More than three dozen Democratic senators have launched an independent inquiry into the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following significant changes in its approach to measuring the health benefits of reduced air pollution. This shift, which critics argue represents a substantial rollback of the government's commitment to fighting climate change, involves the EPA's announcement that it will no longer assign a monetary value to the health benefits associated with regulations on fine particulate matter and ozone. This decision has raised concerns among environmental advocates who fear it will hinder progress in ensuring cleaner air and subsequently reducing public health risks.

The regulatory impact analysis conducted by the EPA cites that the previous estimates relied upon for measuring health benefits contain too much uncertainty, prompting the agency to remove the monetary assignment. The former methodology evaluated the benefits of cleaner air by quantifying outcomes such as reductions in premature deaths and fewer asthma attacks, a practice now abandoned by the agency. This change comes in the context of a wider push by the current administration to relax regulations that many believe are essential for public health and environmental safety.

The revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding, which established the legal basis for monitoring greenhouse gases due to their threat to public health and welfare, underscores the potential implications of this new policy. By eliminating this legal framework, the EPA's recent decision may significantly weaken the regulatory powers necessary to address planet-heating pollution effectively. As the inquiry unfolds, it will likely focus on the ramifications of these changes and their broader impact on the U.S. climate agenda and environmental justice issues.