Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009: A "Fit"-Ing Policy for North America?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION II. ONTARIO'S PLAN FOR CESSATION OF COAL-FIRED GENERATION A. Regulation 496/07. B. Implications of Ontario's Coal Phase-Out III. FEED-IN TARIFFS A. Feed-In Tariff Definition B. Feed-in Tariff Policy C. Feed-in Tariff History D. Success In Germany IV. GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN ECONOMY ACT A. European-Style Feed-In Tariff. B. Other Highlights of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act C. Impact V. ONTARIO'S IMPACT ON THE UNITED STATES A. Current U.S. Policies and Reluctance B. A Possible Emergence of Change I. INTRODUCTION On April 29, 1998, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, (1) an international agreement aimed at curbing the effects of climate change and global warming. (2) In adopting the Kyoto Protocol, Canada pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% (3) within the five-year period spanning from 2008 to 2012. (4) Following Canada's national commitment to preserving the environment, individual provinces began setting long-term goals aimed at reducing individual emissions and helping Canada to meet the Kyoto obligations. (5) For example, Premier Dalton McGuinty has made global climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a primary focus of many of his initiatives. (6) This Comment will discuss the major changes and policy implementations made in Ontario, which have put the province on the edge of creating one of the greenest and cleanest electricity profiles anywhere in the world. (7) Beginning with the commitment to cease coal-fired power production by 2014--embodied in Regulation 496/07 (8) and the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (9)--Ontario has taken numerous policy and legislative steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most ambitious and far[-]reaching step in this process has been the passage of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009. (10) This Act breaks new ground in North America by establishing a European-style feed-in tariff program and making a commitment to advance renewable energy generation and climate control efforts. (11) This Comment will break down the various provisions of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009 and address the impact these provisions will make renewable energy generation in Ontario. Additionally, this Comment will briefly discuss U.S. reluctance to implement feed-in tariff legislation and how policy implementations like Ontario's may affect the U.S. energy market. II. ONTARIO'S PLAN FOR CESSATION OF COAL-FIRED GENERATION Ontario's efforts to become a leader in the fight against global climate change and greenhouse gas production began in 2003, when newly elected Premier Dalton McGuinty pledged to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2007. (12) At the time, Ontario's five coal-fired power plants produced as much air pollution as 6.2 million cars and were major contributors to Ontario's $10 billion annual air-pollution-related expenses. (13) In the following years, plans were implemented to replace coal-fired generation facilities with cleaner sources within the earliest practical timeframe. (14) Despite numerous delays, (15) took a promising step toward eliminating coal-fired electricity generation in July 2007. A. Regulation 496/07 On July 12, 2007, Ontario's Ministry of the Environment (the Ontario MOE or the MOE) proposed a regulation developed to reduce green house gas emissions. (16) The regulation officially called for the cessation of the use of coal for power generation at certain power stations throughout Ontario, with all coal use to be phased out by December 31, 2014. (17) Specifically, the regulation affected the four remaining coal-generating plants in Ontario: the Atikokan, Lambton, Nanticoke (Canada's No. 1 air polluter), (18) and Thunder Bay stations. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".