The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised its methodology for evaluating the costs and benefits associated with air pollution regulations.
Previously, the EPA assigned monetary values to lives saved and health improvements resulting from environmental regulations. Under the new approach, the agency will no longer quantify the economic cost of harm to human health from fine particles (PM2.5) and ozone, citing uncertainties in economic impact estimates.
This policy change was included in a new rule that weakened air pollution regulations on power plant turbines using fossil fuels, which are sources of fine particles.
An EPA press secretary clarified that the agency continues to consider health benefits but will refrain from assigning a dollar amount until a new assessment method is finalized.
Health experts express concern that this shift could lead to a rollback of air pollution rules, potentially increasing pollution levels and health risks for many Americans. Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University, highlighted risks for individuals with chronic respiratory illnesses, children, and older adults.
Fine particles, such as PM2.5, originate from sources like fossil fuel power plants. Long-term exposure is linked to health issues including asthma, heart attacks, dementia, and premature death. Previous EPA estimates indicated that reducing fine particle pollution saved over 230,000 lives annually and billions of dollars in recent years.
Richard Revesz, an environmental law expert at NYU, suggests that quantifying only the economic costs to industry while omitting monetized health benefits could make it easier to justify further deregulation. He notes that the economic benefits of air quality regulations, such as those under the Clean Air Act, have historically shown high benefit-to-cost ratios.
Decades of research, including the Harvard University Six Cities study, have demonstrated the negative health impacts of pollution. A 1981 executive order mandated agencies like the EPA to consider both costs and benefits of major regulations. While the specific methodology for this consideration has been subject to agency discretion, former EPA official Jeffrey Holmstead noted that this marks the first time in a long period that the agency has not attempted to monetize the benefits of reducing PM2.5 and ozone.
Revesz also points out that the EPA under the Trump administration has previously moved to reconsider economic benefits in other regulatory areas, such as vehicle emissions standards and the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, by not assessing certain economic benefits to consumers or societal health savings. An EPA administrator's 2025 statement referenced priorities including "lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business."