EPA moves to stop considering economic benefits of cleaner air
The EPA will stop monetizing health benefits from reducing PM2.5 and ozone, focusing analyses on industry costs and citing scientific uncertainty, a move critics say weakens air protections.
Overview
EPA will stop monetizing health benefits from reductions in PM2.5 and ozone, instead detailing health impacts qualitatively while quantifying industry compliance costs.
The change appears in recent EPA analyses and rules, including a regulatory impact analysis for stationary combustion turbines and a final NOx rule.
Agency cites scientific uncertainty and declining incremental impacts as reasons for not assigning dollar values to avoided deaths and illnesses.
Environmental and public health groups argue the shift could enable rollbacks of pollution limits and leave communities exposed to asthma, heart disease and premature deaths.
Administration officials say the agency still values health impacts and will refine methods; critics call the move politically driven and part of a broader deregulatory agenda.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame EPA’s policy shift as a devaluation of health benefits, using loaded language (e.g., "weaponizing scientific uncertainty"), prioritizing cost figures (e.g., $27–$92 million) and comparisons to prior administrations to suggest political motive. Editorial choices emphasize uncertainty and cost-focused analysis, while quotes and documents remain source content.
Sources (4)
FAQ
PM2.5 refers to fine particulate matter, often called soot, that can cause respiratory issues, heart disease, asthma, and premature deaths. Ozone is a key air pollutant linked to lifelong respiratory problems and tens of thousands of premature deaths annually in the U.S.
The EPA cites scientific uncertainty in estimates of economic impacts from avoided deaths and illnesses, as well as declining incremental impacts, and plans to refine its methods before assigning dollar values.
The change appears in the regulatory impact analysis for stationary combustion turbines (a rule on power plant turbines burning fossil fuels) and a final NOx rule for new gas-burning power plants.
Environmental and public health groups argue it weakens air protections, sets the value of human life at $0 in analyses, enables rollbacks of pollution limits, and is politically driven as part of a deregulatory agenda.
EPA officials state they remain committed to protecting human health, will detail health impacts qualitatively, quantify emissions and industry costs, but not monetize benefits until methods are refined.
History
This story does not have any previous versions.