Steve Pintar grew up in Milwaukee and earned an engineering degree from the UW-Madison. He also led the design teams for the 2008 Ford Focus and, most recently, the 2011 Ford Fiesta, another “global” vehicle due for release this spring.
One might think the guy who is redefining Ford’s tough-truck image through fuel-miser cars with big-car features would applaud state efforts – such as those proposed in Wisconsin – to set tougher emissions standards than those required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Not so. While Pintar gives states credit for pushing the envelope on emissions, alternative fuels and other climate-change strategies tied to transportation, he thinks a hodge-podge of state standards can slow innovation among carmakers and make life more complicated for dealers, customers and cross-border economies.
“Obviously, we work to meet all the California requirements and we have a product line right now that does. But my personal opinion is, after having been on the product development side, that when a state has its own regulations, the system is less efficient in total,” Pintar said. “For the total (auto) industry, the maximum technology deployment, customer acceptance and industry efficiencies will be best with better regulatory alignment.”
Pintar, who toured Wisconsin recently to promote Fiesta’s release, is not alone in his belief that states can overreach when they set standards that move beyond federal rules. Business and trade groups in Wisconsin have lined up to oppose the transportation goals from the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming for that very reason.
The task force report, largely embodied in the Clean Energy Jobs Act now being debated in the Wisconsin Legislature, would tie the state’s vehicle emissions standards to those adopted by California. The EPA itself has refused to accept California’s tougher standards, which critics say have created another layer of state bureaucracy and costs.
The vehicle emissions standards are not the only parts of the bill that could set Wisconsin apart – in ways supporters insist will better position the state as a haven for “green” economic growth, and which opponents fear will cost thousands of jobs.
The bill seeks to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (largely carbon dioxide) emissions in Wisconsin over time by a combination of strategies. On the electricity generation side, renewable energy sources would need to reach 10 percent by 2013, 20 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025. While some state utilities have hit the 10 percent mark already, most are still well short of that mark, which current law would not require until 2015.
The bill anticipates new federal limits on carbon emissions due to global climate change and seeks to give Wisconsin a “green economy” edge over other states.
“When you see a train coming, you need to get ready,” said Roy Thilly, co-chair of the task force and president of WPPI Energy in Sun Prairie. “The scientific consensus (around global climate change) is really quite strong, and it would be imprudent not to act based on that science. In fact, there are serious long-term costs for Wisconsin if we fail to act.”
Speaking to a recent meeting of Competitive Wisconsin Inc., Thilly said conservation always comes first but Wisconsin must pursue other strategies to reduce its “carbon footprint” in anticipation of new federal standards. Absent steps now, he argued, Wisconsin won’t be able to compete with other states and nations for green jobs.
Opponents claim the bill won’t create jobs – but will instead cost Wisconsin jobs because it puts the state too far ahead of the pack, creates new burdens for business and increases costs for everyone from electricity users to owners of cars and other vehicles.
“I don’t think I have ever seen a bill that has a broader reach to all the citizens of this state,” said James Buchen, vice president of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “Increasing the cost of electricity, increasing the cost of gasoline and taking $1,000 per year out of the pockets of each Wisconsin citizen to pay for this (legislation) will not create jobs.”
Scores of business groups such as WMC insist the market, combined with reasonable federal standards, will prove far more effective in the long run. With the recession only now beginning to ease, they worry that stand-alone rules will harm the state’s competitiveness.
“I don’t think there’s any benefit to get too far out ahead,” Buchen told the Competitive Wisconsin board of directors.
Whether lawmakers act on the bill remains to be seen, but Gov. Jim Doyle has already signaled he’s ready to talk about changes. Because Wisconsin is so dependent on coal-fired electricity plants, the state doesn’t want to get caught flat-footed if federal standards demand a sudden conversion. Likewise, it doesn’t want to stick out like a sore thumb among other states.
“California has caused people to push harder, and that’s good,” said Ford’s Pintar, “but technology can only be shoved so far, so fast. More alignment is a better way.”
Finding an energy-use “alignment” that better positions Wisconsin for the long run without harming competitiveness now won’t be easy, but it will be necessary.
Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal.
3 Comments
Do we really want to follow California's lead? Lets check things off to see how it's working in CA;
Over regulation in the state is causing businesses to flee in droves.
CA is bankrupt with no real plan to get out of it
Green and CEPA regulations have cost consumers billions in CA without any measure of new jobs or green jobs, only a loss of jobs.
CA has publicly admitted it's programs will not create jobs nor lower costs to consumers or businesses. Earth worship is far more important and like most religions the needs of people come far below the needs of it's god, the guessing Earth worshipers will do anything to appease it from the fantastical global warming fears even though they continue to be proven as manipulations and out right lies from the scientists we are suppose to trust.
CA is the laughing stock of states too most businesses and has seen a decrease in middle class families as they move to more stable states with less burdensome taxes.
Meanwhile lower income people who heavily depend on the state and burden the infrastructure continue to grow, further collapsing the system in CA. Even while loosing the middle and upper classes the state depends on to pay for everything.
Seems to me that CA has set the example, the example of failure, over reaching meddlesome government caught up in green initiatives while ignoring the needs of it's workers and businesses to the point of collapse.
Yep, easy to see why Wisconsin thinks it should follow California's lead down the road to financial ruin all to stay on the inside track of a Federal administration whose popularity continues to shrink and whose policies continue to prove anything but in the best interest of the nation or people. Is this really what we want in Wisconsin?
California is indeed in a lot of trouble. But not for the reasons Mr. Margolles cites. He conveniently forgets that in 1978 it was California that led a tax revolt by passing the infamous Proposition 13 that drastically limited property taxes. And that it was California that recalled its Governor and replaced him with a Republican you may have heard of. California is in trouble because it is a unique example of direct democracy run wild (which, by the way is an excellent argument for Mayor Barrett's proposal to fix MPS). California requires both houses to pass budgets by a 2/3rds majority. These houses are loaded with highly partisan politicians often holding extremist positions. This results in the minority party resorting to vetos in the face of a dozen individual ballot initiatives every year. For us (and in fact for California), the problem is not "a federal administration whose popularity continues to shrink, etc., etc." It's a system that encourages partisan, extremist long-range barrages instead of collaboration. California's system worked okay 100 years ago when populations were fewer and less diverse. It won't work going forward. That's the lesson for the U.S. and for Wisconsin. The future is green indeed - or at least it had better be if we want to come out of the manufacturing age still standing. What we need to do is to reward our elected officials for wisdom, teamwork and results, and less for finger-pointing and grandstanding. We can start by getting our facts straight.
Business is just starting to come back here. Raising the minimum wage hurt employment here. What do you think a 30% increase in energy costs will do? Especially since most Businesses here consume substantial amounts of energy above and beyond what's needed to heat and air condition.