Page 28 - CCCA61_2007

NATL61_040-047 03/08/2007 09:48 AM Page 44 something better in because we misjudged what we would have to do to comply.’” Although nobody can say for sure what the regulations result- ing from the Clean Air Act will look like, the bill tries to regulate air pollutants such as nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide-two precursors to smog, nicknamed “NOx and SOx”. It also address- es greenhouses gases,and seeks to regulate fuel efficiency in vehi- cles.Ultimately,says Ezekiel,stan- dards are going to be key, but it’s unclear whether the government will move towards fixed caps or go the emissions intensity route. The United States is more aligned with the latter, he says. Another concept south of the border that could show up in Canada is what’s known as “BACT and MACT,” short for best available control technology Tim Bancroft and maximum achievable control Vice-President of Sustainable Development, Technology and Public Affairs, Shell Canada technology. “It basically says, we’re not going to set a prescrip- “There’s always been this concern that you might put programs tive standard around what your emissions will be, but if you want in place and then somebody says,’Well,now look,everybody will to emit, you have to have a BACT on the stack to limit the just have to cut their emissions by 10 per cent.’That dilemma is amount of emissions.” causing real heartache, I think, for corporate Canada.” Ezekiel also anticipates regulations aimed at taking advantage Part of the challenge is that Kyoto measures emissions using a of the capital cycle, requiring companies to replace older equip- baseline, and Canada has committed to reduce its emissions to 6 ment with the best available technology. per cent below 1990 levels,but nobody has given industry a sim- For his part, Taylor suspects that with its Clean Air Act, the ilar baseline. Harper government has indicated an intention to follow the U.S. Adding to this difficulty is a public unlikely to feel much sym- lead, at least where air pollutants are concerned. He also thinks pathy for companies wrestling with this dilemma.“The govern- the bill has added considerable ambiguity to the government’s ment’s been dragging its feet for so long that by the time some- approach to climate change, because it blurs the distinctions body gets some clear policy direction in Ottawa, there isn’t going between air pollutants and greenhouse gases. to be a lot of time to ramp up,” says Ezekiel.“And, I’m not sure “They want to say we’re doing something to make the air how much sympathy industry is going to get from the public if clean-and the implication is that you do something about cli- they start crying foul and saying, ’You’ve only given us a year to mate change,” says Taylor.“I hope I’m wrong, but I’m very, very prepare for the regulations.’The public’s going to say, ’You should nervous that this government really doesn’t want to do anything have seen this thing coming for 10 years.’” for climate change.” The regulatory murkiness could create big problems for com- panies in industries requiring long-term capital expenditures- Alcan: Being proactive is good business equipment whose design life may be 10 years or longer-says You might think the prospect of government stalling on climate Ezekiel.“That’s not the kind of stuff you want to get wrong and change would be music to big industry’s ears, but that would JAZHART STUDIOS 10 years from now say, ‘oh, we have to swap that out and put depend on the corporation.Alcan, in fact, is outspoken about its 44 CCCA Canadian Corporate Counsel Association MARCH 2007