Order Code RL31931
Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies
Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Updated January 28, 2008
Brent D. Yacobucci and Larry Parker
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies
Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Summary
Climate change is generally viewed as a global issue, but proposed responses
generally require action at the national level. In 1992, the United States ratified the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which called
on industrialized countries to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases. Over the
past 15 years, a variety of voluntary and regulatory actions have been proposed or
undertaken in the United States, including monitoring of electric utility carbon
dioxide emissions, improved appliance efficiency, and incentives for developing
renewable energy sources. This report provides background on the evolution of U.S.
climate change policy, from ratification of the UNFCCC to the George W. Bush
Administration’s 2001 rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to the present. The report
focuses on major regulatory programs that monitor or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, along with their estimated effect on emissions levels.
The George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations have
largely relied on voluntary initiatives to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions. This focus is particularly evident in the current Administration’s 2006
Climate Action Report (CAR), submitted under the provisions of the UNFCCC. Of
roughly 50 programs summarized in the 2006 CAR, seven are described as
“regulatory.” However, this small subset of the total U.S. effort accounts for a large
share of greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved over the past decade. In
general, these efforts were established and implemented in response to concerns other
than climate change, such as energy efficiency and air quality. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) included provisions indirectly related to greenhouse gas
emissions, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140) addresses renewable energy
and conservation, but also includes provisions specifically on climate change. These
include a requirement for the use of renewable fuels with lower lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions than petroleum fuels, and the establishment of an Office of Climate
Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation to implement research
on mitigating the causes and addressing the affects of climate change on
transportation.
Energy-related activities are responsible for about 85% of the country’s
greenhouse gas emissions, and 96% of its carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change
policy directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions should also address energy
consumption and, thus, be integrated with energy policy. However, because at the
present time energy supply and demand issues are seen by many as more pressing
than climate change, action on general energy legislation, as opposed to legislation
specifically targeting climate change, has generally been favored as indicated by
passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act and the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background to Federal Climate Change Policy: From “No Regrets”
Back to “No Regrets” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The International Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Developing Programs: EPACT and Climate Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . 3
Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regulatory Programs Affecting Emissions of Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Energy and Environmental Programs Related to Emissions Reductions . . . . 8
Emissions Reductions from Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Determinations . . . . . . . 9
Residential Appliance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Updating State Commercial Building Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Renewable Fuel Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Distributed Energy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Monitoring Rules
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring by Electric Generating Facilities . . . . . . 13
Regulatory Program Eliminated by P.L. 109-58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Promoting Renewable Energy through PURPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
Federal Regulatory Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. 2005 Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies
Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Introduction
Climate change is generally viewed as a global issue, but proposed responses
generally require action at the national level. In 1992, the United States ratified the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which called
on industrialized countries to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases. Over the
past 15 years, a variety of voluntary and regulatory actions have been proposed or
undertaken in the United States, including monitoring of utility carbon dioxide
emissions, improved appliance efficiency, and incentives for developing renewable
energy sources.
In 2001, President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol to the
UNFCCC, which called for legally binding commitments by developed countries to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.1 He also rejected the concept of mandatory
emissions reductions. Since then, the Administration has focused U.S. climate
change policy on voluntary initiatives to reduce the growth in greenhouse gas
emissions. This focus is particularly evident in the Administration’s 2006 Climate
Action Report (CAR) submitted under the provisions of the UNFCCC. Of the
roughly 50 programs summarized in the 2006 CAR, only seven are described as
“regulatory.”2 These regulatory programs were generally implemented to achieve
energy or environmental goals other than the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
but produced a concomitant emissions reduction. In this sense, they could be
considered the results of a “no regrets”3 policy in which climate change effects
resulting from related air quality and energy policies are included in the decision-
making process on new or modified rules.
This report provides background on the evolution of U.S. climate change policy
from ratification of the UNFCCC to the George W. Bush Administration’s rejection
of the Kyoto Protocol programs, to the present. Current major regulatory programs
that monitor or reduce greenhouse gas emissions are identified, along with their
1 For further information, see CRS Report RL33826, Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol,
Bali “Action Plan,” and International Actions
, by Susan R. Fletcher and Larry Parker.
2 Most of the programs outlined in the report involve research, technical assistance,
information gathering, or technical assistance programs initiated by the federal government,
or voluntary emissions reduction programs coordinated by the government.
3 The “no regrets” policy was one of establishing programs for other purposes, that would
have concomitant greenhouse gas reductions. Therefore, only those policies that reduced
greenhouse gas emissions at no additional cost were considered.

CRS-2
estimated effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, energy legislation enacted in
the 109th and 110th Congresses that could directly or indirectly reduce greenhouse
gases is discussed.
Background to Federal Climate Change Policy:
From “No Regrets” Back to “No Regrets”
The International Framework. U.S. policy toward global climate change
evolved from a “study only” to a “study and action” orientation in 1992 with
completion of the UNFCCC in Rio de Janeiro.4 Both nationally and internationally,
much of the debate over policies to address climate change has focused on energy
use, because fossil fuel consumption is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions
in most countries. During the deliberations on the UNFCCC, the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) released a report on global warming. In this report, Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming
, the NAS stated, “The United States could
reduce or offset its greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 40 percent of 1990
levels at low cost, or at some net savings, if proper policies are implemented.”5 The
NAS’s energy policy recommendations focused on increasing energy conservation
and efficiency, incorporating global warming as a factor in future energy planning,
and studying and eventually implementing “full social cost pricing” of energy.

Although the report was widely publicized, its many of its recommendations
were not applied. Driven by concerns about scientific uncertainty and the potential
costs to the economy of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the George
H. W. Bush Administration refused to agree to the negotiation of a binding
agreement to reduce the nation’s carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions by a specific date.
2
The UNFCCC reflects the negotiating position of the United States and many other
countries in that it called only for voluntary control measures.6 Senate floor debate
on ratification of the UNFCCC brought out concerns by some Senators about the cost
of compliance, its impact on the country’s economic competitiveness, and the
comprehensiveness with respect to the omission of reduction commitments for
developing countries — concerns that were lessened because of the non-binding
nature of the reduction goals.7 Those arguing for emissions controls argued that
4 For further information on global climate change, see the CRS Current Legislative Issues
page, Climate Change. [http://apps.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=2645&from=
1&fromId=2522].
5 National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1991), p. 73.
6 For a review of the UNFCCC negotiations, see archived CRS Report 92-374, Earth Summit
Summary: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Brazil,
1992
, by and available from Brent Yacobucci and Larry Parker upon request. For previous
activities, see archived CRS Report 98-431, Global Climate Change: A Concise History of
Negotiations and Chronology of Major Activities Preceding The 1992 U.N. Framework
Convention
, by and available from Brent Yacobucci and Larry Parker.
7 Congressional Record, vol. 138 (October 7, 1992), 33520-33527.

CRS-3
controls could create jobs and enhance economic health, and that high emissions
indicated inefficiency.
Asserting that “the developed country Parties should take the lead” in reducing
emissions, the UNFCCC set the goal that developed countries aim to return their
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.8 In line with this goal,
developed countries agreed in principle to adopt national plans and policy options to
mitigate climate change by reducing anthropogenic emissions and enhancing sinks.
The United States submitted such plans in 1992, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006, as
discussed below.9
Developing Programs: EPACT and Climate Action Plans. The
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT)10 is the principal statutory basis for programs
that constitute the U.S. response to the UNFCCC.11 Programs developed pursuant
to EPACT, including appliance energy efficiency standards and updated building
codes, are discussed below. Primarily crafted as part of an energy policy response
to the Persian Gulf War of 1991, its energy conservation, renewable energy, and
other titles were also seen as having a beneficial effect on global climate change
concerns being debated at that time in international circles. In its 1992 submission
to the UNFCCC, the George H. W. Bush Administration listed 11 different titles of
EPACT as “extremely important” to its overall strategy of reducing greenhouse
gases.12
Some of the previously referenced recommendations of the NAS were embodied
in several sections of EPACT. These sections included provisions to establish
energy-efficiency standards, promote dissemination of energy-saving information,
establish several national research and development programs related to deployment
of energy-efficiency technologies, and authorize the Department of Energy (DOE)
to evaluate cost-effective energy efficiency technologies. In addition to these
activities to improve energy efficiency, EPACT Title XVI aimed to incorporate
global warming concerns in energy policy planning. Title XVI authorized DOE to
collect, analyze, and report information on climate change. Resulting DOE activities
included a report on the various economic, energy, social, environmental, and
8 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Article 3, Section
1.
9 For a more detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL30024, U.S. Global Climate Change
Policy: Evolving Views on Cost, Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness
, by Larry B.
Parker and John E. Blodgett.
10 A summary of provisions is contained in archived CRS Report 93-134, Energy Policy Act
of 1992: Summary and Implications
, available from Brent Yacobucci and Larry Parker upon
request.
11 The other primary source of greenhouse-gas related regulations is the Clean Air Act,
particularly the 1990 Amendments. Clean Air Act regulations — concerning mandatory
carbon dioxide monitoring by electricity generators, landfill emissions reductions, and the
control of ozone depleting substances — are discussed later in this report.
12 Department of State, National Action Plan for Global Climate Change (Washington, DC:
Department of State, 1992), p. 73.

CRS-4
competitive implications of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; the development of
a least-cost energy strategy designed to achieve “the stabilization and eventual
reduction in the generation of greenhouse gases”; the creation of a Director of
Climate Change; and the development of an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
and early reductions in such emissions.
Indeed, EPACT’s authors anticipated that it would help stabilize or even reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases at little cost, in line with the 1991 NAS report. As
stated by the House report:
The committee expects that, if fully implemented, H.R. 776 will result in a
substantial reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions relative to forecasted
levels. The bulk of these reductions result from the programs that will
demonstrate and transfer advanced clean coal and renewable technologies
abroad, and from the domestic energy efficiency and renewable energy
initiatives. The provisions on electric utilities, alternative fuels and coalbed
methane are also significant.13
The notion that the United States could meet modest CO emission reduction
2
goals at little or no cost underlies many of the global climate change initiatives
during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations, including the George H. W.
Bush Administration’s “No Regrets” policy and 1992 Climate Action Plan, and the
Clinton Administration’s 1994 and 1997 Climate Action Plans.14 Using such an
approach to climate change policy, neither of these administrations requested
regulatory authority from Congress to implement a climate change policy. Both
advocated strategies of undertaking governmental implementing actions that could
be done administratively (unless Congress legislated otherwise) and of creating
incentives for private industry to voluntarily undertake emissions reduction
initiatives.
The Clinton Action Plans were similar to the plan developed under the George
H. W. Bush Administration. Both were designed to foster market choices that would
conserve energy, increase energy efficiency, and encourage natural gas use. Both
were also designed to strengthen selected regulatory standards that concomitantly
reduced greenhouse gas emissions — such as landfill regulations that curtail methane
releases. Several actions in the 1994 Clinton plan expanded programs listed in the
George H. W. Bush Administration’s plan by augmenting funding or technical
support to increase anticipated reductions. Other Clinton proposals were new:
Examples included a “Golden Carrot” program to induce efficiency improvements
of industrial equipment; a renewable energy consortium; a program to encourage
13 Committee on Energy and Commerce, Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act,
H.Rept. 102-474, Part 1, March 30, 1992, p. 152.
14 On the “no regrets” policy of the George H. W. Bush Administration, see C. Boyden Gray
and David B. Rivkin, Jr., “A ‘No Regrets’ Environmental Policy,” Foreign Policy, summer
1991, pp. 47-65; for the various action plans, see U.S. Department of State, National Action
Plan for Global Climate Change
, Department of State Publication 10026, December 1992;
U.S. Department of State, Climate Action Report, Department of State Publication, 1994;
and U.S. Department of State, Climate Action Report, Department of State Publication
10496, July 1997.

CRS-5
employers to replace parking subsidies with cash incentives to ride transit, car pool,
or find other ways to commute; and a program to promote more efficient nitrogen
fertilizer use.15
Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. As it became clear that the voluntary
1992 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals would not be met, parties to the
UNFCCC began negotiations that culminated in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the
UNFCCC. This protocol outlined legally binding emissions reductions for developed
countries to specified amounts below 1990 levels, averaged over the years 2008 to
2012. The Clinton Administration committed to a 7% reduction below 1990 levels.
The Kyoto Protocol, if it had been submitted to the Senate and ratified, would have
changed the U.S. commitment from a voluntary one to a binding commitment.
Critics of the Kyoto Protocol raised concerns similar to those debated in connection
with the UNFCCC in 1992: concerns about cost, comprehensiveness, and
competitiveness. The possibility of failing to comply with a binding commitment
intensified the focus on potential costs of the U.S. global climate change policy. The
United States, along with most of the world, failed to meet the goal set at Rio of
returning 2000 emissions to the level that existed in 1990, a fact that raises questions
about the premise that significant greenhouse gas reductions can be achieved at little
or no costs.16 For those who believe substantial reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions would entail substantial costs, the Kyoto Protocol’s potential costs led to
concerns about its effects on the country’s competitiveness and its exclusion of
developing countries from mandatory emission reductions (comprehensiveness).
That cost, competitiveness, and comprehensiveness remain pivotal factors in
climate change policy is illustrated by the George W. Bush Administration’s rejection
of the Kyoto Protocol early in 2001. In his June 11, 2001, speech on global climate
change, the President stated that the Kyoto Protocol was “fatally flawed in
fundamental ways.” A primary flaw outlined by the President is the exemption of
China and other large developing countries from its emissions reduction provisions.
This “comprehensiveness” concern was closely followed by “cost” and
“competitiveness” concerns. President Bush stated:
Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto
targets. The targets themselves are arbitrary and not based upon science. For
America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic
impact with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when
you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it’s not
sound public policy.17
15 President Clinton and Vice President Gore, The Climate Change Action Plan, White
House, October 1993.
16 Indeed, U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases were 14% above 1990 levels in 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,
Washington, DC, April 2002, p. ES-3.
17 President George W. Bush, President Bush’s Speech on Global Climate Change, June 11,
2001.

CRS-6
To respond to global climate change, President Bush called for a new approach
focused on science and on flexible control mechanisms that employ market-based
incentives. Among the principles that the President argued should guide such a
program were the following:
We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our
citizens and for citizens throughout the world.... And finally, our approach must
be based on global participation, including that of developing countries whose
net greenhouse gas emissions now exceed those in the developed countries.18
The Administration’s 2001 proposal initiated a new voluntary greenhouse gas
reduction program, similar to ones introduced in previous administrations. The plan
focuses on improving the carbon intensity of the economy, reducing current
emissions of 183 metric tons of carbon equivalent per million dollars of GDP to 151
metric tons per million dollars of GDP by 2012. The plan proposed several voluntary
initiatives, along with increased spending and tax incentives, to achieve this goal.
However, the Administration stated that three-quarters of the projected reduction
would be achieved through current efforts underway, not by new initiatives. The
Administration projected that by 2010, the program could result in an emissions
reduction of approximately 4.5% relative to “business as usual.” However, this level
would still be approximately 28% higher than the 1990 level defined by the
UNFCCC. Further, without explicit requirements, it is unclear whether the targets
set by the Administration will be met.

A key piece of the Administration’s proposal was announced on February 12,
2003.19 Climate, Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now
(Climate VISION) was created in response to President Bush’s goal of reducing
greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy.20 Climate VISION aims to assist
energy-intensive sectors in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and
to publicly recognize the efforts of those sectors.
Another Administration initiative, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate, focuses on international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions outside of the Kyoto Protocol. Of the six countries, the United States and
Australia have rejected Kyoto; three countries — China, India, and Korea — are not
subject to binding limits under Kyoto. Only one member of the partnership, Japan,
has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The partnership is focused on development and trade
of clean energy technologies as well as emissions reductions from key sectors.21
18 Ibid.
19 Environmental Protection Agency, Bush Administration Launches “Climate VISION.”
February 12, 2003.
20 Greenhouse gas intensity is a measure of emissions per unit of economic activity (often
expressed as tons of emissions per thousand or million dollars of Gross Domestic Product).
For more on greenhouse gas intensity, see CRS Report 98-235, Global Climate Change:
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Status, Trends, and Projections
, by John Blodgett and
Larry Parker.
21 [http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/]

CRS-7
This international initiative was followed in May 2007 by the President’s
announcement that the United States would convene a meeting of the world’s “major
economies” that are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions. Held in
September 2007, the final statements of the “Major Economies Meeting on Energy
Security and Climate Change” emphasized the need to integrate such meetings into
the overall UNFCCC negotiations. The U.S. summary of the meeting focused on the
“aspirational” nature of reduction goals, reflecting the Administration’s rejection of
mandatory reduction targets.
Regulatory Programs Affecting
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
As described above, current federal actions with respect to greenhouse gases
focus on research, information, and voluntary programs. Each of the Climate Action
Reports submitted by the United States to the UNFCCC has included a compilation
of the several dozen programs that various administrations have felt are relevant to
reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.22 Regulatory measures that have reduced
greenhouse gas emissions are a small subset of the total U.S. effort numerically, but
are responsible for a proportionally larger share of greenhouse gas emission
reductions.23 In general, these regulatory programs were established and
implemented primarily for reasons other than climate change concerns. It should be
noted that reductions from these programs combined represent about 3% of year 2000
greenhouse gas emissions, total U.S. emissions have continued to grow: emissions
increased approximately 3% between 2000 and 2005; emissions have grown
approximately 17% since 1990.24
The list of federal regulatory programs discussed here is primarily drawn from
activities listed by the George W. Bush Administration in its most recent (2006)
submission to UNFCCC.25 The submission to UNFCCC focuses on mandatory
programs, but numerous voluntary programs have also been implemented over the
past 15 years. This section discusses the seven regulatory programs listed in the
Climate Action Report, as well as two additional regulatory programs, carbon dioxide
monitoring by electricity generators, and renewable electricity generation
requirements (eliminated by P.L. 109-58) not included in the list. These programs’
estimated effects on greenhouse gas emissions are summarized in Table 1.
22 For the most recent compilation, see U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report
— 2006
, Washington, DC, July 2007.
23 For example, EPA regulations on landfills and Significant New Alternatives Policy
Determinations (SNAP) account for 35 million metric tons of the 255 million metric tons
(carbon dioxide equivalent) in claimed reductions by the George W. Bush Administration
for the year 2002 (14% of total). U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report
2006, Washington, DC, July 2007. Both the landfill regulations and SNAP are discussed
below.
24 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United
States 2005
, Washington, DC, November 2006.
25 Ibid.

CRS-8
Table 1. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
Federal Regulatory Actions
Estimated GHG Reduction (million metric tons)
Program
2002
2012
2020
Stringent Landfill Rule
8.7
9.5
9.9
Significant New
26.0
149.6
222.9
Alternatives Program
Residential Appliance
N/A
5.1
17.3
Standards
Commercial Building
N/A
0.5
3.1
Codes
Corporate Average Fuel
0.0
41.8
76.7
Economy
Renewable Fuel Standard
N/A
N/A
N/A
Distributed Energy
12.1
23.8
57.2
Resources
Total Reductions from
47
230
387
Regulatory Programs
Total Reductions from
255
797
1560
all Federal Programs
Source: U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July 2007.
Table 4-2.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Energy and Environmental Programs
Related to Emissions Reductions

Emissions Reductions from Landfills. Section 305 of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments requires EPA to control emissions of a variety of air pollutants
from new and existing large solid waste landfills.26 Specifically, the section requires
EPA to promulgate New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new municipal
solid waste landfills, and emissions guidelines for existing landfills to reduce
emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), including ozone-producing
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and air toxics. Regulations promulgated in 1996
26 Landfill gas contains methane, carbon dioxide, and numerous non-methane organic
compounds (NMOCs), including vinyl chloride, toluene, and benzene.

CRS-9
require large landfills that emit landfill gases in excess of 50 megagrams per year to
control emissions.27
The primary driver for the landfill regulations was reducing formation of
ground/surface level ozone (smog), and air toxics. However, in promulgating the
rule, the Clinton Administration noted that landfills were the largest U.S. source of
emissions of the greenhouse gas methane (40%), and that the rule would have the
indirect benefit of reducing methane emissions by 50%, equivalent to a 37.1 million
metric ton reduction in carbon by the year 2000.28 In its 2006 Climate Action Report,
the current Administration estimated that the year 2002 methane emissions
reductions achieved by the rule were 8.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent, predicted to increase to 9.9 million metric tons by 2020.29
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Determinations. Many
ozone-depleting substances are also greenhouse gases (such as perfluorocarbons).
Therefore, efforts to protect the ozone layer also tend to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. There is a complex scientific relationship between ozone depletion,
ozone-depleting chemicals and climate change.
Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments represents the United States’
primary response on the domestic front to the ozone depletion issue. It also
implements this country’s international responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol
to Reduce Ozone-Depleting Substances.30 Section 612 requires EPA to develop a
program to identify alternatives to ozone depleting substances banned under the
Montreal Protocol.
In determining the acceptability of an alternative, EPA is to assess the overall
risk to human health or the environment that the alternative poses, compared with
other alternatives. In promulgating the implementing regulation for the program in
1994, EPA identified increased global warming as one of the risk criteria that it
would use in determining the acceptability of an alternative.31
SNAP determinations focus on the global warming potential of various
substitutes used in place of the ozone-depleting chemicals banned under the Montreal
Protocol, not on the global warming potential of the banned ozone-depleting
chemicals themselves.
27 61 Federal Register 9905-9944 (March 12, 1996)
28 EPA, Fact Sheet: Final Air Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, March 1,
1996. This is due to the fact that techniques to reduce methane and NMOCs are basically
the same.
29 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 59.
30 It should be noted that emissions controlled under the Montreal Protocol are separate from
those controlled by the Kyoto Protocol, and any reductions in ozone-depleting compounds
would not count toward Kyoto Protocol targets.
31 59 Federal Register 13049 (March 18, 1994).

CRS-10
Under the regulation, EPA has restricted or narrowed the use of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) where alternatives with
lower global warming potentials exist. EPA estimates that the restrictions reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by 26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in
2002, and projects a further reduction of nearly 200 million metric tons (for a total
of 223 million metric tons) by 2020.32
Residential Appliance Standards. The 1987 National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act (NAECA)33 set minimum efficiency standards for many major
appliances.34 The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) expanded the list of covered
appliances and allowed for future standards development for other products.35 Under
NAECA and EPACT, the Department of Energy must develop mandatory energy
efficiency standards for these appliances, and review them in accordance with a
statutorily set schedule to determine whether they are sufficiently stringent. DOE is
required to set standards designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency it believes is “technically feasible and economically justifiable.”36
The primary driver for residential appliance standards has been energy
conservation. In 1997, the Clinton Administration estimated that the appliance
standards would save almost a quad (1 quadrillion Btu) of energy, resulting in a 21.6
million metric ton reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2010.37 For the 2006
Climate Action Report, DOE estimates reductions of 5 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide in 2012, increasing to 17 million metric tons in 2020.38
Updating State Commercial Building Codes. Section 101 of EPACT
requires DOE to review and update provisions of the commercial building code with
respect to energy efficiency.39 Specifically, DOE is directed to determine whether
32 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 58.
33 P.L. 100-12.
34 As amended in 1988, appliances included refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
room air conditioners, fluorescent lamp ballasts, incandescent reflector lamps, clothes
dryers, clothes washers, dishwashers, kitchen ranges and ovens, pool heaters, television sets
(withdrawn in 1995), and water heaters.
35 Additional appliances included commercial building heating and air conditioning
equipment, water heaters, certain incandescent and fluorescent lamps, distribution
transformers, and electric motors.
36 10 CFR Chapter II, Part 430. For a summary of resulting standards, see [http://www.
eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential_products.html].
37 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 1997, Washington, DC, July 1997,
p. A-7.
38 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 55.
39 Section 101, Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486. The section contains provisions for
updating residential building codes; however, those provisions only require states to review
(continued...)

CRS-11
revisions to the ASHRAE40 Standard 90.1 — 1989 (and any future revisions) would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. If DOE determines that
revisions would improve energy efficiency, states are required to review and update
their commercial building codes accordingly, with respect to improving energy
efficiency. In July 2002, DOE determined that ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 —
1999 would save energy in commercial buildings.41 Thus, states were required to
review and update their commercial building codes by July 15, 2004.42 The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 requires further updates to state commercial building standards.
In announcing its July 2002 determination, the DOE focused on the energy
savings that state adoption of the standard would entail, estimated at 130 million
barrels of oil equivalent over 10 years.43 The DOE announcement does not mention
any carbon dioxide reduction that could result from the improved energy efficiency.
In the 2006 Climate Action Plan, DOE estimates that the new requirements will save
0.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2012, increasing to 3.1 million metric
tons in 2020.44
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Federal fuel economy
standards directly affect greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars, and gave the
Department of Transportation (DOT) the authority to set standards for other vehicles,
including “light trucks,” which consist of pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles.45
The goal of EPCA was to reduce the dependence on foreign oil after the Arab oil
embargo of the 1970s.
Increasing CAFE standards would lead to reductions in fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions as older, less efficient vehicles were replaced with more
efficient models. However, concerns associated with increased CAFE standards
include questions of occupant safety and vehicle choice. In 1994, the Clinton
39 (...continued)
any DOE determination with respect to updating codes. Adoption of the revisions is not
mandatory.
40 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers.
41 67 Federal Register 46464 (July 15, 2002).
42 As of January 2007, 10 states and had not updated their commercial building energy codes
to comply with the EPACT 1992, according to the Building Codes Assistance Project.
However, in three of those states, the codes have been adopted in some jurisdictions. See
[http://www.bcap-energy.org]. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires a further update to
the standards. An additional five states and the District of Columbia have yet to update their
codes to the new requirement.
43 DOE, Energy Department Determines that Model Commercial Building Code Will Save
Energy & Benefit Consumer
, July 15, 2002. Available at [http://www.energycodes.gov/
implement/determinations_com_news.stm].
44 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 55.
45 P.L. 94-163.

CRS-12
Administration considered raising the CAFE standard for light trucks. However,
Congress included language in the annual FY1996-FY2001 DOT Appropriations
Acts46 prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for any rulemaking on CAFE,
effectively freezing the standards. However, the Senate conferees on the FY2001
appropriations insisted upon a study of CAFE by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS). That study, released on July 30, 2001, concluded that it would be possible to
achieve a more than 40% improvement in light truck fuel economy over a 10- to 15-
year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of vehicle ownership,
without compromising safety.
On April 7, 2003, DOT announced a final rule increasing light truck CAFE
standards to 22.2 miles per gallon by model year 2007.47 For the 2006 Climate Action
Report, DOT estimates that in total, the regulations will save 42 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide in 2012.48
On April 6, 2006, DOT announced further changes to the light truck CAFE
standards starting in model year 2008.49 By model year 2011, all light truck
manufacturers will be subject to new standards based on a vehicle’s size. DOT
estimates that the new rule will save an additional 4.4 billion gallons of gasoline over
the life of the vehicles produced between model years 2008 and 2011 (relative to the
MY2007 standard). This would mean an additional greenhouse gas reduction of
roughly 10 million to 12 million metric tons. Both rulemakings combined would
lead to an estimated reduction of between 18 million and 22 million metric tons of
greenhouse gases. However, on November 15, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit remanded the MY2008 standards back to DOT because the agency
did not explicitly value greenhouse gas reductions in its estimates of the costs and
benefits of the rulemaking.50
On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140). Among other provisions, the new law
requires a significant increase in combined passenger car/light truck fuel economy.
By 2020, the combined new vehicle fleet must meet a combined CAFE average of
35 mpg, up from roughly 25 mpg in 2007. This fuel economy increase could lead to
a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from projected levels. EISA is
discussed in greater detail below.
Renewable Fuel Standard. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a
renewable fuel standard (RFS) requiring the use of renewable fuels in gasoline.
46 P.L. 104-50 (FY1996), P.L. 104-205 (FY1997), P.L. 105-66 (FY1998), P.L. 105-277
(FY1999), P.L. 106-69 (FY2000), and P.L. 106-346 (FY2001).
47 68 Federal Register 16867-16900. April 7, 2003.
48 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 57.
49 71 Federal Register 17655-17679. April 6, 2006.
50 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Center for Biological Diversity vs.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
. Argued and Submitted August 14, 2007.
Filed November 15, 2007.

CRS-13
EISA further expanded this requirement, and for the first time set requirements for
the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of motor fuels. For the 2006 Climate Action
Report, EPA did not estimate emissions reductions from the program. However, it
is likely that the program could lead to lower emissions, especially with the new
requirements of EISA.
Distributed Energy Resources. A final program that the George W. Bush
Administration describes as regulatory is the Distributed Energy Program at the
Department of Energy. While most of the program is focused on R&D and
commercialization of new technologies, the program also aims to eliminate
regulatory barriers to the use of distributed energy. For all facets of the program,
DOE estimates that the program saved 12.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in
2002, and will save 57 million metric tons in 2020.51
Monitoring Rules
Carbon Dioxide Monitoring by Electric Generating Facilities.
Section 821 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires electric generating
facilities affected by the acid rain provisions of Title IV to monitor carbon dioxide
in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.52 This
provision was enacted for the stated purpose of establishing a national carbon dioxide
monitoring system.53 As promulgated by EPA, regulations permit owners and
operators of affected facilities to monitor their carbon dioxide emissions through
either continuous emission monitoring (CEM) or fuel analysis.54 The CEM
regulations for carbon dioxide are similar to those for the acid rain program’s sulfur
dioxide CEM regulations. Those choosing fuel analysis must calculate mass
emissions on a daily, quarterly, and annual basis, based on amounts and types of fuel
used.
Although this regulation does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it
does expressly target the global climate change issue. Also, it represents a necessary
first step toward any future market-oriented greenhouse gas reduction program.
Whether a market-oriented control program were to be based on tradeable emissions
credits or a carbon tax, accurate emissions data would be the foundation for
developing the allocation systems, reduction targets, and enforcement provisions.
Regulatory Program Eliminated by P.L. 109-58
Promoting Renewable Energy through PURPA. The 1978 Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) is designed to encourage the development of
51 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report — 2006, Washington, DC, July
2007, p. 56.
52 Section 821, 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (P.L. 101-549, 42 USC 7651k).
53 S.Rept. 101-952.
54 See 40 CFR 75.13, along with appendix G (for CEMs specifications) and appendix F (for
fuel analysis specifications).

CRS-14
cogeneration and small power production (called “qualifying facilities” or QFs).55
In particular, Section 210 contained a mandatory purchase clause requiring utilities
to buy power from QFs at the utilities’ avoided cost. PURPA exempted from the full
breadth of federal and state regulation certain small power producers, including those
using geothermal, solar, wind, and waste energy.56 This regulatory exemption, along
with the mandatory purchase requirement contained in Section 210, has proven to be
a strong incentive for development of renewable energy, particularly biomass. QF
renewable capacity represents a substantial majority of U.S. non-hydroelectric
renewable energy capacity.57 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 repealed the Section
210 purchase requirement for new contracts (see the section below on “The Energy
Policy Act of 2005”).
PURPA was enacted to promote energy security through energy conservation
and the development of alternative energy sources in the aftermath of the 1974 oil
crisis. As events have unfolded, the effort to reduce dependence on fossil fuels has
had the additional perceived benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In 1997,
the Clinton Administration estimated that its renewable energy commercialization
efforts with respect to biomass, geothermal, and wind would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 17.6 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by the year 2010.58 For
the 2002 Climate Action Report, the George W. Bush Administration provided no
specific estimate of reductions from the use of renewable electricity. However, for
the general category of energy supply, the Administration estimated the year 2000
effect to have been a saving of 14.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent.59
With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 210 was amended,
subject to a FERC determination of market conditions. In October 2006, FERC
adopted a final rule delineating those conditions, finding that utilities operating
within regional transmission organizations (RTOs) met the conditions for repeal,
while the market conditions for non-RTO utilities would be determined on a case-by-
case basis.60
55 P.L. 95-617 (1978)
56 As originally enacted, the law limited most small power producers to 30 MW, with
geothermal energy limited to 80 MW. The Solar, Wind, Waste, and Geothermal Production
Incentives Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-575) removed the size limitations.
57 Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy 2000: Issues and Trends,
Washington, DC, February 2001, p. 10.
58 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 1997, Washington, DC, July 1997,
pp. A-23, A-24, and A-27.
59 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, DC, May 2002,
p. 65.
60 This determination represents only a preliminary, rebuttable, presumption that conditions
have been met. Utilities are still required to file for relief from Section 210 requirements.
For more information, see FERC docket RM06-10-000, October 19, 2006.

CRS-15
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-58), with provisions directly and indirectly related to greenhouse gas emissions.
Title XVI establishes a voluntary national program designed to encourage voluntary
reductions in greenhouse gases. The effort is led by an Interagency Committee, with
DOE playing a key supporting role. Title XVI attempts to support actions focused
on reducing U.S. carbon intensity, but does not establish a requirement to reduce
emissions. The title also establishes a program to encourage exports of carbon
intensity-reducing technologies to developing countries. This program is led by the
Secretary of State.
In addition to Title XVI, Section 1253 repeals the mandatory purchase
requirement under Section 210 of PURPA for new contracts if FERC finds that a
competitive electricity market exists and if other conditions are met.61 The debate
over the bill included proposals to increase CAFE standards and to establish a
renewable portfolio standard, although these changes were not included in the final
law.
Also not included in P.L. 109-58 was Section 1612 of the Senate bill (H.R. 6,
as amended by S.Amdt. 866), which expressed the Sense of the Senate that human
activities are a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere,
causing average temperatures to rise. Further, the resolution called for a mandatory,
market-based program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Also, a bill to establish a
mandatory, market-based greenhouse gas reduction program (S. 1151) was debated
on the Senate floor as S.Amdt. 826 and defeated by a 38-60 vote.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140). EISA contains many energy provisions
that could lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.62 In addition to these
indirect reductions, EISA also directly addresses climate change issues in several
ways.
First, EISA expands the renewable fuel standard (RFS) established in P.L. 109-
58. The RFS requires that a minimum amount of renewable fuels be blended into
transportation fuels each year. The EISA amendments to the RFS significantly
expand the mandated level. Further, they require that an increasing share of the RFS
be met with “advanced biofuels” defined as having 50% lower lifecycle greenhouse
61 Proponents of renewable energy argued that repeal would reduce the role of renewables,
while advocates of repeal argued that renewables no longer need economic intervention.
For a more detailed discussion of PURPA, see CRS Report RL32728, Electric Utility
Regulatory Reform: Issues for the 109th Congress
, by Amy Abel.
62 For more information on EISA, see CRS Report RL34294, Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions
.

CRS-16
gas emissions than petroleum fuels. This is the first time that Congress has enacted
national policy addressing the carbon content of motor fuels.
Second, Title VII of the new law focuses on research, development, and
demonstration of technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide. DOE research
and development is expanded and will include large-scale demonstration projects.
The Department of the Interior must develop a methodology to assess the national
potential for geologic and ecosystem storage of carbon dioxide, and must
recommended a regulatory framework for managing geologic carbon sequestration
on public lands.
In addition to the above programs, EISA also requires the establishment of an
Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.
This office will plan, coordinate, and implement research at DOT on reducing
transportation-related energy use, mitigating the causes of climate change, and
addressing the impacts of climate change on transportation.
Energy provisions not directly addressing climate change, but that could lead to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, include
! more stringent fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars
and light trucks;
! higher-efficiency standards for appliances and lighting;
! higher-efficiency requirements for government buildings; and
! research and development on renewable energy.
Conclusion
Energy policy is a key issue in the 110th Congress, as it was in earlier
Congresses. High energy prices and international instability motivated passage of the
2005 Energy Policy Act and the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Given
that energy consumption is the dominant source of carbon dioxide emissions in this
country, and a substantial source of overall greenhouse gas emissions, any reduction
in energy consumption will likely lead to lower emissions. As indicated below
(Table 2), energy-related activities are responsible for about 86% of the country’s
greenhouse gas emissions, and 98% of its carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change
policy directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions should also address energy
consumption and, thus, be integrated with energy policy. At the present time, energy
supply and demand issues are seen by many as more pressing than climate change,
action on general energy legislation, as opposed to legislation specifically targeting
climate change, has been favored. However, interest has grown in developing
legislation to specifically limit greenhouse gas emissions.

CRS-17
Table 2. 2005 Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(million metric tons of CO equivalent)
2
Energy-related
Total U.S. 2005
Energy as percent
Greenhouse gas
2005 emissions
emissions
of total
Carbon Dioxidea
5,943
6,090
98%
Methane
206
539
38%
Nitrous Oxide
52
469
11%
HFC, PFC, SF6
13
163
8%
Totalsb
6,215
7,260
86%
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005
April 2007
Note: Because carbon dioxide is by far the largest volume greenhouse gas, energy-related emissions
are responsible for the majority of total greenhouse gas emissions.
a. Biomass not included.
b Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
As noted in this report, climate change was an integral part of the debate on
1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT), occurring as it did during the signing and ratifying
of the UNFCCC.63 Indeed, EPACT became the implementing legislation for the
UNFCCC, and, as discussed in this report, those programs are responsible for much
of the reduced growth in greenhouse gases achieved since 1992. Most federal
policies and regulations that have resulted in greenhouse gas reductions were, in fact,
promulgated as energy policy initiatives. However, these policies have not limited
growth in overall U.S. emissions.
Climate change — as a specific issue needing a regulatory response — was
debated during deliberations on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and
recognized in passage of Senate Amendment 866 expressing the Sense of the Senate
that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of
mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases that slow, stop,
and reverse the growth of such emissions. The Energy Independence and Security
Act (EISA) of 2007 directly addresses some climate change issues, but still generally
focuses on energy supply and consumption. The overall effect of EPAct 2005 and
EISA on future greenhouse gas emissions is unclear, and specific action on the issue
will depend on efforts to enact the national program called for in Senate Amendment
866. If perceptions of the urgency of the climate change problem increase, either due
to further research and understanding of the issue and its risks, or from an empirical
event such as an abrupt change in climate, the need to reintegrate the energy-climate
change policy debate might have to be considered.
63 For more on the relationship between UNFCCC and EPACT, see CRS Report RL30024,
U.S. Global Climate Change Policy: Evolving Views on Cost, Competitiveness, and
Comprehensiveness
, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.