Trump’s EPA Ending Obama-Biden War on the American Energy Industry
EPA Administrator Lee Zelding proposing end to Obama-Biden “Clean Power Plan” and reverting back to more reasonable mercury levels set in 2012, which were amended in 2024.
The Trump administration recently announced its intention to rescind key Biden-era EPA rules that regulate greenhouse gas emissions and mercury pollution from coal and natural gas power plants that stem from the 2015 Obama “Clean Power Plan”, Biden’s “Clean Power Plan 2.0”, and the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that these regulations were seen as overly burdensome to industry and were stifling economic growth. The proposed rollback would eliminate caps on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants and future natural gas plants, as well as relax limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news conference that Biden-era carbon pollution standards for power plants “suffocate” the economy in order to protect the environment. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, stated that the agency’s announcement was a huge step forward in energy dominance for the U.S., while promising that no power plants would emit more than they already do. Currently, the power sector accounts for a quarter of all U.S. emissions, according to the latest EPA emissions data.
The proposed repeals are two of the most consequential moves from Trump’s EPA as the administration continues dismantling Biden-era climate and clean energy policies. The reversal means that power plants that were slated to be retired will now continue running.
The agency didn’t announce any intent to rewrite regulations to replace the Biden rules on carbon emissions, which could effectively leave carbon emissions from US power plants unregulated if the proposed repeal is finalized. Zeldin announced the agency will revise the rule on mercury and other toxic air pollution, proposing to get rid of a Biden-era rule finalized last year.
Power plants are the second-biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution in the United States, making up around a quarter of the country’s climate pollution. US power plants alone contribute 3% of total global climate pollution.
By seeking to repeal the carbon rules with no replacement, the administration’s proposal is more sweeping than the power plant regulations finalized during Trump’s first term, Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental & Energy Law Program, told CNN.
It would result in aging coal plants operating for longer periods of time and allow new gas plants to be built with looser pollution restrictions, Jenks said.
“You’re starting to see coal fired power plants that were expected to retire continue to operate,” Jenks added.
Zeldin officially declared the end to the Biden era war on the American energy industry.
EPA is proposing to repeal the unconstitutional 2015 Obama “Clean Power Plan”, Biden's “Clean Power Plan 2.0”, and the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (reverting to the effective 2012 standards).
These rules imposed massive costs on power plants, raised the cost of…
— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) June 11, 2025
Eco-activist agitators and leftist power-mongers who want to control Americans through environmental regulations are upset.
Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals “yet another in a series of attacks” by the Trump administration on the nation’s “health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.”
She called it “unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.”
“Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,’’ added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we’ll see them in court.”
However, I am inclined to think American health would be better served by the actions being taken by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as making energy inexpensive and readily available.
Environmental fear-mongering based on pseudoscience no longer has the power it once had.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well I have no problems with emitting more CO2 but mercury is a different matter. I’m not sufficiently competent in this field to comment whether repealing the limits is a good or bad thing health wise. The same for the other limits on potential toxins.
While I share your ignorance of the specifics about mercury levels, it’s crystal clear that the green gang is much more interested in controlling US and our standard of living than they are with any putative “pollution”. If they made the standards, its a sure thing that they were made to deliberately be impossible to meet, thus closing down part of our energy sector.
IOW, they are wholly untrustworthy, and their “science” is garbage.
I don’t disagree but in my lifetime the air and water in this country has gotten much much better due to both laws, technology, and cleanup efforts. Backsliding to appease multinational energy companies who don’t care about the quality of life would not be good, As much as you don’t trust the weenies at the EPA you shouldn’t trust the multinationals or the politicians who front for them. Both are evil in my book.
When the regulations are written to force the effluent from power plants to be cleaner than the air breathed by the family who lived in the Little House on the Prairie, you can be assured that the real goal is not your health.
Yep. The early environmental protection efforts made a good deal of.semse. Factories pumping out chemicals into ditches to flow into the watershed definitely needed to stop. The current era of environmental protection efforts are extremist at best and a deliberate attempt to introduce luddite attacks to unravel modernity at worst.
IMO it boils down to refusing to accept victory in meeting the goals of the action. Just as with the Civil Rights movement the initial stated goals have been achieved for decades but the folks whose income, power or influence depends upon maintaining the ‘struggle’ refuse to accept their ‘win’. They aren’t activists anymore, they are now actors in a carefully scripted production. They are as fake as the kayfabe era of pro wrestling, just staging performances for their checks.
“The current era of environmental protection efforts are extremist at best”
When a do-gooder organization actually achieves its stated goal, it quickly finds a new and less achievable goal to perpetuate itself.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving achieved all their goals, then started to agitate against other issues such as speeding and underage purchase.
Why is March of Dimes still around? Youthful polio still a huge problem?
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) demanded smoke-free aircraft, restaurants, and other public spaces. They got all of that. They’re still around, now agitating for “a world where cigarettes are no longer sold for profit.” a goal that their early supporters never bought into.
I once read an article (can’t find it now, more’s the pity) where the author surveyed lots of examples of do-gooder orgs, and reported that he could only find two examples of orgs who honestly dissolved once they reached their stated goals. I don’t remember one of them, but the other was the Committee to End Pay Toilets in America (CEPTIA).
The most important example of an organization that disbanded once it had achieved its goal was the Anti Corn Law League, which was the predecessor of the UK’s Liberal Party and the entire free market movement in politics. It was formed in 1838 and disbanded in 1852.
Toxic levels of mercury as well as the amount released when burning coal are out there and not hard to find. The problem is that the rules keep getting tightened to the point that it doesn’t do anything anymore but costs so much plants can’t afford it. Obama said flat out that was his goal.
I am interested in the “no regulations” stuff, though. That can’t be right.
Z – I think you are falling into their sophistic trap that less is alway better. “Ambient mercury in U.S. air is currently within legal limits and poses minimal risk to the general population.” So, the improvement to already safe levels can be made, the law of diminishing returns tells us that the cost gets higher and higher for improvements that are smaller and smaller. In the case of mercury “About 3 % of global anthropogenic mercury emissions originate from the U.S.”
So, is making U.S. energy more expensive and consequently making costs of Manufacturing, and, well, everything in the U.S. more expensive, when 97% of the problem originates outside the U.S. AND our levels are very safe now.
At best we might reduce out level to 2% of the world’s mercury and getting no measurable health improvements.
I won’t address CO2 emissions since while I have opinions other people need something to argue about.
I purposely didn’t argue one way or another because I don’t know and I haven’t invested the time to learn sufficient information to feel informed. I know a lot about the 80/20 rule from personal experience. I don’t want to snap back in the other direction though because of giddiness. I don’t trust politicians.
I do know that mercury is no joke, It’s why I hate the nonLED green light bulbs. It’s very toxic and its cummulative. All you have to do is look at the recommendation for eating certain fish as strange as that might seem. Tuna and shark should be limited in how often you eat them because their food pyramid as lots of mercury it in and it accumulates in them.
Trivia time. In what year, and under which President was there record domestic oil production?
Yeah! Thank goodness we are building a lot of new nuclear plants to reduce our need for carbon-based fuels until methane hydrate production reaches commercial viability !
https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/publication/MHNews_2013_October.pdf
In what year and under what name did a moronic troll post the most stupid comments on Legal Insurrection?
need a hint , Paula?
It was somewhere after 2023…I think even a MAGA could guess this one!!!LAFFRIOT…..
Hi Paula. It’s a nice day here in Boston. How’s it where you are?
I have an idea. What do you say we create a “Toll free Friday” here at LI. Every friday we would ignore all trolls. No replies to them. Personally I’ve already stopped replying to them. Waste of time and effort. Besides it’s said that some people crave attention, negative or positive it doesn’t matter to them. I think trolls fall into that category. Personally I don’t get it, but different strokes for different folks.
By ‘troll’ you mean somebody who doesn’t parrot MAGA propaganda, right? LAFFRIOT.
Shut up, retard.
No… we mean a microcephalic coprophile who frequents the forum solely to annoy everybody else.
“I have an idea. What do you say we create a “Toll free Friday” here at LI. Every friday we would ignore all trolls. No replies to them.”
Okay, I’ll mark my calendar.
Looking at the troll replies though it just may end up being you and I.
I’d give Henry’s kingdom for an ignore button.
@ztakddot.
It’s Sunday, not Friday.
There is some value (how much is debatable) to employing ridicule towards the more egregious trolls here, such as JR and TJV.
If and until the admins here decide to ban those clowns, there will be commenters who will point out their crap arguments and their lack of good faith.
I personally don’t have a problem with that, given that I learned at a young age not to let bullies, well… bully.
Why are you here?
To stop the spread of disinformartion and overall fangirling by the LI staff. For example, if you are going to assert there was was a ‘war on the energy industry’ wouldn’t you look foolish ,since we had #RECORD DOMESTIC # production in 2023 and 2024.?
Now why are you here?
Before you said it was to stop all the Trump misinformation.
Will you be crowing this same statistic next year when we are again projected to hit record production?
How would we be doing if Biden hadn’t banned fracking on his first day?
You don’t seem to notice but there is plenty of criticism of Trump and the administration on here. Are you not able to see it? Many people have disagreements with Trump, yet you don’t ever see anything good in anything he has done.
There are things Democrat Presidents did that, while I despised their politics, I thought were good.
You seem to exist solely to spout what are demonstrably biased facts because you allow for no context in your diatribes. You’re not pointing out anything except your terminal TDS; you hate the man merely because you were told to do so by the MSM. The same MSM that would have loved him if he had a D after his name.
I’m here for the legal takes on subjects, even from Milhouse who often gets downvoted. He contributes.
You either have nothing better to do than howl at strangers on the internet OR you’re getting paid. With they drying-up of USAID funding that Soros and others used to fund leftists like you I cannot believe you’re truly getting paid.
You contribute nothing, not even comic relief with your dorky “LAFFRIOT” calling card, so again I ask: why are you here?
“With they drying-up of USAID funding that Soros and others used to fund leftists like you I cannot believe you’re truly getting paid.”
The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency has to do SOMETHING with the old stocks of Yoo-Hoo and candy rations being rotated through their 1950s Civil Defense shelters.
School playground empty on Sunday.
Trolling so people will pay attention to him, why else as nothing makes sense in his posts.
The USA was a net exporter of oil under Trump 1.
so what?
The article claims there was some type of war on the energy industry.
yet we had #RECORD# domestic production. AS in more than Trump ever had.
can you explain the apparent contradiction???
Sure. There’s not a magic wand to wave by POTUS to increase production. It requires creating a policy and regulatory framework to secure funding and investment for potential new projects to locate, explore and build wells, pipelines to to get it out of the ground.
It’s not surprising in the least that the prior Trump Admin’s actions to accomplish all those led to an increase in production levels after the end of the 1st Trump Admin as there’s a significant lag time between permitting approval and creation of a.sustainable well, completion of pipeline construction.
Then there’s the economic incentives created due to geopolitical turmoil and uncertainty when the feckless policies of the Biden Admin encouraged Russia to invade Ukraine roiling the oil/NG markets as questions re sections and basic delivery of Russian oil/NG increased prices on the rest of the worlds available oil/NG/LNG due to concern over availability of future supply to replace Russian Oil/NG.
” You have made me proud with that post”- LEni Riefenstahl.
Don’t EVER expect a responsible, sustainable energy policy for the red hat ME FIRST crowd.
‘Greed, for lack of.a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.’
Wall.Street
OR perhaps you prefer…
‘Put the coffee down! Coffee is for closers…..
First prize in our sales contest is a new Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, third prize….third prize is you’re fired…oh do I have your attention now?
Glengary Glen Ross
Or maybe the oldie but goodie;
‘Those who don’t work don’t eat’ applied by Captain John Smith at Jamestown Colony and expressed in 2nd Thessalonians….to which no less a card carrying commie than Vladimir Lenin himself is said to have noted was a requirement for socialism.
Yes indeed enlightened self interest (ME FIRST) with an underpinning of classical Western Morality derived from our dominant religions seems to be very successful as a basis for economics. If you want to voluntarily give away your own income and your own assets to meet the needs of others that’s very noble of you. However when you imply or demand that others must give away their income/assets to support the causes you prioritize …that’s not noble. Instead it is an attempt at emotional blackmail at best and blatant tyranny at worst.
Honestly- the comment section here is pretty established. LI needs a Great Divorce feature where the trolls can be filtered to disappear from discourse until they earn enough upvotes for bringing intelligent conversation to the table.
These are usually paid leftist activists that will go hot and heavy for about 14 days until they are institutionalized in the real world and put back on their meds.
So can we stop putting corn in our gas?
(Or would that piss off too many farmers?)
Maybe when the GoP Jas solid Congressional majorities that exceed the count of the ‘corn belt’ Rep/Sen and those influenced by ‘lobbying’ efforts to make their votes unneeded on other policy priorities. I suspect the ethanol bloc of Congress will pull out all the stops to prevent an end to their gravy train.
Using a food crop to produce motor fuel is simply immoral.
You reach a point of negative returns at some point. The increase in regulations cuts emissions by a smaller and smaller amount at the price of bigger and bigger cost. Obama can say his EPA regulations cut mercury emissions in half but if you look at it, the levels were already safe and the “1/2” is 1 part per million to 2 parts per million at 10x the cost which doesn’t do anything except bankrupt the industry.
Don’t blame the math, you get my point. It’s all a game for political ends.
When I was in middle school about 60 years ago, the science teacher had a large, very heavy jar of mercury on his desk. We were allowed to roll drops of mercury around in the palms of our hands. And it hAsN’t AfFeCtEd Me At AlL.