those you know and some of the weaknesses of some of them have already been pointed out, but nevertheless they have been unanimous recognitions and that is been very important. We can do some on our own as well.
Unilateral sanctions from the United States pressure on China and Chinese banks that continue to do to do business with North Korea so those are the tools that I think we should be employing all toward hopefully a diplomatic. What about long-term threats of another 9/11 attack.
We have been successful in diminishing the threat of a complex foreign directed catastrophic proportions such as based on and suffered on 9/11 and owing to the tremendous work across Republican and Democratic administrations from military intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, diplomats, and we as a nation did a number of things possible. We broke down cultural barriers to how we organize ourselves and share information with change her legal structures to make that possible, and we change our structures and we created new new structures including the organization. I was privileged to me before I went to the White House national security division of the Justice Department. So we built up an apparatus to enable us to have success against that type of 9/11 style attack that's Lisa Monico over US homeland security advisor, speaking recently at Duke will return with more Carolina journal radio.
Are you wondering where our country is headed. Well, so are two of our most revered presidents spend an evening with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
That's right, Jefferson and Adams visit the Museum of history in Raleigh for a debate on the future of the United States by Jefferson and Adams think about national security, foreign engagement and the role of government. While time is passed since they let our country the issues and challenges, endure its living history, living history events during two incredible actors Monday evening November 20. Brought to you by the organization dedicated to advancing freedom, the John Locke foundation find email@example.com that's John Locke with an E.org or call 866 JL FINFO Monday evening November 20 at the Museum of history in Raleigh tickets $10 per person but just five dollars for students Thomas Jefferson and John Adams live in Raleigh November 20. Hope to see you there. Welcome back to Carolina journal radio I'm Donna Martinez last month, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA moved to repeal the controversy Obama era, omissions, guidelines known as the clean power plan and the John Locke foundation's John Sanders applied to the move.
He says it's a win for North Carolinians John of course follows a regulatory policy is the director of regulatory studies for the Locke foundation. He's here to help us understand what's going on John, welcome back for so what is the clean PowerPoint, clean power plan essentially is the EPA regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and taking a look at how each state does it, and what each state guidelines are and if they don't like it they would insert their own. What was the goal of this the genesis of even creating this plan goal courses to prevent all these kind of advertised worldwide hills brought about through global climate change with the thinking that energy-based emissions are a major contributor to and thinking that if we reduce by mandate the amount of emissions coming out of these power plants that the air will be cleaner yeah there will be cleaner and therefore we will have lessening and sea level rise of lessening of all the other ill effects of having a warmer climate zones.
This is created during the Obama administration right yes these were Obama era rules okay so then Donald Trump is elected president and he and his administration evidently have a quite different view of this whole issue help us understand the difference between the two administrations will trump administration. One of the aspects of the truck administration has been to pull back on a lot of regulatory interventions and a host of areas, but including at the EPA but stepping back for a minute.
The Supreme Court had already issued a stay of the implementation of the clean power plan North Carolina through our DEQ under the McCrory administrative Department of environmental quality of the regulators there right had joined a lawsuit with 28 other states that in that brought about a stay of the plan which suggested that the Supreme Court did not think that it would uphold that it would stand up under judicial scrutiny. But despite that the trump administration then has done what the trump administration has just recently announced that they are planning to repeal the rule. Okay, so what does this do for North Carolina and you've written that you think this is a big win why I think it's a huge one for North Carolinians because the rule would have significant, economic costs, it would impose depending on who you read it would impose something along the lines of $366 and compliance costs it could force double digit electricity rate increases, it would shutter a lot of existing coal power plants increase our rates if it were to go forward and in shutting the these plants down and imposing new regulations. I would make the provision of electricity that much more expensive because utility companies would have to go to other forms of energy that once and part of it and in part it would make it more expensive and it will require new built power plants and all those things factor into the race when you write that it's a win for North Carolinians you're talking about real cashier people's household budget just to pay their monthly electric bill, you're saying that it would be not as expensive now that the EPA is moving to get rid of the clean power plan.
Yes. Okay, so it's a little bit more about omissions John because you've been following that along with this whole regulatory effort under the clean power plan. You have been noting that while all this was going on. All of these new ideas about mandating and regulating power plants. There's a whole lot of things going on in the energy industry that seem to be showing that those regulations were needed.
Tell us about that absolutely right in North Carolina in the United States and in 35 industrialized countries energy-based emissions have been following all century's 2017.
These have been falling all century of the reason they been following is not because of a government plan, especially in the United States is not even taking effect. They been falling because of market forces. These include technological innovations, changes in consumer preferences, and changes in the economies himself. So a lot of these of transition to more service economies in manufacturing economies. Changes in electricity generation.
The technological innovation in the recovery of natural gas has made it more cost competitive price competitive with coal, and so North Carolina and in the United States fixing the transition over to more natural gas burns a lot cleanly then call when you talk about those technological innovations specifically having to do with with that finding more reserves talk about fracking yes and help us understand what happened with the fracking industry.
The marriage of two long-term technologies which is horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of drilled wells has produced very cheap, relatively cheap recovery for natural gas and oil, and United States is replete with both of those in the have been longtime trapped in shale rock formations, but now that they're able to be released.
The way that they are its plentiful and cheap fuel source is a cleaner as well. Yes is much cleaner than coal.
So when people talk about being concerned about fossil fuels on the fact that that down that the other forms of energy have taken often are cheaper, in some cases working together. That means that we kinda already the market forces have started to reduce those emissions and made things cheaper. Yes, it's a really interesting story and of course all of this, as we mentioned at the very beginning of this discussion, John has to do with them. Those who believe that climate change that global warming is something that governments, not just the US government, but governments around the world should be addressing.
Where does that stand. Let's say that even if the clean power plan were to be implemented.
Even though now it looks like it will not be what would this due to the issue of omissions in an worldwide climate change and global warming. Well, I don't think you would have much of an impact with respect to omissions. I think it would give a visible something that people would point to and say all this is the reason why missions are down, but that is no longer going to be the case. Doesn't seem like but omissions still are down and they are continuing to fall. The one thing that we will be missing from all of this is will be missing the costs so society will have to shoulder these kind of costs will still enjoy the benefit of lower emissions and cheaper electricity so folks want to read more about the clean power plan John and they can go to John lock.org they can find all of your work right there as well as all of your writings about the energy industry as we've been talking about the different changes in the different types of fuel it's all available they are written by John Sanders and I guess he is the director of regulatory studies for the John lock foundation. John, thank you very much that's all the time we have for the program this week.
Thank you for listening on behalf of my cohost Mitch. Okay I'm Donna Martinez. Join us again next week for another edition of Carolina Journal radio Carolina Journal radio is a program of the John learn more about the John Locke foundation including donations support programs like Carolina Journal radio send email to development John Locke call 1866 jail left 166-553-4636 Journal radio nation airline is present on this program nearly mentioned about the show or other programs foundation is not any thing airline sponsored Carolina radio again