Order Code IB10137
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress
Updated August 5, 2005
James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Clear Skies / Multi-Pollutant Legislation
Mercury from Power Plants
MTBE and Ethanol
Ozone Nonattainment Area Deadlines
Conformity of Transportation Plans and SIPs

---

IB10137
08-05-05
Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Congress acted on several Clean Air Act
A deadline for mercury regulations
issues in legislation that it passed and sent to
helped drive the Clear Skies debate: EPA
the President before the August recess. The
faced a judicial deadline of March 15, 2005, to
most significant of these amendments dealt
promulgate standards for power plant mercury
with ethanol and reformulated gasoline
emissions. The agency met this deadline, but
(RFG), and were included in the comprehen-
the specifics of its chosen regulation have
sive energy bill, H.R. 6. The bill eliminates a
been widely criticized and are now being
requirement that RFG, used in the nation’s
challenged by at least 14 states. The regula-
most polluted areas, contain at least 2% oxy-
tions could also be overturned if Congress
gen. In its place, the bill requires that gasoline
disapproved them under the Congressional
of all types contain increasing amounts of a
Review Act. Resolutions to do so (S.J.Res.20/
specific oxygenate, ethanol, which is generally
H.J.Res. 56) were introduced June 29. The
made from corn. Under the bill, use of etha-
Senate resolution was discharged from the
nol will more than double by 2012.
Committee on Environment and Public Works
July 18, and could come to the Senate floor in
Congress also amended the Clean Air
September. EPA also finalized, on March10,
Act in H.R. 3, the transportation bill that it
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which
cleared for the President’s signature July 29.
will cap emissions of sulfur dioxide and
H.R. 3 addresses the requirement that state
nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28
and local transportation planners demonstrate
eastern states and the District of Columbia.
conformity between their transportation plans
and the timely achievement of air quality
Rather than promulgate the mercury and
standards. Under the bill, the frequency of
CAIR rules, the Administration would have
conformity determinations and the time hori-
preferred that Congress pass the Clear Skies
zon over which conformity must be demon-
Act. Under Clear Skies (as under the promul-
strated will both be reduced, making the
gated mercury and CAIR regulations), there
requirement less burdensome. Failure to
would be national or regional caps on emis-
demonstrate conformity can lead to a tempo-
sions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
rary suspension of federal highway funds.
oxides, with utilities allowed to trade or bank
emission allowances. But Clear Skies would
Other Clean Air Act amendments appear
also remove or modify many existing Clean
to have stalled. Major amendments that
Air Act requirements. Whether to modify
would have established a cap-and-trade pro-
such requirements as New Source Review,
gram for emissions from coal-fired electric
deadlines for nonattainment areas, and provi-
power plants were among the first items on
sions dealing with interstate air pollution are
the agenda of the 109th Congress: S. 131 (the
among the key issues in the Clear Skies de-
Clear Skies Act) was scheduled for markup by
bate. Other issues that Congress and EPA
the Senate Environment and Public Works
face include whether to cap power plant emis-
Committee March 9. But the committee failed
sions of carbon dioxide (CO ) in addition to
2
to approve the bill, on a 9-9 tie vote, in large
the other three pollutants.
part because of complaints that the bill would
weaken existing Clean Air Act requirements.
This issue brief will be updated on a
regular basis.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10137
08-05-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On July 29, the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 6, the comprehensive
energy bill. The House passed it the previous day, so the bill now goes to the President, who
is expected to sign it August 8. Among many other provisions, the bill would amend the
Clean Air Act to require that motor fuels contain at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol or
other renewable fuels by 2012 (more than double the amount used in 2004). The bill would
also amend the Clean Air Act provisions on reformulated gasoline, removing the requirement
that RFG contain at least 2% oxygen.
Both the House and Senate also passed the conference version of H.R. 3, the surface
transportation bill, July 29. Among its provisions, the bill would amend Clean Air Act
requirements on the conformity of transportation and air quality planning.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Despite steady improvements in air quality in many of the United States’ most polluted
cities, the goal of clean air continues to elude the nation. The most widespread problems
involve ozone and fine particles. As of May 2005, 159 million people lived in areas
classified “nonattainment” for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; 90 million
lived in areas that were nonattainment for fine particles (PM ).
2.5
Air quality has improved substantially since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970:
annual emissions of the six most widespread (“criteria”) air pollutants have declined almost
154 million tons (51%), despite major increases in population, motor vehicle miles traveled,
and economic activity. Meanwhile, however, scientific understanding of the health effects
of air pollution has caused EPA to tighten standards for ozone and fine particles. The agency
attributes 17,000 premature deaths and millions of lost work days annually to exceedance of
the PM standard alone. Recent research has begun to tie ozone pollution to premature
2.5
mortality as well. Thus, there is continuing pressure to tighten air quality standards —
another tightening for fine particles is apparently on the way, with a final decision expected
in 2006. And attention has focused on major sources of ozone and particulate pollution, such
as coal-fired power plants and mobile sources.
With this background in mind, the remainder of this issue brief provides an overview
of five prominent air issues of interest in the 109th Congress: multi-pollutant (or Clear Skies)
legislation for electric power plants; mercury from power plants; the gasoline additives
MTBE and ethanol; ozone nonattainment area deadlines; and the “conformity” of
transportation and clean air planning. The issue brief provides an overview: most of these
issues are addressed at greater length in separate CRS reports, which contain more
information and detailed sources. These other CRS reports are referenced in the appropriate
sections.
Clear Skies / Multi-Pollutant Legislation. The Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee blocked S. 131, the Clear Skies Act, from advancing to the Senate floor,
on a tie vote, March 9. The committee’s 9-9 vote brought an end, possibly for the remainder
of the Congress, to further attempts to find a compromise on Clear Skies amendments.
Earlier markups of Clear Skies, scheduled for February 16, March 2, and March 3, had been
CRS-1

---

IB10137
08-05-05
postponed so that Senators could undertake discussions aimed at crafting a compromise. The
committee also held two hearings on the Clear Skies bill, January 26 and February 2, 2005.
The bill would have significantly amended the Clean Air Act to establish a cap-and-trade
system for emissions from electric power plants and other sources of air pollution, while
eliminating or deferring numerous existing regulations affecting those sources.
Coal-fired power plants are among the largest sources of air pollution in the United
States. Under the current version of the Clean Air Act, they are not necessarily subject to
stringent requirements. Emissions and the required control equipment can vary depending
on the location of the plant, when it was constructed, whether it has undergone major
modifications, the specific type of coal it burns, and, to some extent, the vagaries of EPA
enforcement policies. More than half a dozen separate Clean Air Act programs could
potentially be used to control emissions, which makes compliance strategy complicated for
utilities and difficult for regulators. And, since the cost of the most stringent available
controls, for the entire industry, could range into the tens of billions of dollars, utilities have
fought hard and rather successfully to limit or delay regulation.
As a result, emissions from power plants have not been reduced as much as those from
some other sources. Many plants built in the 1950s or 1960s (generally referred to as
“grandfathered” plants) have little emission control equipment. Collectively, these plants are
large sources of pollution. In 2003, power plants accounted for nearly 11 million tons of
sulfur dioxide (SO ) emissions (69% of the U.S. total), about 45 tons of mercury emissions
2
(more than 40% of the U.S. total), and nearly 4.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides (21.5% of
the U.S. total). Power plants are also considered major sources of fine particles (PM ) and
2.5
account for nearly 40% of U.S. anthropogenic emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide.
An example of their importance was seen in the August 2003 Northeast blackout. With
about 100 power plants (most of them coal-fired) shut down, researchers found that ambient
levels of SO and ozone were 90% and 50% lower, respectively, in blacked-out areas.
2
With new ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particles taking effect,
emissions of NOx (which contributes to the formation of ozone) and SO (which is among
2
the sources of fine particles) need to be reduced. Mercury emissions have also been a focus
of concern: 45 states have issued fish consumption advisories for mercury, covering 13
million acres of lakes, 767,000 river miles, and the coastal waters of 12 entire states. The
continuing controversy over the interpretation of New Source Review requirements for
existing power plants is also exerting pressure for a more predictable regulatory structure.
Thus, many in industry, environmental groups, Congress, and the Administration agree
that the time is ripe for legislation that addresses power plant pollution in a comprehensive
(multi-pollutant) fashion. Such legislation (dubbed “Clear Skies” by the Administration)
would address the major pollutants on a coordinated schedule, and would rely, to a large
extent, on a system like that used in the acid rain program, where national or regional caps
on emissions are implemented through a system of tradeable allowances. The key questions
have been how stringent the caps should be, and whether carbon dioxide (CO ) will be
2
among the emissions subject to a cap.
CRS-2

---

IB10137
08-05-05
Regarding the stringency issue, Clear Skies and other bills introduced over the last two
Congresses would require reduction of NOx emissions to 1.5 or 1.8 million tons per year (a
70%-80% reduction from 1998 levels) and reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions to 2.23-3.0
million tons per year (also a reduction of 70%-80% versus 1998). Regarding mercury, the
bills would either require EPA to determine the level of reductions, or require reductions of
70%-90% from current levels of emissions (from 48 to 5, 10, or 15 tons annually, depending
on the bill).
In the most stringent of the bills (Senator Jeffords’s S. 150 and Representative
Waxman’s H.R. 1451), these reductions would take place by 2009 or 2010 (depending on
the pollutant). The Jeffords and Waxman bills would also set caps on CO emissions. (For
2
additional information and a detailed comparison of the legislative proposals, see CRS
Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress.)
The Clear Skies bill (S. 131) envisions less stringent standards than those in most other
bills, phased in over a much longer period of time. For NOx, the bill would reduce emissions
to 1.79 million tons per year, but not until 2018; an intermediate limit of 2.19 million tons
would be imposed in 2008. For sulfur dioxide, the limit would be 3.0 million tons annually,
also in 2018, with an intermediate limit of 4.5 million tons in 2010. For mercury, the limit
would be 34 tons per year in 2010, declining to 15 tons in 2018. (In negotiations over S. 131,
Senators Voinovich and Inhofe offered to change the Phase 2 deadlines under Clear Skies
to 2016, and to implement a Phase 3 SO cap of 2.5 million tons in 2018.)
2
Because the deadlines are far in the future, the Administration’s analysis of Clear Skies
shows that utilities would be likely to “overcomply” in the early years of the program. The
Administration uses this as a selling point for its approach, arguing that it will achieve
reductions sooner than would a traditional regulatory approach with the same deadlines. But
overcompliance in the early years would lead to “banked” emission allowances; these could
be used in later years to delay achievement of required reductions. In its analysis of the bill,
EPA does not expect to see the full 70% emission reductions until 2026 or later, a point
seized upon by its opponents to support a more aggressive approach.
In return for establishing its new cap-and-trade program, Clear Skies would also
eliminate or restrict numerous existing Clean Air Act requirements with respect to electric
generating units, including New Source Review, New Source Performance Standards,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate standards, Best
Available Retrofit Technology, and Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations
for mercury. It would allow sources in other industries to opt into the cap-and-trade program,
and escape existing Clean Air Act controls. It would remove deadlines for local areas to
achieve ozone and particulate standards under certain conditions, and make it more difficult
for nonattainment areas to challenge interstate sources of air pollution. The other bills
generally would leave these existing controls in place. (For a more thorough discussion of
how Clear Skies would change the Clean Air Act, see CRS Report RL32782, Clear Skies
and the Clean Air Act: What’s the Difference?)
Clear Skies includes no cap on CO emissions. It is a three-pollutant (SO , NOx,
2
2
mercury) bill, whereas most competing bills have addressed four pollutants (the three plus
CO ). The Administration views controls on CO as a step toward implementing the Kyoto
2
2
CRS-3

---

IB10137
08-05-05
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which it opposes
for a variety of reasons, principally the potential economic impacts on U.S. industries.
The absence of CO from the mix leads to different strategies for achieving compliance,
2
preserving more of a market for coal, and lessening the degree to which power producers
might switch to natural gas or renewable fuels as a compliance strategy. In its opposition to
CO controls, the Administration is supported by most in the utility and coal industries.
2
Others, mostly outside these industries but including some utilities, view CO controls as
2
inevitable, if not desirable, and support simultaneous implementation of cap-and-trade
programs for CO and the other pollutants.
2
Although stalled for the past three years, Clear Skies was set for early consideration this
year in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; but the opposing sides were
not able to reach a consensus and the bill failed on a tie vote on March 9. The House has
taken no action, other than an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, May 26.
In negotiations preceding the Senate committee vote, there was some movement toward
a compromise. On the Republican side, there were offers to move the deadlines for Phase
2 caps forward two years (from 2018 to 2016) and to add a third phase for SO ; a mechanism
2
for addressing mercury hot spots was added; and adjustments to the provisions on interstate
transport of pollution were offered. The opponents of the bill (who included all the
committee Democrats, plus Senators Jeffords and Chafee) conceded that a bill with hard CO2
caps would not pass, and were willing to accept some less stringent provisions on that score.
These compromises proved insufficient to bridge the gap. Whether they might serve as a
basis for further discussions and action later in the Congress remains to be seen.
Immediately following the vote, on March 10, EPA announced that it would promulgate
final regulations for utility emissions of SO and NOx in 28 eastern states and the District
2
of Columbia through its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). (The rule appeared in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2005.) The cap-and-trade provisions of CAIR mimic those of Clear
Skies, but CAIR does not allow EPA to remove existing Clean Air Act requirements, as
Clear Skies would. Under CAIR, EPA projects that nationwide emissions of SO will
2
decline 53% by 2015, and NOx emissions will decline 48%. The agency also projects that
the rule will result in $85-$100 billion in health benefits annually by 2015, including the
prevention of 17,000 premature deaths annually. CAIR’s health and environmental benefits
are more than 25 times greater than its costs, according to EPA. (For additional information
on the CAIR rule, see CRS Report RL32927, Clean Air Interstate Rule: Review and
Analysis.)
Mercury from Power Plants. On March 15, 2005, EPA also finalized through
regulation a cap-and-trade program for mercury emissions from electric utilities. (These
rules appeared in the Federal Register March 29, 2005 and May 18, 2005.) The mercury
regulations (which, like CAIR, mimic the requirements of Clear Skies) rely almost entirely
on co-benefits of the CAIR rule. The agency’s analysis of the mercury rule finds that less
than 1% of coal-fired power plant capacity would install pollution control equipment
specifically designed to control mercury within 10 years as a result of the mercury rule. By
2020, only 4% of capacity would have such equipment.
CRS-4

---

IB10137
08-05-05
EPA reversed course several times before choosing its final approach to mercury
regulation. The agency was required by the terms of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
and a 1998 consent agreement to determine whether regulation of mercury from power plants
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act was appropriate and necessary. It concluded that it
was so, in a December 2000 regulatory finding. The finding triggered other provisions of the
consent agreement: that the agency propose Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards for electric power plants by December 15, 2003, and finalize them by
March 15, 2005.
The December 2003 proposal offered two alternatives. The first met the agency’s
requirement under the consent agreement by proposing MACT standards. The standards
would have applied on a facility-by-facility basis, and would have resulted in emissions of
34 tons of mercury annually, a reduction of about 30% from the 1999 level. The standards
would have taken effect in 2008, three years after promulgation, with possible one-year
extensions.
The second mercury alternative, a variant of which the agency chose to promulgate
March 15, 2005, uses Section 111(d) of the act. To avoid having to promulgate MACT
standards, the agency proposed reversing its December 2000 regulatory finding, arguing that
while MACT standards were “appropriate,” they were not “necessary,” since the emissions
could be controlled under Section 111(d) instead. Section 111(d) has rarely been used before
— and never for hazardous air pollutants. In the final rule, the agency went a step further,
concluding that MACT regulations are neither appropriate nor necessary, and so revises its
December 2000 regulatory finding.
Instead, the final regulations establish a national cap-and-trade system for power plant
emissions of mercury. As in Clear Skies, the cap will be 15 tons of emissions nationwide
in 2018 (about a 70% reduction from 1999 levels, if achieved). There will also be an
intermediate cap of 38 tons in 2010. The caps will be implemented through an allowance
system similar to that used in the acid rain program, through which utilities can either control
the pollutant directly or purchase excess allowances from other plants that have controlled
more stringently or sooner than required. As with Clear Skies, early reductions could be
banked for later use, which the agency says would result in emissions of 31.3 tons in 2010,
nearly 7 tons less than the cap. If this happens, it would allow utilities to delay compliance
with the full 70% reduction until well beyond 2018, as they use up banked allowances rather
than installing further controls. The agency’s analysis projects actual emissions to be 24.3
tons (less than a 50% reduction) as late as 2020. Full compliance with the 70% reduction
might be delayed until after 2030.
Besides the stretched out implementation schedule, one of the main criticisms of the
cap-and-trade proposal is that it would not address “hot spots,” areas where mercury
emissions and/or concentrations in water bodies are greater than elsewhere. It would allow
a facility to purchase allowances and avoid any emission controls, if that compliance
approach makes the most sense to the plant’s owners and operators. If plants near hot spots
do so, the cap-and-trade system may not have an impact on mercury concentrations in the
most contaminated areas. By contrast, a MACT standard would have required reductions at
all plants, and would therefore be expected to improve conditions at hot spots.
CRS-5

---

IB10137
08-05-05
Many argue that the mercury regulations should be more stringent or implemented more
quickly. To a large extent, these arguments and EPA’s counterarguments rest on
assumptions concerning the availability of control technologies. Controlling SO , NOx, and
2
mercury simultaneously, as the agency prefers, would allow utilities to maximize “co-
benefits” of emission controls. Controls such as scrubbers and fabric filters, both of which
are widely used today to control SO and particulates, have the side effect of reducing
2
mercury emissions to some extent. Under EPA’s cap-and-trade regulations, both the 2010
and 2018 mercury emission standards are set to maximize use of these co-benefits. Thus,
hardly any controls would be required to specifically address mercury emissions before the
2020s, and the costs specific to controlling mercury would be minimal.
Besides citing the cost advantage of relying on co-benefits, EPA has claimed that
technology specifically designed to control mercury emissions (such as activated carbon
injection, ACI) would not be generally available until after 2010. This assertion is widely
disputed. ACI and fabric filters have been in use on municipal waste and medical waste
incinerators for nearly a decade, and have been successfully demonstrated in at least 16 full-
scale tests at coal-fired power plants, for periods as long as a year. Manufacturers of
pollution controls and many others maintain that, if the agency required the use of ACI and
fabric filters at power plants, reductions in mercury emissions as great as 90% could be
achieved at reasonable cost in the near future.
The agency can take cost into consideration under the MACT or cap-and-trade rules,
and cost to electric utilities appears to have been a determining factor in EPA’s analysis. In
its proposal, however, calculations of the overall societal costs and benefits seemed to
support the imposition of a more stringent standard. The agency projected MACT
compliance costs at $945 million per year, versus quantifiable annual benefits (from longer
lives and less illness) of more than $15 billion (a 16 to 1 advantage). The final rule
completely changes this analysis. It concludes that the benefits of mercury control are at
most $43 million per year, with annual costs as high as $896 million. The new analysis did
not include several peer-reviewed studies that indicated stricter utility mercury rules would
have yielded large benefits.
In addition to the arguments over technology availability and cost, it is unclear whether
EPA has legislative authority to establish a cap-and-trade program for mercury: many argue
that the agency is required by the statute to impose MACT standards on each individual plant
once it has decided to control mercury emissions. Questions have also arisen regarding the
role of industry lobbyists in crafting portions of the EPA proposal. For many of these
reasons, 45 Senators wrote EPA Administrator Leavitt at the beginning of April 2004 to
request that he withdraw the mercury proposal and begin over. In June, 178 House members
wrote Leavitt that they hoped further review “will lead to a stronger final rule.” On February
3, 2005, the EPA Inspector General echoed these comments, concluding that EPA senior
management instructed the staff to develop a standard that would result in emissions of 34
tons annually, instead of basing the standard on unbiased analysis. Nevertheless, the agency
weakened the final rule rather than strengthening it. Thus, opponents, including at least 11
states, have filed suit to overturn the mercury rule.
Congress could also play a role in reversing the rule, under the provisions of the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808). On June 29, 2005, Senator Leahy
and 31 cosponsors introduced S.J.Res. 20; on the same day, a similar resolution (H.J.Res. 56)
CRS-6

---

IB10137
08-05-05
was introduced in the House by Representative Meehan. If enacted into law, these
resolutions would disapprove the rule EPA promulgated on March 29, in which the agency
determined not to regulate mercury from fossil-fueled electric utility units under Section 112.
The net effect of disapproval would be that EPA would be forced to issue MACT standards
for coal- and oil-fired electric power plants.
Introduction of the Senate resolution set in motion procedures under which the Senate
may vote on whether to overturn the rule if at least 30 Senators submit a petition to discharge
the resolution from the committee to which it is referred. Thirty-two Senators did so on July
18. The bill can now (until September 13) be brought to the floor under expedited
procedures. There is no similar provision for expedited consideration in the House.
(For discussion of the Congressional Review Act and how it applies to the mercury rule,
see CRS Report RS22207, Congressional Review of EPA’s Mercury Rule. For additional
information on the mercury rule, see CRS Report RL32868, Mercury Emissions from
Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations and CRS Report
RL32744, Mercury Emissions from Electric Generating Units: A Review of EPA Analysis
and MACT Determination.)
MTBE and Ethanol. Congress acted on several Clean Air Act issues in H.R. 6, the
comprehensive energy bill that it passed and sent to the President July 29. The most
significant of these issues dealt with ethanol and reformulated gasoline (RFG). The final
version of the bill stripped most provisions dealing with the related issue of MTBE, a
gasoline additive that competes with ethanol and has been the subject of much controversy.
MTBE and ethanol have been used to meet Clean Air Act requirements that
reformulated gasoline (RFG), sold in the nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas, contain
at least 2% oxygen, to improve combustion. Under the RFG program, areas with “severe”
or “extreme” ozone pollution (124 counties with a combined population of 73.6 million)
must use reformulated gas; areas with less severe ozone pollution may opt into the program
as well, and many have. In all, portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia use RFG,
and about 30% of the gasoline sold in the United States is RFG.
Implemented in 1995, the law required that RFG contain at least 2% oxygen by weight.
Refiners could meet this requirement by adding a number of ethers or alcohols, any of which
contains oxygen and other elements. By far the most commonly used oxygenate has been
MTBE. In 1999, 87% of RFG contained MTBE, a number reduced to 46% by 2004. MTBE
has also been used since the late 1970s in non-reformulated gasoline, as an octane enhancer,
at lower concentrations. As a result, gasoline with MTBE has been used virtually
everywhere in the United States, whether or not an area has been subject to RFG
requirements.
MTBE leaks, generally from underground gasoline storage tanks, have been implicated
in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. The substance creates taste and odor
problems in water at very low concentrations, and some animal studies indicate it may pose
a potential cancer risk to humans. For these reasons, about 25 states have taken steps to ban
or regulate its use. The most significant of the bans (in California, New York, and
Connecticut) took effect at the end of 2003, leading many to suggest that Congress revisit the
CRS-7

---

IB10137
08-05-05
issue to modify the oxygenate requirement and set more uniform national requirements
regarding MTBE and its potential replacements (principally ethanol).
Support for eliminating the oxygen requirement on a nationwide basis has been
widespread among environmental groups, the petroleum industry, and states. In general,
these groups have concluded that gasoline can meet the same low emission performance
standards as RFG without the use of oxygenates. But potential opposition to enacting
legislation removing the oxygen requirement came from a number of agricultural interests.
Nearly 13% of the nation’s corn crop is used to produce the competing oxygenate, ethanol.
If MTBE use were reduced or phased out, but the oxygen requirement remained in effect,
ethanol use would soar, increasing demand for corn. Ethanol use has already grown
substantially as MTBE begins to be phased out. Conversely, if the oxygen requirement were
waived by EPA or by legislation, not only would MTBE use decline, but likely, so would
demand for ethanol. Thus, Members of Congress and Senators from corn states have taken
a keen interest in MTBE and RFG legislation.
As passed by the House on April 21, H.R. 6 contained numerous MTBE and ethanol
provisions. With some potential exceptions, it would have banned the use of MTBE as a fuel
additive, except in states that specifically authorized its use, after December 31, 2014. The
Clean Air Act requirement to use MTBE or other oxygenates in RFG would have been
repealed — 270 days after enactment in most states, immediately in California. In place of
this requirement, the bill substituted a major stimulus to the use of ethanol: under a
renewable fuels standard (RFS), annual production of gasoline would have been required to
contain at least 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuel (an increase from 3.4
billion gallons in 2004) by 2012. To prevent backsliding on air quality, the bill required that
the reductions in emissions of toxic substances achieved by RFG be maintained; it authorized
$2 billion in grants to assist merchant MTBE production facilities in converting to the
production of other fuel additives. The bill also authorized funds for MTBE cleanup, and
perhaps most controversially, would have provided a “safe harbor” from defective product
liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE, ethanol, and other renewable fuels: product
liability lawsuits have been used to force petroleum and chemical companies to pay for
cleanup of ground and surface water contaminated by releases of fuels containing MTBE.
The Senate version of H.R. 6, passed June 28, contained MTBE and ethanol provisions
as well, but they were different from the House bill in several respects. The Senate bill
would have increased the renewable fuels standard to 8 billion gallons by 2012. It would
have phased out the use of MTBE sooner (within four years of enactment, rather than at the
end of 2014), and it omitted a potential nationwide presidential exception to the MTBE ban
that the House version would have provided. The Senate version also omitted the safe harbor
for MTBE producers. In the 108th Congress, the safe harbor provision had been among the
most controversial provisions in a similar bill, cited by numerous opponents in Senate debate
on the conference report. (The opponents prevailed on a cloture motion, and the bill died.)
The 109th Congress Senate bill also differed in how much it would authorize for cleanup of
MTBE releases and for transition assistance to MTBE producers.
In the end, unable to reach a compromise addressing MTBE, House and Senate
conferees stripped most of the MTBE provisions from the conference report on H.R. 6. The
final version, approved by the House July 28 and the Senate July 29, neither bans MTBE use
nor provides a safe harbor for its producers, nor does it provide transition assistance for
CRS-8

---

IB10137
08-05-05
MTBE producers. It does, however, repeal the RFG program’s oxygen requirement and, in
place, requires that motor fuels contain 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuels
by 2012 — more than double the amount of 2004 consumption. When this requirement is
fully implemented, as much as 30% of the nation’s corn crop could be dedicated to ethanol
production. (For additional discussion of the House and Senate bills, see CRS Report
RL32865, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Legislative Initiatives.
For background on the MTBE issue, see CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean
Air and Drinking Water Issues. For information on ethanol, see CRS Report RL30369, Fuel
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues.)
Ozone Nonattainment Area Deadlines. Another Clean Air Act provision that was
in the House-passed version of H.R. 6 dealt with the deadlines for attaining air quality
standards. Section 1443 of the bill would have extended deadlines for areas that have not
attained the ozone air quality standard if upwind areas “significantly contribute” to their
nonattainment.
Deadlines for nonattainment areas were established by the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Under this statute, ozone nonattainment areas were classified in one of five
categories: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Areas with higher
concentrations of the pollutant were given more time to reach attainment. In return for the
additional time, they were required to implement more stringent controls on emissions.
Failure to reach attainment by the specified deadline was to result in reclassification of an
area to the next highest category and the imposition of more stringent controls.
For a variety of reasons, EPA has often not reclassified areas when they failed to reach
attainment by the statutory deadlines. As of April 2005, the agency’s website listed 18
marginal areas, 6 moderate areas, and 9 serious areas, most of which should have been
categorized as severe under the statutory requirements. In several cases, the agency granted
additional time to reach attainment on the grounds that a significant cause of the area’s
continued nonattainment was pollution generated outside the area and transported into it by
prevailing winds. EPA has been sued over its failure to bump up several of these areas; of
the three cases decided (Washington, D.C.; St. Louis; and Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas),
the agency has lost all three.
Section 1443 would have rolled back reclassifications and would have extended
attainment deadlines in areas affected by upwind pollution to the date on which the last
reductions in pollution necessary for attainment in the downwind area are required to be
achieved in the upwind area. The provision was not included in the conference version of
the bill, however. Whether future legislation will address this issue is an open question.
Conformity of Transportation Plans and SIPs. A fifth clean air issue considered
by the 109th Congress is the conformity of metropolitan area transportation plans with the
Clean Air Act. Under the act, areas that have not attained one or more of the six National
Ambient Air Quality Standards must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
demonstrating how they will reach attainment. A total of 126 areas (474 counties) with a
combined population in excess of 159 million are subject to the SIP requirements for ozone,
and 225 counties with a combined population of 95 million are subject to SIP requirements
for fine particulates. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act prohibits federal agencies from
funding projects in these areas unless they “conform” to the SIPs. Specifically, projects must
CRS-9

---

IB10137
08-05-05
not “cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard,” “increase the frequency or
severity of any existing violation,” or “delay timely attainment of any standard.” Because
new highways generally lead to an increase in vehicle miles traveled and related emissions,
both the statute and regulations require that an area’s Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), which identifies major highway and transit projects an area will undertake,
demonstrate conformity each time it is revised (i.e., at least every two years). Highway and
transit projects in most nonattainment areas cannot receive federal funds unless they are part
of a conforming TIP.
The impact of conformity requirements is expected to grow in the next few years for
several reasons. The growth of emissions from SUVs and other light trucks and greater than
expected increases in vehicle miles traveled have both made it more difficult to demonstrate
conformity; court decisions have tightened the conformity rules; and the implementation of
more stringent air quality standards for both ozone and fine particulates in 2004 means that
additional areas are subject to conformity beginning this year. Thus, numerous metropolitan
areas could face a temporary suspension of highway and transit funds unless they impose
sufficient reductions in vehicle, industrial, or other emissions. In a 2003 report, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that, over the preceding six years, only five
metropolitan areas had to change transportation plans in order to resolve a conformity lapse;
but about one-third of local transportation planners surveyed expected to have difficulty
demonstrating conformity in the future. (See U.S. GAO, Environmental Protection: Federal
Planning Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be
More Efficient and Better Linked, April 2003.)
The Clean Air Act provides no authority for waivers of conformity, and the only grace
period that has been allowed is for one year following an area’s initial designation as
nonattainment. Only a limited set of exempt projects (mostly safety-related or replacement
and repair of existing transit facilities) can be funded in lapsed areas: the rules do not even
allow funding of new projects that might reduce emissions, such as new transit lines. These
limitations were among the issues of concern. In addition, many have raised concerns about
a mismatch between the SIP, TIP, and long-range transportation planning cycles, and have
called for less frequent, but better coordinated, demonstrations of conformity.
In the 109th Congress, conformity provisions are included in H.R. 3, the transportation
bill that the House and Senate sent to the President July 29. The bill requires less frequent
conformity demonstrations (at least every four years instead of every two years), and will
shorten the planning horizon over which conformity must be demonstrated to 10 years in
many cases, instead of the former requirement of 20 years. The local air pollution control
agency will need to be consulted and public comments solicited if the planning horizon is
to be shortened. The bill also establishes a 12-month grace period following a failure to
demonstrate conformity before a lapse would be declared. (For additional background on
conformity, see CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act:
In Need of Reform?)
CRS-10

---