“Due to the rising cost of energy” here in the U.S., paper makers' profits are being squeezed to the bone. But look on the bright side, people are skiing indoors in Dubai. I guess there's no such thing as an energy crunch in the UAE.

I'm not kidding about the indoor skiing in the Middle East; real snow, snowmaking machines and a quad chairlift. It's really amazing. Go to www.skidubai.ae. Many thanks to Albert Moore from Buckman Laboratories for the heads-up on the new ski vacation “hot” spot.

Seriously though, the rising cost of energy is a problem that's here to stay. So my question to the industry is this: how many companies have seriously looked into, or are implementing, long-term plans to have their production facilities become energy efficient?

In a report prepared by the Alliance to Save Energy and the U.S. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), industry surveys show that the average manufacturing facility can reduce its energy consumption by 10 to 20 percent. In addition, the report states that at least 30 percent of industry's overall energy savings potential can be obtained without capital expense, by simply making changes to procedures and behavior.

In the report, figures from the U.S. Department of Energy indicate industry can achieve practical energy reductions of about 20 percent and that these savings are worth almost $19 billion at 2004 energy prices. Keep in mind that these figures are derived from the overall manufacturing sector, not specifically from the paper industry. But I don't think our industry is immune from these findings.

The report, Efficiency and Innovation In U.S. Manufacturing Energy Use, brings to light various opportunities for manufacturers to better control rising energy costs. Conversely, the report points to flawed business practices that are embedded at particular plants and can stymie attempts to improve energy efficiency.

The following are just a few items listed directly from the report:

Lack of cross-departmental cooperation. The manufacturer's first priority is to make product and get it out the door, not save energy. Every position on the company's personnel chart has a job description, accountabilities and incentives-all tied to production. Departments within a company often compete against each other in the budget process. For example, energy efficiency projects might be expensed from the maintenance budget, but the savings accrue to the production budget. When departments do not cooperate, waste is allowed to continue.

Lack of resources. Because of limited time, money and skills, and with management accountability sometimes tied to short-term results, deferred maintenance is the order of the day. To “save money,” some companies will release well-compensated, skilled workers, especially from non-core activities like energy support. The remaining, less capable staff is ill-prepared to seek, promote and maintain energy system improvements.

Staff doesn't always make the connection between energy choices and money. For example, compressed air leaks are often overlooked because “air is free,” although this conclusion ignores that fact that five horsepower of electricity are consumed to generate one horsepower of compressed air. Steam system management is susceptible to similar thinking.

Complacency. It is easy for top managers to be lulled into complacency about energy and other support functions with which they are not familiar. Management indifference effectively abdicates control to trusted subordinates who know that it is better to report good news than bad. Who is a 35-year-old general manager to question the report of a powerhouse superintendent with 20 years on the job? These territorial relationships are barriers to energy efficiency, especially when tenured staff explains that “this is the way we've always done it.”

Obviously there is a lot more to combating rising energy costs than simply fixing an air leak or modifying bookkeeping practices. But you have to start somewhere. The 30-page report is available free of charge on NAM's web site: www.nam.org. It's worth a look.

PaperAge. Copyright © O'Brien Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.