The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is shifting its methodology regarding the cost-benefit analysis of pollution regulations. This change aims to limit the financial valuation of lives saved and hospital visits avoided due to regulations. Instead, the EPA will evaluate regulations for pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone without attaching a monetary value to human life.
Background on the Change
This decision was highlighted in a recent document assessing the economic impacts of pollution regulations for power plants. The EPA claims that previous calculations regarding economic benefits were uncertain and created a misleading sense of precision. As such, the agency will refrain from quantifying benefits until it can reliably monetize these impacts.
Key Implications of EPA’s New Approach
- Expert opinions suggest the change could lead to poorer air quality.
- The shift may undermine public health, as air pollution has significant health consequences.
- Yearly, air pollution is responsible for approximately 135,000 premature deaths in the United States.
Health Effects of Pollution
Air pollutants like PM2.5 and ozone are linked to serious health issues, including heart attacks and asthma. Janet McCabe, former deputy administrator of the EPA under President Joe Biden, emphasized the undeniable evidence of the health impacts of increased PM2.5 exposure.
Challenges in Cost-Benefit Assessment
Historically, the EPA’s regulatory process included both costs and benefits. For example, when revising mercury emission levels, the agency assessed expenses related to compliance and the economic advantages of cleaner air. Benefits typically included health improvements, reduced hospital visits, and fewer early deaths.
Financial Estimations in Regulation
While estimating costs and benefits always involved some uncertainty, the former EPA approach allowed for a comparative analysis of the benefits against the compliance costs. The agency has projected that the stricter PM2.5 regulations could yield $46 billion in health benefits by 2032, surpassing compliance costs significantly.
Potential Consequences of the New Policy
Experts warn that ignoring the economic value of health benefits could result in a bias favoring less regulation. As Christa Hasenkopf from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute noted, it is critical to compare costs and benefits on the same financial basis for meaningful analysis.
Broader Trends in Environmental Policy
This new cost-benefit approach reflects a trend within the EPA and the federal government toward a more lenient regulation environment. Significant cuts to research and development initiatives have already been made, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in environmental policymaking.
Former EPA officials, including Joseph Goffman, indicate that these changes serve a broader agenda to weaken air pollution regulations. By not assigning a dollar value to the reduction of PM2.5, the agency risks stalling improvements in air quality and increasing pollution levels across the country. Experts anticipate that this could lead to rising PM2.5 concentrations nationwide.
