The United States Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will stop restricting the greenhouse gas emissions from gas- and coal-fired power plants. University of Michigan experts are available to discuss the consequences of this move.
Catie Hausman is a professor of public policy whose work focuses on environmental and energy economics. Recent projects have examined inequality and environmental quality, the natural gas sector's role in methane leaks, the impact of climate change on the electricity grid, and the effects of nuclear power plant closures.
"With new records being set for global temperatures, limiting carbon dioxide emissions is as important as ever," Hausman said. "Slowing down climate change is good for the economy, and it's good for Americans' health and well-being. Electricity generation is already a major source of CO2, and this could worsen as electricity usage grows.
"Economists have long supported regulating pollution from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In February, an overwhelming majority of surveyed economists agreed with the statement, 'The weight of economic analysis and evidence supports the conclusion that some form of regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is warranted.' Now is not the time to roll back climate regulations on U.S. power plants."
Rachel Rothschild is an assistant professor of law. Her scholarship sits at the intersection of environmental law, history and policy.
"On Monday, Sept. 14, 2026, the Trump administration finalized a repeal of the Biden administration's greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants," Rothschild said. "The EPA did so on two primary grounds. It claimed that the Biden regulation was based on technological controls that had not been adequately demonstrated and that the timeline for achieving the emissions reductions was too fast. Yet the Biden administration put forward an extensive technical justification for its standards, and the Trump EPA will certainly face a legal challenge on the rationality of the repeal. Notably, the Trump administration's rescission on these grounds would not bind a future administration from making an alternative technical judgment and issuing new standards.
"However, the administration simultaneously issued a new proposal for why EPA does not have any legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, which would prevent a future administration from controlling these emissions if finalized and upheld by the courts. The agency is now arguing that greenhouse gases may not be 'reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare'; the Clean Air Act requires EPA to make such a finding before regulating power plant emissions under this provision of the law.
"In my view, EPA's actions are at odds with the Clean Air Act, legal precedent on the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and EPA's mission to protect the public from harmful pollution. Climate change represents the most significant environmental threat of our lifetime. It is disappointing to see the agency dismantling regulations to address the problem and characterizing the resulting public health harms as remote and uncertain. We are already feeling severe effects from a warmer world, and history will not look back kindly on those who downplayed climate change to boost the fossil fuel industry."
Andy Hoffman is the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, a position that holds joint appointments at the Ross School of Business and School for Environment and Sustainability.
"This administration continues to act on the belief that climate change is not real," Hoffman said. "This, despite the extreme weather events that are increasing in frequency and severity in the U.S. and around the world. This increase is being tracked by the world's scientists and scientific agencies, and, importantly, it is being tracked by the world's insurance and reinsurance companies who are adjusting their underwriting practices as a result.
"While this denial of the problem may help save money for the power industry in the short term, it is raising costs in the insurance sector and, therefore, for every household that has to pay for property insurance. That increased an average of between 9% and 11% annually nationwide in 2023, 2024 and 2025, with some states, including Texas, Arizona and Utah, seeing nearly double that increase.
"And it isn't just premiums that are changing. Insurers now often reduce coverage limits, cap payouts, increase deductibles and impose new conditions or even exclusions on some common perils, such as protection for wind, hail or water damage to cover costs. Some require certain preventive measures or apply risk-based pricing—charging more for homes in flood plains, wildfire-prone zones or coastal areas at risk of hurricanes. And, of course, these people will pay for the costs of climate impacts where roughly 50% of weather-related economic damage in the U.S. is uninsured.
"We need leadership and sensible policies to address the environmental and economic risks over the long term, and to help industries make the necessary steps to remain competitive in the markets of the future—not only in the power sector, but across the economy in autos, agriculture and elsewhere."
Parth Vaishnav is an assistant professor of environment and sustainability. His research is focused on environmental and human health consequences of energy production and use, and his team works to find strategies to decarbonize the economy and to make climate mitigation and adaptation equitable.
"Americans want energy that is both clean and cheap. This change will make it dirtier," Vaishnav said. "Fine particulate pollution from coal-fired power plants killed 460,000 Americans prematurely between 1999 and 2020. Rules to control this pollution saves lives; eliminating them endangers lives. American manufacturers will fall behind in the race to supply the world with the technologies of the future; that gap will be filled by our economic competitors. If it removes the impetus for clean power generation, the federal government will make Americans sicker and poorer."
Jonathan Overpeck, an interdisciplinary climate scientist and dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability, is an expert on climate and weather extremes, sea-level rise, the impacts of climate change and options for dealing with it. He served as a lead author on the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 and 2014 reports.
"Removing climate pollution emission limits on fossil fuel plants means the U.S. and world will have to face more devastating climate change in the future," Overpeck said. "This means more frequent and severe heatwaves, storms, flooding, droughts, wildfires and more. This means more economic pain, health issues and deaths related to climate change. It will likely mean more expensive power for many Americans. And it will also likely make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the rapidly expanding global markets aimed at stopping climate change from getting worse.
"Clean energy solutions are now the most affordable and are taking the place of fossil fuel solutions, cleaning up the air we breathe and halting climate change. To invest more in fossil fuels is a huge national failure that will hurt generations of Americans for decades to come."
Gregory Keoleian is a professor of environment and sustainability and of civil and environmental engineering, and co-founder/co-director of the Center for Sustainable Systems, as well as co-director of MI Hydrogen, U-M's hydrogen initiative. He develops life-cycle models to analyze decarbonization pathways and accelerate sustainability solutions for clean energy transitions, alternative vehicle technologies, buildings and infrastructure, and food systems. He can speak to the administration's actions that slow and reverse climate and sustainability progress in automotive, energy and more.
"The proposed policy is reckless and irresponsible and is another action by the administration to reverse U.S. progress in addressing climate pollution and the climate crisis," Keoleian said. "Power plants are responsible for one-quarter of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are directly responsible for climate change impacts that are increasing in intensity and frequency.
"In 2009, the EPA issued its science-based finding that the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare. The endangerment finding requires the EPA to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources.
"This proposed action would hurt U.S. economic competitiveness, take away clean energy jobs, reverse decarbonization progress, and will ultimately result in greater climate-change-related damages and costs to society—for example, from flooding, wildfires, droughts, insurance risks, human health effects. Costs from weather and climate disasters including droughts, wildfires, flooding and health effects are increasing in the U.S. In 2024, there were 27 individual weather and climate disasters with at least $1 billion in damages totaling $183 billion."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tom Luben is a senior research scientist in epidemiology at the School of Public Health. He is also a former senior epidemiologist at the EPA. His research focuses on air pollution, health disparities and the health effects of environmental exposures.
"Repealing federal limits on climate pollution from coal and gas power plants is a giant step backward for public health. Power plants are known sources of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants, and health effects due to climate change are increasing across the country. Repealing the endangerment finding will only harm the health of the American people," Luben said. "As an Office of Research and Development scientist at EPA, I conducted research showing that when pollution from power plants is reduced, there can be real health benefits. I also co-authored research demonstrating that the pollution burdens associated with coal-fired power plants were not shared equally.
"People living in poverty and in BIPOC communities faced the greatest burdens, even after many plants reduced operations or retired. The repeal will make such disparities even greater."
Written by Matt Davenport and Jeff Karoub, U-M news
