This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News. 

• • EPA scraps Biden-era carbon and mercury limits for power plants, citing economic and energy reliability concerns.

• • The rollback reverses 2024 Clean Air Act amendments, drawing support from coal-dependent states and industrial leaders.

• • Environmental advocates warn against increased emissions, public health risks, and climate repercussions.

• • Legal battles loom, with groups arguing EPA’s proposal violates its duty to regulate pollutants under existing law.

• • The move marks a Trump administration shift toward fossil fuels and a rollback of federal climate policies.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced a sweeping plan to eliminate caps on greenhouse gases and mercury emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, a decisive pivot away from Biden-era climate policies. The proposal, spearheaded by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, aims to boost energy production and economic activity while rejecting what Zeldin called “extreme climate mandates.” The decision reverses stringent standards set under the Obama and Biden administrations, and unfolds as President Donald Trump’s second term leans heavily on coal, oil, and gas to fuel an energy renaissance.

The regulatory reversal: Ending “green new scam” or igniting climate crisis?

Zeldin’s plan targets two primary Biden-era rules: the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which regulated toxic pollutants like mercury from coal plants, and the Clean Power Plan 2.0, which mandated steep carbon cuts for existing coal facilities and new gas plants. Repeal of these rules would allow aging facilities to operate longer without carbon constraints, permit new natural gas plants to bypass emissions limits, and relax curbs on mercury, a neurotoxin linked to developmental issues in children.

The EPA Administrator framed the shift as a return to “energy sanity,” arguing that “impractical regulations have harmed grid reliability and cost jobs.” Critics of the Biden policies, including Republican governors from coal-dependent states like West Virginia and Kentucky, praised the move. “This ends the war on affordable, reliable energy,” said Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, calling the prior rules “destructive” to coal communities.

Economic rebirth or environmental peril?

Proponents of the rollback argue that relaxing emissions standards will revive moribund coal regions, stabilize energy costs, and buttress industries reliant on affordable power. American Coal Council CEO Emily Arthun emphasized coal’s “fuel-secure” role in an era of surging electricity demand from AI and manufacturing. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and steel trade groups praised the proposal, warning that Biden’s “unworkable” rules threatened electric-grid stability and manufacturing competitiveness.

Yet environmentalists and public health advocates derided the proposal as a “death sentence” for climate action. “This is unconscionable,” said Dr. Lisa Patel of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health. “By rolling back mercury protections, you’re putting children, the elderly, and vulnerable communities in harm’s way.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also condemned the plan, asserting it ignores legal obligations to regulate greenhouse gases under the 2007 Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA. “If finalized,” warned NRDC’s Manish Bapna, “we’ll challenge it in court.”

A return to “Trump energy dominance” or legal quagmire?

The EPA’s proposal is part of a broader Trump strategy to dismantle Obama-Biden climate initiatives, including overturning emissions limits for vehicles and oil-and-gas operations. Zeldin’s team claims the agency is merely adhering to legislative intent, arguing power plants do not “significantly contribute” to “dangerous” air pollution levels under the Clean Air Act. However, Harvard energy experts note the move goes further than Trump’s first-term rollbacks, effectively deregulating carbon emissions. “You’re essentially allowing plants to emit more,” said Carrie Jenks, citing projections of extended coal-plant lifespans and 3% global climate pollution from U.S. power plants.

Legal challenges are all but guaranteed. Earthjustice and other groups argue the EPA lacks the authority to ignore greenhouse gas controls once they’ve been established under the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, states like New York and California are expected to sue, claiming the rollback violates environmental justice mandates.

From “war on coal” to energy reset

The EPA’s actions echo Trump’s 2017 Executive Order 13783, which sought to dismantle federal climate policies. Now, in his second term, Trump frames the energy debate as a patriotism issue, touting “American energy dominance” amid global fossil fuel reliance. Zeldin’s staff point to the Supreme Court’s 2022 West Virginia v. EPA decision, which barred the agency from mandating an “energy transformation” without explicit congressional approval. “The law is on our side,” said Zeldin.

Opponents counter that the 2024 MATS rule, opposed in the proposed rollback, was based on peer-reviewed science estimating reduced mercury emissions would save $9 billion yearly in health costs. Its reversal, they argue, revives coal plants linked to 1 in 10 U.S. deaths from air pollution. Climate experts note that carbon-intensive power plants remain the nation’s second-largest greenhouse gas source, with the Midwest and South bearing disproportionate climate and health burdens.

Grid reliability or climate stakes — a fractured future?

Zeldin’s pronouncement signals a stark ideological divide over energy and the environment. For energy firms and GOP-backed states, Wednesday marked relief from “regulatory overreach.” For activists, it was a step toward gridlock-induced “coal renaissance” with severe health and climate consequences. With public comment open and legal battles looming, the U.S. now confronts a stark choice: prioritize near-term energy demands or brace for longer-term global ecological pressures.