Introduction
Ever since the Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, it has had the central mission to ensure “Americans have clean air, land, and water.” But recently, that narrative has taken a significant turn. When EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin took office, he quickly announced his plans to “power the Great American Comeback,” declaring that “we are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”
Since then, much of the EPA’s work has involved toppling regulations and climate commitments made by previous administrations. And on Sept. 14, the EPA made one of its final moves to completely erase one of the most consequential climate policies from the Biden administration by removing limits on climate pollution from power plants.
The limits have existed since 2024 and impose regulations on coal plants in operation and future gas-burning plants. By 2039, coal plants would have been required to install carbon capture technology that would reduce their emissions by 90% or be shut down. Additionally, gas plants constructed after 2039 generating at least 40% of their maximum capacity would need to reduce their emissions by 90% before 2032.
The repeal of this regulation would revert the rule to Obama’s weaker 2015 standard, which aimed to reduce carbon pollution from power plants but recognized fossil fuels as a “critical component of America’s energy future.” However, the EPA has recently proposed another deregulation that would eliminate all greenhouse gas emission standards for all power plants.
According to the EPA’s estimation under the Biden administration, the original regulation would cost businesses $19 billion to comply, though in its recent repeal the EPA changed the figure to $310 billion without explanation. Though these figures are drastically different, they’re both smaller than the estimated $370 billion the regulations would bring in public health benefits over the next two decades. These benefits include prevention of up to 1,200 premature deaths, 870 hospital visits, 360,000 asthma attacks, and prevent school and work absences.
In the repeal’s fact sheet, the EPA explained how the technology the old regulations relied on wasn’t available at scale and that the repeal would lead to economic relief for many families. However, at the time of the Biden-era ruling, the Department of Energy planned to appropriate money to make the technology more feasible.
The EPA’s fact sheet also states that “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs [electric generating units] have no material impact on global climate change” and that “even if you complete[ly] eliminated all CO2 emissions from all new and existing EGUs in the U.S., there would be no meaningful effect.” The EPA also described that the ruling would allow coal production to increase more than 10 times.
This statement directly contradicts scientific understanding of climate change, including that the U.S. power sector contributes to around 24% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. To put that percentage into perspective, if the U.S. power sector were its own country, it would be the fifth most polluting country globally.
Even as climate change has taken a political backseat, it has created extreme weather disasters such as Hurricane Isaias and the landslides in Nepal. NOAA estimates that natural disasters caused by climate change have cost $182.7 billion in 2024 alone.
The new ruling is expected to go into effect on Nov. 16, though the EPA has opened the docket to comments from the public. The EPA closes the comments on Nov. 2 to review them and make changes to their original ruling. The comments are meant to highlight potential research gaps the EPA missed in its original ruling and to amplify voices of specific demographics that the EPA potentially overlooked.
As of Oct. 29, the docket only had 96 comments from various individuals and organizations. Submitting a comment can amplify the American public’s needs to focus on the climate crisis. Though unique comments have more impact than repeated ones, repeated comments can also draw attention to specific issues. Comments can be submitted with names or anonymously, and there is no age restriction on commenting. I urge people to submit the following comment at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-2920:
Sources:
- https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/13/climate/epa-power-plant-climate-rules.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
- -era-rules-that-limit-power-plant-climate-emissionshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/09/14/epa-plans-scrap-biden
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-energy-are-cheaper-than-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/
- https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/5/1/kgaf011/8099165?login=false
- https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/index.html