Clean Power Plants: 2024 EPA Rules, Repeal, and Litigation

The EPA power plant emissions rules currently on the books were finalized by the Biden administration on May 9, 2024, and require most coal plants operating past 2039 to capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide by 2032, along with similar eventual requirements for new baseload natural gas plants.¹ Those rules remain in force but face two simultaneous threats: ongoing litigation in the D.C. Circuit, and an active repeal effort by the second Trump administration that also targets the 2009 endangerment finding underlying the entire federal framework for regulating greenhouse gases.

What the 2024 Rules Require

The Biden EPA structured the 2024 standards around how long a fossil fuel-fired plant intends to keep running. Carbon capture and sequestration was designated the “best system of emission reduction,” a technology applied at individual plants rather than a grid-wide shift in generation sources.²

Existing coal plants operating past 2039 must achieve 90 percent carbon dioxide capture by 2032, an 88.4 percent reduction in emission rates.
Coal plants retiring between 2032 and 2039 can instead co-fire 40 percent natural gas.
Coal plants retiring before 2032 are exempt.
New baseload natural gas plants operating above 40 percent capacity must eventually meet emission rates equivalent to 90 percent carbon capture.

The EPA cited falling CCS costs and the Inflation Reduction Act’s enhanced 45Q tax credit — worth $85 per metric ton of CO2 stored in saline formations — as evidence the technology was economically feasible.³⁴ Credits are available for projects that begin construction before January 1, 2033, and can be claimed for up to 12 years.⁵

Critics including the Edison Electric Institute have argued CCS is not a “fully mature technology” ready for deployment at the scale required by 2032.² Analysis by the Rhodium Group projected most coal plants — roughly 180 gigawatts of capacity — would retire in the early 2030s rather than retrofit, with only 4 to 6 percent of coal capacity installing CCS.⁶

Why the Rules Are Built Around Carbon Capture

The 2024 rules look the way they do because of a 2022 Supreme Court decision. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court ruled 6–3 that the Obama-era Clean Power Plan had exceeded the agency’s authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act by trying to force a shift in generation from coal to natural gas and renewables. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, applied what the Court called the “major questions doctrine”: when an agency claims authority over matters of vast economic and political significance, courts should demand “clear congressional authorization” rather than infer it from vague statutory language.⁷

The ruling left the EPA with authority to set emission standards, but only based on measures that individual plants could apply at their own facilities. Carbon capture fits that description; forcing a plant to close and be replaced by wind or solar does not. That is why the Biden EPA anchored its 2024 rules in CCS and natural gas co-firing rather than the generation-shifting approach the Court struck down.

The legal terrain grew harder for agencies again on June 28, 2024, when the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Under the new standard, courts exercise “independent judgment” on questions of law rather than deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.⁸ Any EPA reading of terms like “best system of emission reduction” now has to survive a court’s own analysis, not just clear the bar of reasonableness. Legal scholars have noted agencies are likely to be far less willing to apply older statutes to modern problems like climate change under this combined standard.⁹

The Trump Administration’s Repeal Effort

On June 17, 2025, the EPA published a proposed rule to repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. The agency’s central argument was that greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants — which it put at roughly 3 percent of global emissions — do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution and lack “cost-effective control measures.”¹⁰

As a fallback, the EPA proposed narrower measures: eliminating the 90 percent CCS mandate for coal plants and the 40 percent natural gas co-firing requirement, calling them not “adequately demonstrated” and “unreasonably costly.” The agency estimated the repeal would save $19 billion in compliance costs over 20 years while acknowledging forgone health benefits between $76 billion and $130 billion.¹⁰ CO2-related benefits were excluded from the analysis, following an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy.”

The public comment period closed on August 7, 2025. The administration missed its target of finalizing the repeal by the end of 2025, citing a 43-day government shutdown, and a final rule is expected in early 2026.¹¹

Rescission of the Endangerment Finding

The broader move against greenhouse gas regulation is the EPA’s February 12, 2026 final rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, which the agency called the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” The 2009 finding — that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare — is the legal foundation for every federal greenhouse gas rule under the Clean Air Act, including the power plant standards. The rescission immediately eliminated greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles, with the agency estimating savings above $1.3 trillion.¹²

The EPA argued the original 2009 finding had “overstated the connection between U.S. vehicle emissions and global climate harms” and “understated the uncertainty and possible benefits of higher CO2 levels.” A 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences reaffirmed the scientific consensus on greenhouse gases and climate change. Legal scholars at Georgetown have noted the repeal removes the “federal floor” for climate governance, shifting responsibility to states and potentially reopening state-law nuisance claims against major emitters that federal regulation had previously preempted.¹³ The rescission is expected to face significant litigation.

Where the Litigation Stands

Within days of finalization, 27 states and multiple industry groups filed suit against the 2024 rules, arguing the EPA had exceeded its authority and relied on unproven technology.¹⁴ Challengers included a coalition of Republican state attorneys general, utilities such as American Electric Power and Duke Energy, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the National Mining Association.¹⁵ Their core argument invokes West Virginia v. EPA: that the rules effectively force plant closures without clear congressional authorization.

A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel unanimously rejected a request for an emergency stay in July 2024.¹⁴ On October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court also declined to block the rule. Justice Clarence Thomas would have granted the stay. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch expressed “sympathy for the challengers’ arguments” but reasoned that compliance deadlines were years away and the D.C. Circuit was moving quickly.¹⁵ The D.C. Circuit held roughly three hours of oral argument in early December 2024 and had not issued a decision before the incoming administration took office.¹⁶

Opposition to the proposed repeal has been substantial. The U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 state governors, submitted comments in August 2025 asserting the proposal “flouts the federal government’s legal obligation under the Clean Air Act” and “ignores the science.” The Alliance noted that its member states had collectively cut electricity-sector carbon pollution by 45 percent since 2005.¹⁷ The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University submitted comments arguing that the EPA’s determination that power plant emissions do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous pollution was “inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute” and that the agency had improperly injected cost and policy considerations into what should be a “purely scientific judgment.” A separate letter from CCS scientists and engineers called the agency’s claim that 90 percent capture was not “adequately demonstrated” “wholly unsupported.”¹⁸

On June 26, 2026, the D.C. Circuit rejected a separate Trump EPA effort to invalidate a 2024 rule tightening limits on soot pollution from coal plants, calling the agency’s arguments lacking in “merit.”¹⁹ Courts are applying the same standards to deregulatory action that they applied to the Biden-era rules.

What This Means for Coal Plants

Whatever happens to the emission standards, the coal fleet has been shrinking on its own. U.S. coal-fired generating capacity has fallen 48 percent from its 2011 peak of 317.6 gigawatts to 164.6 gigawatts at the end of 2025. Coal generation dropped to 15.6 percent of U.S. electricity in 2024, for the first time trailing the combined output of utility-scale wind and solar at 16.2 percent. In 2025, power companies scheduled the closure or conversion of 23 coal-fired units totaling over 9,300 megawatts, with the average retiring unit at 50 years old.²⁰

The Trump administration has pushed back directly. Throughout 2025, the Department of Energy issued 16 emergency orders under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to keep power plants running, most of them coal facilities in states including Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Washington, and Pennsylvania.²¹ Energy Secretary Chris Wright said “the goal is to stop the political closure of coal plants.”²² The stated rationale is preventing blackouts and meeting rising electricity demand driven largely by data centers.²³

Some of the affected plant owners have fought back. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Platte River Power Authority, owners of the Craig Generating Station in Colorado, filed a request for rehearing arguing that DOE’s order was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation and was “arbitrary and capricious” in forcing them to run an uneconomical plant without evidence of a genuine emergency. The Sierra Club and Earthjustice have also challenged the orders in federal court.²⁴ As of early 2026, two of the coal units ordered to keep operating were broken, with uncertain timelines for repair.²²

The EIA projects coal’s share of U.S. electricity declining from 17 percent in 2025 to 15 percent in 2027, with renewables rising from 24 to 27 percent and natural gas holding steady around 40 percent.²⁵ Most new generating capacity being built is solar and battery storage.²³ Whether the 2024 emission standards ultimately survive, are repealed, or are replaced by something new, the direction of the fleet has been set by economics as much as by regulation.

1
Federal Register. New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units
2
World Resources Institute. EPA Power Plant Rules Explained
3
U.S. EPA. Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution From Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants
4
Clean Air Task Force. The Inflation Reduction Act Creates a Whole New Market for Carbon Capture
5
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 45Q Tax Credits and CCS Projections
6
Rhodium Group. EPA Power Plant Standards
7
U.S. Supreme Court. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697
8
U.S. Supreme Court. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
9
Stanford Law School. Stanford’s Deborah Sivas on SCOTUS Loper Decision
10
Federal Register. Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units
11
E&E News. Trump Gutted Climate Rules in 2025. He Could Make It Permanent in 2026
12
U.S. EPA. Final Rule: Rescission of Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding
13
Georgetown Environmental Law Review. After EPA’s Repeal of the Endangerment Finding: Climate Governance Without a Federal Floor
14
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Allows EPA Emissions Rule to Stand While Litigation Continues
15
Utility Dive. Supreme Court Rejects Emergency Stay of EPA Power Plant Carbon Rule
16
E&E News. 5 Takeaways From the Biden Carbon Rules’ Big Day at the DC Circuit
17
U.S. Climate Alliance. EPA Power Plants Letter
18
Columbia Law School. Sabin Center Submits Comment Letters on EPA’s Proposed Repeal of Power Plant GHG Emission Standards
19
U.S. News. US Court Rejects EPA Bid to Ease Regulations for Coal-Fired Power Plants
20
IEEFA. Drumbeat of Coal Plant Closures Continues in 2025
21
U.S. Department of Energy. 2025 DOE 202(c) Orders
22
New York Times. Trump Coal Plants
23
U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Electricity Demand Growth
24
Utility Dive. DOE Emergency Order: Craig Colorado Coal
25
Reuters. US Power Use to Beat Record Highs in 2026, 2027 as AI Use Surges