Shaheen and Colleagues Question EPA’s “Irrational” Decision Not to Value Health Effects When Calculating Impact of Pollutants, Demand Answers on Decision-Making Process

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) joined Senate colleagues in a letter to Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin following the agency’s irrational decision to no longer count health benefits when conducting cost-benefit analysis for Clean Air Act rules limiting dangerous pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set air quality standards that protect public health and welfare.

The Senators demanded a response to their list of detailed questions regarding EPA’s decision-making process no later than February 26, 2026.

The Senators wrote, in part: “EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are ‘uncertain’, what is certain is that they are not zero. It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health – including in saved lives. It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed. The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors.”

They continued: “EPA has declared that it will no longer monetize the benefits of reducing PM2.5 and ozone pollution, on the basis that the benefits of their reduction are “uncertain”. But the benefit of reducing air pollution is demonstrably not zero. PM2.5 pollution causes heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, strokes, premature births, and death. Ozone pollution causes lung disease, asthma attacks, nervous system and cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. Economists and scientists have long established workable metrics for monetarily quantifying the health benefits of reduced pollution. The method for calculating PM2.5 benefits, according to a former EPA economist who worked at the agency from 1998 until 2025, is “one of the most heavily reviewed processes probably ever in the federal government, and [it] has been through many iterations in both Democratic and Republican administrations.” In setting its updated PM2.5 national ambient air quality (NAAQs) standards in 2024, EPA calculated a benefit of between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature death in the year 2032. The total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, was calculated to be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value. Moreover, as EPA itself acknowledges, compliance cost values themselves are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. EPA has frequently overestimated cost to industry when promulgating regulations in the past. Finally, even assuming $590 million is correct, it must be noted that while the expense of forgoing the $22 to 46 billion benefit would burden Americans across the country in lives lost, more frequent and severe illnesses, missed school days and lost labor productivity, the $590 million in savings would go mostly into the pockets of a small group of Trump’s fossil fuel donors.”

They concluded: “When you appeared before the Committee at your confirmation hearing, you testified: “the goal, the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.” And when Senator Blunt Rochester asked you to confirm that it was still your position that “EPA’s mission is to protect the health of the public and the environment,” you responded simply “yes.” Yet now, faced with the opportunity to consider quantifiable statistics about human health, you choose to ignore them entirely. That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist—it just means that you will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests.”

The full text of the letter can be found HERE.

Senator Shaheen is a champion for efforts to protect the environment and local communities from harmful pollutants. In response to the Trump Administration’s repeal of the 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare, Shaheen joined her Senate colleagues to conduct oversight on the decision. Additionally, Shaheen has maintained a longstanding commitment to uncovering the potential health effects related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. In January, Shaheen introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure regular assessments and updates to clinical guidance regarding the health effects from exposure to PFAS. As a lead negotiator of water provisions in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Senator Shaheen helped secure $10 billion to specifically address PFAS and other emerging contaminants, $5 billion of which is targeted to small and disadvantaged communities. In the recently passed Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2026, Shaheen secured language ensuring states can use the critical funding she fought for to assist private well owners in addressing PFAS and other dangerous contaminants.

Senator Shaheen is also firmly committed to energy efficiency programs that lower energy bills and benefit the environment. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Shaheen helped secure $3.5 billion in additional funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, including $18 million for New Hampshire, to lower energy costs, promote energy efficiency renewable projects and reduce emissions.

###