Today Senators Shaheen (D-NH) and Portman (R-OH) hosted a press conference with industry leaders, including NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons, to roll out The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as S.1000. This legislation’s goal is to help spur the use of energy efficiency technologies for commercial, industrial and residential use. This will help create jobs and lower costs for manufacturers.

In a town where there are few issues where we can find agreement on important issues, energy efficiency is an area where we can all find common ground. According to Senator Portman, “This is about getting something done.”

The bill is headed for a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next week which is great news.

Energy efficiency is paramount to the competitiveness of manufacturers and our energy future. It is a solution to help lower costs for businesses of all sizes. In addition, the innovation and development of energy efficient technologies creates manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturers are already taking steps to improve energy efficiency. The Volvo Group has partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Better Buildings, Better Plants Program. The company has pledged to reduce its energy intensity in all of its U.S. manufacturing plants by 25 percent during a 10-year period. The Volvo Group’s New River Valley truck plant in Dublin, VA has already achieved a major milestone by reducing its energy intensity by nearly 30 percent in just one year. (continue reading…)

Today National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on the Northern Route Approval Act, H.R. 3. This legislation is sponsored by Rep. Lee Terry which would bring to a close the unnecessarily long and protracted regulatory process for the Keystone XL pipeline, allowing the project to move forward.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a clear job creator and a clear example of Washington hold manufacturing back. Keystone XL has been studied more than any other pipeline according to Eisenberg with the Final EIS concluding the project would have no significant impact and be safer than other domestic pipelines. From Eisenberg’s testimony:

“It bears repeating that Keystone XL has been studied for five years. The average NEPA environmental impact statement (EIS) only takes 3.4. The final EIS produced by the State Department in 2011 was an 8,000-page behemoth spanning eight volumes. It analyzed greenhouse gas emissions, environmental justice, geology and soils, water resources, wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, wildlife, fishery resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, air quality and noise, land use, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics, cumulative impacts and environmental impacts in Canada. Each area received a thorough, exhaustive analysis; for instance, the sage grouse received 100 pages by itself. The three-year EIS process included numerous public meetings, hundreds of thousands of public and agency comments and publication of a Draft EIS, a Supplemental Draft EIS and the 8,000-page Final EIS. The Final EIS concluded that the project would have no significant impact and would actually be safer than any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system.”

Subcommittee member Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) has been a supporter of the project and he said that the project will be part of ourenergy future and that “the due diligence is done.”  Costa added, “I’ve supported various efforts, but I wish we’d develop a more rational way of making decisions.” (continue reading…)

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Sources and Sinks. The Inventory estimates all of the anthropogenic – caused by man – sources and sinks of GHG emissions in the U.S.

Two weeks ago yesterday, in an alternative universe, the very first allowance “true-up” was held for companies regulated under the Waxman-Markey climate bill. In that universe, a mandatory cap was placed on U.S. GHG emissions, assuring that 2012 emission were 3 percent lower than that of 2005 emissions.

So how are we doing in reality, without the benefit of the 1,400 page Waxman-Markey legislation?

Well, EPA’s estimates only calculate emissions through 2011, however, emissions in that year were estimated to be 6.9 percent lower than 2005 emissions. And expectation is that 2012 emission will be even lower – all while our economy continues to grow. Emissions per unit of GDP are down – and way down from 1990; and emissions per-capita are down as well. But how are we doing it?

Innovation. The emergence of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies has made the extraction of shale gas more technically feasible and more cost-effective. Power plants of all types – coal, gas, oil and renewables – are operating more efficiently. Manufacturers are producing more, while consuming less energy. And through creative financing mechanisms buildings are being built to be more energy efficient and existing buildings are being retrofitted to use less energy.

I point all this out not to rehash the heated debates that surrounded Waxman-Markey and its predecessor and successor legislative proposals, but simply to suggest that the goals of growth and prosperity are not contrary to those seeking lower emissions and greater sustainability. In order to remain competitive in a global marketplace U.S. businesses, and manufacturers in particular, have to create innovative new processes, use energy more efficiently and operate more sustainability – and that’s exactly what they are doing.

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

Today the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a confirmation hearing for the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nominee for EPA administrator.

Several senators had questions about the EPA’s proposed regulations and their impact on the economy as well as the continued act of what is known as “sue and settle” by the agency. Senator Vitter (R-LA) asked McCarthy if the EPA would change its process regarding “sue and settle” and alert other stakeholders when legal action is taken.

The NAM sent a letter yesterday to Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe asking the agency to please provide some sort of alert system for each time a lawsuit is filed against the agency or if they receive a notice of legal action.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) asked McCarthy if the EPA planned to make any changes to the proposed greenhouse gas rule on for new power plants and she did not provide any information on the agency’s plan for the rule. This rule would essentially prevent the construction of any new coal burning power plants and several types of new gas-fired power plants. Manufacturers believe we should continue to take advantage of all sources of energy, including but not limited to coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, renewables, and energy efficiency. Lower energy prices help manufacturers better compete and taking some sources off the table  will only hurt our long term competitiveness.

Moving forward we would like the EPA to take into careful consideration the cost and economic impact of all regulations proposed by the agency.

The Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing today on Rep. Lee Terry’s H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act. This legislation would deem all environmental requirements completed and would no longer require the President to sign a permit to approve the pipeline.

This was the subcommittee’s third hearing in the past several years on the Keystone XL project. Those in support of the pipeline emphasized the positive economic impact of the pipeline in terms of jobs, manufactured goods, increased tax revenues and the increased energy security. Those opposing the project emphasized climate change, reducing the carbon footprint, the refining of heavy oil and the ongoing reliance on fossil fuel.

However, there were a few nuggets worth repeating.

Chairman Whitfield noted that that manufactures and businesses have reduced carbon emissions on the environment over that last 20 years.

David Mallino of the Laborers International Union of North America pleaded with subcommittee members to support the legislation and “clear away roadblocks” to this project. Mr. Mallino pointed out that this project will provide opportunities for many different craftsmen, and that this pipeline will be built by union members and would result in millions of man hours. (continue reading…)

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Georg P. Schultz and Gary S. Becker wrote about their support for a carbon tax. They state that a carbon tax would put all Americans on a level playing field.

Back in February the National Association of Manufacturers released the results of an extensive study conducted by the non-partisan NERA Economic Consulting. The study looks 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. Both cases would have a negative impact on the economy.

Energy costs for families would increase as would the costs to use natural gas. Most states would see an increase in gas prices of 20 cents a gallon. During a time when families and small businesses are still struggling this would be an added cost they just can’t afford.

Today the NFIB released the results of their small business sentiment survey which showed small business confidence still down. Business owners are anxious about the economy and soft growth in sales.

Manufacturers are looking to Washington for pro-growth policies which will allow manufacturers to grow and take full advantage of our nation’s energy resources. And a carbon tax could potential have costly consequences for our economy.

Earlier this week Governor Mary Fallin, of Oklahoma,  wrote Jeffrey Zients, the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  about the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands.  Governor Fallin sent Mr. Zients a copy of a study done by the Oklahoma City University’s Economic Research & Policy Institute on the “Individual Well Costs from Proposed Rules Changes to Oil and Natural Gas Operations on BLM Lands” The study was commissioned by Devon Energy. The Governor encouraged OMB to review this study and reconsider the proposed rule.

Six weeks ago the BLM determined based on the thousands of comments they received on their proposed rule regulating these activities on federal lands that they needed to take another look at the entire rule. At that time we stated the following:

“This afternoon, in a victory for manufacturers and energy producers the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced it would redraft a proposed hydraulic fracturing regulation for wells operated on federal and Indian lands.  The original rule sought to make radical changes to the chemical disclosure and well construction procedures oil and gas drillers must follow before they can receive their permits to drill”. (continue reading…)

Today in Seattle the Sierra Club and several other environmental groups announced they intend to file a lawsuit against BNSF Railway and several coal companies over the unprecedented claim that they spill coal into Washington state waterways as a violation of federal law. The continued transportation of our nation’s energy resources is vital to the competitiveness of manufacturers and supports jobs. Lawsuits like this continue to jeopardize our nation’s competitiveness and drives up the cost of manufacturing in the United States.

The Associated Press spoke to Dr. Roger McClellan, past chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air scientific advisory committee made the following statement regarding on the issue:

Dr. Roger McClellan, a past chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air scientific advisory committee, said “the mere presence of coal by a railroad track or in the water is not a health hazard.”

BNSF said in a statement they are committed to preventing coal dust from escaping while in transit and that the company has safely hauled coal throughout Washington for decades without a single complaint. It is very peculiar that the groups made this announcement of their intent to sue as debate heats up over coal export terminals in Washington state, which would create thousands of construction jobs and help export energy resources. It’s clear that today’s announcement is another way to try to impact the review process of the export terminals.

Manufacturers are committed to protecting the environment and are leaders in sustainability. Threats of lawsuits such as this just make it harder for manufacturers to compete, drive up energy prices and ultimately hurt our economy and jobs.

Last Thursday the Wall Street Journal editorial board ran a piece about the debate over a carbon tax during the Senate’s Vote-A-Rama on the budget resolution. Sen. Roy Blunt offered an amendment which received a majority of votes but not enough to pass at 53-46 that would require 60 Senate votes to impose a harmful carbon tax. Sen. Blunt’s amendment has bipartisan support with eight Democrats joining all the Republicans to support the amendment.

Remember that late in February the NAM released the results of a study by the nonpartisan NERA Economic Consulting that looked at the economic consequences of a carbon tax. The study found that the cost of energy such as natural gas would increase and manufacturing output would take a serious blow. Workers incomes would also decline as a result of a carbon tax by as much as 8.5 percent.

Jobs would be impacted throughout the economy and country, with a loss of worker income equivalent to between 1.3 million and 1.5 million jobs in 2013 and between 3.8 million and 21 million by 2053.

When considering a carbon tax it is essential that Congress take into the account the serious economic consequences and damage to our economy and jobs that such a tax could cause. Please check out this blog post last week from the NAM’s Ross Eisenberg that further explains these carbon tax votes from the Senate Vote-A-Rama.

The Senate budget amendment process known as Vote-A-Rama was, in many ways, an opportunity for Senators to test policy priorities to determine where consensus may lie.  Energy issues were no exception, and I’m encouraged to see that strong bipartisan support exists for many of manufacturers’ energy priorities.

The Senate passed by voice vote an amendment by Sen. Barrasso that protects exports from being bogged down by new layers of permitting and regulation, on the grounds that the exports would emit greenhouse gases after leaving the country. Sen. Barrasso’s amendment would prohibit Federal agencies from considering, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), greenhouse gas emissions produced outside the United States by any good exported from the United States. This drastic expansion of NEPA, which is being contemplated in the case of Keystone XL and for permits to export coal and natural gas, would create a precedent that could be used to block exports of all types, not just fossil fuels. Sen. Barasso’s amendment did not weaken NEPA in any way; it merely protects against efforts to expand permitting for exports further than what the law currently requires.

Two dueling amendments were voted on related to Keystone XL: one from Sen. Boxer that would preserve the regulatory status quo and one from Sen. Hoeven that would speed up the process and finally get the project approved and constructed. The Boxer amendment failed on a lopsided 66-33 vote. The Hoeven amendment passed, 62-37, the first time I can recall Keystone XL crossing the magical 60-vote threshold in the Senate.  This should put the administration on notice: both the House and Senate have now demonstrated they can get a bill to approve Keystone XL on the President’s desk. (continue reading…)