EPA Downplays Power Plant Emissions Despite Contradictory Survey

In June 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not pose a significant health or environmental threat. This perspective, released as part of a regulatory analysis of Power Plant Emissions, has drawn considerable attention from scientists and sustainability professionals.

The EPA emphasized market-based declines in emissions and the improved efficiency of power generation as evidence of limited climate risk. However, a newly published survey of scientific experts suggest a disconnect between the EPA’s position and the broader scientific consensus.

Scientific Rebuttal and Independent Survey

To evaluate the EPA’s claims, U.S. News & World Report conducted a survey of 30 experts across climate science, economics, and public health disciplines. In the published results, available here, 19 respondents provided commentary—and none supported the EPA’s assessment.

The scientists emphasized that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are a well-established contributor to global warming and that power plants—particularly coal-fired facilities—remain among the largest point sources of these emissions in the United States.

Several experts expressed concern that underestimating the risks could erode trust in science-based regulation. For instance, Dr. Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth noted that the scientific link between CO₂ and warming has been recognized since the 19th century. Others, including Dr. Howard Frumkin (University of Washington), warned that minimizing emissions impacts may downplay associated public health consequences.

Environmental and Public Health Implications

Fossil fuel combustion releases both carbon dioxide and pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, and other health risks. Multiple studies—including those from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Academies—link these emissions to increased mortality and economic damages.

Additionally, these emissions are central to climate policy frameworks, including U.S. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Any policy shift or communication that suggests emissions are not a concern could affect national and corporate climate planning.

Regulatory Transparency and Evidence Standards

The EPA’s assessment underscores the importance of transparency in how environmental risks are modeled and communicated. While the agency may base its position on specific assumptions about market transitions and technology adoption, independent scientists argue that these models must be rigorously reviewed and aligned with the latest data.

For sustainability professionals, ESG strategists, and regulators, the episode illustrates the need to:

• Critically assess emissions data sources and methodologies

• Ensure alignment between public statements and peer-reviewed evidence

• Acknowledge areas of scientific consensus when informing policy

Why Join the Certified Sustainability Practitioner Program

In light of regulatory uncertainty and growing public scrutiny, professionals in sustainability, compliance, and corporate responsibility need more than general awareness—they need expertise.

The Certified Sustainability (ESG) Practitioner Program provides participants with:

• Practical tools for ESG integration, climate risk analysis, and sustainability strategy

• Up-to-date insights on reporting frameworks (GRI, TCFD, CSRD, and more)

• Global best practices in stakeholder engagement and emissions measurement

• A recognized credential that strengthens leadership credibility in ESG and climate governance

Whether you’re navigating corporate disclosures, leading decarbonization initiatives, or advising on regulatory trends, this training equips you to make informed, strategic decisions in a rapidly evolving sustainability landscape.

🔗 Register here to join our next U.S. cohort.