Trump’s EPA Says Power-Plant Rollback Will Cut Costs as Critics Warn of Dirtier Air and Legal Chaos

Trump’s EPA Says Power-Plant Rollback Will Cut Costs as Critics Warn of Dirtier Air and Legal Chaos
The Trump administration is dismantling Biden-era limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from coal- and natural-gas power plants, framing the move as an energy-affordability measure while critics see it as a major retreat from climate and public-health protections.

The Environmental Protection Agency repealed most of Biden’s 2024 carbon-pollution standards and proposed eliminating remaining federal greenhouse-gas requirements for the sector. The broader proposal would also prevent future administrations from regulating power-plant emissions on climate grounds, setting up an almost certain legal battle.

The administration’s case is economic and practical. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said earlier rules amounted to “a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy” and promised that the rollback would keep electricity affordable and “keep the lights on.” The agency says repealing the Biden standards could save industry $310 billion in compliance costs, while coal and utility groups argue that carbon-capture requirements rely on technology that is not yet commercially viable and could threaten grid reliability.

Environmental advocates counter that the savings come at the expense of communities already exposed to industrial pollution. The Biden standards were designed to sharply reduce emissions from existing coal plants and new gas plants, while power generation accounts for roughly one-quarter of U.S. climate pollution. The Environmental Defense Fund warned that dismantling the protections would bring “enormous costs for the health, safety and well-being of families across the country.”

The dispute is also about legal authority. EPA officials say the Clean Air Act does not allow regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants solely to address global climate change. Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argues the agency has a statutory duty to regulate major pollution sources that threaten public health. Thus, the rollback promises cheaper energy in the short term—but risks extending regulatory uncertainty, increasing emissions and leaving the courts to decide how far presidential policy can swing in either direction.