Federal Register Rundown: Power Back to the States Edition
Special Issue - EPA Moves to Repeal Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants
What Happened?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just proposed to fully repeal all federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, covering both new and existing plants. This is a hard pivot from both the Obama-era “Clean Power Plan” and its Biden administration sequel, officially known as the “Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants.” Both rules aimed to force a nationwide shift away from coal and gas.
What Did Biden’s 2024 Carbon Rule Actually Do?
Biden’s “Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants” rule set aggressive limits on emissions from new and existing coal and gas power plants. Coal plants staying open past 2040 would have to install carbon capture and storage systems (CCS) to cut 90% of their emissions by 2032, a costly requirement that’s never been achieved at this scale. Plants planning to retire sooner could avoid carbon capture, but only by burning 40% natural gas, which would require new pipelines and major upgrades.
New and existing gas plants faced stricter emissions limits, including future requirements for carbon capture. States would have been required to begin compliance planning and implementation in the late 2020s, with deadlines for technology upgrades or retirement starting as soon as 2032. In practice, this meant either installing expensive new technology or shutting plants down early. Experts warned the rule could raise costs, strain the grid, and force plant closures faster than the grid or states could handle. More than two dozen states and industry groups sued, and the rule was put on hold before it took effect.
In short, the Biden EPA’s 2024 rule was a tough carbon crackdown, built on unproven tech and designed to accelerate the shutdown of existing fossil plants, even as power demand surges.
What’s Changing Now - and Why It Matters for States
This rollback is a major shift in who calls the shots on power plant regulation. Instead of Washington dictating one-size-fits-all rules, the EPA’s proposal puts states back in control and rolls back mandates that many argued were unrealistic. Here’s why it matters for states:
Restores state primacy: No more DC micromanagement. States get back the power to regulate their own power fleets.
Regulatory relief: No state plans, no paperwork, no scramble to comply with tech mandates nobody can actually achieve.
Grid stability: As electricity demand surges (thanks, AI and datacenters), this gives states breathing room to keep the lights on.
Cost savings: EPA says repealing the rules saves $19 billion in compliance costs from 2026–2047.
No federal overreach: EPA now says it can only regulate power plant GHGs if there’s a clear, pollutant-specific “significant contribution” finding.
The Legal and Real-World Case for Repeal
The Biden rule relied on a sweeping interpretation of the Clean Air Act, specifically Section 111, that the Supreme Court flatly rejected in West Virginia v. EPA. The law says EPA can regulate power plant emissions, but only with clear, pollutant-specific findings and technology that’s been “adequately demonstrated”.
Instead, the 2024 rule set impossible standards based on carbon capture equipment that doesn’t work at scale, and mandated massive changes to the nation’s fuel mix, essentially trying to reshape the whole grid from Washington. The Supreme Court made clear that when an agency tries to make major policy shifts with huge economic and political stakes, it needs explicit direction from Congress. EPA can’t use vague language to justify sector-wide mandates or force states and utilities to gamble on technology and infrastructure that simply isn’t ready.
Why State Experts Need to Comment - Now
EPA is actively seeking input from states, and comments from state agencies, utility commissions, and policy experts carry real weight in shaping what happens next. When states speak up about real-world impacts and legal limits, DC pays attention.
Key issues and talking points to raise in comments:
EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from power plants without first making a clear, pollutant-specific “significant contribution” finding, as required by the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court.
Mandates like 90% carbon capture are not adequately demonstrated, not cost-effective at scale, and would force investment in technology that simply isn’t ready for prime time.
The timelines for building the required infrastructure, like new pipelines and large-scale CCS, are unrealistic, given current permitting, supply chain, and workforce constraints.
The old one-size-fits-all approach ignored states’ unique grid, generation mix, and reliability needs, while sector-wide mandates go far beyond what the law allows. EPA should stick to source-specific regulation.
The repeal restores state authority and cooperative federalism, respecting the constitutional and statutory limits on EPA’s power.
Grid reliability is already under strain from rising electricity demand. These rules threatened to force premature retirement of reliable generation and drive up costs for consumers.
Ask EPA to include severability language, ensuring that if any part of the repeal is challenged in court, the rest of the rule can still stand.
The bottom line: Comments from state-level experts aren’t just welcome, they’re needed to get this rollback right and restore practical, state-led energy regulation.
How to Comment
Deadline: August 7, 2025
Click here to comment.