The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a significant shift in how it assesses air pollution standards. From now on, the agency will still recognize and describe the impacts of pollution on human health — such as premature deaths avoided or reduced respiratory disease — but those effects will no longer be translated into economic figures in cost-benefit analyses. Instead, regulatory assessments will focus on the costs businesses face in complying with environmental standards.

The decision affects regulations on fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) and ground-level ozone, two of the most dangerous and widespread pollutants in the country, and has provoked a strong reaction from public health experts, scientists, and environmental organizations.

The change, initially revealed by The New York Times and confirmed in recent regulatory documents, is part of the approach to environmental policy under the Donald Trump administration, characterized by prioritizing industrial interests and paying less attention to various regulations designed to protect public health and the environment.

EPA officials argue that the modification does not imply ignoring the effects of pollution, but rather recognizing the limitations of the economic models used to date. In official communications, the agency has insisted that “not monetizing does not equate to not considering or valuing the impact on human health.” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency will still take into account lives saved when setting pollution limits, but without assigning a dollar value to them.

For decades, monetizing health benefits was a pillar of the EPA’s regulatory approach. By estimating the economic value of avoided hospitalizations, workdays not lost, and premature deaths prevented, the agency was able to demonstrate that air quality standards generated net benefits of billions of dollars, even when the costs to industry were high.

Under the Biden administration, for example, the EPA calculated that tightening limits on PM₂.₅ could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. According to those estimates, for every dollar invested in reducing this pollutant, the health benefits could reach up to $77.

The current administration believes that these figures convey a false sense of accuracy. In a recent economic impact analysis, the EPA argued that its previous assessments gave the public excessive confidence in the monetized benefits of reducing PM₂.₅ and ozone, despite scientific uncertainties, especially in a context of overall declining emissions.

To “correct this error,” the document states, the agency will stop monetizing the benefits associated with these pollutants until it has models that it considers more reliable.

Concerns intensified following the publication of a new standard on nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from gas turbines in power plants. Although these pollutants contribute to the formation of smog and fine particles associated with heart and lung disease, the final version of the rule is less stringent than the one proposed during the Biden administration and, in some cases, weakens protections that have been in place for two decades. The analysis accompanying the rule does not include any economic assessment of the health benefits of reducing pollution.

Warnings

Scientists and public health experts emphasize that the effects of PM₂.₅ and ozone are well documented. Fine particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of asthma, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature death. Recent studies also link exposure to PM₂.₅ with low birth weight and other health problems.

Although air quality in the United States has improved since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, pockets of pollution persist, especially in low-income and minority communities, which already bear disproportionate burdens of disease.

Some experts note that the legal impact of the change remains to be seen. The Clean Air Act requires that national air quality standards be based on public health criteria, not economic costs. Although the EPA will continue to quantify health impacts, eliminating their monetary translation could lead to more litigation and leave courts with incomplete assessments.

Concerns have also arisen internationally. For years, EPA methods have served as a global benchmark for assessing the costs and benefits of air pollution. Abandoning the monetization of health impacts, experts warn, could weaken environmental standards in other countries.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition