The Environmental Protection Agency plans to stop calculating the monetary value of cleaner air when writing new rules. Internal documents show the agency will only tally the costs of pollution controls, while describing health gains from reduced ozone and fine particulate matter without putting a dollar figure on them. This reverses decades of practice.

For years, EPA analysts compared the expense of installing scrubbers or new turbines against the economic benefits of fewer hospital visits and premature deaths. Those gains were converted into a value of a statistical life, a standard metric across government. By dropping that math, officials undercut the case for stricter limits on power plants and factories.

The change centers on PM2.5 and ozone, two pollutants linked to heart disease, asthma, and lost workdays. A 2024 analysis had estimated $27–$92 million in yearly health savings from tighter turbine emissions. The agency now says monetizing those impacts involves too much uncertainty, even as it continues to quantify the pollution reductions themselves.

Critics see a familiar playbook: the Bush era trimmed the value of a statistical life, while the Trump EPA leaned harder on scientific doubt to weaken rules. Expect legal challenges from states and health groups, and watch whether Congress tries to force the agency to restore the cost-benefit math.