Proposed Changes to the National Environmental Standards on Air Quality

Submission guide

Contact: David Clendon MP

Tag: RMA

The date for sending in a submission on this issue has passed.

Clean air is a fundamental right of all New Zealanders. Clean air is good for our economy and our society because air pollution has extensive negative health impacts. The Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand (HAPINZ) study highlighted the high cost - well over $1 billion a year- that we pay because of preventable air pollution (Fisher et al, 2007). The Green Party supports mandatory national air quality standards as a practical, fair and effective tool to keep our air clean and protect the health of New Zealanders.

The Government is proposing changes that will lower and delay existing national air quality standards, resulting in billions of dollars of lost productivity due to health impacts, and nearly a thousand lost lives.

How to make a submission

You can have your say on the Government's discussion document by sending in a submission. It can be as short or long as you like, but being clear and concise is most effective. If long, include a summary at the beginning, number the paragraphs, and attach any supporting evidence as appendices. There is an online submission form That allows you to make some simple limited comments on the proposal.

Your submission must be received by the Ministry for the Environment by 5pm Friday 9 July. You can mail it to:

Ministry for the Environment, 23 Kate Sheppard Place, Thorndon, Wellington 6143

Re: Air Quality Standards Review Submission

Submission format

1. Give your name, address, phone number and email address
2. Give an indication of who you are (e.g. landowner, business owner, community group member, etc). If you represent a group, outline its purpose and how many members it has
3. Outline your key concerns about the proposals clearly and concisely.

Key points we recommend you cover

The main point to make is that you do not support lowering or delaying the standards. Both of the preferred options do this. We recommend you address the possibility of Option 3, which retains the standard but introduces additional flexibility for regional councils and industry.

Below is a table with the different options specifically covered in the Discussion Document. We have noted the Green Party position and in some case, additional brief comments.

Option	Green Party Position	Comment
(1) Increase the number of permitted exceedances from one to three	oppose	Increased exceedences will mean higher health costs and more deaths.
(2) Exclude exceptional events from being counted as exceedances	support	Support for activities that are not under human control (eg bush fires, volcanic eruptions).
(3) Remove all industry consent restrictions	oppose	Industry adds to harmful pollution, they should have to pay their fair share.
(4) Extend the timeline to 2020 (max)	oppose	The sooner the standards come into effect, the sooner we will have cleaner air and adopt cleaner technologies.
(5) Place a greater focus on education	support	Education is always a good thing, but without regulation will not achieve as much.
(6) Require mandatory reporting (PM10) monitoring data	support	We support mandatory reporting of monitoring data.
(7) Require councils to submit their airshed implementation plans	support	Increased national coordination will incentivise Regional Councils to make progress sooner.
(8) Establish increased ministerial oversight	n/a	Unclear in the discussion document what the exact distinction is with Option (13) in the discussion document.
(9) Investigate funding links (link funding in areas without a plan in place)	support investigation	We support investigating the impact of funding links, but cannot support implementing funding links if it will penalise households applying for EECA grants.
(10) Retain one permitted exceedance	support	Increased exceedences will mean higher health costs and more deaths.
(11) Retain industry restrictions	support	Industry adds to harmful pollution, they should have to pay their fair share.
(12) Retain the 2013 timeline	support	The sooner the standards come into effect, the sooner we will have cleaner air and adopt cleaner technologies.
(13) Use existing ministerial powers under the RMA (s27)*	support	Support increased ministerial oversight to ensure Regional Councils are making appropriate progress.
(14) Establish an air quality compliance strategy*	support	A national strategy should help Regional Councils who are not on track to comply.
(15) Investigate funding links (link funding to breeching airsheds)	support investigation	We support investigating the impact of funding links, but cannot support implementing funding links if it will penalise households applying for EECA grants
(16) Introduce national guidance on domestic emission restrictions	support	National guidance should help Regional Councils reduce emissions from the domestic sector.
(17) Introduce mandatory offsets for all discharge consents in breaching airsheds after 2013	support	We support this with some qualifications about how the offset scheme will work
(18) Introduce mandatory offsets for new industry consents in breaching airsheds after 2018	oppose	There is no reason to think imposing an offset scheme will cost more jobs in 2013 than in 2018. The sooner we implement standards, the sooner industry will comply.
Additional Options (mentioned in TAG report) that the Green Party would like to see introduced
(19) Require monitoring of PM2.5 and commence introduction of standard
(20) Mandatory Emissions screening for vehicles (especially heavy duty)
(21) Retrofits for heavy duty vehicles
(22) Accelerated scrappage programmes (Cash for clunkers)

Background

National Environmental Standard on Air Quality
In October 2004, the Government introduced the National Environmental Standards (NES) for Air Quality. The air quality standards are regulations made under section 43 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). They include:

• seven standards banning activities that discharge significant quantities of dioxins and other toxics into the air
• five standards for ambient (outdoor) air quality
• a design standard for new wood burners installed in urban areas
• a requirement for landfills over 1 million tonnes of refuse to collect greenhouse gas emissions.

The Green Party supported these standards, but our policy also calls for much stricter vehicle emissions standards, as vehicle emissions are not adequately addressed by the existing NES.

In June 2010, the Minister for the Environment Hon Dr Nick Smith released a discussion document proposing changes to this standard. The changes focus on the ambient air quality standards, particularly the regulation for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The Minister specifically wishes to review three aspects of the PM10 regulations:

• the number of permitted exceedances of the standard - currently one per year
• the restrictions imposed on industry consents - ie from 2013 no new consents granted to new or existing industry to release PM10 in airsheds that breech the standard
• the associated timeline of 2013 for airsheds to comply with the standards to prevent industry consent restrictions to take effect.

The proposed changes to the National Environmental Standards on Air Quality seek to lower and delay ambient air quality standards for PM₁₀.

According to the discussion document, options 4a and 4b are the preferred options. Of note, these options increase the number of days that can exceed the standard (from one to three), extend the timeline of implementation of standards to 2018, and in 4a replaces industry consent restrictions with a mandatory offset scheme, and in 4b removes all industry consent restrictions.

Our View

The Green Party does not support the preferred options 4a or 4b because they introduce changes that will lower and delay air quality standards. They do not adequately introduce incentives that will clean up our air and avoid the high health costs of PM₁₀.

We do accept that a better outcome may be achieved if there is a mechanism in place that allows industry to offset emissions if they contribute to substantial reductions in pollution from home heating and transport, in the short to medium term.

Option 3, identified in the discussion document, is a better solution in our view. Implementing the standards from 2013 will have the best outcome in terms of motivating regional councils and industry to reduce their pollution sooner, rather than just delaying it for another 5 years. There is no reason to think that mandatory offsets will result in a greater loss of jobs in 2013 than in 2018, because 1) research has shown that industry tends to wait until the last minute to comply, 2) regulations (applied equally across the country) will not disadvantage industry relative to their competitors, and 3) regulations are the single most effective tool to stimulate technological innovation.

Implementing the standard in 2013 with mandatory offsets will also enable regional councils to reduce pollution in over allocated airsheds more quickly, and this will save thousands of lives.

The offset scheme allows industry and regional councils flexibility to achieve a reduction in harmful pollution, while ensuring that polluting industries pay a fair and equitable share of the costs.