The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under President Donald Trump’s administration, has proposed to repeal all greenhouse gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, citing that their emissions do not significantly contribute to dangerous air pollution. This assertion is contentious given that the power sector is responsible for approximately a quarter of United States greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest industrial emitter (EPA’s overview of emissions sources).
The EPA rationalizes its stance by arguing that the power sector contributes only 3% of global emissions, implying that this is an insignificant amount. However, this perspective ignores substantial evidence and longstanding approaches to air pollution regulation under the Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act Standards). Historically, the EPA categorized coal- and gas-fired power plants as significant pollution sources due to their soot and smog emissions back in the 1970s (1971 Federal Register). The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that greenhouse gas emissions fall under the EPA’s regulatory obligations (Massachusetts v. EPA).
Dena Adler and Jason A. Schwartz from NYU School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity underscore in their recent publication that emissions from the power sector have tangible, harmful impacts, causing economic damages and health issues. They argue that the EPA’s approach reduces the emissions’ perceived significance, which diverges from scientific and economic evidence and prior policy practices.
The Institute of Policy Integrity’s report estimates the damages from a single year of U.S. power sector emissions to be $370 billion globally and projects over 5,300 deaths in the United States due to related climate effects (Policy Integrity Report). These figures illuminate the profound impact these emissions have, contrasting the EPA’s assertion of insignificance.
Given this context, the EPA’s proposal to minimize the regulatory importance of power plant emissions has drawn significant criticism for being inconsistent with the aim of the Clean Air Act: safeguarding public health and the environment through comprehensive regulation.
For further reading, view the full coverage on Bloomberg Law.