Lee Zeldin, U.S. EPA Administrator, speaks during the G20 Ministerial Meeting on Energy Abundance in Houston, Texas, on Sept. 14, 2026. —Mark Felix—Getty ImagesThe Trump Administration on Monday repealed carbon pollution rules for coal- and gas-powered plants. And at the heart of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) explanation for its move is the long-debunked idea that, as the agency claims, “emissions from power plants have no material impact on global climate change” and that “the targeted emissions are global in nature, and any potential public health harms are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted to tie specifically to the U.S. power sector.” The decision goes against decades of science proving that cutting pollution has myriad benefits for human and environmental health.EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the move at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial in Houston, Texas, on Sept. 14. The EPA will now hold a public hearing for the proposal over a 15 day period, and have a 45-day public comment period.The U.S. power sector is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the most recent data, in 2024, the U.S. power sector emitted 1,427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the second largest U.S. source by sector. A report published by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law in May 2025 found that if the U.S. power sector were its own country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world.The move comes at a time when the United Nations warns that the world is set to overshoot the 1.5°C goal to limit warming—and that the world will reach 1.8°C of warming unless immediate changes are made to reduce global emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere. What does the repeal of power plant pollution limits mean?The EPA’s repeal concerns climate pollution standards originally finalized by the Biden Administration in 2024. The regulations applied to coal-burning plants in operation and any prospective gas-burning plants, and required coal plants to install technology to capture most of its carbon emissions by 2039 in order to keep operating, while gas plants would have been required to operate on cleaner fuels, like hydrogen. The Biden Administration predicted that the rule would have prevented up to 1,200 premature deaths, 360,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 48,000 school absence days, and 57,000 lost work days in 2035 alone. It also projected up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades.The repeal of this rule is the latest in the Trump Administration’s attempts to roll back federal climate regulation. In February, the EPA finalized its repeal of the endangerment finding, the landmark 2009 ruling that provided a legal underpinning for greenhouse gas regulation. The agency also ruled that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions, and eased Biden-era restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons, polluting chemicals used in refrigerators and air-conditioning. The Trump Administration has also made a number of moves to keep polluting coal plants alive—even though coal is among the most costly power sources and the air pollution it generates has been linked to a number of adverse health effects, including increased risk of asthma and cancer. In February, the Energy Department ordered several coal-burning plants that had been slated for retirement to stay open. Also that month, Trump loosened Biden-era restrictions on coal burning plants, known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants, and ordered the Pentagon to purchase more coal-based electricity. The Department of Energy was also directed to allocate $175 million in funding for six projects to upgrade coal plants in four states. What health impacts are associated with greenhouse gases from power plants?While the EPA under the Trump Administration says that the health impacts are “uncertain,” experts say that scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows the opposite to be true. The Trump Administration’s own analysis from 2025 found that eliminating the carbon pollution standards for coal and gas powered plants would result in thousands of premature deaths and tens of billions of dollars in increased health costs for Americans. “The science is very clear,” says Jim Zhang, professor of global and environmental health at Duke University. “It all shows that these pollutants cause cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, exacerbates asthma, exacerbates heart disease, and are associated with increased deaths and emergency room visits.”Communities located around power plants, which are disproportionately lower income, are exposed to a great risk of experiencing a number of health impacts, including asthma, cancer, and heart and lung disease. Exposure to fine particulate air pollutants from coal-fired power plants (known as coal PM2.5) is associated with a risk of mortality more than double that of exposure to PM2.5 from other sources. “If you take away the regulation, then that pollution is going to happen, and these health effects are going to happen,” says Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.Worsening carbon dioxide emissions also exacerbates climate change—heating the planet and worsening extreme weather events, wildfires, coastal erosion, flooding, hurricanes, all of which come with health impacts. Extreme weather events cause injuries and deaths, disrupt access to medical care, and impact mental health. They can also indirectly impact access to clean water or healthy food. While the U.S. is repealing these standards, the health impacts will transcend borders. “The health damage is not at local level but global level,” says Zhang. The environmental and health impacts will be felt—despite what the EPA might say. “It is certainly possible to have policies that assume climate change will have no impacts, and that is what we are doing,” says Michael Greenstone, director of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth at the University of Chicago. “But the atmosphere and the climate don't recognize those misstatements, and we will be stuck with a nastier, more virulent form of climate change.”