President Obama stood in the Rose Garden today to ask Congress to pass legislation to increase regulation of the oil market. Interestingly, the federal government already has the necessary tools to protect consumers from market manipulation.   

Manufacturers, who use one-third of the all energy consumed in the U.S., would have preferred an announcement laying out a comprehensive energy plan that truly is an “all of the above” energy strategy that will lower energy costs and create jobs.

So manufacturers simply ask, instead of re-regulating what is already being regulated, when will the President put forward a comprehensive energy strategy?

Today, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that the Trans Mountain pipeline project in Canada will begin its expansion west, creating thousands of jobs during its construction and operation. Manufacturers continue to scratch our heads and wonder why the U.S. can’t get its act together and approve the Keystone XL pipeline — which would not only create thousands of jobs but would give us access to affordable energy from a neighboring ally.

With Washington putting politics before sound policy on Keystone XL, it has left Canadian officials looking to other markets for crude. According to the WSJ: 

Canadian oil executives have sought to open new markets for their crude, especially after the White House rejected the Keystone XL project. The pipeline became ensnared in a political battle in Washington, with environmental groups and many Democrats opposing the pipeline. Republicans embraced it as a way to bolster energy security and create jobs.

Manufacturers need affordable, reliable energy to compete in the global marketplace, and by continuing to miss out on opportunities to have access to energy sources from allies, we only jeopardize our nation’s national security. In manufacturers’ eyes, with the development of the oil sands in Canada, our nation is missing the opportunity of a lifetime.

Aric Newhouse is senior vice president of policy and government relations, National Association of Manufacturers.

The Nebraska State Legislature passed LB 1161 this afternoon on a 44-5 vote that brings TransCanada closer to finding a new route for the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska. This is positive news as it means TransCanada is that much closer to applying for another Presidential Permit to build the pipeline across our border with Canada. Approval of the pipeline means jobs and access to an affordable source of energy.

Gov. Heineman is expected to sign the legislation which will allow TransCanada to work with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to find a suitable route for the Keystone XL pipeline. The legislation also gives the governor 30 days to review the route and indicate whether or not they approve of the routes reviewed by DEQ

We cannot forget this project could have been well underway if the President had signed the permit last fall. This is the prime construction season and as many as 20,000 people would be working or gearing up to work on the project. The ripple effect through the economy, not only in the Midwest but throughout the country, would have been substantial – creating 118,000 jobs.

It’s unfortunate that the creation of these jobs will have to wait because the President put politics before policy and jobs. This only hurts our nation’s job creators who are struggling with high gas prices.

We need a common sense “all of the above” energy policy that provides us with greater stability and access to energy from domestic and friendly sources. A true “all of the above” strategy includes the Keystone XL pipeline and expanded domestic exploration and drilling. Manufacturers can’t afford to wait. This time around we hope the President approves Keystone XL as soon as possible. 

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

The NAM has been and will continue to be a vigorous supporter if an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.  Renewable energy is an important component of this strategy.

Manufacturers use one-third of the energy consumed in the United States, so secure and affordable energy is critical to their efforts to expand and create jobs. The renewable energy sources today provide us with a source of clean energy and give us a glimpse of what the future holds. Our nation’s policies should encourage the development of all resources, but it should let the marketplace drive those choices and not pick winners or losers.

Two important renewable sources are wind and solar. As we harness the power of the wind and the sun more efficiently, we will find the demand will only increase. We need sound federal policies that support the development and deployment of technologies to harness these platforms. Such policies not only support more access to additional forms of energy—they also support jobs. According to a recent report from SEMI, the global solar industry has the potential to create 10 million jobs in the coming years.  Another report notes that Congress has the opportunity to boost employment in the wind manufacturing sector to 46,000 in the next few years.

One of the difficulties the industry faces is the uncertainty of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is set to expire at the end of the year. Companies must make production and business decisions now for next year. The clock is ticking for renewing the credit—and we all know how slowly Congress moves.  Companies are making key decisions now and the longer Congress waits to provide certainty and approve key tax incentives the more manufacturing jobs are put in jeopardy.

If we want an “all of the above” approach to our energy challenges then we need to show that we are truly committed to this concept and take appropriate action. The development of energy, whether renewables, coal, oil, nuclear or gas, takes time and a commitment. A stop and go approach does not serve our country or our economy very well.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorial board ran an editorial about the harm of the recently announced Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulation on new coal power plants called the New Source Performance Standard. The piece is titled “Killing Coal” which is exactly what the EPA is doing with this proposed regulation.

The WSJ appropriately points out that according to the EPA this regulation will have zero cost so they have not done an economic analysis of the potential impact of the regulation. From the piece: 

But great news: The EPA estimates that the total cost of this rule will be $0. It will have no major effect on the economy. Not a single job will be lost.

How can that be? In its cost estimates, the EPA assumes the U.S. will never complete another coal-fired project. Ever. The agency is conceding that coal development has been shut down as a result of its many new regulations, such as the recent mercury rule and the illegal permitting delays that a federal appeals court slapped down last week.

If President Obama and his Administration are serious about an “all of the above” energy strategy then it must also include clean coal. To take this important source of energy off the table at a time when we need to be lowering energy costs is detrimental to our competitiveness.

Today the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)  approved two more nuclear reactors for SCANA’s V.C. Summer plant near Jenkinsville, South Carolina. These are the third and fourth reactors to be approved this year. The first two were the Southern Company’s Vogtle reactors in George which were approved in February.

This decision today by the NRC is another positive step forward in utilizing all sources of energy. Manufacturers are users of one third of the energy consumed in the United States and we are the largest manufacturing country in the world. This makes having access to affordable and reliable sources of energy paramount to our ability to remain competitive.

A true “all of the above” energy strategy must include the continued development of nuclear energy. We’re hopeful that the NRC will move forward with streamlining the licensing and permitting process to allow for the construction of additional facilities in the future.

The construction of new nuclear plants not only helps provide an affordable and secure source of energy but it will create 3,000 thousands long term construction jobs and furthermore, these projects will create as many as 800 career-long jobs for each of the four projects.

The economic impact on the state and local governments should not be under estimated.  These projects will employ thousands of manufactures and create economic activity all over this country. Manufacturers are leading the way in this recovery. We hope that Washington will work with us or get out of the way!

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

Today the Senate rejected S. 2204, a bill to raise taxes on energy companies by more than $35 billion.  The NAM has weighed in strongly against the legislation and it was voted down by a vote of 51-47. Manufacturers know that these tax hikes would deal a devastating blow to energy companies in the U.S. pursuing resources critical to our nation’s energy security as well as saddle everyone with higher costs.

This proposal – and others like it – will only distance the U.S. from our goal of energy policy that will increase supply and lower costs and should be voted down. It’s another strike against manufacturers, consumers of one-third of our nation’s energy, who already face a 20 percent cost disadvantage with their foreign competitors. If we seek to truly achieve energy independence, lower costs and improved competitiveness around the globe we must avoid a policy of picking winners and losers through punitive taxes.

Dispite the bill’s defeat today, there are still a number of people, including President Obama, that still wish to hang an albatross around the necks of energy companies in the U.S. with new taxes.  The NAM is committed to fighting this unfair effort and manufacturers will continue to support and work towards an “all of the above” energy policy that will deliver for consumers and our economy.

Energy prices are continuing to climb higher and higher, putting more pressure on consumers and businesses. When gas prices increase it takes a toll on manufacturers as transportation costs increase throughout the supply chain. These increased costs will impede manufacturers’ ability to expand and create jobs.

Today House Republicans rolled out a plan to help lower gas prices which includes expanding domestic exploration and drilling as well as expediting permitting for energy production on federal lands. We are pleased the debate on this important issue to our nation’s competitiveness is moving forward in the halls of Congress.

Manufacturers support a real “all of the above” energy strategy to lower gas prices and improve our energy security. We understand there are many forces at play in the global markets that determine the cost of gasoline. We also know that for too long this country has refused to develop and fully utilize its energy resources.

It is time to get on a path towards energy independence and self-reliance. We may never have the ability to determine the price of a barrel of oil, but one day we could be in a position where we are producing more oil domestically and won’t have to worry about where our oil is coming from. In the meantime, let’s start preparing today for energy independence tomorrow.

At this critical time in our economic recovery we cannot afford to take options off the table when it comes to affordable energy. We need expanded domestic production, both on and off shore, and a plan in place to work with our North American allies on developing additional resources and approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. We are hopeful Congress will take serious steps in moving forward with policies to lower the energy costs to bolster manufacturers’ competitiveness and create good, high-paying jobs.

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

Late Friday afternoon the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the Mingo Logan Coal Company case.  This case was important because the question at hand was could the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdraw a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 

The EPA withdrew its approval of certain creeks as disposal sites for a mine four years after it had given its assent to a permit issued by the Corps. The Mingo permit had always been in compliance and there was no question in that regards. EPA had simply changed their mind and revoked the approval of the disposal sites.

Arch Coal, owner of the Mingo Logan Coal Company, sued EPA and challenged their authority to veto the permit after the fact. The District Court agreed with Arch Coal that EPA exceeded their authority under the Clean Water Act when they attempted to invalidate an existing permit.  The court concluded that Clean Water Act does not give EPA the power to render a permit invalid once it is issued by the Corps.

What does this all mean? First, that the EPA has finally reached a point where even the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had to say no and slap their hands. Second, it means that EPA actually has to follow the law and can’t do whatever they darn please. Third, it means that businesses can rely on federal permits. Although it may cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of effort to obtain a permit, once they make the investment and get the permit, the EPA can’t simply change their mind and veto it.

The court described the EPA’s actions, “It posit[ed] a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration. Poof!” Judge Amy Berman Jackson went on to say that “EPA resorts to magical thinking” when coming up with a reason to  try to nullify the permit.

Even if the agency were accorded some deference under administrative law procedures, the agency’s interpretation was unreasonable and could not stand. The judge also cited the NAM’s amicus brief to show that eliminating finality from the permitting process would have a significant economic impact on industry, in turn making EPA’s assertion of power less reasonable. This was a significant victory for manufacturers and the rule of law.

If this were not enough, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EPA in the Sackett case, which involved two landowners in Idaho who attempted to build a home on their property. After they got local building permits and started work, the EPA ordered them to stop and turn the land to its previous condition, or face huge daily fines. They sued to challenge the EPA’s order.

The EPA maintained that the owners had no right to take them to court to contest whether or not there had been a violation of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can’t deny landowners their day in court.

These are rulings that send a clear message to the EPA that it is no longer business as usual. It’s important for the EPA to work with land owners and businesses, instead of trying to veto existing permits or imposing fines and other penalties that will cost jobs and harm the economy.

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

In a victory in the battle against the EPA’s overreach this morning the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Sackett v. EPA case in favor of the plaintiffs. The case was originally brought by an Idaho couple over the right to go to court to challenge an EPA order that blocked construction of their new home.

The couple had graded a small lot for the new house and was ordered by the EPA under the Clean Water Act to fill in the lot, replace vegetation and monitor the land for three years or face a $37,500 penalty for each day of violation. The couple then sought court review of the order but they were denied.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the couple does have a right to go to court to get a pre-enforcement review of the order and they do not have to wait for the EPA to sue them for violating the order in order to raise their claims. While EPA still has the power to issue these kinds of orders, and most of them will never be challenged, the ruling makes judicial review possible and will help restrain the abuse of EPA’s power. The decision could restrain EPA overreach under other environmental statutes as well.

Of note was Justic Alito’s concurring opinion on the case which agreed completely with the decision but also noted that the reach of the Clean Water Act is unclear. He states that any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by the EPA as wetlands and he says that real relief requires Congress to clarify the rule.

Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule re-garding the reach of the Clean Water Act. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it provided that the Act covers “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). But Congress did not define what it meant by “the waters of the United States”; the phrase was not a term of art with a known meaning; and the words themselves are hopelessly in determinate. Unsur­prisingly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers interpreted the phrase as an essentially limitless grant of authority.