Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-28**Lead**
WASHINGTON – In a sharp critique of the Biden administration’s environmental legacy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin declared that the previous White House’s energy regulations cost American taxpayers and businesses billions of dollars, while the Trump administration’s rollback of those rules is now delivering tangible cost relief. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Zeldin outlined a series of deregulatory actions that he said are lowering energy prices, reducing compliance burdens, and restoring U.S. energy independence.
**Context**
Zeldin, who took the helm of the EPA after President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, has made deregulation a cornerstone of his tenure. The former New York congressman has repeatedly criticized the Biden-era EPA for what he calls “overreach” that stifled domestic energy production and drove up costs for households and industries. Among the regulations targeted for repeal are the 2023 methane emissions rule for oil and gas operations, stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles, and the “Good Neighbor” plan aimed at curbing cross-state air pollution. According to Zeldin, these rules imposed compliance costs that ran into the billions, with little measurable environmental benefit.
The Biden administration had defended its energy policies as necessary to combat climate change and protect public health. The methane rule, for instance, was projected to reduce emissions by the equivalent of 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. However, industry groups and Republican lawmakers argued that the regulations disproportionately burdened small and mid-sized energy producers, leading to higher gasoline prices and reduced domestic drilling. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that average retail gasoline prices rose by more than 40% during Biden’s term, though global factors such as the war in Ukraine also played a role.
Under Trump, the EPA has moved swiftly to reverse course. In February 2025, the agency proposed rescinding the methane rule, arguing that existing state-level regulations and market incentives are sufficient to curb emissions. The Department of Transportation simultaneously relaxed fuel economy standards for model years 2026–2030, a move that automakers had long requested. Zeldin has also signaled that the EPA will withdraw from the “Good Neighbor” plan, which had been challenged in court by several states.
**Análise**
The economic implications of these policy shifts are significant. Zeldin’s claim that Biden’s rules cost “billions” aligns with estimates from the American Petroleum Institute, which calculated that the methane rule alone would impose annual compliance costs of $2.5 billion. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, pegged the total regulatory burden of Biden’s environmental agenda at over $100 billion over a decade. While these figures are disputed by environmental groups, the direction of the impact is clear: deregulation is expected to lower operational costs for energy companies, which could translate into lower prices at the pump and reduced electricity bills for consumers.
However, critics warn that the rollback comes at a cost to public health and the environment. The EPA’s own analyses under Biden had shown that the methane rule would prevent thousands of asthma attacks and premature deaths. Environmental advocacy groups have already filed lawsuits to block the repeal, arguing that the agency failed to provide adequate justification. The legal battles could delay the cost savings Zeldin promises, and any short-term economic gains may be offset by long-term climate-related damages.
For the broader economy, the Trump administration’s energy policy is part of a larger strategy to boost manufacturing and reduce inflation. Lower energy costs directly reduce input prices for industries such as chemicals, steel, and transportation. The National Association of Manufacturers has praised the EPA’s deregulatory moves, stating that they will help U.S. companies compete with foreign rivals that face fewer environmental restrictions. On the other hand, renewable energy sectors—such as solar and wind—may face headwinds as subsidies and mandates are scaled back. The shift could also affect U.S. standing in global climate negotiations, as other nations may view the rollback as a step backward.
**Fontes**
This article is based on public statements made by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin during a press conference on October 28, 2026, as well as reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the American Petroleum Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Legal challenges to the EPA’s rule rescissions have been documented by the Environmental Defense Fund and other advocacy groups. No proprietary or unpublished data was used.