The completed methodology for calculating each charge will be proposed to the National Energy Board for consideration at its meeting on June 4.

Once it is passed, plants in Map Ta Phut and surrounding areas in Rayong are expected to pay about Bt78 million annually, of which Bt25 million will come from factories on the IRPC Industrial Estate. The estimate is based on the toxic-emissions report from the Pollution Control Department in 2006.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont will this week visit Map Ta Phut to follow up on the pollution-mitigation plan in Rayong. Executives from PTT and Siam Cement will report to him on progress in reducing toxic emissions at their existing plants as well as their investment plans for this year.

Director-general Ratchada Singalavanija said work on the equation had started five years ago with advice from the German Technical Cooperation agency.

The charge will be collected from manufacturers based on their emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and minute dust particles, plus a management fee to the state.

Ratchada said that calculating the charge based on only three pollutants was not enough, as most manufacturers would tend to pay the charge rather than spend more for advanced technology to reduce emissions.

After the National Energy Board, the formula will need approval from other state agencies, which may take several months, he said.

If the government decides to charge this extra cost as a tax, it should impose it  nationwide, not just plants in Map Ta Phut, he said.

The public hearing will seek volunteers who agree with this model and are willing to be part of a pilot group, he added.

Supachai Watanangura, chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries' petrochemical-industry club, said he disagreed with this measure because it was unfair to firms that had invested huge sums in order to lower toxic emissions to the level targeted.

He wondered about the objective of this "voluntary" measure. "If the government wants to raise money to improve communities and the environment in the area, operators can set aside a budget. But if its purpose is to decrease air pollution, it should address promotional measures such as tax incentives, not punitive measures," he said.

Although operators have resigned themselves to the emissions tax, production costs are bound to go up. "The government should think very carefully about who will finally shoulder this cost, companies or the people?" he said.

The three factors used in the formula show that the public sector is focusing on power-generators, cement factories and stone-cutters, he said. Narong Sitasuwan, managing director of Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding, said he agreed with the government collecting an emissions tax from industry if all the money was spent on developing nearby communities.

However, the government should think carefully about a proper rate and should treat all plants fairly, he said.

Chalida Ekvitthayavechnukul

The Nation