Order Code RL34018
Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 110th Congress
Updated October 2, 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. “Clear Skies” was re-introduced in the 109th Congress as S. 131. The
second initiative begins a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program. This plan,
rather than capping CO emissions, focuses on improving the carbon efficiency of the
2
economy, reducing 2002 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, four 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 and S. 1544 are expanded and revised versions 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 all but S. 1544 including
a second phase in 2013-2015. They would employ a tradeable credit program to
implement the SO , NOx, and CO caps while permitting plant-wide averaging in
2
2
complying with the Hg requirements. The provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg
2
in the 110th Congress bills are generally more stringent than the comparable
provisions of S. 131 of the 109th Congress. It is difficult to compare the CO caps
2
contained in these bills with the Administration’s proposal concerning CO — both
2
because the Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 2002 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, four 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, and S. 1544, introduced by Senator Collins,
are similar but revised versions of S. 150, introduced in the 109th Congress.7 All of
these bills involve some form of emission caps, beginning in 2009-2012 time frame,
with all but S. 1544 including 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 S. 1168, S. 1177, S. 1201, and S. 1544 are generally
2
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 Administration’s
2
proposal concerning CO — both because the Administration’s proposal is voluntary
2
rather than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas
emissions rather than just utility CO emissions).
2
The four 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).8 Under this program, utilities are given a specific
allocation of permitted emissions (allowances) and may choose to use those
6 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404, Climate Change Action
Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett (out of print, available from the authors).
7 Besides its multi-pollutant control provisions for electric utilities, S. 1544 contains
separate titles on transportation fuel efficiency, renewable fuels, elimination of certain tax
provisions for the oil industry, and research on abrupt climate change.
8 P.L. 101-549.

---

CRS-4
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.
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 four bills currently
introduced in the 110th Congress, with the gap widening by the second phase of these
programs.
Allowance allocation schemes for the bills differ, with S. 1201 and S. 1544
containing detailed provisions for allocating SO , NOx, and CO allowances to
2
2
various 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 addition, S. 1201 requires the increasing
use of auctions, mandating 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 four bills focus on achieving a 90% reduction by 2011 (S.
1544), 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 four 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, S. 1201, and S. 1544 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.

---

CRS-5
The CO reduction requirements of S. 1168, S. 1201, and S. 1544 are similar,
2
except that S. 1201 and S. 1544 requires affected sources also offset CO emissions
2
from small electric generating units. In contrast, S. 1177 imposes a cap that starts out
slightly higher than the other two bills and declines on a slower schedule.
All four 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. Likewise, S. 1544 includes allowance
allocations to encourage renewable energy, energy efficiency, and 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 four bills in the 110th Congress generally omit the regulatory changes of S.
131, while introducing new provisions. All four 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 2015
2
(S. 1201), 2016 (S. 1544) or 2020 (S. 1168 and S. 1177). All except S. 1544 contain
provisions establishing a new performance standard for CO . S. 1168 and S. 1177
2

---

CRS-6
would also eliminate the annual NOx and SO caps contained in the recently
2
promulgated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
In addition to the above, S. 1201 and S. 1544 would create several new
regulatory programs and standards, including an Efficiency Performance Standard,
and a Renewable Portfolio Standard. These programs would be implemented
through a credit trading program.

---

CRS-7
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
Emissions cap
1.473603 million tons in
1.45 million tons in the
1.39 million tons in the
1.51 million tons in 2010,
1.51 million tons in 2012,
on NOx
the East in 2008, declining East in 2009, declining to
East in 2012, declining to
declining to 0.9 million
reduced annually by
to 1.07603 million tons in
1.3 million tons in 2015.
1.3 million tons in 2015.
tons in 2013. Additional
emission emitted by small
2018. 0.714794 in the West 0.32 million ton in the
0.40 million tons in the
reductions may be required electric generating
beginning in 2008.
West beginning in 2015.
West in 2012, declining to
for O NAAQS compliance. facilities. Additional
3
0.32 million tons in 2015.
reductions may be required
if necessary to protect
public health or welfare or
the environment.
Emissions cap
4.5 million tons in 2010,
3.5 million tons in the East 3.5 million tons in 2012,
1.9755 million tons in the
1.975 million tons in the
on SO
declining to 3.0 million
in 2010, declining to 2.0
declining to 2.0 million
East in 2010, declining to
East and 0.275 million
2
tons in 2018.
million tons in the 48
tons in 2015.
1.1414 million tons in
tons in the West in 2012,
contiguous states in 2015.
2013. 0.2745 million tons
reduced annually by
in the West in 2010,
emission emitted by small
declining to 0.1586 million electric generating
tons in 2013.
facilities. Additional
reductions may be required
if necessary to protect
public health or welfare or
the environment.
Emission cap on Not covered.
2.3 billion metric tons
Estimated at 2.47 billion
2.3 billion metric tonnes in 2.05 billion metric tonnes
CO
(tonnes) in 2011, declining metric tonnes in 2012,
2011, declining to 2.1
in 2022, reduced annually
2

---

CRS-8
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
to 2.1 billion tonnes in
declining to 2.39 billion
billion tonnes in 2015,
by emission emitted by
2015, 1.8 billion tonnes in
tonnes in 2015, declining
declining to 1.803 billion
small electric generating
2020, and 1.5 billion tonnes by 1% annually beginning
tonnes in 2020, and finally facilities. Additional
in 2025.
in 2016, and by 1.5%
declining to 1.5 billion
reductions may be required
beginning in 2020.
tonnes in 2025. Further
if necessary to protect
reductions required after
public health or welfare or
2025. Cap also reduced by
the environment.
emissions from small
electric generation
facilities.
Emissions cap
34 tons in 2010, declining
Less stringent of 60%
Less stringent of 60%
5 tons and, to the extent
2.48 grams of Hg per Gwh
on mercury
to 15 tons in 2018.
reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh
reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh
practicable, achieve a 90% on a facility specific basis
four years after enactment, in 2012, declining to the
reduction on a facility-
by 2011.
declining to the lesser of
lesser of 90% reduction or
specific basis by 2013.
90% reduction or 0.0060
0.0060 lb./Gwh in 2015.
lb./Gwh in 2015. One year
Subject to EPA review.
extension available to
install equipment.
Scope
50 states, DC, and
48 contiguous states and
50 states and DC.
50 states and DC.
50 states and DC.
territories.
DC.
Affected units
Existing electric generating Electric generating
Electric generating
Electric generating
Electric generating
facilities 25 Mw or greater facilities greater than 25
facilities greater than 25
facilities 25 Mw or greater facilities 15 Mw or greater
(coal-fired only for Hg);
Mw for CO , fossil fuel-
Mw, including incremental (coal-fired only for Hg).
(coal-fired only for Hg).
2
co-generation sources
fired electric generating
nuclear capacity for CO ,
2

---

CRS-9
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
exempted.
facilities for NOx and SO
fossil-fuel-fired electric
2
(coal-fired only for Hg).
generating facilities for
NOx, Title IV definition for
SO , coal-fired only for Hg.
2
Penalties for
NOx, SO , Hg: reduces the NOx, SO and CO : two-
NOx: Twice the average
NOx , SO and CO same as NOx , SO and CO same as
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
non-compliance excess emissions penalties
for-one offset from future
annual price in the
CAA, title IV, except
CAA, title IV, except
under CAA, title IV to the
emission allocations, plus
appropriate zone per excess excess emission penalty is
excess emission penalty is
EPA auction clearing price an excess emissions
ton plus at least an one-for- three times the average
three times the average
for allowances plus one-
penalty.
one offset from future
market price for
market price for
for-one offset from future
emission allocations.
allowances.
allowances.
emission allocations, if
Hg: $50,000 per excess
paid within 30 days.
pound, indexed to inflation. SO : Twice the average
Hg: three times the average Hg: three times the average
2
Otherwise, the number of
annual price per excess ton Hg control costs per gram
Hg control costs per gram
excess emissions is
plus at least an one-for-one of excess emission.
of excess emission.
multiplied by 1.5 for
offset from future emission
penalty purposes.
allocations.
Hg: $50,000 per excess
pound emitted.
CO : Twice the two-year
2
average price plus at least
an one-for-one offset from
future emissions
allocations.

---

CRS-10
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
Special
New performance standards Revises NSR program to
Revises NSR program to
Beginning in 2015, all
Beginning in 2016, all
provisions
for new sources replace
require affected electric
require affected electric
powerplants 40 years or
powerplants 40 years or
current NSPS for new
generating units 40 years
generating units 40 years or older must meet emission
older must meet emission
sources. Compliance with
or older to meet specific
older to meet specific SO
limitations based on current limitations based on current
2
bill’s provisions exempts
SO and NOx performance and NOx performance
best available control
best available control
2
facilities from New Source standards beginning in
standards beginning in
technology for a new major technology for a new major
Review (NSR), PSD-BACT 2020.
2020.
source.
source.
requirements, visibility
BART requirements, and
Beginning in 2015, New
Beginning in 2015, New
New CO emissions
Creates a new Efficiency
2
non-attainment LAER and
NSPS established for CO2. NSPS established for CO2. standard for baseload
Performance Standard and
offset requirements. The
More stringent NSPS
powerplants that commerce credit program beginning in
exemption does not apply
Annual SO and NOx caps begins in 2025.
operation after 2011based
2007.
2
to PSD-BACT
under CAIR eliminated in
on the emission rate of a
requirements if facility is
2015.
Annual NOx cap under
new combined cycle
Creates a Renewable
within 50 Km of Class 1
CAIR eliminated in the
natural gas generating
Portfolio Standard and
area. Existing sources can
Extensive provisions
later of 2012 or effective
plant. EPA may increase
credit program, beginning
opt in by meeting a
providing for greenhouse
date of NOx regulations.
the stringency to at least
in 2009.
particulate standard.
gas offsets from landfill
90% by 2030. All baseload
CH , SF projects,
CO program includes
plants must meet New CO
Contains separate titles on
4
6
2
2
Exempts utility units from
afforestation or
allowance allocations for
emission standard by 2031, transportation fuel
Hg regulation under CAA,
reforestation, energy
incremental nuclear
if feasible.
efficiency, renewable fuels,
Section 112, including
efficiency, agricultural
capacity, clean coal
elimination of certain tax
residual risk provisions.
practices (manure
technology, and renewable New minimum Hg standard provisions for the oil
management), and biomass. energy, along with
for new sources established industry, and research on
Prevents EPA from
sequestration and early
as of the date of enactment. abrupt climate change.
enforcing Section 126
action provisions.

---

CRS-11
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
petitions before December
CO program includes
Creates a new Low-Carbon
2
31, 2014.
allowance allocations for
Generation Requirement
clean coal technology
and credit trading program
under a Climate Champions
beginning in 2015.
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 standards for
geological CO disposal
2
within 6 years of enactment
and biological
sequestration within 2 years
of enactment.
Implementation Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
strategy
system for SO , NOx, and
system for NOx, SO and
system for NOx, SO and
system for SO , NOx and
system for SO , NOx and
2
2
2
2
2
Hg. Allocation formulas
CO . For NOx, and CO ,
CO . For NOx, and CO ,
CO . Allocations to be
CO . Allowances allocated
2
2
2
2
2
2
based on historic fuel usage allocations based on
allocations based on
based on economic, equity, to various sectors and

---

CRS-12
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
adjusted by factors
historic heat input adjusted historic electricity output.
and international
interests, including
specified in the bill.
for each fuel’s generally
competitiveness criteria
households, dislocated
applicable emissions rate
For SO current Title IV
specified in the bill.
workers and communities,
2
Special reserves for new
for that pollutant.
allocations are revised and
Allowances allocated to
electricity intensive
units provided for SO ,
adjusted for newer units.
various sectors and
industries, energy
2
NOx and Hg.
interests, including
efficiency and renewable
For SO current Title IV
Special reserves for new
households, dislocated
energy activities,
2
allocations are revised and
units provided for NOx,
workers and communities,
sequestration activities, and
adjusted for newer units.
CO , and SO .
electricity intensive
ecosystem restoration.
2
2
industries, energy
Special reserves for new
Beginning in 2012, 18% of efficiency and renewable
For Hg, plant-wide
units provided for CO and CO allowances to be
energy activities,
averaging is permitted.
2
2
SO2
auctioned, a percentage
sequestration activities, and
increased 3 percentage
ecosystem restoration.
Beginning in 2011, 25% of points annually until 2030
CO allowances to be
when the rate is increased
Beginning in 2010, at least
2
auctioned with proceeds
to 5 percentage points until 50% of CO allowances to
2
going to electricity
2036 when 100% is
be auctioned, with
consumers and energy-
auctioned. Revenues from
successive increasing to
intensive industries.
the resulting Climate
raise it to 100% within 15
Action Trust Fund shall be years of the date of
For Hg, plant-wide
used for innovative low-
enactment.
averaging is permitted.
and zero emitting carbon
technologies program,
For Hg, plant-wide
clean coal technologies
averaging is permitted.
program, and research and

---

CRS-13
S. 131 (109th Congress)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
Provisions
(Inhofe)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
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.

---