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.

This morning, the Washington Post editorial board again called for a carbon tax with the piece “Carbon tax is the best option Congress has.”  It’s the second time in the last two months (and fourth in the past six months) the Post has called for this tax, which has the potential to hurt jobs and our economy. It’s a surprising amount of attention for a concept that has little to no political legs in Congress.

Congress isn’t talking about a carbon tax because when a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey is labeled a “job-killing energy tax” and can’t win support in the Senate, it’s hard to get behind a bill that would impose an actual energy tax.

Also, a carbon tax does not appear to be the economic or environmental panacea the Post is making it out to be.  A recent economic study for the NAM conducted by the nonpartisan NERA Economic Consulting looked 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. In both cases, any revenue raised by the carbon tax would be far outweighed by the negative impact to the overall economy.

Both cases would hurt families and businesses, resulting in higher prices for natural gas, electricity, gasoline and other energy commodities.  The $20/ton case reduces U.S. CO2 emissions by only about 30 percent, a much smaller amount than was called for in Waxman-Markey and by leading climate advocates.  To get to the levels they are seeking, 80 percent reductions by 2050, the economic costs skyrocket. (continue reading…)

Early this afternoon the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources passed S. 761, “The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act,” more commonly known as the Shaheen-Portman  bill after its two authors, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH). The 22-member Committee passed the bill on a strong voice vote with only three Senators castings votes in opposition.

The only amendment that was offered (and agreed to) was a manager’s amendment from Sen. Portman. The bill’s sponsors received unified praise from Senators during the markup for their bipartisan efforts and their work to promoting energy efficiency. Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) requested that Senators hold their amendments until the legislation reached the floor of the Senate.

The Committee went on to discuss a number of possible amendments and issues that might be addressed on the floor. It was clear that there was great interest in expanding the scope of this legislation, with a number of Senators discussing the issues they would like addressed.  This is obviously a bit of a Pandora ’s Box but at least Senators are talking about floor action on energy, which hasn’t happened in a long time.

Manufacturers continue to urge Senator Reid to bring this bill to the floor as soon as possible. Energy efficiency is vital to manufacturers’ ability to compete, and this bill should be a no-brainer given its potential for job creation and energy savings. And it is a great way to start bridging some of the divides that have too long prevented the Senate from having a constructive legislative debate on energy policy.

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

Yesterday, during a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, former Sens. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) stated their case for allowing the United States to export its vast energy reserves.  The Department of Energy is currently reviewing applications to export natural gas, and we expect a decision on at least some of the applications soon.  At the same time, the Army Corps is in various stages of permitting for expanded coal export capacity in the Pacific Northwest.  Both sets of export projects have received significant attention and scrutiny in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Dorgan spoke on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), a nonprofit that boasts both Republican and Democratic members of Congress among its staff, as well as leaders from industry and environmental groups on its board of directors.

According to Sen. Dorgan, the BPC’s Energy Board reviewed the recent studies on the impacts of LNG exports and “concluded that domestic gas prices are more likely to drive export levels than exports are likely to determine domestic prices . . . that LNG exports are likely to have at most a modest impact on domestic natural gas prices—LNG exports will adjust as U.S. prices rise or fall.”  Dorgan went considerably broader than just natural gas, though.  He stressed: “restricting international trade in fossil fuels is not an effective policy to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions or to advance domestic economic interests, and we recommend against any such restrictions.”

That is precisely where the NAM stands on energy exports. Manufacturers fundamentally believe in free trade and open markets—a policy that extends to energy exports. We oppose bans or similar market-distorting barriers to our energy exports. We are pleased to see the BPC take the same stance.

Sen. Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat who spent 25 years in the U.S. Senate, put it eloquently:

“The free market might not always lead to everyone’s definition of the sweet spot, but experience has shown that it is a better allocator and regulator than bureaucrats and politicians. We should heed the admonition of Adam Smith that demand begets supply: Allow the free market to allocate the nation’s newfound energy bounty.”

Manufacturers believe in a true “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that embraces all forms of domestic energy production, including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, energy efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. We are a country built on exports—the National Association of Manufacturers was founded because our members wanted to export—and we must continue to let the principles of free trade and open markets govern in the area of energy exports.

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) joined the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) today to send joint comments on the State Department’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Keystone XL pipeline. In a letter to State Department NEPA Coordinator Genevieve Walker NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons and CME President and CEO Jayson Myers lay out the economic benefits of the pipeline for North American manufacturers.

Both leaders agree that Keystone XL is a critical part of a true “all of the above” energy strategy. From the letter:

“Our two countries enjoy the largest trade relationship in the world. Approximately forty percent of our cross-border trade is comprised of intra-company shipments. The vast energy resources contained in Canada’s oil sands play a vital strategic role for North American manufacturers and the millions of workers they employ. In our view, the approval and construction of Keystone XL is a critical part of the true “all of the above” energy strategy our national leaders have embraced—one that will fuel present and future generations of jobs and economic growth.”

On March 1 the State Department released the Draft Supplemental EIS which reached the same conclusion as previous assessments stating, “Keystone XL will have no significant impact on the environment.” The project will be constructed with state-of-the-art manufacturing and technology, exceeding what is required under current law.

The construction of Keystone XL will create manufacturing jobs to build the pipe and other equipment as well as jobs for welders, mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, laborers, safety coordinators and heavy equipment operators.

Another lost fact in the debate over Keystone XL is that the pipeline will be used to transport crude from the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana to domestic markets. This will further enhance America’s energy security. Keystone XL has been studied for 5 years, the average NEPA review is 3.4 years, and each review has reached the same conclusion. It’s now time for the Administration to complete the inter-agency review and approve the pipeline to keep America strong.

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

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…)

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…)

The President and his advisors have repeatedly stressed that they do not believe they have to choose between the environment and the economy. The governors of Oregon and Washington are not making it easy on him; in fact, that’s precisely the choice they’ve asked him to make on exports. In a letter sent today to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, the two governors asked for a boundless, limitless, and to our knowledge unprecedented, life cycle impact analysis of five planned coal export terminals and the cargo being transported through them, all before issuing a permit for the first one.

The kind of review they are asking for is Keystone-on-steroids; they want the President to decide whether we should be exporting coal AT ALL before issuing a permit to expand the terminals. Never mind that the ports will ship other products besides coal. Never mind that thousands of high-paying construction jobs are at stake in a region where construction jobs are at their lowest point in a decade. And never mind that such a radical change in the law could be used to block exports of, well, everything.

This last point has manufacturers very concerned. Virtually every product we export, from cars to turbines to planes to grains, has an environmental impact. The already-too-long permitting process for new projects–a process that takes on average 3.4 years–would become completely unmanageable if the law were expanded to require the type of review the two governors are now seeking.

The NAM was created in 1895 because manufacturers needed to find opportunities to export their products. We will continue to fight efforts to erect unnecessary barriers beyond what is required by law.

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.