EPA plans to exclude human health from pollution cost-benefit analysis

The Trump administration is planning to stop counting the value of human health when regulating ozone and fine particulate matter pollution, according to a report by the New York Times. If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—the US federal environmental regulator—follows through on its plans, the move would reverse decades of established regulatory practice. The risks of air pollution have been known for decades, which was part of the reason the EPA was founded under President Richard Nixon. Ever since Ronald Reagan was president, the agency has assigned an economic value to human life to conduct cost-benefit analyses of pollution controls. Lowering pollution can prolong human life, so if the health benefits of reducing pollution outweighed the costs, there was an economic argument in favor of implementing those reductions. Every administration since has assigned some value to human life when determining how to regulate air pollution. The proposed policy shift would throw this long-standing methodology out the window.

The regulatory change targets ozone and fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5. Ozone and fine particulate matter have long been linked to cardiovascular ailments like asthma, heart disease, and emphysema. While ozone high in the atmosphere protects against UV radiation, ground-level ozone can create smog that is deadly to vulnerable populations. PM2.5 might be even more pernicious. Recent research has connected PM2.5 to a broader range of illnesses, including Parkinson’s, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Worldwide, as many as 10 million people per year die from fine particulate matter pollution annually.

The policy shift arrives as data centers, such as those operated by xAI, increasingly rely on dirtier energy sources. For example, xAI has used unpermitted natural gas turbines for its data center. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business advocacy group, is welcoming the Trump administration’s policy change. Marty Durbin, president of the chamber’s Global Energy Institute, told the New York Times: “We appreciate the efforts of this administration to rebalance regulations with a common-sense approach. We look forward to examining the proposal from E.P.A”

Why it matters

This policy change marks a significant departure from decades of regulatory practice where the economic value of human life was a central component of cost-benefit analyses for pollution controls. The shift comes as business advocacy groups welcome the regulatory rebalancing, even as data centers operated by companies like xAI increasingly rely on unpermitted natural gas turbines.