The Environmental Protection Agency is moving to eliminate federal rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants — a major reversal that could reshape the country’s climate policy. The agency is arguing that emissions from coal and gas plants, while sizable, don’t have a “significant” enough impact on global climate change to justify strict federal regulation.

This shift would undo the Biden-era rules that pushed power plants to either adopt carbon capture technology or transition toward cleaner energy. Those rules targeted some of the largest sources of pollution in the country — power plants currently make up about 25% of the United States’ total greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than many entire countries emit.

Now, the EPA says those emissions aren’t enough to meaningfully affect global climate outcomes. It’s a claim that runs directly against decades of climate science and the overwhelming consensus among experts around the world. And it’s not just a policy change — it’s part of a broader effort to scale back the federal government’s role in tackling climate change.

Rolling back these rules could have long-term consequences. Without them, there’s no national standard holding power plants accountable for their carbon pollution. That means individual states would have to decide how, or if, they want to regulate emissions — a patchwork approach that critics say will slow progress and leave the country without a coordinated strategy to fight climate change.

The EPA’s new position also threatens to undermine future climate actions. By claiming that emissions from U.S. power plants don’t pose a serious enough threat, the agency could weaken its own authority to regulate greenhouse gases under existing environmental laws. That could make it harder for future administrations to implement tougher standards, no matter how urgent the climate situation becomes.

Environmental advocates see this move as more than just deregulation — they see it as an attempt to redefine the mission of the EPA itself. Instead of protecting public health and the environment, they argue, the agency is now prioritizing short-term economic interests and industry convenience. The fear is that this sets a precedent: if one of the country’s biggest polluting sectors can be declared too small to regulate, what’s next?

This isn’t the first time the agency has pulled back from climate action. During previous administrations, efforts were made to delay or dismantle environmental protections, especially those that impacted the fossil fuel industry. This latest move follows that pattern — but it may go even further by challenging the basic premise that greenhouse gas emissions are worth regulating at all.

The timing is also critical. With the world already experiencing more extreme weather, rising seas, and worsening climate-related disasters, many experts warn that strong climate policy is more urgent than ever. Backing away from one of the most direct ways to cut emissions — reducing pollution from coal and gas plants — sends a signal that the U.S. is retreating from its climate commitments just when bold action is most needed.

Legal challenges are almost certain. Environmental groups, public health advocates, and some state governments are expected to fight the repeal in court. They’ll likely argue that the EPA is ignoring science and shirking its responsibility to protect people and the planet.

What happens next will shape not just the country’s climate policy, but also how the EPA is viewed — as either a force for environmental protection or a bystander in the face of one of the world’s biggest challenges.