Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(173,618 posts)
Fri Jun 26, 2026, 07:40 PM 19 hrs ago

US court rejects EPA bid to ease regulations for coal-fired power plants

Source: Reuters

June 26, 2026 10:59 AM EDT Updated 6 hours ago


WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Environmental Protection Agency's bid to ​withdraw Biden-era limits on soot pollution from coal-fired power plants and ‌factories, in a setback for the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts.

The EPA under President Donald Trump last year asked the appeals court to invalidate the 2024 rule, arguing ​the agency had acted unreasonably by failing to consider costs while ​setting the standard. The court rejected the petition, leaving the annual ⁠limit of 9 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter, known ​as PM 2.5, in place.

"After initially defending the new rule, the EPA ​now moves to vacate the rule on the grounds that it exceeded its statutory authority and acted unreasonably by failing to consider costs. Because these arguments lack merit, we ​deny the petitions for review and the motion for vacatur," the ​ruling said.

The EPA under Biden had said the tighter limits would avoid more than 800,000 ‌cases ⁠of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits and 4,500 premature deaths. But the Trump EPA has said that the 2024 rule costs "hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to American citizens if allowed to be implemented" and ​was not based on ​a full ⁠review of available science. It said on Friday it was reviewing the decision.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-rejects-epa-bid-ease-regulations-coal-fired-power-plants-2026-06-26/



REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143230867
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US court rejects EPA bid to ease regulations for coal-fired power plants (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 19 hrs ago OP
Wait, the EPA wants this...? That doesn't make sense. sakabatou 18 hrs ago #1
The Biden EPA did the regs. The 45 EPA suddenly doesn't want tgem. BumRushDaShow 18 hrs ago #2
Kind of Misleading Headline modrepub 17 hrs ago #3
Money is always the prime factor in this admin. Bayard 14 hrs ago #4

sakabatou

(46,546 posts)
1. Wait, the EPA wants this...? That doesn't make sense.
Fri Jun 26, 2026, 07:54 PM
18 hrs ago

Then again, this is Lardass’ EPA, so....

BumRushDaShow

(173,618 posts)
2. The Biden EPA did the regs. The 45 EPA suddenly doesn't want tgem.
Fri Jun 26, 2026, 08:00 PM
18 hrs ago

That's why the appeals court is having a fit with the 45ers.

modrepub

(4,252 posts)
3. Kind of Misleading Headline
Fri Jun 26, 2026, 08:52 PM
17 hrs ago

Trump tried to have the 2024 PM-2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard withdrawn after it had already gone through the entire rule passage process before Trump won the election and was sworn in. It's a major loss and may impact currently operating coal plants but not directly. Other National Ambient Air Quality Standards are in place to make running coal plants in an uncontrolled manner pretty much impossible. Truth be told, most large coal-fired power plants are being doomed through their waste-water discharge limits not necessarily air quality standards. And electricity generated from coal-fired power plants is usually more expensive than natural gas, wind and solar electricity generation so here is another instance of the Trump administration imposing a higher costing service on the general public.

Another example of amateur legal arguments from the Trump administration. Industry has challenged EPA imposed air quality standards multiple times trying to argue the cost of enacting the controls outweighs the benefits and lost every single time.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US court rejects EPA bid ...