The United States Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will stop restricting the greenhouse gas emissions from gas- and coal-fired power plants. University of Michigan experts discuss the consequences of this move.

Andy Hoffman is the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, a position that holds joint appointments at the Ross School of Business and School for Environment and Sustainability.

“This administration continues to act on the belief that climate change is not real,” Hoffman said. “This, despite the extreme weather events that are increasing in frequency and severity in the U.S. and around the world. This increase is being tracked by the world’s scientists and scientific agencies, and, importantly, it is being tracked by the world’s insurance and reinsurance companies who are adjusting their underwriting practices as a result.

“While this denial of the problem may help save money for the power industry in the short term, it is raising costs in the insurance sector and, therefore, for every household that has to pay for property insurance. That increased an average of between 9% and 11% annually nationwide in 2023, 2024 and 2025, with some states, including Texas, Arizona and Utah, seeing nearly double that increase.

“And it isn’t just premiums that are changing. Insurers now often reduce coverage limits, cap payouts, increase deductibles and impose new conditions or even exclusions on some common perils, such as protection for wind, hail or water damage to cover costs. Some require certain preventive measures or apply risk-based pricing—charging more for homes in flood plains, wildfire-prone zones or coastal areas at risk of hurricanes. And, of course, these people will pay for the costs of climate impacts where roughly 50% of weather-related economic damage in the U.S. is uninsured.

“We need leadership and sensible policies to address the environmental and economic risks over the long term, and to help industries make the necessary steps to remain competitive in the markets of the future—not only in the power sector, but across the economy in autos, agriculture and elsewhere.”

Parth Vaishnav is an assistant professor of environment and sustainability. His research is focused on environmental and human health consequences of energy production and use, and his team works to find strategies to decarbonize the economy and to make climate mitigation and adaptation equitable.

“Americans want energy that is both clean and cheap. This change will make it dirtier,” Vaishnav said. “Fine particulate pollution from coal-fired power plants killed 460,000 Americans prematurely between 1999 and 2020. Rules to control this pollution saves lives; eliminating them endangers lives. American manufacturers will fall behind in the race to supply the world with the technologies of the future; that gap will be filled by our economic competitors. If it removes the impetus for clean power generation, the federal government will make Americans sicker and poorer.”

Jonathan Overpeck, an interdisciplinary climate scientist and dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability, is an expert on climate and weather extremes, sea-level rise, the impacts of climate change and options for dealing with it. He served as a lead author on the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 and 2014 reports.

“Removing climate pollution emission limits on fossil fuel plants means the U.S. and world will have to face more devastating climate change in the future,” Overpeck said. “This means more frequent and severe heatwaves, storms, flooding, droughts, wildfires and more. This means more economic pain, health issues and deaths related to climate change. It will likely mean more expensive power for many Americans. And it will also likely make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the rapidly expanding global markets aimed at stopping climate change from getting worse.

“Clean energy solutions are now the most affordable and are taking the place of fossil fuel solutions, cleaning up the air we breathe and halting climate change. To invest more in fossil fuels is a huge national failure that will hurt generations of Americans for decades to come.”

Gregory Keoleian is a professor of environment and sustainability and of civil and environmental engineering, and co-founder/co-director of the Center for Sustainable Systems, as well as co-director of MI Hydrogen, U-M’s hydrogen initiative. He develops life-cycle models to analyze decarbonization pathways and accelerate sustainability solutions for clean energy transitions, alternative vehicle technologies, buildings and infrastructure, and food systems.

“The proposed policy is reckless and irresponsible and is another action by the administration to reverse U.S. progress in addressing climate pollution and the climate crisis,” Keoleian said. “Power plants are responsible for one-quarter of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are directly responsible for climate change impacts that are increasing in intensity and frequency.

Nina Brooks is an assistant professor of environment and sustainability. Her research seeks to document how climate change and air pollution threaten human health and well-being in the Global South and identify real-world, actionable climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.

“The EPA’s decision to eliminate greenhouse gas regulations on power plants clarifies the calculus for South Asian nations: they can’t rely on U.S. climate leadership. But, nor do they need to. Renewable energy is now the cheapest way to generate electricity,” Brooks said. “For South Asia—the world’s most polluted region—this creates a compelling reason to invest, regardless of U.S. climate policy. The economically rational energy choice also delivers massive public health benefits by reducing air pollution that drives disease and mortality across the region. Add energy independence (critical in a region dependent on oil and gas imports) and the case for a green transition is clear, regardless of U.S. policy shifts.”

“In 2009, the EPA issued its science-based finding that the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare. The endangerment finding requires the EPA to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources.

“This proposed action would hurt U.S. economic competitiveness, take away clean energy jobs, reverse decarbonization progress, and will ultimately result in greater climate-change-related damages and costs to society—for example, from flooding, wildfires, droughts, insurance risks, human health effects. Costs from weather and climate disasters including droughts, wildfires, flooding and health effects are increasing in the U.S. In 2024, there were 27 individual weather and climate disasters with at least $1 billion in damages totaling $183 billion.”

Read the full experts advisory on the Michigan News website.