Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0024Report597 U.S. 697

EPA repeals most 2024 power plant carbon standards and proposes ending the rest, 91 FR 58954 and 91 FR 59002

A final rule published Sept. 17 removes the existing-plant guidelines and the carbon-capture standards from the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards, effective Nov. 16. A companion supplemental proposal would repeal every remaining section 111 greenhouse gas standard for power plants; comments are due Nov. 2.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
5 cited

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency published two actions on the same power plant docket on September 17, 2026, and they point different distances. A final rule at 91 FR 58954 repeals most of the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards under Clean Air Act section 111, on the ground that 90 percent carbon capture and 40 percent natural gas co-firing do not qualify as the “best system of emission reduction” [1]. A supplemental proposal at 91 FR 59002 goes further: it proposes that section 111 does not authorize EPA to regulate power plant emissions “in response to global climate change concerns” at all, which would mean repealing every remaining greenhouse gas standard for the source category, including those from 2015 [2]. Both carry Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 and the signature of Administrator Lee Zeldin [1, 2]. The final rule takes effect November 16, 2026; comments on the proposal are due November 2 [1, 2].

What the record shows

The final rule, RIN 2060-AW55

The final rule adopts what EPA’s June 2025 proposal had offered as the alternative pathway, a reexamination of the 2024 BSER determinations [1]. It removes three sets of requirements, and EPA states that each removal rests on “its own, standalone rationale and is severable from the others” [1]:

2024 requirement Final rule EPA’s stated basis
Existing coal units operating past 2039: 90 percent capture, 88.4 percent emission-rate cut by Jan. 1, 2032 [3] Repealed [1] Capture at 90 percent not adequately demonstrated, costs not reasonable, and pipeline and storage buildout unlikely by 2032 [1]
Existing coal units retiring before 2039: 40 percent gas co-firing by Jan. 1, 2030 [3] Repealed [1] Impermissible generation shifting under West Virginia; inefficient use of natural gas; pipeline infrastructure unlikely by 2030 [1]
Existing gas- and oil-fired steam units Repealed [1] State plans would yield “few or no emission reductions” [1]
Coal units undertaking a large modification: capture-based standard Repealed [1] Same capture findings [1]
New base load combustion turbines, phase 2: 90 percent capture by Jan. 1, 2032 Repealed [1] Same capture findings [1]
New combustion turbines, phase 1 efficiency standards Retained [1] EPA did not reopen them in this action [1]

The retained phase 1 limits appear in a revised Table 1 to subpart TTTTa: 800 to 1,250 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of gross output for base load turbines, 1,170 to 1,560 pounds for intermediate load units, and a fuel-based limit for low load units [1]. Table 2, which held the phase 2 capture values, is removed and reserved [1]. EPA wrote that it “acknowledges commenters’ meritorious concerns” that the phase 1 standards are not achievable, and pointed to the supplemental proposal as the vehicle that would resolve them [1].

On cost, EPA estimates power-sector compliance cost savings over 2026 to 2047 with a present value of $160 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $95 billion at 7 percent, in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025 [1]. Real resource cost savings, which strip out transfers such as the section 45Q tax credit, are put at $280 billion and $180 billion [1]. The agency did not monetize health and welfare effects, saying it would “continue to quantify the emissions until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to robustly monetize those impacts” [1]. The paperwork section lists 43 states with designated facilities as respondents whose plan obligation is “No longer mandatory,” for an estimated 89,000 hours a year in avoided burden [1].

The supplemental proposal, RIN 2060-AX00

The proposal offers three independent rationales [2]. First, that “air pollution” in section 111(b)(1)(A) is best read as pollution that threatens health or welfare “through local or regional exposure,” so global climate concerns fall outside it [2]. Second, that under the major questions doctrine Congress did not clearly authorize power plant regulation in response to global climate change [2]. Third, a futility argument built on EPA modeling [2].

That modeling estimates that U.S. power plant CO2 emissions contribute 0.014 degrees Celsius of global mean surface temperature increase by 2050 and 0.035 degrees by 2100, measured against a 2026 baseline [2]. EPA proposes that even complete elimination of the sector’s emissions “would have no more than de minimis impacts on the key indicators of adverse impacts attributed to global climate change” [2]. If finalized, the proposal would rescind the Administrator’s 2015 findings and repeal the 2015 new source standards and all remaining 2024 standards [2]. EPA says the repeal would not disturb criteria-pollutant standards for the same plants [2].

The proposal draws on EPA’s February 18, 2026, rule at 91 FR 7686 rescinding the 2009 vehicle endangerment finding, which it describes as resting on the conclusion that section 202(a)(1) does not authorize regulation for global climate concerns [2].

Where it sits in the process

How did EPA get from the 2024 rule to this?

The 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards were published May 9, 2024, and took effect July 8, 2024 [3]. They followed the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2022, decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which held that the Clean Power Plan’s emission reduction system exceeded section 111(d) [5]. “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” the Court wrote, but “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body” [5].

States and industry groups challenged the 2024 rule in the D.C. Circuit; that court and the Supreme Court denied stays, the D.C. Circuit heard argument December 6, 2024, and it later placed the case in abeyance after the change in administration [1]. Executive Order 14261, signed April 8, 2025, declared that “coal is essential to our national and economic security” and told EPA and other agencies to identify policies “that seek to transition the Nation away from coal production and electricity generation” [4]. EPA cites that order and two others as prompting its review [1]. The June 17, 2025, proposal at 90 FR 25752 set out a primary pathway, based on a finding that power plants do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution, and the alternative BSER pathway [1]. EPA says it is “not acting on those proposed determinations at this time” [1].

What are the next dates?

Date Step
Sept. 24, 2026 Requests for hearing accommodations [2]
Sept. 29, 2026 Last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing [2]
Oct. 1, 2026 Virtual public hearing, 4 minutes per speaker [2]
Oct. 19, 2026 Paperwork Reduction Act comments to OMB best assured of consideration [2]
Nov. 2, 2026 Written comments due on the supplemental proposal [2]
Nov. 16, 2026 Final partial repeal takes effect [1]

EPA says it will submit the final rule to Congress and the Comptroller General under the Congressional Review Act, and that the action “meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2),” the Act’s definition of a major rule [1].

What the record does not show

  • The fate of the held D.C. Circuit case. The final rule recounts the abeyance but does not say what EPA will ask the court to do with the challenges to the 2024 rule now that most of it is repealed [1].
  • A final answer on the primary pathway. EPA will address comments on its June 2025 “contribute significantly” proposal in “a forthcoming final rule” that also covers the supplemental rationales; no date is given [2].
  • Monetized health effects. Neither document puts a dollar value on forgone reductions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides; EPA says it considered them and that costs and energy impacts outweigh them [1].
  • Modeling inputs in the preamble. The final rule says EPA ran a sensitivity case that excludes 90 percent capture from the model’s options, but the results sit in an “IPM Sensitivity Runs Memo” in the docket rather than the preamble [1].
  • Reliance interests in the 2015 standards. The final rule addresses reliance on the 2024 requirements only and says it is “not addressing any potential reliance interests on the 2015 NSPS at this time” [1]. The supplemental proposal asks whether its new rationales raise distinct reliance interests [2].
  • Phase 1 relief. EPA called commenters’ concerns about the retained turbine standards “meritorious” but left the standards in place; relief for new gas turbines depends on finalizing the proposal [1, 2].

Positions on the record

EPA. The final rule says the agency “received no comments on reliance interests arising from the 2024 CPS from regulated entities,” that it knows of no expenditures made “exclusively in response to” the repealed requirements, and that “The EPA has not received any State plan submissions to date” [1]. It frames the September action as addressing “much of the regulatory uncertainty” created by its earlier power plant rules [1].

Commenters favoring retention. As EPA summarizes them, some commenters said the proposal ignored forgone emissions reductions; one said the repealed standards would cut CO2 by 1.38 billion metric tons over roughly two decades, along with “tens of thousands of tons” of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides [1]. Commenters argued this made the repeal inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act [1]. EPA responded that its capture and co-firing findings disqualify those strategies regardless of the reductions they would achieve [1].

Commenters on the turbine standards. Other commenters told EPA the 2024 phase 1 efficiency standards for new combustion turbines are not achievable [1].

The Supreme Court, 2024. In the October 16, 2024, order denying a stay of the 2024 rule, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote that “the applicants have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges,” as the final rule quotes it; Justice Thomas would have granted a stay [1]. The merits were never decided [1].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When does EPA's partial repeal of the 2024 power plant carbon rule take effect?
November 16, 2026 [1]. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2026, at 91 FR 58954 [1].
Do new gas turbines still have to meet a CO2 limit after the repeal?
Yes. The final rule keeps the 2024 efficiency-based (phase 1) CO2 standards for new base load, intermediate load and low load combustion turbines and removes only the carbon-capture-based phase 2 standard [1]. The supplemental proposal would repeal those remaining standards too if it is finalized [2].
Do states still have to submit plans for existing coal plants?
No. The rule repeals the existing-source emission guidelines in 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, in full, and EPA says it had not received any state plan submissions [1].
How do I comment on EPA's proposal to repeal all power plant greenhouse gas standards?
Submit comments under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 by November 2, 2026 [2]. EPA holds a virtual public hearing on October 1, and September 29 is the last day to pre-register to speak [2].
How much does EPA say the partial repeal saves?
EPA estimates power-sector compliance cost savings of $160 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $95 billion at 7 percent over 2026 to 2047, in 2024 dollars [1]. EPA did not monetize health and welfare effects of emissions changes [1].

Note on sourcing

This report draws on the final rule and the supplemental proposal as published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2026, the 2024 rule they amend, Executive Order 14261 and the Supreme Court's 2022 opinion in West Virginia v. EPA. Cost-savings and climate-modeling figures are EPA's own estimates from the two preambles; the regulatory impact analysis and the modeling memorandum in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 are not drawn on here. Commenters' positions are as EPA summarized them in the final rule. No statement from a state, utility, trade group or environmental organization on the September actions appears in the record cited here. Details of the October 1 virtual hearing were still to be posted on EPA's website.

Sources

  1. Partial Repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units, final rule, 91 FR 58954 (FR Doc. 2026-19071)Federal Register (EPA), September 17, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  2. Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111, supplemental proposal, 91 FR 59002 (FR Doc. 2026-19072)Federal Register (EPA), September 17, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  3. New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units, final rule, 89 FR 39798 (FR Doc. 2024-09233)Federal Register (EPA, 2024), May 9, 2024 · federalregister.gov
  4. Executive Order 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, 90 FR 15517 (FR Doc. 2025-06380)Federal Register (Executive Office of the President), April 14, 2025 · federalregister.gov
  5. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, 597 U.S. 697Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 2022 · supremecourt.gov

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0029 · Report · 2 shared headingsEPA approves Virginia's partial coal ash permit program, effective Nov. 23, Docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3325
  2. No. 0020 · Record of decision · 1 shared headingOSM approves Navajo Mine No Name coal permit application in combined final EIS and record of decision, 91 FR 56204
  3. No. 0002 · Report · 1 shared headingONRR proposes oil, gas and coal valuation amendments, RIN 1012-AA39, with $331 million a year less in royalties