Microsoft Word - GHGs reporting program comparison, United Sates regs with South Africa regs- 2016-7-6

The analysis identifies several gaps in South Africa's draft GHG reporting regulations, including a lack of accuracy calibration for monitoring instruments and ambiguous language regarding facility-level reporting. It recommends that South Africa adopt more stringent requirements similar to the US GHGRP, such as a uniform emissions threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, a shorter transitional period for regulated entities, and the explicit inclusion of fluorinated gases in the reporting text to ensure transparency and accountability.

• South Africa's draft regulations lack specifications for accuracy calibration of emissions monitoring instruments, whereas the US GHGRP sets a default accuracy requirement of +/-5% for flow meters.
• The language in section 7(1) of South Africa's draft regulations is ambiguous and could be misinterpreted as requiring only aggregated company-level data rather than essential facility-level reporting.
• There is a discrepancy in South Africa's framework regarding fluorinated gases; while Technical Guidelines include them, the Air Quality Act definition of greenhouse gases only includes carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
• South Africa's draft regulations provide excessive flexibility for regulated entities, including a five-year transitional period and a choice of calculation methods that may lead to lower reporting levels.
• The US GHGRP employs a uniform reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent for all industries, while South Africa uses diverse units of measurement across different sectors, creating uncertainty about whether they correspond to the same emission levels.
• The US GHGRP covers an estimated 85-90% of US GHG emissions from over 8,000 facilities, requiring annual online reporting of CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs, and other fluorinated gases.

APA

Pejan, R. (2016). Microsoft Word - GHGs reporting program comparison, United Sates regs with South Africa regs- 2016-7-6. Centre for Environmental Rights. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Annexure-D-Earthjustice-GHGs-reporting-program-comparison-United-Sates-regs-with-South-Africa-regs-2016-7-6.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Pejan, Ramin. Microsoft Word - GHGs reporting program comparison, United Sates regs with South Africa regs- 2016-7-6. Centre for Environmental Rights, 2016. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Annexure-D-Earthjustice-GHGs-reporting-program-comparison-United-Sates-regs-with-South-Africa-regs-2016-7-6.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Pejan |first1=Ramin |title=Microsoft Word - GHGs reporting program comparison, United Sates regs with South Africa regs- 2016-7-6 |publisher=Centre for Environmental Rights |date=7 July 2016 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Annexure-D-Earthjustice-GHGs-reporting-program-comparison-United-Sates-regs-with-South-Africa-regs-2016-7-6.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{pejan2016microsoft, author = {Pejan, Ramin}, title = {{Microsoft Word - GHGs reporting program comparison, United Sates regs with South Africa regs- 2016-7-6}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2016}, month = jul, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Annexure-D-Earthjustice-GHGs-reporting-program-comparison-United-Sates-regs-with-South-Africa-regs-2016-7-6.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }