Photo: Gene Daniels, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

I, like 7% of US kids, grew up with asthma. One family road trip to California turned into a nightmare when we stopped for gas just inside the San Joaquin Valley. I had barely hopped out of the minivan when I felt my lungs tighten. Within seconds, I was doubled over, wheezing. Every inhale felt like needles were poking into the walls of my lungs, and every exhale was a pathetic little puff. Luckily, I had easy access to my rescue inhaler, and I made it out of the situation safely. But the memory will always stick with me.

This was my first run in with the realities of air pollution, but this isn’t a story about me, or even about the San Joaquin Valley, where twice as many kids have asthma compared to the national average. It’s about an arcane system of environmental rules that leaves us all vulnerable to such threats

Like me, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan was once an asthmatic kid. Now, the EPA he leads has the power to improve air quality for all of us, asthmatic or not. And you and I have the power to help him do it.

In December 2020, after Donald Trump knew he’d be leaving office and President Joe Biden would be his successor, the Trump White House raced to cement its legacy of environmental deregulation.

One of their last-minute actions is especially concerning. It has the unfortunately long title “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.” From here on out, I’ll just call it the Cost-Benefit rule. Trump’s EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, touted the Cost-Benefit rule for improving consistency and transparency in rulemaking.

The rule requires EPA economists to split up the expected economic improvements from any new Clean Air Act rule into “benefits” and “co-benefits.” Benefits are narrowly defined as improvements directly targeted by a new rule, while every other improvement gets relegated to co-benefit status.

Let’s say a new rule targets sulfur dioxide emission to reduce acid rain. But reducing sulfur dioxide emissions will also likely reduce fine particulate matter emissions, which are correlated with use of rescue inhalers for asthma symptoms.

But all of the dollars saved when folks with asthma breathe easier as a result of our hypothetical rule don’t count under the Cost-Benefit rule. They’re just co-benefits.

Industry stakeholders flooded the EPA with public comments in support of the Cost-Benefit rule, giving the Trump EPA an easy way to rationalize the rule. Under the rule, polluters could push back against Clean Air Act measures by excluding co-benefits, which can play an important role in justifying new environmental regulations.

Excluding co-benefits made it easier for polluters to challenge Clean Air Act measures in court, slip out from underneath them, and continue polluting. If co-benefits can be ignored, or downplayed as they were under the Trump administration, new Clean Air Act measures are harder to justify based on cost-benefit  analysis  alone.

A decade after my asthma attack outside that California gas station, 82 million Americans still live in counties with air pollution above national standards. There is still work to be done. Lives are on the line. Counting co-benefits can save lives.

This is where the Biden EPA’s effort to rescind the Cost-Benefit rule comes in. It’s where we the people have the power! The EPA under Trump used public comment from industry to justify the creation of the Cost-Benefit rule, and the EPA under Biden can use public comments from you in its rationale for rescinding the rule.

From now until June 14, 2021, the EPA is collecting public comments on rescinding the Cost-Benefit rule. Please, for all of us who will breathe a little easier knowing that the EPA can use the best information available to make rules to protect us, submit a comment. When you submit a substantive comment, the EPA is required to respond to your concerns  in the text of the final regulation.

It’s time to take a stand against conservative politicians and corporate polluters weakening our environmental protections. The EPA is and should be for the people. We’re taking it back.