Compromise is needed on EPA’s new particulate matter rules

Although it formed the core of our nation’s founding, compromise has become rare in Washington today. But I have always believed that if you take things too far in either direction, you will never get a policy that sticks around for the long term.

Even in these polarized times, Washington has managed to produce a few major breakthroughs thanks to compromise, such as the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act — signature pieces of President Biden’s legislative agenda.

Another area that could use a similarly pragmatic approach is an important but obscure EPA air quality rule that regulates fine particulate matter.

The Clean Air Act mandates that every five years, the EPA must reevaluate its standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns across — particles 20 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. These come from a wide variety of regular sources and processes, including transportation, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture.

The EPA is not required to evaluate this standard until 2025, but it is trying to do so early this time. Its proposal is to tighten the standard from the current level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter this year. A final decision is likely to come this fall.

Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the U.S. has seen a 78 percent reduction in the category of pollutants that includes this type of particulate matter. The U.S. standard is more than twice as strict as that of the EU. Businesses and even some labor groups have traditionally resisted tougher EPA regulations, but this time around, they are speaking the language of compromise. Many of these organizations have indicated that they could support tightening the standard from 12 to 10 micrograms, which implies an additional 17 percent reduction in pollution caused by fine particulate matter.

They are also warning, however, that if the EPA goes further than that, it will harm the economy.

A study released earlier this year by Oxford Economics found that 850,000 jobs would be in immediate danger if the EPA chooses to side exclusively with the environmental lobby and adopt a stricter standard. The report also found that the number of U.S. counties in “nonattainment” would instantly jump ten-fold as a result of such a change, affecting up to 40 percent of the U.S. population. This would increase permitting requirements and compliance costs and ultimately restrict development in areas that need it most, immediately affecting local industry, agriculture, transportation, and infrastructure projects, putting those jobs at risk.

Limited opportunities for expansion and investment would mean these areas could lose out on over $138 billion in output and more than 500,000 jobs through 2027. This would surely scramble President Biden’s economic pitch to voters as he runs for a second term.

I have known the president for a long time. I supported him when he first ran for the White House in 1987. His knack for deal-making is well-known in Washington. That same pragmatism is needed at his EPA as it considers a new particulate matter standard.

His administration is succeeding with its promise to prioritize American industry, manufacturing, and re-shoring — creating high-paying union jobs and increasing the number of Americans working in manufacturing by 800,000 since taking office.

If EPA overreaches and those jobs start to disappear — and nearly half the country can’t take advantage of his top legislative wins — that case will be much harder to make.

Ensuring everyone can breathe clean air is a shared universal priority and a core responsibility of the EPA. But there must be a realistic balance between protecting public health and providing businesses with clear, achievable rules that keep America globally competitive.

It does not need to be an either-or proposition. If Biden’s EPA adopts the reasonable compromise that others are proposing, he will be able to tout tougher environmental regulations without creating an economic headache — a deal where everyone wins.

Collin Peterson represented Minnesota’s 7th congressional district as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2021 and served twice as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.