Six environmental and public health organizations petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 17 to review the EPA's partial repeal of the 2024 carbon pollution standards covering existing coal-fired plants and certain new natural gas plants.

The petitioners — the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council — argue the rollback threatens public health and shifts pollution and climate-related costs onto families.

The challenged rule strikes most of the 2024 standards that the Biden administration finalized to require carbon emission reductions at existing coal plants and certain new gas plants. The EPA announced the final repeal on Sept. 14, stating that the 2024 standards "exceeded the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act by requiring control technologies that are not adequately demonstrated, effectively forcing plants to retire rather than setting standards they could actually meet."

"Repealing these standards without a replacement is an abdication of EPA's legal responsibility to protect public health and the environment," said Meredith Hankins, federal climate legal director at the NRDC, in a joint statement from the petitioners.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the repeal on cost and reliability grounds. "Americans will see a decrease in electricity prices, but this is just the beginning," Zeldin said. "We are working to go even further so that American energy can be fully unleashed. Realizing the full potential of American energy means more jobs, lower prices, and a more prosperous America."

The agency's regulatory impact analysis estimates $310 billion in economy-wide savings from 2026 through 2047. It projects national average retail electricity prices will rise 0.7% in 2030 and fall 5.8% in 2035, with results varying by region.

Those projections do not guarantee households will pay less than they do today. Fuel prices, plant expenses and grid costs all shape retail electricity prices; cutting one expense does not prevent increases in others.

The analysis also assigns no dollar value to other potential costs, including environmental damage and health outcomes tied to additional carbon emissions.

"Increased power plant pollution resulting from this rule will cause thousands of premature deaths and billions of dollars in additional health costs," said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, in the petitioners' joint statement.

The health concerns cited by the groups extend beyond carbon dioxide. Power plants also emit pollutants that contribute to soot and smog, which the EPA's own materials link to asthma attacks, heart attacks, premature deaths and missed school and work days.

"Measures that clean up power plant emissions also clean up other lung-harming pollutants at the same time. EPA has the authority and the responsibility to protect people's health from air pollution," said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

"Weakening these life-saving standards would strip away vital protections for all, and especially for children, pregnant people and communities already overburdened by pollution," said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association.

The litigation is running in parallel with a second deregulatory step. The EPA is separately proposing to eliminate greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants altogether. The agency has scheduled a public hearing on that proposal for Oct. 1 and will accept public comments until Nov. 2.

The D.C. Circuit's handling of the Sept. 17 petition, together with the close of the comment docket on Nov. 2, will determine whether any binding carbon constraints on the power sector survive this regulatory cycle.