The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitting schemes to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act came into effect January 2nd, 2011. The measures centre on required installation of best available emission-control technologies (BACT) for reducing GHGs from new and modified high-emitting industrial facilities subject to the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (see Delphi’s previous coverage).
The EPA may also advance additional regulation of high-emitting sectors. On December 23rd, 2010 the agency announced agreements with states and environmental groups to propose new source performance standards (NSPS) including GHG emissions limits for electric utilities and petroleum refineries by July 26, 2011. Under the agreements, rules must be finalized by May 26, 2012.
Given the Canadian federal government’s intention to harmonize with US national policies related to GHG emission reductions, how and when EPA regulation unfolds will have impacts for Canadian industry, though what a Canadian domestic framework will look like remains unclear.
As it stands, Canada does not have a permitting structure similar to the EPA’s for implementation of BACT guidelines. For example, under the BACT expectations, individual states will need to issue operating permits and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits for new and modified stationary sources that consider GHGs. While the EPA has issued guidelines on “best available” GHG control technologies for a range of sectors, States have the authority to determine what those “best available” technologies are on a case-by-case basis (see Delphi’s previous coverage).
Responding to the EPA’s permitting guidelines, former Environment Minister John Baird explained that Canadians will likely adopt “equivalent” regulations, but not completely harmonize with the EPA rules. Some observers have suggested that similar standards could help Canada contain emissions from domestic industries, particularly the oil sands. However, Baird characterized the EPA’s system as highly complex, leaving it cumbersome to synchronize with.
Even in the US, the EPA’s path forward appears somewhat uncertain. Outspoken Republican opposition to any greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation spell troubled times ahead for the US EPA. President Obama has previously stated that he would veto any measures to delay or curb EPA authority. Action in both the US and Canada is likely to hinge on the strength of that commitment.
By Cheryl Johnson, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
