EPA Administrator Lee Zelding proposing end to Obama-Biden “Clean Power Plan” and reverting back to more reasonable mercury levels set in 2012, which were amended in 2024.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
The Trump administration recently announced its intention to rescind key Biden-era EPA rules that regulate greenhouse gas emissions and mercury pollution from coal and natural gas power plants that stem from the 2015 Obama “Clean Power Plan”, Biden’s “Clean Power Plan 2.0”, and the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that these regulations were seen as overly burdensome to industry and were stifling economic growth. The proposed rollback would eliminate caps on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants and future natural gas plants, as well as relax limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news conference that Biden-era carbon pollution standards for power plants “suffocate” the economy in order to protect the environment. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, stated that the agency’s announcement was a huge step forward in energy dominance for the U.S., while promising that no power plants would emit more than they already do. Currently, the power sector accounts for a quarter of all U.S. emissions, according to the latest EPA emissions data.
The proposed repeals are two of the most consequential moves from Trump’s EPA as the administration continues dismantling Biden-era climate and clean energy policies. The reversal means that power plants that were slated to be retired will now continue running.
The agency didn’t announce any intent to rewrite regulations to replace the Biden rules on carbon emissions, which could effectively leave carbon emissions from US power plants unregulated if the proposed repeal is finalized. Zeldin announced the agency will revise the rule on mercury and other toxic air pollution, proposing to get rid of a Biden-era rule finalized last year.
Power plants are the second-biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution in the United States, making up around a quarter of the country’s climate pollution. US power plants alone contribute 3% of total global climate pollution.
By seeking to repeal the carbon rules with no replacement, the administration’s proposal is more sweeping than the power plant regulations finalized during Trump’s first term, Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental & Energy Law Program, told CNN.
It would result in aging coal plants operating for longer periods of time and allow new gas plants to be built with looser pollution restrictions, Jenks said.
“You’re starting to see coal fired power plants that were expected to retire continue to operate,” Jenks added.
Zeldin officially declared the end to the Biden era war on the American energy industry.
Eco-activist agitators and leftist power-mongers who want to control Americans through environmental regulations are upset.
Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals “yet another in a series of attacks” by the Trump administration on the nation’s “health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.”
She called it “unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.”
“Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,’’ added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we’ll see them in court.”
However, I am inclined to think American health would be better served by the actions being taken by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as making energy inexpensive and readily available.
Environmental fear-mongering based on pseudoscience no longer has the power it once had.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The critics of Trump and Zeldin’s proposal should be aware of a few crucial and sobering forecasts. First the IEA reported that coal consumption globally grew 1.2% last year and predicts this type of slow increase will continue until at least 2035. A similar scenario is expected for liquid fuels; in fact, the world should expect surplus oil production for the next decade as well despite any growth in renewables. So once again we see the progressive world economies sticking with what works best and never mind the pie-in-the-sky assertions that wind and solar are on target to replace fossil fuels. That won’t happen for another half-century at best and unless there are a few major technological breakthroughs maybe not until 2100 or beyond.
I am proposing a new stretch target – 2100 by 2100. That is 2100ppmv CO2 by the year 2100. Is it possible? Can humanity find enough carbon and burn it to achieve that.
A target of that kind would boost global productivity by factors approaching an order of magnitude. The deserts would be all converted to rolling pastures and forests. The increase in biomass would support large herds of roaming animals. Probably enough for all humans to live off the land without organised farming and grazing. Just go out in the bush and collect what you need.
Right now China is doing most of the heavy lifting in restoring CO2 above survival levels. India is making a dent but the rest of the world, with the exception of USA, are turning their backs on this vital, life giving resource.
The Barmy Ami are with you dude-
‘Burn it all down’: Ami Horowitz exposes LA protestors wanting to ‘overturn the system’
Well let’s just say they’re open to the man with any plan.
I’m not sure we could ever get to 2100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere by maximizing the burning of fossil fuels.
A mass balance over the atmosphere shows that a net release of 8.0 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere would increase the concentration by 1 ppm.
If we assume that the concentrations measured at Mauna Loa were distributed evenly throughout the entire atmosphere, over the period from 1959 through 2023, a regression analysis shows that
dm/dt = E + 40.0 – 0.14 C
where
dm/dt = rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in year t, Gt/yr
E = total anthropogenic CO2 emission rate, Gt/yr
C = concentration at Mauna Loa in January of year t, ppm
This means that the algebraic sum of non-varying natural sources (minus) sinks add a net 40 Gt/yr of CO2 to the atmosphere, but the natural removal rate increases with CO2 concentration. At 430 ppm, natural sinks are removing a net 60.2 Gt/yr.
If we project this backward to the pre-industrial age and set man-made emissions E = 0, at equilibrium (dm/dt = 0) the concentration would be 40 / 0.14 = 286 ppm, which is close to IPCC’s estimate of 280 ppm.
Man-made emissions in 2022 were about 37 Gt/yr. If this emission rate remained constant into the future, the equilibrium concentration would be (37 + 40) / 0.14 = 550 ppm, but this level wouldn’t be reached until about AD 2200.
In order to reach 2100 ppm, the man-made CO2 emission rate would have to be 2100 * 0.14 – 40 = 254 Gt/yr, or nearly 7 times the emission rate in 2022. Could we really find enough fuel to generate that much CO2, and would we really need that much energy?
The good news about this energy balance is that, despite all the warnings about the temperature rise due to doubling CO2 concentration, it probably won’t occur until the end of the NEXT century (AD 2200), and may never occur. But the extra CO2 will improve crop yields and food production!
No, that won’t EVER happen. Wind and solar CANNOT “replace” anything. Intermittent, low-density energy can’t power modern civilization. Further, wind and solar are100% dependent upon coal, oil and gas for their very existence.
You can’t build windmills, solar panels, or batteries, nor can you provide the REQUIRED frequency modulation and 100% backup needed for grid parasites like wind and solar, without coal, oil and gas.
This will not happen ever. Pretending that this might happen is an attempt to perpetuate parasitic climate-industrial complex. “It will not happen right away, but it is a good idea, so let’s keep trying”.
No, it is a bad idea, and being as realistic as building a perpetual motion machine should be banned from any public funding.
Based on indigenous knowledge, someone ought to sacrifice Dr. Patel to a volcano.
Well, evidently, if we can avoid all pollution, we live forever.
Or at least that is how way too many scare stories are presented:
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-tiny-toxic-track-smaller-air.amp
Smaller particles are also easily expelled. It’s larger particles in the 3-5 micron range that can get into the lungs and stay there.
Well, we have a lot more pollution, but we live longer. Therefore, pollution is good for you.
We don’t have “more pollution,” because CO2 is NOT “pollution.”
We solved real air pollution issues by the 1990s. The air inside you dwelling is more “polluted” than outside air in the US.
Agreed. Not sure I’d say the same about Mercury.
As a ‘working fluid’, mercury vapor has many advantages to steam in terms of efficiency and corrosive properties. Of course, leaks can be problematic.😉
I did not say CO2 was pollution. I was making a joke.
“Power plants are the second-biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution in the United States, making up around a quarter of the country’s climate pollution. US power plants alone contribute 3% of total global climate pollution.”
Except for the fact that it is not “pollution”.
It is “pollution” in a religious sense, of violating Gaia worship.
Who gave the Clean Air Act such a capacious definition of “pollutant”? The U.S. SC ruled to allow it 5-4 in 2007.
By law “pollution” is defined as: “anything that’s somehow changing the natural composition of air/water/soil”. So, even if you would pour some distilled water into a river, it would be “pollution”.
So making the river infinitesimally purer is polluting it? That’s not a good definition.
I get your point, but rain is distilled water.
Is it?
The H2O vapor condenses around some type of particle such as dust.
When it gets heavy enough to fall, it dissolves a variety of gases (including CO2), and maybe some solids in the air as it falls.
It doesn’t hit the ground as distilled water.
CNN, the source of that quote, IS pollution.
It would be nice if the people who write these articles were clearer on where the quotes are coming from. The first two look to be from a CNN article, others are from elsewhere. It’s not difficult, just say “From CNN” with a link.
I think they should just keep saying “carbon pollution: and “climate pollution”. That way, more people will actually believe that these are true things,that actually exist in this world.
Dr. Patel doesn’t seem to understand that the number one health problem of all countries everywhere throughout history is a crippled economy with increasing poverty. Economic hardship on a national scale means increasing malnutrition and lowering health standards for everyone.
This is particularly the case when modern engineering is fully capable of filtering out ALL toxic emissions from coal combustion.Why would the good doctor lie to us about public health?
More good news.
“Lee Zelding” -> Zeldin
I think we should call him Lee Zing. That way, every time he does something awesome, we can just say ZING!
‘power plants are the second-biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution ..’
If you believe the fairy tale that CO2 is the wicked witch of the east, that is.
All of this derives from the zero linear threshold criteria, which is bogus.
Regretfully, this statement contains a partial truth but also unnecessarily concedes and perpetuates a huge lie.
Yes, “carbon pollution” standards for power plants suffocate the economy, particularly value-generating manufacturing economy.
But these standards do not protect the environment and were not instituted to protect the environment. They were created to skew the paying field in favor of parasitic climate-industrial complex.
Instead, Mr. Lee Zeldin should have clearly stated that:
1. There is no such thing as carbon pollution, that carbon pollution is imaginary, fake, a deliberately made up fraud.
2. There is no empirical evidence linking any observed warming to anthropogenic CO2.
3. Any concerns regarding the observed natural mild warming being detrimental are preposterous.
4. Nature only benefits from CO2 emissions improving ecosystems’ productivity.
Am I more qualified for EPA spokesman than Mr. Zeldin?