Order Code RL32755
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Updated June 29, 2005
Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
John Blodgett
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Summary
With the prospect of new layers of complexity being added to air pollution
controls and with electricity restructuring putting a premium on economic efficiency,
interest is being expressed in finding mechanisms to achieve health and
environmental goals in simpler, more cost-effective ways. The electric utility
industry is a major source of air pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen
2
oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg), as well as suspected greenhouse gases, particularly
carbon dioxide (CO ). At issue is whether a new approach to environmental
2
protection could achieve the nation’s air quality goals more cost-effectively than the
current system.
One approach being proposed is a “multi-pollutant” strategy — a framework
based on a consistent set of emissions caps, implemented through emissions trading.
Just how the proposed approach would fit with the current (and proposed) diverse
regulatory regimes remains to be worked out; they might be replaced to the greatest
extent feasible, or they might be overlaid by the framework of emissions caps.
In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality initiatives.
The first, “Clear Skies,” would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on
electric utility emissions of SO , NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable
2
allowance program, the emissions caps would generally be imposed in two phases:
2008 and 2018. The second initiative begins a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction
program. This plan, rather than capping CO emissions, focuses on improving the
2
carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons per
million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012.
In the 109th Congress, six bills have been introduced that would impose multi-
pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 and S. 131, are modified
versions of the Administration’s three-pollutant proposal. The other four bills, S.
150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873, are four-pollutant proposals that include
carbon dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R. 1451 is similar to
H.R. 1256 introduced in the 107th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of
emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; and most include a tradeable credit
program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in S.
2
150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally more stringent and take full
effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131. S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451,
and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of CO . It is difficult to compare those
2
CO caps to the Administration’s proposal concerning CO — both because the
2
2
Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is
broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO2
emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be
higher under the Administration’s proposal than those allowed by S. 150, S. 730, and
H.R. 1451.
This report will be updated as warranted.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Bush Administration’s Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . 3
SO , NOx, and Hg Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2
Related Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2
List of Tables
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Comparison of Administration’s Voluntary Program with
Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Introduction
Electric utility generating facilities are a major source of air pollution. The
combustion of fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal), which accounts for
about two-thirds of U.S. electricity generation, results in the emission of a stream of
gases. These gases include several pollutants that directly pose risks to human health
and welfare, including particulate matter (PM),1 sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen oxides
2
(NOx), and mercury (Hg). Particulate matter, SO , and NOx are currently regulated
2
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
proposed rules to regulate mercury. Other gases may pose indirect risks, notably
carbon dioxide (CO ), which may contribute to global warming.2 Table 1 provides
2
estimates of SO , NOx, and CO emissions from electric generating facilities.
2
2
Annual emissions of Hg from utility facilities are more uncertain; current estimates
indicate about 48 tons. Utilities are subject to an array of environmental regulations,
which affect in different ways both the cost of operating existing generating facilities
and the cost of constructing new ones.
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants
(thousands of metric tons)
Emissions
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
SO
12,509
12,445
11,297
10,966
10,515
10,594
2
NOx
6,235
5,732
5,380
5,045
4,802
4,396
CO
2,313,013
2,326,558
2,429,394
2,379,603
2,397,937
2,408,961
2
Source: Energy Information Administration. Includes emissions from combined-heat-and-power plants.
The evolution of air pollution controls over time and as a result of growing
scientific understanding of health and environmental impacts has led to a
multilayered and interlocking patchwork of controls. Moreover, additional controls
are in the process of development, particularly with respect to NOx as a precursor to
ozone, to both NOx and SO as contributors to PM , and to Hg as a toxic air
2
2.5
1 Particulate matter is regulated depending on the particle size; current regulations address
particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM ); EPA has promulgated regulations for
10
particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM ) that are in the process of being
2.5
implemented. SO and NOx emissions could be affected by regulations of PM . Current
2
2.5
concerns about emissions from fossil-fuel electric generating plants do not explicitly address
PM, but could indirectly do so through attention to SO and NOx.
2
2 Steam-electric utilities produce minor amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
carbon monoxide (CO), and lead — on the order of 2% or less of all sources.

---

CRS-2
pollutant. Also, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), the United States agreed to voluntary limits on CO emissions.
2
The current Bush Administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would
impose mandatory limits, in favor of a voluntary reduction program. In contrast to
the Administration’s position, in June 2005, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate
calling for mandatory controls on greenhouse gases while not imposing significant
harm to the economy.3
For many years the complexity of the air quality control regime has caused some
observers to call for a simplified approach. Now, with the potential both for
additional control programs on SO and NOx and for new controls directed at Hg and
2
CO intersecting with the technological and policy changes affecting the electric
2
utility industry, such calls for simplification have become more numerous and
insistent. One focus of this effort is the “multi-pollutant” or “four-pollutant”
approach. This approach involves a mix of regulatory and economic mechanisms
that would apply to utility emissions of up to four pollutants in various proposals —
SO , NOx, Hg, and CO . The objective would be to balance the environmental goal
2
2
of effective controls across the pollutants covered with the industry goal of a stable
regulatory regime for a period of years.4
The Bush Administration’s Proposals
In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality proposals
to address the control of emissions of SO , NOx, Hg, and CO .5 The first proposal,
2
2
called “Clear Skies,” would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on
electric utility emissions of SO , NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable
2
allowance program, the emissions caps would be imposed in two phases: 2010 (2008
in the case of NOx) and 2018. As part of a complete rewrite of Title IV of the Clean
Air Act, the Administration’s proposal was introduced in the 108th Congress as H.R.
999 and S. 485. Revised versions of Clear Skies legislation have been introduced in
the 109th Congress as H.R. 227 and S. 131.6
The second proposal initiates a new voluntary greenhouse gas reduction
program, similar to ones introduced by the earlier George H. W. Bush and Clinton
Administrations.7 Developed in response to the U.S. ratification of the 1992
3 S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005).
4 CRS Report RL30878, Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Strategies,
by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
5 Papers outlining the Administration’s proposals are available from the White House
website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html] for the three
pollutant proposal, and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.
html] for the climate change initiative.
6 While H.R. 227 adopts the SO and NOx emission caps of the Administration’s Clear Skies
2
proposal, it does not include many other provisions, including regulatory changes.
7 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404 ENR, Climate Change
Action Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett, May 9, 1994 (archived, available from the
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
UNFCCC, these previous plans projected U.S. compliance, or near compliance, with
the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 levels by the
year 2000 through voluntary measures. The Bush Administration proposal does not
make that claim, only projecting a 100 million metric ton reduction in emissions from
what would occur otherwise in the year 2012. Instead, the plan focuses on improving
the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons
per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012.
It proposes several voluntary initiatives, along with increased spending and tax
incentives, to achieve this goal. The Administration notes that the new initiatives
would achieve about one-quarter of the objective, while three-quarters of the
projected reduction would occur through already existing efforts.8
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action
in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, six bills have been introduced that would impose multi-
pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 and S. 131, are modified
versions of the Administration’s three-pollutant proposal. The other four bills, S.
150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873, are four-pollutant proposals that include
carbon dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R. 1451 is similar to
H.R. 1256 introduced in the 107th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of
emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; and most include a tradeable credit
program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in S.
2
150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally more stringent and take full
effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131. S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451,
and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of CO . It is difficult to compare those
2
CO caps to the Administration’s proposal concerning CO — both because the
2
2
Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is
broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO2
emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be
higher under the Administration’s proposal than those allowed by S. 150, S. 730, and
H.R. 1451.
The six bills are summarized in the Appendix. Each of these bills, except S.
730, builds on the SO allowance trading scheme contained in Title IV of the 1990
2
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).9 Under this program utilities are given a
specific allocation of permitted emissions (called allowances) and may choose to use
those allowances at their own facilities, or, if they do not use their full quota, to bank
them for future use or to sell them to other utilities needing additional allowances.
7 (...continued)
authors).
8 In debate on H.R. 6, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 817, introduced by Senator Hagel, that
would provide some legislative support to the Bush Administration initiative on climate
change. S.Amdt. 817 would provide an array of credit-based incentives to encourage
deployment of technologies that improve the country’s greenhouse gas intensity.
9 P.L. 101-549.

---

CRS-4
In contrast, S. 730 permits emissions averaging within a single facility, but not across
sites.
SO , NOx, and Hg Controls.
As indicated in the Appendix, the caps for
2
SO and NOx in S. 131 are less stringent for 2010 than in S. 150, S. 730, and H.R.
2
1451, and remain less stringent even through the second phase beginning in 2018.
H.R. 227 would require full compliance with its SO and NOx provisions by 2014,
2
in effect accelerating S. 131’s proposed phase 2 emission caps by four years.
However, S. 131’s phase 1 NOx reduction would begin two years earlier (2008) than
S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 227, or H.R. 1451, and one year sooner than H.R. 1873.
Allowance allocation schemes for the bills also differ, with S. 150 containing
detailed provisions for allocating SO , NOx, and CO allowances to various
2
2
economic sectors and interests. In most cases, these interests (or their trustees in the
case of households and dislocated workers and communities) would auction off (or
otherwise sell) their allowances to the affected utilities, and use the collected funds
for their own purposes. In contrast, S. 131 would base its allowance formulas on fuel
usage adjusted by factors specified in the bill, while H.R. 227 and H.R. 1451 would
leave the allocation issue to EPA. S. 730 provides no specifics on allocating and
implementing its SO , NOx, and CO caps on electric utilities, while H.R. 1873
2
2
specifies limitations based on electricity output.

On mercury, S. 131’s emissions goal would allow about three times more
emissions and eight more years for compliance than S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451,
which also would mandate plant-by-plant controls; H.R. 227 would require EPA to
promulgate Hg regulations by March 15, 2005; and H.R. 1873 provides for
limitations in between those of S. 150 and S. 131, but includes unit-by-unit emissions
limitations. (It is difficult to compare the Hg controls of S. 131, S. 150, S. 730, H.R.
1451, or H.R. 1873 to H.R. 227, which does not specify an Hg emissions goal,
leaving regulation up to EPA.) S. 730 is the most comprehensive bill with respect to
Hg control, including not only a stringent cap on electric utility emissions but also
substantial reduction requirements for six other categories of Hg emitters.
Related Regulatory Provisions. In addition to the emissions caps, S. 131
would substantially modify or eliminate several provisions in the Clean Air Act with
respect to electric generating facilities. The bill would eliminate New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 111) and replace them with statutory
standards for SO , NOx, particulate matter, and Hg for new sources. Modified
2
sources could also opt to comply with these new statutory standards and be exempted
from the applicable Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations
under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions (CAA, Part C) or
Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) determinations under non-attainment
provisions (CAA, Part D). Compliance with these provisions exempts such facilities
from New Source Review (NSR), PSD-BACT requirements, visibility Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) requirements for Hg, and non-attainment LAER and offset
requirements. The exemption does not apply to PSD-BACT requirements if facilities
are within 50 km of a PSD Class 1 area. Existing sources can also receive these
exemptions if they agree to meet a particulate matter standard specified in the bill
along with good combustion practices to minimize carbon monoxide emissions

---

CRS-5
within three years of enactment. In addition, S. 131 would provide these exemptions
for industrial sources that choose to opt into the Clear Skies program.
H.R. 1873 also contains significant regulatory provisions. The bill would revise
the NSR program to require pre-1971 electric generating units to meet specific SO2
and NOx performance standards. In addition, H.R. 1873 would require LAER and
BACT definitions be revised on a biannual basis and place a cost cap on any LAER
definition. In conjunction with these changes, the bill would eliminate the current
CAA offset requirement in non-attainment areas beginning in 2010. H.R. 1873 would
also provide affected units a 20-year exemption from BART requirements under the
CAA visibility provisions. Other changes to the visibility provision include the
codification of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) agreement with
respect to sulfur dioxide emissions.
S. 150 would require all powerplants 40 years or older to meet emission
limitations based on current best available control technology for a new source. In
a similar vein, H.R. 1451 would require all powerplants 30 years or older to meet
current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements.
S. 131 also would include an exemption for steam electric generating facilities
from Hg regulation under Section 112 of the CAA (including the residual risk
provisions), and relief from enforcement of any Section 126 petition (with respect to
reducing interstate transportation of pollution) before December 31, 2014.
Neither H.R. 227, S. 150, S. 730, nor H.R. 1451 would provide such regulatory
relief provisions.
CO . Of the six bills, S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would specify
2
CO reductions. In contrast, the Administration’s CO proposal relies on various
2
2
voluntary programs and incentives to encourage reductions in greenhouse gases from
diverse sources, including CO emissions from electric generation.
2
Based on the estimate provided by the Administration’s climate change
proposal, and using the 2002 Climate Action Report10 (CAR) for projections to 2010,
Table 2 presents estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, assuming the
Administration’s voluntary program reaches its goals.11 This should not be taken as
a given, as neither the George H. W. Bush Administration’s program nor the Clinton
Administration’s program achieved their stated goals. Thus, in one sense, comparing
a mandatory reduction program such as that proposed by S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451,
or H.R. 1873 with the Administration’s voluntary program is comparing apples to
oranges. The first is legally binding, the second is an exhortation.
While S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451 focus on electric utility emissions, the
mandated reductions would result in lower total greenhouse gas emissions in 2010
10 Climate Action Report — 2002, at [http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/
index.html]. This is the U.S. report to the UNFCCC Secretariat on U.S. emissions and
measures taken to reduce them.
11 For a discussion of emission projections and trends, see CRS Report 98-235 ENR, Global
Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Status, Trends, and Projections, by
John Blodgett and Larry Parker.

---

CRS-6
than those projected to occur under the Administration’s initiative that includes all
sources of all greenhouse gases.12 Only H.R. 1873 requires fewer reductions than the
Administration hopes to achieve from its economy-wide initiative. However, neither
S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, H.R. 1873, nor the Administration’s initiative would be
sufficient to bring U.S. emissions near the level committed to in the 1992 UNFCCC.
Discussion in the CAR observes that the pace of economic growth would affect
emissions. A high economic growth scenario would increase energy use and related
carbon emissions, compared to the reference case of “business as usual”; likewise,
lower economic growth would decrease emissions. For example, under a high
economic growth scenario, greenhouse emissions in 2010 would increase 37.7%
above those in 1990, based on energy growth alone. This increase would represent
an additional 53 million metric tons of emissions over the reference case.13 However,
S. 150 and S. 730 would cap emissions from increased electricity generation at 1990
levels, which would reduce the 53 million metric tons by 16 million metric tons, or
30% of the high growth increase. The Administration’s initiative is voluntary and
addresses carbon intensity, not absolute emission levels; it does not cap emissions
growth.
Table 2. Comparison of Administration’s Voluntary Program
with Proposed Legislation
Percentage Change v.
Percentage Change v.
Business as Usual (2010)
1990 levels per UNFCCC
S. 150, S. 730
-7.5%
+24.2%
H.R. 1451
-9.5%
+21.7%
H.R. 1873
-0.8%
+33.2%
Administration’s
-4.4 to -4.5%
+28.3%
Voluntary Program*
Business as Usual
0
+34.4%
Source: CRS calculations based on projections contained in 2002 CAR.
*Assumes goal of the Administration’s voluntary program is achieved in 2010, rather than 2012.
12 The assessment assumes that the Administration’s proposal actually achieves its goal in
2010, rather than 2012.
13 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2000, DOE/EIA-0383
(Washington, DC, 2002), December 2001, p. 177.

---

CRS-7
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals

H.R. 227
S. 131
S. 730
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
Provisions
(Sweeney)
S. 150 (Jeffords)
(Inhofe)
(Leahy)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
Emissions Cap
2.1 million tons in
1.51 million tons in
2.19 million tons in
1.51 million tons
Estimated at 1.5
1.87 million tons in
on NOx
2010, declining to
2010.
2008, declining to
from utilities in
million tons in
2009, declining to
1.7 million tons in
1.79 million tons in
2010.
2010.
1.7 million tons in
2014.
2018.
2015
Emissions Cap
4.45 million tons in
2.25 million tons in
4.5 million tons in
2.25 million tons
2.23 million tons in
4.5 million tons in
on SO
2010, declining to
2010.
2010, declining to 3.0
from utilities in
2010.
2010, declining to
2
3.0 million tons in
million tons in 2018.
2010.
3.5 million tons in
2014.
2014, and to 2.25
million tons in
2017.
Emission Cap on
Not covered.
2.05 billion tons
Not covered.
2.05 billion tons
Estimated at 1.937
Estimated at 2.46
CO
from utilities in
from utilities in
billion tons in 2010.
billion tons in 2010,
2
2010.
2010
declining to 2.38
billion tons in 2015.
Emissions Cap
EPA to promulgate
5 tons in 2009.
34 tons in 2010,
5 tons in 2009 from
Estimated at 4-5
24 tons in 2010,
on Mercury
regulations by
declining to 15 tons
utilities; percentage
tons in 2010.
declining to 10 tons
March 15, 2005.
in 2018.
reductions up to
in 2015
95% for other Hg
sources
Scope
50 states and DC.
50 states and DC.
50 states, DC, and
50 states and DC
50 states and DC.
50 states and DC
territories.
Affected Units
Electric generating
Electric generating
Existing electric
For all pollutants:
Electric generating
Electric generating
facilities 25 Mw or
facilities 15 Mw or
generating facilities
all electric
facilities 15 Mw or
facilities 25 Mw or
greater; Hg
greater (coal-fired
25 Mw or greater
generating facilities.
greater.
greater (coal-fired
regulations to
only for Hg).
(coal-fired only for
only for Hg)
include industrial
Hg); co-generation
For Hg only: Six
sources.
sources exempted.
categories of
industrial boilers,
processes,
incinerators and
combusters.

---

CRS-8

H.R. 227
S. 131
S. 730
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
Provisions
(Sweeney)
S. 150 (Jeffords)
(Inhofe)
(Leahy)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
Penalties for
NOx: $6,000 per
NOx , SO and CO
NOx, SO , Hg:
For NOx, SO CO :
Determined by
NOx: $5,000 per
2
2
2
2
2
non- compliance
excess ton plus one-
same as CAA, title
reduces the excess
not specified, CAA
EPA.
excess ton plus one-
for-one offset from
IV, except excess
emissions penalties
enforcement would
for-one offset from
future emission
emission penalty is
under CAA, title IV
apply
future emission
allocations.
three times the
to the EPA auction
allocations.
average market price
clearing price for
Hg: CAA
SO : same as CAA,
for allowances.
allowances plus one-
enforcement
SO : same as CAA,
2
2
title IV.
for-one offset from
defined.
title IV.
Hg: three times the
future emission
Hg: not specified,
average Hg control
allocations, if paid
Hg: $10,000 per
CAA enforcement
costs per gram of
within 30 days.
excess pound plus
provisions would
excess emission.
Otherwise, the
one-for-one offset
apply.
number of excess
from future
emissions is
emissions
multiplied by 1.5 for
allocations.
penalty purposes.
CO : $100 per
2
excess ton plus one-
for-one offset from
future emissions
allocations.

---

CRS-9

H.R. 227
S. 131
S. 730
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
Provisions
(Sweeney)
S. 150 (Jeffords)
(Inhofe)
(Leahy)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
Special
EPA to determine
Beginning in 2014,
New performance
SO cap divided by
All powerplants 30
Revises NSR
2
Provisions
by 2014 whether
all powerplants 40
standards for new
region (West and
years or older must
program to require
emission reductions
years or older must
sources replace
East); however,
meet current New
pre-1971 electric
sufficient to protect
meet emission
current NSPS for new
regions are not
Source Performance
generating units to
sensitive regional
limitations based on
sources. Compliance
defined.
Standard (NSPS)
meet specific SO2
ecosystems; if not,
current best available
with bill’s provisions
requirements.
and NOx
EPA must
control technology
exempts facilities
performance
promulgate rules
for a new major
from New Source
standards. Requires
requiring additional
source.
Review (NSR), PSD-
EPA to revise
NOx and SO
BACT requirements,
LAER and BACT
2
reductions within
SO cap divided by
visibility BART
definition on bi-
2
two years of such
region (West and
requirements, and
annual basis and
determination.
East) with no trading
non-attainment LAER
puts a cost cap on
permitted between
and offset
LAER definition.
regions.
requirements. The
Current CAA offset
exemption does not
requirement in non-
EPA to determine by
apply to PSD-BACT
attainment areas
2013 whether
requirements if
eliminated in 2010.
emission reductions
facility is within 50
sufficient to protect
Km of Class 1 area.
Western Regional
sensitive regional
Existing sources can
Air Partnership
ecosystems; if not,
opt in by meeting a
(WRAP) agreement
EPA must
particulate standard.
codified.
promulgate rules
requiring additional
Exempts utility units
Exempts affected
NOx and SO
from Hg regulation
units from visibility
2
reductions within
under CAA, Section
BART requirements
two years of such
112, including
for 20 years.
determination.
residual risk
provisions.
Other provisions to
protect local air
Prevents EPA from
quality.
enforcing any Section
126 petition before
December 31, 2014.
NOx cap divided by
region (West and
East).

---

CRS-10

H.R. 227
S. 131
S. 730
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
Provisions
(Sweeney)
S. 150 (Jeffords)
(Inhofe)
(Leahy)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
Implementation
Tradeable
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
For SO , NOx, and
To be determined
Tradeable allowance
2
Strategy
allowance system
system for SO
system for SO , NOx,
CO : no allocation
by EPA — market
system for all
2
2
2
for SO and NOx.
(restricted between
and Hg. Allocation
formula or
mechanisms
pollutants. For
2
East and West
formulas based on
implementation
permitted (except
NOx, Hg, and CO ,
2
Hg compliance on a
regions), NOx and
historic fuel usage
strategy specified.
for Hg).
allocations based on
source-by-source
CO . Allowances
adjusted by factors
historic electricity
2
basis.
allocated to various
specified in the bill.
For Hg from electric
output. For SO2
sectors and interests,
generating facilities:
allocations based on
including
7% of SO and 5% of
allocation is based
current Title IV
2
households,
NOx and Hg
on electricity
scheme.
dislocated workers
allowances are set
output. Emissions
and communities,
aside for new units.
averaging is
Special reserves for
electricity intensive
permitted within a
new units provides
industries, affected
facility.
for all pollutants
utilities, energy
covered.
efficiency and
For Hg from other
renewable energy
sources: allocation
CO program
2
activities, and
is based on a
includes allowance
sequestration
percentage
allocations for
activities.
reduction from an
incremental nuclear
historic baseline or,
capacity and
Hg compliance on a
for some categories,
renewable energy.
source-by-source
an emission
basis (plantwide
performance rate.
For Hg, unit-by-unit
averaging explicitly
emissions
allowed).

limitations included.
Source: Congressional Research Service.

---