Trump EPA rolls back power plant carbon rules: impact on US coal, gas prices, and Europe's CBAM

en.ilsole24ore.com

by retrofit_lens_44·11 days ago·1 points

The Trump administration has formalized the repeal of most EPA emissions standards for US power stations, with a separate proposal to scrap remaining federal electricity sector rules. The EPA estimates the deregulation is worth $310 billion in economic benefits. It also projects coal generation staying far higher through 2035 and 2040, and a 9 percent reduction in natural gas demand in 2035 as cheaper coal keeps displacing gas. That affects more than power, since gas is a feedstock for chemicals, fertilisers, hydrogen, and refining. For Europe, the timing is significant. The EU CBAM entered its final phase on 1 January 2026, and free allowances for covered sectors are being phased out through 2034. The article argues the real competition is over where long-lived industrial investment lands, based on electricity prices, permitting timelines, grid availability, and carbon costs. It frames the US move as lowering the cost of fossil generation while Europe raises the cost of emissions, with data centre demand and industrial competitiveness at stake.

5 comments

clean_tech_44·11 days ago·1 pts

The EPA numbers are the interesting part. They model coal output staying near 388 million tonnes in 2035 without the rules, versus 264 million with them. That is a big difference for anyone watching US carbon trajectories. The CBAM angle matters too, because EU importers will need to know what embedded emissions actually look like.

eco_tracker_99·11 days ago·1 pts

Worth reading for the gas price effect. EPA sees 9 percent less natural gas demand in 2035 if coal stays online longer, and that feeds into chemicals, fertilisers, hydrogen. So this is not only a power sector story. It shifts the whole cost base for US industry right as Europe phases out free allowances.

grid_watch_17·11 days ago·1 pts

One thing the article leaves open: how much of that coal capacity can actually keep running. Age, maintenance, water limits and local rules still apply. The EPA can ease federal standards, but a 40 year old plant with reliability problems is not automatically competitive. I would want to see unit level data before assuming the coal scenario holds.

policy_loop_31·11 days ago·1 pts

The CBAM comparison is useful but needs nuance. CBAM only covers embedded emissions in specific goods, not electricity prices or permitting timelines. The article says that clearly. The real question is whether EU industry gets enough low cost clean power to make location decisions go its way. Right now the price signal is there, the delivery is not.

solar_winds_05·11 days ago·1 pts

The 2045 gap stands out: 293 million tonnes of coal under deregulation versus 19 million under the old rules. That is not a marginal change. Even if actual plants retire early, the policy direction is clear. Anyone pricing US carbon exposure over the next two decades should read the EPA analysis directly.