The Trump administration on Monday formally repealed carbon pollution regulations for coal and natural gas power plants, a decision the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) justified by asserting that emissions from these facilities have “no material impact on global climate change.” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the reversal during the G20 Ministerial Meeting on Energy Abundance in Houston, Texas, on September 14.
However, this stance contradicts decades of established scientific research demonstrating that reducing pollution yields significant benefits for human and environmental health. The EPA’s explanation relies on the argument that because targeted emissions are global in nature, any potential public health harms are too uncertain or convoluted to be specifically tied to the U.S. power sector.
Following the announcement, the EPA will conduct a 15-day public hearing and open a 45-day window for public comment on the proposal. The repeal directly targets climate pollution standards finalized by the Biden administration in 2024. Those regulations required operating coal plants to install carbon capture technology by 2039 to remain viable and mandated that new gas plants operate on cleaner fuels such as hydrogen.
The U.S. power sector remains a primary contributor to greenhouse gas output. Data from 2024 indicates the sector emitted 1,427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, making it the second-largest source of emissions by sector in the country. A May 2025 report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law noted that if the U.S. power sector were a standalone nation, it would rank as the sixth-largest emitter globally.
The move comes amid warnings from the United Nations that the world is on track to exceed the 1.5°C warming threshold, potentially reaching 1.8°C unless immediate global emission reductions are achieved. The Biden administration had projected that the now-repealed rules would prevent up to 1,200 premature deaths, 360,000 cases of asthma symptoms, and tens of thousands of lost school and work days by 2035, while generating up to $370 billion in net climate and public health benefits over two decades.
This repeal is part of a broader pattern of rolling back federal climate regulations by the current administration. In February, the EPA finalized the repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which had served as the legal foundation for greenhouse gas regulation. The agency also determined that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the regulation of vehicle tailpipe emissions and eased restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons used in cooling systems.
Furthermore, the administration has taken steps to sustain coal plants despite their status as one of the most expensive energy sources and their well-documented links to adverse health outcomes, including asthma and cancer. In February, the Department of Energy ordered several coal plants scheduled for retirement to remain open, loosened Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and directed the Pentagon to purchase additional coal-based electricity. The DOE was also instructed to allocate $175 million for upgrades at six coal plants across four states.
While the EPA describes health impacts as “uncertain,” experts argue the evidence is definitive. A 2025 analysis by the Trump administration itself found that eliminating these standards would result in thousands of premature deaths and tens of billions of dollars in increased health costs. Jim Zhang, a professor of global and environmental health at Duke University, stated that pollutants are clearly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, exacerbated asthma, and increased emergency room visits.
Communities near power plants, which are disproportionately lower-income, face elevated risks of asthma, cancer, and heart and lung disease. Exposure to fine particulate matter from coal plants (coal PM2.5) carries a mortality risk more than double that of PM2.5 from other sources. Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that removing regulations ensures the resulting pollution and associated health effects will occur.
Worsening carbon dioxide emissions further intensify climate change, leading to more severe extreme weather, wildfires, coastal erosion, flooding, and hurricanes, all of which carry direct health consequences. These events can cause injuries, disrupt medical access, and impact mental health and access to clean water and food. Experts emphasize that these health damages transcend borders.
“The health damage is not at local level but global level,” Zhang said. Michael Greenstone, director of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth at the University of Chicago, cautioned that ignoring the science will have tangible consequences. “It is certainly possible to have policies that assume climate change will have no impacts… But the atmosphere and the climate don’t recognize those misstatements, and we will be stuck with a nastier, more virulent form of climate change,” he said.
I live three miles from a plant. Disproportionate impacts on lower-income communities have always worried me most about these reversals.
Wait, does this mean existing plants don’t need carbon capture anymore? That 2039 deadline was supposed to drive innovation, not kill it.
Gas and coal keep the lights on and bills low. I’m skeptical that complex global models really justify these expensive mandates right now.
This is deeply concerning. Rolling back rules that prevent thousands of premature deaths contradicts basic public health priorities entirely.