Trump and his EPA Sued for Creating Email Shortcut Around Clean Air Protections

Washington, D.C. —

Today, community and environmental groups represented by Earthjustice sued the Trump administration over its unlawful decision to exempt dozens of coal-fired power plants from stronger pollution limits set in the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS. The exemptions, issued in April, allow 68 coal power plants to release more mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals known to damage children’s brain development, trigger asthma attacks, and cause cancer.

The lawsuit comes one day after the Trump administration proposed to repeal the 2024 MATS, and the 111 Power Plant rule limiting pollution from coal and gas-fired power plants that exacerbate climate-heating greenhouse air pollution.

“This is a political favor for coal corporations that results in families and children breathing more mercury and arsenic, chemicals that cause cancers and birth defects,” said Earthjustice attorney Nicholas Morales. “Trump and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Zeldin claim they care about cleaning our air, our water, even our food, and yet their actions consistently tell a different story.”

In March, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin invited corporations to email the agency to request exemptions from clean air standards. Corporations were told they could cite “national security” or “lack of available technology” as justifications. A month later, two-year exemptions were sent to coal-fired power plants, although many already comply, and pollution controls are installed at most of the plants and are otherwise widely available.

The coal power plants granted exemptions are spread across 23 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Many of the exempted facilities are located in or near working-class communities and communities of color already burdened by pollution.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges President Trump’s April 2025 proclamation granting pollution exemptions that had been requested by email, sidestepping any form of public process, and contravening the statutory framework. Trump’s power grab hinges on twisting Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, a provision never used in 55 years and meant for true national security emergencies where pollution controls are unavailable. His proclamation vaguely cited “national security” and “lack of available technology,” even though many coal plants already meet the MATS and proven pollution controls are widely available.

The plaintiffs to the lawsuit are Air Alliance Houston, Clean Air Council, Downwinders at Risk, Montana Environmental Information Center, and Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice; Center for Biological Diversity; Environmental Defense Fund, represented by Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog; Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, represented by Clean Air Task Force; Environmental Integrity Project; Dakota Resource Council and Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), represented by ELPC; and NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council).

Background on MATS

Before MATS was established in 2012, there were no federal limits on how much mercury and toxic air pollution coal power plants could emit. The standards led to an 90% reduction in mercury emissions, 80% drop in other metals, and helped save up to 11,000 lives each year. In 2024, the EPA strengthened MATS, building on what has become one of its most effective air pollution rules.

EPA’s own analysis of the 2024 rule found:

• $33 million in annual health benefits
• Minimal impact on electricity reliability, with no expected retirements
• Only 33 plants required upgrades to meet non-mercury metal standards.

Quotes from our clients

“The Houston area already has some of the worst air pollution in the nation, and now the EPA is giving some of those worst polluters — coal plants — a free pass to pollute health-harming air toxics like mercury and arsenic right into our backyards,” said Jennifer Hadayia, executive director of Air Alliance Houston. “There is no excuse to let families and children breathe cancer-causing chemicals, so that W. A. Parish and coal-fired power plants like it can maintain their status quo.”

“This advances Trump’s polluters-first agenda and exposes families to continued injury from mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals known to cause cancer, developmental damage, and respiratory illness. The law is clear in allowing exemptions only when a technology is unavailable. Forcing frontline communities most burdened by hazardous coal emissions to continue to suffer when the technology is proven and available is both illegal and unconscionable.” said Alex Bomstein, executive director of Clean Air Council.

“There are 170 coal-fired power plants in the country that use the same technology as the Colstrip plant in Montana, and every one of them has installed updated pollution control technology to protect communities from air toxics,” said Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. “Harming human health to eke out a bit more shareholder profit from a coal plant — especially one that is the nation’s dirtiest for toxic emissions and is frequently broken when we need it most — is misguided, harmful, and expensive. Perhaps the billionaires in charge don’t care about human health or their electricity bills, but everyday Montanans sure do.”

“We have the technology to protect Texans from toxic air pollution and coal plants are fully aware that the technology exists,” said Downwinders at Risk. “The reason Texas is breathing harmful toxins is because the federal government values corporate profits over human lives.”

“The Trump administration is exempting the dirtiest plants in our country from a simple requirement to reduce their toxic pollution to match the vast majority of other plants, in most cases simply by repairing and using controls that are already in place,” said Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club Chief Appellate Counsel. “That betrays the communities surrounding those plants, and has no basis in the law or common sense.”