Environmental Environmental UpdateUpdate

Sheboygan County Sheboygan County Chamber Safety Chamber Safety

CouncilCouncilScott ManleyScott Manley

Environmental Policy DirectorEnvironmental Policy DirectorWisconsin Manufacturers & CommerceWisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

Contact: PO Box 352, Madison, WI 53701.Tel: 608.258.3400; email: smanley@wmc.org

Topics CoveredTopics Covered Air RegulationAir Regulation

NAAQS Implementation & DesignationsNAAQS Implementation & Designations State RulesState Rules GHG RegulationGHG Regulation

Water RegulationWater Regulation Phosphorus RulePhosphorus Rule Thermal RuleThermal Rule

Legislative UpdateLegislative Update Regulatory reform initiativesRegulatory reform initiatives Energy ReformEnergy Reform MiningMining

1997 Ozone Standard 1997 Ozone Standard RedesignationRedesignation

Wisconsin came into compliance with the 1997 Wisconsin came into compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 84 ppb in October of 8-hour ozone standard of 84 ppb in October of 2008.2008.

DNR Submitted a redesignation request to EPA DNR Submitted a redesignation request to EPA in September of 2009 for the 6-County in September of 2009 for the 6-County Milwaukee Area, and Sheboygan, Door & Milwaukee Area, and Sheboygan, Door & Manitowoc Counties.Manitowoc Counties.

Revisions to NOx RACT and VOC RACT plans Revisions to NOx RACT and VOC RACT plans were also submitted.were also submitted.

EPA redesignated Door & Manitowoc Counties EPA redesignated Door & Manitowoc Counties to attainment.to attainment.

1997 Ozone Standard 1997 Ozone Standard RedesignationRedesignation

Unfortunately, EPA did not redesignate “moderate” Unfortunately, EPA did not redesignate “moderate” counties to attainment because of a deficiency with counties to attainment because of a deficiency with Wisconsin’s VOC RACT SIP.Wisconsin’s VOC RACT SIP.

Until VOC RACT rules conform to EPA guidelines, Until VOC RACT rules conform to EPA guidelines, the entire 6-county Milwaukee Area and Sheboygan the entire 6-county Milwaukee Area and Sheboygan County will continue to be classified as County will continue to be classified as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

DNR currently working on VOC RACT cleanup rule, DNR currently working on VOC RACT cleanup rule, with August 2011 NRB approval date.with August 2011 NRB approval date.

The delay is particularly frustrating because these The delay is particularly frustrating because these counties have meet the 1997 ozone standard counties have meet the 1997 ozone standard continuously since 2008.continuously since 2008.

2008 Ozone Standard2008 Ozone Standard In 2008, the Bush Administration’s EPA finalized a In 2008, the Bush Administration’s EPA finalized a

new ozone 8-hour ozone standard at 75 ppb.new ozone 8-hour ozone standard at 75 ppb.

In 2009, the Obama Administration’s EPA decided to In 2009, the Obama Administration’s EPA decided to reconsider the 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb, and reconsider the 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb, and has recommended replacing it at a range of 60-70 has recommended replacing it at a range of 60-70 ppb.ppb.

This will likely place many additional counties into This will likely place many additional counties into ozone nonattainment, including the potential for ozone nonattainment, including the potential for counties that have never been nonattainment in the counties that have never been nonattainment in the past.past.

EPA was scheduled to announce the revised standard EPA was scheduled to announce the revised standard last August, but instead pushed the date back to July last August, but instead pushed the date back to July 31, 2011.31, 2011.

Possible Ozone Possible Ozone ComplianceCompliance

NAAQS ImplementationNAAQS Implementation

PM2.5 StandardPM2.5 Standard

In 2006, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour In 2006, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour standard for PM2.5 at 35 micrograms per standard for PM2.5 at 35 micrograms per cubic meter (previous standard was 65 µ/mcubic meter (previous standard was 65 µ/m33).).

Milwaukee County was designated Milwaukee County was designated nonattainment based upon violating monitors, nonattainment based upon violating monitors, and EPA added Racine & Waukesha Counties and EPA added Racine & Waukesha Counties based upon alleged contribution.based upon alleged contribution.

Brown and Dane Counties have historically Brown and Dane Counties have historically been near the standard.been near the standard.

PM2.5 StandardPM2.5 Standard Milwaukee is now in compliance with the Milwaukee is now in compliance with the

standard, and is eligible for an attainment standard, and is eligible for an attainment redesignation.redesignation.

Brown County (35 micrograms) is meeting the Brown County (35 micrograms) is meeting the standard, but just barely.standard, but just barely.

WMC will work with DNR air management staff WMC will work with DNR air management staff to pursue an attainment redesignation for to pursue an attainment redesignation for Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties.Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties.

Meanwhile, EPA is reviewing the 24-hour Meanwhile, EPA is reviewing the 24-hour standard, as well as the annual standard of 15 standard, as well as the annual standard of 15 micrograms. Possible revisions may come later micrograms. Possible revisions may come later this year.this year.

PM2.5 Monitor DataPM2.5 Monitor Data

New SO2 StandardNew SO2 Standard EPA promulgated a new 1-hour standard for SO2 last year at 75 EPA promulgated a new 1-hour standard for SO2 last year at 75

ppb. The previous 24-hour standard was 140 ppb.ppb. The previous 24-hour standard was 140 ppb.

Wisconsin has four SO2 monitors. 2010 design values show Wisconsin has four SO2 monitors. 2010 design values show compliance at Brown (68.0 ppb), Dodge (8.7 ppb) and Forest (7.0 compliance at Brown (68.0 ppb), Dodge (8.7 ppb) and Forest (7.0 ppb) Counties.ppb) Counties.

However, the confluence of unfavorable conditions related to However, the confluence of unfavorable conditions related to meteorology, topography and monitor placement have resulted in meteorology, topography and monitor placement have resulted in very high 1-hour readings for a monitor located in Rhinelander in very high 1-hour readings for a monitor located in Rhinelander in Oneida County (153.5 ppb)Oneida County (153.5 ppb)

Governors must submit attainment/nonattainment Governors must submit attainment/nonattainment recommendations to the EPA Administrator by June 2 of this year.recommendations to the EPA Administrator by June 2 of this year.

In addition to monitor values, EPA will consider modeled data for In addition to monitor values, EPA will consider modeled data for large emission sources as a possible basis for nonattainment large emission sources as a possible basis for nonattainment designations.designations.

New SO2 StandardNew SO2 Standard WMC submitted comments last month WMC submitted comments last month

advocating “attainment” for all monitors with advocating “attainment” for all monitors with a design value below 75 ppb, and a very a design value below 75 ppb, and a very narrow nonattainment boundary in Oneida narrow nonattainment boundary in Oneida County based upon refined modeling.County based upon refined modeling.

Comments also noted that deployment of Comments also noted that deployment of additional measures may eliminate the additional measures may eliminate the nonattainment at the Rhinelander monitor.nonattainment at the Rhinelander monitor.

Beyond the initial nonattainment Beyond the initial nonattainment designations, the preamble to the SO2 rule designations, the preamble to the SO2 rule also discusses using modeled results for all also discusses using modeled results for all significant sources as a basis for maintenance significant sources as a basis for maintenance SIP requirements.SIP requirements.

New SO2 StandardNew SO2 Standard Maintenance SIPs are typically pro-forma. The Maintenance SIPs are typically pro-forma. The

notion that individual facilities will be modeled for notion that individual facilities will be modeled for compliance with a SIP requirement raises more compliance with a SIP requirement raises more questions that it answers:questions that it answers: What emission threshold will be used as a basis for What emission threshold will be used as a basis for

modeling requirements? PTE or actual emissions?modeling requirements? PTE or actual emissions? What if the model predicts a violation? Permit limits or What if the model predicts a violation? Permit limits or

control requirements?control requirements? Does language in the preamble to a NAAQS rule create Does language in the preamble to a NAAQS rule create

enforceable SIP obligations?enforceable SIP obligations? Do state permitting authorities really have the time and Do state permitting authorities really have the time and

resources to do this, given GHG PSD, GHG Title V, Boiler resources to do this, given GHG PSD, GHG Title V, Boiler MACT, CATR, NO2 standard, etc.MACT, CATR, NO2 standard, etc.

There is an effort underway at state, federal and There is an effort underway at state, federal and regional levels to encourage EPA to reconsider the regional levels to encourage EPA to reconsider the modeling requirements associated with maintenance modeling requirements associated with maintenance SIP requirements for SO2.SIP requirements for SO2.

Suspension of TSP Suspension of TSP StandardStandard

WMC and other business groups asked the JCRAR committee to suspend the air quality standard for total suspended particulate (TSP/dust) in s. NR 404.04(3) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

The EPA revoked the TSP standard back in 1987, making Wisconsin the only state known to regulate dust with an air quality standard.

Keeping TSP on the books as a “Wisconsin only” regulation has added significant cost and delay to air permitting activities for many Wisconsin businesses.

DNR has acknowledged that the TSP standard bears no relationship to public health, and the agency is statutorily required to repeal it (and attempted unsuccessfully to do so 3 years ago).

Members of the JCRAR committee voted 6-3 in favor of suspending the rule, which will now prevent the DNR from enforcing it. Permanent repeal must be done by rule or by statute.

Suspension of NR 411Suspension of NR 411 Under Chapter NR 411, the DNR requires air permits for large

construction projects involving 1,000 or more parking spaces (e.g. shopping malls, office parks, retail outlets)

No other surrounding states require air permits for these types of construction projects because there are no air/smokestack emissions associated with them. Note: Minnesota repealed their regulation 10 years ago.

Wisconsin originally adopted these regulations in the 1970’s in response to an isolated and temporary carbon monoxide air quality violation in Milwaukee.

Because carbon monoxide emissions are no longer a pollutant of concern in Wisconsin, WMC asked the JCRAR committee to suspend this regulation.

Keeping this “Wisconsin only” regulation on the books adds significant time and expense to large economic development projects – costs and delays that do not occur in other states.

Members of the JCRAR committee voted 6-3 to suspend Chapter NR 411, which will prohibit the DNR from enforcing these outdated and unnecessary regulations. Permanent repeal of the chapter must by done by statute.

Greenhouse Gas RegulationGreenhouse Gas Regulation

Global Warming – Global Warming – Federal RulesFederal Rules

EPA has established a “Four Rule” approach to EPA has established a “Four Rule” approach to regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: Endangerment FindingEndangerment Finding PSD Triggering/Interpretive Rule on “subject to PSD Triggering/Interpretive Rule on “subject to

regulation”regulation” Passenger vehicle “tailpipe rule”Passenger vehicle “tailpipe rule” GHG “Tailoring Rule”GHG “Tailoring Rule”

WMC and a coalition of state and national WMC and a coalition of state and national trade associations are currently litigating all trade associations are currently litigating all four rules in the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court four rules in the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.of Appeals.

Global Warming Global Warming Regulations: Regulations:

Key Rules for IndustryKey Rules for Industry Subject to Regulation (STR) RuleSubject to Regulation (STR) Rule: In it’s : In it’s

March 29, 2010 rule, EPA took the position March 29, 2010 rule, EPA took the position that GHG would become subject to regulation that GHG would become subject to regulation for purposes of PSD and Title V upon the for purposes of PSD and Title V upon the effective date of GHG emission limitations in effective date of GHG emission limitations in the tailpipe rule (January 2, 2011).the tailpipe rule (January 2, 2011).

Tailoring RuleTailoring Rule: Establishes various phases for : Establishes various phases for PSD and Title V regulation of GHG emissions, PSD and Title V regulation of GHG emissions, at 75,000 and 100,000 ton per year at 75,000 and 100,000 ton per year applicability thresholds.applicability thresholds.

Tailoring Rule Phase 1Tailoring Rule Phase 1January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011

No new permitting actions due solely to GHG No new permitting actions due solely to GHG emissions; only sources going through permitting emissions; only sources going through permitting “anyway” (for other regulated pollutants) will “anyway” (for other regulated pollutants) will need to address GHG emissions:need to address GHG emissions:

PSD Permitting Applicability: PSD Permitting Applicability: ““Anyway” sources (new or existing) will be subject to PSD only if Anyway” sources (new or existing) will be subject to PSD only if

they increase GHG emissions by they increase GHG emissions by 75,00075,000 tpy CO tpy CO22e or more.e or more.

Title V Permitting Applicability:Title V Permitting Applicability: Those sources already needing a Title V permit for non-GHG Those sources already needing a Title V permit for non-GHG

emissions will need to address GHGs.emissions will need to address GHGs. Not expected to have many Title V permits subject to GHG Not expected to have many Title V permits subject to GHG

permitting in Step 1, more likely if associated with a PSD permit permitting in Step 1, more likely if associated with a PSD permit or a merged PSD/Title V permit.or a merged PSD/Title V permit.

NoteNote: WDNR is promulgating permanent rules : WDNR is promulgating permanent rules to codify federal tailoring rule into state to codify federal tailoring rule into state administrative code for SIP consistency.administrative code for SIP consistency.

Tailoring Rule Phase 2Tailoring Rule Phase 2July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013

For the first time, sources will be subject to For the first time, sources will be subject to permitting due only to their GHG emissions.permitting due only to their GHG emissions.

PSD Permitting Applicability:PSD Permitting Applicability: A newly constructed source (which is not major for another A newly constructed source (which is not major for another

pollutant) will be subject if it emits or has the potential to emit pollutant) will be subject if it emits or has the potential to emit 100,000100,000 tpy CO tpy CO22e.e.

A modification project at a major source will be subject if it A modification project at a major source will be subject if it results in a net GHG emissions increase of results in a net GHG emissions increase of 75,00075,000 tpy CO tpy CO22e.e.

Title V Permitting Applicability:Title V Permitting Applicability: A source A source (which is not already subject to Title V) (which is not already subject to Title V) will be subject if it will be subject if it

emits or has the potential to emit emits or has the potential to emit 100,000100,000 tpy CO tpy CO22e.e. Newly subject sources must apply for a Title V permit on or Newly subject sources must apply for a Title V permit on or

before July 1, 2012, unless the permitting authority sets an before July 1, 2012, unless the permitting authority sets an earlier deadline.earlier deadline.

Title V revisions needed if >3 years remaining in permit termTitle V revisions needed if >3 years remaining in permit term

Tailoring Rule Phase 3Tailoring Rule Phase 3After July 1, 2013After July 1, 2013

The rule establishes an enforceable commitment The rule establishes an enforceable commitment to propose another rulemaking (a possible Phase to propose another rulemaking (a possible Phase 3 of the phase-in plan) no later than July 1, 2012.3 of the phase-in plan) no later than July 1, 2012.

EPA will consider whether it will be possible to administer EPA will consider whether it will be possible to administer GHG permitting programs for additional sources. GHG permitting programs for additional sources.

EPA will establish that Phase 3 would take effect on July EPA will establish that Phase 3 would take effect on July 1, 2013, so that permitting authorities and sources can 1, 2013, so that permitting authorities and sources can prepare for any additional GHG permitting actions.prepare for any additional GHG permitting actions.

Phase 3, if different from Phase 2, will not Phase 3, if different from Phase 2, will not require permitting of sources with GHG require permitting of sources with GHG emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e until at least emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e until at least April 30, 2016 or later.April 30, 2016 or later.

Water RulesWater Rules

Thermal Discharge RuleThermal Discharge Rule DNR received legislative approval in 2010 DNR received legislative approval in 2010

for a thermal discharge rule to further for a thermal discharge rule to further regulate the temperature of effluent regulate the temperature of effluent discharges to a Wisconsin water body. discharges to a Wisconsin water body.

The rule is a result of a 1970s Wisconsin The rule is a result of a 1970s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision which held that our Supreme Court decision which held that our thermal regulations were not technically a thermal regulations were not technically a water quality based effluent limit.water quality based effluent limit.

Like every other state, Wisconsin regulated Like every other state, Wisconsin regulated based upon a temperate change at the edge based upon a temperate change at the edge of the mixing zone prior to the 2010 rule.of the mixing zone prior to the 2010 rule.

Thermal Discharge RuleThermal Discharge Rule The new temperature restrictions are based upon the The new temperature restrictions are based upon the

receiving water body’s ability to assimilate heat. receiving water body’s ability to assimilate heat. Therefore, the ratio of the flow for the discharge to the Therefore, the ratio of the flow for the discharge to the flow of the receiving water body will determine the flow of the receiving water body will determine the maximum temperature of any given facility’s effluent.maximum temperature of any given facility’s effluent.

Industry (e.g. food processors, pulp & paper, cheese Industry (e.g. food processors, pulp & paper, cheese makers) and electric utilities have concerns related to makers) and electric utilities have concerns related to the ability to meet thermal regulations without the ability to meet thermal regulations without incurring significant capital cost associated with incurring significant capital cost associated with cooling towers or chillers. cooling towers or chillers.

In the absence of a variance, individual facilities could In the absence of a variance, individual facilities could see regulatory costs in the see regulatory costs in the $2 million - $3 million$2 million - $3 million range. range.

WMC will work toward a legislative solution that WMC will work toward a legislative solution that returns our thermal regulations to the pre-2010 rule returns our thermal regulations to the pre-2010 rule status, which would be consistent with virtually every status, which would be consistent with virtually every other state.other state.

DNR Phosphorus Criteria DNR Phosphorus Criteria RuleRule

Sets water quality criteria for total Sets water quality criteria for total phosphorous for three categories of surface phosphorous for three categories of surface water:water: Rivers & streamsRivers & streams Lakes & reservoirsLakes & reservoirs Great LakesGreat Lakes

Many point source dischargers would see a Many point source dischargers would see a significant regulatory impact, with limits significant regulatory impact, with limits ratcheting down to 0.1 mg/l. This will require ratcheting down to 0.1 mg/l. This will require expensive filtration.expensive filtration. Municipalities – public water systemsMunicipalities – public water systems Food Processors/dairy/cheeseFood Processors/dairy/cheese Pulp & Paper IndustryPulp & Paper Industry

Phosphorus Rule: Key Phosphorus Rule: Key IssuesIssues

Compliance will be expensive, and often Compliance will be expensive, and often impractical, as some facilities may not have the impractical, as some facilities may not have the physical capacity to install treatment facilities physical capacity to install treatment facilities within their current footprint.within their current footprint.

Municipal Environmental Group conducted August, Municipal Environmental Group conducted August, 2008 study of likely cost impacts of the DNR rule 2008 study of likely cost impacts of the DNR rule with Strand & Associates engineering firm.with Strand & Associates engineering firm.

Compliance cost estimate for the rule ranges from Compliance cost estimate for the rule ranges from $3 billion to $5 billion$3 billion to $5 billion based upon current costs. based upon current costs. The DNR estimate was $1.3 billion for The DNR estimate was $1.3 billion for municipalities.municipalities.

Phosphorus Rule: CostPhosphorus Rule: Cost The DNR estimates that 35 industrial facilities The DNR estimates that 35 industrial facilities

would receive a more stringent phosphorous would receive a more stringent phosphorous limit under the rule, with costs up to $440 limit under the rule, with costs up to $440 million.million.

Using the DNR’s figures, that would amount to Using the DNR’s figures, that would amount to an average of $12.5 million per facility.an average of $12.5 million per facility.

WMC is concerned about the enormous cost, and WMC is concerned about the enormous cost, and negligible benefit of these regulations:negligible benefit of these regulations: Point sources are already well-regulated for Point sources are already well-regulated for

Phosphorous with a 1 mg/l standard.Phosphorous with a 1 mg/l standard. About 80% of Phosphorous loading occurs from non-About 80% of Phosphorous loading occurs from non-

point sources – targeting point sources is costly and point sources – targeting point sources is costly and ineffective.ineffective.

Phosphorus Criteria RulePhosphorus Criteria Rule The rule received final approval from the Natural The rule received final approval from the Natural

Resources Board last year – the Legislature took Resources Board last year – the Legislature took no action on the rule, resulting in approval by no action on the rule, resulting in approval by default.default.

Governor Walker proposed in his budget bill to Governor Walker proposed in his budget bill to delay implementation of the rule until other EPA delay implementation of the rule until other EPA Region 5 state pass similar rules.Region 5 state pass similar rules.

Budget provision on phosphorus likely to change Budget provision on phosphorus likely to change to 2-year delayed effective date, giving other to 2-year delayed effective date, giving other state more time to “catch up” to Wisconsin state more time to “catch up” to Wisconsin regulations.regulations.

Legislative UpdateLegislative Update

Special Session Regulatory Special Session Regulatory Reform LegislationReform Legislation

Governor Walker proposed SS Assembly Governor Walker proposed SS Assembly Bill 8 and SS Senate Bill 8 in January.Bill 8 and SS Senate Bill 8 in January.

Passed both houses of the Legislature Passed both houses of the Legislature and signed into law as 2011 Act 21.and signed into law as 2011 Act 21.

Makes significant changes to the Makes significant changes to the administrative rulemaking process, and administrative rulemaking process, and agency rulemaking authority in general.agency rulemaking authority in general.

Special Session: Regulatory Special Session: Regulatory ReformReform

Economic Impact and Cost/Benefit for New Economic Impact and Cost/Benefit for New Rules:Rules: Will require quantification of economic cost to Will require quantification of economic cost to

individuals, businesses and local governments.individuals, businesses and local governments. Analysis of effectiveness of the proposed rule.Analysis of effectiveness of the proposed rule. Analysis of alternatives to the proposed rule, Analysis of alternatives to the proposed rule,

including the alternative of not regulating.including the alternative of not regulating. Analysis of corresponding rules in surrounding Analysis of corresponding rules in surrounding

states and federal government, and an explanation states and federal government, and an explanation of why the rule differs.of why the rule differs.

A determination of whether the rule will adversely A determination of whether the rule will adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs or our overall economic productivity, jobs or our overall economic competitiveness.competitiveness.

Special Session: Regulatory Special Session: Regulatory ReformReform

Review and Approval by the Governor:Review and Approval by the Governor: Proposed rules will no longer be allowed Proposed rules will no longer be allowed

to advance from an agency unless the to advance from an agency unless the Governor approves the rule.Governor approves the rule.

Governor’s approval required at the beginning Governor’s approval required at the beginning of the rulemaking process for the scope of the rulemaking process for the scope statement, and at the end of the rulemaking statement, and at the end of the rulemaking process prior to legislative review.process prior to legislative review.

This adds a very important element of This adds a very important element of elected official oversight and elected official oversight and accountability to the rulemaking process accountability to the rulemaking process while the rule remains at the agency.while the rule remains at the agency.

Special Session: Regulatory Special Session: Regulatory ReformReform

Restricting Agency Rulemaking AuthorityRestricting Agency Rulemaking Authority Prohibits agencies from writing rules that create a Prohibits agencies from writing rules that create a

regulatory framework that is more stringent than regulatory framework that is more stringent than state statute.state statute.

Clarifies that broad statements of statutory purpose Clarifies that broad statements of statutory purpose or duties for agencies (e.g. protect the environment, or duties for agencies (e.g. protect the environment, regulate utilities, protect workers, etc.) regulate utilities, protect workers, etc.) does not confer rulemaking authority.confer rulemaking authority.

Prohibits agencies from enforcing a term or condition Prohibits agencies from enforcing a term or condition in a permit unless it is explicitly authorized by in a permit unless it is explicitly authorized by statute or by a rule promulgated in accordance with statute or by a rule promulgated in accordance with Chapter 227 procedures.Chapter 227 procedures.

Eliminates Dane County as only jurisdiction to Eliminates Dane County as only jurisdiction to challenge a state agency rule.challenge a state agency rule.

Regulatory Reform 2Regulatory Reform 2 WMC is also working with lawmakers on a WMC is also working with lawmakers on a

“second wave” of regulatory reforms “second wave” of regulatory reforms targeted primarily at DNR permitting and targeted primarily at DNR permitting and “due process” reforms. “due process” reforms. Expanded permit exemptions (up to 25 TPY)Expanded permit exemptions (up to 25 TPY) Expanded registration permits (up to 79 TPY)Expanded registration permits (up to 79 TPY) Modeling requirementsModeling requirements Federal consistencyFederal consistency DNR to defend permitsDNR to defend permits Binding declaratory rulingsBinding declaratory rulings Making contested cases optionalMaking contested cases optional Expanded enforcement optionsExpanded enforcement options

Energy ReformsEnergy Reforms WMC will continue to work on policies to WMC will continue to work on policies to

help ensure affordable and reliable energy. help ensure affordable and reliable energy. Some ideas under consideration include: Some ideas under consideration include: Dial back increase on customer charges Dial back increase on customer charges

(budget)(budget) Reforms to current RPS law to help mitigate Reforms to current RPS law to help mitigate

compliance costs (e.g. cost-based or capacity-compliance costs (e.g. cost-based or capacity-based off ramps)based off ramps)

Transmission citing reformsTransmission citing reforms Economic development ratesEconomic development rates Reforms to PSC authorityReforms to PSC authority

Mining LegislationMining Legislation Wisconsin is home to one of the nation’s largest Wisconsin is home to one of the nation’s largest

untapped iron ore deposits:untapped iron ore deposits: 22 miles long and 1,200 yards wide22 miles long and 1,200 yards wide Spans between Ashland and Iron Counties.Spans between Ashland and Iron Counties. Estimated 2.2 billion tons of iron oreEstimated 2.2 billion tons of iron ore

Would be mined in 4-mile segments, with 35-years of Would be mined in 4-mile segments, with 35-years of iron mining in the first segment alone – total life iron mining in the first segment alone – total life exceeding 100 years of mining.exceeding 100 years of mining.

Incredible impact on jobs:Incredible impact on jobs: 1,500 to 2,000 immediate construction jobs to build the mine 1,500 to 2,000 immediate construction jobs to build the mine

(2 years)(2 years) 700 to 1,400 full time jobs at the mine: $82,000 per year with 700 to 1,400 full time jobs at the mine: $82,000 per year with

benefitsbenefits Estimated 2,000 to 3,000 additional jobs in warehousing, Estimated 2,000 to 3,000 additional jobs in warehousing,

transportation and other “spin off” and supply/supporting transportation and other “spin off” and supply/supporting industries.industries.

Stable market for Milwaukee-area mining equipment Stable market for Milwaukee-area mining equipment manufacturers & suppliersmanufacturers & suppliers

Mining LegislationMining Legislation Bill will create a new iron mining regulation in the Bill will create a new iron mining regulation in the

statutes, separate from other metallic mining laws statutes, separate from other metallic mining laws (just as MN and MI have done).(just as MN and MI have done).

Very robust environmental regulation – 80% of bill Very robust environmental regulation – 80% of bill copied from existing Ch. 293 and DNR copied from existing Ch. 293 and DNR administrative codes.administrative codes.

Regulatory certainty: gives the DNR 300 days to Regulatory certainty: gives the DNR 300 days to review a complete application – more than twice as review a complete application – more than twice as long as MN and MI allow.long as MN and MI allow.

Legislation must pass soon because significant data Legislation must pass soon because significant data collection work (18-24 months) must be done on collection work (18-24 months) must be done on site in advance of the mining permit application.site in advance of the mining permit application.