21 States Sue EPA Over $300B Power Plant GHG Rule Repeal

For regulatory lawyers, the petition is not merely an environmental dispute; it is a test of how far an agency may go in reversing a prior administration's rule when the reversal includes an attempt to insulate the underlying policy from future rulemakings. The states' central allegation—that EPA failed to weigh reasonable alternatives and the health and climate costs of inaction—tracks the arbitrary-and-capricious and statutory-duty doctrines that routinely shape D.C. Circuit administrative law.

On October 1, 2026, a coalition of 21 states and several major cities petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review and strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's repeal of greenhouse gas emission limits for coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the challengers include Pennsylvania's governor, the District of Columbia, New York City, Chicago, and the city and county of Denver. The filing marks a direct legal test of the Trump administration's September decision to dismantle what the plaintiffs call one of the country's most significant climate protections.

“

In the repeal announcement, the EPA said the move would save the industry more than $300 billion in compliance costs and help "unleash" American energy.

The rule at issue was a Biden-era regulation requiring fossil fuel power plants to limit planet-warming pollution. The EPA announced last month that it would revoke the rule, and separately said it is taking a related step to prevent future administrations from regulating climate pollution from power plants. In the repeal announcement, the EPA said the move would save the industry more than $300 billion in compliance costs and help "unleash" American energy. EPA Assistant Administrator Aaron Szabo said in September that the change would allow utilities to make decisions for ratepayers based on cost and cost savings, rather than being required to shut down facilities.

The legal coalition argues that EPA's action was unlawful because the agency abandoned the pollution limits without properly considering reasonable alternatives or the enormous health and climate costs of allowing more pollution into the atmosphere. That claim tracks core administrative-law doctrines: agencies generally must consider relevant factors and non-arbitrary alternatives when reversing prior rules, especially where public health and environmental harms are at stake. The challengers are asking the D.C. Circuit to review the decision and strike down the repeal, contending that "gutting one of the country's most significant climate protections" will set the nation back decades and worsen the climate crisis.

The economic and environmental stakes are substantial. Power plants that burn fossil fuels are a major source of planet-warming pollution in the United States. Eliminating federal performance standards removes a key regulatory driver behind utility decisions to retire or retrofit coal and gas capacity. EPA frames the savings as a pocketbook issue for electricity customers and a deregulatory win for American energy. The states, by contrast, frame the same decision as a transfer of health and climate costs to the public, with James accusing the federal government of showing "callous disregard" for Americans' health and the environment.