Guide: Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Assessment in Ontario

Effect(s) of consultation on this decision

The ministry considered all comments in arriving at its decisions. Overall, comments were supportive of the guide. Several commenters recommended legislative changes to the Environmental Assessment Act to accompany the guide; changes of this nature lay beyond the scope of guidance proposal.

Specific changes to the guide in relation to comments received:

1. The term climate change impacts has been substituted for climate effects to be more precise and to avoid confusion with any description of the present-day effects of climate in relation to describing the environmental effects of a proposed project.
2. Clarification has been added advising proponents to incorporate climate change impacts into the evaluation criteria of class EA screening processes. Proponents use evaluation criteria to screen alternatives and to draw conclusions about the preferred alternative (i.e., project to be implemented).
3. Proponents have been directed to include a statement in EA reports outlining how climate change impacts were considered in the EA study and what was the outcome of the climate change consideration.
4. For projects at the proposal stage in EA processes, a reference has been added indicating that proponents may make commitments to further investigate opportunities to reduce climate change impacts as the project is implemented.
5. The section describing emission reduction performance of proposed projects has been re-written to allow for comparison to industry average for similar projects, or to the alternatives for the same project, in addition to the method identified in the section “Considering a Project’s Impacts on Climate Change.”
6. In response to comments, three references on estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions have been added to Appendix C.
7. Additional examples of non-project related greenhouse gas emission reduction programs (e.g., bicycle lanes, car-pooling) which could be considered for incorporation into some EA study processes have been added to the section Additional Considerations.
8. Advice to proponents has been added requesting that sources be cited when using external climate change tools and methods for the purpose of ensuring results are replicable and verifiable.
9. Clarification has been provided that not all class EA processes need to attempt to quantify greenhouse gas emissions. The Guide recognizes that emission estimating can be challenging for many class EA project types. The guide provides proponents with the option of characterizing greenhouse gas emissions quantitatively or qualitatively.

The ministry is responding to issues raised by commenters as follows:

Comment: Concern over potential delays of projects and added study costs related to the climate change consideration.

Ministry response: The guide enables EA study efficiency by identifying tools and methods for proponents and a means of considering climate change in EA processes and studies. The ministry expects the level of detail of the climate change consideration to be commensurate with the project’s anticipated environmental effects, i.e., a greater degree of consideration for projects with a greater degree of environmental risk. Proponents may draw upon related environmental study information developed as part of an EA process, such as the assessment of effects on air and water resources, to complete the consideration. The consideration can be carried out as part of the proponent’s class EA screening process and included in the project’s EA study report. A separate climate study is not a requirement.

Comment: Is climate change to be considered only for the project itself (i.e., preferred alternative) or in the screening process (e.g., evaluation of alternatives) or both?

Ministry Response: Proponents should attempt both. The ministry expects proponents to include in their evaluation of an undertaking (project) and its alternatives:

• greenhouse gas emissions and negative effects on carbon sinks;
• resilience or vulnerability of the undertaking to changing climatic conditions;

These attributes could be included as criteria used during the evaluation of alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of implementing the undertaking stages of the EA. In concluding an EA study, the proponent should also include a statement in their EA study report about how climate change was considered in the EA, what effect it had on the outcome (preferred alternative), and any climate mitigation or adaptation features that will form part of the project when implemented. The guide now reflects this.

Comment: Guide should include role of offsets, carbon capture and storage.

Ministry Response: The guide acknowledges the role of carbon storage (pg. 13) and indirect GHG emissions (e.g., loss of green space) in climate change. EA in Ontario is a proponent-driven evaluation of the anticipated effects of a proposed undertaking. A wide variety of project types undergo EA study including transportation, natural resources, waste, energy-related and municipal infrastructure. Proponents may incorporate descriptions of, or evaluation criteria for, changes in carbon storage in their screening process. Some project types may warrant greater consideration of changes in carbon storage than others. Ontario’s Cap and Trade Program has protocols (rules) that must be followed to be eligible to apply for the creation of greenhouse gas reduction credits. Participation in the Cap and Trade Program could be included in an EA proponent’s climate change consideration.

Comment: Do proponents provide both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of project-related greenhouse gas emissions? Will the ministry provide a standard set of emission factors for estimating emissions?

Ministry Response: The ministry acknowledges the benefit of having a standard set of greenhouse gas emission factors and estimation methods for proponents to use in quantifying project-related greenhouse gas emissions. The ministry also recognizes that the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions could prove difficult for many EA project types. Emission estimation is expected where emissions of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases are significant, e.g., natural gas fired generating stations or landfills, or if the proponent requires emission quantification for other purposes such as regulatory reporting requirements. For these reasons, the guide maintains a flexible position of allowing quantitative or qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and reduction measures. To assist with a quantitative description, the ministry added three emission estimation and reporting references to the guide. For a qualitative assessment, the proponent could describe the project’s climate change mitigation features, (e.g., energy efficiency, re-vegetation) that will lead to climate change benefits.

Comment: Use more prescriptive approaches in the guide, e.g., identify specific climate change scenarios and hydrological parameters to use.

Ministry Response: A wide variety of project types undergo EA study including transportation, natural resources, waste, energy-related and municipal infrastructure. EA in Ontario is proponent driven. Climate change knowledge is expanding, new tools are emerging and the geographic and temporal specificity of climate change projections is continually improving. For these reasons, the ministry decided to refrain from a highly prescriptive approach. The guide’s flexible approach allows for new tools and new methodologies to be adopted and for proponents to potentially adopt tools which best suit certain classes of projects.

Comment: Will MOECC be updating its hydrology and stormwater design guidance to better incorporate climate change?

Ministry Response: The ministry reviews its standards and guidance on an ongoing basis to ensure these reflect emerging knowledge and best practices. As example, the ministry is preparing draft guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) to accompany the ministry’s 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. LID embodies the approach of controlling precipitation as close as possible to where it falls by employing lot level and conveyance controls. The ministry’s draft guidance will assist with stormwater runoff targets, adapting to changing precipitation regimes, and the operation, inspection and maintenance of LID systems.

Comment: The ministry should consider changes to the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and/or changes to the EA program in order to strengthen the climate change consideration. Examples:

• EAA requires significant strengthening to make climate consideration robust and to make the guide enforceable.
• The EA program should require that all government ‘plans, programs, policies,” undergo EAs so that climate change screening also occurs.
• The ministry should refer EA applications with disputed climate change matters to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Ministry Response: These comments are directed at matters beyond the scope of this proposal to develop climate change guidance for the EA program.