- Email: [email protected]
Energy self-reliance in Canada
Canada
Asbestos emission standards for mining and milling operations proposed by the federal Minister of the Environment in December, 1975 will become effective on December 31, 1978 the Minister announced recently. The emission standard will limit the concentration of asbestos to two fibers per cubic centimeter in gases emitted from crushing, drying, or milling operations and from dry rock storage. The standards apply only to emissions to the atmosphere at the point of release. The standards were made by regulation under the Clean Air Act. HM []
be caused by the increased drilling activity which is going on in Northern Canada. The need for the program became clearly evident in 1975 when a review of available counter measures undertaken during the Beaufort Sea Project (a government-supported off-shore drilling project) found that there were very few proven or probable counter measures available to deal with an oil blow-out or any large oil spill in ice-covered and iceinfested waters. It was estimated to be particularly important in the Southern Beaufort Sea area where, because of moving ice, logistical problems and a lack of counter measures technology, it would be possible for a blow-out to run uncontrolled for at least a year. The funding for the first fiscal year effort has been set at $ 1,685,000. HM []
Northern Mines Must Wait
Energy Self-Reliance in Canada
Canada has decided that development must wait for "environmental impact assessment in the far north. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs recently deferred five prospecting and four land Use permits for a 30,000 square mile area near Baker Lake, a North-west Territories village. He refused to approve the permits saying that the impact of increased exploration on caribou and other wildlife must be studied first. Mining leaders have complained that the Minister is listening to native antidevelopment groups. Baker Lake is a community of 600 adults, 500 of whom live off hunting, trapping and fishing. The Minister announced an environmental study which will last one year and in the meantime the exploration companies will have to wait. "I think it is very, very unfair treatment of an exploration company who goes in there with serious intention of finding a mine", a representative of Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., a German uranium exploration company said. []
Canada has recently passed two new statutes which encourage energy self reliance and conservation of the environ-
Asbestos Emission Standards for Canada
ment. The first, called the Solar Energy Use Act, demonstrates the growing interest in renewable resources as an energy source. It proposes the creation of an institute which would pursue a number of tasks aimed at the fullest exploitation of the solar option. The agency, which would bring under one roof all responsibilities pertaining to the research and development of solar energy technology would: undertake research leading to the development of solar energy technology for domestic and industrial purposes, at present, responsibility is divided among two or three departments; actively stimulate and assist in the establishment of a Canadian industry producing solar energy equipment through programs such as a new Enterprise Development Program, among other reasons, because there is a good prospect that thousands of new jobs could be created through the development of solar technology, not only suitable to the Canadian climate, but also designed for use by the developing countries: - inform the public about the use of solar energy and encourage public participation in energy conservation; -
-
Oil Spills Technology The Canadian government recently announced a $ 7,000,000 program for technology to clean up oil spills which occur under Arctic conditions. It is aimed at creating a technology capable of cleaning up oil spills under ice-covered waters, which does not now exist anywhere in the world. Such oil spills might
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)
Courtesy;
Maclean's Magazine, Toronto.
157
- help developing nations interested in developing their own solar technology. The second measure is in the form of amendments to the Excise Tax Act and provides for the removal of federal sales tax from a number of items which contribute to the conservation of energy and to the development of new sources of energy. These include solar furnaces and heating panels, heat pumps and wind-
powered generation equipment. The current exemption for thermal insulation materials for buildings is extended to include thermal insulation materials designed for the use in insulation in pipes and ducts in buildings and mechanical systems. The government's stated purpose was to promote the conservation of energy by encouraging the use of higher efficiency heating equipment and of thermal
insulation to reduce heat loss. The amendments allow further regulation (without the need to consult Parliament) to exempt other articles or materials from the sales tax. In addition, the amendments contain measures to deter wasteful energy consumption because they increase the special excise taxes on high energy-consuming vehicles and they impose a new special excise tax on automobile air conditioners. HM []
U.S.A.
Amending the Clean Air Act: The Past is Prologue by GORDON L, BRADY* and PAUL B. DOWNING**
In 1970 the United States Congress set a most ambitious goal for the country. The air Was to be clean by 1977. As early as 1973 it became obvious that this goal would not be reached. In 1976 Congress initiated efforts to amend the 1970 Act in light of the difficulties encountered. After lengthy debate in both houses, a conference version of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 was adopted and presented to both houses for action. The bill was granted an untimely death by fdibuster led by Utah's two Senators, Jake Garn and Frank Moss, in the final day before adjournment of the 94th Congress 1. The amending process began anew with the 95th Congress and the Clean Air Act of 1977 was passed on August 5, 19772. This year a threatened filibuster by Senators Garn and Ted Stevens (Alaska) was settled by compromise. Yet despite the appearance of consensus, the 1977 Act does little to correct the underlying philosophical flaws in the Clean Air Act of 1970. It would seem to us that Congress should have been aware of the technocratic and constitutional problems encountered in implementing the 1970 Act. Therefore, we would expect to find that the 1977 Act *Visiting Assistant Professor, Florida International University, Miami, Florida (At the time of writing, Rockefeller Post-Doctoral Fellow in Environmental Affairs, Law School, University of Miami). **Associate Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 158
would solve these problems. Our goal in this article is to highlight problems encountered in the 1970 Act and to analyze how the 1977 Act will solve them. We find that at the most basic level., the 1977 Act does not correct these problems. Failure of the 1977 Act is certain, and what is worse, its down fall is predictable based on experience with the 1970 Act. I. The 1970 Act - The Chronology of
Failure The 1970 Act established an "actionforcing" procedure which "insured" that air quality standards, control techniques, and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) were forthcoming according to a time frame prescribed by statute 3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to designate Air Quality Control Regions where needed within 90 days of passage of the 1970 Act. Criteria Documents to become the scientific basis for setting standards and developing emission regulations and control techniques were to be published within twelve months of passage. Within 30 days of passage, EPA had to propose national primary air quality standards and promulgate them no less than 90 days after proposal. Not more than nine months after the standards were promulgated, each State was required to produce and submit to EPA a SIP. The SIP was to show compliance with the primary standards within
three years (approximately May 31, 1975). However, upon demonstration by a State that the use of "reasonable available" controls would not achieve the standard within three years, the Administrator could extend the date of compliance two more years (approximately May 31, 1977). Rejection of a SIP by EPA made it a non-discretionary duty of the Administrator promptly to correct deficiencies or promulgate a SIP to serve in lieu of a State developed plan. EPA is authorized to assume the enforcement of SIP provisions against "any" (including a State or federal agency) or all sources upon determination by it that the State has failed to enforce an "applicable" SIP. While the Act allows a State to adopt and enforce more stringent emission standards than those in its SIP, less stringent emission standards are not permitted. The object of the Act is to circumscribe State behavior. Each State must adopt control plans which satisfy EPA or EPA will take over. Behind the SIP lies the threat of federal preemption of both the development and enforcement of the State's program to obtain compliance with the congressional mandate. And the Act does not allow for extensions beyond 1977 regardless of cost or social impact. Considerations of economic feasibility were deliberately removed from the Act. The charge, or perhaps more descriptively the ultimatum, given the States and EPA was to
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)
Asbestos emission standards for mining and milling operations proposed by the federal Minister of the Environment in December, 1975 will become effective on December 31, 1978 the Minister announced recently. The emission standard will limit the concentration of asbestos to two fibers per cubic centimeter in gases emitted from crushing, drying, or milling operations and from dry rock storage. The standards apply only to emissions to the atmosphere at the point of release. The standards were made by regulation under the Clean Air Act. HM []
be caused by the increased drilling activity which is going on in Northern Canada. The need for the program became clearly evident in 1975 when a review of available counter measures undertaken during the Beaufort Sea Project (a government-supported off-shore drilling project) found that there were very few proven or probable counter measures available to deal with an oil blow-out or any large oil spill in ice-covered and iceinfested waters. It was estimated to be particularly important in the Southern Beaufort Sea area where, because of moving ice, logistical problems and a lack of counter measures technology, it would be possible for a blow-out to run uncontrolled for at least a year. The funding for the first fiscal year effort has been set at $ 1,685,000. HM []
Northern Mines Must Wait
Energy Self-Reliance in Canada
Canada has decided that development must wait for "environmental impact assessment in the far north. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs recently deferred five prospecting and four land Use permits for a 30,000 square mile area near Baker Lake, a North-west Territories village. He refused to approve the permits saying that the impact of increased exploration on caribou and other wildlife must be studied first. Mining leaders have complained that the Minister is listening to native antidevelopment groups. Baker Lake is a community of 600 adults, 500 of whom live off hunting, trapping and fishing. The Minister announced an environmental study which will last one year and in the meantime the exploration companies will have to wait. "I think it is very, very unfair treatment of an exploration company who goes in there with serious intention of finding a mine", a representative of Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., a German uranium exploration company said. []
Canada has recently passed two new statutes which encourage energy self reliance and conservation of the environ-
Asbestos Emission Standards for Canada
ment. The first, called the Solar Energy Use Act, demonstrates the growing interest in renewable resources as an energy source. It proposes the creation of an institute which would pursue a number of tasks aimed at the fullest exploitation of the solar option. The agency, which would bring under one roof all responsibilities pertaining to the research and development of solar energy technology would: undertake research leading to the development of solar energy technology for domestic and industrial purposes, at present, responsibility is divided among two or three departments; actively stimulate and assist in the establishment of a Canadian industry producing solar energy equipment through programs such as a new Enterprise Development Program, among other reasons, because there is a good prospect that thousands of new jobs could be created through the development of solar technology, not only suitable to the Canadian climate, but also designed for use by the developing countries: - inform the public about the use of solar energy and encourage public participation in energy conservation; -
-
Oil Spills Technology The Canadian government recently announced a $ 7,000,000 program for technology to clean up oil spills which occur under Arctic conditions. It is aimed at creating a technology capable of cleaning up oil spills under ice-covered waters, which does not now exist anywhere in the world. Such oil spills might
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)
Courtesy;
Maclean's Magazine, Toronto.
157
- help developing nations interested in developing their own solar technology. The second measure is in the form of amendments to the Excise Tax Act and provides for the removal of federal sales tax from a number of items which contribute to the conservation of energy and to the development of new sources of energy. These include solar furnaces and heating panels, heat pumps and wind-
powered generation equipment. The current exemption for thermal insulation materials for buildings is extended to include thermal insulation materials designed for the use in insulation in pipes and ducts in buildings and mechanical systems. The government's stated purpose was to promote the conservation of energy by encouraging the use of higher efficiency heating equipment and of thermal
insulation to reduce heat loss. The amendments allow further regulation (without the need to consult Parliament) to exempt other articles or materials from the sales tax. In addition, the amendments contain measures to deter wasteful energy consumption because they increase the special excise taxes on high energy-consuming vehicles and they impose a new special excise tax on automobile air conditioners. HM []
U.S.A.
Amending the Clean Air Act: The Past is Prologue by GORDON L, BRADY* and PAUL B. DOWNING**
In 1970 the United States Congress set a most ambitious goal for the country. The air Was to be clean by 1977. As early as 1973 it became obvious that this goal would not be reached. In 1976 Congress initiated efforts to amend the 1970 Act in light of the difficulties encountered. After lengthy debate in both houses, a conference version of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 was adopted and presented to both houses for action. The bill was granted an untimely death by fdibuster led by Utah's two Senators, Jake Garn and Frank Moss, in the final day before adjournment of the 94th Congress 1. The amending process began anew with the 95th Congress and the Clean Air Act of 1977 was passed on August 5, 19772. This year a threatened filibuster by Senators Garn and Ted Stevens (Alaska) was settled by compromise. Yet despite the appearance of consensus, the 1977 Act does little to correct the underlying philosophical flaws in the Clean Air Act of 1970. It would seem to us that Congress should have been aware of the technocratic and constitutional problems encountered in implementing the 1970 Act. Therefore, we would expect to find that the 1977 Act *Visiting Assistant Professor, Florida International University, Miami, Florida (At the time of writing, Rockefeller Post-Doctoral Fellow in Environmental Affairs, Law School, University of Miami). **Associate Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 158
would solve these problems. Our goal in this article is to highlight problems encountered in the 1970 Act and to analyze how the 1977 Act will solve them. We find that at the most basic level., the 1977 Act does not correct these problems. Failure of the 1977 Act is certain, and what is worse, its down fall is predictable based on experience with the 1970 Act. I. The 1970 Act - The Chronology of
Failure The 1970 Act established an "actionforcing" procedure which "insured" that air quality standards, control techniques, and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) were forthcoming according to a time frame prescribed by statute 3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to designate Air Quality Control Regions where needed within 90 days of passage of the 1970 Act. Criteria Documents to become the scientific basis for setting standards and developing emission regulations and control techniques were to be published within twelve months of passage. Within 30 days of passage, EPA had to propose national primary air quality standards and promulgate them no less than 90 days after proposal. Not more than nine months after the standards were promulgated, each State was required to produce and submit to EPA a SIP. The SIP was to show compliance with the primary standards within
three years (approximately May 31, 1975). However, upon demonstration by a State that the use of "reasonable available" controls would not achieve the standard within three years, the Administrator could extend the date of compliance two more years (approximately May 31, 1977). Rejection of a SIP by EPA made it a non-discretionary duty of the Administrator promptly to correct deficiencies or promulgate a SIP to serve in lieu of a State developed plan. EPA is authorized to assume the enforcement of SIP provisions against "any" (including a State or federal agency) or all sources upon determination by it that the State has failed to enforce an "applicable" SIP. While the Act allows a State to adopt and enforce more stringent emission standards than those in its SIP, less stringent emission standards are not permitted. The object of the Act is to circumscribe State behavior. Each State must adopt control plans which satisfy EPA or EPA will take over. Behind the SIP lies the threat of federal preemption of both the development and enforcement of the State's program to obtain compliance with the congressional mandate. And the Act does not allow for extensions beyond 1977 regardless of cost or social impact. Considerations of economic feasibility were deliberately removed from the Act. The charge, or perhaps more descriptively the ultimatum, given the States and EPA was to
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)