Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

EPA mulls tougher limits on new gas plants as 2024 election nears

News Feed
Tuesday, April 9, 2024

The Environmental Protection Agency is considering significantly strengthening proposed limits on planet-warming pollution from power plants — a crucial part of President Biden’s climate agenda — according to three people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no final decisions have been made.The discussions about toughening the standards, which are set to be released this month, have major implications for America’s fleet of power plants, which rank as the country’s second-largest contributor to climate change. They come as the administration weighs the political calculus of weakening or strengthening environmental regulations before the 2024 election.In some cases, the Biden administration has finalized rules that are less stringent than the original proposals. With power plants, it appears to be heading in the opposite direction.In May 2023, the EPA issued a proposed rule that called for drastically curbing greenhouse gas emissions from three categories of power plants: existing coal plants, existing gas plants and new gas plants. But in February, the agency said the final rule would no longer cover existing gas plants, disappointing some environmental advocates.Now, EPA officials are considering strengthening the requirements for new gas plants, according to the people familiar with the matter. Specifically, officials are in talks about having the final rule apply to new large gas plants that operate more than 40 percent of the time, rather than those that operate 50 percent of the time as the proposal had envisioned.The change could affect the majority of new gas plants built in the United States, and it could have a significant climate impact. According to the EPA’s modeling, it could prevent up to 10.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year — equivalent to taking 2.5 million cars off the nation’s roads for a year.EPA spokesman Tim Carroll declined to comment for this story, citing ongoing deliberations. “The draft final rule is currently with the Office of Management and Budget under interagency review,” he said in an email.Many utility companies are planning for a surge in gas plant construction to meet explosive power demand fueled by electricity-hungry data centers, and the EPA rule could affect these plans. In contrast, many coal plants are shutting down regardless of federal regulations, as they struggle to compete economically with cheaper gas and renewable energy.The owner of the last two coal plants in New England announced last month that the facilities will close by 2025 and 2028 as part of a settlement with environmental groups. The Merrimack and Schiller stations, both in New Hampshire, will be converted to solar farms and battery systems that can store electricity generated by wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean.“Coal plants are barely hanging on economically without this rule,” said Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters. “In most places across the country, new renewable sources of power are cheaper than continuing to run a coal plant.”The League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups had urged the EPA to toughen the power plant standards. In contrast, the Edison Electric Institute, the top lobbying group for U.S. utilities, had argued in public comments that overly ambitious rules could delay the construction of gas plants and undermine the reliability of the electric grid.The Biden administration has recently weakened other climate rules in the face of mounting political pressure and threatened legal challenges. Last month, the EPA finalized emissions limits for passenger cars that gave automakers more time to ramp up sales of electric vehicles — an election-year concession to labor unions that had raised concerns about a rapid shift to EVs.Also last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a scaled-back rule requiring corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and contributions to climate change. Unlike the proposal, the final rule does not mandate the disclosure of emissions generated by customers and suppliers, which can account for the vast majority of oil companies’ carbon footprints.Republican attorneys general and business groups nonetheless challenged the SEC rule in federal court, arguing that the commission lacks the authority to force companies to weigh in on “controversial” climate issues. The SEC on Thursday paused the rule’s implementation pending the outcome of the legal battles.

The Environmental Protection Agency is considering strengthening a climate rule for coal- and gas-fired power plants, people familiar with the matter say.

The Environmental Protection Agency is considering significantly strengthening proposed limits on planet-warming pollution from power plants — a crucial part of President Biden’s climate agenda — according to three people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no final decisions have been made.

The discussions about toughening the standards, which are set to be released this month, have major implications for America’s fleet of power plants, which rank as the country’s second-largest contributor to climate change. They come as the administration weighs the political calculus of weakening or strengthening environmental regulations before the 2024 election.

In some cases, the Biden administration has finalized rules that are less stringent than the original proposals. With power plants, it appears to be heading in the opposite direction.

In May 2023, the EPA issued a proposed rule that called for drastically curbing greenhouse gas emissions from three categories of power plants: existing coal plants, existing gas plants and new gas plants. But in February, the agency said the final rule would no longer cover existing gas plants, disappointing some environmental advocates.

Now, EPA officials are considering strengthening the requirements for new gas plants, according to the people familiar with the matter. Specifically, officials are in talks about having the final rule apply to new large gas plants that operate more than 40 percent of the time, rather than those that operate 50 percent of the time as the proposal had envisioned.

The change could affect the majority of new gas plants built in the United States, and it could have a significant climate impact. According to the EPA’s modeling, it could prevent up to 10.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions per year — equivalent to taking 2.5 million cars off the nation’s roads for a year.

EPA spokesman Tim Carroll declined to comment for this story, citing ongoing deliberations. “The draft final rule is currently with the Office of Management and Budget under interagency review,” he said in an email.

Many utility companies are planning for a surge in gas plant construction to meet explosive power demand fueled by electricity-hungry data centers, and the EPA rule could affect these plans. In contrast, many coal plants are shutting down regardless of federal regulations, as they struggle to compete economically with cheaper gas and renewable energy.

The owner of the last two coal plants in New England announced last month that the facilities will close by 2025 and 2028 as part of a settlement with environmental groups. The Merrimack and Schiller stations, both in New Hampshire, will be converted to solar farms and battery systems that can store electricity generated by wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean.

“Coal plants are barely hanging on economically without this rule,” said Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters. “In most places across the country, new renewable sources of power are cheaper than continuing to run a coal plant.”

The League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups had urged the EPA to toughen the power plant standards. In contrast, the Edison Electric Institute, the top lobbying group for U.S. utilities, had argued in public comments that overly ambitious rules could delay the construction of gas plants and undermine the reliability of the electric grid.

The Biden administration has recently weakened other climate rules in the face of mounting political pressure and threatened legal challenges. Last month, the EPA finalized emissions limits for passenger cars that gave automakers more time to ramp up sales of electric vehicles — an election-year concession to labor unions that had raised concerns about a rapid shift to EVs.

Also last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a scaled-back rule requiring corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and contributions to climate change. Unlike the proposal, the final rule does not mandate the disclosure of emissions generated by customers and suppliers, which can account for the vast majority of oil companies’ carbon footprints.

Republican attorneys general and business groups nonetheless challenged the SEC rule in federal court, arguing that the commission lacks the authority to force companies to weigh in on “controversial” climate issues. The SEC on Thursday paused the rule’s implementation pending the outcome of the legal battles.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch says her party would axe legally binding targets to cut emissions.

The Conservatives have pledged to scrap the UK's landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for "cheap and reliable" energy.The Climate Change Act 2008, which put targets for cutting emissions into law, was introduced by the last Labour government and strengthened under Tory PM Theresa May.Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party wanted to leave "a cleaner environment for our children" but argued "Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions".Environmental groups said the move would be an act of "national self-harm", while Labour said it would be "an economic disaster and a total betrayal of future generations".The 2008 act, which was passed when current Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was in the same role in Gordon Brown's government, committed the UK to cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2019, under May's premiership, this legally binding target was updated to reaching net zero by 2050 - meaning the UK must cut carbon emissions until it removes as much as it produces.At that time the legislation passed through Parliament with the support of all major parties.However, the political consensus on net zero has since fragmented.Badenoch has previously said the target of net zero by 2050 is "impossible" for the UK to meet and promised to "maximise" extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea.Reform UK has also said it would scrap net zero targets if it wins the next election, blaming the policy for higher energy bills and deindustrialisation in the UK.The UK was the first country to establish a long-term legally binding framework to cut carbon emissions and since the act was passed many other countries have introduced similar legislation.However, the Tories said the act forced ministers "to make decisions to meet arbitrary climate targets, even if they make the British people poorer, destroy jobs, and make our economy weaker".Badenoch said: "We want to leave a cleaner environment for our children, but not by bankrupting the country."Climate change is real. But Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions. Previous Conservative governments tried to make Labour's climate laws work - they don't."Under my leadership we will scrap those failed targets. Our priority now is growth, cheaper energy, and protecting the natural landscapes we all love."However, Miliband said: "This desperate policy from Kemi Badenoch if ever implemented would be an economic disaster and a total betrayal of future generations."The Conservatives would now scrap a framework that businesses campaigned for in the first place and has ensured tens of billions of pounds of investment in homegrown British energy since it was passed by a Labour government with Conservative support 17 years ago."The Liberal Democrats also criticised the announcement.The party's energy security and net zero spokesperson Pippa Heylings said: "The reality is that investing in renewables is the greatest economic growth opportunity in this century and will protect the planet for future generations."Meanwhile, Richard Benwell, chief executive of the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition of environmental groups, said: "The real route to lasting security is in homegrown clean power, not burning more fossil fuels."Without binding climate law, ministers will be free to trade away our future - and it is nature and the poorest communities that will pay the price."

Team Trump Will Spend $625 Million and Open Public Lands to Revive a Dying Industry

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The White House will open 13.1 million acres of public land to coal mining while providing $625 million for coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration has announced. The efforts came as part of a suite of initiatives from the Department of the […]

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The White House will open 13.1 million acres of public land to coal mining while providing $625 million for coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration has announced. The efforts came as part of a suite of initiatives from the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at reviving the flagging coal sector. Coal, the most polluting and costly fossil fuel, has been on a rapid decline over the past 30 years, with the US halving its production between 2008 and 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). “This is an industry that matters to our country,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a livestreamed press conference on Monday morning, alongside representatives from the other two departments. “It matters to the world, and it’s going to continue to matter for a long time.” “This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources.” Coal plants provided about 15 percent of US electricity in 2024—a steep fall from 50 percent in 2000—the EIA found, with the growth of gas and green power displacing its use. Last year, wind and solar produced more electricity than coal in the US for the first time in history, according to the International Energy Agency, which predicts that could happen at the global level by the end of 2026. Despite its dwindling role, Trump has made the reviving the coal sector a priority of his second term amid increasing energy demand due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence data centers. “The Trump administration is hell-bent on supporting the oldest, dirtiest energy source. It’s handing our hard-earned tax dollars over to the owners of coal plants that cost more to run than new, clean energy,” said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the national environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a colossal waste of our money at a time when the federal government should be spurring along the new energy sources that can power the AI boom and help bring down electricity bills for struggling families.” The administration’s new $625 million investment includes $350 million to “modernize” coal plants, $175 million for coal projects it claims will provide affordable and reliable energy to rural communities, and $50 million to upgrade wastewater management systems to extend the lifespan of coal plants. The efforts follow previous coal-focused initiatives from the Trump administration, which has greenlit mining leases while fast-tracking mining permits. It has also prolonged the life of some coal plants, exempted some coal plants from EPA rules, and falsely claimed that emissions from those plants are “not significant.” The moves have sparked outrage from environmental advocates who note that coal pollution has been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths across the past two decades. One study estimated that emissions from coal costs Americans $13-$26 billion a year in additional ER visits, strokes and cardiac events, and a greater prevalence and severity of childhood asthma events.

Hundreds of Feet of Coastal Bluff in California Fell Toward the Ocean in Landslide-Stricken Town

A wealthy enclave in Southern California that has been threatened for years by worsening landslides faced more land movement this week, but it suffered minimal damage

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A wealthy enclave in Southern California that has been threatened for years by worsening landslides faced more land movement this week but suffered minimal damage. Four backyards in Rancho Palos Verdes were damaged Saturday evening by significant soil movement from the sinking land, but there was no structural damage to homes and no injuries were reported, according to a news update on the city's website. No homes were tagged. About 300 to 400 linear feet (91 to 122 meters) of a coastal slope sloughed off, falling about 50 to 60 feet (15 to 18 meters) toward the ocean, according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The movement’s cause is still under investigation. The public is being advised to avoid the shoreline where the movement occurred out of an abundance of caution.City officials said the event was unrelated to the continual land movement known as the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex, about 4 miles (6 kilometers) southeast, that has wreaked havoc on scores of multimillion-dollar homes perched over the Pacific Ocean. About 70 years ago, the Portuguese Bend landslide in Rancho Palos Verdes was triggered with the construction of a road through the area, which sits atop an ancient landslide. It destroyed 140 homes at the time, and the land has moved ever since.More homes have collapsed or been torn apart since. Evacuation warnings have been issued, and swaths of the community have had their power and gas turned off. The once slow-moving landslides began to rapidly accelerate after several years of torrential rains in Southern California. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency for the area. The city is urging the governor to sign into a law a bill that would expand California's definition of emergencies to include landslides and events made worse by climate change. The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Schwarzenegger at Vatican in Mission to 'Terminate' Fossil Fuels

By Joshua McElweeVATICAN CITY (Reuters) -Arnold Schwarzenegger came to the Vatican on Tuesday to throw his weight behind Pope Leo's efforts to...

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -Arnold Schwarzenegger came to the Vatican on Tuesday to throw his weight behind Pope Leo's efforts to encourage world leaders to address global climate change and transition away from fossil fuels."Every single one of (the) 1.4 billion Catholics can be a crusader for the environment and can help us terminate pollution," the former California governor, actor and bodybuilder said, referencing one of his blockbuster film roles, the Terminator."God has put us in this world to leave this world a better place than we inherited it," said Austrian-born Schwarzenegger, who is a Catholic."I'm so excited … that the Catholic Church and the Vatican are getting involved in this because we need their help."Schwarzenegger, a Republican Party member who is a longtime proponent of addressing climate change, spoke at a press conference ahead of a three-day Vatican meeting this week on the issue, where he will offer a keynote address alongside Pope Leo.The three-day event is tied to the 10th anniversary of a major environmental document by the late Pope Francis, which was the first papal text to embrace the scientific consensus about climate change and urged nations to reduce their carbon emissions.Leo, the first pope from the United States, has also emphasised the Church's environmental teachings.Earlier this month, Leo opened a Vatican-run ecological training centre on the sprawling grounds of a Renaissance-era papal villa in Castel Gandolfo, an Italian lakeside town about an hour's drive from Rome.Some 400 faith and civil society leaders are expected to take part in this week's Vatican event, including Brazil's environment minister, the director of the U.N.'s Faith for Earth coalition, and the CEO of the European Climate Foundation.Maina Talia, climate change minister for the Pacific Island nation Tuvalu, told Tuesday's press conference that his country is already suffering dramatic impacts from rising sea levels."Climate change is not a distant scenario," he said. "We are already drowning. Our survival depends on urgent global solidarity."(Reporting by Joshua McElweeEditing by Gareth Jones)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.