Significance + Greenhouse Gases
in Impact Assessment
Recent Experiences
Mike Murphy
Sandra Banholzer
Julia Kun
Sana Talebi
IAIA 2017 – Montreal, Quebec
April 5, 2017
Outline
 The Need to Consider GHGs in EIA
 Available Guidance
 Thresholds
 Experiences with GHGs in EIA
 The Way Forward
Introduction
“…anthropogenic GHGs …. extremely likely to be
dominant cause ….of observed warming since the
mid-20th century” (IPCC 2015).
 …those releases of GHGs = a significant adverse
environmental effect on Earth’s natural climate
 Any project that releases GHGs to the atmosphere
needs to assess the potential impact in an EIA
Objective
…to assess the potential effects of
GHGs from a Project
AND – help make a decision
Hotel
Industry
Power Plant
Some Questions
What is the environmental
effect?
What is the boundary of the
effects assessment?
Use both science + policy?
What is “significant”?
How does this work
cumulatively?
Available Guidance
United Kingdom
• “all new GHG emissions contribute to a significant
negative environmental effect”
• “…significance should be based on its net GHG
impact”
IEMA Principle Series, 2009, 2010
• Recommended:
 to develop guidelines
 change of behaviour of EIA practitioners
Hands and Hudson, 2016
Available Guidance
USA
Federal – CEQ Draft Guidance Memo 2011
• Advises federal agencies:
to reduce GHGs + adapt to CC
• Clean Power Plan – re coal reduction
States
• Western Climate Initiative
• Have their own
 Is this all about to change?
Available Guidance
Canada
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effects of Project on Environment
Effects of Environment on Project
One project - cannot measure effect
Develop sector profile
Low, medium, high – re GHGs
Quantities, thresholds - not defined
Climate modeling - global + local (downscaling)
Consider policies and regulations of each jurisdiction
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2003)
Thresholds of GHGs
Wide range
• Reporting
• Verification
• Scientific
• Government
• Practitioners
…What to use in impact assessment?
On Thresholds of GHG Emissions
Canada
• Large final emitters: > 100 kt/y CO2e
• Low, medium, high = ??
USA
• USEPA CFR Part 98: > 25 kt/y CO2e - reporting
• South Coast AQMD: 10 kt/y CO2e is significant
• California, CEQ Act:
7 kt/y CO2e …significant
(based on 10 million Btu/hr boiler on natural gas)
Thresholds - Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
British Columbia
Alberta
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Emission Targets
Report and Verify
(kt/y)
30% below 2005 levels
by 2030
Report – 50
80% below 2007 levels
by 2050
Report – 10
LNG – 0.16 t / t LNG
Methane reductions
from oil / gas by 45%,
by 2025
37% below 1990 levels
by 2030
20% below 1990 levels
by 2020
37.5% below 1990
levels by 2030
35% below 1990 levels
by 2030
Change ? – 10
Verify – 25
Report – 50
Verify – 50
Report – 10
Verify – 25
Cap + trade – 25
Report – 10
Verify – 25
Report – 10
Manage – 25
Experiences
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mining
Hydroelectric Dams
Petroleum Refining
Transmission Lines – Electrical
LNG Production, Pipeline
Upstream – Linear Facility
Experiences
Sector
Mining
Hydroelectric
Dams
Valued
Component
Boundaries
Atmospheric
Environment
Source – project
development area
Low, medium,
high
Effects – region,
global
50 – 500 kt/y
Atmospheric
Environment
GHGs
Petroleum
Refining
Atmospheric
Environment
Electrical
Transmission
Lines
No interaction
between Project
and Environment
Liquefied
Natural Gas –
LNG
GHGs
Thresholds
Significant ?
used in EIA
Source – watershed
Effects – region,
global
Source – project
development area
or well to wheel
No – in EIA
Govt ok
No – in EIA
100 – 1,000 kt/y
Yes in EIA…
but the Panel
said No
No – in EIA
100 – 1,000 kt/y
Yes in EIA
Effects – region,
global
Sources - none
Govt ok
No statement
in EIA
None
None
Source – project
development area,
+ Upstream
Low, medium, high Yes – in EIA
Effects – region,
global
provincial targets
Industry profile
Govt ok
provincial
agency
agreed
Experiences - Summary
Assessment of GHGs in EIA:
• Not clear cut
• The “effect” is not clear
• Need to use both Science and Policy
• New reduction targets are emerging
How to do it and the end result depends on:
• the nature of the Project
• the jurisdiction
• The public, the Panel
Struggle – industry, public, government
The Way Forward – in any Project
• the environmental effects of the
Project on its own = rated not significant [Science]
…and,
• the environmental effects of the
Project acting cumulatively = rated as significant
[Science]
In both cases, still need to consider policies [Policy]
(and regulations) of country, state, province
The Way Forward - Thresholds
In light of above, practical thresholds are
recommended to be:
Ranking
Project GHGs
(kt/y)
Low*
0 – 25
Medium
25 – 1,000
High
> 1,000
* = the practical value, Not Significant
Thank you! …thoughts, questions?
[email protected]