The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday a significant policy shift, proposing to eliminate existing greenhouse gas emissions restrictions for power plants and roll back mercury and air toxics standards for coal- and oil-powered facilities. The agency claims these changes would result in substantial cost savings, projecting $19 billion in reduced expenses for the power sector over two decades from the greenhouse gas rule reversal, plus an additional $1.2 billion over ten years from reverting to the 2012 mercury and air toxics standards.
The EPA’s announcement garnered support from various industry stakeholders, including cooperative utilities, independent power producers, and the National Mining Association. Michelle Bloodworth, who leads America’s Power, an advocacy group representing coal power plant operators, criticized the previous regulations as both unlawful and potentially harmful to national energy security, citing concerns about electricity shortage risks across more than half the country.
Critics of the earlier greenhouse gas regulations pointed to their reliance on carbon capture and sequestration technology, which they argue lacks commercial viability. Alex Bond from the Edison Electric Institute, representing investor-owned utilities, welcomed the EPA’s recognition of these technological limitations while emphasizing the need for achievable standards for natural gas facilities.
The proposed changes come despite power plants being responsible for approximately 25% of U.S. carbon emissions, second only to
transportation. According to recent research from New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, the American power sector’s emissions would rank sixth globally if considered as an independent nation.
The EPA’s new stance suggests that power plant carbon emissions do not significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution under Clean Air Act definitions, emphasizing instead the current administration’s focus on “energy dominance and independence” through fossil fuel power generation.
This represents a stark departure from previous assessments. Under the Biden administration, the EPA had estimated the carbon limits would generate up to $370 billion in combined climate and public health benefits. The Institute for Policy Integrity has criticized the new proposal’s analysis, with faculty director Richard Revesz arguing against the effective zero valuation of greenhouse gas damages.
Regarding mercury emissions, environmental advocacy group Earthjustice noted that coal-fired power plants remain the largest domestic source of various toxic metals, including mercury. Most facilities have already implemented technology to comply with existing standards. Earthjustice vice president Jill Tauber emphasized that the current protections were established based on scientific evidence and legal requirements.
The EPA’s revised stance has drawn particular criticism for its analytical approach. The Institute for Policy Integrity highlighted that the proposal breaks from long-standing agency practices by not assigning value to carbon emissions impacts in its cost-benefit analysis. Legal experts suggest this approach might face challenges, citing previous court decisions that rejected similar attempts to undervalue greenhouse gas impacts.
The agency will accept public comments on these proposed changes for 45 days following their Federal Register publication. This period will allow stakeholders to provide feedback on regulations that could significantly reshape the American power sector’s environmental obligations and operational framework.
The proposed changes reflect a broader shift in environmental policy priorities, balancing industry concerns about operational costs and technological feasibility against environmental protection goals and public health considerations. The outcome of this regulatory revision could have lasting implications for both the U.S. energy sector and national environmental policy.