The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a significant change in how it assesses the benefits of clean air regulations. This shift could potentially weaken protections against some of the most harmful pollutants.

For years, the EPA has used health data, such as preventing premature deaths and asthma attacks, to justify limits on air pollution. However, internal emails suggest that the agency may stop assigning a dollar value to the health benefits of reducing fine particulate matter (PM2. 5) and ozone. Instead, the focus would be on the financial impact on businesses.

PM2. 5 particles are tiny and can enter the lungs and bloodstream. Long-term exposure has been linked to serious health issues like asthma, heart disease, lung disease, and early death. Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause breathing problems.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA tightened limits on PM2. 5 emissions from industries. They estimated that these rules could prevent up to 4, 500 premature deaths and 290, 000 lost workdays by 2032. For every dollar spent on reducing PM2. 5, the health benefits were estimated to be as much as $77.

The Trump administration argues that these health estimates are too uncertain. Under the new approach, the EPA would still mention health effects but would not include them in cost-benefit calculations. EPA spokeswoman Carolyn Holran stated that not monetizing health benefits does not mean they are not considered or valued.

Critics strongly disagree. Richard Revesz, faculty director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, said that ignoring public health benefits goes against the EPA's mission. He argued that considering only the costs to industry makes it impossible to justify regulations that protect public health.

Internal emails show that the EPA plans to include language in future clean-air rules stating that past analytical practices provided false precision regarding the impacts of PM2. 5 and ozone. The agency is no longer monetizing benefits from these pollutants.

This shift has drawn support from business groups, including the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long criticized how the EPA weighs health benefits. However, legal experts warn that the change could lead to challenges in court and make pollution rollbacks harder to defend.

Air Pollution Rules: A Shift in Focus

Actions