The Hidden Cost of Cheaper Regulation

What happens when you remove half the equation from a math problem? You get a very different answer.

That's exactly what happened in January 2026 when the Environmental Protection Agency quietly announced it would stop calculating the health benefits of cleaner air when weighing new pollution regulations. In a few paragraphs buried within a routine rulemaking document, the Trump administration fundamentally altered how America decides whether cleaner air is worth the cost.

The change means that when the EPA considers new rules for pollutants like ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), it will still count every dollar industry spends on compliance. But it will no longer quantify the value of preventing 1,200 premature deaths or 870 hospital visits – the kind of health benefits that previous carbon pollution standards were estimated to deliver annually.

The Reagan-Era Foundation

The practice of weighing costs against benefits isn't new or partisan. It began with Ronald Reagan in 1981, who required agencies to prove that regulatory benefits outweigh costs. Bill Clinton refined this approach in 1993 with Executive Order 12866, which still governs federal rulemaking today.

For decades, this framework worked because both sides of the equation were measured. Environmental economists developed sophisticated tools like the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program to translate health improvements into dollar figures. When the EPA calculated that power plant carbon standards would cost industry $0.98 billion annually while delivering $6.3 billion in health benefits, policymakers could make informed decisions.

The methodology wasn't perfect, but it was peer-reviewed, data-driven, and continually refined. It helped justify landmark clean air achievements that have dramatically reduced pollution since the 1970s while the economy grew.

The One-Sided Ledger

Now, the EPA argues that methods for quantifying health benefits lack sufficient scientific support and provide "false precision." While acknowledging that air pollution does harm human health and shorten lives, the agency says it will only consider these impacts qualitatively – meaning in words, not numbers.

But in the world of regulatory decision-making, what isn't quantified effectively doesn't exist. When industry compliance costs appear as concrete dollar figures while health benefits remain as vague descriptions, the scales tip dramatically toward deregulation.

Consider what this means for a typical Clean Air Act rule. Regulators will see precise estimates of how much power companies must spend on pollution controls and how much electricity prices might rise. But they won't see quantified benefits like 48,000 fewer school absence days or 57,000 fewer lost work days – impacts that previously helped justify stronger protections.

The Stakeholder Divide

Industry groups have long criticized EPA health benefit calculations as inflated, arguing they make regulations appear more valuable than they actually are. From this perspective, removing questionable numbers creates more honest cost-benefit analyses.

Public health advocates see something entirely different: a methodical dismantling of protections that have prevented countless deaths and illnesses. They point to decades of peer-reviewed research linking air pollution to cardiovascular disease, asthma, and premature death.

Environmental justice communities, who disproportionately live near pollution sources, face the starkest consequences. When regulators can't quantify the health benefits of cleaner air in their neighborhoods, those benefits become easier to ignore in favor of lower compliance costs.

The Global Context

This shift occurs as other nations strengthen their environmental accounting methods. The European Union has expanded its approach to include ecosystem services and climate adaptation benefits. China, despite its pollution challenges, increasingly uses health impact assessments in policy decisions.

America's move in the opposite direction could influence international negotiations and trade relationships, particularly as carbon border adjustments and environmental standards become more central to global commerce.