Cement Americas provides comprehensive coverage of the North and South American cement markets from raw material extraction to delivery and tranportation to end user.
Issue link: https://cement.epubxp.com/i/119488
FEATURE PCA PRESIDENT committee and the board of PCA had been thinking about such a shift from the Chicagoland area to D.C. for a number of years. So this wasn't a new idea or one that came up out of the blue. Federal government relations and the impact of the federal government, both positively and potentially negatively, on the cement industry has grown. PCA decided it was time to make the shift and to put the focal point – the president and CEO position – in Washington, D.C., to send a message of the importance of federal advocacy to the industry. I think it's also very important to note what it doesn't mean. I hear rumors about this occasionally, but we are not shutting down the Skokie campus. There are still vital, PCA activities in the technical, marketing, and communications areas. Our subsidiary, CTLGroup, is also in Skokie. I certainly don't see in the near, medium or long term any move to completely relocate PCA to D.C. It simply doesn't make economic or operations sense. We can work well with two primary offices, and I see that as how things will remain over the next few years. CA: The press release made it seem like this decision was being mulled over even before the economy turned several years ago. GS: I think that's right. PCA has adopted a long-term strategic plan on which we're focusing on two different things. One is federal and local advocacy, and second is market development. Those themes have been in place for at least the last 10 years, and it really does extend prior to the economic downturn that has hit the industry so hard. I would not tie the economy to this decision. CA: As a result of this shift, do you expect any staff to be added? GS: We've added three people in the last couple of months, so yes. Each of them was hired off of Capitol Hill, each a former Congressional staffer. We're sending a signal that PCA wants to become more active on the Hill, and we're working toward having a bigger footprint there and a larger set of interactions both with federal legislators and regulators. I see that as both offensive and defensive. There are opportunities for the cement industry and PCA members in the regulatory and legislative camps, and there are threats. One of the things we all need to recognize is that it's not all bad; the federal government is not all a problem for the cement industry. The opportunity we see right now is the post-Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief [Act, the first dollars from which went out in March]. If folks continue talking about resiliency and investing now so you don't have to rebuild later, that's certainly an opportunity for cement and concrete to gain a larger market share. In that case, we can speak positively about something as opposed to speaking about certain EPA or MSHA programs. We've already expanded our D.C. office with boots-on-theground lobbyists on Capitol Hill and at the agencies, and we'll keep the size of the Skokie staff the same moving into the future. We've had some staff reductions in previous years, but my impression is that is over for the time being. We've got the staff we think we need to grow the organization and service our members well. CA: Speaking of regulatory issues facing the cement industry, what is your reaction to the EPA's final NESHAP [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants] ruling, in terms of cooperation between the agency and the cement industry during the process of creating the new rules? GS: PCA is very pleased with many portions of EPA's final cement NESHAP regulations, which were finalized in December 2012. The final NESHAP rules reflect, in my opinion, the positive outcomes that can be achieved when regulators and the regulated community talk with each other rather than past each other. While the final NESHAP rules continue to contain strict emissions standards that will be difficult and expensive for domestic cement manufacturers to achieve, the reset compliance timetable and appropriately revised emissions standards are achievable by PCA members and will protect American jobs and manufacturing while reducing emissions from the cement production sector of the economy. CA: It seems like the D.C. office's primary function in the last few years has been educating and negotiating the regulatory agencies on how the cement industry does and doesn't function or contribute to the emissions problem. But it seems like most of those meetings were met positively and were a part of the final NESHAP rules. GS: You're absolutely right, there have been one after the other. Let's go back three or four years when we talked about climate change legislation, the cap-and-trade bill, or CO2 regulations. I personally think that for the time being, we're not going to see federal legislation on CO2 controls. Clearly, being an energy-intensive industry, PCA and our members will want to track that carefully. There's probably not the political will to tackle a new cap-and-trade program or even a carbon tax in the near future. I think what we're going to be left with is really EPA regulation of CO2 through the Clean Air Act. I'm not saying that's the ideal approach that PCA would want, nor is that the easiest way to do it, but that's probably what we're going to see for the next few years. It's interesting that while we've been battling with EPA over the NESHAP standard for several years, I also believe we have developed a better relationship with EPA as we've gone through the process. They understand the cement industry and what is doable and not doable on some of the criteria pollutants and emissions that come out of our plants. Yes, we've been involved in litigation with them, but www.cementamericas.com • Spring 2013 • CEMENT AMERICAS 15