EPA’s Power Plant Rollbacks: Repeal with a Safety Net

On June 17, the EPA released proposed rules that would repeal two major Biden-era air regulations for power plants: greenhouse gas (GHG) limits and stricter mercury and air toxics standards (MATS). At first glance, these proposals look like a direct revival of Trump-era energy policy–deregulation aimed at preserving fossil fuel generation, boosting energy independence, and walking back climate commitments.

But a closer look tells a different story.

Both proposals include “backup” or alternative pathways that stop short of a full repeal. EPA appears to be hedging its bets. In the GHG proposal, the agency floats the possibility of scrapping key carbon rules without going so far as to argue that power plant emissions don’t warrant regulation at all. The alternative proposal skips the claim that GHGs do not "significantly contribute" to climate harms, which many say is legally vulnerable and unlikely to survive in court.

In the MATS rollback, EPA again invites public input on “achievable” and “cost-effective” standards. This could signal a willingness to revise the rule, rather than eliminate it. While the agency claims the 2024 MATS updates are too costly, it is also acknowledging that most facilities already comply with the more stringent limits. That undercuts the argument for a full repeal.

Legal observers are already calling out flaws in EPA’s broader claims. The idea that one of the largest GHG-emitting sectors in the world does not significantly contribute to public health risks is a hard sell. Critics say this rationale directly conflicts with recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which emphasized that agencies cannot substitute policy preferences for clear statutory interpretation.

So why include such sweeping arguments?

Some see it as political signaling. Others think it may be an opening bid in negotiations with courts and industry. Either way, EPA is structuring these proposals with built-in legal fallback positions. That gives the agency a path forward even if its boldest claims are struck down.

For energy developers, utilities, and environmental lawyers, these details matter. The outcome may not be a full repeal or a full defense of the Biden-era rules, but something more complex. What survives will shape compliance costs, investment decisions, and regulatory enforcement across the energy sector.