SCS Engineers periodically prepares SCS Technical Bulletins – short, clear summaries of rules, plans, standards, and advice. On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will no longer consider the health-related monetary benefits of reducing air pollution when developing regulations. See 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0419; FRL-11542-01-OAR], RIN 2060-AW21, New Source Performance Standards Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines and Stationary Gas Turbines.
Just because the EPA has de-emphasized health benefits in its cost-effectiveness analyses of pollution control options does not mean that facilities would be protected from liability for any health impacts they cause. In fact, there is risk that if a facility employs a less stringent level of pollution control as a result of EPA’s new policy, that choice, albeit allowed by the linked NSPS regulation, could increase the potential for more health impact lawsuits to be filed as well as to increase the facility’s liability because they chose to utilize a control technology that did not adequately reduce health impacts.
Navigating the Changing Regulatory Landscape: What the New ‘No Health Costs’ Approach Means for Industrial Clients
In our ever-evolving regulatory environment, staying ahead of policy changes is key to maintaining both compliance and strategic foresight. Recently, the EPA’s shift in its regulatory stance—specifically the decision not to factor health costs into pollution controls—has raised important considerations for the industrial sector.
From a practical perspective, this shift may influence how future air regulations—particularly those related to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone—are developed and communicated. While public health considerations remain part of the regulatory discussion, the absence of quantified health benefits in economic analyses could change how the overall impacts of new rules are presented. For regulated entities, this underscores the importance of staying engaged with both regulatory agencies and surrounding communities, and continuing to demonstrate a commitment to sound environmental stewardship as policy approaches evolve.
Understanding the Policy Shift
Traditionally, many environmental regulations have included an assessment of health-related costs and benefits. By taking those out of the equation, the EPA is essentially focusing on the economic and technical sides of compliance without formally weighing public health impacts. For industrial clients, this can translate into changes in how permitting and compliance standards are framed.
Implications for Compliance and Strategy
From a practical standpoint, this shift could mean that certain emissions controls or pollution abatement measures are viewed through a more cost-efficiency lens rather than a health-impact lens. For some facilities, that might reduce the immediate burden of justifying certain health-based mitigation steps. For others, it could lead to a re-examination of how to align with both federal requirements and community expectations.
Staying Proactive and Engaged
Even as the regulatory focus shifts, our advice to clients remains the same: stay proactive. Engaging early with regulatory agencies, understanding the broader community context, and maintaining a commitment to sustainable practices will help ensure that your projects not only meet the letter of the law but also foster long-term trust and reliability with your stakeholders.
Community Implications and Local Engagement
It’s also worth noting that while this regulatory shift focuses less on health costs, the well-being of the local community remains a priority. Industries will still need to engage with residents and local stakeholders to address concerns and demonstrate that, even in a changing regulatory landscape, maintaining trust and environmental responsibility remains key.
Potential Implications for Litigation and Facility-Level Risk
While the recent policy shift does not, by itself, create new regulatory requirements, it may have secondary implications for how air quality impacts are evaluated and challenged outside the federal rulemaking process. By placing less emphasis on monetizing public health benefits in regulatory analyses, future EPA rules may yield a narrower administrative record for health-based justifications, even where health impacts remain an underlying consideration.
In this context, challenges related to air quality impacts may increasingly occur at the facility or permit level, rather than through direct challenges to federal regulations. State agencies, local governments, community organizations, and other stakeholders may rely on state statutes, permitting programs, nuisance claims, or environmental justice frameworks to raise concerns regarding localized or cumulative impacts.
For facility owners and operators, this underscores the importance of maintaining robust, defensible compliance programs. Adherence to permit conditions remains essential, but facilities may also benefit from enhanced documentation of operational controls, emissions performance, monitoring data, and responsiveness to community or regulator inquiries. In some cases, voluntary risk-management measures or early engagement during permitting and modification processes may help reduce the likelihood that disputes will escalate into enforcement actions or litigation.
Technical Takeaway for Facility Owners
As federal rulemaking places less emphasis on quantified health benefits, risk management increasingly shifts to the facility level. Facility owners should assume that:
If you’d like to understand your facilities risk or further investigate O&M program assessment, please get in touch with our experts at SCS Engineers.
Meet our Author: John Tsun, National Practice Leader – Industrial Clean Air Act Services, SCS Engineers.
Additional Resources:
On March 26, 2020, the EPA issued the COVID-19 Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program memorandum. This temporary policy allows for enforcement discretion for noncompliance resulting from the pandemic. The memorandum requires regulated entities to take specific steps, then document how COVID-19 caused the noncompliance and efforts to return to compliance. Noncompliance issues may include but are not limited to, routine monitoring, reporting, and testing.
EPA is the implementing authority for programs where the consequences of the pandemic may affect reporting obligations and milestones set forth in settlements and consent decrees. These consequences may affect the ability of an operation to meet enforceable limitations on air emissions and water discharges, requirements for the management of hazardous waste, or requirements to ensure and provide safe drinking water.
These are very distinct situations that the EPA plans to manage differently, as described on the EPA website page https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf
Not all states and commonwealths have adopted a temporary discretionary enforcement policy. As an example, the Illinois EPA has not adopted a discretionary enforcement policy, and all state statutes and regulations remain in effect. Should your organization face a situation where regulatory compliance may be at risk due to COVID-19, this special circumstance may still be a mitigating factor in the event of an enforcement action by Illinois EPA.
If you are uncertain if you will be able to meet your compliance obligations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and you need assistance please visit our locations to find the office nearest you or contact an SCS professional at .
Corporate Headquarters
