OPINION:
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency released a new proposal to significantly cut particulate matter 2.5, or PM 2.5 — fine particles that could affect public health if people are exposed to high concentrations.
At first glance, this proposal appears laudable. If this rule is established, however, it could halt new manufacturing and infrastructure projects across the country, including in my home city of Augusta, Georgia. While continuous improvement of air quality is important, it must be balanced along with potential impacts on the economy, jobs, and industry’s ability to comply.
In Augusta, where I previously served as mayor, manufacturing represents the second-largest industry. It has the potential to propel our city into the future, especially as the Biden administration looks to encourage more domestic manufacturing. But EPA’s proposal puts this opportunity at risk for too high a cost and too little benefit.
For instance, EPA data projects that Richmond County, of which Augusta is the largest city and county seat, would not be able to immediately comply with the proposed standard, along with 11 other Georgia counties. That means that Augusta and other communities would be subject to stringent restrictions for future development.
It’s not surprising that the rule could be very costly. In fact, a recent report commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers measured the potential impact. The PM 2.5 rule would threaten up to nearly $200 billion in economic activity and put almost a million jobs at risk in the manufacturing and supply chain sectors. The report estimates 200 counties could be placed out of attainment by the proposed rule, limiting opportunities for expansion or investment and putting an additional $138.4 billion in economic output and 501,000 jobs at risk through 2027.
To make matters worse, the EPA has not identified a realistic path toward compliance for some scenarios in its proposal. This raises questions about the ability of manufacturing and industrial plants to continue operations since there are no known control measures to limit emissions to the extent necessary for certain areas to comply with the EPA’s new proposal.
NERA, an economic consulting firm, also reviewed the EPA’s regulatory impact analysis and examined this concern. Specifically, it found that the EPA’s analysis significantly underestimates compliance costs because it reflects control measures that produce only a fraction of the reductions needed for all counties in the United States to meet the proposed standards.
The EPA projects that the proposed rule will cost $1.8 billion. But the real compliance costs are likely to be closer to $24 billion.
The good news is that America’s air quality has improved significantly in the decades since the Clean Air Act became law. Today, the U.S. already has some of the most stringent standards to control particulate matter in the world, which has resulted in significant reductions of PM 2.5.
In fact, PM 2.5 has dropped by 78% between 1970 and 2020 and a full 44% since 2000. Even without this new proposal, American industry will continue to make improvements. The EPA can lower the standards when there is a feasible pathway to compliance and less of a cost burden on the economy.
This moment in America is unique in that we are recovering from the most extraordinary global pandemic of our generation while jump-starting an economy that was idled because of the pandemic and tremendous social and racial unrest. While I agree with and support a majority of the Biden administration’s policies that are attempting to update our infrastructure and prepare it for the clean energy future, now is the time to focus on those goals instead of new regulations that would ultimately hamstring efforts to continue to reduce air pollution and stall economic development.
As a past member of the EPA’s Local Government Advisory Council, I fully understand the importance of ensuring healthy and livable communities through sound public policy. While we should continuously pursue opportunities to reduce our emissions and clean our air, the costs and impacts of this proposal far outweigh the benefits and should be reconsidered.
• Hardie Davis Jr. previously served as the 84th mayor of Augusta, Georgia, on the EPA’s Local Government Advisory Committee, and as a representative and senator in the Georgia General Assembly.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.