Latest news with #carbontax
Yahoo
11-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The hidden net zero tax crushing British industry
When Britain's last coal plant shut down in 2024, climate activists hailed it as a triumph for green energy. 'Just over a decade ago, coal made up nearly two fifths of UK electricity generation, but the rapid advance of renewables has made it obsolete,' declared Greenpeace. But what really killed King Coal wasn't renewables – it was taxes. In 2015, the Government doubled the carbon tax levied on fossil fuel power stations, effectively crippling the business model of coal-fired plants. This was in an attempt to slash emissions – and by that measure it has been hugely successful. But now these same taxes are pushing up electricity prices for households and squeezing the life out of British industry, experts and businesses say. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire tycoon behind petrochemicals empire Ineos, has warned that carbon pricing is 'killing manufacturing' and increasing the UK's dependence on imports from countries with less stringent standards, such as China. 'The reason we get frustrated, and the reason that we criticise carbon costs, is because the Government can do something about this at the slash of a pen, if it wishes,' says Stuart Collings, the boss of Ineos's chemical plant in Grangemouth, Scotland. Collings says carbon taxes are costing the Ineos plant 'tens of millions of pounds' per year and severely denting its competitiveness when compared to rival factories in the US and Asia. With Sir Jim's wider business having subsidised the Grangemouth plant to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years, patience is beginning to wear thin. 'We're already facing energy costs which are much higher than other countries, so we're inherently uncompetitive because of that, and then this carbon tax is put on top,' says Collings. 'Frankly, it's bonkers.' The aim of carbon taxes is to incentivise businesses to cut emissions of CO2, which is blamed for causing global warming. In the UK, this is essentially done in two ways: through an emissions 'trading' scheme and another system known as carbon price support. An emissions trading scheme was first introduced in 2005, when Britain was still a member of the European Union. Under the system, heavy emitters such as factories, airlines and power stations are assigned carbon credit 'allowances' covering a set limit of emissions. When they exceed this limit, companies must buy extra credits from others that have a surplus. Credits are traded on an open market with a floating carbon price. However, when the financial crisis led to an industrial slump that crashed the European carbon price, the Government introduced the supplementary 'carbon price support' in 2013 to deter emissions. Initially set at £4.94 per tonne of CO2, this was charged to power stations burning coal, gas, biomass or oil and was later increased to £9.55 in 2014 and then £18 in 2015, amid fears that a global coal supply glut risked a resurgence in its use because of plunging prices. Because burning a tonne of coal produces about 47pc more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas, the 2015 increase played a major role in the demise of coal power stations. However, the carbon price support still remains in place 10 years later – even after the demise of coal – and is now weighing on the price of power bills paid by millions of households and businesses. In July, the average cost of power generated by gas-fired plants was £79.24 per megawatt hour. Of this, £25.64 or 32pc was carbon taxes, according to figures published by the think tank Ember. This is important as most of the time, gas power plants set prices for the rest of the electricity market – meaning the cost of carbon taxes is inflating everyone's bills. Ed Hezlet, head of energy at the think tank Centre for British Progress, calculates that the levies accounted for about 7.5pc or £70 per year of a typical household's power bill. 'These carbon prices are a policy choice that increases the cost of electricity to consumers,' he explains. 'I think they were rational whilst coal was still on the grid, but they need to be re-examined given the demise of coal in the UK.' Meanwhile, carbon pricing has also been squeezing industrial businesses, who complain that their overseas rivals do not face the same steep costs. This is because the UK enforces a strict 'cap and floor' emissions trading system that forces them to account for their carbon emissions and pay for anything above a set ceiling. Not all countries enforce such taxes, and many do not set the same limits as the UK. The emissions trading system is designed to reduce the available number of credits each year, putting pressure on companies to slash their emissions. Since 2021, the cap on emissions allowed has fallen from 156m tonnes of CO2 to 86.7m tonnes. By 2030, it will be cut further to 50m tonnes. In line with this, the allowances of free credits handed out to companies is also shrinking every year. A hypothetical steel company could be given 100,000 credits, representing 100,000 tonnes of CO2, to start with, for example. But it might then only receive 90,000 credits the next year. If it still generates 100,000 tonnes worth of CO2, it must go to the market to buy an extra 10,000 credits. However, the shrinking supply of credits each year puts upward pressure on prices and ramps up pressure on businesses to cut their emissions. On Friday, the UK carbon price was about £70 per tonne, according to Bloomberg. This can create something of a 'catch-22 situation' for cash-strapped companies, which face ever-larger tax bills unless they can find the money to invest in greener equipment, says Dr Hasan Muslemani, of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. For the hypothetical steel maker, this might include switching to an electric arc furnace or using hydrogen-based direct reduction. Tata Steel, which runs the UK's largest steel mill in Port Talbot, Wales, shut down its blast furnaces last year and is switching to an electric arc furnace partly for this reason. It is understood that the company, which laid off 2,500 workers last year, would have faced a carbon tax bill of £400m a year by the 2030s otherwise. The electric arc furnace that it is acquiring will partly be financed by a £500m grant from the Government. Meanwhile, British Glass, an industry association, complains that glassmakers who want to transition to electrically powered furnaces that will cut their emissions are routinely told it will take years to secure grid connections – meaning they risk being forced to pay the higher taxes through no fault of their own. Carbon taxes have also been cited as a major factor in chemical factory closures across the UK. 'UK manufacturers face a higher operational cost than their overseas competitors, whilst at the same time their ability to reduce their emissions is limited by the availability of low carbon fuels like electricity and hydrogen,' the Chemical Industries Association says. 'These two factors together diminish the competitiveness of UK industry and put at risk the loss of domestic manufacturing capacity in favour of overseas production.' Plans to link the UK carbon trading scheme with the EU's could drive prices higher. However, supporters say this will also ensure the two jurisdictions can share a 'carbon border' where goods imported from outside will pay carbon taxes, ensuring more of a level playing field. That depends, however, on other countries accurately measuring them, says Dr Muslemani. Back in Grangemouth, this is one of the factors now threatening the viability of the Ineos plant. 'In terms of what the Government can influence, I think it's a lot easier for them to do something about carbon costs than it is about the price of gas, frankly,' says Collings. A government spokesman said: 'Accelerating to net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and at the heart of the government's mission to boost growth, create jobs and tackle the climate crisis. 'A strong UK Emissions Trading Scheme will play a key role driving green investment as part of a broader industrial strategy, creating jobs and growing the UK's economy. 'Our Modern Industrial Strategy will also unlock the potential of British industry by slashing industrial electricity prices in key sectors.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
11-08-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
The hidden net zero tax crushing British industry
When Britain's last coal plant shut down in 2024, climate activists hailed it as a triumph for green energy. 'Just over a decade ago, coal made up nearly two-fifths of UK electricity generation but the rapid advance of renewables has made it obsolete,' declared Greenpeace. But what really killed King Coal wasn't renewables – it was taxes. In 2015, the Government doubled the carbon tax levied on fossil fuel power stations, effectively crippling the business model of coal-fired plants. This was done to slash emissions – and by that measure it has been hugely successful. But now these same taxes are pushing up electricity prices for households and squeezing the life out of British industry, experts and businesses say. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire tycoon behind petrochemicals empire Ineos, has warned that carbon pricing is ' killing manufacturing ' and increasing the UK's dependence on imports from countries with less stringent standards, such as China. 'The reason we get frustrated, and the reason that we criticise carbon costs, is because the Government can do something about this at the slash of a pen, if it wishes,' says Stuart Collings, the boss of Ineos's chemical plant in Grangemouth, Scotland. Collings says carbon taxes are costing the Ineos plant 'tens of millions of pounds' per year and severely denting its competitiveness when compared to rival factories in the US and Asia. With Sir Jim's wider business having subsidised the Grangemouth plant to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years, patience is beginning to wear thin. 'We're already facing energy costs which are much higher than other countries, so we're inherently uncompetitive because of that, and then this carbon tax is put on top,' says Collings. 'Frankly, it's bonkers.' The aim of carbon taxes is to incentivise businesses to cut emissions of CO2, which is blamed for causing global warming. In the UK, this is essentially done in two ways: through an emissions 'trading' scheme and another system known as carbon price support. An emissions trading scheme was first introduced in 2005, when Britain was still a member of the European Union. Under the system, heavy emitters such as factories, airlines and power stations are assigned carbon credit 'allowances' covering a set limit of emissions. When they exceed this limit, companies must buy extra credits from others that have a surplus. Credits are traded on an open market with a floating carbon price. However, when the financial crisis led to an industrial slump that crashed the European carbon price, the Government introduced the supplementary 'carbon price support' in 2013 to deter emissions. Initially set at £4.94 per tonne of CO2, this was charged to power stations burning coal, gas, biomass or oil and was later increased to £9.55 in 2014 and then £18 in 2015, amid fears that a global coal supply glut risked a resurgence in its use because of plunging prices. Because burning a tonne of coal produces about 47pc more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas, the 2015 increase played a major role in the demise of coal power stations. However, the carbon price support still remains in place 10 years later – even after the demise of coal – and is now weighing on the price of power bills paid by millions of households and businesses. In July, the average cost of power generated by gas-fired plants was £79.24 per megawatt hour. Of this, £25.64 or 32pc was carbon taxes, according to figures published by the think tank Ember. This is important as most of the time, gas power plants set prices for the rest of the electricity market – meaning the cost of carbon taxes is inflating everyone's bills. Ed Hezlet, head of energy at the think tank Centre for British Progress, calculates that the levies accounted for about 7.5pc or £70 per year of a typical household's power bill. 'These carbon prices are a policy choice that increases the cost of electricity to consumers,' he explains. 'I think they were rational whilst coal was still on the grid, but they need to be re-examined given the demise of coal in the UK.' Meanwhile, carbon pricing has also been squeezing industrial businesses, who complain that their overseas rivals do not face the same steep costs. This is because the UK enforces a strict 'cap and floor' emissions trading system that forces them to account for their carbon emissions and pay for anything above a set ceiling. Not all countries enforce such taxes, and many do not set the same limits as the UK. The emissions trading system is designed to reduce the available number of credits each year, putting pressure on companies to slash their emissions. Since 2021, the cap on emissions allowed has fallen from 156m tonnes of CO2 to 86.7m tonnes. By 2030, it will be cut further to 50m tonnes. In line with this, the allowances of free credits handed out to companies is also shrinking every year. A hypothetical steel company could be given 100,000 credits, representing 100,000 tonnes of CO2, to start with, for example. But it might then only receive 90,000 credits the next year. If it still generates 100,000 tonnes worth of CO2, it must go to the market to buy an extra 10,000 credits. However, the shrinking supply of credits each year puts upward pressure on prices and ramps up pressure on businesses to cut their emissions. On Friday, the UK carbon price was about £70 per tonne, according to Bloomberg. This can create something of a 'catch-22 situation' for cash-strapped companies, which face ever-larger tax bills unless they can find the money to invest in greener equipment, says Dr Hasan Muslemani, of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. For the hypothetical steel maker, this might include switching to an electric arc furnace or using hydrogen-based direct reduction. Tata Steel, which runs the UK's largest steel mill in Port Talbot, Wales, shut down its blast furnaces last year and is switching to an electric arc furnace partly for this reason. It is understood that the company, which laid off 2,500 workers last year, would have faced a carbon tax bill of £400m a year by the 2030s otherwise. The electric arc furnace that it is acquiring will partly be financed by a £500m grant from the Government. Meanwhile, British Glass, an industry association, complains that glass makers who want to transition to electrically-powered furnaces that will cut their emissions are routinely told it will take years to secure grid connections – meaning they risk being forced to pay the higher taxes through no fault of their own. Carbon taxes have also been cited as a major factor in chemical factory closures across the UK. 'UK manufacturers face a higher operational cost than their overseas competitors, whilst at the same time their ability to reduce their emissions is limited by the availability of low carbon fuels like electricity and hydrogen,' the Chemical Industries Association says. 'These two factors together diminish the competitiveness of UK industry and put at risk the loss of domestic manufacturing capacity in favour of overseas production.' Plans to link the UK carbon trading scheme with the EU's could drive prices higher. However, supporters say this will also ensure the two jurisdictions can share a 'carbon border' where goods imported from outside will pay carbon taxes, ensuring more of a level playing field. That depends, however, on other countries accurately measuring them, says Dr Muslemani. Back in Grangemouth, this is one of the factors now threatening the viability of the Ineos plant. 'In terms of what the Government can influence, I think it's a lot easier for them to do something about carbon costs than it is about the price of gas, frankly,' says Collings.
Washington Post
19-07-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Can the Fed stay independent? Trump-era adviser may put it to the test.
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett drew laughter from a roomful of economists in late March when he launched into an attack on wind turbines, blaming them for killing birds, in a riff that echoed President Donald Trump. The off-the-cuff moment, at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution, stood out not just for the reaction, but for what it signaled about Hassett. Hassett built his career in Washington as a fairly mainstream free market economist, advising GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and John McCain, and pushing for a carbon tax on coal and gasoline to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Some audience members said they were surprised to hear Hassett mocking windmills, a mainstay of climate policy, according to two people who attended the event, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it was off the record. 'I was surprised to hear him say that kind of thing in front of a group of economists, most of whom he's known for decades,' one of the people said. Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, has emerged as a leading contender to succeed Jerome H. Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve, raising questions among Fed watchers about whether Powell's successor will be truly independent of the White House. Hassett has shifted his views to align more closely with Trump's on key issues at the forefront of Trump's economic agenda, including immigration and trade. The Fed's credibility depends on its independence from political pressure and investors' belief that it will raise rates if necessary to keep inflation in check. But Trump has said he wants a Fed chief willing to cut interest rates sharply to ease the cost of financing rising deficits, and Hassett has a track record of adapting to Trump's desires. Markets are watching closely. Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro Research said Trump's insistence on a Fed chair more closely aligned with his beliefs could leave Wall Street anxious about anyone who gets the job. 'Trump is going about this in such a way that it tarnishes anybody going in the door,' Dutta said. If investors come to believe the next Fed chair will act as an extension of Trump's political will, rather than as an independent steward of monetary policy, they will probably demand higher yields on U.S. government debt to compensate for the expectations of higher inflation. That could push up longer-term borrowing costs across the economy, even if the Fed bows to pressure from the White House to cut its short-term benchmark rate. Hassett is one of four top contenders to replace Powell, whose term expires in May, part of a fluid selection process that is still under discussion; a pick could be named in coming weeks. The others include former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Fed governor Christopher Waller. White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump has a deep bench of qualified individuals to nominate. 'Americans can look forward to the President nominating someone who will restore competence and confidence with the Federal Reserve,' he said in a statement. A request for comment from Hassett, directly, was not returned. Trump has often gravitated toward advisers who show loyalty, and Hassett ranks among his longest-serving economic aides, as former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2017 to 2019. An expert on the link between taxation and investment, he played a key role providing economic justification for Trump's massive tax and spending bill that became law this month. But Hassett hasn't always held the views he now espouses. Back in 2013, during his time as an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, Hassett argued that doubling legal immigration would boost U.S. growth. He spoke in favor of expanded immigration again in 2019, as he left the first Trump White House. In 2006, he wrote that he opposed building a border fence between the United States and Mexico. More recently, he has supported the Trump administration's tougher stance on immigration and tighter enforcement of borders. In addition to sealing off the U.S.-Mexico border, the White House's termination of multiple temporary humanitarian immigration programs threatens to strip more than a million immigrants of their status and work authorization, according to immigration experts. 'It's 100 percent important that we secure our borders,' Hassett said recently on 'Unmuted,' the podcast hosted by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee). 'The illegals were coming into the country and taking low wage jobs and driving down the wages of people who were legally residents here. … This border security policy is really advantaging people who are citizens of this country.' Since Trump's first term, Hassett also has backed the president's aggressive use of tariffs, even though his earlier writings warned about the risks of protectionism. One article blamed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 for helping to deepen the Great Depression. Another criticized agricultural subsidies and trade barriers in developed nations for stifling the growth of the agricultural industry in poor nations. In another, he supported free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. A fourth article blamed the 2008 financial crisis on, among other things, protectionist rhetoric from Barack Obama. Hassett also once warned against 'China bashing,' writing in 2010 that blaming Beijing for the United States' economic woes was a political distraction from needed domestic revisions. Despite his past warnings about protectionism, Hassett has become a vocal defender of Trump's tariff strategy. On ABC's 'This Week' last weekend, he praised Trump's tough negotiating style. New import levies are generating enormous revenue, haven't hurt U.S. consumers and are paid for by foreign firms, he said. White House spokesman Desai said that it's not surprising that the president's NEC director agrees with the president's economic policies, which he said Trump has successfully implemented 'to tame inflation, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and secure trillions in historic investment commitments.' More recently, Hassett's views have shifted on the Fed and Powell. Though he previously said a half-point rate cut that the Fed made in September 'made a great deal of sense' based on worries of a slowing labor market, he now says the Fed under Powell acted in a political fashion to help Democrats. 'Jay Powell is the person who cut rates right ahead of the election to help Kamala Harris,' he said last month on Fox Business. 'He is a person who has been basically doing whatever it is that Elizabeth Warren wants him to do.' While Powell's term as Fed chairman ends next spring, he can remain as one of seven central bank governors until early 2028. Whomever Trump appoints as Fed chairman will not alone decide interest rates and is just one voice on a 19-person committee of Fed officials who participate in policy meetings. But the Fed chair does hold significant sway on the panel. Lately, the White House has seized on the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's headquarters along the National Mall, with officials accusing Powell of either misleading Congress or failing to properly notify a local planning commission about design changes. Trump even floated the idea of firing Powell over the issue this week, though his legal authority to do so is questionable and it remains to be seen if he will follow through. Powell and the Fed have defended the project, which has been plagued by cost overruns, and say they didn't believe their modest design changes needed to be resubmitted to the planning commission, based on its guidelines. For decades, investors assumed Fed chairs would set policy based on economic data, not political demands. But that assumption will no longer hold for whoever replaces Powell, said Andy Laperriere, head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler. That loss of faith could have significant consequences for financial markets, he said. 'We will operate with a different assumption,' Laperriere said. 'There's going to be a presumption that, at least to a degree, this person will bow to political pressure.'
Telegraph
12-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Cut green taxes on British businesses, Labour MPs tell Starmer
Labour MPs have called on Sir Keir Starmer to reduce net zero taxes on oil and gas producers or risk destroying thousands of jobs in their constituencies. The MPs say that producers are at risk of being moved to other countries to escape carbon taxes imposed by the UK and EU. Their demand is a significant push back against Downing Street's plan to reach net zero by 2030 by making it more expensive to produce energy from fossil fuels, which is becoming increasingly unpopular with voters. A new report from the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness, which is chaired by a Labour MP, said that the UK should create more exemptions to carbon taxes for British companies. The commission is calling for British companies to be given free credits to emit carbon under the UK's Emissions Trading Scheme, and to ignore the threat of legal action by the World Trade Organisation. The demand, which is expected to be backed by dozens of MPs, comes after Sir Keir announced the UK would join the EU's carbon tax system, which could drive up the cost of energy for British companies. Henry Tufnell, the commission's chairman, said the UK must pursue a 'just transition' towards net zero, and 'compete with the big industrial powers' like China and the United States. Mr Tufnell, who represents the Welsh constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, said producers in his area would close down and move their operations abroad without further support from the Government. 'If we can't be competitive with other countries around the world, all that happens is you end up exporting your carbon to other places that have less stringent policies,' he told The Telegraph. 'In Pembrokeshire, we used to have four oil refineries and now we have one. The oil refineries just take down all their factories, move them to a country like Pakistan, which has significantly less in terms of strict regulation on emissions.' 'Level playing field' Some officials are concerned that giving British companies who export carbon-intensive products preferential treatment would open the UK up to legal challenges. The WTO's rules are designed to ensure that companies operating in different countries can compete fairly. But Mr Tufnell said that anyone hoping the organisation would create a 'level playing field' was 'living in cloud cuckoo land'. 'While Donald Trump is president of the United States it's going to be completely ineffectual,' he said, adding that he hoped to have 'significant support' for his proposals from Labour MPs who represent constituencies with heavy manufacturing or oil and gas plants. The report is co-authored by another Labour MP, Melanie Onn, a former Conservative MP and a Conservative peer. It comes amid rising scepticism towards the UK's net zero ambitions from some MPs. A report by the Office for Budget Responsibility this week estimated that the transition would cost £800bn. New polling seen by The Telegraph finds that voters overwhelmingly want Labour to prioritise tackling the cost of living over net zero targets and 'woke' issues. The findings will pile pressure on Downing Street to change course and take a more muscular approach to easing the pressure on households. Top priority One poll found that more than half of voters think bringing down the cost of gas and electricity should be the Government's top priority. In contrast, just over one in 10 people said that reducing carbon emissions from energy usage was the most important thing to them. YouGov asked voters which was most important to them out of the cost of bills, the security of Britain's energy supply, and carbon emissions. Overall 55 per cent said that bills were their top priority, compared to 21 per cent who said security of supply and 12 per cent for emissions. The results were most stark amongst those who voted for Reform at the last election, with 70 per cent saying bills and just five per cent citing emissions. But even Labour voters are more focussed on their energy costs, with 48 per cent prioritising bills compared to 22 per cent who said emissions. The survey was commissioned by the Energy and Utilities Alliance, a leading industry group which represents businesses in the energy sector. Mike Foster, its Chief Executive, said: 'Whilst the UK being the first nation to achieve net zero might be a laudable ambition, overwhelmingly UK adults want the government to prioritise policies to address the cost of energy bills. 'This is certainly true for those that voted Reform at the general election last year. There is support to achieve net zero by 2050, but that cannot be on the basis of whatever it costs. 'Ed Miliband made a clear commitment to reduce energy bills by £300 and delivering on this will help determine how people vote at the next election, probably more so than reducing carbon emissions.'
CTV News
21-06-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Business groups push back ahead of Vancouver ‘carbon tax' on commercial buildings
Vancouver City Hall is seen in Vancouver, on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck Carbon taxes are falling out of style, with the federal and provincial governments recently pulling back. But in Vancouver, stricter emissions rules are coming for commercial buildings starting next year. It's part of the city's efforts to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030. 'What the City of Vancouver is planning to implement here essentially amounts to a second carbon tax being implemented at the municipal level,' Ryan Mitton with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told CTV News in an interview on Friday. 'And what this is going to be a charge of $350 per tonne of CO2 that each building emits over a certain level set by the City of Vancouver.' The new rules take effect in January and include a $500 permit fee. Business groups fear buildings in violation could be hit with fines in the range of $14,000. 'The landlord will then take that invariably and pass that on to the tenants,' Ian Tostenson with the BC Restaurant and Foodservices Association told CTV News. While restaurant emissions are exempt according to the city, if a large building is penalized for emitting too much, Tostenson fears landlords will pass that cost on to all tenants in the building, including restaurants. Given the federal and provincial governments recently eliminated carbon taxes, businesses are calling for Vancouver to follow suit and back away from this plan. 'I just really hope that Mayor Ken Sim and council look at this proposal and decide to walk it back,' Mitton said. The city believes 84 per cent of buildings will be in compliance, based on 2024 figures, and says financial penalties only kick in by 2027 – which it says will allow enough time for building owners to prepare for the new regulations. This is a phased program that was initially voted for in 2022, and given how much has changed economically, some of these business groups believe city council would be willing to press pause on this, but there is no formal indication at this point that will happen. The city stresses this plan is about reducing emissions, not about generating revenue, and says based on reporting to date, most large buildings will be in compliance when the rules kick in.
