Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its repeal of the tightened 2024 air pollution standards for power plants, projecting $670 million in savings.
Environmental and legal experts criticized this claim as a sign of flawed accounting under the Trump administration, as the EPA no longer considers public health benefits of regulations, focusing only on costs to companies.
“If you only look at one side of the ledger, it’s always going to come out one way,” said John Walke, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council and former EPA attorney.
The standards limited emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The EPA stated the repeal would mean “savings for American families in the form of lower everyday living costs.”
However, the rule’s cost to most companies would have been minor, said Walke. The $670 million is divided across nearly 200 plants, with a significant portion affecting the outdated Colstrip Steam Electric Station in Montana.
“That would be one of the cheapest Clean Air Act rules adopted in a generation,” Walke said. “This was an ideological policy consistent with this administration’s agenda that no compliance cost is worth spending.”
Many plants already met the standards, said Nicholas Morales, senior attorney at Earthjustice. “By removing the new standards, the administration is rewarding the few coal plants that refused to clean up.”
In 2024, the Biden-era EPA estimated the tougher standards would create $300 million in health benefits and $130 million in climate benefits, costing companies $860 million between 2028 and 2037. Air pollutants from these plants, including lead and arsenic, pose cancer risks and other health hazards.
EPA’s 2026 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the repeal lists health impacts from particulate matter, such as heart attacks and strokes. However, it stated that “the EPA did not quantify or monetize these health effects.”
The repeal “ensures the continuation of the 2012 MATS requirements,” an EPA spokesperson said, highlighting the standards’ role in protecting “public health and the environment.” By repealing the 2024 standards, “EPA is fulfilling its core mission without compromising America’s energy or economic prosperity.”
Reviving the coal industry has been a priority during President Trump’s terms. He’s forced aging coal plants to keep operating and invested in modernizing them. In February, coal industry leaders awarded him a trophy labeled “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”
America’s Power CEO Michelle Bloodworth stated the EPA’s rollback is “an important step toward maintaining reliable electricity and supporting the coal-based generation.”
Rachel Gleason, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, noted that 23 states challenged the 2024 amendments in court, arguing the standards were “impossible” and threatened the coal industry. Gleason criticized the technology requirements as “unnecessary.”
Part of the 2024 standards involved updating monitoring equipment to continuous systems. Kevin Cromar, an NYU professor, said, “It’s not a large cost and actually beneficial, as it helps operators identify issues sooner.”
Earlier, the Trump administration granted 47 power plants a two-year exemption from the 2024 standards, citing “severe burdens” on companies and threats to the coal industry’s viability.
Cromar and researchers at the University of Washington found the exemption would lead to 2,500 more tons of pollution and increased premature death in certain areas.
Pennsylvania, home to 14 coal-fired power plants, has a legacy of coal pollution. Tom Schuster, director of the Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania chapter, expressed concern over potential setbacks to the progress made since the 2012 standards were implemented, which significantly cut mercury emissions. Mercury remains a leading cause of waterway pollution in Pennsylvania.
“Most plants are already complying,” Schuster said. “By eliminating the need to demonstrate compliance, they’re given an opportunity to cut corners.”
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org