Manufacturing Balks at Obama’s U.S. Energy Policy

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


June 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jay Timmons, Chief Executive Officer at National Association of Manufacturers, discusses the political issues holding back manufacturing in the United States, how the U.S. economy is both helping and hindering manufacturing growth and the potential impact of President Barack Obama’s energy policy. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.”

U.s. to add on manufacturing jobs in the next few years?

I think the potential is great, particularly if you get our policies right.

It is tremendous to have the president and members of congress focus on manufacturing and focus on building a strong manufacturing base.

But we have a few problems in washington that have to get resolved.

That is the issue of taxes and regulation and trade and energy and infrastructure.

A few issues on the agenda that need to be addressed.

What about the economy?

How do you feel about the pace of the economy right now?

Is it accelerated?

Are you in the camp that thinks that the federal reserve will have to raise interest rates sooner than 2015? or perhaps with christine lagarde and the imf, which yesterday cut its forecast for u.s. economic growth?

Our futures are very optimistic.

There is a survey we just did with industry week that shows a great majority of manufacturers are optimistic about their economic future.

But any cool number also say that -- an equal number also say that we do not have the right policies in place in order to create sustained growth in our sector.

We just met -- our executive committee was in town last week.

And we met with fed chair he janet yellen -- fed chair janet yellen and we talked about the noncompetitive tax policy, our regulatory structure that is adding costs onto manufacturers and make it more expensive to do business here, and several other issues.

We've got to get those fundamental issues right if we're going to see sustained growth in our sector.

You are skeptical on the current policies, but there are so many things going right.

You have the cheap rice of natural gas, and a game changing technology that makes it easier for utilization.

And there are postrecession highs showing that companies like to invest money in order to keep growing.

Those are good things.

You are exactly right.

I have to say that the energy revolution in this country, specifically natural gas and fracking, has really enabled manufacturing to grow.

Energy is a huge cost input for manufacturing.

We use one third of the nation's energy supply.

It has been a good few years with natural gas prices becoming much more affordable.

Our challenge is not to reverse that with regulations that end up increasing the cost of energy.

We want to make sure we keep this renaissance going, and that means lower energy costs for the long-term.

What kind of regulations are you talking about?

I you talking about the changes that the president has asked the environmental protection agency to make, for example, to clean up some of the pollution from coal power?

The presidents climate regulatory action plan will impose massive costs onto manufacturers and other sectors of the economy.

Through its regulation of coal.

That is one of the reasons that the iam is leading the effort to challenge those regulations.

We will be in court on those regulations, as we have others.

If you think about it, manufacturing is creating one third of this nation's energy supply.

We rely on affordable and are liable supply to allow us to compete.

Could you define massive?

Even the u.s. chamber of commerce has studied the impact of those epa regulations and come up with a number.

And the number, while large, is not massive relative to the size of the entire economy.

A lot of coal plants will be retired.

You have to look at the regulatory environment in total and say exactly what those costs are imposing.

You have the climate plan.

You have the ozone regulations coming out later this year or early next year, which by the epa's own estimates, around $100 million.

And that is their least expensive form.

If you keep adding costs onto manufacturers, as costs in other countries -- and i is it better just to destroy the environment?

Is that the alternative?

No, that is not the alternative.

Everyone wants clean air and clean water.

We want to make sure we have the right timeline to allow us to create the technologies that enable us to clean up the environment.

Manufacturers have been responsible for the largest increasing greenhouse gas emissions than any sector of the economy.

That is because we have become more efficient so we can drive down the cost of doing business for ourselves.

You will see that embraced a new technologies in the future.

We just don't want to be forced into a situation where technologies are not available.

For instance, carbon capture and storage technology.

The companies producing that is saying, wait a minute, we don't have that technology yet to be viable on a commercial scale.

We want to make sure we have the technology available to allow us to do things that help benefit the environment and also be

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change