Issue link: http://www.insightdigital.biz/i/348149
w w w.in s i g h t o n m f g . c o m July 2014 • /insight on manufacturing | 9 c o n t i n u e d > billion, they're talking about taking it down to somewhere between 60 to 70. Then approximately 97 percent of the U.S. will be in a nonattainment zone. It will put – I won't say a deep freeze – but certainly a very cold blanket over any continued development of industrial production here. The problem becomes those jobs are going to go overseas. I'm not suggesting that we need to ignore the climate side but I think it needs to be done in a much more cooperative, collaborative, transparent manner. A lot of environmentalists are focused on the upside, but they're really not being clear and balanced and truthful relative to the downside. How do we, on a more balanced basis, move in that direction, recognizing it's a global problem, not just a Wisconsin or a U.S. problem? CLEAN WISCONSIN Keith Reopelle, executive director W e need to do something about carbon emissions, about climate change, and the rule that EPA has proposed is critical because it gets at the largest source. The EPA looked at each state's current emissions and their ability to reduce carbon emissions. So the way they developed this rule was with one sort of guiding principle – what are the options for getting carbon reductions at the lowest cost? And that's the reason that you see pretty wildly different types of budgets in different states. Some states have just huge reductions required, and the primary reason for that is the difference in unused natural gas capacity. I n June, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to decrease carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030. Manufacturers immediately expressed concern about the potential impact on jobs and the U.S. economy. The EPA says that 38 percent – or the largest source of carbon dioxide production – comes from electricity produced by burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. It adds that reducing CO 2 emissions from power plants will lead to climate and health cost savings of up to $93 billion by 2030, including prevention of up to 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 childhood asthma attacks. While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates the plan could cost $51 billion a year in GDP and prevent the creation of more than 224,000 jobs per year, the Natural Resources Defense Council counters it will create some 250,000 jobs involving the installation of solar panels, wind energy and other alternative energy sources. Because manufacturers are some of the biggest utility customers, they – and the people who work for them – have a large stake in the issue. Those stakes are even higher in Wisconsin, one of the leading states for manufacturing. The public comment period on the EPA proposal is open through Oct. 16. IOM asked five regional industry leaders to share their thoughts on the issue. NEENAH FOUNDRY Thomas Riordan, CEO I 'm on the executive board of the National Association of Manufacturers, so I've been reasonably involved in this topic. I think the challenge in Wisconsin for our business and industry specifically is we've got a lot of unknowns on the real implications from an electric rate standpoint, availability and so on, which I think over time and a number of years, that'll get worked through. The broader concern that I've got is what's not being said on the fundamental war on coal. For a lot of industries, it's a critical element of their process. As an example, the vast majority of the foundry industries use a coal derivative as a part of their process, both for energy and adding carbon back into recycling steel that's being burned. My longer-term concern is driven around the impact on the coal industry, and if that continues to deteriorate, what does it do to availability of metallurgical coal and other elements that we need in order to keep open? I'm not going to dispute the broader climate change argument. At the end of the day, it's probably not helpful to continue to have excess CO 2 , excess ozone and so on. It's a question of balance and recognizing that the United States or state of Wisconsin by itself is not going to solve the problem. The broader concern is the argument that we'll have moral high ground to convince others to follow our lead. It's unclear to me that's really going to happen. The problem becomes one of overreach. As an example, the ozone regulations where it's currently at 75 parts per