Give a Gift

Energy Costs & Savings

Climate Change Legislation:
What It Means to Businesses

Fuel costs will rise for consumers and companies, and even suppliers won’t escape headaches from the increases.

By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

August 18, 2009
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

Whether you believe it’s needed or not, climate change legislation is a solid bet. There’s a slim chance it will squeak through Congress this year, but a much greater one that, come 2010, legislation to curb emissions of carbon dioxide will become law.

The impact will be both wide and deep, paring about 2.3% from gross domestic product in 2030.

The costs of fuel and electricity will soar, despite the swift growth in alternative sources of energy, such as solar, wind power and geothermal. New regulations will add as much as 20% to utility rates by 2020. And that’s over and above any increases anticipated from changes in supply and demand. All told, the average cost for residential, commercial and industrial users may be 50% higher than today. In areas such as the Midwest and Southeast where coal fired power dominates, a 100% hike is likely.

Motorists won’t get off easy, either. With climate change legislation, gas pump prices will be about $2 a gallon higher. That will rev up sales of high-mpg hybrids and later, plug-in electric vehicles that use little gasoline, though purchases of cars that use less fuel will be limited initially by high sticker prices.

In addition to electric utilities, numerous energy intensive industries are likely to be walloped: Makers of cement, chemicals, electronics, cardboard and boxes, fertilizer, aluminum, steel, glass and plastics. Also, ore and petroleum refiners, printers, paper and pulp mills, metal fabricators, food processors and others.

Most companies in these sectors will have to worry about cutting their CO2 emissions and will lean on their suppliers to help. That spells headaches for many smaller businesses. To continue as vendors to companies that are directly regulated, suppliers may have to cut the carbon content of what they provide, even though their own CO2 output won’t be regulated by Uncle Sam. Another headache could come from companies that opt to establish their own emissions standards. Wal-Mart, for example, is ramping up a program requiring that its suppliers certify the “carbon intensity” of every product they sell to the retailer. Soft drink giant PepsiCo aims to certify its products’ carbon footprint, measuring the CO2 content from farm to processing plants.

Many businesses will need to rethink their supply chains, not just firms in Uncle Sam’s bull’s-eye. On the one hand, transportation costs are likely to climb sharply, making near-sourcing more attractive for some. On the other, some local suppliers will have to ratchet up prices to offset their own higher regulatory and energy costs. Some may not survive the blow, sending businesses that rely on them scurrying for alternatives. “When a manufacturer closes, its suppliers are adversely affected, and the job losses in turn mean less business for local shops, stores and service providers, possibly imperiling their operations,” says Jeff Holmstead, a former Environmental Protection Agency air quality administrator who now heads up the environmental strategies group with Bracewell & Giuliani, a law and consulting firm.

New and significantly renovated buildings will have to meet tough standards of energy efficiency, using 50% less energy than required for new construction today. New rules should kick in by 2014 for residences and by 2015 for other types of buildings.

Older buildings not undergoing major overhauls won’t be entirely exempt. Overall building efficiency standards won’t apply, but codes for replacement systems or components such as boilers, air conditioners, windows, doors and roofing materials will. Every time something needs upgrading or replacing, the building will get a little more green.

Expect Uncle Sam to offer carrots as well as sticks to cut carbon emissions. Lawmakers are likely to extend or perhaps add to today’s bevy of tax breaks for energy improvements, including weatherizing buildings, replacing equipment with more efficient models and so on. Ditto for incentives for on-site alternative energy production.

But energy cost hikes alone will spur changes. Users will seek savings, installing skylights and windows to cut down on lighting bills, employing sensors to calibrate heating and cooling temperatures, recapturing heat from manufacturing processes, etc.

Plus entrepreneurs and innovators will develop new technologies to assist them. In less than a decade, windows and paper-thin wraps applied to buildings will generate electricity. Power ginned up by wind turbines at night, when breezes are most frequent, will be stored, enabling companies to slash the amount of expensive power they buy during peak demand periods.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (12)

Posted by: STL at 08/18/2009 12:40:34 PM

Nope - more like a monthly increase between $10 and $15 depending on the source of your estimates. Quit using the thoroughly debunked estimates of Boehner (R). Use what Congress has to use by law - the CBO's estimate of less than about $15/month to the average consumer. EPA's estimate was similar - about $10/month to the average consumer. I guess you're still spooled up from participating in a healthcare town meeting where you yelled and screamed total lies about the proposals because you feared there might be some meaningful debate with truthful information being exchanged.

Posted by: Jim Ostroff at 08/18/2009 04:35:52 PM

Nope - the cost estimates largely were drawn from studies by the Energy Department. It is non-partisan and hardly a tool of the Democrats, or Republicans. Understand, Kiplinger never takes sides on any issue. Our one and only goal is to provide non-biased analysis to help consumers and businesses understand what is likely to happen.

Posted by: JWA at 08/19/2009 08:53:31 AM

Since when has the EPA or the Federal Government been accurate on any of their figures that are bias toward more government? Keep drinking the Koolaid and believing the lies from your socialist and fascist regime. The rest of us will vote them out next year and in 2012. Thank you for the resurgence of the Conservative movement in America by backing liberals that never ran a lemonade stand to show us how to ruin a nation economically. Pain is good to get real change in the next two election cycles and to expose the frauds in government and in main stream media.

Posted by: Marty Tomlinson at 08/19/2009 10:24:58 AM

STL, You must have just left the Kool-Aid trough. Yeh, we should rely on the CBO. What are you talking about-meaningful debate? That must be the Barney Frank response that medicare wasn't realy broke, it just needed more money! I personally deal with AEP on a daily basis, and you can bet your last tax dollar on the fact that your utility bill will increase by at least 50% if cap & trade pass. Screamed at? That happens when people are ignored by the representatives that they voted for. Please find a new source for your information other than MSNBC....

Posted by: STL at 08/19/2009 11:59:09 AM

My source was the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post, June 23, 2009 "Climate Bill to Cost Average Consumer $175 a Year: CBO". I only have ultra basic cable so I don't get MSNBC, FOX, OReilly, Hannity or listen to Rush - not surprisingly of which none have won a Pulitzer Prize. I watch PBS and listen to NPR. No Kool-Aide like on the others, just both sides of an issue being discussed in a rational fairly manner each side allowing the other to present their case without interruption or yelling and screaming.

Posted by: STL at 08/19/2009 12:21:19 PM

" . . the Barney Frank response that medicare wasn't realy broke, it just needed more money!" . You need to look beyond the sound bites and into the details because Barney Frank's response is 100% correct and here's why. Instead of being full of money much of Medicare's trust fund is full of federal government IOUs as it's been regularly tapped by the government to pay the governments general expenses. Medicare needs the IOUs to be replaced by real money. That's the fact but a FOX news or Republican sound bite conveniently fails to include this critical info. Once Medicare's annual costs exceed its income the extra money to cover it's growing expenses will have to come from the government changing IOUs into money by either raising taxes, cutting other spending or increasing the federal deficit . Reference: USA Today, "Medicare could go broke"

Posted by: Bud at 08/19/2009 12:31:21 PM

Kiplinger erodes confidence in their enterprise by publishing an opinion like this. Science does not support CO2 as a cause of significant warming, therefore taxing CO2 in an attempt to control climate will be thrown out along with all its proponents. Politicians are usually the last to know, but in this case maybe it's pundits and media that are the last to know...they tend to stick to their thesis because their ego is tied to it.

Posted by: STL at 08/19/2009 02:23:26 PM

Jim Ostroff "Nope - the cost estimates largely were drawn from studies by the Energy Department. It is non-partisan . . ". . Jim, time to point us to the DOE studies that you drew from to predict the huge increases cause, according to the 7 Aug 2009 Finance and Commerce, secretary of DOE, Steven Chu, said $83 per year, crediting an independent U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis of recently-passed cap-and-trade legislation.

Posted by: STL at 08/19/2009 02:49:42 PM

Bud "Science does not support CO2 as a cause of significant warming, . " I's be surprised if you have any scientific credentials so leave it to the experts and really smart people to analyze the data and draw scientific conclusions. No fuzz, our earth is warming. Some 2,500 scientists from about 130 countries published a report that concluded we humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. How have we humans done it? Industrialization, deforestation and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor. CO2 is pouring into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb. Our earth has experienced warming and cooling cycles in the past but today's changes have taken place over the past 100 years or less, much quicker than the previous temperature cycles. I don't know if anybody's ego is tied to this but what I do know is the future of earth and our children and grandchildren's life is tied to it. Not surprisingly global warming doesn't care what humans think and will continue unabated unless we humans change our ways. Ref: National Geographic News "Global Warming Fast Facts".

Posted by: Jim Ostroff at 08/20/2009 06:47:47 PM

Some robust discussion, I'd say. Let me re-emphasize that Kiplinger never takes sides on any issue. It is very likely that Congress will enact legislation restricting CO2 emissions. This will significantly increase most consumers' and businesses' energy costs. Choice in cars driven and time-of-day electricity use will be affected. Those who choose to ignore this do so at their own risk.

Posted by: Rico Suave at 08/20/2009 10:08:57 PM

@STL: Your comment itself is unscientific, as the science community cannot draw "conclusions" but rather can either support or fail to support a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that global warming is anthropogenic. While you may state that 2,500 scientists have "concluded" that we cause it, I'll point out that just as many climatologists have failed to support this hypothesis. This, of course, is not news. Nor is the data showing that increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has always followed periods of temperature increase (correlation does not equal causation). Nor is the data that many other planets in the solar system have also warmed. However, anthropogenic global warming is still a hypothesis, and although not supported by data, if you wish to believe in it, feel free.

Posted by: TPD at 08/25/2009 12:29:21 AM

The current "American Clean Energy Act" passed by the House of Representatives, and now before congress is a joke. Companies that pollute would pay a penalty of $25/MW. New Jersey has it right, they are charging $600/MW, and paying it to the green energy providers. Needless to say, New Jersey is now the greenest state in the land. Hopefully other states will follow suit.



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
RSS