The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to lift all rules putting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas-fueled power plants. The previous regulations required fossil fuel-based facilities to capture 90 percent of their greenhouse gas emissions. The deregulation effort was initially proposed more than a year ago as part of a broader package that the EPA estimates will save $310 billion.
EPA Moves to Lift Greenhouse Gas Regulations on Fossil-Fuel Power Plants
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the policy shift, pointing to the economic rationale behind cutting the standards. Zeldin said in a statement reported by Scientific American that for over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy, and that the Trump Administration has come in to protect American energy and to make sure you can afford to keep the lights on.
According to federal data, power plants represent the largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Although emissions from the sector steadily declined beginning in 2011, facilities still accounted for more than 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and related emissions in 2023. Transportation remains the top source overall, generating more than a quarter of total U.S. emissions.
Scientific Pushback and Legal Challenges From Environmental Groups
Environmental organizations and climate scientists have criticized the rollback, arguing that removing the caps will accelerate global warming and worsen public health outcomes. Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the administration’s actions run counter to established research. Cleetus said that everything Lee Zeldin is doing is contrary to the science, pointing out that power plants remain major contributors to heat-trapping emissions.
Legal challenges are already underway. Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, announced immediate opposition to the agency’s decision. Hankins said in a statement that for the health of our families and good of our nation, this cannot stand, adding that ignoring the immense harm to the public from this power plant pollution is a clear violation of the Clean Air Act and of Supreme Court precedent, and that they will be seeing them in court.
A 500-page Department of Education report obtained by The Wall Street Journal concluded that the association’s accreditation wing lacks sufficient independence from the legal profession. Staff reviews found that the organization is out of compliance
with federal accreditor regulations, according to statements given to Fox Business.
The White House and congressional Republicans have accused the ABA of leveraging its gatekeeping role in legal education to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology. Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, graduation from an ABA-approved law school serves as the standard path to taking the bar exam in most states, and accreditation is required for institutions and students to participate in federal student financial assistance programs.
Next Steps for the ABA Accreditation Review
The Department of Education’s initial recommendation to reject the ABA as a recognized federal accreditor will advance to an independent, bipartisan advisory committee for review in September. That panel will subsequently deliver its own recommendation to Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent.
Melissa Hart, chair of the ABA’s Accreditation Council, stated that although it is difficult to comment on a recommendation they haven’t yet received, they look forward to the opportunity to address any misconceptions and clarify the record at their upcoming hearing before the committee next month.
Melissa Hart emphasized that the council continues to follow federal laws and regulations while preparing for the review process. If the Department of Education ultimately terminates the ABA’s federal status, university-affiliated law schools could potentially rely on their parent institution’s institutional accreditor to preserve access to federal student aid, though freestanding law schools would face significant procedural uncertainty.
Продолжение темы
