logo
Revoking EPA climate rule could trigger carbon boom

Revoking EPA climate rule could trigger carbon boom

E&E News12-05-2025

Plans by the Trump administration to scrap a landmark climate rule threaten to increase carbon pollution by making it easier to build natural gas power plants and sustain some coal facilities.
Analysts said the demise of the EPA regulation for existing coal and new gas power plants, finalized last year, would not bring the green energy transition to a screeching halt. But by extending the lives of some coal-fired power plants and removing emissions requirements for new gas plants, President Donald Trump's rollbacks could add to U.S. climate pollution and push the world closer to what scientists say are dangerous levels of warming.
'Rescinding the greenhouse gas rule is likely to significantly increase CO2 emissions by shifting generation away from gas and renewables, while increasing generation from existing coal units,' said Martin Ross, director of electricity modeling at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability.
Advertisement
Trump has been here before.
EPA discarded former President Barack Obama's planned emissions standards on power plants during Trump's first term. But carbon dioxide levels from power plants continued to fall, as the combination of cheap natural gas and renewables pushed a wave of coal plants into retirement. U.S. power sector emissions have fallen by roughly a quarter over the past decade, according to EPA data.
The difference this time is that demand for electricity is skyrocketing, fueled by the technology industry's race to build data centers for artificial intelligence. Tech companies have traditionally been large buyers of renewable energy, but they have begun looking to natural gas to meet their power needs. Orders for new gas turbines are surging.
The country's emissions trajectory will hinge in large part on where Big Tech finds its power, analysts said. Wind, solar and batteries remain among the cheapest sources of electricity, but their future has been complicated by Trump's trade war and his pledge to end clean energy subsidies.
'Tech companies all have clean energy goals, but the economic imperative for them is to get their AI stuff online as fast as they can,' said Arne Olson, an emissions modeler at Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. 'It's existential for them.'
If the country can't build energy sources fast enough to keep up with demand, it will likely turn to existing power plants that seldom run today. They are mostly coal plants and older, inefficient natural gas facilities, Olson said.
'If we can't rebuild fast enough, then we're going to see increased emissions,' he said. 'The evidence seems to point to can't-build-fast-enough, so quite likely emissions are going to go up in the near term.'
Lifeline for coal
The White House regulatory office is currently reviewing EPA's proposed repeal of the Biden-era carbon rule. EPA is also expected to propose a revision soon to a key scientific finding — the endangerment finding — that could take Clean Air Act regulations for greenhouse gases off the table entirely.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has promised that the Trump deregulatory agenda will support 'all forms of energy, including clean beautiful coal.' The agency's rules would have required coal plants operating past 2038 to install carbon capture and sequestration by 2032, a provision that some industry observers predicted would force the country's remaining coal units into retirement.
'The CCS requirement for existing coal is sort of the final nail in the coffin for coal,' said Ross of Duke University.
Now that requirement is gone.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has promised to align the agency with Trump's vision of promoting 'clean beautiful coal.' | Pool photo by Kevin Lamarque
Coal generation was up 20 percent through the first three months of 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, thanks to a colder winter, higher natural gas prices and robust power demand.
Mining companies praised the EPA rollback, saying it would help the coal industry supply the country's growing power needs.
'We continue to see substantial U.S. coal demand many years into the future,' Peabody Energy CEO Jim Grech told financial analysts Tuesday.
Even without the regulations, EIA thinks coal will play a smaller role in America's future power mix. The U.S. had just under 170 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity last year, according to EIA's 2025 Annual Energy Outlook.
In a world in which the power plant carbon rule remained in effect, coal would all but exit the grid by 2032, when the rule's strictest standards based on carbon capture would take effect. Without the rule, a diminished set of coal-based units is expected to linger on the grid almost indefinitely, declining from about 80 GW in 2032 to just below 60 GW in 2050, according to EIA.
Coal's market woes are underscored by the recent closure of the Cholla coal plant in Arizona. Trump called for keeping Cholla open last month. But the company that operates the plant, Pinnacle West, told investors last week it had no plans to bring Cholla back online, noting it was uneconomical.
'I think we had kind of kissed coal resources goodbye economically, and I suspect that that trend will continue,' said Allison Clements, a Democrat who served on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Gas boom?
The situation with gas is more complicated. EPA's rule would have required gas plants that began construction after May 2023 to install CCS by 2035 or run at less than 40 percent of their capacity. The agency projected that most utilities would choose the latter.
EIA anticipates that rescinding the power plant rule could have a modest effect on the amount of gas that's added to the grid. It expects that an additional 8GW of gas will be built in 2032, a rounding error compared with the 248 GW of combined-cycle gas it estimates will be available nationwide that year.
But there are signs that a gas boom is building.
Siemens Energy, one of the world's largest gas turbine makers, said Thursday that it had set a new quarterly record for turbine orders in the first three months of the year. The announcement followed similar news from GE Vernova, which has reported surging turbine orders in recent months.
GE Vernova is building a gas plant with carbon capture in the United Kingdom, but it does not expect similar facilities to be built in the U.S. in the near term, the company's chief executive, Scott Strazik, told investors in December.
'In the U.S., this is going to happen more in chapters,' he said. 'Build now, this decade unabated. Think through adding the carbon capture in the next decade when it makes sense.'
How much gas actually makes it onto the grid is unclear. The backlog for getting a new turbine is several years long. Developers also face siting challenges for new pipelines and power plants.
And while large data centers have begun looking to fossil resources for power, most still prefer carbon-free generation, Clements said.
'This new load growth has caused bumps in that road,' she said. 'But I don't think overall the market trends change. Customers, big customers, hyperscalers, continue to want the cleaner fuel, cost-free resources that they can get access to.'
An Amazon Web Services data center in Boardman, Oregon. | Jenny Kane/AP
Todd Snitchler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, welcomed the Trump administration's decision to rollback the regulations, saying they threatened to hamstring gas resources at a time when they are needed to meet growing power needs.
But he said power companies need regulatory certainty after a decade of watching Democratic and Republican administrations punting the EPA's rules back and forth. He expressed hope that Congress would establish a new standard for power plant emissions that recognizes the need to cut carbon dioxide while preserving reliability and affordability.
'It's become very clear in an era of load growth that a focus on longer term investment horizons than two- or four-year election cycles is crucial,' Snitchler said. 'Congressional action that codifies some of those policy choices is the level of certainty that I think will help move industry or move investors off the sidelines at a quicker pace.'
The effect of EPA's rollback will be bigger on renewable energy. EIA projects that in 2039 — the year by which coal-fired power plants without CCS would have retired — gas capacity would be 1.4 GW lower without the rule than with it. But removing the rule is expected to result in 108 GW less renewable power capacity in the same year.
Ben King, an analyst at the Rhodium Group, said that while gas will lose a little of its competitive advantage with coal if the rule is repealed, its position relative to renewables will improve.
'It makes natural gas a little more economic because you don't have to run these plants that you're building at a lower capacity factor, and that helps them out-compete wind and solar a little bit more,' he said. 'And particularly since you've got this coal capacity that's not going away, it helps gas fill in more behind that coal capacity than wind and solar.'
Even with no rule, renewables are still projected to reach 1,073 GW in 2039, up from 368 GW in 2024. And virtually no one is projecting that dismantling the climate rule would revive investor interest in building new coal-fired power plants.
But King said that if Republicans roll back Inflation Reduction Act credits for wind, solar and battery technologies as part of this year's budget package, that could have a larger effect on the grid than EPA's regulatory repeal.
'If those aren't in place, there's still lots of opportunity for them to compete economically, but that opportunity is meaningfully reduced,' he said of the IRA credits.
The overall effect of Trump's repeal of the climate rule would lead to more coal, about the same amount of gas and less renewable power.
And that means higher emissions.
EIA estimated that repealing the rule would increase power sector emissions by 48 percent in 2040.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Meet the Only S&P 500 Stock That Yields Over 10%. Here's Why It Could Be Worth Buying in June.
Meet the Only S&P 500 Stock That Yields Over 10%. Here's Why It Could Be Worth Buying in June.

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Meet the Only S&P 500 Stock That Yields Over 10%. Here's Why It Could Be Worth Buying in June.

Dow Inc. is under pressure due to weak customer demand, global competition, and high costs. Management doesn't want to cut the dividend, but it could be a good choice given cost pressures. Even if Dow cut its dividend in half, it would still have an excellent yield. 10 stocks we like better than Dow › Commodity chemical giant Dow Inc. (NYSE: DOW) is hovering around a five-year low and is now down around 50% from its spin-off price when DowDuPont split into three separate companies in April 2019. Dow has kept its dividend the same for the last six years. But since the stock has been beaten down so much, Dow's yield has jumped to a whopping 10.3% at the time of this writing -- making it the highest-yielding component in the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC). Here's why Dow's challenges persist and why the dividend stock could be worth buying now, even if the company reduces its payout. Dow makes commodity chemicals -- mainly plastics and synthetic rubber. Dow has hundreds of products that are used either directly or indirectly across virtually every industry in the economy -- from electronics to food and beverage packing, textiles, construction, industrial applications, healthcare, cosmetics, household products like detergents and dish soaps, and more. Since these products are commodities, they lack pricing power. This is similar to the dynamic in oil and gas, where a gallon of unleaded gasoline sold at ExxonMobil is virtually the same as a gallon sold at Chevron. Consumers will largely make a purchase decision based on price, not brand. So Dow must achieve scale and operating leverage to ensure it can produce products at a competitive cost relative to its peers. Economic growth typically coincides with higher commodity chemical demand. But lately, two factors have been working against Dow. Demand is low across several end markets due to higher borrowing costs from elevated interest rates and slowing economic growth in key markets -- namely Europe. Another major challenge is competition. China has been ramping up investments in manufactured goods -- from chemicals to solar panels -- to take market share on the global stage. If China can produce chemicals sold by Dow for a cheaper price, it can undercut Dow on pricing. Dow is also working to become a more sustainable company by investing in plastic waste recycling and the world's first net-zero emissions integrated ethylene cracker -- known as its Path2Zero project in Alberta, Canada. However, on its first-quarter 2025 earnings call, Dow said that it is pausing Path2Zero to reduce its spending. Dow estimates that the pause will save the company $1 billion and reduce enterprise spending to $2.5 billion from $3.5 billion. Dow's latest quarter showed some signs of improvement, as it was the sixth consecutive quarter of year-over-year volume growth. But net sales still fell 3% due to a lack of pricing power -- which illustrates that demand is improving but competition is challenging. Dow's operating margin has gone from pre-pandemic levels around 8%, to 2022 highs in the mid-teens, to just 3.3% currently. As you can see in the chart, Dow's stock price is under pressure due to declining revenue and margins. The company's profit margin, which accounts for interest and taxes, is less than 1%. Dow is converting just $0.69 for every $100 in sales into profit -- which is unsustainable. It's also worth mentioning that Dow is free-cash-flow (FCF) negative, meaning that its operations can't support its dividend expense, so it has to rely on other means, such as debt. Since Dow isn't producing enough cash or earnings to cover its dividend, it can either sell assets, pull back on spending, take on more debt, cut the payout, or a blend of multiple ideas. As mentioned, Dow did pause its Path2Zero project, which could reduce its long-term earnings growth but will save on near-term expenses. On May 1, Dow completed the sale of a 40% equity stake in Diamond Infrastructure Solutions, which has infrastructure assets along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The sale netted Dow with $2.4 billion in initial cash proceeds, with the potential for $600 million more in proceeds if an option is exercised. Dow spent $494 million on dividends in its recent quarter, so the sale alone can cover the dividend expense for roughly five quarters. But selling assets or taking on debt to cover dividends is like plugging holes in a sinking ship. A preferred approach is to get the ship afloat -- or back to higher margins and consistent FCF -- so that operations can cover the dividend, and ideally, still have cash left over to pay down debt or buy back stock. In addition to savings from Path2Zero and the asset sale, Dow is also receiving around $1 billion in proceeds from a court settlement, and $1 billion in targeted cost savings by 2026, including $300 million in 2025. All told, Dow is on track to receive around $6 billion in additional cash or cost savings, most of which is coming this year. It's also worth mentioning that Dow has just $500 million in debt maturing in 2025 and no substantial debt maturities until 2027. So for now, its debt seems manageable. However, if Dow's margins remain depressed, it will have few choices but to cut the dividend. Dow's 10.3% yield is so high that the company could cut the payout by two-thirds and Dow would still yield 3.4% -- which is a solid source of passive income. When asked about the dividend on Dow's first-quarter earnings call, management responded that the cash and cost savings will help support the dividend, but that the situation is evolving and Dow will have to continue monitoring tariffs and macro factors. Dow may be a worthwhile turnaround play for investors who aren't banking on its dividend yield staying above 10%. If the company can use its cash proceeds wisely and continue managing its expenses, it could help weather the storm until economic conditions improve. However, it remains to be seen how Dow will hold up against the competition, even during a more normal operating environment. Dow has a long-term goal to have its dividend make up 45% of operating income. If Dow can get its operating margin back around the 8% to 9% range or if it cuts its dividend in half, it should be around that goal -- assuming it doesn't lose more pricing power. And if Dow can gradually improve its margins, the stock will begin to look dirt cheap. In sum, Dow has the cash and lack of debt obligations to afford its dividend in 2025. Going forward, I expect the company to cut its dividend at least in half or maybe by two-thirds if conditions don't improve, or it may decide to sustain the payout if there's a significant recovery in macro conditions. Risk-tolerant investors may want to scoop up shares of Dow now, with the stock at multiyear lows. In contrast, other investors may want to take a wait-and-see approach to Dow, as the next year will be pivotal in determining whether the company overcomes its present challenges or goes through with a dividend cut. Before you buy stock in Dow, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Dow wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Daniel Foelber has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Meet the Only S&P 500 Stock That Yields Over 10%. Here's Why It Could Be Worth Buying in June. was originally published by The Motley Fool

Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?
Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?

Gov. Tony Evers has ordered flags to fly at half-staff in honor of former Oneida Nation Chairman Gerald L "Jerry" Danforth, who died June 1 at age 78. 'Chairman Danforth led the Oneida Nation with integrity, dedication and a deep commitment to upholding and protecting Tribal sovereignty and culture,' Evers said in a news release. Services for Danforth will be held June 7 at the Oneida Turtle School, N7125 Seminary Road in Oneida, according to the release. Flags will be at half-staff from sunrise to sunset June 7. The U.S. flag and Wisconsin flag will be flown at half-staff at all buildings, grounds and military installations of Wisconsin, according to the release. Danforth served two terms as chairman of the Oneida Nation, and was first elected in 1999 and then again in 2005. "As chairman, Danforth prioritized Indian gaming interest and economic development, as well as issues around health care, higher education, Oneida language preservation and expanding communication between the state and the Native Nations," according to the release. Flags are usually flown at half-staff after national tragedies or deaths of government officials, military members or other first responders. Flags can also be at half-staff for Memorial Day or other national days of remembrance, according to This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Why are flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today, June 7?

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?
Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. An explosive, and very public, feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday (June 5) has raised doubts over the future of America's space industry. The war of words could place $22 billion of SpaceX's government contracts with multiple U.S. space programs at risk, according to one estimate, although the real figure — which remains classified — could be significantly higher. Following threats from the president on his social media platform Truth Social that the U.S. could cancel the government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies, the CEO of SpaceX retorted that his space company would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Hours later, Musk responded to a follower telling him to "cool off" by saying "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." The disagreement began on Tuesday (June 3) when Musk criticized the administration's proposed tax and spending bill on his social media platform X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching This then escalated into a full-blown social media feud on Thursday, with Musk claiming that Trump's name appears in unreleased files relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House condemned these allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," representatives wrote on X. Trump then claimed Musk "just went CRAZY," posting: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a reusable spacecraft capable of carrying up to seven passengers and cargo to and from Earth orbit, according to SpaceX. NASA currently relies on the capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so canceling these government contracts effectively eliminates America's ability to launch astronauts to space from American soil, Live Science's sister website, reported. NASA also heavily relies on SpaceX for other space programs, having selected the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the company's next-generation Starship spacecraft, to carry American astronauts to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years aboard the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. NASA is investing $4 billion into Starship's development, and canceling its contract could seriously handicap NASA and the future of U.S.-led space exploration. While other competitors exist, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, they lag far behind SpaceX. RELATED STORIES —Facing steep funding cuts, scientists propose using black holes as particle colliders instead of building new ones on Earth —Trump's 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one third —NASA plans to build a giant radio telescope on the 'dark side' of the moon. Here's why. The Starliner capsule is not yet certified to fly operational astronaut missions and was responsible for "stranding" two astronauts on the ISS for nine months last year. The astronauts returned to Earth on March 18 aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule, and neither Boeing nor NASA have offered any significant updates into fixes that will make Starliner flightworthy. SpaceX's lead on its competitors is reflected in the size of its government subsidies. In April, the U.S. Space Force, the military branch of U.S. space exploration, awarded the company nearly $6 billion in launch contracts, while the United Launch Alliance received $5.4 billion and Blue Origin $2.4 billion. In response to the feud between Musk and Trump, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens declined to comment on SpaceX, but she did tell Reuters that "we will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met." NASA's deputy administrator Lori Garver told Reuters that, as well as not being in national interests, canceling SpaceX's contacts would probably not be legal. However, she also added that "a rogue CEO threatening to decommission spacecraft, putting astronauts' lives at risk, is untenable."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store