Last February, the Environmental Protection Agency updated its rules for soot, the almost quaint-sounding pollutant produced by burning anything from wood to fossil fuels that is not only carcinogenic but can both cause and irritate a host of respiratory diseases when inhaled.
Soot, which is also called fine particulate matter, is produced so widely and so many people are routinely exposed to it that the tightened standards were estimated to deliver significant improvements in public health: saving 4,500 lives and “yielding up to $46 billion in net health benefits in 2032,” according to the EPA. And because there is more fine particulate matter in communities close to freeways and power plants, and other sources of soot, Black and Brown people stood to benefit the most.
Trump’s EPA Takes an Unprecedented Step Backward
Now, however, the Trump Administration’s EPA is taking the unprecedented step of asking a court to throw out the rule.
Soon after the Biden Administration announced the tightened standards — the first update to soot regulations since the Obama Administration — a number of Republican-led states and industry groups sued the EPA to try to stop the rule change from going into effect.
In the suit, the plaintiffs argued that the Biden Administration didn’t consider “the tremendous costs and burdens” of the rule change, which reduced the allowable limit for soot pollution from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 9 micrograms. Now, instead of continuing its defense of the rule change, the Trump EPA is essentially siding with the plaintiffs: in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the agency claimed the rule change didn’t follow the necessary process and that the “EPA now confesses error and urges this Court to vacate the Rule.”
It’s the first time the EPA has ever given up on defending a strengthened pollution standard in court.
Communities and Advocates Push Back
“Walking away from these clean air standards doesn’t power anything but disease,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice, in a statement. (When the Biden EPA first announced the new standard last year, the agency’s press release included a quote from an Earthjustice official.) “Trump has made it clear that his agenda is all about saving corporations money, and this administration’s EPA has nothing to do with protecting people’s health, saving lives, or serving children, families or communities. We will continue to defend this life-saving standard.”
What Happens if the Rule Is Vacated?
If the court does vacate the Biden rule, the soot standards will revert to the Obama-era standard. But the Trump Administration has said that it will also propose its own rule change for fine particulate matter, too. However, there is reason to believe that the appeals court will not vacate the rule, as there is established precedent that the EPA does not have to consider the costs of regulations when considering rule changes.
A Dramatic Shift From the EPA of Just Two Years Ago
But while the Trump EPA’s about-face in favor of industry is not necessarily unexpected or surprising, it certainly highlights how drastically both regulatory efforts and the language used to talk about them have changed at the EPA over the course of not even two years.
“This final air quality standard will save lives and make all people healthier, especially within America’s most vulnerable and overburdened communities,” former EPA Administrator Michael Regan said when announcing the tightened soot standard last February. “Cleaner air means that our children have brighter futures, and people can live more productive and active lives, improving our ability to grow and develop as a nation.”
