For decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations,\u202fEPA\u202fhas carefully evaluated the health impacts of its clean air rules\u202fwhen it considers the benefits and costs of\u202fregulations. That means considering the lives saved, avoided hospital and emergency room visits,\u202fand\u202fasthma attacks, along with the economic value of those benefits.\u202fAnd both EPA\u2019s analyses and independent studies have consistently found that clean air programs yield enormous benefits,\u202fwith\u202fa monetary value\u202fthat vastly exceeds\u202fcompliance costs to industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s one example: a\u202fCongressionally-mandated, peer-reviewed study<\/a> of\u202fthe benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act\u202fpublished in 2011\u202ffound that EPA\u2019s clean air\u202fprograms\u202fsaved 160,000 lives in one year<\/strong> alone,\u202fwith total benefits\u202fof approximately\u202f$2 trillion<\/strong>\u202f\u2013\u202fabout\u202f30 dollars in economic benefits for every dollar spent on compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA has performed these analyses using rigorous and transparent approaches that have gone through\u202fscientific\u202fpeer review, multiple\u202frounds\u202fof independent assessment by outside\u202fexperts, and\u202fnumerous\u202fopportunities for public comment.\u202fYet the\u202fTrump administration\u202frecently\u202fdecided to abandon this analysis\u202fentirely,\u202fciting \u201cuncertainty\u201d\u202fabout the health benefits of clean air rules.\u202fAt the same time,\u202fthe Trump administration\u202fhas continued to\u202fquantify\u202fcompliance\u202fcosts to industry. This\u202farbitrary\u202fapproach introduces a bias against clean\u202fair\u202fregulation that flies in the face of EPA\u2019s Congressional mandate to protect human health and welfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump EPA\u2019s\u202fdecision\u202fto devalue public health\u202f<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA\u2019s\u202fdecision\u202fto\u202fabandon its\u202fdecades-long practice of evaluating health impacts appeared for the first time\u202fin January of this year,\u202fin a brief\u202fdiscussion buried in\u202fan economic impact analysis for a final rule amending emissions standards for\u202fsmog-forming pollution from\u202fnew gas-fired combustion turbines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In that final rule, the Trump EPA weakened a subset of\u202fthe\u202fstandards\u202fbased on cost concerns, and touted\u202findustry savings of $87 million<\/a>\u202frelative\u202fto the\u202fprevious\u202f2006 standard.\u202fBut the agency refused to assess the health impacts associated with the rule or estimate the economic value of those impacts,\u202fciting uncertainties<\/a>\u202fin\u202fEPA\u2019s analytical\u202fmethods\u202ffor\u202fground-level ozone (\u201csmog\u201d) and particulate matter pollution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA\u202fdid\u202fnot cite any expert reports or data to support its\u202fabrupt decision to stop estimating health impacts. Nor did it explain why\u202fthe\u202fagency\u2019s\u202fwell-established\u202fapproaches to estimating\u202fthose\u202fimpacts\u202f\u2013\u202fand\u202faddressing uncertainties\u202f\u2013\u202fwere no longer adequate.\u202fAnd despite acknowledging that the\u202f\u201ccosts presented in this RIA may be\u202foverestimates,\u201d\u202fEPA did\u202fnot treat\u202fits\u202fcalculation of costs with the same skepticism as health benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump EPA is now\u202fconsistently\u202frefusing to quantify health impacts\u202fas it\u202fproceeds\u202fto dismantle other vital Clean Air Act protections.\u202fEPA\u202ffailed to calculate the massive health\u202fconsequences of\u202fits repeals\u202fof\u202fthe\u202f2009\u202fEndangerment Finding and<\/a> greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles, the Mercury and Air\u202fToxics\u202fStandards<\/a> for coal plants, the previously mentioned delay of criteria air pollutant standards for motor vehicles<\/a>, and hazardous air pollutant standards for marine tank vessels<\/a>. As a result, EPA is ignoring\u202fthe massive health benefits of those rules \u2013 and is also keeping the public in the dark about the true costs of its attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The table below shows that just a\u202fsubset of\u202fthe\u202fprotections\u202fEPA is rolling back\u202fadds up to hundreds of billions in benefits\u202fannually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The strength of the science\u202f<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump EPA claims that it intends to pursue new methods\u202ffor\u202fcalculating health impacts\u202fat some indefinite point in the\u202ffuture\u202fbut\u202fignores the vast body of science\u202funderlying\u202fits prior methodologies. Notably,\u202fEPA\u2019s\u202fmethodologies \u202falready<\/em>\u202faccount for uncertainty \u2013 in fact, there\u202fisn\u2019t\u202fa single\u202fEPA benefits\u202fmethodology\u202fthat\u202ffails to\u202fdo so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As\u202frecently detailed by experts<\/a>,\u202fEPA\u2019s\u202fmethodologies for\u202fquantifying health impacts\u202fand associated uncertainties\u202fhave\u202fundergone multiple forms of peer review and independent expert review, including by\u202fthe EPA Science Advisory Board,\u202fthe EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the EPA Environmental Economics Advisory Committee,\u202fthe EPA Science Advisory Board Council on Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis, and the\u202fNational Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.\u202fThrough these multiple rounds of review, EPA has honed its approaches to\u202faccount for uncertainties\u202fand\u202fconducted\u202fnumerous\u202fsensitivity analyses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most recent of these reviews came in\u202f2024, when a panel of EPA\u2019s\u202fScientific Advisory Board\u202fissued a report reviewing the agency\u2019s\u202fEnvironmental Benefits and Mapping (BenMAP<\/a>) software tool and the\u202fTechnical Support Document for Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits<\/em><\/a> (TSD)<\/em>.\u202fThis tool and support document set forth the agency\u2019s\u202fframework for estimating\u202fhealth impacts of ground-level ozone\u202facross the United States.\u202fNotably, the Scientific Advisory Board\u2019s review<\/a>\u202ffound that EPA\u2019s analyses are\u202f\u201cscientifically\u202frobust and appropriate for regulatory analyses.\u201d\u202fAnd\u202falthough the report provides specific recommendations to EPA on how to refine its framework to further address\u202funcertainties, the data and evidence\u202flargely reflect\u202fthat EPA\u2019s methodologies may be understating<\/em> health\u202fharms. (see report<\/a> at pages 48 to 51)<\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA’s consideration of health impacts\u202ffollows\u202fexecutive orders,\u202fCongressional directives and\u202fcourt\u202fopinions\u202f<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA\u2019s long-standing consideration of health impacts is\u202fconsistent with federal policies and judicial rulings requiring agencies to fully and even-handedly consider both the benefits and costs of their actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order mandating\u202fthat agencies prepare analyses of the\u202fcosts and\u202fbenefits\u202fof\u202fsignificant\u202fregulations\u202fand\u202fproceed with regulation only when\u202fbenefits\u202foutweighed\u202fcosts.\u202fIn response to that directive, the\u202fEPA\u202fbegan developing economic models to estimate\u202fthe\u202fhealth impacts\u202fof its air regulations\u202fwith input from\u202fair and water quality modelers,\u202fhealth scientists,\u202feconomists, and other\u202fexperts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1993, President Clinton replaced the\u202fReagan-era\u202fexecutive order\u202fwith a revised framework that\u202fmaintained\u202fthe required\u202fcost-benefit analyses but also required that regulations\u202fjustify the costs rather than\u202fstrictly\u202foutweigh them.\u202fSubsequent\u202fDemocratic\u202fand Republican administrations\u202fretained\u202fthis cost-benefit framework for decades\u202fand have used it to review the\u202frigor of EPA\u2019s assessments of health impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2000, Congress passed the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act<\/a>, which\u202frequires that\u202fthe\u202fOffice of\u202fManagement and\u202fBudget\u202fsubmit\u202fan annual report estimating benefits and costs of significant\u202frules. Based on these executive orders\u202fand the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the\u202fOffice of\u202fManagement and\u202fBudget\u202fdrafted\u202fguidance (known as Circular A-4<\/a>)\u202fto\u202fguide\u202ffederal agencies\u202fon\u202fbest practices for\u202fcost-benefit analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Circular A-4\u202fsupports full consideration of costs and benefits, including quantification and monetization of those benefits where possible. In addition, it provides\u202fbest practices for\u202fmeaningfully\u202fanalyzing uncertainty when quantifying impacts. <\/sup>When reviewing EPA rules,\u202fOffice of\u202fManagement and\u202fBudget examiners have\u202fhistorically\u202fcarefully reviewed EPA\u2019s health benefits assessments<\/a> to make sure they conform to\u202fthe guidance provided in Circular A-4\u202fon cost-benefit assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congress\u202ffurther\u202fmandated<\/a>\u202fthat\u202fEPA\u202fcalculate\u202fthe impacts of clean air regulations on public health, the economy, and the environment\u202fas part of the\u202f1990 amendments\u202fto the Clean Air Act.\u202fIn that provision,\u202fCongress explicitly directed that EPA \u201cconsider all of the economic, public health, and environmental benefits\u201d\u202fof Clean Air Act rules.\u202fFurther, Congress specifically instructed EPA not to\u202foverlook such benefits by\u202fassigning them a zero value\u202fas a \u201cdefault.\u201d The statute states,\u202f\u201cwhere numerical values are assigned to such benefits, a default assumption of zero value shall not be assigned to such benefits unless supported by specific data.\u201c\u202f(42 U.S.C. 7412 (b)<\/em>\u202fThis statutory directive shows\u202fthat Congress appreciated the importance of quantifying and valuing health impacts and other benefits of\u202fregulations, and\u202fwanted EPA to put forward its best estimates\u202fof those benefits rather than use uncertainty as a basis for overlooking their value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Courts have\u202flikewise\u202ffound that\u202fit is arbitrary and unlawful for\u202fagencies\u202fto assign no value to pollution reduction benefits from regulations simply because those benefits are subject to uncertainty. Further,\u202fcourts have held\u202fthat agencies\u202fcannot\u202ffocus on the costs of regulations to the exclusion of benefits \u2013 they\u202fmust fairly account for\u202fboth. (See Center for Biological Diversity v.\u202fNat\u2019l\u202fHighway Traffic Safety Admin<\/em>., 538F.3d 1172, 1189 (9th<\/sup>\u202fCir. 2008);\u202fPublic Citizen v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin<\/em>., 374 F.3d 1209, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2004);\u202fAmerican Trucking\u202fAssociations v. EPA<\/em>, 175 F.3d 1027, 1051\u201353 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result of the Congressional directive described above, EPA prepared comprehensive assessments of the health benefits of the Clean Air\u202fAct\u202ffrom\u202f1970 to 2020.\u202fThose assessments show\u202fthat the benefits of clean air regulation\u202fdecisively\u202foutweigh costs. EPA\u2019s\u202flatest\u202fsuch report, issued in\u202f2011<\/a>,\u202festimated that clean air rules spanning 1990 to\u202f2020 would result in\u202fapproximately\u202f$1.4 trillion\u202fto\u202f$35 trillion\u202fin health benefits\u202f\u2013\u202fan amount vastly exceeding the\u202foverall compliance costs of\u202f$380 billion.\u202f The table below shows estimates health benefits in 2010 and 2020 alone. The data is from EPA\u2019s Progress Cleaning the Air and Improving People’s Health<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Compliance \u202fcosts\u202fare uncertain and frequently overestimated<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump EPA cites alleged uncertainties as a reason to stop evaluating the health impacts of its attacks on clean air protections. Yet it continues to tout the cost savings to industry from rolling back key protections, even though compliance costs are themselves subject to uncertainty and are frequently overestimated. Since the\u202finception\u202fof environmental regulation in the United States,\u202findustry has\u202fargued that\u202fclean air protections will result in\u202feconomy-crushing\u202fburdens.\u202fTo the contrary,\u202fclean air regulation has\u202fresulted in\u202fenormous economic benefits,\u202fin addition to saving\u202flives\u202f\u2013 and\u202ffrequently\u202fat a much lower cost than originally projected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example,\u202fthe EPA initially estimated the 1990 Acid Rain Program\u202f\u2013\u202fa highly successful l\u202fClean Air Act program that\u202fdramatically reduced harmful sulfur dioxide pollution from power plants \u2013\u202fwould cost\u202f$6.1 billion\u202fannually. Experts later estimated the program cost\u202fless than half<\/em>\u202fof\u202fthe\u202finitial\u202festimate,\u202fwith studies<\/a> ranging from<\/a>\u202f$1.1 billion\u202fto\u202f$3 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Chart-1-3.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/\/Chart-2.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n