In my final speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I encouraged my colleagues to come out of their foxholes—the foxholes we dig into—to the political center, where the majority of Americans are, and discuss our collective path forward. Unfortunately, I watched in the years that followed as both parties continued to drift away from the middle toward the extremes.
When I endorsed my good friend Joe Biden for the presidency in 2020, I believed the country desperately needed his pragmatism and a return to normalcy. There is no question he has steadied the ship and presided over a robust economic recovery following the pandemic. I hope for another four years of commonsense solutions and steady leadership to move these issues forward in a way that is productive for all. But there is growing concern from Democrats like me that certain areas of the Biden Administration are taking policy too far to the left at the risk of jobs and a strong economy.
One such area is the Environmental Protection Agency and its decision to rewrite a key national air quality standard. I am no stranger to EPA overreach in this area—in 2010, I worked with Republicans and Democrats to fight off an onerous particulate matter rule that would have hurt our agricultural industry. Now, EPA is in the final stages of issuing a similar rule that would have devastating consequences for American manufacturing.
The controversy centers around EPA’s regulation of fine particulate matter, or what is known in policy circles as PM2.5. These are microscopic particles 20 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair that are emitted by a number of different sectors of our economy. The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA review its standard every five years. However, the agency has taken the unusual step of examining the rule 2 years early and is leaning toward drastically tightening it.
The current limit for PM2.5 is 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air—for context, that is more than twice as strict as that of the EU. The agency has indicated that it could drop the standard to as low as 9.0 and took comment on going as far as 8.0—both incredibly steep reductions that the environmental lobby is pushing hard for. While impacted businesses and labor groups have signaled some openness to a stricter standard in the range of 10.0-11.0, they have warned about the economic repercussions of going further.
A recent study from Oxford Economics lays bare these concerns. The report found that a standard in the range of 8.0-9.0 would put as many as 850,000 manufacturing jobs at risk. This would be a major blow not only to the bipartisan efforts to bring more of these good-paying jobs back to our shores but also to President Biden’s economic narrative. Adding insult to injury, the study found that the number of U.S. counties classified as being in 'nonattainment' would increase tenfold, affecting up to 40% of the U.S. population.
A nonattainment designation is essentially a death knell for economic development and investment. It increases red tape and compliance costs and could even force some operations to shut down entirely. It could also place these areas out of reach of some of President Biden’s signature legislative accomplishments like the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, driving those projects away from regions that need them most—including rural areas I have been a fierce advocate for. Oxford’s analysis found that the economic damage could reach nearly $200 billion in lost output.
Continuing to improve our air quality is a universally shared priority, and it is the right thing to do—but progress needs to be practical and give industry predictable rules with achievable targets. EPA’s approach to its PM2.5 rulemaking runs counter to that, and the limits they are considering would require technologies that do not yet exist.
Fortunately, with impacted businesses and labor groups at the table and open to finding consensus, there is a deal to be made where everyone gets something. By tightening the standard in the 10.0-11.0 range, President Biden and his administration can take credit for tougher air quality rules, while ensuring the continued economic competitiveness of American manufacturing.
I have great admiration for President Biden. He was my deskmate on the Senate floor when we served together and can strike a deal as good as anyone I have known in public service. His EPA ought to take a page from that playbook as it nears completion of its rulemaking. The contours of a smart and durable consensus are there. Moderating will not only yield a sounder policy outcome, it will have the added benefit of being smart politics too. After all, while there is more noise on the fringes, there are more voters in the middle.
