State Politics

Guest OpEd: Obama Regulations are Killing U.S. Jobs by John E. Peterson

President Obama’s hostile attack on oil production and refining is accomplishing its defined goal of making oil more expensive so his green energy allies can compete.  And while it is a cold, hard fact that wind and solar energy will not replace a single barrel of oil in our transportation system, Obama’s policies are leading to skyrocketing prices at the pump and unaffordable heating costs for millions of Americans.  Nowhere is this more evident than here in the Northeast, where nearly eight million Americans still heat their homes with oil.

And by the time we’re ready to put the dark days of winter behind us and move into spring, thousands of workers in Eastern Pennsylvania will be heading into their own dark days as they face an uncertain economic future. Since the end of 2010, three oil refineries in the Philadelphia area have closed or face closure. Union officials have predicted the loss of more than 2,000 direct jobs and up to 20,000 indirect jobs that were supported by these refineries.

Those same union officials have been very active over the past few months lobbying federal officials in Washington to keep the refineries open. I commend them on their attempts – although late – to save the individuals and communities that stand to lose everything.

In addition to union activity, several liberal Members of Congress have expressed concern over the potential for refinery closures. Recently, my former colleagues Representatives Markey (D-MA), Waxman (D-CA) and Brady (D-PA) all derided refining companies for putting “profits over people.” This statement came in response to an Energy Information Administration analysis indicating the recent refinery closures could lead to price spikes and home heating oil shortages in the northeast, some in Congress are starting to get concerned about energy costs to American consumers.

If union members and some liberal Democrats are as concerned about energy supplies as their recent statements indicate, why did they support all-cost, no-benefit EPA regulations that have contributed to the closures in the first place?  Additionally, why did they oppose legislation that would have helped keep refineries open and support bills that make the plight of American refining worse?

According to a Department of Energy report issued in 2011, the compounded burden of federal regulations was a significant factor in the closure of 66 petroleum refineries in the U.S. over the past 20 years. Since 2008, the recession and refinery closures have led to 3,000 lost jobs at American refineries prior to the announcement of the northeast refinery closures. Now the employees of those refineries will be added to those devastating numbers.

Congress has considered legislation this year that would have at least taken a step to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, neither the unions nor my previously mentioned former colleagues supported these initiatives.  Specifically, these bills include:

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have stopped EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations that the Agency itself has admitted will do absolutely nothing to reduce global GHG concentrations, and that Congressional hearings revealed are already costing refining and manufacturing jobs. Waxman, Markey and Brady all opposed this measure.

The McConnell Amendment, the Senate companion to the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would have taken similar steps toward saving refinery jobs.  For the record here in Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey supported the amendment and Senator Casey opposed it.

The TRAIN Act and the Kinzinger-Gonzalez Tier III Amendment were measures that would have simply required a realistic economic and jobs analysis of the blizzard of regulations facing refineries and other American industrial businesses. The amendment would have applied such analysis on a new EPA gasoline regulation that will have almost no environmental benefit, but which studies indicate could lead to an additional 4 to 7 refinery closures. Once again, Waxman, Markey, and Brady all opposed these measures.

Sadly, the trend of overregulation and congressional hostility to traditional energy sources will inevitably result in more jobs moving overseas to foreign competitors not strangled by our country’s regime of burdensome environmental and business regulations.  And that’s on top of the basic energy cost increase that will continue to hit American consumers who must endure the consequences of refinery closures like those in Pennsylvania.  In fact, the three recent closures account for nearly half of the Northeast’s total refining capacity.

Anyone interested in the best interests of American consumers, the survival of U.S. manufacturers, and the preservation of refinery jobs should oppose today’s overregulation. This would be the most effective action to keep down home heating oil and fuel costs, prevent refinery closures, and to stop our jobs from going overseas.

Related posts:

1. NFIB Requesting Sensible Regulations
2. Prevailing Wage Reform Possible in 2012