November 15, 1973
Page 37356
NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY ACT OF 1973
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2589) to authorize and direct the President and State and local governments to develop contingency plans for reducing petroleum consumption, and assuring the continuation of vital public services in the event of emergency fuel shortages or severe dislocations in the Nation's fuel distribution system, and for other purposes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with wage and price controls. Many people recognize they work a hardship on the economy. I voted against wage and price controls when we were first asked to renew them by the administration in late 1971 or early 1972 because at that time I thought it would be hard to make them workable, and extremely hard to justify them. But it seems to me this Buckley amendment is not a responsible or wise way to proceed.
Let us consider what the Buckley amendment would do if it passes. It would wipe out all the provisions we now have to hold down prices in the construction industry, which have plagued us so seriously. Regardless of any criticism one wishes to make of wage and price controls, here is one industry where they have worked well. Before wage price controls there were 15 and 20 percent increases in construction wages which had a high inflationary effect throughout the economy.
In the health industry we have a special task force and we have peculiar problems of shortages that have to be handled carefully and responsibly. The administration has worked hard to define and develop controls in the health industry, and they have pinched but worked reasonably well.
Those who vote for the Buckley amendment should be aware of what happens if it goes into effect. We experienced a similar price explosion in going from phase II to phase III. We found that moving from a mandatory to a voluntary system developed into an explosion of prices. This is not to say we should not take controls away as rapidly as possible. We should do everything we can to reduce controls by the end of the year and work hard to eliminate them if possible by April 30 next year; but it should be done in an orderly and constructive way and as Dr. Dunlop is proceeding.
In the fertilizer industry a very strong argument was made that this industry was greatly inhibited by controls and unable to expand and unable to meet the demand. One reason for high food prices was that we could not produce fertilizer. Dr. Dunlop agreed they would be exempt from controls but only if they expanded facilities and production. That seems to be working and those familiar with that situation agree Dr. Dunlop has done well in this respect.
The Senator from New York quoted at length from Dr. Jackson Grayson and with enthusiastic approval. He is the former Price Commissioner and it is true that I was one of his critics. But he is an able man. He understands how controls operate. The Senator from New York quoted very approvingly of an article Dr. Grayson wrote recently in the Harvard Business Review, an article in which he raised profound questions about controls, and said we should eliminate them as soon as possible. But I wish to call attention to the fact that in a more recent speech the same Dr. Grayson said that we should eliminate controls not now but only when the present excessive demand situation lessens in the economy; that the timing is extraordinarily important; that to take them off when demand is exploding, would be a serious error.
Let us take a look at the current situation in the economy. We have had a reduction in unemployment, which is now at the lowest level in 3 years, at 4.5 percent. We are moving into a situation where we have a surging demand-pull pressure on prices.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I shall be glad to yield in a moment.
For us to abolish controls across the board without giving consideration to the peculiar problems in construction, health, and other areas, and without giving the administration authority to negotiate so that as controls are eliminated production is increased, would be irresponsible.
Mr. President, I think I did get the floor. I was recognized by the Presiding Officer. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a question.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank my distinguished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the Senator from New York yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I misunderstood. I thought I had been recognized in my own right.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I interrupt what is an important element of this debate, out of deference to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) who has to catch an airplane. I would like to extend the debate long enough for him to introduce on behalf of the Committee on Public Works an amendment affecting the Clean Air Act, which is acceptable to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I believe.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, would the Senator from New York agree that when the Senator from Maine completes his remarks I be allowed to complete my remarks?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New York?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the amendment of the Senator from Maine being in order at this time?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and 14 members of the Committee on Public Works.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and, without objection, the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 34, line 9, insert the following new title:
"TITLE IV-CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
"SEC. 401. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1683), is amended by adding the following new subsection:
"(g) (1) During the period commencing November 15, 1973, and ending August 15, 1974, the Administrator is authorized to temporarily suspend any emission limitation related to control of pollutants resulting from fuel burning, or schedule or timetable for compliance with such emission limitation contained in any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, or requirement adopted under this Act as to any presently operating fuel burning stationary sources which is or would be in violation of such requirement due to actions ordered by the President under the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973, unless the Administrator determines that such suspension will present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons: Provided, That no such requirement may be suspended by the Administrator, unless the Administrator determines, (i) that such suspension is essential to enable redistribution of fuels to avoid or minimize violations of primary ambient air quality standards in another locality, or (ii) that the source does not or is not likely to have available, after implementation of all practicable measures in sections 203 and 204 of the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973, fuel which can be burned in compliance with such requirement. No suspension granted under this subsection shall extend beyond the period of unavailability of complying fuel and in no event beyond November 1, 1974.
"(2) To obtain a suspension pursuant to this subsection, the owner or operator of such a source shall submit to the Administrator an application for a suspension of the applicable requirement which demonstrates the need for the suspension, and which establishes that the applicant will maintain where practicable during the period of the suspension an emergency supply of fuel which complies with applicable requirements, in order to avoid presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons during periods of air stagnation. The Administrator on his own motion or at the request of the Governor of an affected State may initiate such a suspension for area sources.
"(3) In granting suspensions pursuant to this subsection the Administrator is authorized to reduce to ten days any Federal, State, or local time limits required for hearing procedures. In case of extreme emergency and with the concurrence of the Governor, such hearings may be waived. In all instances, he shall notify the Governor of the State, and the chief executive officer of the local government entity in which the affected source or sources are located and, to the extent practicable, the public.
"(4) Except as specified herein, any suspensions given under this subsection shall be exempted from any procedural requirements set forth in this Act or any other provision of local, State or Federal law, and the granting of such suspension shall not be subject to judicial review under section 307 nor to any proceeding under section 304 of this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of the Administrator to deal with sources presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons under section 303 of this Act."
"SEC. 402. Subsection (a) of section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1681) is amended by adding the following new paragraphs:
"(5) (A) The Administrator shall review each applicable implementation plan and no later than May 1, 1974, determine for each State whether its plan must be revised in order to achieve the national primary or secondary standard within the deadlines established pursuant in this Act. In making such determination the Administrator shall consider any current or anticipated suspensions under subsection (g) and any projected shortages of fuels or emission reduction systems. Upon making a determination the Administrator shall notify the State and require revisions of the applicable plan or portion thereof. Plan revisions for any State for which the Administrator determines its plan is inadequate shall be submitted not later than July 1, 1974, and shall be approved or disapproved by the Administrator, after public notice and opportunity for hearing, but not later than September 1, 1974. If a plan revision is disapproved the
Administrator shall, after public notice and opportunity for a hearing, promulgate a revised plan not later than November 1, 1974.
"(B) The owner or operator of any fuel burning stationary source may request a revision of the implementation plan with respect to such source. The Administrator shall approve such revised plan, after public notice and opportunity for hearing, but within 60 days of such request, if he determines (i) that the owner or operator of such source is able to enter into a contractual obligation to obtain a continuous emission reduction system which the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated, or into a long term contract to acquire fuel of sufficiently low sulfur content to implement applicable air quality standards, and (ii) that modifications with respect to such source are consistent with the implementation plan for the attainment of ambient air quality standards and are in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (D) of this paragraph; Provided, That, the approval of the Administrator shall be contingent upon the owner or operator of such source entering into such a contractual obligation or longterm contract. Any such revision shall be incorporated into any plan revised pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
"(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) (2) (11) of this section, a State may initiate a revision of its implementation plan consistent with the provisions of subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. The Administrator shall approve or disapprove such a revised plan within 120 days after submission.
"(D) Such revised plans shall include legally enforceable compliance schedules for such fuel burning stationary source or sources, which schedules shall specify continuous emission reduction measures to be used to achieve compliance, interim steps of progress, and alternate interim control measures to minimize the emissions of pollutants pending final compliance with applicable emission limitations. Actions taken under this paragraph shall be taken in accordance with procedures prescribed in this Act and shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the Act; Provided, however, that the final date for compliance for sources regulated under this section may not extend beyond July 1, 1977, except in the case of extensions granted pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.
"(E) The Administrator shall report to the Congress by May 1, 1974, on the extent to which any applicable State or local air pollution requirement or deadline may adversely affect the implementation of the National Energy Emergency Act or of this paragraph.
"(6) In order to minimize the need for suspensions under subsection (g) of this section and to provide for interim compliance under paragraph (5) (D) of this subsection, the Administrator is authorized and directed to redistribute within an area designated pursuant to section 203(b) (1) of the National Energy Emergency Act, after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, allocated fuels on a sulfur content basis to insure, to the maximum extent practicable, that such fuels are utilized in a manner that will minimize adverse effects on health.
"(7) The Administrator may take such actions as are necessary to assure that emission reduction systems are first provided to users in air quality control regions with the most severe air pollution except that no such action shall affect existing contracts."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last Friday I introduced legislation on behalf of myself and other Members of the Committee on Public Works to facilitate the capability of the Environmental Protection Agency to do its share to deal with the energy crisis. At the time the bill was introduced, the Committee on Public Works agreed to hold early hearings on the proposal and to complete consideration of the legislation at an early date.
On Monday, November 12, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, which I chair, took nearly 8 hours of testimony from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Russell Train; the president of the Sierra Club, Laurence I. Moss; two representatives of the National Resources Defense Council, Mr. Richard Ayres, and Mr. David Hawkins; the vice president of the National Coal Association, Mr. Robert Price; and the Commissioner of the Department of Air Resources for New York City's Environmental Protection Administration, Mr. Fred Hart. While the record of that hearing is not printed, a transcript is available. That transcript will reveal an in-depth analysis of the implications of proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act, both in terms of the energy emergency and protection of the public health.
Today I am proposing an amendment jointly sponsored by all Members of the Committee on Public Works which reflects the deliberations of the committee.
Witnesses proposed a number of important improvements in the legislation to assure minimum disruption of air quality programs while assuring adequate authority to deal with the energy crisis.
Witnesses proposed that emergency authority provisions retain, except in extreme cases, the requirement that a public hearing be held before an emergency suspension was granted. The amendment which we report today adopts that recommendation.
Witnesses proposed that the amendment waive only procedural requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act. The amendment before the Senate includes that recommendation.
Witnesses proposed that the time limit on emergency suspension be extended from 6 months to 1 year. The amendment before the Senate accommodates that proposal by extending the period for application for a suspension to 9 months and allows an emergency suspension to continue until clean fuels are available or November 1, 1974, whichever comes first.
Witnesses proposed that there be a positive burden on the Administrator to review State implementation plans to determine the extent to which existing emission requirements and compliance schedules need revision in light of the fuel shortage. The amendment before the Senate would require the Administrator to complete a review and initiate plan revisions by May 1, 1974.
Witnesses proposed that implementation plan revision occur on a precise time schedule with an adequate opportunity for States to initiate and complete the process themselves. The amendment provides the States with an opportunity to act first but requires completion of the revision process by November 1, 1974.
Witnesses expressed great concern for the possibility that air quality standards would be violated on a regular basis during the time needed to comply with new regulations. The amendment before the Senate specifically requires the Administrator to set forth, in revised implementation plans, specific interim measures including alternate control strategies to minimize "the emission of pollutants pending final compliance with applicable emission limitations."
Witnesses stressed the importance of providing the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator with authority to require redistribution of low sulfur fuels to assure minimum adverse effect on air quality during any suspension period and to assure that plants located in metropolitan areas receive available supplies of low sulfur fuels. The amendment before the Senate includes authorization for the Administrator to redistribute low sulfur fuels which have been allocated to areas of the country by the President.
Mr. President, if there was one theme in the hearings held by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, it was that conservation should precede degradation. All of our witnesses concurred in the need to place a high order of priority on protection of public health. All witnesses concurred that all practicable measures to conserve energy as required by the National Energy Emergency Act should be taken before air quality is sacrificed.
The amendment before the Senate today provides specifically and I quote that–
No such requirement – referring to emission limitations and compliance schedules under the Clean Air Act – may be suspended by the Administrator unless the Administrator determines – that the source does not or is not likely to have available, after implementation of all practicable measures in section 203 and 204 of the National Energy Emergency Act of 1973, fuel which can be burned in compliance with such requirement.
This is a clear statement of the commitment of the Committee on Public Works that clean air to protect public health must take precedence over temporary inconvenience associated with conservation requirements.
Mr. President, the amendment that is offered unanimously by the members of the Committee on Public Works recognizes the limitations the fuel crisis imposes on our ability to meet the deadlines adopted as a result of the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The amendment recognizes that in the near term, this winter, an all-out effort must be made to overcome our shortage in the last disruptive fashion, providing maximum protection for all citizens in their homes and on their jobs – while accepting short term disruption in clean air efforts. In the long term, these amendments are designed to eliminate our reliance on the vagaries of foreign fuel supply as the basis for pollution control.
The amendment sets forth a procedure to move fuel burning stationary sources of pollution from emission control programs based on imported low sulfur oil to continuous emission control programs based either on stack gas control technology or long term contractual commitments to domestic low sulfur coal supplies.
The strategies required by this amendment may in some instances delay the achievement of the emission reduction goals of the Clean Air Act by 2 years. In return for that delay, the Committee on Public Works is asking the Senate and the Congress to support the imposition of requirements that will assure the American people a technological or contractual commitment to clean air on the part of utilities and industries.
This amendment is intended to increase national energy self-sufficiency. It should provide the basis for our domestic coal industry to begin to make long term investments for new, safe, deep coal mines, and environmentally acceptable surface mines.
Mr. President, the amendment attempts to deal with the situation created under the emergency legislation when an owner or operator of a fuel burning stationary source is directed by the President to convert a facility to a higher sulfur fuel, where that conversion will cause a violation of air quality requirements. Under the amendment, immediate relief is provided through the emergency variance procedure. The owner of a converted source will have until November 1, 1974, to obtain a revision of the clean air implementation plan which sets forth the manner in which that converted source will comply with air quality requirements.
The provision permits an owner to initiate a plan revision before the procedural requirements of the act take effect. The amendment provides the Administrator with authority to approve plan revisions for owners of converted sources contingent upon that owner's contract obligation either to obtain a continuous emission reduction system or a long term contract for low sulfur fuel. This provision should assure sources required by the President to convert fuels sufficient time to meet their air quality requirements.
Mr. President, I would like to spend a moment discussing continuous emission reduction systems. Under this proposal there are only two ways to proceed to comply with the revised plan – through the application of stack gas scrubbers or through a long term contract for supply of low sulfur fuels.
So-called supplementary control system and intermittent control strategies are not substitutes for these requirements. They may be useful as interim strategies before the final date for compliance with revised plans but they are not to be considered permanent measures for compliance with those plans.
Mr. President, there are other features of this amendment which I have not discussed in detail.
We have attempted to preserve, to the extent that we could, the role of the States in the development of air quality programs.
We have provided, at the request of Gov. Daniel Evans, chairman of the National Governors Conference, authority for the States to initiate variances for area sources of pollutants, that is, sources to which implementation plans apply generally rather than specifically.
We have provided that hearings on emergency variances can only be waived with concurrence of the Governor of the affected State.
We have provided authority for the States to initiate immediate revision of implementation plans to establish new compliance schedules for primary and secondary standards implementation. We have, in effect, attempted to preserve the intergovernmental fabric of the Clean Air Act to the extent that this emergency will permit us.
As I have said before, this amendment is sponsored jointly by all 14 members of the Committee on Public Works. Most of the members participated yesterday in morning and afternoon mark-up sessions. It is our collective judgment of the best mechanism to facilitate the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator's capability to modify air pollution requirements to get over the immediate problems posed by the energy crisis.
As I said at the time I introduced my bill last Friday, this legislation would be "an undesirable but apparently necessary setback for our environment." This is still true. But with the assurance that energy conservation must necessarily precede environmental degradation, I ask my colleagues to support its adoption.
I ask unanimous consent that a description of the amendment as well as a section-by-section analysis be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement and analysis were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
DISCUSSION OF INTENT
The intent of Section 1 of the Committee's amendment is to provide the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with the flexibility needed to meet the immediate energy problems likely to accompany changes in kinds of fuel used by stationary sources. Our aim is to allow the authority necessary to provide temporary variances under circumscribed conditions.
The Administrator may accomplish this by adjusting emission limitations, compliance, timetables, or a mixture of the two. It is the intent of the Committee that such variances be carefully limited to cases where variances are absolutely necessary. Specific conditions are necessary before the Administrator's authority can be triggered.
Primary among these is the requirement that low sulfur fuels must be distributed in a way that minimizes the pollution problems of that area. Until this is accomplished, the authority to grant variances cannot be exercised. This is an essential part of any strategy to minimize the pollution effects of this winter's energy adjustments.
In any case, no variances may be allowed if granting them would present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.
By allowing the granting of variances until August 15, 1974, the Committee intends to establish a logical target for a Congressional review of the issues involved in this legislation. To wait longer would push Congress up against the fall Congressional elections and too close to the winter of 1974-75. The Committee intends variances granted to be effective until November 1, 1974.
In subsection (g) (2) the Committee has attempted to establish a procedure that will allow individual operators, Governors, or the Administrator to initiate the action leading to the granting of a variance. Where practicable, the source to receive the variance will be required to maintain an emergency supply of clean fuel. The purpose of this is to protect against air pollution episodes caused by periods of air stagnation that would endanger health.
The Committee also proposes authorizing flexibility in the application of procedural requirements under the Clean Air Act. Hearings are required generally but they can be called on ten days notice. In emergencies and with the Governor's concurrence hearings may be waived.
But in no case may action be taken without notification to State and local officials.
The intent of the amendment before us is to preserve the procedures of the Clean Air Act as much as is possible. Where the emergency dictates otherwise, basic minimum procedures must still be followed.
The purpose of Section 402 is to fold the variances granted into a new State implementation plan process as smoothly and rapidly as possible. This will allow necessary planning to proceed quickly and will provide certainty to the parties involved as soon as possible.
It is imperative that the deadlines for review and submission of revisions be met so that proposed revisions, hearings and promulgation of final changes be completed by November 1, 1974.
The Committee wants to provide an assurance that investments in new emission control devices will be protected. It also wants to insure that commitments to install these devices will be realized within a certain time period after the variances are allowed so that efforts to clean up the air will not receive a permanent long-run setback. In order to accomplish this purpose, Section 402 calls upon the Administrator to make an assessment of the adequacy of the emission control device or the availability of low sulfur fuel, whichever is proposed to bring the source in question into compliance with the State's implementation plan. If these are determined to be sufficient, the Administrator must approve the revision, contingent upon a contractual obligation for such devices or fuel.
The Committee wants to insure that efforts to achieve air quality standards continue forward with as little disruption as possible. In order to accomplish this purpose, Section 402 requires that plans revised as a result of this amendment must maintain the requirement of continuous reductions in emissions from stationary sources during the interim period before final compliance is achieved on July 1, 1977.
The Committee believes that variances can be greatly minimized this winter, and that interim progress toward final compliance can be maximized by a wise allocation of low sulfur fuels to sources presenting the most acute emission problems. The Secretary of Interior is required to consult very closely with EPA on the matter, and rely heavily on its expertise in this area.
Allocation will follow a two-step process, and EPA must be consulted closely at both steps. Under the first step the President allocates fuel to general areas of the country as provided in Section 203 of the pending bill. The second step permits redistribution of fuel to sources within these regions by the Administrator. The Committee envisions careful intraregional distribution of low sulfur fuel based on the detailed information presently available to EPA. Such distribution can substantially minimize the adverse health effects of the adjustments necessary.
An essential aspect of implementing the changes required by the present energy will be responsible action by all of the States in reviewing the requirements of their clean air implementation plans. The structure of the Clean Air Act is built upon a cooperative program of Federal-State-local action. The pressures of the present crisis, however, have the possibility of creating inequitable actions among states that may indicate the need for Federal preemption.
Because of this possibility the Committee's amendment requires EPA to report to the Congress by May 1, 1974 on the possible need for further Congressional action on this matter.
Should the demand for pollution control devices outstrip the available supply during the present energy emergency, the amendment provides EPA with authority to encourage, and if necessary, allocate the distribution of such devices on a priority basis to sources contributing to the most imminent health hazards. It is not expected, however, that the authority to establish an
actual allocation system will need to be set in motion.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
This amendment adds a new title IV to S. 2589. The new title contains two amendments to section 110 of the Clean Air Act, which requires the development of implementation plans to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards within deadlines specified in that section.
Section 401 adds a new subsection (g) to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. This new subsection authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to temporarily suspend emission limitations related to the burning of fuel for any fuel burning stationary source which is or would be in violation of such emission limitations due to action under the National Energy Emergency Act. Suspension may be granted between November 15, 1973, and August 15, 1974, with any suspension terminating when complying fuel becomes available, or no later than November 1, 1974. A suspension cannot be granted if the Administrator determines that it would present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons. Suspensions may be granted only where the suspension is essential to enable redistribution of fuels to minimize violations of air quality standards protective of public health, or where complying fuels are not likely to be available even after full implementation of the energy conservation measures authorized in S. 2589.
Subsection (g) (2) requires an owner or operator of a source applying for a suspension to demonstrate the need for the suspension, and, where practicable, the applicant is required to maintain an emergency supply of clean fuel for use in air pollution alerts during the period of the suspension. The Administrator may grant a suspension for area sources (e.g. commercial and domestic heating units) on his own motion or at the request of a Governor.
Subsection (g) (3) provides for expedited hearing procedures of 10 days or less, and for the waiver of any hearing requirement in extreme emergencies where the Governor concurs. Notice to affected government officials and, to the extent practicable, the public is required.
Subsection (g) (4) exempts such suspensions from any other procedural requirements of Federal, State or local law. The granting of suspensions is exempted from the judicial review and citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act. The emergency powers of the Administrator under the Clean Air Act are specifically preserved.
Section 402 amends section 11(a) of the Clean Air Act by adding three new paragraphs.
Paragraph (5) provides for revisions to implementation plans to take account of inadequate supplies of clean fuels. Subparagraph (A) requires the Administrator to review each State's implementation plan by May 1, 1974, and notify the State of any required revisions. States must submit plan revisions by July 1, 1974, and the Administrator must approve or disapprove the submitted revisions by September 1, 1974. Where he disapproves the State-submitted revision, the Administrator must promulgate a revised plan by November 1, 1974. The Administrator's actions must follow public notice and opportunity for hearing.
Subparagraph (B) provides that the owner or operator of a fuel burning stationary source may request a plan revision for such source. Within 60 days of such a request, the Administrator must approve the plan revision if the owner or operator is able to enter into a contractual obligation to install a continuous emission reduction system or a long term contract for low sulfur fuel, and the modifications are consistent with attaining ambient air quality standards. Approval of the plan revision is contingent on the owner or operator actually entering into the contract.
Under subparagraph (C), a state may initiate a plan revision on its own, regardless of any limitations on considering revisions now in the Clean Air Act. Action on such revised plans must be taken by the Administrator within 120 days after submission.
Subparagraph (D) requires revised plans to include compliance schedules specifying continuous emission reduction measures to achieve compliance, interim steps of progress, and alternate interim control measures pending final compliance. Actions under this paragraph are made subject to the procedural requirements of the Clean Air Act. The final date for compliance by any source converted by this section would be July 1, 1977. This represents an extension from presently required compliance dates of mid-1975 in many cases, under section 110(a) (2) (A) (i) of the Clean Air Act and retains the single extension of one year which may De grantee in accordance with section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act.
Subparagraph (E) requires the Administrator to report to the Congress by May 1, 1974 on the extent to which more stringent State or local air pollution laws may adversely affect the implementation of the National Energy Emergency Act or the implementation plan revision procedure of this amendment.
Paragraphs (6) and (7) provide authority to the Administrator to assure the distribution of allocated low sulfur fuels and emission reduction systems to users so as to minimize adverse effects on health. Existing contracts for the purchase of emission reduction systems are preserved.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. I would like to take this opportunity – I know I speak for all members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, which held hearings on this problem, in a brief sort of way – to express our appreciation to the able Senator from Maine, the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been a pioneer in this field, and to the chairman of the full committee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wonder if we could have the yeas and nays ordered while we have enough Senators in the Chamber.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I also want to express my appreciation, in behalf of the committee, to the ranking minority member of the committee, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), and to the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), not just for helping on the bill so effectively, but for permitting the parliamentary situation to be revised so that we could move expeditiously on the amendment unanimously presented to the Senate by all members of the Public Works Committee.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I know time is short, but I wanted to also commend the distinguished Senator from Maine for his expeditious handling of this very important segment of the legislation. I concur in the statement of the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know the people of the country will appreciate what the Senator from Maine has accomplished in making it possible for people who may not have had the opportunity without this amendment, to have warmth this winter.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senators from Arizona and Washington for their assistance in helping expedite consideration of the amendment.
I yield to the distinguished Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), who has been on top of this problem for many years and has taken the leadership in alerting the people of the country to the energy crisis and who has helped so greatly in developing this amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and to call once more to the attention of the Members of the Senate the knowledge, the expertise and the commitment of the Senator from Maine in the field of environmental considerations. These certainly are important parts of our determination of how best to meet in legislation the energy needs of our Nation and our people.
As he has indicated, there has been complete cooperation on the part of the 14 members of the Public Works Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, in working with the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) in bringing to the floor, with conferences prior to actual introduction, this amendment. In other words, there was an understanding, not a backdoor agreement, but a realization that we were all working in the interest of this Nation, as the distinguished occupant of the chair (Mr. MCCLURE), who serves on both the Public Works Committee and the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, knows, the distinguished Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) also serves on both committees and is the able ranking minority member of our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution.
In the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, I think we have achieved a consensus and have conceived an approach by our committee which is in complete agreement with the legislation. In a sense, it backs up what we are attempting to do in reference to the solution of the severe fuel shortages which face us now and will increasingly be upon us as a people in the months ahead. Again I commend the Senator from Maine.
This amendment represents the concern and involvement of every Member of the Public Works Committee on this important issue. Evidence of their concern is demonstrated in the attendance of hearings and committee meetings. Senator MUSKIE has provided leadership to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution fully exploring this question. Senator HOWARD BAKER and Senator JAMES BUCKLEY, as ranking minority members of the committee and subcommittee respectively, made major contributions to our understanding of the impact of the fuel shortage on our efforts to end air pollution. We could not have brought this measure to the Senate in its present form and in a relatively short time period without the positive involvement of our other committee members, Senator JOSEPH MONTOYA, Senator MIKE GRAVEL, Senator LLOYD BENTSEN, Senator QUENTIN BURDICK, Senator DICK CLARK, Senator JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator ROBERT STAFFORD, Senator WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Senator JAMES MCCLURE, and Senator PETE DOMENICI. All of them have my thanks and my appreciation for their active participation in developing this legislation.
Mr. President, the energy shortage faced by our country has many ramifications beyond the need to keep warm and to maintain economic viability. The bill reported from the Interior Committee, S. 2589, is a response to the country's immediate needs for coping with the energy shortage in its present manifestations. It provides a number of approaches to conserving anticipated fuel resources and channeling them to areas where they can be most beneficially used.
In meeting this challenge imposed by diminishing fuel supplies, we must also consider the impact on other Government programs. Three years ago the Committee on Public Works developed, and the Congress passed, the Clean Air Act. This was significant legislation and established this country's commitment to ending the pollution of the air we breathe. Substantial progress has been made since that time in implementing the programs authorized by that Act. The result has been a general improvement in the quality of air.
In responding to the energy crisis, however, we must realistically recognize that temporary modifications in the air pollution abatement program are needed.
Under agreement with Senator JACKSON, chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Committee on Public Works has developed legislation to provide variances under the Clean Air Act to assist in ameliorating the immediate energy shortage. Legislation to accomplish this purpose was introduced last Friday as S. 2680. This measure was introduced by Senator MUSKIE, and has the cosponsorship of the other 13 members of the Committee on Public Works.
A hearing on S. 2680 was conducted Monday of this week. Testimony was received from the Environmental Protection Agency and other concerned groups.
The measure was discussed thoroughly in a lengthy meeting of the committee yesterday which was attended by 12 of our 14 members. The measure was ordered reported to the Senate and is offered today as an amendment to S. 2589.
Mr. President, this amendment will provide the necessary authority to grant certain variances in the Clean Air Act. Primarily, and most immediately, it permits under certain conditions, the temporary suspension of emission limits relating to the burning of fuel in stationary sources if necessary because of the existing fuel shortage. An expedited administrative procedure also is provided so that these variances can be put into effect expeditiously. This authority is granted from November 15, today, until next August 15.
In addition, procedures are provided for reevaluating air pollution abatement implementing plans and possible modifications on a longer range basis, through mid-1977, with an optional extension for an additional year.
The exceptions to the Clean Air Act provide what the Committee believes to be the necessary authority to cope with this winter's energy crisis. I emphasize, however, that they in no way undermine the basic integrity of the Clean Air Act or the programs carried out under its authority.
The Committee on Public Works is committed to the achievement of clean air as a vital goal in this country. In this regard, I do not believe that there is any basic conflict between environmental enhancement and the important questions of long range energy supplies.
The Committee on Public Works will continue to examine this issue and work for further refinements in the air pollution program to assure that it does not unnecessarily inhibit the achievement of adequate and environmentally sound air standards.
Mr. President, this amendment is an essential part of the total legislative package needed at once and I urge its adoption by the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator from West Virginia that it has been a pleasure to work with the distinguished Senator from Washington on this legislation, which involves the jurisdiction of both committees.
I understand members of the Public Works Committee would be represented in any conference which may be necessary on this measure to be sure the committee is represented in this particular phase of the legislation.
At this time I would like to yield to my good friend, the Senator from New York.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first may I respond? We will, of course, when we get around to the appointment of conferees, be delighted to arrange for the Public Works Committee to designate its members, both majority and minority, as it relates to this title.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, I would like to add my commendation to the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY). As the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, he has been of valuable assistance in the work of the committee. I appreciate his cooperation.
I yield now to the Senator from New York.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I thank my colleagues from Maine and West Virginia. I do want to say it has been an extraordinary pleasure to work on this particular item with them. I believe that we have been able to come up with legislation that recognizes the fact of an emergency and the need to shorten some of the procedural safeguards, but from the standpoint only of the requirement to move immediately, so we could proceed with this legislation. To make sure that, in no event, will health be endangered, care was taken that, to the extent that we had to eliminate some of the procedural processes, that was only for a limited period, so that long-range procedures must not be curtailed in accordance with the act itself. So, I believe that this is responsible legislation and effective legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), who is necessarily absent today, that his statement on this matter be printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BAKER
I am pleased to join in supporting these amendments which the Committee on Public Works has just reported.
We are facing severe shortages of energy both this winter and, I fear, for the longer term as well. These are not shortages caused by the demands for clean air nor can amendments to the Clean Air Act do much to alleviate the situation. But to the extent that shortages of fuel and particularly clean fuels – or the inability to allocate fuels as precisely as we would wish – require temporary changes from our course toward improved air quality, the Clean Air Act must be adjusted. The amendments which we propose today make such adjustments, but they in no way signal an abandonment of our national commitment to clean air.
These amendments provide for the limited and temporary suspensions of emission limitations which likely will be needed this winter due to Presidential orders under the National Emergency Petroleum Act. However in no case will a suspension be allowed that would present an imminent and substantial danger to human health. The administrator will also have to determine either that the suspension is essential to allow redistribution of fuels to meet health related air quality standards in another locality or that a source, after all practicable fuel conservation measures have been taken, cannot obtain clean fuel. This is a very careful and prudent provision which will ensure that all essential suspensions can be granted but that the air we breathe will not be polluted needlessly in any instance. The bill preserves a full measure of coordination with state and local officials and a careful regard for due process of law in the granting of suspensions, albeit with short deadlines that recognize the urgency with which the Administrator may have to act.
To provide for adjustments required by longer term shortages of energy and the need to convert to such dirtier domestic fuels as coal, the bill requires the administrator of EPA, by May 1, 1974, to review all state implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, in the light of clean air standards, current or anticipated suspensions, and expected shortages of fuels and of emission reduction systems. EPA then is required to notify the states of any needed changes, and, in cases where a State does not submit an adequate revised plan, to promulgate a revised plan for the State by Nov. 1, 1974. Owners or operators may request revisions of plans on their own motion.
Such revisions may be approved by EPA after notice and hearing if the Administrator determines that the source is able to enter into a contract for a demonstrated continuous emission reduction system (for example a stack gas scrubbing system for sulfur dioxide) or a long term contract for clean fuel that meets the standards and that the requested revision is consistent with the implementation plan under the Act.
These requirements will help prevent a full scale switch to high sulfur coal without adequate provision for installation of emission control equipment. It also provides some incentive to mine and use the large existing supplies of Eastern and Western low sulfur coal where industry so chooses.
There is also limited new authority for EPA to redistribute clean fuels within an area and to assure that in case of conflicting priorities, emission reduction systems go to users in the air quality control regions with the most severe air pollution.
These provisions clearly represent not a retreat from clean air but an advance toward achievement of clean air with due recognition of our growing energy problems.
In this respect they are a signal achievement of the legislative process at its finest and a particular credit to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, (Sen. Randolph), the most able Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution (Senator Muskie) and the distinguished ranking minority member on the Subcommittee (Sen. Buckley). These and a number of other Senators on the Committee worked carefully but quickly through a full day of hearings and two markup sessions to achieve these amendments. I am most proud to be associated with their efforts and to urge the prompt adaption of these amendments by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, I do not want to take the time unnecessarily because the concern for this legislation has been expressed far better than I could do. I would like, however, to indicate as the junior member of the committee my appreciation to the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and all other Senators who worked so hard to prepare this matter that we are not retreating. I would say that we are holding the line. Since we achieved such historic legislation as the Clean Air Act, we know how difficult it was to get to this point. When I say that we are holding the line, it is a compliment to those who are truly concerned about a proper balance and not over equating one against the other. We are going to relax, but it is not a retreat.
We are taking every precaution to make sure that those must all balance on the scale here.
We have heard much evidence and have boiled it down into a very good emergency measure, temporary in nature and as protective as we could be under the circumstances.
I was pleased to be part of this effort.
Mr. President, the amendment now being considered, an amendment which I cosponsored, represents a step that the members of the Public Works Committee have taken very reluctantly. We have been reluctant to take this step because we fully realize that it could be seen as a step backward in our efforts to reduce air pollution.
The Public Works Committee, Mr. President, has worked too long, too hard in setting this Nation's course for achieving clean and healthy air to take lightly any diversion from that course.
I can take little credit for this diligence, perseverance and far-sightedness, having only joined the Public Works Committee at the beginning of this session. The diligence of the Committee is no more vividly illustrated than by the rapid action taken on this amendment and I applaud the leadership of our chairman (Mr. RANDOLPH), our ranking minority Member (Mr. BAKER) and the leaders of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE and Mr. BUCKLEY).
I have been on board long enough now and I have worked and agonized enough with the committee on the monumental problems of regaining a healthy human environment to associate myself with its past efforts and join ranks with the other members in their determination that not even an energy crisis as grave as the one we now face will open the floodgates of pollution.
The point I would emphasize, Mr. President, is that the step we are taking through this amendment is more of a holding action than a retreat and more importantly, it is for a fixed and limited duration. It is also important to note that before any relaxation of standards may be permitted, there must be proof that fuels which would meet the standards are not available and that all conservation measures required by S. 289 have been taken. In other words, deviation from established standards will be conditioned on a genuine shortage of cleaner fuels, not on any of the other many reasons that could be found. To me this is both a reasonable requirement on the source of pollution and a safeguard against pollution increases unrelated to the shortage of clean fuels.
In the longer term, Mr. President, this amendment provides the means to modify State implementation plans to permit the use of coal so long as the source commits to a timetable for installation of stack-gas cleaning equipment or some other effective device by mid-1977. This flexibility, this option, is essential to facilitate the shift of our emphasis from using cleaner fuels to cleaning up coal burning plants. The debate on whose fault it is that has brought us to this point and which now requires this modification, is one I will pass today. I will simply say that we now have an opportunity to concentrate on the more effective long-term approach – to use our abundant fuels and clean them up as required – and get on with it, all of us. To my mind, this amendment provides that opportunity and I urge prompt adoption of this amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico who is indeed a valued member of the subcommittee and the full committee. He makes a point that I think is important, which emphasizes that in many ways pressures of the present time are running against those who are concerned about the environment and some of the
actions proposed for easing the pressure of the energy crisis, but we are not beginning to retreat from the gains we have made through many years.
I think the Senator from New Mexico has accurately described the legislation. I think it responds to those areas of the country where the pressures have developed. This legislation will enable us, insofar as legislation ever can, to meet the exigencies of the current crisis without abandoning the long-term goals represented in the Clean Air Act.
Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator, and I yield now to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding to me. I rise to make one observation.
I think the thrust of his remarks, taken with the energy crisis now before us, is to the effect that there has been some turning away by some of those who were advocates and still are of the Clean Air Act and the other measures which seek to protect the importance of our environment.
Do I correctly understand that the Senator essentially implied that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. That implication is very real.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I would like to observe that basically all of us are environmentalists. I yield to no one in my concern and deep conviction that we must and indeed will clean up the air and the water and beautify the landscapes, remove litter, and see that if we damage or scar the land, we repair those scars.
The point I want to make is that despite my strong belief in the continuing wisdom of this crusade that has sometimes been referred to as an expression of ecological concern or environmental concern, I think what really is in focus today and before us today is our trying to achieve these long-term objectives on the one hand and on the other trying to address a very critical situation.
I would say to the extent I have participated in trying to get some accommodation so as to take note of the fact and deal with the harsh realities of today's life and recognize that there is not enough gas to go around, that indeed we will have to make some accommodation, as has been so eloquently stated by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I would like to point out that I will not interpret the actions some of us have taken who believe in the deep philosophical commitment, and I will not interpret our present objectives and solutions as a retreat at all from our dedication to these long-term goals.
I have five grandchildren, as the Senator knows. I would hope very much, as I know the Senator hopes very much, that we may have a better world tomorrow.
In the meantime, I want to help, as I am sure the Senator does, to see that we have warm houses today and jobs today, because without those nothing else is too meaningful.
For those of us who live in the colder parts of the United States, in the wintertime when one gets up, if he finds that the fire has gone out or that someone has left the door open, that is where the environment starts, right in one's own home. And it will start there for many Americans if we run out of fuel or if we do not take some steps that will prevent the shortage of fuel from becoming a reality. I hope it will not be a reality.
I thank the Senator from Maine for his recognition of the fact that we do have to take notice of these situations and pass laws to support our long-term goals for America. And those efforts deserve the support of all of us.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I accept that statement as a statement of a deeply committed and concerned Senator.
We sometimes have apparent differences in objectives and we sometimes disagree. However, disagreements on questions such as these often relate to differences in perspective rather than differences with respect to goals.
Let me make this very brief statement. There are many who are now saying that they saw this energy crisis coming months, years, and even decades ago. They say that everyone else now sees it as clearly as they did.
Let me point out that there are four essential resources with which we are involved in this legislation: energy, air, water, and land. The four are limited. They are finite. We happen to face a crisis with respect to energy. Those limitations are the first to hit us in a traumatic way.
However, to the extent that the others also are taxed beyond their capability, we will come upon similar crises when their supply runs out. And the fact is that in many places in this country, water now is no longer in sufficient supply. In many parts of the country, air is not in sufficient supply for those who need to breathe healthy air. So, this energy crisis is really a forewarning not only of the limitation in our energy resources, but is also evidence of potential further similar crises regarding other resources. We must be alert to these threats as we try to dispose of this legislation.
It is in that sense that I accept the Senator's statement. Of course I do. I would seek to communicate to the Senator and to the other Senators whatever insights and observations I happen to have with respect to those matters which fall within my jurisdiction. I hope that all Senators will recognize that these four are one, and that we must learn to balance all of them.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I would like to say that the Senator from Maine has always stood for uniformity in the solution of the problems facing America and has been a very knowledgeable person insofar as our earth is concerned.
I would observe only that one of the shortcomings I find in the bill that disturbs me is the fact that while it is true that most of the things we know about are indeed finite – I would say that they are finite at least to this extent: when we talk about petroleum resources, when we talk about fossil fuels, which of course includes petroleum, when we talk about uranium, or when we talk about oil shale, we are talking about finite things, just as we undoubtedly are when we talk about geothermal steam; I would say the one exception might be solar energy. At least it is a continuing thing, and whether or how quickly we may be able to turn it to our use will depend upon our dedication and our ingenuity – in the short term, though, I would hope the Senator might share my sentiments that it makes good sense for us as Americans and citizens of this world, bound in large measure by finite resources, that we extract every drop of oil out of those known reserves we now have, that we leave none in the ground because for economic reasons it seems imprudent to bring it above the ground.
In this one area, the area of supply, there are those of us on the Interior Committee who find the bill before us and others deficient in that respect. We think it makes good sense for Americans, as citizens of this country and as world citizens, to see that we waste no single source of this most important commodity. I would hope the Senator might share that feeling.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the Senator will find that there is a great disposition on the part of the Senate, including the Senator from Maine, to get behind the new kinds of perspectives and programs we must have.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am voting against this amendment because we are dealing with a bill that is limited to one year and specifically addressed to the immediate emergency now facing our Nation. In this emergency, I do not believe those entities ordered to utilize alternative sources of fuel should be required to comply with the normal procedures of the Clean Air Act. I supported the Clean Air Act, and I still would support it in normal times. Furthermore, in the years ahead, it may be necessary to require major energy users to be able to utilize more than one type of fuel. To do so would, in my opinion, require longer than 1 year and would be such a drastic step that the normal processes of administrative procedure should be complied with.
The original committee bill contained protections necessary for the emergency period of 1 year – that, in my opinion, is the approach that should have been maintained by the Senate. This amendment in and of itself contemplates that permanent changes may be ordered involving a permanent shift from one fuel to another because of a temporary emergency. Therefore, I cannot support the Public Works Committee amendment, for I believe a short-term, limited exemption from the Clean Air Act without burdensome administrative procedures is all that is required in this act.