EPA moves to stop considering economic benefits of cleaner air

The decision to exclude the estimated benefits relates specifically to fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers (known as PM)._2.5) and ozone. These particles, usually produced by combustion, are small enough to pass through your respiratory system and reach your bloodstream. For this reason, it is associated with a multitude of health impacts, beyond respiratory problems. This has made research into these impacts the target of regulatory advocates who claim scientists are exaggerating the harm.

Ozone is also a familiar enough pollutant in areas of smog that it is mentioned in weather forecasts as a warning for people suffering from illnesses like asthma. Ozone pollution in the lower atmosphere results from reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds emitted by various anthropogenic sources.

The EPA’s new language asserts that past analyzes have failed to adequately represent the scientific uncertainty about the economic value of reducing these pollutants. The new analysis of the economic impact of stationary combustion turbines, for example, says it “leads the public to believe that the Agency has a better understanding of the monetary impacts of exposure to PM2.5 and ozone than it actually does.” It continues: “Therefore, to rectify this error, EPA is no longer monetizing the benefits of PM2.5 and ozone, but will continue to quantify emissions until the Agency has sufficient confidence in the modeling to properly monetize these impacts. »

A 2024 regulatory impact analysis for stationary combustion turbines had estimated these benefits at between $27 million and $92 million per year for tightening emissions limits.

This is not the first time that these figures have become political targets. Between 2004 and 2008, the Bush administration reduced the EPA’s statistical value by about 11 percent. But instead of moving the numbers toward the lower end of scientific estimates, the Trump administration is using scientific uncertainty more aggressively. Functionally, the logic is this: because benefit estimates vary from large to extremely large, EPA will default to a value of zero. Only the costs will be calculated, and these figures will certainly be used to justify the relaxation of pollution limits.

Currently, documentation explaining how EPA previously calculated the benefits of pollution regulations based on research, including transparent assessments of scientific uncertainties, is still available on the EPA website.