A New Slew Of EPA Air Rules Add To Biden’s Contradictory Policies

I’ve written many times here about the Biden Administration’s “green dilemma” with respect to mining critical minerals needed to make the energy transition to renewables a reality. Now, the Biden Administration is facing another dilemma – implement costly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air rules that make it harder to build, or provide regulatory relief that allows for the buildout of new infrastructure needed for the energy transition and the revitalization of domestic manufacturing.

Unsurprisingly, the Biden Administration is trying to have it both ways and tell the public it is focused on the bringing back manufacturing while the EPA is hard at work proposing burdensome and costly regulations that could cause further permitting delays or halt projects in certain areas. On his “Investing in America” tour, Biden touted that domestic manufacturing will help to avert the supply chain crisis that crippled the economy during the pandemic and create good paying jobs. It’s the same message that Biden has repeated on his campaign and in his State of the Union addresses two years in a row.

Meanwhile, the EPA is preparing and proposing a slew of standards that directly go against the Biden Administration’s priority to revitalize American manufacturing. The agency recently finalized the “Good Neighbor” plan, a regulatory action taken under the Clean Air Act, designed to force power plants and factories to sharply cut emissions that cross state lines involving 23 states, many of which are energy-producing and industrial centers. The rule has been criticized as “confusing and inconsistent” and is expected to be challenged in court. The EPA is also considering standards on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which provides no way for some firms to comply, and ozone, which EPA’s own scientists and advisors can’t seem to agree on.

These rules make it seems like America has major air pollution problems, but EPA’s own data as of 2020 shows that common pollutants, including PM2.5, have declined by 78% since 1970. The U.S. already has some of the strictest regulations in the world and we are outpacing our global competitors. Given the advertised overall objective of Biden energy policies, it seems illogical and counterproductive to crack down further now.

Making permitting harder and lengthier than it already is not only hurts manufacturers with existing operations, but it could also jeopardize the new clean energy manufacturing deemed necessary to reach decarbonization goals. If government prevents manufacturing growth here, other countries, especially those that don’t have the same rigorous regulations, will step in, and fill the void left by the U.S. manufacturers.

EPA’s own estimated compliance cost for the recently issued “Good Neighbor” plan would reach $1.3 billion by 2030, while shutting down 90,000 coal mining jobs in 26 states. These are the workers at power plants, facilities manufacturing iron, steel, cement, paper, glass, petroleum and coal products, natural gas transmission and metal ore mining – all industries that support U.S. economic growth and its energy security.

EPA is also in the process of finalizing a rule that would impose more stringent standards on PM2.5, which could put as many as 200 counties, containing nearly 40% of the U.S. population, in “nonattainment status” and could halt any new projects in these areas, killing potential jobs and economic growth.

In a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers, 94% of responding companies said that increased regulatory burdens would weaken their ability to invest in workers, equipment or facilities, and nearly three-quarters said that permitting reform to simplify and speed up the approval process would be beneficial. More than half are concerned that EPA’s proposed PM standards would increase compliance costs and a third said that the rule would increase current challenges with permitting, during a time when even some Democrats are emphasizing the need for permitting to be streamlined.

The EPA itself projects the rule will cost between $95 million to $1.8 billion by 2032 to implement. That’s quite an imprecise range of costs, raising a question about whether the agency even understands the impacts its own proposed rule would have in the real world. Moreover, EPA’s estimate does not take into consideration the indirect costs, including impacts on surrounding community and businesses, local and expanded supply chains.

Setting unattainable standards does not protect health or stop climate change; rather, it stifles our ability to address these issues with real solutions. If that wasn’t enough, EPA is also proposing significantly tougher standards on ozone, despite pushback from its own scientists, who recommended that EPA retain the current standard last March.

Bottom Line

It often seems as if this administration lacks any sort comprehensive planning process designed to move the overarching goals of its stated energy and environment program forward. If the goal is truly an “energy transition” to renewables and electric vehicles, that goal mandates a dramatic increase in mining and manufacturing take place right here in the U.S.

We frequently see President Biden and some of his appointed officials giving lip service to making that proposition become a reality. But at the same time, we see the bureaucracies at the EPA and other federal regulatory agencies setting up regulatory conditions that seem overtly designed to prevent it from happening.

Ultimately, what it all adds up to is a recipe for failure, even disaster.