Riccardo Liguori The proposed regulation, presented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is divisive and worrying because it could become a precedent for deregulating other environmental standards.
@Canva
A new and deeply controversial shift is unfolding in U.S. environmental policy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled a draft regulation that would remove all federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. If enacted, this move could mark a dramatic reversal in the country’s efforts to combat climate change.
According to internal documents obtained by The New York Times, the EPA claims that fossil fuel power plants “do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution”, and that their global environmental impact is “modest” and declining. This argument directly contradicts the scientific consensus shared by the international community.
Power plants are the second-largest source of climate-warming emissions in the U.S., just behind the transportation sector. In 2023 alone, they released an estimated 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide—more than the total emissions of many entire nations. Globally, the United Nations reports that the burning of coal, oil, and gas is responsible for over 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions, with power generation among the primary contributors.
The EPA’s proposal is an abuse of its legal responsibility
That’s how Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund put it in an interview with The New York Times.
“To claim that the largest industrial source of CO₂ in the United States is insignificant defies common sense and endangers millions of people,” she added.
The draft regulation, submitted to the White House on May 2, will be opened to public comment in the coming months. But the debate has already flared up, and for good reason: if passed, this proposal could gut the EPA’s very legal authority to regulate emissions—a power rooted in the landmark 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” which recognized greenhouse gases as a threat to public health.
This initiative is part of a broader regulatory rollback championed by the Trump administration, which has already moved to eliminate more than two dozen environmental protections. Recently, lawmakers also passed a measure that strips away major incentives for renewable energy and electric vehicles, previously introduced under the Inflation Reduction Act.
The current EPA argues that since the U.S. share of global emissions has dropped—from 5.5% in 2005 to 3% in 2022—it’s time to relax restrictions. But many experts disagree.
So said Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer.
“Emissions are still far too high,” he warned.
The concern, echoed by climate scientists and legal scholars alike, is that this rule could set a dangerous precedent for dismantling other environmental standards.
If they succeed with power plants, they’ll basically succeed with everything else
That’s the warning from conservative legal expert Jonathan Adler, speaking to The New York Times.
The scientific community remains firm: decisive action is needed to limit global warming. In fact, according to the EPA itself, a stricter emissions cap on power plants—proposed during the Biden administration—could have prevented up to 1,200 premature deaths annually by 2035 and saved nearly 60,000 workdays per year.
As the debate rages, global attention is turning to Washington. The EPA’s final decision, expected in the coming months, will carry consequences far beyond U.S. borders. What’s at stake is nothing less than America’s role in the global fight against climate change—as the second-largest emitter on the planet.
