Order Code RL34018
Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 110th Congress
Updated November 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, five 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, while H.R. 3989 is a new proposal. 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 (CO only for
2
H.R. 3989). They would employ a tradeable credit program to implement the SO ,
2
NOx, and CO caps; all but H.R. 3989 permit plant-wide averaging in complying
2
with the Hg requirements. The provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in the 110th
2
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 contained in these bills
2
with the Administration’s proposal concerning CO — both because the
2
Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is
broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO2
emissions).

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Bush Administration’s Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Allowance Allocations for SO , NOx, and CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2
2
Hg Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CO Reduction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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, five 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 In
contrast, H.R. 3989, introduced by Representative McHugh, represents a new
proposal. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, beginning in 2009-
2012 time frame. S. 1168, S. 1177, and S. 1201 include a second phase beginning in
2013-2015; H.R. 3989 includes a multi-phase program for CO only. They would
2
employ a tradeable credit program to implement the SO , NOx, and CO caps while
2
2
all but H.R. 3989 permit plant-wide averaging in complying with the Hg
requirements. The provisions concerning SO , NOx, and Hg in the five bills 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 five 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
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.

---

CRS-4
Air Act Amendments (CAAA).8 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.
Allowance Allocations for SO , NOx, and CO
2
2
All five bills introduced in the 110th Congress provide for a tradeable allowance
scheme to implement their emission caps on SO , NOx, and CO . However,
2
2
allowance allocation schemes in the bills differ, with S. 1201 and S. 1544 containing
detailed provisions for allocating SO , NOx, and CO allowances to various
2
2
economic sectors and interests. In most cases, these interests (or their trustees in the
case of households and dislocated workers and communities) would auction off (or
otherwise sell) their allowances to the affected utilities and use the collected funds
for their own purposes. In 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.
Finally, H.R. 3989 auctions 100% of its CO allowances while providing
2
discretion to EPA to allocate SO and NOx allowances.
2
Hg Controls
On mercury, all five bills focus on achieving a 90% reduction by 2011 (S. 1544
and H.R. 3989), 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, all but H.R.
3989 restrict Hg credit trading to plant-wide averaging of emissions, in contrast with
the cap-and-trade program of S. 131. H.R. 3989 is even more stringent, imposing the
emissions rate limitation on a unit-by-unit basis.
CO Reduction Requirements
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
8 P.L. 101-549.

---

CRS-5
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.
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. Finally,
H.R. 3989 has the most detailed reduction scheme with substantial reductions from
coal-fired facilities scheduled through 2050.
All but H.R. 3989 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.

---

CRS-6
The five bills in the 110th Congress generally omit the regulatory changes of S.
131, while introducing new provisions. All five bills would revise the current New
Source Review (NSR) program to require affected electric generating units 40 years
or older (30 years old in the case of H.R. 3989) to meet more stringent SO and NOx
2
performance standard by either 2015 (S. 1201), 2016 (S. 1544), 2020 (S. 1168 and
S. 1177), or five years after enactment (H.R. 3989). All except S. 1544 and H.R.
3989 contain provisions establishing a new performance standard for CO . S. 1168
2
and S. 1177 would also eliminate the annual NOx and SO caps contained in the
2
recently 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 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
Emissions
1.473603 million tons
1.45 million tons in the East 1.39 million tons in the
1.51 million tons in
1.51 million tons in 2012,
Estimated at 1.51 million
cap on NOx in the East in 2008,
in 2009, declining to 1.3
East in 2012, declining to
2010, declining to 0.9
reduced annually by
tons in 2010.
declining to 1.07603
million tons in 2015. 0.32
1.3 million tons in 2015.
million tons in 2013.
emission emitted by small
million tons in 2018.
million ton in the West
0.40 million tons in the
Additional reductions
electric generating
Additional reductions
0.714794 in the West
beginning in 2015.
West in 2012, declining to may be required for O
facilities. Additional
may be required if
3
beginning in 2008.
0.32 million tons in 2015.
NAAQS compliance.
reductions may be required necessary to protect
if necessary to protect
public health or welfare.
public health or welfare or
the environment.
Emissions cap 4.5 million tons in
3.5 million tons in the East
3.5 million tons in 2012,
1.9755 million tons in
1.975 million tons in the
Estimated at 2.225
on SO
2010, declining to 3.0
in 2010, declining to 2.0
declining to 2.0 million
the East in 2010,
East and 0.275 million tons million tons in 2010.
2
million tons in 2018.
million tons in the 48
tons in 2015.
declining to 1.1414
in the West in 2012,
contiguous states in 2015.
million tons in 2013.
reduced annually by
Additional reductions
0.2745 million tons in
emission emitted by small
may be required if
the West in 2010,
electric generating
necessary to protect
declining to 0.1586
facilities. Additional
public health or welfare.
million tons in 2013.
reductions may be required
if necessary to protect
public health or welfare or
the environment.
Emission cap
Not covered.
2.3 billion metric tons
Estimated at 2.47 billion
2.3 billion metric
2.05 billion metric tonnes in Estimated at 1.94 billion
on CO
(tonnes) in 2011, declining
metric tonnes in 2012,
tonnes in 2011,
2022, reduced annually by
metric tonnes in 2015,
2
to 2.1 billion tonnes in
declining to 2.39 billion
declining to 2.1 billion emission emitted by small
declining to 1.46 billion
2015, 1.8 billion tonnes in
tonnes in 2015, declining
tonnes in 2015,
electric generating
tonnes in 2020, declining
2020, and 1.5 billion tonnes by 1% annually beginning declining to 1.803
facilities. Additional
to 0.97 billion tonnes in

---

CRS-8
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
in 2025.
in 2016, and by 1.5%
billion tonnes in 2020,
reductions may be required 2030, declining to 0.68
beginning in 2020.
and finally declining to if necessary to protect
billion tonnes in 2040,
1.5 billion tonnes in
public health or welfare or
and finally declining to
2025. Further
the environment.
0.39 billion tonnes in
reductions required
2050.
after 2025. Cap also
reduced by emissions
from small electric
generation facilities.
Emissions cap 34 tons in 2010,
Less stringent of 60%
Less stringent of 60%
5 tons and, to the
2.48 grams of Hg per Gwh
Emission rate limit set at
on mercury
declining to 15 tons in
reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh
reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh
extent practicable,
on a facility specific basis
0.6 lb. per trillion Btu for
2018.
four years after enactment,
in 2012, declining to the
achieve a 90%
by 2011.
new (2009) and existing
declining to the lesser of
lesser of 90% reduction or reduction on a facility-
(2011) coal-fired units.
90% reduction or 0.0060
0.0060 lb./Gwh in 2015.
specific basis by 2013.
(Roughly equivalent to
lb./Gwh in 2015. One year
Subject to EPA review.
0.0060 lb./Gwh.)
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.
50 states and DC.
territories.
DC.
Affected units Existing electric
Electric generating facilities Electric generating
Electric generating
Electric generating facilities Electric generating
generating facilities 25 greater than 25 Mw for CO facilities greater than 25
facilities 25 Mw or
15 Mw or greater (coal-
facilities 25 Mw or
2
Mw or greater (coal-
, fossil fuel-fired electric
Mw, including incremental greater (coal-fired only fired only for Hg).
greater (coal-fired only
fired only for Hg); co-
generating facilities for
nuclear capacity for CO ,
for Hg).
for Hg and CO ).
2
2
generation sources
NOx and SO (coal-fired
fossil-fuel-fired electric
2
exempted.
only for Hg).
generating facilities for
NOx, Title IV definition
for SO , coal-fired only for
2

---

CRS-9
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
Hg.
Penalties for
NOx, SO , Hg:
NOx, SO and CO : two-
NOx: Twice the average
NOx , SO and CO
NOx , SO and CO same as NOx and SO same as
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
non-
reduces the excess
for-one offset from future
annual price in the
same as CAA, title IV, CAA, title IV, except
CAA, title IV.
compliance
emissions penalties
emission allocations, plus
appropriate zone per
except excess emission excess emission penalty is
under CAA, title IV to
an excess emissions
excess ton plus at least an
penalty is three times
three times the average
Hg: $10,000 per ounce of
the EPA auction
penalty.
one-for-one offset from
the average market
market price for
excess emissions.
clearing price for
future emission
price for allowances.
allowances.
allowances plus one-
Hg: $50,000 per excess
allocations.
CO : $150 per ton,
2
for-one offset from
pound, indexed to inflation.
Hg: three times the
Hg: three times the average adjusted for inflation.
future emission
SO : Twice the average
average Hg control
Hg control costs per gram
2
allocations, if paid
annual price per excess ton costs per gram of
of excess emission.
within 30 days.
plus at least an one-for-
excess emission.
Otherwise, the number
one offset from future
of excess emissions is
emission allocations.
multiplied by 1.5 for
penalty purposes.
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.
Special
New performance
Revises NSR program to
Revises NSR program to
Beginning in 2015, all
Beginning in 2016, all
Beginning 5 years after
provisions
standards for new
require affected electric
require affected electric
powerplants 40 years
powerplants 40 years or
enactment, all
sources replace current generating units 40 years
generating units 40 years
or older must meet
older must meet emission
powerplants 30 years or
NSPS for new sources. or older to meet specific
or older to meet specific
emission limitations
limitations based on current older must meet most
Compliance with bill’s SO and NOx performance
SO and NOx performance based on current best
best available control
recent NSPS, Part C
2
2

---

CRS-10
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
provisions exempts
standards beginning in
standards beginning in
available control
technology for a new major (PSD) and Part D (non-
facilities from New
2020.
2020.
technology for a new
source.
attainment) requirements
Source Review (NSR),
major source.
under the Act.
PSD-BACT
Beginning in 2015, New
Beginning in 2015, New
Creates a new Efficiency
requirements, visibility NSPS established for CO2. NSPS established for CO2. New CO emissions
Performance Standard and
Revenues from CO
2
2
BART requirements,
More stringent NSPS
standard for baseload
credit program beginning in auctions to fund research
and non-attainment
Annual SO and NOx caps
begins in 2025.
powerplants that
2007.
and development of
2
LAER and offset
under CAIR eliminated in
commerce operation
renewable energy
requirements. The
2015.
Annual NOx cap under
after 2011. Standard
Creates a Renewable
projects.
exemption does not
CAIR eliminated in the
would be based on the
Portfolio Standard and
apply to PSD-BACT
Extensive provisions
later of 2012 or effective
emission rate of a new
credit program, beginning
Appropriations
requirements if facility providing for greenhouse
date of NOx regulations.
combined cycle natural in 2009.
authorized for several
is within 50 Km of
gas offsets from landfill
gas generating plant.
monitoring networks.
Class 1 area. Existing
CH , SF projects,
CO program includes
EPA may increase the
Contains separate titles on
4
6
2
sources can opt in by
afforestation or
allowance allocations for
stringency to at least
transportation fuel
meeting a particulate
reforestation, energy
incremental nuclear
90% by 2030. All
efficiency, renewable fuels,
standard.
efficiency, agricultural
capacity, clean coal
baseload plants must
elimination of certain tax
practices (manure
technology, and renewable meet New CO
provisions for the oil
2
Exempts utility units
management), and biomass. energy, along with
emission standard by
industry, and research on
from Hg regulation
sequestration and early
2031, if feasible.
abrupt climate change.
under CAA, Section
action provisions.
112, including residual CO program includes
New minimum Hg
2
risk provisions.
allowance allocations for
standard for new
clean coal technology under
sources established as
Prevents EPA from
a Climate Champions
of the date of
enforcing Section 126
Program.
enactment.
petitions before
December 31, 2014.
Creates a new Low-
Carbon Generation

---

CRS-11
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
Requirement and credit
trading program
beginning in 2015.
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 CO2
disposal within 6 years
of enactment and
biological sequestration
within 2 years of
enactment.
Implemen-
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance system Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance system Tradeable allowance
tation strategy system for SO , NOx,
for NOx, SO and CO . For system for NOx, SO and
system for SO , NOx
for SO , NOx and CO .
system for SO , NOx and
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
and Hg. Allocation
NOx, and CO , allocations
CO . For NOx, and CO ,
and CO . Allocations to Allowances allocated to
CO .
2
2
2
2
2
formulas based on
based on historic heat input allocations based on
be based on economic, various sectors and
historic fuel usage
adjusted for each fuel’s
historic electricity output. equity, and
interests, including
SO , and NOx allocations
2
adjusted by factors
generally applicable
international
households, dislocated
left to EPA discretion.

---

CRS-12
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
specified in the bill.
emissions rate for that
For SO current Title IV
competitiveness criteria workers and communities,
CO allowances are 100%
2
2
pollutant.
allocations are revised and specified in the bill.
electricity intensive
auctioned.
Special reserves for
adjusted for newer units.
Allowances allocated
industries, energy
new units provided for
to various sectors and
efficiency and renewable
Hg emissions rate limits
SO , NOx and Hg.
For SO current Title IV
Special reserves for new
interests, including
energy activities,
are on a unit-by-unit
2
2
allocations are revised and
units provided for NOx,
households, dislocated sequestration activities, and basis.
adjusted for newer units.
CO , and SO .
workers and
ecosystem restoration.
2
2
communities,
Special reserves for new
Beginning in 2012, 18%
electricity intensive
For Hg, plant-wide
units provided for CO and of CO allowances to be
industries, energy
averaging is permitted.
2
2
SO2
auctioned, a percentage
efficiency and
increased 3 percentage
renewable energy
Beginning in 2011, 25% of points annually until 2030 activities, sequestration
CO allowances to be
when the rate is increased
activities, and
2
auctioned with proceeds
to 5 percentage points
ecosystem restoration.
going to electricity
until 2036 when 100% is
consumers and energy-
auctioned. Revenues from Beginning in 2010, at
intensive industries.
the resulting Climate
least 50% of CO2
Action Trust Fund shall be allowances to be
For Hg, plant-wide
used for innovative low-
auctioned, with
averaging is permitted.
and zero emitting carbon
successive increasing
technologies program,
to raise it to 100%
clean coal technologies
within 15 years of the
program, and research and date of enactment.
analysis, and an energy
efficiency technology
For Hg, plant-wide
program. Other funded
averaging is permitted.
activities includes worker
and community impact

---

CRS-13
S. 131 (Inhofe)
S. 1168
S. 1177
S. 1201
S. 1544
H.R. 3989
Provisions
(109th Congress)
(Alexander)
(Carper)
(Sanders)
(Collins)
(McHugh)
assistance, adaptation
assistance, and protecting
fish and wildlife habitat.
For Hg, facility-wide
averaging is permitted.
Source: Congressional Research Service.

---