Key Highlights
- The EPA will continue to estimate costs to businesses to comply with the rules and will continue “ongoing work to refine its economic methodologies” of pollution rules, spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said. Environmental and public health advocates called the agency’s action a dangerous abdication of one of its core missions.“The EPA’s mandate is to protect public health, not to ignore the science in order to eliminate clean air safeguards that save lives,” said John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He called the change in how public health benefits are calculated “reckless, dangerous and illegal”, adding: “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 change in how the EPA calculates health benefits was first reported by the New York Times. The move comes as the Trump administration is seeking to abandon a rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution, arguing that the Biden administration did not have authority to set the tighter standard on pollution from tailpipes, smokestacks and other industrial sources. In a court filing in November, the EPA said the Biden-era rule was done “without the rigorous, stepwise process that Congress required” and was therefore unlawful. The EPA said it continued to recognize the “clear and well-documented benefits” of reducing fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5, and ozone.“Not monetizing DOES NOT equal not considering or not valuing the human health impact,” Hirsch said in an emailed statement, saying the agency under its administrator, Lee Zeldin, remains committed to protecting human health. Since the EPA’s creation more than 50 years ago, Republican and Democratic administrations have used different estimates to assign monetary value to a human life in cost-benefit analyses. Under Biden, the EPA estimated that its proposed rule on PM2.5 would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032.
- For every $1 spent on reducing PM2.5, the agency said, there could be as much as $77 in health benefits. But the Trump administration contends that these estimates are misleading.
- By failing to include ranges or other qualifying statements, the EPA’s use of an estimate “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 said in an economic impact analysis for the new rule.“Therefore, to rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone but will continue to quantify the emissions until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to properly monetize those impacts.”The United States had made substantial progress.
