EPA limits consideration of health impacts from chemical and turbine rules

 

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on emissions from gas turbines is the latest development in a staunch shift in how the agency evaluates the costs and benefits of regulations, analysts say.

On Jan. 15, the EPA published a final rule to limit nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from turbines used at gas power plants and other industrial facilities. In a fact sheet, the agency says the rule will reduce NOX emissions by up to 296 tons per year by 2032 and save industry $87 million over 8 years.

Missing from the fact sheet is any mention of the health benefits of lowering emissions. Typically, EPA estimates the monetary value of both the costs and benefits of a regulation, as well as impacts that can’t be quantified, says Julie McNamara, an associate policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. But in the NOX rule, the agency declined to consider the value of reducing exposure to NOX, citing uncertainty in the science.

The change represents a “massive escalation” over even the first Trump administration’s approach to regulation, says McNamara.

Uncertainty is part of all estimates, says McNamara, but there are tools to deal with it.

“Best practices are very clear on how you should incorporate those in your main discussion,” she says. “But it is so easy to weaponize it.”

A broader shift at EPA

The move may represent a broader shift at the EPA toward deprioritizing public health, analysts say. In June, the agency proposed repealing all greenhouse gas emissions standards for fossil fuel–fired power plants, which would also rescind the agency’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding” that greenhouse gases cause health harms. The agency’s recent rules on greenhouse gas emissions from cars disregarded the social cost of carbon—a long-standing measure of health and other indirect costs of greenhouse gases. And a newly proposed rule on the chemical perchlorate in drinking water also skirts responsibility for fully evaluating health costs, says Jason Schwartz, regulatory policy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.

These moves come amid EPA’s efforts, announced last March, to take 31 separate deregulatory actions.

In addition, the New York Times on Jan. 12 published an investigation showing that the agency would stop calculating the costs of deaths from air pollution—specifically particulate matter 2.5 (PM_2.5)—when considering regulations.

“If they’re coming for these highly, highly certain things like particulate matter, ozone, and greenhouse gases, it will not be a surprise if they come for the health effects of chemicals and other pollutants next,” says Schwartz.

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The agency “will still be considering lives saved when setting pollution limits,” EPA administrator Lee Zeldin posted on X in response to the Times story.

Collectively, the rules depict an agency prioritizing industry over public health in its analyses of regulations, says Schwartz.

“It’s pretty clear their goal is to save industry money,” he says.

Industry wants clear and consistent evaluation of costs and benefits

Chemical companies also value the application of cost-benefit analyses to environmental regulations.

Industry relies on the EPA to conduct “clear, predictable, and timely” regulatory evaluations, says Jenn Klein, president and CEO of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.

“For specialty and batch chemical manufacturers, understanding how costs and benefits are evaluated, and seeing those methods applied consistently across rules, is essential for compliance, investment planning, and innovation,” she says.

Changes go beyond air pollution regulations

The EPA’s actions on perchlorate—a chemical used in making explosives, rockets, and fireworks—show a similar turn toward disregarding unquantified benefits, says Schwartz.

On Jan. 6, the agency published a proposed limit for the amount of perchlorate in drinking water.

Perchlorate can disrupt brain development in children and fetuses exposed to it in utero, potentially leading to lifelong cognitive effects, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s also been linked to thyroid problems and cardiovascular disease.

The only impact that’s been quantified in the proposed rule so far is reduced lifelong earnings due to lower IQ, says Schwartz. But the agency should have at least evaluated other potential effects, such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other neurodevelopmental effects, he says.

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires cost-benefit analyses to consider unquantified—and unquantifiable—costs, particularly impacts to vulnerable populations including pregnant people, infants, and children.

“Congress said consider the nonquantified effects,” says Schwartz. “There is no evidence they have done that.”