A new draft plan from the Environmental Protection Agency that would eliminate federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants could shift the landscape of climate policy and the US carbon credit market, including Alaska’s.
According to reporting by The New York Times, a copy of the draft proposal was sent to the White House on May 2 and may be released for public comment in June.
The document marks a reversal in regulatory approach from prior Biden-era EPA actions, including a 2024 rule that imposed new emissions restrictions on coal-fired plants.
The draft reportedly says carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution or climate change, citing the declining share of global emissions represented by the US power sector. Eliminating these emissions would not produce a measurable improvement in public health or welfare.
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has been developing a regulatory framework for carbon management, focusing on carbon capture, utilization, and storage and carbon offset projects.
In 2023, Gov. Mike Dunleavy proposed carbon management and monetization legislation to enable the Department of Natural Resources to regulate carbon offset and sequestration projects on state lands. These legislation allows private companies to lease state lands for carbon offsets (keeping lands undeveloped) or store CO2 underground for permanent sequestration or enhanced oil recovery, particularly in the Cook Inlet basin, estimated to have a 50-gigaton CO2 storage capacity. The target for this monetization is Asia, with countries like Japan looking to buy carbon storage to meet international climate goals set by globalists.
Alaska also submitted a climate action plan (renamed Sustainable Energy Action Plan) to the EPA in 2024 under the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, focusing on renewable energy expansion and energy efficiency (e.g., heat pumps, home weatherization, and hydroelectric projects like Bradley Lake). The plan avoids direct regulation of oil and gas emissions but emphasizes reducing emissions from energy use.
The Trump Administration policy shift, if enacted, could have far-reaching consequences for the burgeoning carbon credit market, which relies heavily on emissions limits to drive demand for offsets. Such credits are typically purchased by companies seeking to comply with emissions regulations or to voluntarily meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets.
By removing the regulatory cap on emissions from major polluters, the EPA could reduce the pressure on utilities and industrial firms to purchase offsets, dampening demand in both compliance and voluntary markets.
The move may also shift the center of gravity for carbon market activity from the federal level to states like California and Washington, which maintain their own cap-and-trade systems. These programs could gain new prominence as firms seek alternative venues for regulatory certainty and emissions accountability.
The new EPA direction is almost certain to bring lawsuits and fierce opposition from environmental groups and Democrat lawmakers, many of whom championed the 2024 EPA rules.
At that time, the EPA projected that its regulations would prevent up to 1,200 premature deaths annually and reduce thousands of cases of asthma and hospitalizations related to air pollution. Now, the EPA says there is no data to support that claim.
Power plant operators, many of which have already made major investments in emissions reductions and carbon trading strategies, may find themselves caught between diverging state and federal priorities.
Alaska’s carbon sequestration framework relies on market-driven demand for carbon storage. A federal rollback of emissions limits could weaken demand for carbon storage services, as power plants (especially coal- and gas-fired) would face no federal mandate to reduce CO2 emissions.
This could reduce revenue potential for Alaska’s carbon storage projects, undermining the economic viability of the DNR’s leasing program.
Before the new EPA rule can take place, it must go through public comment period and could be revised. The topic is sure to come up during Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage in June, when the head of the EPA Lee Zeldin, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are scheduled to attend.
What about the myth, anthropogenic climate change? Who will save the children ? We need these kids to pay off the debt the unions created. Save the children.
We all know Dunleavy is an idiot. He is from Pennsylvania and a democrat. Of course he will follow what the democrats tell him to do. Thank the heavens he will be in the governor’s seat just another year and more destruction to this state than what he’s done to this day between him and his poor choices of persons he hires.
The whole carbon credit program appears a scam on a world wide pallet of governmental policy gone amuck.
It should be placed up there with the COVID scam.
Concequence for promoting these scams escapes rational adjudications as witnessed by current mentalities of judicial heads ignorances,
Frustrating to logic.
Cheers
Yes! Carbon Credits is a protection racket. You pay someone so they don’t sue or boycott you.
Yay,let’s hear it for dirty air and dirty water. So much winning going on!
Except carbon dioxide isn’t “dirty.”
Follow the money.
Who benefits from these types of programs?
The Aliens Gore / Bill Gates Globalists typesbof the world.
Why was Gates going to Epstein’s Island do much?
How is/has Dunleavy profited, personally, from these Carbon Offset type state programs?
This is some crooked sh//!
Over the last several decades, the greenhouse gas emissions from power generation across the USA has plummeted, faster than even the Paris Accord has required. (If I remember correctly. I have not looked into specifics, and am running off of news articles.) But, instead of stopping with the win, and expecting incremental improvements, the leftists running the last administration pushed for stricter controls.
.
One can only assume their goal was to eliminate conventional power generation. The emission goals set were not going to be met by existing power plants, and retrofitting was too expensive.
.
A very wise man once said, “it is a luxury afforded to a wealthy nation to care about the environment. When that nation places the environment ahead of maintaining and growing that wealth, they will lose both.”
Good, ESG is communist WEF garbage. Carbon credits have nothing to do with science or pollution .
Good. It was a stupid idea to begin with.
Carbon credits.
Hey, the whole CO2 thing is a fiasco.
Good, This whole carbon capture idea is a gimmick. Plant a tree grow some plants same thing but better for the environment.
Just what are EPA carbon credits? If you supposedly emit carbon in your industry you have to pay Democrats to do so? (at least that’s where the money will end up). This is extortion and Alaska should not be a part of it. We should be deriving revenue from oil, gas, timber, mining, fishing, and tourism.
Good news.
.
Apparently nobody in Alaska’s government has what it takes to write a reasonably honest budget or commission DOGE audits to find out where money actually goes.
.
So …what would have protected Alaskans from being stuck with the bill for green new scams like: “U.S. Attorney Announces Criminal Charges In Multi-Year Fraud Scheme In The Market For Carbon Credits”?
(‘https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-criminal-charges-multi-year-fraud-scheme-market-carbon-credits)
.
Ask another way: who would have protected Alaskans from being stuck with the bill for green new scams like this?
.
If nothing and nobody comes to mind, could this be a clue we’re close to a weight limit on fraud, waste, and abuse, and piling on even more might break an axle or something?
Medicaid expansion, began under the Walker administration, is another unfunded mandate. Now our state is obligated to pay for it.
Instead of collecting money to NOT develop our resources, we should develop our resources and actually contribute something to society.
Has anyone done an EPA study on what happens to the environment when you store large quantities of carbon? ;^)
It’s like Christmas everyday now.