The EPA Launches a Crackdown on Killer Soot

Fine particulates cause an estimated 85,000 to 225,000 US deaths each year.

Two smokestacks emerge from trees on top of a blue sky.

Stanton Energy Center, a coal-fired power plant, in Orlando.Paul Hennessy / ZUMA

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized long-awaited new limits on soot, the tiny air pollution particles emitted by sources as varied as power plants, factories, car exhaust, and wildfires.

“Today’s action is a critical step forward that will better protect workers, families and communities from the dangerous and costly impacts of fine particle pollution,” the EPA administrator, Michael Regan, told reporters on Tuesday.

Also known as fine particle pollution, soot is one of the nation’s most widespread air pollutants. It is also one of the most dangerous, causing an estimated 85,000 to 200,000 excess US deaths annually; the tiny particles can become lodged in human lungs and sometimes even enter the bloodstream, triggering asthma attacks, cancer, and heart and lung disease.

The strengthened pollution controls, unveiled on Wednesday, will lower the annual soot standard to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from the previous standard of 12 micrograms.

In 2032—the first year that regulators expect compliance with the standard to be required—alone, the new rule will prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths, the agency estimates. It will also result in health benefits valued at $46 billion, including 290,000 lost workdays averted, 800,000 asthma symptoms avoided, and thousands of emergency room visits prevented, the agency says.

“The Biden administration is taking life-saving action to protect people and rein in deadly pollution,” Abigail Dillen, president of the legal and environmental advocacy non-profit Earthjustice, said.

The new rule comes under the Clean Air Act, which sets legal limits for emissions from soot and other major air pollutants. These restrictions are revisited by the US Environmental Protection Agency every five years.

States will now be required to revise their implementation plans under the Clean Air Act to demonstrate how they will achieve compliance with the new control.

Senior EPA officials said that the 9 microgram standard reflects an intensive review of public health literature, the input of an independent science advisory committee, and 700,000 comments on a less-specific draft rule the agency proposed in January 2023.

Experts say the tightened standard will be particularly beneficial for poorer Americans and people of color, who are disproportionately exposed to soot emissions, as well as the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions and children, who are more vulnerable to health impacts from exposure.

Health effects from soot pollution can also have cascading effects, said Doris Browne, former president of the National Medical Association, on an EPA press call on Tuesday. One example: a school bus driver who must miss work when air pollution causes an asthma flare-up.

“That driver missing work impacts the students on the route, the parents trying to get to work themselves, the classroom that need those healthy attentive students, and the learning that does or does not happen,” she said.

When crafting Clean Air Act standards, the EPA is not, by law, supposed to consider the costs to polluting sectors, but that has not stopped those industries from weighing in.

Late last year, representatives from industries including oil and gas, mining and manufacturing sent a letter to the White House saying that a 9 microgram standard would leave “no room” for economic development, bring permitting for many industries to a halt, and threatening job growth.

“Tightening the [soot] standard will grind permits to a halt for a large portion of our country,” said Marty Durbin, senior vice-president for policy at the US Chamber of Commerce, in an emailed statement.

Senior EPA officials on Tuesday told reporters that that concern was vastly overstated, and that averted death and illness would far outweigh potential costs. Every $1 spent on compliance with the new action could result in up to $77 in human health benefits in 2032, the agency said. Additionally, that year, 99 percent of US counties would already probably meet the tightened control based on current trends and pre-existing regulations, agency officials said, limiting the cost of compliance.

“The stronger standard is designed to ensure clear routine pathways for industry to continue to upgrade and build, while maintaining cleaner, healthier air,” said the EPA’s Regan.

Since 2000, concentrations of soot have decreased in the US while the economy has grown, Regan said. But Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said polluting sectors would still probably put up a fight.

“I expect that some industry groups will challenge this in court immediately,” he said.

Gerrard also expects the new rule to be to quickly revoked if Trump is re-elected. His administration would have to go through a notice and comment period to do so, but a mere announcement of a rollback could lead states immediately to halt the “laborious process” of revising their compliance plans, Gerrard said.

The Trump administration declined to tighten soot standards in 2020, despite outcry from EPA scientists, health experts and environmental advocates.

Some environmental justice advocates and scientists have pushed EPA to go further and adjust the US 24-hour soot pollution limit, rather than allowing polluters to ramp up emissions on certain days as long as they comply with the 9 micrograms average over the course of a year. The new rule does not meet that request.

Marshall Burke, associate professor of environmental policy at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, also noted that the new control would not do much to curb soot pollution from one growing source: wildfires, which are not regulated by the Clean Air Act. In fact, he said, because the law does not exempt prescribed burns—which are a “key tool” to avoid wildfire spread—they could reduce the use of that tactic.

Burke suggested regulators require states to create plans to slash wildfire risk. Nonetheless, he praised the rule. “The EPA’s strengthened pollution standards are a triumph of both science and science-based policy,” he said.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate