EPA Repeals Most Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel Power Plants

The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized the partial repeal of the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units, removing the carbon capture requirements that formed the backbone of the rule. The final rule, signed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, was published in the Federal Register of September 17, 2026 (Vol. 91, No. 179, Rules and Regulations) as FR Doc. 2026-19071 and takes effect on November 16, 2026.

The action, docketed as EPA–HQ–OAR–2025–0124 under RIN 2060–AW55 and amending 40 CFR Part 60, responds to the June 2025 notice of proposed rulemaking (90 FR 25752) and reevaluates the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for each subcategory of units. The standards being unwound had been promulgated on May 9, 2024 (89 FR 39798).

The agency concluded that 90 percent carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) has not been adequately demonstrated, that its costs are not reasonable and that the associated degree of emission limitation is not achievable. It also found that the capture, pipeline and sequestration infrastructure needed for the technology could not be deployed by the January 1, 2032 compliance date.

What the agency is repealing

• The emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUb, which is removed and reserved.
• The CCS-based standards for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, in subpart TTTTa.
• The Phase 2 CCS-based standards for new base load stationary combustion turbines, also in subpart TTTTa.
• The determination that 40 percent natural gas co-firing is the BSER for existing medium-term coal-fired units, which the EPA rejected as impermissible generation shifting under West Virginia v. EPA and as unachievable by the January 1, 2030 compliance date.

The EPA did not revise or repeal the 2024 efficiency-based (Phase 1) standards for new stationary combustion turbines in this action, although it acknowledged commenters’ concerns and noted that a concurrent proposal could repeal them.

Cost savings and market projections

Over the 2026–2047 period, the EPA estimates the present value of compliance cost savings for the power sector at $160 billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $95 billion at 7 percent, in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025. For regulatory accounting purposes, the rule’s cost savings are $102 billion in present value and $7 billion annualized at a 7 percent rate.

• Real resource cost savings: $280 billion at 3 percent and $180 billion at 7 percent.
• Small entities: 14 potentially affected small entities owning natural gas combined cycle units, with projected compliance cost savings of $143 million in 2035.
• State paperwork: 43 respondents, 89,000 hours of annual burden reduction and $11.7 million in cost savings.
• Updated projections: roughly 100 GW of coal capacity active in 2040, more than double the 40 GW the EPA projected in 2024, and about 155 GW of new NGCC capacity by 2035 against 26 GW previously projected.

Concurrent proposal and next steps

Published alongside the final rule, the EPA issued a supplemental proposal (FR Doc. 2026-19072) soliciting comment on whether Clean Air Act section 111 authorizes regulation of power plant greenhouse gases at all, following the February 2026 rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding (91 FR 7686). Comments are due November 2, 2026, with a virtual public hearing set for October 1, 2026 and Paperwork Reduction Act comments best assured of consideration by October 19, 2026.

The repeal reshapes climate regulation for utilities, grid operators and state air agencies nationwide, and the EPA projects a larger and longer-lived coal fleet than it foresaw two years ago. The agency said the action is subject to the Congressional Review Act and that it will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. It also stated that the repeals are severable, so a court invalidating one would not undo the others.

Source: Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 179, September 17, 2026, Rules and Regulations, p. 58954 (official reference: FR Doc. 2026-19071).