A recent commentary highlights that the implementation of air pollution control devices in power plants saved as many as 9,100 lives and prevented health costs amounting to nearly $100 billion in 2023. These figures underline the significant health advantages that could be lost if the upcoming presidential administration pushes for policies that weaken the Clean Air Act and restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory powers.
According to fresh estimates shared in an American Journal of Public Health editorial, air pollution control devices (APCDs) have helped prevent nearly 9,000 deaths and saved up to $100 billion in health-related expenses this year.
However, researchers from Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH), the Sierra Club, the Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health warn that these health benefits may drastically diminish in the coming years, should a future presidential administration endorse the environmental strategies featured in Project 2025 and the America First Agenda.
Both of these far-right policy proposals aim to weaken existing environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, which is the foundational federal legislation from 1970 that empowers the EPA to regulate major air pollutants from power plants. Policies established by the EPA, which mandate or promote the usage of APCDs, have led to a 93% reduction in SO2 emissions and an 87% drop in NOx emissions from 1995 to 2022. This has resulted in a significant decrease in coal-associated premature deaths, dropping from 40,000 in 2000 to 1,600 by 2020, as noted in the commentary.
If the policies of Project 2025 or the America First Agenda are adopted, the use of APCDs may significantly decline, putting public health at great risk, the authors assert.
“APCDs and other elements of the Clean Air Act are essential to the public health framework in the United States,” says Dr. Jonathan Buonocore, BUSPH assistant professor of environmental health and lead author of the commentary. “This research serves as a crucial reminder of the Clean Air Act’s importance and the major public health benefits it offers when protected or strengthened.”
The research team analyzed the potential environmental and health impacts of a decrease in APCD usage by simulating a “worst-case” scenario where power plants stopped utilizing current APCDs.
The researchers projected that if power plants, particularly many coal-fired ones, discontinued using APCDs, potential reductions in SO2 would be 2.9 times greater and NOx reductions would be 1.8 times more significant. They developed a simplified model to estimate health benefits arising from continued emissions reductions through APCD use at these facilities. In 2023 alone, these devices captured approximately 1.2 million tons of SO2 and 1 million tons of NOx, which could prevent anywhere between 3,100 and 9,000 premature deaths this year and save between $35 billion and nearly $100 billion in healthcare costs.
“Thanks to federal policies that significantly cut SO2 and NOx emissions from this sector, power plants are no longer the leading contributors to air pollution-related health risks in the U.S.,” explains Saravanan Arunachalam, Deputy Director at the Institute for the Environment at UNC-Chapel Hill. “Any future efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act could restore this sector’s former status, exacerbating health issues among Americans.”
Despite the clear health benefits noted, the models used may undervalue additional health advantages related to reduced emissions from APCD use, such as lower risks of stroke, heart attacks, and adult asthma, as well as conditions like low birth weight, premature births, asthma onset, and other respiratory or developmental problems in children, the authors emphasize.
While these health benefits are felt nationwide, the most significant gains were seen from emissions decreases in power plants located in Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Mountain West, with over 85% of the reductions linked to a dramatic drop in SO2 emissions, primarily from coal-fired facilities. The researchers acknowledge that while it is improbable future policies would completely eradicate APCD usage, their findings quantify the potential health consequences of changing the EPA’s authority under a potentially weakened Clean Air Act.
“Though health advantages from APCDs may be concentrated in certain areas, these results illustrate that robust environmental regulations benefit everyone,” states Dr. Mary Willis, assistant professor of epidemiology at BUSPH.
Additionally, the authors note that any future policies undermining the EPA’s current regulatory capabilities would worsen racial health disparities and likely hinder other climate-related initiatives on various governmental levels. Reductions in APCD usage would disproportionately impact environmental justice communities, many of which consist of people of color or low-income families already facing environmental hazards more frequently. Increases in power plant air pollution would also counteract progress made in cities focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through building and transportation electrification efforts.
The authors emphasize that federally implemented policies that limit regulatory authority over harmful practices could result in immediate health repercussions.
“Plans to dismantle pollution safeguards and weaken the Clean Air Act would put the health and safety of millions at risk,” warns Jeremy Fisher, principal advisor on climate and energy for the Sierra Club. “People’s lives are at stake, and the American public deserves thorough oversight and accountability of polluting power plants, not less.”
Ultimately, air pollution regulations and climate strategies are fundamentally health policies, according to Dr. Jonathan Levy, chair and professor of the Department of Environmental Health at BUSPH and senior author of the commentary. “These policy agendas targeting the EPA threaten to regress our progress and diminish the health of Americans.”
The commentary was coauthored by Dr. Frederica Perera, professor emerita of environmental health sciences at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health; Dr. Daniel Prull, deputy director of research, strategy and analysis for the Sierra Club; Dr. Patrick Kinney, Beverly Brown Professor of Urban Health at BUSPH; and Brian Sousa, research data analyst in BUSPH’s Department of Environmental Health.
