Listen to the article
In a significant shift in environmental policy, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it will no longer calculate health care savings and prevented deaths when evaluating air pollution rules for fine particulate matter and ozone. The agency will instead focus solely on industry compliance costs, according to a statement released Monday.
This change represents a fundamental realignment of EPA priorities under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has consistently favored business-friendly approaches to environmental regulation. The agency maintains it “absolutely remains committed to our core mission of protecting human health and the environment” but “will not be monetizing the impacts at this time,” according to EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch.
The EPA says it will continue estimating business compliance costs while working to “refine its economic methodologies” for pollution regulations. Hirsch emphasized in an emailed statement that “not monetizing DOES NOT equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact,” insisting that the agency under Administrator Lee Zeldin remains committed to health protection.
Environmental advocates have responded with sharp criticism, describing the policy shift as a dangerous abdication of the EPA’s fundamental mission. John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the change “reckless, dangerous, and illegal,” arguing that “by pretending real health benefits do not count, EPA wants to open the door for industry to foul the air, while communities and families pay the price in asthma attacks, heart disease and premature deaths.”
The move comes as the Trump administration is attempting to abandon stricter standards for soot pollution established during the Biden administration. In a November court filing, the EPA argued that the Biden-era rule was implemented “without the rigorous, stepwise process that Congress required” and should therefore be considered unlawful.
Health benefit calculation has long been a key component of environmental regulation. Under former President Biden, the EPA estimated that its proposed rule on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. The agency calculated that for every dollar spent reducing PM2.5, there could be up to $77 in health benefits.
The Trump administration contends these estimates are misleading. In its economic impact analysis for a new nitrogen oxide rule, the EPA stated that providing specific estimates without proper qualifying statements “leads the public to believe the Agency has a better understanding of the monetized impacts of exposure to PM2.5 and ozone than in reality.” The agency added it will “continue to quantify the emissions until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to properly monetize those impacts.”
Critics point to the EPA’s new rule on emission limits for nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution from gas-burning power plant turbines as evidence of the risks inherent in this approach. The final rule, issued Monday, is significantly less restrictive than what was proposed during the Biden administration. For some gas plants, the new standards actually weaken protections that have been in place for two decades.
NOx emissions contribute to smog and soot formation, which are linked to serious heart and lung diseases. By declining to estimate the economic value of health benefits from reducing such pollution, critics argue the EPA is essentially ignoring the value of lives saved, hospital visits avoided, and lost work and school days prevented.
Noha Haggag, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund, stated the EPA “recklessly refuses to place any value on protecting the health of millions of Americans from nitrogen oxides pollution in the face of mountains of medical science finding that this pollution contributes to asthma attacks, heart disease and other serious health problems.”
Since its establishment over five decades ago, the EPA has used varying methods to assign monetary value to human life in cost-benefit analyses, with approaches differing between Republican and Democratic administrations. The current policy change represents one of the most significant shifts in how the agency evaluates the impact of its environmental regulations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This is a troubling development. The EPA should be doing more to evaluate and address the public health consequences of air pollution, not less. Removing these health impact assessments seems like a step backwards for environmental protection and safeguarding citizens’ wellbeing.
This is a disappointing move by the EPA. Evaluating the health care savings and lives saved from pollution rules provides critical data to policymakers. Removing those assessments undermines the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission of safeguarding public health and the environment.
This is a concerning shift in EPA priorities. Calculating the public health impacts of air pollution rules is crucial to ensuring regulations adequately protect people. I hope the agency will reconsider this decision and maintain a balanced approach that accounts for both industry costs and public health benefits.
Agreed. Removing these health impact assessments from the regulatory process is short-sighted and goes against the EPA’s core mission. The public deserves to know the full costs and benefits of environmental policies.
While I understand the desire to reduce regulatory burdens on industry, public health has to be the top priority for the EPA. Air pollution has serious consequences, and the agency should be quantifying those impacts to make informed, evidence-based decisions.
Exactly. Ignoring the public health effects of air pollution rules means the EPA will be flying blind. This change seems to put corporate interests ahead of protecting citizens’ wellbeing.
I’m curious to hear more about the EPA’s rationale for this policy shift. While I understand the desire to streamline regulations, public health should be the paramount concern. Quantifying the human impacts of air pollution is essential for making sound, evidence-based decisions.
Agreed. The EPA needs to be transparent about its reasoning and engage with the public and scientific community on this change. Protecting human health and the environment should not be compromised for the sake of industry convenience.