For years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) valued lives saved through its regulations. They calculated the economic benefits of clean air to show how much pollution reductions could save in health costs. However, that approach has recently changed.
The EPA has announced it will no longer assign a dollar value to health benefits from air quality regulations. This shift applies particularly to fine particles and ozone, two pollutants harmful to human health. These changes come as part of a new rule that rolls back regulations on power plant emissions, which contribute significantly to air pollution.
Experts are concerned. Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard, warns that this policy could lead to higher pollution levels and increased health risks. Air pollution, especially from fine particles, can lead to serious issues such as asthma, heart attacks, and even premature death. The Harvard Six Cities study, a significant research effort from the 1970s to the 1990s, confirmed that living in polluted areas shortens life expectancy.
Historical context shows that air quality regulations have been good for public health. Previous EPA estimates indicated that cleaning up air pollution has saved over 230,000 lives annually and saved billions in health costs. Yet now, the EPA states they won’t consider these benefits until they’ve reassessed their economic impact methodology. Critics like Richard Revesz from NYU argue that without assigning a dollar value to health benefits, the EPA may ignore the negative impacts of pollution.
Adding to the complexity, a 2021 study by researchers from the University of California reported that more than 58,000 premature deaths each year in the U.S. are linked to air pollution. The changing regulations could have devastating implications for vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, whose health is already compromised.
The economic implications of air quality regulations have been debated for decades. A 1981 executive order mandated a cost-benefit analysis for significant regulations, but how to assess these benefits is still up for discussion. In practice, it’s easier to quantify industry compliance costs than to calculate public health benefits, even though data shows a high benefit-to-cost ratio for clean air regulations.
Alongside air pollution, similar agencies have reconsidered benefits in other areas too. For example, the EPA’s recent proposals have not accounted for the economic advantages of switching to electric vehicles or reducing greenhouse gases.
In essence, the EPA’s policy change signals a significant departure from traditional practices. The agency will continue its work on public health but will approach it without estimating its monetary benefits. As this new chapter unfolds, the balance between industrial costs and health risks remains a critical conversation in environmental policy.
For more detailed regulations and the impact of air quality, visit the EPA’s official guidelines.
