Yesterday, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Subcommittee on the Environment, held a hearing to examine the achievability of potential new ozone standards. The EPA, which substantially lowered the Ozone Standard in 2008 and then unsuccessfully tried again in 2010, is widely expected to propose lowering the Ozone Standard even further at some point this year. As witnesses from the scientific, legal, academic and state regulatory community testified today, achieving a lower standard in many parts of the country will be nearly impossible – if not completely impossible – because of naturally occurring ozone or ozone that is beyond the control of any U.S. regulatory agency (known as “background”).

Ozone can travel several thousand miles and concentration levels are greatly impacted by, amongst other things, topography and weather. However, after EPA sets an air quality standard, like the Ozone Standard, states have limited tools with which to achieve these federal mandates. So manufacturers end up bearing the brunt of the costs, even in areas where there are very few industries. In fact, several national parks, with no industrial activity at all, have been found to be in “nonattainment”.

The situation will be particularly vexing in the Western United States, where ozone attributable to pollution from Mexico and several Asian and European countries contributes significantly to higher ozone measurements. Many of these regions are rural areas of the country with few industries, yet according to EPA would be classified as “nonattainment” and left with little hope of future economic development. As EPA considers lowering the Ozone Standard this year, potentially bringing nearly the entire country into nonattainment, serious consideration should be given to the impact background ozone levels have on nonattainment determinations and the impacts a lower ozone standard could have on manufacturers across the country.

Greg Bertelsen is director of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Yesterday Sens. Bennet (D-CO) and Isakson (R-GA) re-introduced the “Sensible Accounting to Value Energy Act” (Save Act), S 1106. The objective of this legislation is to “encourage investments in energy efficient home building” and to do so through a mortgage lending process that recognizes and rewards those investments.

S. 1106 would require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop and issue guidelines to federal mortgage agencies on calculating loans made on each residential property factoring in the energy costs and efficiency of that property. The objective is to provide the loan applicant with additional information as to the energy costs and the energy efficiency of that property. The legislation would also permit appraisers to have access to this information and to factor into their appraisal the energy and water improvements made to the property. For instance, the appraiser can take into account such things as “labels and ratings of building and installed appliances, blueprints, construction costs, incentives regarding energy and water-efficient components and systems installed in a property…”

The SAVE Act would provide consumers with additional and important information about the energy efficiency and the energy costs of purchasing a home. Thus consumers would be able to make more informed decisions. For example, if they have an idea of their yearly energy costs, it can help them to determine the true cost of home ownership.   The result would be that the marketplace would be better able to reflect the value of homes that are more energy and water efficient.  (continue reading…)

Later this year the EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPA could move forward with a new regulation that could essentially grind economic growth to a halt and cost millions of jobs. The (EPA) will consider lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone following a five year review process under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is expected to consider setting the standard between 60 to 70 parts per billion (ppb), or even lower. The EPA just lowered the standard to 75 ppb in 2008, which has yet to be fully implemented.

So what does this mean for the average business owner? Well if they are in a county or area that has been classified as a “non-attainment” they will have an extremely difficult time expanding or even making modifications to their facility. Manufacturers will be faced with strict area-wide emission limits, increased costs, delays and uncertainties caused by restrictive permit requirements.

Earlier today, the American Petroleum Institute (API) released new maps that project areas likely to be classified as non-attainment should the standard be lowered to 60 ppb – an ozone level EPA considered in 2010 before ultimately holding off. As these maps show, manufacturers in nearly every region of the country could end up in a non-attainment inhibiting economic growth across the country. Such a result could cost millions of jobs, billions of dollars and send our economy back into recession.

When the EPA last considered lowering the standard in 2010 and 2011, EPA’s estimated compliance costs were as much as $90 billion per year, with industry estimates even higher. The Obama Administration temporarily backed off this plan after an aggressive campaign from the business community.

Today Politico ran an op-ed from George Allen, former governor and U.S. senator from Virginia, about the economic harm of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas regulations. The costly and burdensome regulations from the EPA will impact every sector of the economy

Exceprt from the piece:

“The EPA began its regulatory expansion into our homes and entrepreneurial livelihoods in 2009 by asserting that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. Congress has never explicitly given the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — the agency interprets its power based on an expansive reading of the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act, however, was not meant to regulate greenhouse gases, a fact that has become readily apparent as the EPA has taken up the rulemaking process. The cascading effect of the EPA ruling that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases are pollutants would cause America’s economy to grind to a halt. Almost any new construction, from power plants to apartment buildings — 6 million new facilities in all — would be subject to EPA permitting requirements and the costs and delays that go with them.”

The EPA continues to pile on with more and more regulations that are driving up energy prices and hurting our ability to compete. It’s time for Washington to move forward with the policies outlined in the NAM’s Growth Agenda to keep manufacturers competitive.

This week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report, Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment, which explores the economic and environmental impacts of a carbon tax.

The NAM recently released an economic study conducted by nonpartisan NERA Economic Consulting, looking at two carbon tax scenarios: one levied at $20 per ton increasing at 4 percent, and the other designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 80 percent. Our study, which was actually cited in the CBO report, found that any revenue raised by the carbon tax would be far outweighed by the negative impacts to the overall economy – even if all of the revenue was used for either reducing the federal deficit or decreasing marginal tax rates (the two less bad options according to CBO). In fact, our study showed the higher the carbon tax the more severe the impacts to the economy.

A carbon tax designed to reduce CO2 levels by 80 percent could place tens of millions of jobs at risk and raise gasoline prices by over $10 per gallon, residential electricity prices by over 40 percent, and natural gas prices by almost 600 percent. Manufacturing output could drop by as much as 15.0 percent in energy-intensive sectors and 7.7 percent in non-energy-intensive sectors. The overall impact on jobs could be substantial, with a loss of worker income equivalent to as many as 1.5 million jobs in 2013 and 21 million by 2053. (continue reading…)

Yesterday we saw two very different takes on coal exports in a petition filed by environmental groups, and a study released by the National Mining Association.

Several environmental groups filed a petition with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) asking them “to evaluate the cumulative and related impacts of all proposed coal export terminals in Oregon and Washington in a single, comprehensive, area-wide environmental impact statement (“EIS”) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Such a process will allow explicit consideration of the collective impacts of multiple distinct but related decisions.” Their message was clear, we don’t want you to do anything that involves fossil fuels.

The National Mining Association (NMA) released a report prepared by Ernst & Young LLP that explored the economic and jobs benefits of coal exports in 2011. The report estimated the economic value of related coal activity at $16.6 billion in 2011. They also estimated that 25,130 jobs or almost 19 percent of those working at coal mines were directly related to coal exports. The report sent an equally clear message, fossil fuels creates economic activity and jobs.

This petition by the environmental groups is an attempt to slow down the permitting process and to kill these export expansion efforts by delaying permits for years and by requiring huge expenditures by the private and public sectors. Expanding environmental review to include all of the Washington and Oregon proposals and their potential cumulative economic and environmental impacts across the region, the United States and the world, would be a drastic policy shift from current practices that would undermine national goals to boost exports.

A Programmatic EIS for coal export projects in the Pacific Northwest would create a major disincentive for manufacturers to export their products, impacting jobs and economic growth. This is exactly the effect these groups hope to have on these projects, and in fact most any other project that involves fossil fuels.

The NAM sent a letter to the Corps in June of 2012 urging them not to expand its NEPA analysis beyond the individual, project-specific review required under the statute. The NAM believes that by expanding this focus to include the environmental impact of the cargo, and all similar cargo transported through the region, the Corps could be laying the foundation for similar exercises for just about any port or rail expansion to transport any type of cargo. For instance, what if the cargo at issue was not coal but cars, or tractors, or even airplanes? Would the Corps need to perform a Programmatic EIS to determine the lifecycle environmental impact of that cargo? What if the cargo was an agricultural or animal product; should methane emissions be considered? The possibilities are endless and deeply troubling to manufacturers and their employees.

In this town, it’s a rare occurrence for a room full of lobbyists to be truly surprised.  This morning was one of those times.  In remarks to the American Alliance for Innovation, a coalition of industry trade groups of which the NAM is a member, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) announced today that he was introducing his long-awaited Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation . . . except that rather than introducing an “alternative” bill to legislation from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), he had instead drafted a brand new bill with Sen. Lautenberg that they were introducing along with over a dozen other Republicans and Democrats.

We commend Sens. Vitter and Lautenberg for their leadership and for achieving a far too rare feat in Washington: coming together in bipartisan fashion to propose badly-needed reform to a federal law impacting human health, manufacturers in all sectors, and American innovation.

Manufacturers are committed to producing safe, innovative and sustainable products that provide essential benefits to consumers while protecting human health and the environment. To accomplish this, we believe Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the primary statute regulating the manufacture and use of chemical substances in the United States, should be modernized. However, we worried that the debate over how to reform this outdated law would fall prey to partisan politics, much like the vast majority of other environmental and energy issues in recent memory.

Today at least, it appears that bipartisanship can prevail. We believed Senators needed to start from scratch; it appears that they did. We believed there needed to be broad stakeholder input; once again, there was. And there needed to be some way to bridge the substantive divide between Sen. Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act, which industry opposed, and this new bill being drafted by Sen. Vitter.  The Senators made it happen. (continue reading…)

This afternoon President Obama toured the facility and spoke at of Ellicott Dredges in Maryland. During his visit the President spoke about the importance of infrastructure projects. He announced a Presidential Memorandum to modernize infrastructure review and permitting regulations, policies and procedures.

Our nation’s infrastructure is in need of investment and repair. Manufacturers rely on our rails, roads, ports and waterways to deliver billions worth of commodities annually. It is a positive step that President Obama is discussing the need for reforms but we need real action to speed up the review process of many infrastructure projects. The environmental streamlining reforms in the Water Resources Development Act, which passed the Senate this week, are the types of reforms that we would need to see for future projects.

Just yesterday Peter Bowe, President and CEO of Ellicott Dredge Enterprises, testified before the House Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculutre, Energy and Trade about the benefits of Keystone XL.

“So what does the Keystone pipeline have to do with us, and why do we care? For us, it’s all about jobs, not construction jobs for the pipeline itself, but ongoing jobs every year for decades to come, all related to the production of oil from the Alberta oil sands deposits. This oil needs the Keystone pipeline. The oil sands in Alberta are one of the largest markets worldwide for dredging equipment. Our dredges are used to rehandle the tailings generated by the mining process. Tailings are the wet waste which is a combination of clay, sand, and water after the oil- bearing bitumen has been removed. All the oil sands projects generate substantial amounts of tailings which are deposited into ponds. Oil sands producers have been criticized for water usage, but now, thanks to tailings reclamation, they recycle 85% to 90% of water used, and dredges are an integral part of the recycling process.”

Keystone XL will create thousands of jobs and is critical for the competitiveness of companies like Ellicott Dredges. Keystone XL has been pending for more than 5 years, the time has come to approve this important energy and infrastructure project.

Chip Yost is assistant vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

Yesterday the House Committee on Small Business’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade held a hearing on the Keystone XL and Small Business.  This hearing is that most recent in a number of hearings held by the House to talk about the importance of the Keystone XL pipeline project.

There were four witnesses, one of which was Mr. Peter Bowe, an NAM member, the President and CEO of Ellicott Dredge Enterprises, LCC. Ellicott Dredge makes dredging equipment that is used in the processing and the reclamation of tailing ponds at the mining site. President Obama is visiting the Ellicott Dredge facility in Maryland today to discuss infrastructure.

The other witnesses included Mr. Brent Booker, Secretary Treasurer, Building and Construction Trades Department, Department, AFL-CIO, ; Mr. Mat Brainerd, President, Brainerd Chemical Company, Tulsa, OK; and Mr. Christopher Knittel from the Center of Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Peter’s business is a small business with about 200 employees in four locations, Maryland, Wisconsin and Europe. For Peter and the Ellicott Dredge organization, the Keystone XL is critical because it will move oil more quickly and result in additional demand. As oil demand increases so does the demand for his products and will result in $10s of millions of dollars being spend within his supply chain. These are small and large companies located throughout the United States. The ripple effect of spending within his supply chain is substantial and impacts a number of smaller communities throughout the country. (continue reading…)

Recently the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sent several coal companies and BNSF Railway notice that they intend to file a lawsuit over coal dust from railway cars in the Pacific Northwest. The threat of this frivolous lawsuit only harms our economy and jobs in the Northwest.

Yesterday, The Seattle Times ran an op-ed from Roger McClellan, past chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and an expert on toxicology and human health-risk analysis, disputing these baseless claims. In the piece McClellan points out that the anecdotal evidence and the opinions of just a handful of people should not be used to sway the public when it comes the transportation of coal, but these decisions should be based on scientific evidence and facts.

Excerpt from the piece:

For starters, claiming that finding a piece of coal on the ground or in the water leads in a direct line to a health or environmental risk violates one of the basic tenets of toxicology and risk assessment — the mere presence of a substance does not indicate harm. There are other factors that need to be taken into account, the main one being exposure.

Just because a piece of coal is found in the water or coal dust is found near a rail track does not mean humans are exposed to it. Coal is not a substance that breaks down easily. Coal is relatively innocuous. Simply moving it by trains or trucks or barges does not equate to a risk to the environment or human health.

Coal continues to play an important role in meeting energy needs around the world, with steady improvements made in its transport and use. Coal has been transported through the Northwest by rail for decades and there has never been any evidence of harm associated with this rail transport.

As McClellan notes coal has been transported for decades through the Northwest by rail and there has never been any evidence associated moving the coal on the railways. Only when debate heated up over the coal export terminals has this become a hot topic for environmental groups. Thousands of jobs are on the line and the decision on the coal export terminals should be based on facts. We must work to reduce our export barriers for valuable exports like coal, not create new ones.