- The EPA announced plans to review CO2 emission limits for power plants, reversing key climate policies from the Biden administration.
- Utility companies argue that compliance costs for carbon capture technology are too high, while environmental groups condemn the move as harmful to public health.
- The EPA may reconsider the 2009 “endangerment finding,” potentially impacting the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.v
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to reconsider the rule limiting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin revealed the decision as part of the Trump administration’s push to reverse key climate policies set by President Biden.
The 2024 rule introduced the first limits on CO2 emissions from coal-fired and new gas-fired power plants, requiring either carbon capture technology or plant closures. Environmental groups praised the rule, while the energy industry argued that the costs of compliance were too high and would harm grid reliability.
Utility companies claim that carbon capture technology remains too expensive, and closing coal plants could destabilise the power grid. Zeldin explained that the review would address more than two dozen other regulations from the Biden administration, including those on mercury emissions and vehicle standards.
The EPA also plans to reconsider the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a ruling that allows the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this ruling, but CO2 standards and broader environmental regulations could face significant changes if the EPA reverses it.
Zeldin defended the decision, stating that the administration aims to reduce energy costs, boost domestic production, and restore jobs in sectors like automotive manufacturing. He added that the review aligns with the Trump administration’s goal of easing business regulatory burdens.
Industry groups cautiously supported the review. Alex Bond, Executive Director of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), emphasised the need for stable regulations. While EEI acknowledges the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Bond warned that inconsistent federal regulations could lead to fragmented state rules, raising costs and affecting grid reliability.
Environmental groups, however, strongly oppose the review. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club criticised the EPA’s actions. Jackie Wong, Senior Vice President of NRDC, accused the EPA of allowing unchecked pollution and undermining its mission to protect public health.
The Sierra Club echoed these concerns, accusing the EPA under Zeldin of siding with polluters. Both groups pledged to challenge the proposed regulatory changes in court.
As the EPA progresses with the review, industry players expect significant impacts on the energy sector. While deregulation may lower costs in the short term, some experts warn that reducing CO2 regulations could slow the energy transition and hurt the competitiveness of U.S. companies internationally.
The debate over balancing deregulation with environmental protection continues, with far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. energy policy.