I'm not sure I especially care either way about this change. For me, like Andrew, audax provides a framework which helps motivate me to get out on specific rides, and undoubtedly to ride further and longer than I would ever have contemplated without such a framework. It gives me a framework in which to challenge myself, and it gives others a framework to challenge themselves in ways which I can simultaneously respect yet not be personally interested in - at the moment.
I support the idea of widening access to that challenge, to recognise that for some people getting round any sort of route with assistance is an equally audacious outing, and I'm happy enough to be naive and believe that anyone doing enough miles on an EAPC to be potentially in the running for an award i) has achieved a pretty big feat anyway, ii) will only be cheating themselves if they're trying to conceal the assistance aspect, and iii) would be very rapidly found out anyway if they were trying to be dishonest.
In terms of homologation, was there any consideration of a separate category? BP-E or similar could presumably be made available at any distance, without necessarily opening the can of worms that points or BR might be.
(On a legalistic note, how would the anti-EAPC bunch respond to a legal challenge from a cyclist with an impairment, who contends that their electrical assistance is no more than a reasonable adjustment for disability, and as such should be accepted in any event? Hypothetical and vanishingly unlikely, I grant you, but not impossible.)