Issue link: http://www.insightdigital.biz/i/348149
10 | /insight on manufacturing • July 2014 w w w.in s i g h t o n m f g . c o m As a region we could save maybe as much as a couple billion dollars by having a regional compliance plan instead of each state kind of going it on its own. Our Public Service Commission and our Department of Natural Resources are talking to other states where they have started discussing regional options. The other thing in terms of cost that I would think manufacturers would have the greatest interest in, is making sure that as much of our carbon reduction as a state comes from investments in energy efficiency, and manufacturers as an industrial sector take as great advantage as possible of energy efficiency investments that will flow from these carbon pollution limits. Because that's really a way to reduce the cost of this. In fact, I think there will be some businesses and facilities out there which in the end will see lower energy bills as a result of this rule. There's probably going to be others that will see higher energy bills. But EPA's own analysis of the rule says that they believe as a nation, on average, customers will see an 8 percent reduction in their energy bills as a result of this rule by the year 2030, which is sort of the final compliance point. The biggest potential reductions in energy usage for manufacturing businesses are process changes, a kind of holistic restructuring of their processes. We're working hand in hand with the utilities, and it's really different from past battles with clean air regulations. Part of the reason is because we can't afford to get this wrong. The longer we wait to regulate carbon emissions, the more expensive it's going to be. We need to do this now in order to make sure it can be done at the lowest cost possible. FOND DU LAC COUNTY ECONOmIC DEvELOPmENT CORP. Steve Jenkins, president T he question that's on everybody's mind is how much will this add to operating costs? The large electric users are concerned that they don't seem to have any answers. I know there's some issue surrounding some of the plants that are the greatest offenders of the emissions standards not being scheduled to close down or phase out for 20, 25 years. So if you put greater emission requirements on them, it's going to boost electrical costs. There's always that question mark out there and how that impacts Wisconsin's competitiveness as a manufacturing state. Most companies realize this was inevitable, and they're doing what they can do to cut back on energy use or to look at more green sources of energy production. So that's the good thing and benefits everyone long term because the consumption of energy will go down and it will be cleaner. But it all depends on whether you can afford to do that. My concern is with the small- and mid-sized manufacturers. Do they have the ability to begin a transfer over and what's it going to cost long term to move into that sphere so that they can continue to operate in this state? That's the real concern. I think companies are going to be searching for, "How do I unshackle myself from things like power costs, where I have little control over it, whether it be through sustainable energy or other factors like biomass facility?" I had a facility in Kansas (Frito Lay in Topeka) that used a lot of natural gas, and they put in a cogeneration facility using biomass and they completely severed their reliance on natural gas for energy in the plant, and it was huge. I think it's important for all of us to be in the mix of solving the energy issue for employers, whether it be manufacturing or a hospital or whatever, particularly the primary employers. I think that we need to be in the forefront of new, innovative thought and ideas about how we generate efficient power for our companies, and we need to be doing that in a partnership with the state, local communities and local economic development organizations. I think that would be the most beneficial thing that we can do, because the cost of energy is going to go up. WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERvICE Randy Oswald, WPS manager of environmental programs W e haven't figured out exactly how it affects WPS because there is so much information and because it's so early in the process. We are putting in a lot of time and effort trying to understand everything that's in it. But it's a long rule and there's a lot of back-up information provided by the EPA. It's a proposed rule at this point – it'll be a final rule in a year. Then each of the individual states has to develop plans for implementing the rule. A lot of things could still change between now and then based on comments EPA receives and more analysis by all the stakeholders. The EPA has developed standards for each state that are dependent on what type of power generation exists in each of the states, and what the EPA view is on availability of renewable expansion. Overall it's projected to be a 30 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions, but some states have larger percentages, and some states have smaller percentage goals. The size of the goal doesn't necessarily mean that they have Clean aIr VS. JobS c o n t i n u e d