EPA eyes cuts to costly power plant regulations. Critics say they save lives

The Environmental Protection Agency is taking aim at Biden-era regulations for power plants. While environment and public health advocates have sharply criticized the push to end limits on carbon dioxide emissions and roll back standards for mercury and air toxins, the EPA says the regulations are too costly for the industry and are at odds with what they need to produce more energy. 

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the regulations examples of “narrow-minded climate change zealotry” that are designed to destroy the coal, oil and gas industries. 

The agency estimated the proposal to eliminate limits on carbon dioxide emissions would save the power sector $19 billion in regulatory costs over two decades beginning in 2026 — about $1.2 billion annually. The EPA is simultaneously proposing to roll back 2024 amendments to Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which it said would save an additional $1.2 billion over the next decade. 

The regulatory rollback reflects the Trump administration’s shift away from environmental goals toward unfettered energy production, at a time when electricity demand is expected to surge. The pollution standards were a key part of the Biden administration’s strategy to cut carbon dioxide emissions and limit other pollution that can harm public health. At public hearings this week, critics decried the EPA proposal as a direct threat to life. 

“Simply put, if EPA finalizes this repeal, people will die preventable deaths,” said Laura Kate Bender, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the American Lung Association, in testimony at a public hearing on Tuesday, July 8.

What rules are the EPA planning to eliminate?

The proposed rollbacks include 2015 standards for states to control pollution at new fossil fuel plants and 2024 rules covering both new and existing facilities that critics dubbed “Clean Power Plan 2.0.” Electric power is responsible for about 30% of U.S. carbon emissions.

Under the 2024 rule, coal plants expected to operate beyond 2040 would have to use carbon capture technology on almost 90% of their carbon emissions. Carbon capture is a promising but relatively new technology that sucks carbon dioxide produced when coal is burned before it enters the atmosphere, typically storing it in underground wells. Plants retiring between 2035 and 2040 could meet less stringent requirements by shifting to burn 40% natural gas alongside coal.

The largest natural gas power plants running more than half the time could install carbon capture technology by 2035 or mix clean-burning hydrogen into their fuel to reach a 96% hydrogen blend by 2038. The rule effectively avoided regulating smaller gas “peaker” plants that run only when electricity demand is at its highest.

The EPA also wants to overturn 2024 amendments to Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that introduced more stringent requirements for controlling the toxic metal mercury and limiting emissions of particulate matter. The agency argued these additional requirements created “significant regulatory uncertainty” for coal plants across 12 states.

Why does the industry support the rollback?

Critics have argued that the rules are not economically feasible and could lead to power plants shutting down. 

In comments to the EPA, Heath Knakmuhs, vice president of the Global Energy Institute at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the 2024 standards were “simply too stringent, too fast” at a time when electricity demand is rapidly increasing. Knakmuhs noted that the regulations coincided with a potential 35-50% growth in electricity demand between 2024 and 2040.

Coal and natural gas plants currently provide nearly 60% of America’s electricity. The Chamber argued that these power sources are needed to provide base-load power to the grid around the clock and that carbon capture technology hasn’t been “adequately demonstrated” at the 90% annual capture level required under the 2024 rule.

“To win the AI race, both for the benefit of economic development and national security, we must be able to generate the 24/7 electrons necessary to power tomorrow’s technologies,” Knakmuhs said. 

What are opponents saying?

Environmental advocates are rallying opposition to the proposed changes. 

Richard Yates, a clean power attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, said in comments submitted to the EPA that repealing the standards would expose Americans to more extreme weather and pollution-driven death and disease.

Yates cited Harvard research estimating that 460,000 premature deaths from 1999 to 2020 resulted from particulate matter formed by coal plant emissions. He also pointed to an EPA analysis from 2024 that estimated the standards would prevent 1,200 premature deaths in 2035 alone, along with 1,900 new asthma cases and 360,000 asthma attacks.

Bender of the American Lung Association lambasted the EPA’s decision, which she said would put Americans’ health at risk from air pollution and the knock-on effects of climate change. 

“Climate change is a health emergency, and people across the nation are already experiencing devastating impacts from wildfire smoke, extreme heat, floods and storms,” she said.

What happens next?

The proposal is in the middle of a comment period during which the public can weigh in on the regulatory changes. The comment period ends on Aug. 7. Afterward, it can take several months for the EPA to deliberate, respond to comments and release finalized regulations.