In asthma-prone New Bedford, activists concerned over EPA rollbacks

After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it will no longer regulate greenhouse gases, some worry that communities already overburdened with air pollution will get the most smoke.

The Trump administration on Thursday announced plans to roll back regulations on fossil fuel emissions from cars, power plants, and other industries. It also repealed a key ruling that made the EPA responsible for the public health impacts of climate change. Advocates say the new rule could hit environmental justice communities like New Bedford hardest.

The ruling, called the endangerment finding, has served as the basis for vehicle emission standards since 2007. The Environmental Protection Network, an advocacy group made up of 700 former EPA career staff and appointees, denounced the rollback.

“Communities across the country will bear the brunt of this decision — through dirtier air, higher health costs, and increased climate harm,” EPN Executive Director Michelle Roos said in a statement. “By discarding the endangerment finding and slashing clean car emission standards, the Trump EPA is surrendering its responsibility, turning its back on families and communities already facing the highest pollution and health risks, and dismantling decades of science and progress.”

In New Bedford, which has one of the highest rates of asthma in the state, increased vehicle emissions could further harm an already vulnerable population, Sierra Club Massachusetts Chapter Director Vickash Mohanka said.

“These communities are vulnerable to air pollution, and this finding is a bedrock legal decision that created mechanisms to protect communities from air pollution,” Mohanka said.

New Bedford’s Director of Environmental Stewardship Michele Paul is more optimistic. In an email to The Light, Paul said she expected that Massachusetts’ own stringent environmental standards — coupled with potential litigation against the ruling — would keep any major changes in New Bedford at bay.

“I think that there will be sufficient challenges to delay any actual deregulation until the next administration, which may make it a moot point,” Paul said.

Mohanka said the Sierra Club planned to explore any possible legal avenues against the change. But he also claimed that the state, although ambitious with its climate goals, has not done enough to actually meet its own standards. New Bedford and other low-income communities continue to face disproportionately high levels of pollution, and the state’s focus on green energy incentives have done little to change that reality, Mohanka said.

“The state is not doing everything it can to actually reduce pollution,” Mohanka said. ”Having more vehicles in your neighborhood increases your rate of asthma, COPD, cancers, and other respiratory illnesses. We know that having natural gas infrastructure under your home, or natural gas appliances, also leads to worse health outcomes, especially for vulnerable populations.”

On Friday, the Healey administration released its 2025 Climate Report Card, showing little to stagnant growth across many of its own environmental measurements. Between 2024 and 2025, the total number of communities that had adopted the state’s optional, more stringent environmental regulations — also known as the “stretch code” —  decreased slightly. Weatherization projects and heat pump installations also slowed in 2025 after state legislators slashed the budget for the energy-saving program MassSave.

The report, released by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, blamed the Trump administration’s rollback of key energy incentives for the slowdown. Mohanka believes the state and the federal government are more aligned on climate issues than they might seem.

Mohanka pointed to House Bill 4744, a proposal passed by the House’s energy committee in November, that would require state environmental agencies to consider cost to ratepayers when setting climate goals. He said the proposal would eliminate the “social cost” of carbon, which includes factors like the strain on public health resources caused by illnesses due to fossil fuel emissions. In January, the state Sierra Club called for the removal of the House energy committee’s chair because he sponsored the bill.

Mohanka said that eliminating the “social cost” of carbon follows the same logic as a recent EPA measure that would eliminate the economic cost to human health when regulating power plant emissions. These costs, although less visible than a line item on a gas bill, are real and will continue to stack up if the state does not continue to mitigate the effects of climate change, Mohanka said.

“We see a legislative proposal to get rid of the social cost of carbon, and I think that is almost exactly like what Trump is doing,” Mohanka said. “So I want the state to stand up to Trump’s agenda and not replicate it.”

The bill comes after another year of astronomically high heating prices for Massachusetts ratepayers, prompting ongoing discussions on how to balance affordability and environmental goals. A 2021 state climate law set ambitious goals for carbon emissions reductions by 2030, but setbacks in the offshore wind industry have leaders concerned the state may not meet those goals. And on Thursday, the Healey administration quietly released a new cost estimate of $90 billion to $130 billion to enact Massachusetts’  “resilience” plan for construction projects to guard against the effects of climate change — which the Boston Globe reported would be the equivalent of six to eight Big Digs.

State officials said Thursday that the EPA decision would significantly hamper Massachusetts’ efforts to improve air quality. The statement did not provide concrete examples of how the state might counteract the measure.

“The Trump Administration’s decision will disrupt and challenge our progress to address climate change and protect our communities,” read the statement from Massachusetts Commissioner of Environmental Protection Bonnie Heiple and Massachusetts Commissioner of Public Health Robbie Goldstein. “Seniors, children, and those with asthma will bear the brunt of increased pollution.”

Some advocates argue the recent wave of federal rollbacks should be an opportunity for Massachusetts to lead by example.

“We need to buckle down and focus on what we can move forward now to protect public health and keep our communities safe,” said Caitlin Peale Sloan, vice president for climate and energy at Conservation Law Foundation. 

Email Brooke Kushwaha at bkushwaha@newbedfordlight.org.

More stories by Brooke Kushwaha

El Niño summer could yield fewer storms, but experts urge caution

June 18, 2026June 18, 2026

Feeling the pinch, state regulators double down on horseshoe crabs

June 10, 2026June 10, 2026

Beyond the whale: How seaweed shaped New Bedford’s maritime history

May 26, 2026May 27, 2026