HB1651 would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 final rule on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units, including the accompanying New Source Performance Standards and emission guidelines, as well as repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy rule. The bill enacts a straightforward statutory declaration: the final rule shall have no force or effect.
If enacted, this would remove the federal emission standards tied to that rule from force and affect. The measure is narrowly drafted, with Section 1 as the sole provision in the text, indicating a direct approach to roll back the rule without adding alternative standards or transition mechanics.
The policy outcome would be a clear federal non-regulatory position on these particular GHG standards for fossil-fired plants, at least as to the 2024 rule. This has implications for energy economics, regulatory signaling, and long-horizon climate considerations, especially for utilities and ratepayers who operate or plan fossil-fuel generation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill provides that the EPA’s final rule on GHG emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units, along with the emission guidelines for existing units, has no force or effect. It also identifies the specific rule in question (May 9, 2024, 89 Fed. Reg. 39798).
Who It Affects
Fossil-fuel generating units, their owners and operators, electric utilities, and states implementing or planning to implement the EPA rule. Federal agencies involved in environmental regulation would also be affected by the nullification.
Why It Matters
Sets a congressional override of a major federal environmental regulation, altering the policy landscape for power generation and emissions management and signaling a potential shift away from centralized EPA GHG standards for fossil plants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill’s core action is to strike down the EPA’s 2024 final rule that established New Source Performance Standards and emission guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units, as well as the repeal of the ACE rule. Section 1 declares that the referenced rule “shall have no force or effect,” which effectively removes those federal standards from the regulatory fabric.
The document provides no alternate standards or transitional provisions in its current form, implying that federal policy would revert to the status quo prior to the 2024 rule, at least with respect to these specific provisions, unless other, separate laws are enacted.
For compliance professionals, the bill would remove the obligation to align with the 2024 NSPS and ACE framework and would reduce the federal regulatory pressure on fossil-fuel generators in this domain. Utilities and plant operators would no longer be bound by these particular federal GHG emission guidelines, and EPA authority to enforce those standards on fossil units would be nullified for the purposes of this rule.
The measure does not itself establish new emissions limits or alternate standards, so the immediate effect is to eliminate the 2024 rule’s applicability rather than replace it with a new regime. Policymakers, ratepayers, and climate stakeholders must watch how the absence of these federal standards affects reliability, energy prices, and emissions trajectories in practice.In sum, HB1651 is a direct legislative maneuver to erase a significant EPA regulation rather than reframe it with new federal requirements.
The bill’s narrow scope means other environmental rules remain unaffected, but the policy signal is clear: Congress would block this particular approach to federal GHG regulation of fossil-fuel electricity generation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill would void the EPA final rule on GHG emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units.
Section 1 states the rule (89 Fed. Reg. 39798, May 9, 2024) shall have no force or effect.
The text currently contains only Section 1 and imposes no alternative standards.
The nullification targets the NSPS for new/modifed/reconstructed units and emissions guidelines for existing units and repeals of the ACE rule.
Introduced February 27, 2025 in the 119th Congress by Rep. Balderson (R-OH).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Nullification of EPA final rule on GHG emissions for fossil-fuel units
This section declares that the EPA’s final rule relating to greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units, along with emission guidelines for existing units and the repeal of the ACE rule, shall have no force or effect. The reference to the specific Federal Register citation (89 Fed. Reg. 39798, May 9, 2024) anchors the rule being nullified. The provision is a direct legislative override with no transitional provisions or substitutes included in the current bill text.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Fossil-fuel power plant owners and operators who would avoid compliance costs and stringent limits tied to the 2024 rule.
- Utilities operating fleets heavy in fossil generation, which would experience reduced regulatory burdens and potential cost savings from not meeting the 2024 rule’s requirements.
- Fossil-fuel supply chain players (coal, natural gas, and related fuel suppliers) who benefit from a delay or reversal of stricter emissions standards.
- States with large fossil generation portfolios that prefer maintaining current regulatory flexibility over new federal emissions requirements.
- Policy advocates favoring reduced federal regulatory burdens on energy production who seek a clearer, less stringent federal policy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public health-improvement opportunities tied to reduced emissions controls may be foregone, affecting air quality in communities near fossil-generating facilities.
- Ratepayers and consumers potentially facing higher long-run energy costs if emissions regulation and modernization of plants are delayed or rolled back.
- Environmental justice communities that would bear higher exposure to pollutants if the rule’s protections are weakened.
- Clean energy developers and investors who rely on consistent federal emissions signals to justify deployment of cleaner generation.
- Taxpayers and public budgets potentially bearing climate-related damages if weaker federal standards lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between Congress’s desire to block a federal emissions standard and the public policy objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power generation. Blocking a rule can preserve regulatory flexibility and fossil-fuel competitiveness in the short term, but it may also forgo climate and air-quality benefits and create long-term regulatory and economic uncertainty for stakeholders who must plan, invest, and finance plant operations.
The bill concentrates power in a single, explicit act of nullification, which raises questions about the continuity and compatibility of federal environmental policy. By erasing a major 2024 rule without substituting a new federal framework, the measure creates a policy cliff for fossil-fuel generation and for state implementation plans that had begun to align with the EPA rule.
The lack of transitional provisions or alternative standards invites uncertainty for utilities, lenders, and manufacturers, who rely on regulatory signals to plan investments and avoid stranded assets.
A central design choice is to eschew an alternative regulatory path in favor of outright nullification. This avoids the risk of duplicative requirements, but it also forecloses a federal baseline for GHG emissions from fossil plants—at least for the rule targeted—without a clear replacement.
The result is a potential shift in regulatory risk toward state and market-driven responses, while the federal government steps back from enforcing these specific standards. The broader policy question concerns whether Congress intends to permit continued high-emissions operation in the absence of federal standards or whether other federal tools will emerge to address emissions in this sector.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.