THE ENERGY INDUSTRY TIMES - OCTOBER 2026
16
Final Word
U
nder President Trump, this
administration will continue
reversing course on out-of-
touch Obama and Biden-era poli-
cies…” This was just one of the many
statements that came out of the US
government, following its announce-
ment to repeal the majority of the
previous Biden administration’s
greenhouse gas requirements for US
power plants. But with the global
trend being towards clean, mostly
renewable energy, there seems to be
a bit of an oxymoron somewhere in
that statement.
Last month, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Adminis-
trator Lee Zeldin used the G20 Ener-
gy Abundance Ministerial in Houston,
Texas, to say that it was essentially
gutting the 2024 Carbon Pollution
Standard (CPS). The CPS – a set of
rules enacted under the Biden admin-
istration – would have required fossil
fuel power plants to either signicant-
ly reduce or capture their emissions
in the coming years, or shut down.
The reasoning offered by the EPA
for its move, is that it “will restore
reliable and affordable baseload
power for the communities that de-
pend on them”. It also said “the trump
EPA” is taking these actions in accor-
dance with the law and “based on the
best reading of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)”. It claimed “EPA’s nal rule
is expected to unleash the full poten-
tial of America’s vast energy resourc-
es, including coal and natural gas.
Coal production for power sector use
is expected to increase by more than
10 times”.
Only the President and his admin-
istration truly know whether the de-
cision is politically driven. Its reason
– that the move is to best serve its
citizens by providing affordable, re-
liable electricity – is admirable. And
certainly, that is perhaps the prime
responsibility of any government.
But many would argue that either the
EPA’s reasoning for repealing the
CPS is awed, or the reasons given
are not the true driving force behind
the decision.
With reference to reliable baseload
power and altering emission restric-
tions on gas red plant, the argument
does hold some water.
As the power sector integrates more
renewables, gas is seen by many as a
transition fuel, until network system
operators deploy enough storage and
electronics to mitigate the impacts of
more volatile energy sources being
fed into the grid.
So although environmentalist could
quite rightly argue that building more
gas red plant as a bridging fuel runs
counter to the overriding need to halt
climate change, the push for more gas
is not entirely unreasonable. It may
be up for debate, but is understand-
able nonetheless.
The inclusion of coal power plants,
however, makes little sense on any
level. Indeed, the EPA press release
seems to be littered with statements
that run contrary to logic and actual
reality. The country has already re-
tired a large portion of its coal red
eet and replaced it with gas and re-
newables. Why? Because it makes
economic sense.
A quote attributed to Jarrod Agen,
Executive Director National Energy
Dominance Council (NEDC) notes:
“President Trump and Administrator
Zeldin have yet again taken real ac-
tion to save the American people
money on their electricity costs…”
But does it really?
According to the EPA, repealing the
2024 rules saves about $310 billion
in economy-wide social cost savings
based on its SAGE economic model.
The EPA also predicts an additional
$370 million in direct compliance
costs, in addition to the billions more
American families and businesses
can expect to see saved across the
economy. SAGE is an EPA computer
model that estimates how changes in
one sector can affect prices, spending,
production, and households across
the wider US economy.
But $310 billion does not mean
households will receive that amount
through lower electricity bills.
Compared with keeping the 2024
standards, average national retail
electricity prices are projected to be
0.7 per cent higher in 2030, then 5.8
per cent lower in 2035, 1.1 per cent
lower in 2040, and 2.6 per cent lower
in 2045.
These are national averages from a
computer model, not predictions for
individual households. Local bills
depend on regional power sources,
fuel prices, new construction, and
future electricity demand. The model
also makes assumptions about how
quickly plants can be built and how
companies plan investments. The
numbers therefore compare possible
futures rather than telling families
exactly what they will pay.
Notably, the EPA says SAGE does
not calculate how changes in environ-
mental quality affect the economy;
therefore the $310 billion gure does
not cover every consequence of the
repeal.
Environmental groups warn of
added deaths, higher health costs and
accelerated warming. The original
Biden rules were projected to prevent
thousands of premature deaths each
year by reducing not only carbon but
associated pollutants. The EPA now
says such links are too uncertain and
remote to tie specically to power
plants.
Some industry groups, however,
largely welcomed the news. The
Edison Electric Institute supported
repeal of the carbon capture require-
ments, saying it gives utilities exi-
bility. Operators can keep older coal
units running longer if market condi-
tions favour it. In states like Kentucky,
where coal remains economically
vital, the decision came as a boost.
Environmentalist would argue that
the only boost worth mentioning is
the boost to greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Bloomberg reported that
combined Trump rollbacks could set
US emissions cuts back by roughly a
decade. Additional carbon dioxide
could total a gigaton or more by 2040.
The exact trajectory depends on
technology costs, state policies and
global markets.
Yet for some, carbon emissions re-
main off the radar. Certainly, the EPA
proposal does nothing for global ef-
forts to tackle climate change, and
came just after the UN conrmed the
world was on course to shoot past the
Paris climate agreement threshold
“likely within the next couple years”.
Anne Rasmussen, lead climate nego-
tiator for the Alliance of Small Island
States (Aosis), whose members are
vulnerable to climate change, said it
was vital the world makes the shift
from fossil fuels and “deploy every
available solution to cut emissions
rapidly”.
But this will be of little concern to
President Trump, who has repeatedly
called climate change a “scam” and
a “hoax”.
Earlier this year the EPA repealed
the 2009 endangerment nding. That
nding had declared greenhouse
gases a threat to public health and
welfare. Its removal cleared the way
for broad rollbacks. The administra-
tion has already repealed vehicle
greenhouse gas standards. Power
plants represent the latest and perhaps
most important target. If America’s
power sector were a country, it would
rank among the world’s top emitters.
Despite the EPA’s denial of climate
change and fossil fuels’ contribution
to it, it will not change the ultimate
future of the power sector. The ad-
ministration may deect to China’s
continuing coal plant build, without
citing the country’s massive invest-
ment in renewables, but it will do
little to change the facts. The US’
move away from coal will continue
because it makes economic sense.
Many utilities already invest in re-
newables and gas because they are
cheaper on new builds.
A recent analysis by Lazard shows
unsubsidised renewable energy re-
mains the most cost-competitive
form of new-build generation on a
levelised cost of energy (LCOE) ba-
sis. It also says wind, solar and storage
are expected to continue to account
for the majority of near-term US ca-
pacity additions given their relatively
short deployment timeline.
So, with or without power plant
emissions regulations, clean energy
will continue to displace fossil fuels,
especially coal.
Some leaders are forward-thinking
– willing to embrace the clean energy
future and the societal and economic
benets it brings. Others are just not
– old fossils, hell-bent on hanging on
to the past even when it ies in the
face of economics, common sense
and a new reality that continues to
unfold around them, regardless of
their actions.
That old fossil…
Junior Isles
Cartoon by Jem Soar
“
