EPA Targets Power Plant Emissions in Major Repeal \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The EPA under President Trump has proposed repealing major power plant emission rules, citing economic benefits and energy independence. Critics warn the move will increase pollution, harm public health, and reverse key climate progress. Environmental groups have pledged legal action to block the rollbacks.
Quick Looks
- EPA seeks to repeal Biden-era power plant emission standards
- Proposed changes include easing mercury and toxic pollution limits
- Administrator Lee Zeldin says rollback will save industry billions
- EPA claims carbon emissions from plants don’t meet regulatory threshold
- Trump says changes align with his energy dominance agenda
- Environmental groups call move dangerous, vow court challenges
- Scientists say rollback threatens health, climate stability
- Mercury exposure, smog, particulate matter risks could rise
- Biden-era rules aimed to cut emissions by up to 86%
- Clean Air Act implications could extend beyond power plants
Deep Look
The Trump administration escalated its efforts to dismantle key environmental protections on Wednesday as the Environmental Protection Agency, led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, unveiled proposals to repeal and weaken major rules aimed at reducing harmful emissions from coal and natural gas power plants. The move, which Zeldin called a “common-sense correction” to overreaching climate policy, has drawn fierce backlash from environmental groups, public health experts, and former regulators.
At the center of the proposed changes is the repeal of limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled power plants, which are currently the second-largest source of carbon emissions in the United States after transportation. The EPA also aims to loosen rules on mercury and other toxic pollutants, including substances that have been linked to developmental disorders in children and cardiovascular disease in adults.
If finalized, the new rules would reverse one of President Joe Biden’s most aggressive regulatory efforts to combat climate change and would mark a dramatic shift in federal energy policy. Trump officials argue the rollback is part of fulfilling a broader promise to “unleash American energy” and reduce the cost of power for consumers and businesses.
Zeldin, a former congressman from New York, said during a press conference at EPA headquarters that the Biden-era climate regulations were “suffocating American industry” and part of an ideological effort to “eliminate coal.” The new proposal, he said, was about prioritizing economic growth, jobs, and energy affordability. “This is the start of a golden era of American prosperity,” Zeldin declared.
The EPA claims in its proposal that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel plants no longer constitute a “significant danger” under the Clean Air Act, arguing that such emissions are a “small and decreasing” share of global totals. The agency also asserts that power plant emissions “do not contribute significantly” to climate change, undermining the scientific consensus and the regulatory basis used in previous administrations to justify stricter controls.
Environmental experts sharply disagree. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and head of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposed rollbacks “unconscionable,” warning they would jeopardize public health, especially among vulnerable populations like children. “Protecting kids from mercury and our planet from climate-driven disasters should be common sense,” she said.
The backlash has been swift. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) vowed to take the administration to court if the rules are finalized. “This is a reckless attempt to sidestep science and sabotage public health,” said NRDC CEO Manish Bapna, adding that the rollback violates core provisions of the Clean Air Act.
According to an Associated Press analysis, Biden-era regulations could prevent up to 30,000 premature deaths per year and generate more than $275 billion in annual health and environmental benefits, based on previous EPA projections and academic research. Even a partial repeal could mean a resurgence of pollutants such as smog, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury, and especially fine particulate matter—a known cause of respiratory and cardiovascular issues.
Dr. Howard Frumkin, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, said the EPA’s proposal flies in the face of reality. “The world is round, the sun rises in the east, and coal- and gas-fired plants contribute to climate change,” he said. “Rolling back these protections is equivalent to rolling back public safety.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s EPA is framing the repeal as a return to energy independence. In its rulemaking documents, the agency emphasizes the need to protect fossil fuel industries and asserts that promoting economic growth should be considered a public health priority.
Industry groups welcomed the news. Rich Nolan, CEO of the National Mining Association, praised the EPA’s decision to eliminate “unattainable standards” that he said unfairly burdened coal and gas plants. “It’s time to level the playing field and restore reliability to our energy grid,” Nolan said.
However, critics argue the repeal could open the door to broader deregulation. If the EPA can argue that power plants no longer meet pollution thresholds, it might later apply the same rationale to refineries, manufacturing plants, and other industrial sources, creating a domino effect across the regulatory landscape. Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and DOJ lawyer, warned, “This proposal has the potential to rewrite how pollution is regulated across the economy.”
The rollbacks also directly challenge the Biden administration’s legacy. Under President Biden, the EPA had proposed a strict rule requiring coal plants to either capture 90% of carbon emissions or shut down by the mid-2030s. That rule, hailed by scientists and global policymakers, aimed to cut power-sector carbon emissions by up to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, according to a study published in Science earlier this year.
Aaron Bergman, co-author of that study and a fellow at Resources for the Future, said Biden’s plan would have also curbed dangerous air pollutants. “The rate of emissions reduction with the rule in place is significantly faster than without it,” Bergman said.
Though the Trump EPA must still undergo a lengthy rulemaking process, including a public comment period and scientific review, the proposal signals a stark retreat from global climate commitments. It also sets up a likely series of legal battles, which could extend through the next presidential election.
As political lines harden over climate and energy policy, Wednesday’s announcement reaffirms the deep divide between environmental stewardship and energy deregulation. For Trump and Zeldin, it’s about reviving fossil fuel dominance. For critics, it’s a dangerous step backwards.
EPA Targets Power EPA Targets Power EPA Targets Power
You must Register or Login to post a comment.