Randy - I disagree with some of your comments regarding utilities cost reductions.
Environmental aspects can be put into into one of three main categories - Consumptive Aspects (such as use of natural gas, use of electricity, use of water, etc.) - Upset Aspects (such as potential spills, potential fires, unplanned/emergency releases, etc.) and Wastes (normally occurring emissions/wastes such as air emissions, waste water, soild waste, liquid waste, haz, non-haz, etc.). Your coments suggest that only the last category is important in an EMS.
Most of the manufacturing operations that I audit have designated utilities consumption aspects as significant (based upon cost and environmental impact). Many companies are working on objectives/targets/programs to reduce their utilities consumption. I agree that it is difficult to make the connection between reducted energy consumption in a manufacturing plant and corresponding coal consumption reductions in a power plant, however, I do not believe that establishing a waste reduction result is a requirement of an ISO 14001 objective/target/program. The requirement is to identify and (hopefully) achieve environmental goals consistent with the EMS policy.
We should remember the big picture - the cumulative effect of many industrial plants reducing their electrical requirements results in a more stable/reliable power supply, a reduced requirement for new power generation facilities and reduced natural resources / environmental impacts. When a company reduces their energy consumption they become more efficient and isn't that the whole idea behind an EMS - to produce a product with less waste, reduced consumption, reduced impact and therefore lower costs?
I accept utilities reductions as appropriate EMS ojectives/targets/programs without question. We encourage our clients to look at their big ticket expenditures related to significant aspects for possible programs that represent potential cost savings. In automotive manufacturing the EMS has to be both a cost savings and an environmental protection proposition.
I'd be interested in your comments.
Greg