EPA Repeals Pollution Limits on Fossil Fuel Power Plants

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday finalized the repeal of the Biden administration’s greenhouse gas limits on fossil fuel-fired power plants and proposed rescinding every remaining climate standard for the power sector—a combined move the agency calls the largest power-sector deregulatory action in U.S. history. Announced at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial in Houston, the action eliminates rules that required existing coal plants and new natural-gas plants to sharply cut carbon dioxide pollution starting in the 2030s.

The EPA projects the final rule will save $310 billion in compliance costs, while the companion proposal would save an additional $370 million in direct compliance costs if finalized. The agency says coal production for power-sector use could increase by more than tenfold.

What the Rules Did — and What Changes Now

Power plants are the nation’s second-largest source of planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions, behind transportation, contributing roughly one-quarter of the country’s total climate pollution, according to NPR. The 2024 standards—colloquially known as “Clean Power Plan 2.0”—were designed on a plant-by-plant basis after a 2022 Supreme Court ruling restricted the EPA’s ability to force industry-wide fuel switching.

The new final rule strikes most of those standards, which the EPA now argues “exceeded the agency’s authority” by requiring control technologies that were “not adequately demonstrated” and effectively forcing plants to retire. Concurrently, the agency proposed rescinding all remaining greenhouse gas requirements for power plants. Following its February 2026 repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA now contends that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act does not authorize climate-based regulation of power plants—an argument it ties to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended the Chevron deference doctrine.

“For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in the agency’s announcement. “The Trump Administration has come in to protect American energy and to make sure you can afford to keep the lights on.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright framed the rollback as a reliability measure. “During periods of peak electricity demand, coal and natural gas continue to play a critical role in keeping the lights on,” he said.

Resistance and Legal Challenges

Environmental and public health groups condemned the decision and pledged to challenge it in court. “These rules are really important, not just for our climate, but also to protect public health from the dangers of local air pollution,” Gudrun Thompson, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, told NPR.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Maggie Coulter of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute called the move “utterly reckless,” warning it “will lead to more lost lives and suffering from intense heatwaves, drastic storms and destructive wildfires, just like those we’ve seen this summer.” Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said tearing down the protections “will have enormous costs for the health, safety and well-being of families across the country.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) echoed those concerns. “Trump wants to let power plants pollute as much as they want,” she said. “This will result in serious health risks for families, our water and air, and the entire planet.”

The dispute is likely to extend an ongoing legal battle. In February, the American Public Health Association and a coalition of health and environmental groups sued the EPA over its repeal of the Endangerment Finding, the 2009 determination that greenhouse gas pollution threatens public health and welfare. That case, filed in the D.C. Circuit, is pending.

The EPA’s own prior assessments, cited in an Associated Press analysis, estimated the Biden-era power plant rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they were in effect.

Support in Coal Country

The rollback drew swift praise from coal-state lawmakers. In North Dakota, whose lignite industry had pushed back against the 2024 rules, congressional leaders celebrated the decision as a win for grid reliability.

“This is a huge win for anyone who cares about having power when they need it,” Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) said, according to KFYR-TV. “Prematurely closing power plants at a time when power demand is surging is irresponsible and reckless.” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said the repeal “avoids the collateral damage it would have done to thousands of workers employed by North Dakota’s lignite industry.”

America’s Power, a trade group representing the U.S. coal fleet, has argued that lifting the rule protects grid reliability and shields consumers from higher costs amid surging electricity demand from data centers, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing.

A Pattern of Deregulation

The power plant action is the latest in a broad rollback of environmental oversight since President Trump returned to office in 2025. The EPA revoked the Endangerment Finding in February—a move Trump called “the single largest deregulatory action in American history”—and the administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris climate accord for a second time.

Zeldin targeted nearly three dozen environmental regulations in early 2025 when he announced what he called the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history.”

The timing has drawn particular scrutiny. Last month was the hottest ever recorded globally, driven by human-caused climate change and a developing El Niño pattern, and 2026 is on track to be the warmest year in recorded history. “2026 is shaping up to be the warmest year in recorded history,” Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told NPR, “and we ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The repeal also lands amid economic crosscurrents: the U.S. has stepped back from global climate commitments even as gas prices top $4.31 a gallon amid the Iran war and electricity demand surges.

What to Watch

The EPA will hold a public hearing on its proposal 15 days after publication in the Federal Register, followed by a 45-day public comment period. Environmental groups are expected to sue once the rule is finalized.

Three questions will shape what comes next: whether courts uphold the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act in a post-Loper Bright landscape; whether the repeal actually lowers electricity prices as promised; and how a projected tenfold increase in coal production for power affects both emissions and rates. The proposal is also designed to make it harder for future administrations to re-regulate—a durability that will ultimately be tested in court.