Section 4: Scope (Comments and Responses)

• 4.1 Notice of Intent
• 4.2 Implementation Date
• 4.3 Application to New and Modified Plants
• 4.4 Other Emission Reduction Programs
• 4.5 Other Pollutants

• It is important to periodically review, and if necessary, revise the Guidelines to reflect new environmental and health issues as well as new applicable technologies. This should be done on a regular and consistent basis.
• The revisions to the Guidelines should be supported with the understanding that the revisions do not adequately address all concerns, but are a starting point. Further changes can be made to address advancements in emission control technologies and strategies, other pollutants of concern and existing plants.

Environment Canada recognizes the general support for the Notice of Intent, and will retain a statement of intention to continually update the Guidelines as part of the revisions. Responses to the following comments provide more detail on issues such as the frequency of revisions and other pollutants.

• The Notice of Intent may only delay the addition of other pollutants. By including all pollutants as early as possible, multi-pollutant reduction strategies may be reinforced.

Environment Canada agrees that other pollutants should be added as early as possible so that multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies can be reinforced. The Notice of Intent is not meant to delay the addition of other pollutants, but to indicate in advance to jurisdictions, industry and the public that this will happen.

• The Notice of Intent does not ensure that the standards set in the Guidelines will stay ahead of what can be achieved with the latest technology. A BACT/LAER process, in addition to the national emission limits, would ensure that emission limits will continue to decline between revisions of the Guidelines.

The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards. A process for site-specific assessment and application of BAT to each new unit would fit best within jurisdictional environmental assessment and permitting processes. Federal guidance on such a process would require further consultation and is not planned at this time.

• Further definition is required of the process for continuously revising the Guidelines as referred to in the Notice of Intent, for example to alleviate uncertainty in business decisions.
• The proposal to continually update the Guidelines is inconsistent with the time required for planning, study, regulatory processes, and construction for new plants (or major modifications) in this sector. New technologies will be discussed during the jurisdictional permitting process and this would more effectively follow technology changes.
• Reviewing the Guidelines every five or ten years may be appropriate if the Guidelines provided a benchmark emission limit that allowed provincial jurisdictions to review BAT and define the limits for specific applications. Revising the Guidelines more frequently than every five years would be impractical.
• The Guidelines should not be revisited until 2008 to consider appropriate revisions to be effective not sooner than 2015.

Environment Canada accepts that the process to continuously update the Guidelines requires better definition. Although the Guidelines are judged to be an inappropriate place to present full details of the process, key aspects will be:

• all substantive updates to the Guidelines will involve a full, open and transparent consultation process;
• the details of the consultation process will consider the nature of the proposed updates;
• the updates will respond in a timely fashion to developments relating to air issues and technologies, and therefore should not conform to a pre-determined schedule.
• Environment Canada will provide a notice of its intention to revise the Guidelines on the CEPA Registry with adequate time and provisions for full public input.

Environment Canada views advancements in BAT and air issues as inevitable and that these will be just some of the many sources of uncertainty that business always has and always will have to deal with. The statement of intention to continually update the Guidelines in fact contributes to greater certainty for jurisdictions, industry and the public by clearly indicating Environment Canada's intention that the Guidelines be kept up-to-date with respect to the emissions performance achievable with BAT.

Environment Canada will maintain up-to-date knowledge on BAT. Industry may wish to maintain a similar knowledge base and may wish to investigate joint opportunities for this with Environment Canada and other stakeholders.

• The implementation date of January 1, 2003, in the proposed Guidelines, is too early to be accommodated by firms which already have plans to build new coal-fired plants and have begun to make investments. This timing creates significant uncertainty in both the regulatory system and the marketplace.
• The Guidelines should be consistent with the Alberta CASA process and the date announced by the Minister of the Environment for Alberta, that being after 2005.
• Environment Canada should exempt the projects already working under the Province of Alberta emission standards implementation date of 2005.
• The timing of the gazetting followed by the implementation date for these revisions was compared to that of the last revisions which were gazetted May 15, 1993, but did not come into force until January 1, 1995. This allowed stakeholders to be aware for some time of the revised Guidelines. As a result, the Guidelines should be published no sooner than January 1, 2003, to allow for additional stakeholder involvement, and include an implementation date no sooner than January 1, 2005.
• The implementation date for any major update to the Guidelines should not be less than five years after the publication of the change.
• Revisions to the Guidelines made during this process or any future process, as outlined in the Notice of Intent, should not apply to projects which are operating, committed to or approved. Any further requirements should be dealt with by the local jurisdictions.

Environment Canada recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. We are aware of no new thermal power developments, currently planned or in the future, that could not realistically implement the emission limits in the proposed revisions. However, as the Guidelines will be gazetted later than originally proposed, Environment Canada will revise the implementation date to be April 1, 2003.

• Revisions to the Guidelines are long overdue and Environment Canada should be commended for initiating these revisions.
• The Guidelines should be approved as soon as possible, sending a clear message that industry must continuously move toward the most stringent emission levels possible. It is necessary to start the process now with these Guidelines, recognizing that there will be further opportunity to continually update the Guidelines as stated in the Notice of Intent.

Environment Canada accepts this support for completing the revisions as soon as possible.

• Verification is needed on whether the Guidelines are intended to apply to new steam generating boiler units including entirely new plants or the replacement of boiler(s) at existing plants. Further to this issue, further clarification of what constitutes a new plant is requested.
• The scope could be clarified by stating that the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only. Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines should be revised to "The Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only." In a separate subsection, such as Section 2(4), one could state "It is recognized that opportunities to reduce emissions may arise during major alterations ... should be implemented wherever feasible."
• Emission limits proposed in the Guidelines should apply to existing plants, or at the very least, the Guidelines should have mechanisms for regulating the existing plants.
• All available emission control technologies should be applied to all thermal plants, regardless of age or stage of refurbishment.
• At the very least, the Guidelines should apply to existing plants that are modified or upgraded. The Guidelines, either in whole or in part, should be automatically triggered when a major modification to a facility is planned. A mechanism, other than the voluntary approach, should be developed for this situation.

For clarification, the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only, as stated in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002). As indicated in Section 3 of the proposed Guidelines (Section 4 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), under the heading "Interpretation", the term "new generating unit" means any fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit (also defined in Section 3) which commences first commercial operation after April 1, 2003, including a unit which replaces an existing unit. It is to such units that the proposed Guideline provisions for emission limits (Section 4 and 5), opacity (section 6), compliance (Section 7), emission testing (Section 8), emission monitoring (Section 9), and notification and record keeping (Section 10) apply. (Sections 4 to 10 of the proposed Guidelines correspond to Sections 5 to 12 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002).

The provisions of Sections 3 to 10 of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 4 to 12 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) apply to new units only and not to existing or modified units.

The application of the Guidelines to new units, or units that replace existing units, is based on the fact that the construction of a new unit provides the flexibility to select generation options that meet a consistent set of emission standards for all of Canada. This flexibility may not exist in relation to individual existing and modified units, in which case site-specific local conditions may need to be considered. Environment Canada believes that jurisdictions are best situated to deal with these local considerations, including the details of how emission reduction provisions are "triggered" for a modified unit. The Guidelines therefore will continue to contain a clause addressing modifications to existing plants; this states:

Although the emission limits in the Guidelines are not intended for application to modified units, they can be a source of direction for assessments of the feasibility of emissions reduction measures for modified units.

Environment Canada does not believe that moving the clause addressing modifications to a separate section would contribute to clarifying the Guidelines.

• Further clarification is needed on what constitutes a major modification.
• A definition of a major modification was suggested to be a modification which costs more than 10% of the capital value of the existing asset before modifications.
• The Guidelines should not apply to alterations such as turbine or emission control upgrades.
• The term feasible with respect to major modifications should be defined in the Guidelines.

As in the above response, Environment Canada believes that jurisdictions are best situated to deal with the details relating to the definition of a major modification and the term "feasible" with respect to major modifications.

• An assessment of the feasibility of emission reduction measures being completed prior to commencing major alterations is supported. However, this assessment must be clearly identified as a provincial process.
• Since the province would have the responsibility for determining what is a major modification and the appropriate emission limits, then the recommendation in the Guidelines for provincial authority on this issue is redundant.
• The limits established for modifications to existing plants should be set through jurisdictional processes, and not assumed to be automatically established at the level of the new source standards.

Environment Canada believes that the wording in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) is clear in indicating that the assessment "should be undertaken by the owner of the unit in close consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority". The Guidelines recognize that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. In the case of major alterations to a unit, the Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectation that an assessment of the feasibility of emission reduction measures be completed and improved emission control measures be implemented wherever feasible. This is not a recommendation for jurisdictional authority on the issue but a recommendation on what should be done.

Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) clearly indicates that the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only and Sections 4 and 5 of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 5 to 7 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) clearly indicates that the emission limits apply to new units. Recommendations relating to modifications at existing units are contained only in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), where there is no mention of the application of any particular emission limits.

Therefore Environment Canada does not believe that further revisions to the Guidelines are required in response to these comments.

• Requiring existing plants to meet emission limits outlined in the Guidelines, only when modified, would act as a disincentive to upgrade old facilities. A mechanism should be put in place that would require existing plants to control their emissions with today's modern controls.

As indicated in the previous responses to comments, there is no requirement that existing plants must meet the emission limits outlined in the Guidelines when modified.

It is recognized that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. Provinces and territories are to develop implementation plans for meeting the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone, and it is expected that these plans will address emissions from existing plants. Environment Canada believes that these jurisdictions are best situated to deal with local considerations when upgrading existing plants.

• There needs to be provision to allow an older plant a reasonable time in which decisions can be made to either cease operations, or 'strand the plant' without significant financial burdens placed on its owner.

Again, it is recognized that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. Environment Canada believes that these jurisdictions are best situated to deal with local considerations when upgrading existing plants.

• The Guidelines do not allow any flexibility to consider other emission reduction programs which could achieve an equivalent or greater environmental outcome than a new source performance standard.
• Offsets or a trading system, within the same region, could enable older power plants to meet more stringent standards without retrofits.

The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards.

The Guidelines are based on the principle that new facilities should be built clean, a principle being effectively applied to power plants in virtually all developed nations. It is always less expensive and less difficult to take action to minimize emissions on a new facility than it is to retrofit existing facilities. Because power plants have life expectancies of 40 years or more, application of stringent standards to new plants represents an important opportunity to make long-term improvements to emissions. This should be pursued as a first step. Other emission reduction programs can and should be considered on their own merits, and are not constrained by the Guidelines. It is Environment Canada's view that the Guidelines will complement the provincial plans to achieve the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone. Therefore, there is no plan to change the scope or application of the Guidelines.

• The Guidelines should address other pollutants such as PM₁₀, PM_2.5, mercury, other heavy metals and carbon dioxide (CO₂). At the very least, the Guidelines should acknowledge the generation of these pollutants from the electricity sector.
• There should be an emission limit of 1.8 mg/MWh for mercury.
• The Guidelines should require full offset of CO₂ emissions.

As stated in the Notice of Intent, Section 2(4) of the proposed Guidelines (the notice from the minister in the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), it is intended that the Guidelines will be continually updated to reflect advancements in emission control technologies and strategies over time. This could include the addition of provisions for other pollutants as appropriate. Where processes are under way to develop national standards for specific pollutants, it is judged appropriate to reflect the outcome of such processes in the Guidelines. For example, jurisdictions are currently working together under the CCME Canada-wide Standards process to determine appropriate standards for mercury from coal-fired power plants. The possible adoption of mercury emission limits for the Guidelines would depend on the outcome of this process. Similarly, the possible adoption of provisions for CO₂ emissions would depend on the outcome of current consultations on Canada's climate change response.

Environment Canada believes that there are more appropriate mechanisms for informing Canadians on the range of pollutants released by the electricity sector. For example, recent changes to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) will make available to Canadians extensive data on these releases.

• The Guidelines need to incorporate a multi-pollutant approach to address all pollutants of concern.
• Environment Canada should consider possible secondary impacts in the framework of a Multi-Pollutant Emissions Reduction Strategy (MERS), including CO₂ and mercury, which it has been promoting. For example, if pollution controls were required on a new unit to meet the proposed emission limits, a substantial increase in CO₂ emissions would result. Alternative pollution control equipment could achieve control levels close to what is called for with substantially lower secondary CO₂ emissions.

In accordance with the Notice of Intent, Section 2(4) of the proposed Guidelines (the notice from the minister in the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), it is intended that the Guidelines will be updated over time to increasingly reflect a multi-pollutant approach. The current change to an output basis provides an incentive for increased efficiency that can offset the increased CO₂ emissions that may result from certain types of emission control equipment.

In the context of a multi-pollutant approach, it must be recognized that there are many options for electricity generation that will result in lower emissions of all pollutants than the fossil fuel-fired steam electric units to which this Guideline applies. Coal-fired plants in particular have very high emissions of all pollutants. Where it is necessary to reduce CO₂ emissions, other lower emitting options, emission offsets or emission trading are potential responses. Where the choice has been made to develop new coal-fired units, it is essential that criteria air contaminant emissions associated with human health effects should be minimized. These should not be traded off against other considerations.