
Trump's EPA delivers new blow to Biden climate agenda
The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it's revoking limits on power plants' climate pollution — removing the cornerstone of a decadelong strategy to douse one of the nation's largest sources of heat-trapping gases.
The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency would free thousands of existing and future facilities that burn coal or natural gas from regulations aimed at lowering their output of carbon dioxide pollution. It comes as President Donald Trump has shuttered climate change offices across the government, fired scientists and frozen billions of dollars in funding for renewable energy projects.
EPA's plan to unshackle the power sector — the second-largest source of U.S. climate pollution, behind transportation — collides with the agency's past assertions that the most effective way to slow rising temperatures is by tackling the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases.
Advertisement
Administrator Lee Zeldin has reversed that argument. His proposed repeal of President Joe Biden's 2024 power plant climate rule asserts that the electricity-generating facilities contribute too little climate pollution globally to warrant being regulated. That's even though the United States is the world's second-largest climate polluter, ranking only behind China. The U.S. power sector releases more carbon emissions than all but five countries.
EPA's new rule said that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. fossil fuel power plants are not significant because they 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions; cost-effective control measures are not reasonably available; and because this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.'
Power plants are responsible for almost a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or about 2.7 percent of all global climate pollution, according to EPA. The agency argued in its proposed rollback that the facilities' don't contribute 'significantly' to global warming, using language from a legal threshold for regulation in the Clean Air Act.
The assertion promises to ignite court challenges from green groups and Democratic-led states.
'The collision between Republican political imperatives driven by the fossil fuel industry and fact and reality is particularly apparent in this because power plant emissions in the United States are a very significant part of global emissions,' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). 'So it's just plain false to pretend this isn't a big deal.'
If the courts uphold the EPA rule, which the administration expects to finalize this year, it could free the government from legal requirements to regulate climate emissions from other stationary sources such as refineries and industrial facilities.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin arrives to speak during a policy announcement at the EPA headquarters in Washington on Wednesday. | Francis Chung/POLITICO
The administration also announced it will roll back (Reg. 2060-AW68) a separate Biden-era rule aimed at reducing power plants' releases of toxic mercury into the air (Reg. 2060-AV53), strengthening the original Obama-era standards.
EPA's plan also targets a 2015 rule requiring new coal plants to capture a share of their carbon emissions. The Obama-era standard remained on the books throughout the first Trump administration — largely because no new coal-fired power plants were planned.
The rollback comes as EPA targets the scientific underpinning for its authority to limit climate pollution — not just from power plants, but also the transportation sector, the largest U.S. source of warming gases. Called the endangerment finding, the landmark 2009 conclusion found that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health.
EPA is expected to announce later this year whether it plans to repeal that finding, a step that could allow the Trump administration to stop regulating climate pollution from cars and trucks. Together, those vehicles are responsible for about 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions or around 3.4 percent globally.
To regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine that such pollution 'causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'
Jarrod Agen: Trump is a fan of fossil fuels, says they got a 'bad deal'
lead image
In the final days of Trump's first term in January 2021, EPA issued a surprise rule defining the significance threshold at 3 percent of U.S. emissions. Such a level would have maintained regulation over power plants but exempted every other industry, including oil and gas production, oil refining and industrial boilers used in a variety of manufacturing sectors.
The rule was later vacated in court because the Trump administration had issued it as a final rule without going through the required public rulemaking process.
This time, EPA is going even further by effectively saying that no industry in the U.S. contributes 'significantly' to climate change, and thus the agency has no authority to regulate (Reg. 2060-AW55).
Yet the U.S. has contributed one-fifth of the pollution that has driven climate change to date and remains the world's second-largest source of planet-heating gases.
That means greenhouse gases from any U.S. sector intensify warming, said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate science professor at Stanford University. The science shows that each increment of warming from those emissions causes a 'multiple, exponential effect' in terms of the impacts to the planet, he said.
That brings severe economic costs. Diffenbaugh's research group found that over a nearly 30-year period, heavier precipitation linked to climate change resulted in 36 percent of U.S. financial losses from flooding, while hotter temperatures caused about 20 percent of insured crop losses. Damages amounted to tens of billions of dollars.
'We can absolutely expect the stresses that we experience from the climate system to accelerate,' he said. 'How much of that we experience really does depend on how much humans emit going forward in the future.'
The agency is also proposing to repeal the Biden administration's power plant climate rule (Reg. 2060-AV09). That regulation effectively required coal-fired power plants planning to operate long-term to install technology to capture most of their carbon emissions — something no coal plant in the U.S. has ever done on that scale. It also required some new gas-fired power plants to eventually install carbon capture systems.
Industry groups have argued that using carbon capture systems as the rule's benchmark technology was impractical and possibly illegal.
During oral arguments over the rule in December, several federal appellate judges questioned whether carbon capture technology was ready for the kind of wide-scale deployment EPA's rule would require — even if the agency expected most power plants would choose to shut down rather than invest significant sums in pollution controls. The court never decided whether Biden's rule was lawful.
The 2024 rule would also have required coal plants that commit to closing by 2039 to reduce emissions by co-firing with gas — a requirement the Trump administration proposed to strike down because it says it violates a Supreme Court prohibition on fuel shifting.
The Biden rule was EPA's third effort to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants.
In 2015, the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, which relied heavily on utilities shifting away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables to reduce climate pollution across the electricity sector. The Supreme Court later ruled that the plan overstepped the agency's authority, which the justices said is limited to addressing pollution from specific sources as opposed to entire industries.
During Trump's first term, EPA issued a rule requiring only minor efficiency upgrades to coal plants. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck that down because EPA had refused to consider other methods of emissions reductions.
Despite EPA spinning its wheels on tackling power plant climate pollution for more than a decade, the sector has reduced its emissions anyway — by about 41 percent from its peak in 2007, according to EPA data.
The decrease was caused by a long-term shift away from coal as market forces and the risk of EPA eventually imposing climate rules pushed the sector to use more natural gas and renewable energy.
Zack Colman, Annie Snider and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
5 Takeaways From the Democrats' Final N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate
In the final Democratic debate in the primary for mayor of New York City, seven leading candidates sparred over immigration, affordability and President Trump's policies. But more often, the debate on Thursday devolved into sharp personal attacks. The most pointed exchanges involved Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani, the two front-runners in polls. Mr. Cuomo pummeled Mr. Mamdani, arguing that his inexperience was dangerous. Mr. Mamdani criticized the former governor as out-of-touch and beholden to the same special interests that support Mr. Trump. Other candidates often entered the fray. Brad Lander, the city comptroller, drew attention to Mr. Cuomo's handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and the sexual harassment allegations that led to his resignation as governor in 2021. The debate was the candidates' best and possibly last chance to grab attention ahead of the start of early voting on Saturday. The primary will be held June 24. Here are five takeaways from the debate. Ganging up on Cuomo Mr. Cuomo is still clearly viewed as the front-runner based on the attacks he faced from his rivals. Several of the candidates mentioned the sexual harassment allegations, which he denied. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump didn't want Israel to strike Iran. They did it anyway
In the hours before Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on Iran early Friday, raising fresh fears of all-out war in the region, President Donald Trump made clear it was an outcome he hoped to avoid. 'I don't want them going in because, I mean, that would blow it,' he said, referring to his diplomatic efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The fact Israel went in anyway – without any US involvement, and against the president's publicly stated wishes – now thrusts Trump into one of the biggest tests of his young presidency. By his own telling, the strikes risk scuttling his attempts at diplomacy with Tehran, even as his top envoy was preparing to depart for Oman for another round of talks this weekend. It casts a pall over his already tense relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he has sharply disagreed for months and whom he urged as recently as this week to hold off on a strike. And it presents him another global conflict without any easy resolution, this one with tens of thousands of US troops potentially caught in the regional crossfire. Trump will now find himself caught between competing crosscurrents from within his own party. Many Republicans were quick to offer their support to Israel on Thursday, including Sen. Lindsey Graham – a longtime Iran hawk – who wrote on X: 'Game on.' Yet Trump has never quite adopted that strain of his party's foreign policy, particularly in his second term. His administration is stacked with officials, starting with his vice president, who take a deeply skeptical view of US military involvement abroad without express American interests on the line. Trump offered no signals in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that he was prepared to use American military assets to help defend Israel from expected Iranian reprisal, as his predecessor Joe Biden did when Israel and Iran exchanged fire last year. Without American assistance, Israel's air defenses could be unable to withstand a major Iranian onslaught. The focus of public messaging from the US administration was instead on protecting American personnel in the Middle East, and warning Iran not to drag the US into the fray. Still, for all the complicated dynamics for Trump to now sort through, the attack hardly came as a surprise to the president and his team. Even as he was speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president and his aides were aware the strikes were likely coming soon, sources said, despite Trump's repeated attempts at urging Netanyahu to hold off. As the strikes were getting underway, Trump was appearing on the South Lawn at a congressional picnic. He returned to the West Wing afterward to huddle with top officials, according to a White House official and other sources. Afterward, a terse statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to put distance between the US and any role in the attack. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' read the statement, which was distributed by the White House. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners,' Rubio continue. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Devoid of even boilerplate language offering support for Israel and its defense, the statement made clear: this would be Israel's conflict, not Trump's.


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge rules Trump illegally used California's National Guard in Los Angeles protests; DOJ appeals the decision
President Donald Trump unlawfully federalized thousands of members of California's National Guard and must return control of the troops to the state, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from senior US District Judge Charles Breyer is a significant win for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this week after the president called the troops into federal service in the wake of protests in the Los Angeles area over Trump's hardline immigration policies. 'His actions were illegal – both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,' the judge wrote in his 36-page ruling. Breyer is pausing his temporary restraining order until noon Friday. The Justice Department appealed the ruling minutes after it was issued. Breyer, of the federal district court in San Francisco, said Trump had not satisfied any of the requirements that must be met in order to call up members of a state's National Guard and that the president had not complied with a procedural aspect of federal law that requires presidents to issue an order 'through the governor' when they want to federalize state troops. 'Regardless of whether Defendants gave Governor Newsom an opportunity to consult with them or consent to the federalization of California's National Guard, they did not issue their orders through him, and thus failed to comply with' federal law, he wrote. In federalizing the guardsmen, Trump pointed to a provision of federal law that says he can call up a state's troops to suppress a 'rebellion.' But Breyer said in his ruling that 'the protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion.'' 'Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient,' Breyer wrote. 'Even accepting the questionable premise that people armed with fireworks, rocks, mangoes, concrete, chairs, or bottles of liquid are 'armed' in a 1903 sense – the Court is aware of no evidence in the record of actual firearms – there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters' actions were 'open or avowed.'' The judge added: 'Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue – the immigration raids.' And he was extremely critical of arguments pushed by DOJ that the protests in and around Los Angeles against Trump's immigration policies constituted a rebellion. '(T)he Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion,' he wrote. 'In short, individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,' Breyer said. 'The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous.' The judge also said Trump had violated California's rights under the 10th Amendment, writing that 'it is not the federal government's place in our constitutional system to take over a state's police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws.' 'The federalization of 4,000 members of California's National Guard necessarily prevents Governor Newsom, as the commander-in-chief of his state's National Guard, from deploying them as needed,' Breyer wrote. Breyer also suggested that having too much firepower on the ground may be making things worse. 'Federal agents and property may actually well be served by de-militarization and a concurring de-escalation of the situation,' the judge wrote. 'Regardless, Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions,' he added. Attorneys from DOJ had argued during a hearing earlier Thursday that Trump's actions were lawful, pushing back on claims by the state that the president had violated federal law because he didn't involve Newsom in the process of federalizing the troops. Importantly, Breyer on Thursday did temporarily bar Trump from using Marines for law enforcement activities in California, as the state had requested. He noted that there was dispute between each side over whether both the federalized guardsmen and several hundred Marines deployed to LA would be engaged in such activities. 'The Court does not at this point reach any conclusion on this issue,' he wrote. Breyer set a hearing for next Friday to hear arguments over whether his temporary order should not be converted into an indefinite ruling in the state's favor. This story is breaking and will be updated.