Order Code RL34018
Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 110th Congress
May 25, 2007
Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
John Blodgett
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 110th 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 unregulated greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide (CO ). At issue is whether a new approach to
2
environmental 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 110th Congress, three bills have been introduced that would impose multi-
pollutant controls on utilities. They are all four-pollutant proposals that include
carbon dioxide. S. 1168 and S. 1177 are revised versions of S. 2724, introduced in
the 109th Congress. S. 1201 is an expanded version of S. 150, introduced in the 109th
Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, beginning in the
2009-2012 time frame, with a second phase in 2013-2015. They would employ a
tradeable credit program to implement the SO , NOx, and CO caps while permitting
2
2
plant-wide averaging in complying with the Hg requirements. The provisions
concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in the 110th Congress bills are generally more stringent
2
than the comparable provisions of S. 131 of the 109th Congress. It is difficult to
compare the CO caps contained in these bills with the Administration’s proposal
2
concerning CO — both because the Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather
2
than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions
rather than just utility CO emissions).
2

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Bush Administration’s Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SO , NOx, and Hg Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2
CO Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2
Related Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants . . . . . . . . . 1

---

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 110th 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
promulgated rules to regulate mercury beginning in 2010. Other gases may pose
indirect risks, notably carbon dioxide (CO ), which contributes to global warming.2
2
Table 1 provides estimates of SO , NOx, and CO emissions from electric generating
2
2
facilities. 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
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
SO
11,297
11,174
10,881
10,646
10,309
10,340
2
NOx
5,380
5,290
5,194
4,532
4,143
3,961
CO
2,429,394
2,389,745
2,395,048
2,415,680
2,456,934
2,513,609
2
Source: Energy Information Administration.
Note: 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
1 Particulate matter is regulated depending on the particle size; current regulations address
particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM ); the 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 would be affected by regulations of PM .
2
2.5
2 In addition, 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
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
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 that would be designed not to
impose significant harm on 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.
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 .4 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 were introduced in the
109th Congress as H.R. 227 and S. 131.5 The proposal has not been reintroduced in
the 110th Congress.
3 S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005).
4 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.
5 For a further discussion of the Administration’s Clear Skies proposal, see CRS Report
RL32782, Clear Skies and the Clean Air Act: What’s the Difference? by Larry Parker and
James E. McCarthy, and CRS Report RL33165, Cost and Benefits of Clear Skies: EPA’s
Analysis of Multi-Pollutant Clean Air Bills, by James E. McCarthy and Larry B. Parker.
Although H.R. 227 adopted the SO and NOx emission caps of the Administration’s Clear
2
Skies proposal, it did not include many other provisions, including regulatory changes.

---

CRS-3
The second Administration proposal initiates a new voluntary greenhouse gas
reduction program, similar to ones introduced by the earlier George H. W. Bush and
Clinton Administrations.6 Developed in response to the U.S. ratification of the 1992
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, projecting only a 100 million metric ton reduction in emissions from
what would occur otherwise in the year 2012. Total emissions would continue to
rise. 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 is seen as occurring
through existing efforts.
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action
in the 110th Congress
In the 110th Congress, three bills have been introduced that would impose multi-
pollutant controls on utilities. They are all four-pollutant proposals that include
carbon dioxide. S. 1168, introduced by Senator Alexander, and S. 1177, introduced
by Senator Carper, are revised versions of S. 2724, introduced in the 109th Congress.
S. 1201, introduced by Senator Sanders, is a similar but revised version of S. 150,
introduced in the 109th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission
caps, beginning in 2009-2012 time frame, with a second phase in 2013-2015. They
would employ a tradeable credit program to implement the SO , NOx, and CO caps
2
2
while permitting plant-wide averaging in complying with the Hg requirements. The
provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in S. 1168, S. 1177, and S. 1201 are
2
generally more stringent than the comparable provisions of S. 131 of the 109th
Congress. It is difficult to compare the CO caps contained in these bills with the
2
Administration’s proposal concerning CO — both because the Administration’s
2
proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all
greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO emissions).
2
The three bills are summarized in the Appendix. Each of these bills generally
builds on the SO allowance trading scheme contained in Title IV of the 1990 Clean
2
Air Act Amendments (CAAA).7 Under this program, utilities are given a specific
allocation of permitted emissions (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.
6 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404 ENR, Climate Change
Action Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett (archived, available from the authors).
7 P.L. 101-549.

---

CRS-4
SO , NOx, and Hg Controls
2
As indicated in the Appendix, the caps for SO and NOx in S. 131 of the 109th
2
Congress would have been less stringent than the caps in the three bills currently
introduced in the 110th Congress, with the gap widening by the second phase of these
programs. Of the three bills introduced, S. 1201 is generally the most stringent for
all pollutants.
Allowance allocation schemes for the bills differ, with S. 1201 containing
detailed provisions for allocating SO , NOx, and CO allowances to various
2
2
economic sectors and interests, and the increasing use of auctions. 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. The bill requires that
100% of the annual allowance allocation be auctioned within 15 years of enactment.
In contrast, S. 1168 bases its allowance formulas on fuel usage adjusted by
factors specified in the bill, along with a requirement that 25% of the allowances be
auctioned.
S. 1177 specifies CO and NOx limitations based on electricity output, and SO
2
2
limitations based on the current Title IV program. The bill sets a schedule for
increasing the percentage of the annual allowance allocation that is to be auctioned
with 100% required in 2036 and thereafter.
On mercury, all three bills focus on achieving a 90% reduction by 2013 (S.
1201) or 2015 (S. 1168 and S. 1177). In contrast, the emissions goal of S. 131 of the
109th Congress would have allowed about three times more emissions and three to
five more years for compliance. In addition, the three bills restrict Hg credit trading
to plant-wide averaging of emissions, in contrast with the cap-and-trade program of
S. 131.
CO Reductions
2
The bills currently introduced in the 110th Congress specify CO reductions. In
2
contrast, the Administration’s CO proposal relies on various voluntary programs and
2
incentives to encourage reductions in greenhouse gases from diverse sources,
including CO emissions from electric generation. These voluntary reductions should
2
not be taken as a given, as neither the George H. W. Bush Administration’s nor the
Clinton Administration’s voluntary programs achieved their stated goals. Thus, in
one sense, comparing a mandatory reduction program such as that proposed by S.
1168, S. 1177, and S. 1201 with the Administration’s voluntary program is
comparing apples to oranges. The first is legally binding, the second has been
criticized as merely an exhortation.
The CO reduction requirements of S. 1168 and S. 1201 are similar, except that
2
S. 1201 requires affected sources also offset CO emissions from small electric
2
generating units (under 25 Mw). In contrast, S. 1177 imposes a cap that starts out
slightly higher than the other two bills and declines on a slower schedule.

---

CRS-5
All three bills have provisions to create offsets and facilitate sequestration
efforts. Among its titles, S. 1168 has extensive provisions providing for greenhouse
gas offsets from landfill methane (CH ), sulfur hexafluoride (SF ) projects,
4
6
afforestation or reforestation, energy efficiency, agricultural practices (manure
management), and biomass. The provisions in S. 1177 include allowance allocations
for incremental nuclear capacity, clean coal technology, and renewable energy, along
with programs to encourage sequestration. Finally, S. 1201 requires the EPA to
develop standards for providing allowances for geologic and biological sequestration.
Related Regulatory Provisions
In addition to emissions caps, S. 131 of the 109th Congress would have
substantially modified or eliminated several provisions in the Clean Air Act with
respect to electric generating facilities. The bill would have eliminated New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 111) and replaced them with statutory
standards for SO , NOx, particulate matter, and Hg for new sources. Modified
2
sources could have also opted 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 would
have exempted 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 would not have applied
to PSD-BACT requirements if facilities were within 50 km of a PSD Class 1 area.
Existing sources could have also received these exemptions if they agreed to meet a
particulate matter standard specified in the bill along with good combustion practices
to minimize carbon monoxide emissions within three years of enactment. In
addition, S. 131 would have provided these exemptions for industrial sources that
choose to opt into the Clear Skies program. S. 131 also would have included 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.
The three bills in the 110th Congress generally omit the regulatory changes of
S. 131, while introducing new provisions. All three bills would revise the current
New Source Review (NSR) program to require affected electric generating units 40
years or older to meet more stringent SO and NOx performance standard by either
2
2015 (S. 1201) or 2020 (S. 1168 and S. 1177). All three bills contain provisions
establishing a new performance standard for CO . S. 1168 and S. 1177 would also
2
eliminate the annual NOx and SO caps contained in the recently promulgated Clean
2
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
In addition to the above, S. 1201 would create several new regulatory programs
and standards, include a Low-Carbon Generation Requirement, Energy Efficiency
Performance Standard, and a Renewable Portfolio Standard. All of these programs
would be implemented through a credit trading program.

---

CRS-6
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
Emissions cap
1.473603 million tons in the
1.45 million tons in the East in
1.39 million tons in the East in
1.51 million tons in 2010, declining
on NOx
East in 2008, declining to
2009, declining to 1.3 million tons 2012, declining to 1.3 million tons
to 0.9 million tons in 2013.
1.07603 million tons in 2018.
in 2015. 0.32 million ton in the
in 2015. 0.40 million tons in the
Additional reductions may be
0.714794 in the West beginning West beginning in 2015.
West in 2012, declining to 0.32
required for O NAAQS compliance.
3
in 2008.
million tons in 2015.
Emissions cap
4.5 million tons in 2010,
3.5 million tons in the East in
3.5 million tons in 2012, declining
1.9755 million tons in the East in
on SO
declining to 3.0 million tons in
2010, declining to 2.0 million tons to 2.0 million tons in 2015.
2010, declining to 1.1414 million
2
2018.
in the 48 contiguous states in
tons in 2013. 0.2745 million tons in
2015.
the West in 2010, declining to
0.1586 million tons in 2013.
Emission cap
Not covered.
2.3 billion metric tons (tonnes) in
Estimated at 2.47 billion metric
2.3 billion metric tonnes in 2012,
on CO
2010, declining to 2.1 billion
tonnes in 2010, declining to 2.39
declining to 2.1 billion tonnes in
2
tonnes in 2015, 1.8 billion tonnes
billion tonnes in 2015, declining by 2016, declining to 1.803 billion
in 2020, and 1.5 billion tonnes in
1% annually beginning in 2016,
tonnes in 2021, and finally declining
2025.
and by 1.5% beginning in 2020.
to 1.5 billion tonnes in 2026. Further
reductions required after 2026. Cap
also reduced by emissions from
small electric generation facilities.
Emissions cap
34 tons in 2010, declining to 15 Less stringent of 60% reduction or Less stringent of 60% reduction or 5 tons and, to the extent practicable,
on mercury
tons in 2018.
0.02 lb./Gwh four years after
0.02 lb./Gwh in 2012, declining to
achieve a 90% reduction on a
enactment, declining to the lesser
the lesser of 90% reduction or
facility-specific basis by 2013.
of 90% reduction or 0.0060
0.0060 lb./Gwh in 2015. Subject to

---

CRS-7
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
lb./Gwh in 2015. One year
EPA review.
extension available to install
equipment.
Scope
50 states, DC, and territories.
48 contiguous states and DC.
50 states and DC.
50 states and DC.
Affected units
Existing electric generating
Electric generating facilities
Electric generating facilities greater Electric generating facilities 25 Mw
facilities 25 Mw or greater
greater than 25 Mw for CO ,
than 25 Mw, including incremental or greater (coal-fired only for Hg).
2
(coal-fired only for Hg); co-
fossil fuel-fired electric generating nuclear capacity for CO , fossil-
2
generation sources exempted.
facilities for NOx and SO (coal-
fuel-fired electric generating
2
fired only for Hg).
facilities for NOx, Title IV
definition for SO , coal-fired only
2
for Hg.
Penalties for
NOx, SO , Hg: reduces the
NOx, SO and CO : two-for-one
NOx: Twice the average annual
NOx , SO and CO same as CAA,
2
2
2
2
2
noncompliance excess emissions penalties
offset from future emission
price in the appropriate zone per
title IV, except excess emission
under CAA, title IV to the EPA allocations, plus an excess
excess ton plus at least an one-for-
penalty is three times the average
auction clearing price for
emissions penalty.
one offset from future emission
market price for allowances.
allowances plus one-for-one
allocations.
offset from future emission
Hg: $50,000 per excess pound,
Hg: three times the average Hg
allocations, if paid within 30
indexed to inflation.
SO : Twice the average annual
control costs per gram of excess
2
days. Otherwise, the number of
price per excess ton plus at least an emission.
excess emissions is multiplied
one-for-one offset from future
by 1.5 for penalty purposes.
emission allocations.
Hg: $50,000 per excess pound
emitted.

---

CRS-8
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
CO : Twice the two-year average
2
price plus at least an one-for-one
offset from future emissions
allocations.
Special
New performance standards for Revises NSR program to require
Revises NSR program to require
Beginning in 2015, all powerplants
provisions
new sources replace current
affected electric generating units
affected electric generating units 40 40 years or older must meet
NSPS for new sources.
40 years or older to meet specific
years or older to meet specific SO
emission limitations based on
2
Compliance with bill’s
SO and NOx performance
and NOx performance standards
current best available control
2
provisions exempts facilities
standards beginning in 2020.
beginning in 2020.
technology for a new major source.
from New Source Review
(NSR), PSD-BACT
Beginning in 2015, New NSPS
Beginning in 2015, New NSPS
New CO emissions standard for
2
requirements, visibility BART
established for CO2.
established for CO2. More stringent baseload powerplants that commerce
requirements, and non-
NSPS begins in 2025.
operation after 2011based on the
attainment LAER and offset
Annual SO and NOx caps under
emission rate of a new combined
2
requirements. The exemption
CAIR eliminated in 2015.
Annual NOx cap under CAIR
cycle natural gas generating plant.
does not apply to PSD-BACT
eliminated in the later of 2012 or
EPA may increase the stringency to
requirements if facility is within Extensive provisions providing for effective date of NOx regulations.
at least 90% by 2030. All baseload
50 Km of Class 1 area. Existing greenhouse gas offsets from
plants must meet New CO emission
2
sources can opt in by meeting a landfill CH , SF projects,
CO program includes allowance
standard by 2031, if infeasible.
4
6
2
particulate standard.
afforestation or reforestation,
allocations for incremental nuclear
energy efficiency, agricultural
capacity, clean coal technology,
New minimum Hg standard for new
Exempts utility units from Hg
practices (manure management),
and renewable energy, along with
sources established as of the date of
regulation under CAA, Section
and biomass.
sequestration and early action
enactment.
112, including residual risk
provisions.
provisions.

---

CRS-9
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
Prevents EPA from enforcing
CO program includes allowance
Creates a new Low-Carbon
2
Section 126 petitions before
allocations for clean coal
Generation Requirement and credit
December 31, 2014.
technology under a Climate
trading program beginning in 2015.
Champions Program.
Creates new Energy Efficiency
Performance Standard and credit
program beginning in 2008.
Creates a Renewable Portfolio
Standard and credit program,
beginning in 2008
Requires final geological CO2
disposal standards within six years
of enactment and biological
sequestration standards within two
years of enactment.
Implementation Tradeable allowance system for Tradeable allowance system for
Tradeable allowance system for
Tradeable allowance system for SO ,
2
strategy
SO , NOx, and Hg. Allocation
NOx, SO and CO . For NOx, and NOx, SO and CO . For NOx, and
NOx and CO . Allocations to be
2
2
2
2
2
2
formulas based on historic fuel
CO , allocations based on historic CO , allocations based on historic
based on economic, equity, and
2
2
usage adjusted by factors
heat input adjusted for each fuel’s electricity output.
international competitiveness criteria
specified in the bill.
generally applicable emissions
specified in the bill. Allowances
rate for that pollutant.
For SO current Title IV allocations allocated to various sectors and
2
Special reserves for new units
are revised and adjusted for newer
interests, including households,
provided for SO , NOx and Hg.
units.
dislocated workers and communities,
2

---

CRS-10
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
For SO current Title IV
Special reserves for new units
electricity intensive industries,
2
allocations are revised and
provided for NOx, CO , and SO .
energy efficiency and renewable
2
2
adjusted for newer units.
energy activities, sequestration
Beginning in 2012, 18% of CO
activities, and ecosystem restoration.
2
Special reserves for new units
allowances to be auctioned, a
provided for CO and SO2
percentage increased 3 percentage
Beginning in 2010, at least 50% of
2
points annually until 2030 when the CO allowances to be auctioned,
2
Beginning in 2011, 25% of CO
rate is increased to 5 percentage
with successive increasing to raise it
2
allowances to be auctioned with
points until 2036 when 100% is
to 100% within 15 years of the date
proceeds going to electricity
auctioned. Revenues from the
of enactment.
consumers and energy-intensive
resulting Climate Action Trust
industries.
Fund shall be used for innovative
For Hg, plant-wide averaging is
low- and zero emitting carbon
permitted.
For Hg, plant-wide averaging is
technologies program, clean coal
permitted.
technologies program, and research
and analysis, and an energy
efficiency technology program.
Other funded activities includes
worker and community impact
assistance, adaptation assistance,
and protecting fish and wildlife
habitat.
For Hg, facility-wide averaging is
permitted.
Source: Congressional Research Service.

---