The Brief

The Trump administration announced plans to repeal limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other airborne pollutants from the nation's fossil fuel-fired power plants.

The proposal is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's plan, under the Trump administration, to roll back more than two dozen rules and policies. The proposal is likely to face legal challenges, but if it is finalized in its current form, that would eliminate limits on the second-largest source of climate pollution in the U.S., behind transportation.

The EPA argues pollution from U.S. power plants are a small part of global emissions and they're declining. The agency also claims that eliminating climate pollution from power plants would have little effect on people's health.

The proposed rule reads, "The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution."

In announcing the proposal, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that the Trump administration aims to protect the environment while boosting the economy.

"Rest assured President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal," Zeldin said from a wood-paneled room at the agency. "EPA is helping pave the way for American energy dominance because energy development underpins economic development, which in turn strengthens national security."

The EPA announcement brought swift criticism from environmental groups.

"These regressive proposals are bad for public health and bad for climate, all to prop up some of the highest polluting power plants in the nation," Shaun Goho, legal director at Clean Air Task Force wrote in a statement.

This proposal would eliminate rules the EPA finalized during the Biden administration that required existing coal and new natural gas-fired power plants to significantly reduce their carbon dioxide pollution, starting in the 2030s. Carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of global warming.

The EPA labeled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses a danger to public health and welfare in 2009. But legal challenges from fossil fuel interests and their allies delayed the finalization of rules to rein in greenhouse gas pollution. Now, the Trump administration also wants to eliminate that 2009 endangerment finding, which could make it easier to roll back other climate regulations.

What Trump's EPA is doing

The Trump administration wants to redirect the federal government away from former President Joe Biden's climate agenda and toward an even deeper embrace of fossil fuels.

"We will drill, baby, drill," Trump said to cheers from supporters at his January inauguration speech. He has started the yearlong process to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries agreed to limit climate pollution and avoid the worst effects of global warming. Trump declared a national energy emergency and placed a moratorium on new wind energy projects on federal land and in federal waters.

Now, the Trump administration argues U.S. power plants are responsible for only about 3% of the global greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. It says that number is declining — it was 5.5% in 2005. So, the administration argues, reducing it further would provide little benefit to public health.

That ignores that the U.S. is responsible for nearly a quarter of the climate pollution in the atmosphere today, which is more than any other nation, historically. When former President Barack Obama announced rules to cut emissions from power plants in 2015, the goal was to encourage other countries to do the same.

But the U.S. coal industry opposed the limits on power plant climate pollution from the start. The industry has pushed back against decades of declining demand. In 1990 52% of the country's electricity was generated by burning coal and by 2023 that was down to 15%.

"We applaud the Trump administration's work to counter the Biden administration's direct assault on coal power," Rich Nolan, National Mining Association president and CEO, wrote in a statement.

The industry has argued that coal-fired power is needed to meet increasing electricity demand, including for the expansion of data centers for the growing artificial intelligence (AI) industry.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, welcomed the proposal, calling it "a major victory for West Virginia, our energy producers, and every American who depends on reliable, affordable electricity."

As that coal-producing state's former attorney general, Morrisey led the effort to overturn climate pollution regulations on power plants over the past decade.

In April Trump signed executive orders to boost the struggling coal industry and power data centers by allowing older coal plants to keep operating, exempting them from federal pollution limits for two years and increasing coal mining on public lands. During his first term Trump tried, and failed, to save individual coal plants as operators switched to more profitable gas-fired power plants.

"The EPA is hoisting the white flag of surrender on the power plant pollution that's poisoning the air we breathe and harming our climate," Manish Bapna, president and CEO of Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in a statement.

The Biden administration's power plant rules aimed to get the country closer to the primary goal in the Paris climate accord — to zero out greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 in order to rein in worsening catastrophes driven by climate change, such as more intense heatwaves, floods and fires. The proposed Trump rules would move the U.S. further away from that goal.

The EPA also proposed to weaken a Biden-era rule that required power plants to limit other pollutants, such as mercury — a neurotoxin that limits brain and nervous system development, especially in infants and children. Coal power plants are the country's largest source of mercury pollution.

"As Trump and his EPA continue to shovel dirty old coal down our throats, they're now adding more toxic heavy metals like mercury, lead and arsenic to the mix," Ryan Maher, environmental health attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity wrote in an emailed statement. "If these reckless rollbacks are allowed to stand they'll only fan the flames of extreme heat and wildfires, and they'll trigger more child deaths, more cancers, more lung diseases and more heart attacks."

Power plant pollution rules delayed for more than a decade

The legal basis for rules to limit climate pollution from power plants started with the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. It concluded that the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. That led to the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding that designated greenhouse gas pollution as a threat to human health.

In 2014 the Obama administration proposed a "Clean Power Plan" aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32%, from 2005 levels, by 2030. That plan faced legal challenges and never went into effect. Still the country met that goal well before 2030, as coal-fired power plants were replaced by natural gas plants that emit less climate pollution and renewable energy.

In 2019 Trump replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with his Affordable Clean Energy rule, which allowed plants to emit more climate pollution.

Then Biden came into office in 2021 with the most ambitious plan to address climate change of any major party candidate in U.S. history. The administration set a goal of eliminating climate pollution from the power sector by 2035. Scientists say that's what's needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst effects of climate change. So far, the world's continued fossil fuel use puts it on track to exceed 1.5 Celsius — 2024 was the hottest year ever recorded.

In 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in again and restricted the EPA's options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources.

So instead, the EPA created regulations governing individual power plants. The agency and environmental groups believed that would allow the rules to survive scrutiny from a court dominated by conservative justices.

Instead, the Trump administration is eliminating the regulation altogether. Once the rule is finalized — possibly at the end of this year — it's likely that will also be challenged in court.

Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.