As deputy administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during former President Joe Biden’s time in office, Janet McCabe helped work to develop a rule for greenhouse gas requirements for power plants.
Now, she watches as President Donald Trump’s EPA works to dismantle it.
“I understand different administrations have different priorities,” McCabe said. “It is super concerning to see this administration so single-mindedly work to not just weaken the rules to make them easier for industry, but to actually attempt to permanently undermine the federal government’s ability to address these public health threats.”
The EPA’s move is just one taken by federal agencies that leaves environmental and utility experts worried about the environmental, health and economic impact on American citizens.
On Sept. 14, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the majority of Biden era greenhouse gas emissions requirements for power plants, according to a news release.
McCabe said the action wasn’t a surprise, especially after earlier repeals of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding in February. She added that it’s been consistent with actions taken since Trump came into office last year.
Hana Vizcarra, deputy managing attorney for national climate at Earthjustice, also said she wasn’t surprised by the EPA’s recent action, adding that Trump’s first administration had also prioritized coal, despite it being more costly.
“It’s not just that they’re willing to roll back regulations across the board,” Vizcarra said. “They’re rolling back regulations specifically because doing so is favorable to their favorite industry. At the same time, they’re attacking clean energy and other industries that could provide alternatives.”
Vizcarra also added that the power sector is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, and repealing requirements could “significantly increase” severe climate impacts nationwide.
The EPA claims its latest action will save $310 billion. The agency also proposed rescinding every remaining greenhouse gas standard for the power sector, alleging it will save $370 million in direct compliance costs.
“For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy. The Trump Administration has come in to protect American energy and to make sure you can afford to keep the lights on,” Zeldin said in a news release. “Americans will see a decrease in electricity prices, but this is just the beginning. 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.”
Although Zeldin says the move will lead to lower bills, environmental and energy experts say prioritizing coal has costly results for American ratepayers.
“I’ve heard it for 20 years now,” said Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition. “They blame the regulation on the costs of continuing to operate these power plants. That’s such a short-sighted view from our perspective.”
Wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of energy, Olson said, so to make coal cost-competitive with newer and cleaner technologies, agencies need to roll back regulations.
“It doesn’t make sense,” he added. “It shows an extreme disregard for public health and an extreme disregard for the climate and the sustainability of our planet and our very existence.”
Keeping coal plants open will lead to higher utility bills and more pollution for communities, Olson said. He’s worried about what it means for Northwest Indiana, where ratepayers pay the highest utility bills in the state.
“We passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and included a mandate that, as we learn more, through science and through technological developments, that we will continue to improve those standards that are designed to protect human health and the environment,” Olson said. “Rolling back that stuff is counterintuitive to those goals, and again, it just shows a blatant disregard for our environment, for our natural resources and for human health.
More Top Picks Best Microdermabrasion Machines
McCabe also said she’s concerned about what the new power plant deregulations will mean for Northwest Indiana.
“Historically, it has been an area of our state where people are exposed to a lot of pollution from a lot of different things,” she said. “Prolonging the use of coal plants — which produce so much bad pollution in contrast to renewable energy — is very concerning for the health of the people who live in that community.”
Ashley Williams, executive director of Just Transition Northwest Indiana, said in a statement that the EPA is following the same deregulation playbook they’ve been using, adding that the standards were projected to prevent thousands of premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks nationwide.
Williams also added that the repeal “couldn’t have come at a more urgent time” as artificial intelligence data centers are driving a new wave of gas-fired power plants.
“This repeal affects Indiana more than almost anywhere else in the country because the state has already taken away its ability to respond. State policy bars (the Indiana Department of Environmental Management) from adopting any environmental rule stricter than the federal minimum, so when EPA weakens protections, Indiana often feels it first and worst,” Williams said.
“This fight isn’t over. Environmental groups are going to court to challenge the repeal, and EPA’s supplemental proposal to roll back the remaining rules still has to go through a public comment period. We encourage everyone to keep showing up and speaking out.”
State Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, said in a statement this week that Hoosiers cannot afford any measures that jeopardize health and the environment.
“This decision will hurt Hoosiers across the board but will disproportionally impact Black Hoosiers and low-income Hoosiers,” Harris said. “A 2026 report found that Black Americans are more likely than their white counterparts to live near coal plants. In 2023, the World Resources Institute found that 45% of Americans living within 30 miles of a coal or energy plant are ‘disadvantaged’ economically. There are countless ways to lower utility rates without sacrificing the health of our vulnerable neighbors.”
Federal court ruling could affect Northwest Indiana plant
In December, the U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued an emergency order that required NIPSCO’s R.M. Schahfer Generating Station to stay open past its retirement date. The agency renewed the executive order several times, and it is up for renewal again Saturday.
Nick Wallace, senior associate attorney at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said the cost to keep Schahfer open during the first order was more than $400,000 per day. Combined with the cost to keep a Michigan coal plant running, Midwest ratepayers could pay a total of $1 million per day.
“In total, the bill for these plants is over half a billion dollars,” Wallace said, “and the total is still running.”
On Sept. 11, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that it was unlawful for the DOE to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell Coal Plant online, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle, determining the department had exceeded the emergency authority granted by the Federal Power Act.
Wallace said the DOE issued the order for Campbell about seven months before the Schahfer announcement. Campbell was scheduled to retire in May 2025.
The ELPC challenged both the Campbell and Schahfer orders in a federal court, as well as an order to keep the F.B. Culley plant running in southwest Indiana. Several other cases have been filed, starting at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, about who pays for the plants and what the total bill will be.
“We think the D.C. circuit’s opinion is really clear that what the (DOE) did in the Campbell case was illegal,” Wallace said, “and the (DOE) did the exact same thing in the Schahfer and Culley cases. We want the (DOE) to follow the law and abide by the court’s order and to stop issuing these unlawful orders.”
Olson was pleased with the court’s Campbell ruling, calling it excellent.
“We certainly believe that laid the foundation to void those emergency orders that were issued for the Indiana coal plants,” Olson said. “I think they would find it challenging to renew that order based on that outcome in the courts.”
Sameer Doshi, senior attorney at Earthjustice, said he hopes the DOE considers the court ruling when looking to renew Schahfer’s order. Doshi said Friday morning that he expected to see a renewal regardless of the court’s finding.
State Rep. Randy Novak, D-Michigan City, said in a statement this week that he “would strongly encourage” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita to challenge the federal order, citing a NIPSCO request to regulators asking for $38 million from ratepayers in return for compliance with the federal order.
More Top Picks Best Educational Tablets For Kids
“These new deregulation pushes are ludicrous,” Novak said. “Instead of holding utility companies’ feet to the fire, the Trump and (Gov. Mike) Braun administrations are bailing them out and allowing them to cut costs by endangering the environment and our public health. Now is the time to expect more from companies like NIPSCO, not less.”
In a statement to the Post-Tribune Friday, a DOE spokesperson said the emergency orders were essential during a late January winter storm, saying coal generation in impacted regions increased 25% compared to the same time in 2025. The statement also said Campbell operated at more than 650 megawatts each day between Jan. 21 and Feb. 1.
“The Energy Department’s emergency orders, including at Campbell, prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives during peak capacity events this past year,” the statement said. “Rest assured, the Department of Energy will continue to protect and defend energy security for all Americans.”
The department did not respond to what impact the ruling might have on the renewal of Schahfer’s order or if it was likely to go through.
NIPSCO responded to the federal ruling in a Friday statement to the Post-Tribune.
“We are reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision regarding the Department of Energy’s Section 202(c) order for Consumers Energy,” the statement said. “Our focus remains on serving customers safely and reliably while continuing to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”