National Fuel Quality Standards Regulation Impact Statement 1 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

South Australia suggests that the predictive model is more effective in addressing South Australia’s airshed issues. South Australia argues that the implementation of their standards via the predictive model is necessary to ensure that South Australian air quality is maintained. The South Australian model allows for adjustments, which they believe makes compliance easier. The proposed legislation is scheduled to come into effect in the second half of 2000. 4.3.4 Advantages and disadvantages State-specific legislation has the potential to result in different standards for each jurisdiction. This may give rise to competition issues, by creating barriers for refiners and importers to interstate markets and raising compliance costs. There are clear competition benefits from having a nationally consistent approach to fuel standards. If a State’s specifications are unique and align with the production capability of local refiners, such local refiner(s) will obtain a degree of protection, as any trans-shipped cargoes from other States, or imported cargoes, will need to be produced specially for the unique State-specifications, and this is likely to be expensive. Furthermore, not all States may regulate fuel quality which would have implications for vehicle technology for cross-border traffic. Fuel of an appropriate quality needs to be available in all States and Territories to ensure adequate supply of the low sulphur and high octane fuels required for advanced emissions control technology. There is also a requirement to ensure equal protection for all Australians from toxic emission from the transport sector. If one State does not implement fuel quality standards, it could become a dumping ground for lower quality fuel and experience considerable increases in emissions and air pollution. Summary The use of State regulations will not provide for a nationally consistent approach to fuel quality standards. The outcome of such an approach would also result in Government policy decisions set out in the Measures for a Better Environment tax package not being implemented. The use of State-specific regulations will not ensure the nationwide availability of fuel quality required to enable the introduction of new ADRs, and State-specific regulations will also potentially restrict competition and trade. 4.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURE (Option 4) The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) is empowered, on the basis of a two thirds majority vote by its members, to make national environment protection measures (NEPMs) that automatically become law within each State and Territory in accordance with the legal framework of each jurisdiction. The objectives of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 are to provide equivalent environmental
protection to all Australians wherever they live and to ensure that markets are not distorted by environmental decisions. The efficiency of the current NEPM development and implementation processes are being reviewed and a major review of the NEPC Act, which is scheduled to commence in late 2000, will consider the effectiveness of NEPMs as a national approach to achieving environmental objectives. It is important to note that NEPMs are a costly and time consuming process. A NEPM may take approximately 2 years to develop and a further 2-3 years to implement, and the development process is likely to cost in total, including jurisdictional costs, in the order of $1 million or more. The resources required to develop and implement NEPMs has been a particular issue of concern for States and Territories and presents a possible barrier for their participation in the development process and particularly the implementation of NEPMs, especially for the smaller jurisdictions like Tasmania and the Northern Territory. The Council can develop and make a NEPM but implementation is outside the Council’s jurisdiction under the Act and is achieved through State and Territory legislation. It is apparent from those NEPMs that have already been developed that States can seek and achieve exemptions based on regional environmental differences. A good example of this is the exemption in the Queensland legislation of Mt Isa from the Ambient Air Quality NEPM. There also tends to be a "lowest common denominator approach" to the development of NEPMs and resulting "national" standards, in an attempt to try and gain consensus from all jurisdictions. 4.4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages While NEPMs have been effective in implementing other policies, a NEPM for national fuel quality standards is not a viable option for several reasons. In terms of NEPM development, a State or Territory may achieve exemptions based on regional environmental differences, and may also cease to be a participating member of the Council at any stage. Such actions would limit the ability to implement nationally consistent standards, particularly as each jurisdiction not only varies considerably in its capacity to meet tighter standards, but also in the levels of investment required by industry to upgrade plants in order to produce cleaner fuels. In terms of timeframes, the time line specified by Measures for a Better Environment would not be achieved in light of the time required for the NEPM development process. The development of a NEPM is considered a lengthy process and State processes for obtaining whole-of-government positions and approvals have the potential to delay the process further. With respect to the actual standards set, if States and Territories have divergent views then it would be difficult to form a consensus on national standards under a NEPM as only a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the Measure.
Page 1 and 2: 1 Introduction National Fuel Qualit
Page 3 and 4: Table 2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions
Page 5 and 6: of fossil fuels. Another significan
Page 7 and 8: interactions with the terrestrial a
Page 9 and 10: enhance the quality of conventional
Page 11 and 12: Summary A business as usual approac
Page 13: 500ppm limit on the sulfur content
Page 17 and 18: 4.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages
Page 19 and 20: The Commonwealth proposal for fuel
Page 21 and 22: Table 5.1: Net Benefits of adopting
Page 23 and 24: It is probable that these increased
Page 25 and 26: direct injection. It is claimed tha
Page 27 and 28: that modelled in the Fuel Quality R
Page 29 and 30: egion. It would appear that Euro 2
Page 31 and 32: taking into account the objectives
Page 33 and 34: sulfur for both petrol and diesel a
Page 35 and 36: Auto-Oil Programme (1995) Informal
Page 37 and 38: FORS (1997) LPG In-service Vehicle
Page 39 and 40: ______ (1999) Air Emissions Invento
Page 41 and 42: Table A3.2 Regular unleaded petrol
Page 43 and 44: Table A3.3: Premium unleaded petrol
Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX 2: Summary of Assessment o
Page 47 and 48: APPENDIX 4 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS * A
Page 49: * NRMA * NSW Cabinet Office * Premi

National Fuel Quality Standards Regulation Impact Statement 1 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?