Air Issues 2001 Update
Introduction
According to a government-sponsored poll, air pollution remained the top environmental concern for Ontarians in the year 2000, even in the face of recurring media headlines about Ontario’s water quality problems. Air pollution is a very complex issue, and specialists tend to focus either on smog episodes, greenhouse gas emissions, acidic precipitation or emissions of persistent toxic contaminants. But the public takes a less scientific and more practical view of air quality, and shows concern about the overall impact of poor air quality on people and our ecosystems, and about the implications for future life on this planet. This view has a lot of validity. Policymakers need to learn to apply this holistic approach at the same time as they struggle with the enormous complexity of today’s air quality concerns.
Air quality regulators are faced with an ever-accelerating growth of new products and processes, all contributing to air emissions. To complicate matters, the impacts of pollutants can vary greatly in scale and effect. For example, smog precursors and acid emissions from a coal-fired power plant may impact local air quality, but they also contribute pollution to regional airsheds and cause seasonal problems affecting wide swaths of a continent. The environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances are truly global, long term, and entirely unrelated to their point of origin. Moreover, a single smokestack may produce emissions that contribute to the full range of impacts, from local to global. To further complicate matters, air pollutants readily cross political boundaries.
Regulatory frameworks designed 30-odd years ago to address problems like gross emissions of black smoke are still in use, albeit with important updates and complex amendments. But these frameworks were not designed to cope with environmental concerns as we understand them today. The regulatory system, the regulated community and the Ministry of the Environment are all showing signs of strain under the many new demands. Public consultation on air quality issues has also become more difficult, with few public interest groups or members of the general public able to devote time and resources to the many complex technical issues.
Air quality issues are a high priority for MOE, and the regulation of air quality is in considerable flux in Ontario. During this reporting period, MOE proposed a number of significant new approaches, including incorporating newer air dispersion models into legislation, establishing a new consultation process for applying new air quality standards to emission sources, an expansion of the Drive Clean Program, and a discussion paper on a proposed emission cap and trade system. The ECO will review these initiatives once decisions on them are made by MOE. In the following pages, the ECO provides updates on a number of other air quality issues, including several which have been either the subject of ministry decisions or applications for review or investigation under the EBR during this reporting year.
| Ecosystem Impacts of Air Emissions: Some Examples |
|---|
| Many of the ecosystem impacts caused by air emissions are interrelated. For example:
Climate change, acid rain and ultraviolet radiation
Elevated mercury levels in otters in Ontario.
Drought and the re-acidification of lakes.
|
Control of Ontario Transportation Emissions
The transportation sector is a major source of air pollution in Ontario, responsible for an estimated 60 per cent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and over 30 per cent of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. But MOE and the Ministry of Transportation are putting little emphasis on curbing vehicle use, and instead are attempting to improve tailpipe emissions of vehicles through the Drive Clean program. (The status of Transportation Demand Management in Ontario is described in Transportation and Land Use Planning for the GTA.)
Drive Clean
Drive Clean was launched by MOE in April 1999, with a stated goal of reducing emissions of smog- causing pollutants from southern Ontario vehicles by up to 22 per cent annually. The program was established with the support of a wide range of interests, including vehicle manufacturers, motorist associations and environmental organizations. Key features include mandatory emissions testing for vehicles every two years, and a requirement that failing vehicles undergo repairs to their emission control systems, up to a $200 repair cost limit. Drive Clean is complemented by the ministry’s Smog Patrol, an on-road program that targets grossly polluting vehicles and issues some 500 tickets annu- ally. Drive Clean is clearly very important to MOE, and once fully rolled out, will directly affect over four million Ontario vehicles. The program features prominently on the home page of the ministry’s Web site, and is also a core initiative of the ministry’s Business Plan 2000/2001. The ministry predicts significant emission reductions from the program, amounting to about 10 per cent of Ontario’s total targeted reductions in smog-producing pollutants over the next decade.
In this reporting year, the ECO received an application under the EBR requesting a review of the Drive Clean program. The applicants raised a long list of detailed concerns, questioning both the effectiveness and the transparency of the program. They were concerned that the benefits of the Drive Clean program may be outweighed by its environmental costs – such as the extra trips people take to get their cars tested. MOE denied the application for review, and summarily dismissed the detailed concerns raised by the applicants. The ECO found that the applicants had raised valid concerns about the lack of transparency in decision-making on the program. The applicants should have been provided with better information and a more detailed explanation. (For a full description of this application, see pages 186-187 of the Supplement to this annual report.)
However, several weeks after denying this application for review, MOE announced a major consultation on enhancing and expanding the Drive Clean program, and posted the proposal on the Environmental Registry for a 60-day public comment period (from April 9 to June 8, 2001). The ministry presented a number of options for expanding and strengthening the program, and provided a brief background context for the public to consider. The ECO will review MOE’s decision on this proposal once it is posted on the Registry.
In this reporting year, an EBR application for review was also submitted to the ECO on the need for municipal by-laws to control excessive idling of vehicles. The applicants believe that a program to reduce vehicle idling could be a much more effective form of pollution control than the Drive Clean program. These by-laws exist in several Ontario municipalities. However, municipalities lack express legal power to enact the by-laws and, consequently, are reluctant to enforce them. ( See page 209 of the Supplement for a full description.)
Drive Clean has the potential to become an important tool for reducing air pollution by helping to get grossly polluting vehicles off the road. The program also contributes to an increased public awareness of how vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution. But the program needs to become more transparent. The ministry should give the public full access to the underlying assumptions that are being used to predict the effectiveness of the Drive Clean program. Periodic technical reviews of the program’s effectiveness should also be available for public scrutiny and comment. This information is a necessary prerequisite for truly informed public comment and good environmental decision-making.
Control of Industrial Emissions
Ontario is home to a large, diversified manufacturing sector, and air emissions from industry are significant contributors to Ontario’s air quality problems. On January 24, 2000, the Minister of the Environment announced a “new strategic attack on air pollution,” focused on industrial, commercial, institutional and municipal sectors. The first component would be mandatory tracking and reporting of all harmful air emissions by industrial and commercial emitters. The second component would be tougher limits on total annual emissions of NOx and SO2, accompanied by an emission trading system. Both components would be established first for the electricity sector, then expand- ed to other sectors.
MOE took this approach because it has concluded that the existing voluntary approach was not adequate. Monitoring and reporting of emissions is a necessary prerequisite to controlling those emissions. Without accurate information on Ontario’s air pollution sources (i.e., how much is being emitted and by what sectors), it is not possible to identify the most effective reduction strategies, nor can the ministry gauge progress over time. MOE says the information will help the ministry set and enforce air emission limits, and will support its proposed emission trading system. The ministry says that this strategy will motivate companies to reduce their emissions as a result of public pressure and because of the cost of purchasing emission credits.
A monitoring and reporting regulation for the electricity sector took effect in May 2000, but as described in Emission Reporting Regulation for Electricity Generators it was not implemented as planned. An all-sector monitoring and reporting regulation took effect in May 2001, and will be reviewed by the ECO for the 2001/2002 annual report. Under this regulation, it will be the responsibility of individual facilities to make their emissions data available to the public, and to answer questions. Many stakeholders have expressed disappointment that MOE is not proposing to compile, analyse or publish the data for the public.
Tougher limits on total annual emissions of NOx and SO2 were originally proposed to apply to electricity generators by January 1, 2001, and to all other major emitters by January 1, 2003. These proposals have been delayed, and the design of the trading system is still under discussion. The electricity sector proposals are discussed below.
MOE can also control air emissions from industrial facilities by reviewing the certificates of approval that are issued to each facility. But Cs of A generally do not have expiry dates or renewal requirements. The Provincial Auditor examined this issue and reported in November 2000 that MOE “did not have an adequate system in place to review the terms and conditions of the existing certificates of approval to ensure they met current environmental standards.” MOE agreed with the Provincial Auditor that this system needs to be improved, and said that the ministry is fundamentally changing the way Cs of A are issued and amended. But the ministry has not indicated what priority it has placed on reviewing and updating Cs of A for air emissions. During this reporting period, applications were submitted under the EBR for review of the emission limits in air certificates of approval for two major waste incinerators. In one case, MOE decided not to update the C of A.
Control of Electricity Sector Emissions
Most of the air pollution created by electricity generation in Ontario is produced by the six fossil- fuel-fired generating stations operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Production from these plants has more than doubled since 1995. According to MOE, in 1999 these six stations contributed the following proportion of total emissions created in Ontario:
- 15 per cent of NOx
- 24 per cent of SO2
- 14 per cent of greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents)
- 23 per cent of mercury.
Currently OPG is subject to regulatory limits set in 1994 on emissions of SO2 and a combined total of SO2 and NOx. OPG made voluntary commitments to limit total emissions of NOx and greenhouse gases by 2000, but exceeded its voluntary limits by 32 per cent and 42 per cent respectively. There are no limits on the emissions of any other air pollutants from this sector.
The Market Design Committee established by the province to provide advice on the opening of the electricity sector, as well as the ECO and applicants requesting reviews under the EBR, have all recommended that MOE control emissions of other contaminants and greenhouse gases, because there is a real possibility that these plants will be used longer and at a higher capacity once the sector is opened to competition. MOE, however, has proposed controlling only SO2 and NOx from this sector. Efforts to develop Canada-wide Standards (CWS) for mercury from the electricity generation sector “have been complicated and progress has been delayed,” and MOE now predicts they will be finalized by the fall of 2002.
In March 2001 the ministry released a new proposal for emission limits and a discussion paper on the trading system for further public consultation. The new proposed limits would apply to OPG’s fossil- fueled plants as soon as the regulation is finalized, and the limits would be shared with other electricity generators beginning in 2004. The proposal would lower these limits again in 2007. MOE also announced its proposals to require the Lakeview Generating Station to cease burning coal by April 2005, and to lift its “moratorium” on the sale of coal-fired electricity plants. Despite ministry announcements throughout 2000 and 2001 that it has imposed strict new limits on air emissions from the electricity sector, the proposed limits had not been finalized as of May 2001, and the effect of the proposals on air quality in Ontario is still uncertain. The ECO will review these initiatives after final decisions are posted. MOE says that the emission cap and trade system will be expanded to other sectors in the future.
Standard-Setting
In the fall of 1996, MOE initiated a new approach to setting standards for air contaminants and other media. The ministry proposed to adopt standards from other jurisdictions as much as possible, and to encourage joint development of standards with other regulatory agencies, in order “to deliver an increased number of scientifically sound standards in a cost effective manner.” (The ECO reviewed this approach in its 1999/2000 annual report, on pages 74-79.)
In March 2001, MOE posted two new policy proposals related to standard-setting, each with a generous public comment period. The first discussion paper described a proposed risk management framework for the air standard-setting process. The ECO had recommended that MOE consult the public on this issue, and commends the ministry for soliciting public input. MOE’s second proposal focused on updating mathematical air dispersion models used to calculate and predict the potential air impacts of facilities for compliance purposes. The ECO will review these initiatives once the decisions are posted.
In the fall of 2000, MOE adopted the Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. But the federal-provincial negotiations leading up to this adoption resulted in a special clause by which MOE nominally ratified the new standards, but effectively committed only to its existing Anti-Smog Action Plan. Even though CWS are supposed to include timeframes for meeting the target, it is not clear how the progress or effectiveness of the Anti-Smog Action Plan will be tracked through the Canada-wide Standards agreement. (More detail on this decision is provided in Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone.) In this reporting year, MOE also adopted the Canada-wide Standard for Mercury, for incinerators a base metal smelters. (More detail on this decision is provided on pages 69-72 of the Supplement.
On March 20, 2001, MOE also posted decisions on air quality standards for 18 substances, such chloroform, ethyl benzene, hydrogen chloride and toluene. The decisions set new ambient air quality criteria for a number of these substances, and also established 11 interim point of impingement standards, to be in effect pending the results of consultations on a number of related policy proposals. Also on March 20, 2001, MOE posted a decision adopting the National Emission Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters. The ECO will review these decisions in the next annual report. Monitoring and Reporting on Progress
Ontario’s Anti-Smog Action Plan – Progress Report, August 2000
In its 1999/2000 annual report, the ECO recommended that MOE report progress on its Anti-Smog Action Plan (ASAP), including an up-to-date tally of achieved emission reductions and a description of new and emerging developments. In August 2000, MOE produced a progress report, but it did not provide updates on a number of important issues. As well, the progress report did not clearly compare actual smog reduction achievements to stated targets.
The ASAP progress report describes some actual emission reductions and activities likely to lead to reductions, but many actions are presented without a clear quantifiable relation to the province’s smog reduction goals. The report also tends to focus heavily on commitments to review, analyse, assess, investigate and study rather than on actions to prevent smog-causing emissions. The report itemizes emission reductions in a confusing way: some as an absolute quantity, some as quantity per year, and others simply as a percentage. The report acknowledges that “calculating accurate emission reductions is proving complex . . . Further progress reports will need to provide a comprehensive science-based analysis of emissions and emission reductions.”
The public interest group Pollution Probe also criticized the ASAP progress report for failing to factor in the growth in emissions since 1990 due to overall economic growth, and for double-counting one set of reductions.
The ASAP progress report did confirm that major reductions in NOx expected from Ontario’s coal-fired power plants never materialized. In fact, nitrogen oxide emissions from Ontario Power Generation rose to 55.8 kilotonnes (kT) in 1998 from 50 kT in 1990. ASAP had been formulated on the assumption that OPG was to reduce its NOx emissions to 38 kilotonnes in the year 2000 and beyond.
An End to MOE’s Acid Rain Deposition Monitoring
On April 1, 2000, MOE decided to shut down its network of acid deposition monitoring stations as a cost-saving measure. (For more information on this decision, see page 35 of this report. )
Annual Air Quality Reports
MOE produces very good annual air quality reports. For example, the 1997 report lists air quality statistics by location, for specific contaminants, over time and measured against provincial criteria. The report’s well-organized format, language and graphics create a highly accessible approach to what is an often complex subject. While this series of reports is useful, MOE is taking longer and longer to publish them. The most recent report, covering the year 1998, was published in spring of 2001, 28 months after the close of the reporting year. The release of air quality reports has scarcely been publicized. There appears to have been no MOE media releases dedicated to publicizing the availability of the latest reports.
Publishing – and publicizing – this type of comprehensive air quality report on a more timely basis would help the public gauge progress in meeting air quality objectives. The public should learn promptly about changing trends in either air quality or air emissions, such as the increased reliance on coal-fired power plants by OPG. There is no other source that Ontarians can turn to for this type of comprehensive provincial air quality information.
The ministry’s Business Plan 2000/2001 makes no specific commitment to publishing air quality reports promptly, and provides only a reference to “Continued monitoring and ensuring publicly accessible information on air quality.” MOE had assured the ECO that the 1999 air quality report would be published by spring 2001.
Air Quality Ontario Web site
The Air Quality Ontario Web site was launched on April 27, 2000, by MOE. While this Web site serves as a helpful “real-time” information source in addition to the air quality report series, it should not be regarded as a substitute for the series. Its depth of information is much less than that of the annual air quality report series.
MOE’s Air Quality Ontario Web site provides only limited information on air quality conditions, for selected locations in Ontario, and only for the current two-week time period. In order to construct air quality trends, an interested member of the public would need to harvest the data regularly over an extended period of time. Previously, the MOE’s central Web site (www.ene.gov.on.ca) provided a full year’s worth of air quality data on a day-to-day basis, for various locations.
In January 2001, MOE assured the ECO that more extensive historical information would appear on MOE’s central Web site in time for the 2001 smog season. MOE also indicated that it has always been the ministry’s intention to develop the Air Quality Ontario Web site in stages. As of May 1, 2001, the ECO observed no improvement in historical information on either the ministry’s central site (www.ene.gov.on.ca) or the site dedicated to air quality (www.airqualityontario.com).
Conclusions
While the regulatory challenges are significant, the opportunities for air quality improvements in Ontario are also large. Much of the needed regulatory authority to deal with air pollution resides at the provincial level. The need for investment in clean air is comparable to the need for investment in areas like education or health. It will require a big-picture, long-term strategy, a strong, sustained effort, and a commitment to follow through. The costs of delays will include continued regulatory uncertainty for Ontario industries, lost opportunities to market Ontario-made solutions, and continued deterioration of ecosystems.
As a start, the ECO sees a need for MOE’s Drive Clean program to become more transparent, with full public access to the underlying assumptions and periodic technical audits that are used to predict its effectiveness. MOE should also provide progress reports on its smog reduction efforts that are timely, which factor in emission increases due to economic growth, and which use clear, consistent methods to quantify emission reductions. As well, MOE should commit to publishing annual Ontario air quality reports on a more timely basis.
| Recommendation 5:
The ECO recommends that MOE provide timely updates on its smog reduction efforts, taking into account emission increases due to economic growth, and using clear, consistent methods to quantify emission reductions. |
| This is an article from the 2000/01 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2001. "Air Issues 2001 Update." Having Regard, ECO Annual Report, 2000-01. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 65-72.
