Repeal the EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards – Mackinac Center

My name is Jason Hayes. I am the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The Mackinac Center, based in Midland, Michigan, is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. The Mackinac Center is a leading voice for free-market principles, limited government, and policies that prioritize individual liberty and economic opportunity. We strongly support energy policies that ensure an abundant, secure, and affordable supply of reliable energy to power prosperity for Michigan’s families, businesses, and communities.

I submit these comments in strong support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards (CPS) for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs), as outlined in the Federal Register on June 17, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 25752). The repeal of the CPS is crucial for Michigan, a state with a diverse energy portfolio that includes coal, natural gas, and nuclear, and a growing demand for electricity driven by manufacturing, data centers, and the ongoing pressure to electrify home and business heating and transportation.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright explained how making “American energy more affordable, reliable, and secure” helps to ensure human flourishing. “Energy is the lifeblood that makes everything in life possible. Energy matters,” Wright explained.[1] However, the CPS threatens both Michigan’s and America’s energy security (and human health and well-being) by imposing unachievable mandates, increasing electricity costs for ratepayers, and risking grid reliability. Repealing the CPS restores state authority, respects constitutional limits, and ensures energy policy aligns with Michigan’s unique needs and economic realities.

1. Michigan Emission Reductions demonstrate no need for the CPS
Michigan’s utility sector has reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without federal mandates, such as the CPS. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Michigan’s “Total Energy CO2 Emissions” decreased by 30%, from a high point of 200.2 million metric tons in 1973 to 141.1 million metric tons in 2023. The majority of this decrease was driven by improvements in generation technologies and market-driven transitions (or fuel-switching) from 1950s and 1960s-era coal-fired technologies to current-day natural gas technologies.

Source: Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profile: Michigan, and Energy-related CO2 Emission Data Tables Summary ^[2]

Michigan’s reduction in CO2 emissions mirrors national trends, where U.S. electricity-based CO2 emissions have decreased by 111%, or 0.98 billion tons, since 2005, surpassing any other country.[3] Meanwhile, global emissions from countries like China (increased emissions by 5.14 billion tons) and India (increased emissions by 1.61 billion tons) have risen sharply, rendering U.S. power sector emissions—approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with coal at 1.5%—insignificant in the global context.[4] Given the rapid growth of Chinese and Indian greenhouse gas emissions, overwhelming any reductions in American emissions, the EPA’s proposed finding that GHG emissions from U.S.-based fossil fuel-fired EGUs do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(A) is well-founded.[5]

Source: Environmental Protection Agency[6]

Michigan’s existing emissions reductions demonstrate that innovation and markets, not regulation, drive efficiency gains. The CPS’s mandates are unnecessary and counterproductive, as they impose massive costs without achieving any meaningful global impact.

2. CPS Threatens Michigan’s Grid Reliability and AffordabilityMichigan’s energy landscape relies on a diverse generation mix, including natural gas, which produced 45% of the state’s electricity in 2023, nuclear (23%), and coal (20%).[7] These reliable, domestic energy sources are necessary to meet the growing electricity and energy demands of industries such as automotive and polysilicon manufacturing, as well as emerging industries like data centers and battery manufacturing. However, the CPS’s mandates jeopardize electric reliability across the state by forcing premature retirements of dispatchable coal and gas units.

As other comments to this proposed rule have correctly noted, continued operation of the existing U.S. coal and natural gas fleet is critical to maintaining grid stability. Yet, utilities plan to retire 52,000 MW by 2029 and 80,000 MW by 2035, primarily due to regulatory pressures, such as the CPS.[8]

In Michigan, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy have announced plans to retire coal units, such as the Campbell Plant by 2025 and the Monroe Power Plant by 2032. These closures will exacerbate reliability risks in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region.[9]^{, [10]}

In “Shorting the Great Lakes Grid,” the Mackinac Center explained how many experts responsible for the reliable operation of the nation’s electric grid are sounding warnings about the rush to decommission reliable electricity generation sources and attempts to replace them with variable, weather-dependent sources like wind and solar.[11] The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has warned that the nation’s bulk power system (BPS) faces heightened risks of electricity shortages due to the retirement of dispatchable generation.

The reliability of the BPS [Bulk Power System, effectively synonymous with the electric grid] depends on the operating characteristics of the replacement resources. Merely having available generation capacity does not equate to having the necessary reliability services or ramping capability to balance generation and load. It is essential for the BPS to have resources not only with the capability to respond to frequency and voltage changes, but to actively provide those services.[12]

Commissioner Mark Christie of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reiterated concerns over growing grid instability.

I think the United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. […] The core of the problem is actually very simple. We are retiring dispatchable generating resources at a pace and in an amount that is far too fast and far too great, and it is threatening our ability to keep the lights on. The problem is not the addition of wind and solar and other renewable resources. The problem is the subtraction of dispatchable resources such as coal and gas. […] A nameplate megawatt of wind or solar is simply not equal in terms of capacity value to a nameplate megawatt of coal or gas or nuclear.[13]

In the February 2024 edition of “MISO’s Response to the Reliability Imperative,” John Bear, CEO of the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator, explained how,

[T]he transition that is underway to get to a decarbonized end state is posing material, adverse challenges to electric reliability.

A key risk is that many existing “dispatchable” resources that can be turned on and off and adjusted as needed are being replaced with weather-dependent resources such as wind and solar that have materially different characteristics and capabilities. … [T]hey lack certain key reliability attributes that are needed to keep the grid reliable every hour of the year.[14] (Emphases in original.)

However, the CPS targets the rapid closure of reliable fossil generation by mandating technologically unachievable carbon capture levels. These closures are required even though many states, such as Michigan, narrowly avoided widespread blackouts during Winter Storm Elliott (December 2022), thanks to coal and gas units that provided baseload power when solar and wind proved insufficient.[15] Just as was experienced during the February 2021 Winter Storm Uri blackouts that impacted Texas, reporting after the event indicated that wind and solar provided (at most) minimal additional capacity, “as expected.”[16] During the February 2021 storm, commentators described the expectation that wind and solar would provide little to no additional capacity as being “reliably unreliable.” Terms like “reliably unreliable” translate to, “It can’t be counted on when it’s needed most.”[17]

Michigan experienced similar shortages during the January 2019 polar vortex event, when temperatures (with wind chill) plummeted to as low as -25°F, and wind and solar sources failed to meet more than 5% of the region’s total electricity needs.

Throughout the blisteringly cold day on Jan. 30, utilities across the Midwest relied on fossil fuels for 80 percent of the region’s electricity. Coal provided about half of our electricity, while natural gas provided 30 percent. Nuclear provided just over 14 percent, while wind was providing only about 4 percent and solar wasn’t even listed; it was grouped in as one of the “other” sources, at less than 2 percent.[18]

Looking forward, Mackinac Center research indicates that the rush to retire reliable baseload generation sources will leave the Midwest chronically undersupplied, as accredited and reliable generation capacity is making up an increasingly smaller portion of the region’s electricity supply.[19]

The CPS also threatens affordability. Michigan ratepayers already face the highest electricity rates in the region, with residential rates increasing 30% from 2013 to 2023. The CPS’s mandates would further increase costs through expensive retrofits and unnecessary infrastructure investments. For example, in their testimony, America’s Power highlighted that coal generation in the PJM region saved consumers $500 million to $1.4 billion during the January 2024 Polar Vortex by stabilizing prices.[20] During the 2019 Polar Vortex event, coal and natural gas generation reliably provided approximately 80% of the electricity used during the extreme cold.[21]

3. CPS’s Technical and Infrastructural InfeasibilityThe CPS’s reliance on 90% CCS and 40% natural gas co-firing overlooks the fact that CCS has not been adequately demonstrated as the best system of emissions reduction. This reality is evidenced by the inconsistent performance of projects like Boundary Dam Unit 3, which has not sustained 90% capture rates due to operational variability. Previous comment on the original CPS rule proves that while CCS systems may have been designed to target a 90% capture rate, that standard has never been achieved.

The EPA has failed to adequately demonstrate CCS technology as a BSER for emission reduction under the CAA and fails Section 111(d) ‘s legal standard. The proposed rule leaves coal plant operators with functionally one option: shut down before 2040. The EPA’s unwelcome restrictions on natural gas risk dissuading investment in a cheap source of low-cost energy and pigeonholing producers into adopting expensive and unreliable intermittent sources of renewable power. States that have overbuilt renewable sources of power, like Texas and California, have had problems balancing power demand and power supply. This has led to power shortages, greater risk of brown- and blackouts, and households paying expensive surge prices for electricity. In its current form, the EPA’s proposed rule promotes an unsustainable energy policy. [22]

The 90% CCS standard cannot reasonably be considered the best system of emissions reduction.

Similarly, co-firing 40% natural gas in coal units is inefficient, as it reduces boiler efficiency to below 40%, compared to 50% or higher for combined cycle units, and constitutes impermissible generation shifting under West Virginia v. EPA.

The CPS’s reliance on 90% CCS and 40% natural gas co-firing is technically and infrastructurally unfeasible. The EPA’s assumption of widespread deployment by 2032 is unrealistic. The Department of Energy’s Carbon Storage Atlas, cited in the CPS, overstates the number of viable CO2 storage sites, as most require extensive geological testing that the Atlas does not account for. While Michigan has some of the most promising geologic storage potential in the nation, it would still face significant challenges in permitting to meet the growing demand for storage sites over the next seven to ten years. The EPA’s projection of expanding CO2 pipelines from 5,000 to 60,000 miles by 2032 ignores permitting delays, litigation, and public opposition, as seen in recent Midwest pipeline projects.[23]

Similarly, the 40% co-firing mandate requires extensive pipeline infrastructure that cannot be built by 2030. Michigan’s existing natural gas infrastructure is already strained, and adding capacity for co-firing would require significant investments in new pipelines, which would face the same permitting and legal hurdles as CO2 pipelines. These mandates are not only unachievable but also economically irrational, as retrofitting coal units for co-firing is less efficient and more costly than building new combined cycle units.

4. CPS Violates Legal and Statutory PrinciplesThe CPS exceeds the EPA’s authority under CAA Section 111, as it lacks a pollutant-specific significant contribution finding for GHGs from EGUs. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) clarified that Section 111 does not authorize sector-wide transformations, such as generation shifting, which the CPS’s co-firing mandate effectively imposes. The EPA’s proposed interpretation—that a significant contribution finding is required—aligns with the statute’s text and the major questions doctrine, preventing the Agency from regulating de minimis or non-harmful emissions.

Furthermore, the CPS’s subcategorization of EGUs based on market function (e.g., short-, medium-, and long-term operation) rather than physical characteristics violates CAA precedent. Under the Clean Air Act, subcategorization must be based on objective, source-specific factors, not economic or dispatch roles.

The CPS also disregards cooperative federalism principles embodied in Section 111(d), which reserves the primary role in the prevention and control of air pollution from electricity generation to states. Michigan’s legislature and state agencies are better positioned to balance reliability, affordability, and environmental goals than federal mandates that overlook local needs.

5. Environmental and Community Impacts in MichiganThe CPS’s push for land-intensive renewables to replace fossil fuels poses a threat to Michigan’s rural landscapes and agricultural communities. The Mackinac Center’s research, consistent with the John Locke Foundation’s Lighting the Path study,[24] shows that solar and wind require significantly more land than nuclear or fossil fuel plants.

It’s clear the rapid increase in wind and solar generation facilities will require a great deal of land. A 2021 Princeton University study outlined five technical pathways that researchers believed could achieve a federal net-zero goal. The pathways ranged from a low of 0.25 million square kilometers (almost 97,000 square miles) to a high estimate of 1.1 million square kilometers (almost 425,000 square miles). This equates to between 3% and 12% of the nation’s 3.53 million square miles of land. …

Government officials in Michigan claim the state can meet net zero mandates using far less land than the Princeton study estimates. In testimony before the Michigan Senate Energy and Environment Committee, Michigan Public Service Commission Chair Dan Scripps explained the amount of land needed to meet the state’s net zero goals. “The highest number in terms of the amount of acreage of direct land use under a high-growth scenario, again, is about 209,393 acres of new land,” explained Scripps. “That’s a big number. But in context, it represents about 0.55% of Michigan’s total projected or total area. And so it’s a significant growth — and I am not here to pretend otherwise — over what’s in place today. But it’s still about one-half of 1% of Michigan’s total land.”[25]

In Michigan, solar farms already cover thousands of acres, fragmenting productive farmland and disrupting ecosystems. A nuclear-forward portfolio, by contrast, would require only 38% of the land used by existing solar facilities, preserving Michigan’s natural beauty and rural economies.

6. Strengthening the Regulatory Impact AnalysisThe EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates $19 billion in compliance cost savings from repealing the CPS (using a 3% discount rate and spanning 2026–2047), a significant benefit for Michigan’s ratepayers. However, the RIA’s claim of negative net benefits (Section 6, Table 6-2) is flawed, as it overstates environmental costs and underestimates reliability and economic benefits. The Mackinac Center urges the EPA to revise the RIA with a robust cost-benefit analysis that accounts for:

• Rising Electricity Demand: Michigan’s data center growth and manufacturing resurgence (e.g., electric vehicle production) are driving electricity demand. MISO projects a 5–7% annual load growth through 2030, necessitating the use of all available generation.
• Grid Reliability: The CPS’s forced retirements exacerbate MISO’s capacity shortfall risks, as noted by NERC, FERC, MISO, and other grid operators (see comments above in section 2, “CPS Threatens Michigan’s Grid Reliability and Affordability”).
• Economic Impacts: Higher electricity costs from CPS compliance would harm Michigan’s manufacturing sector, which employs 600,000 workers.

7. Recommendations for Final RuleThe Mackinac Center urges the EPA to:

• Finalize Both Proposals with Severability: Adopt both the primary (no significant contribution finding) and alternative (repeal of CCS and co-firing mandates proposals, including severability language to ensure legal resilience (MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass’n v. FCC, 236 F.3d 13).
• Reinforce Legal Rationale: Clarify that CAA Section 111 requires a pollutant-specific finding for a source category before regulating emissions of that pollutant and that the CPS violates the major questions doctrine, citing West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
• Address Technical Flaws: Repeal CCS-based standards due to inadequate demonstration as BSER, and recognize co-firing mandates as generation shifting.
• Enhance RIA: Supplement the RIA with Michigan-specific data on demand growth, reliability risks, and economic impacts to refute claims of negative net benefits.

Conclusion: A Path to Energy Security and Prosperity for MichiganThe Mackinac Center strongly supports the EPA’s proposed repeal of the CPS. This action restores Michigan’s authority to craft energy policies that prioritize affordability, reliability, and environmental stewardship. By removing unachievable mandates, the EPA ensures that Michigan can meet rising electricity demand, preserve the critical role of its coal and gas fleet, and protect ratepayers from undue costs. We urge the EPA to finalize the repeal with severability provisions to safeguard its legal and technical merits, ensuring a resilient energy future for Michigan and the nation.

Respectfully submitted,Jason Hayes, Director of Energy and Environmental PolicyMackinac Center for Public PolicyMidland, Michigan

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.