Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress

Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress

Order Code IB10065
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress
Updated February 4, 2003
James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Issues in the 107th Congress
Energy and Air Quality
New Source Review and Multi-Pollutant Legislation
MTBE and Reformulated Gasoline
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports

IB10065
02-04-03
Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief, which will not be up-
nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas
dated, discusses air quality issues and legisla-
contain at least 2% oxygen, but the additive
tion in the 107th Congress. For information on
has been implicated in numerous incidents of
the 108th Congress, see CRS Issue Brief
ground water contamination.
IB10107.

Since mid-1999, bills to diminish the use
In the 107th Congress, the most promi-
of MTBE have been near the top of the clean
nent air quality issue was whether state and
air agenda. On September 25, 2001, the
federal regulations designed to protect air
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
quality are having a negative impact on energy
mittee approved one of these bills, S. 950, to
production, and, if so, whether such regula-
ban MTBE use, waive the oxygen require-
tions should be reformed. The early discus-
ment, and provide additional funding for
sion focused primarily on California, but with
ground water cleanup (S.Rept. 107-131).
the release of the Administration’s energy
Similar provisions, plus requirements that
policy recommendations in May 2001 and
motor vehicle fuel contain ethanol or other
subsequent congressional action, attention
renewable fuels were included in the Senate
shifted to issues more national in scope.
version of H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy
bill passed by the Senate, April 25, 2002. The
Among these were whether the Clean Air
House version of H.R. 4 did not contain such
Act’s New Source Review requirements have
provisions, however—one of many issues on
been enforced consistently, whether they have
which the House and Senate bills differed.
prevented power plants from making improve-
H.R. 4 died in conference.
ments that would expand power output, and
whether Congress should enact “multi-pollu-
Congress last enacted major amendments
tant” legislation for power plants in order to
to the Clean Air Act in 1990, and EPA is still
provide certainty regarding future regulatory
implementing numerous provisions of those
requirements. The Senate Environment and
amendments. Recent efforts have included
Public Works Committee approved a multi-
development of tighter emission standards for
pollutant bill, S. 556, June 27, 2002. The
nonroad engines and for diesel engines and
Administration also submitted legislation, S.
fuels. Review of state implementation plans
2815 / H.R. 5266, but no action was taken on
for attaining ozone air quality standards is
it.
another ongoing agency activity. EPA deci-
sions regarding implementation of these and
A second set of air issues in the 107th
other programs mandated by the Clean Air
Congress concerned regulation of the gasoline
Act will provide continuing opportunities for
additive MTBE. MTBE is used to meet Clean
oversight and possible legislation.
Air Act requirements that gasoline sold in the
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10065
02-04-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 107th Congress did not pass major legislation amending the Clean Air Act. Of the
bills that might have amended the Act, H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill, came closest
to passage: it died in conference at the end of the Congress. The Senate version of the bill,
passed April 25, 2002, would have banned use of the gasoline additive MTBE, eliminated
the requirement to use MTBE or other oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, authorized
additional funding for cleanup of ground water contaminated by the substance, and required
that motor vehicle fuel contain ethanol or other renewable fuels. The House bill, passed on
August 2, 2001, contained only the ground water cleanup provisions, not the ban on MTBE
or the provisions requiring the use of ethanol.
Another issue that saw committee action was the regulation of electric power plants (so-
called multi-pollutant legislation). On June 27, 2002, the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee narrowly approved S. 556, a bill to control emissions of sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide from electric power plants (S.Rept. 107-347).
Although the bill did not proceed to the Senate floor, it marked the first time a congressional
committee reported legislation to reduce utility emissions of the suspected “greenhouse” gas,
carbon dioxide. S. 2815 / H.R. 5266, an Administration bill with less stringent requirements
and no provisions on carbon dioxide, was introduced in late July 2002. It may serve as the
starting point for future action on the issue.
EPA recommendations regarding the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR)
program were released June 13 and November 22, 2002. Under the Administration’s energy
plan, EPA and the Justice Department had been directed to review the impact on utilities and
refineries of NSR and of recent enforcement actions taken under its authority. The new NSR
rules (some proposed and others promulgated by EPA November 22) will make it easier for
companies to modify their facilities without installing new pollution controls. A separate
Justice Department review was released in January 2002; it concluded that EPA’s
enforcement actions “are supported by a reasonable basis in law and fact,” but many argue
that the enforcement actions will be undercut by the changes in the NSR regulations now
being implemented by EPA.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
minimum national standards for air quality, and assigns primary responsibility to the states
to assure compliance. Areas not meeting the standards, referred to as nonattainment areas,
are required to implement specified air pollution control measures. The Act requires federal
emission standards for autos and other mobile sources of air pollution, for sources of 188
hazardous air pollutants, and for sources of acid rain. It establishes a comprehensive
state-run permit system for all major sources of air pollution. It also addresses the prevention
of pollution in areas with clean air, as well as protection of the stratospheric ozone layer.
The last comprehensive amendments to the Act, enacted November 15, 1990 (P.L.
101-549), included the program to control acid rain, new standards for emissions of
CRS-1

IB10065
02-04-03
hazardous air pollutants, new requirements for motor vehicles and fuels, stringent new
requirements for nonattainment areas, and the comprehensive permit program.
Many of these provisions (notably the acid rain and air toxics provisions, and some of
the requirements for autos and fuels) were strenuously debated, but most have not been
subject to controversy since enactment. The new provisions on acid rain and automobiles
and some of those on air toxics have been implemented on schedule, in many cases at less
cost than anticipated. There have also been noticeable improvements in air quality in recent
years: of 98 metropolitan areas not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard in 1990, about half
now do so. Even greater progress has been achieved with carbon monoxide: 36 of the 42
areas not in attainment in 1990 now meet the standard.
Nevertheless, major controversies remain concerning implementation of the Act. In
addition, recent studies of the impact of air pollutants have led many to conclude that air
pollution has harmful health effects at levels formerly considered safe. Based on this
research, EPA tightened the standards for ozone and particulate matter in 1997. The Agency
expects to implement the new standards beginning in 2004.
Issues in the 107th Congress
Two sets of air quality issues were on the agenda in the 107th Congress: (1) whether
Congress should address the connections between energy production and air quality
regulation; and ( 2) whether Congress should modify Clean Air Act requirements that have
led to the use of a substance called MTBE in gasoline, in response to a growing number of
ground water contamination incidents involving the substance.
Energy and Air Quality
In the early months of the 107th Congress, the most prominent air quality issue was
whether state and federal regulations designed to protect air quality had a negative impact
on energy production, and, if so, whether legislation should be enacted to temporarily or
permanently relax such regulations.
The early discussion focused primarily on California. As California’s energy situation
worsened in the winter of 2001 (in part, it now appears, through manipulation of energy
markets by trading companies such as Enron), the Bush Administration and others issued
statements implying that air regulations may have contributed to the problem. Anticipating
such concerns, federal and state air pollution officials, beginning in the summer of 2000, took
steps to relax controls that might have prevented the use of emergency generators to cope
with power shortages, and to lower the cost of emissions “allowances” under a California air
pollution control program. Congress also briefly considered legislation that would have
waived emission controls for both new and existing power plants (H.R. 1647). This bill was
approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Air Quality
Subcommittee on May 10, 2001. Less than a month later, Energy and Commerce Committee
Chairman Tauzin announced, after protracted negotiations, that further efforts to enact the
bill would be suspended indefinitely.
CRS-2

IB10065
02-04-03
New Source Review and Multi-Pollutant Legislation. With the release of Vice
President Cheney’s energy policy recommendations in mid-May 2001 and the easing of the
shortage of electricity in California over that summer, the focus of discussion on air quality
and energy issues shifted to issues more national in scope. The National Energy Policy
(NEP) generally ignored California-specific issues. Instead, it took a longer and broader
view, addressing issues that affect power production and energy supply nationally.
Two of the NEP’s most important recommendations addressed air issues: the policy
recommended a review of the air emission regulatory process known as New Source Review
(NSR); simultaneously, it proposed to strengthen emission controls on power plants through
new legislation (referred to as “multi-pollutant legislation”).
The Administration was slow in developing the details of both its legislative and
regulatory proposals. It announced some details in its “Clear Skies” proposal on February
14, 2002. It sent legislative language to Congress (H.R. 5266 / S. 2815) in late July 2002,
only after the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had ordered a more
stringent bill (S. 556) reported. Regulatory proposals on NSR were released on June 13,
2002, and some were finalized November 22, 2002; other regulatory changes to the NSR
rules are still in proposed form.
New Source Review. In an effort to ease regulatory burdens on power plants and
refineries and provide additional incentives to expand output at existing facilities, the NEP
recommended a review of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirements, with the
EPA Administrator to report to the President within 90 days regarding the impact of NSR
regulations on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency,
and environmental protection. (The review was not completed until June 13, 2002, more
than a year later. Regulations implementing the review’s recommendations were released
November 22.) The NEP also recommended that the Attorney General review existing NSR
enforcement actions to ensure “that they are consistent with the Clean Air Act and its
regulations.” This review was completed on January 15, 2002, with the Justice Department
concluding that EPA “reasonably may conclude that the enforcement actions are consistent
with the Clean Air Act and its regulations.”
The controversy over the NSR process stems from EPA’s application of New Source
Performance Standards to existing stationary sources of air pollution that have been
modified. In Section 111, the Clean Air Act states that new sources (subject to NSR) include
modifications of existing sources as well as plants that are totally new; industry has
generally avoided the NSR process, however, by claiming that changes to existing sources
were “routine maintenance” rather than modifications. In the 1990s, EPA began reviewing
records of electric utilities, petroleum refineries, and other industries to determine whether
the changes were routine or not. As a result of these reviews, since late 1999, EPA and the
Department of Justice have filed suit against 14 electric utilities, claiming that they made
major modifications to 53 units in 14 states, extending their lives and increasing their electric
generating capacity without undergoing required New Source Reviews and without installing
best available pollution controls. With one exception, these suits were filed by the Clinton
Administration.
Two of the 14 utilities charged with NSR violations (Tampa Electric and PSEG of New
Jersey) have settled with EPA, agreeing to spend more than $1.3 billion over the next decade
CRS-3

IB10065
02-04-03
on pollution controls or fuel switching in order to reduce emissions at their affected units.
Two other utilities (Virginia Power and Cinergy) reached agreement in principle 2 years ago
to spend more than $1 billion each to resolve NSR violations, but final settlement
negotiations have not been concluded. A fifth utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has
announced plans to spend $1.5 billion to reduce emissions at four of its plants, although not
as part of a settlement agreement. Between July 25, 2000 and December 20, 2001, the
Agency also reached agreement with nine petroleum refiners representing more than 30%
of industry capacity. The refiners agreed to settle potential charges of NSR violations by
paying fines and installing equipment to eliminate 153,000 tons of pollution.
Companies that have not settled with EPA and other critics of the Agency’s actions
claim that EPA reinvented the rules, and, in the process, provided disincentives for power
producers and refineries to expand output. Critics have included the National Coal Council,
an advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy composed largely of industry executives.
It stated in a May 3, 2001 report that existing coal-fired power plants could make technical
improvements to produce an additional 40,000 megawatts of electricity if the EPA would
loosen current NSR restrictions.
In its November 22, 2002 announcement, EPA promulgated four sets of changes to the
NSR requirements: first, it will allow facilities to use Plantwide Applicability Limits, rather
than emissions from the individual units being replaced, to determine whether emissions will
increase from a plant modification (this is expected to make it easier to modify facilities
without triggering NSR); second, certain environmentally beneficial pollution control and
prevention projects will be allowed to proceed without NSR permits, upon submission of a
notice to the permitting authority; third, plants that install state-of-the-art pollution controls
(referred to as “clean units”) will be allowed to modify their facilities during the ensuing 10
years without undergoing further review provided they meet emission limits specified in their
permit; and fourth, the methodology used to calculate whether emissions will increase
(triggering NSR) will be changed—for example, facilities other than power plants will be
able to compare projected emissions after a modification to the highest levels reached during
any 24-month period during the previous 10 years.
In addition to the four promulgated changes, the Agency also proposed new regulations
defining what constitutes routine maintenance, which is exempt from review. The proposal
would exempt from NSR modifications that cost less than threshold amounts.
The proposed and promulgated changes (characterized by the Administration as
streamlining or improvement of the program, and by environmental groups and a number of
states as a significant weakening) are almost certain to trigger litigation, with enforcement
of NSR blocked for the immediate future. In the meantime, the mere prospect of an NSR
rollback, critics argue, has already caused utilities to withdraw from settlement negotiations
over the pending lawsuits, delaying emission reductions that could have been achieved in the
near future. (For additional discussion of NSR issues, see CRS Report RL30432, Air Quality
and Electricity: Enforcing New Source Review.)
Multi-Pollutant Legislation. Simultaneous with its proposal for review of the NSR
requirements, the National Energy Policy proposed to strengthen emission controls on sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants through new legislation. Such
legislation would replace numerous existing regulatory programs, including NSR, New
CRS-4

IB10065
02-04-03
Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate standards, Best Available Retrofit Technology, and regulations under
development to control mercury emissions from electric utilities.
The number of current and prospective regulations on power plant emissions has
suggested to many in industry, environmental groups, Congress, and the Administration that
the time may be ripe for such comprehensive, multi-pollutant legislation to regulate power
plant emissions. The key questions are how stringent the controls will be, and whether
carbon dioxide (CO ) will be among the emissions subject to controls.
2
Regarding the stringency issue, seven bills that were introduced prior to the
Administration’s proposal would have required reduction of NOx emissions to 1.5 or 1.6
million tons (a nearly 80% reduction from 1998 levels) and reduction of sulfur dioxide
emissions to 2.23-4.45 million tons (a reduction of roughly 65%-80% versus 1998).
Regarding mercury, the bills would have either required EPA to determine the level of
reductions, or required about a 90% reduction from current levels of emissions (from 48 to
4.5 or 5 tons). In general, these reductions would have taken place by 2005 or 2008,
depending on the bill. Three of the bills would also have set caps on CO emissions, at the
2
level emitted in 1990. (For additional information and a detailed comparison of the
legislative proposals, see CRS Report RL31326, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation.)
The Administration bill (H.R. 5266 / S. 2815), known as the “Clear Skies” bill,
envisions less stringent standards phased in over a longer period of time. For NOx, the
Administration would reduce emissions to 1.7 million tons by 2018, with an intermediate
limit of 2.1 million tons in 2008. For sulfur dioxide, the limit would be 3.0 million tons in
2018, with an intermediate limit of 4.5 million tons in 2008. For mercury, the limit would
be 26 tons in 2010, declining to 15 tons in 2018.
The Administration opposes controls on CO , viewing them as a step towards
2
implementing the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, which it opposes. Its critics, however—and even some of its supporters—note that
the goal of providing regulatory certainty to power companies may not be met without the
inclusion of CO controls.
2
Whatever the merits of CO regulation, some form of multi-pollutant legislation may
2
remain on the agenda over the next few years. Hearings on multi-pollutant legislation were
held November 1 and 15, 2001, and January 29 and June 12, 2002, by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Jeffords’ bill, S. 556, was reported by
the committee, with amendments (S.Rept. 107-347), on November 19, 2002. Opposed by
the Administration and by the electric utility and coal industries, the bill died without
reaching the Senate floor; but it marked the first time a congressional committee has reported
legislation to reduce utility emissions of carbon dioxide. In addition to S. 556 and the other
bills discussed above, an effort to reach middle ground (S. 3135) was introduced by Senator
Carper, October 17, 2002. The Carper bill would have regulated CO as well as the other
2
three pollutants, but its deadlines and the required reductions in emissions fell somewhere
between the Jeffords bill and the Administration’s Clear Skies bill.
(For additional information on regulation of electric utility emissions, see CRS Report
RS20553, Air Quality and Electricity: Initiatives to Increase Pollution Controls.)
CRS-5

IB10065
02-04-03
MTBE and Reformulated Gasoline
Another set of issues that was on the agenda of the 107th Congress was whether
Congress should modify the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s reformulated gasoline
program or regulate use of the substance MTBE in gasoline in response to incidents of
ground water contamination by the substance. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, numerous areas with poor air quality are required to add chemicals called “oxygenates”
to gasoline as a means of improving combustion and reducing emissions. The Act has two
programs that require the use of oxygenates; the more significant of the two is the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, which took effect January 1, 1995. Under the RFG
program, areas with “severe” or “extreme” ozone pollution (82 counties with a combined
population of 55 million) must use reformulated gas; areas with less severe ozone pollution
may opt into the program as well, and many have. In all, portions of 17 states and the
District of Columbia use RFG, and a little more than 30% of the gasoline sold in the United
States is RFG.
The law requires that RFG contain at least 2% oxygen by weight. Refiners can meet
this requirement by adding a number of ethers or alcohols, any of which contains oxygen and
other elements. By far the most commonly used oxygenate is MTBE. In 1999, 87% of RFG
contained MTBE. MTBE has also been used since the late 1970s in non-reformulated
gasoline, as an octane enhancer, at lower concentrations. As a result, gasoline with MTBE
has been used virtually everywhere in the United States, whether or not an area has been
subject to RFG requirements.
State and local environmental agencies and EPA attribute marked improvements in air
quality to the use of oxygenated and reformulated gasoline. The improvements in air quality
have not come without controversy. In Alaska and Wisconsin, residents complained of a
wide array of effects, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, sore eyes, and respiratory
irritation, from exposure to gasoline/MTBE exhaust, before refiners switched to alternative
gasoline formulations using ethanol. MTBE from a number of sources, including leaking
underground storage tanks, has also been linked to contamination of drinking water supplies.
Removing MTBE from ground water is a costly and difficult process.
The principal issues for Congress are whether Clean Air Act provisions concerning
oxygenate use in reformulated gasoline should be waived to allow refiners to discontinue or
lessen their use of MTBE without substituting another oxygenate and whether stronger steps,
such as a ban on MTBE use, should be considered.
Support for eliminating the oxygen requirement on a nationwide basis is widespread
among environmental groups, the petroleum industry, and states. In general, these groups
have concluded that gasoline can meet the same low emission performance standards as RFG
without the use of oxygenates. But a potential obstacle to enacting legislation to remove the
oxygen requirement lies among agricultural interests. About 6% of the nation’s corn crop
is used to produce a competing oxygenate, ethanol. If MTBE use is reduced or phased out,
but the oxygen requirement remains in effect, ethanol use would likely soar, increasing
demand for corn. Conversely, if the oxygen requirement is waived by EPA or legislation,
not only would MTBE use decline, but so, likely, would demand for ethanol. Thus,
Members of Congress and Governors from corn-growing states have taken a keen interest
CRS-6

IB10065
02-04-03
in MTBE legislation. Unless their interests are addressed, they could pose a potent obstacle
to its passage.
Concerns over MTBE have focused on California for much of the past 5 years.
California has the most extensive reformulated gasoline program in the country, with state
requirements separate and in addition to the federal requirements. In addition, it has
experienced the most significant contamination of drinking water by MTBE. Responding
to the drinking water contamination incidents, on March 25, 1999, Governor Davis of
California signed an Executive Order to require a phase-out of MTBE use in the state by
December 31, 2002 (amended earlier this year to December 31, 2003), and requested a
waiver of federal requirements to use oxygenates in reformulated gasoline. (Fourteen other
states—Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington—have subsequently
passed legislation to limit or phase out MTBE.)
The California request for a waiver of the oxygen requirement resulted in two years of
negotiation between EPA and the state before the Agency finally denied California’s request,
on June 12, 2001. Without a waiver, gasoline sold in ozone nonattainment areas in the state
will be required to contain another oxygenate (most likely, ethanol) when the MTBE ban
takes effect, unless Congress acts to change the oxygenate requirement. Legislation to waive
the oxygen requirement for California (the Cox amendment to H.R. 4) was rejected by the
House, 300-125, August 1, 2001, during debate on the House version of comprehensive
energy legislation.
Besides the Cox amendment, many proposals to change the oxygen requirement have
been advanced, and Congress has considered several bills over the last three years. On
August 4, 1999, the Senate adopted by voice vote Senator Boxer’s amendment to the
FY2000 Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 1233) expressing the sense of the Senate that use
of MTBE should be phased out. Since then, congressional committees have conducted
hearings and marked up MTBE legislation several times. The Senate passed MTBE
provisions in its version of comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, April 25, 2002. The
bill died, however, when the 107th Congress adjourned.
The MTBE provisions in the Senate version of H.R. 4 built on legislation reported by
the Environment and Public Works Committee in December 2001, S. 950. S. 950 would
have banned the use of MTBE, allowed Governors to waive the RFG program’s oxygen
requirement, provided additional authority to EPA to regulate fuel additives and emissions,
authorized a one-time appropriation of $200 million from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund to clean up MTBE leaks from tanks, and authorized another $200 million
over 6 years for states to use to oversee and enforce tank leak prevention and detection
regulations. It would also have authorized $750 million in grants to assist conversion of
merchant MTBE production facilities to production of cleaner fuel additives. The bill was
reported on December 20, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-131). The Chairman and other members of the
committee said they expected to engage in negotiations to add renewable fuel requirements
to the bill before it could be brought to the floor.
Instead of S. 950 coming to the floor, however, similar MTBE provisions were added
to the Senate’s energy bill, as Sections 83-839 of S.Amdt. 2917. The amendment also
provided for tripling the use of ethanol or other renewable fuels in motor vehicles by 2012,
CRS-7

IB10065
02-04-03
in Section 820. These provisions passed the Senate in the Senate version of H.R. 4, April
25, 2002. The House passed its own version of H.R. 4 in August 2001, minus most of the
MTBE and ethanol provisions, and different in many other respects, as well. The conferees
did not reach agreement on the conflicting versions, and the bill died when the Congress
adjourned.
As the deadlines for state phaseout of MTBE move closer, investment decisions
involving hundreds of millions of dollars hang on the regulatory framework of the post-
MTBE gasoline market. Thus, pressure for congressional action on this issue is likely to
remain high. Whether this pressure will produce enacted legislation is less clear. (For
additional discussion of the MTBE issue, see CRS Report 98-290, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean
Air and Drinking Water Issues. For information on ethanol, see CRS Report RL30369, Fuel
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 4 (Tauzin)
Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001. Comprehensive energy legislation.
As amended and passed by the Senate, the bill includes provisions that would ban use of the
gasoline additive MTBE within 4 years of enactment (but allow states to authorize its
continued use), eliminate the requirement to use oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, require
maintenance of the toxic emission reductions achieved by the RFG program, authorize
additional funding for cleanup of ground water contaminated by MTBE, and triple use of
ethanol and other renewable fuels in motor vehicles by 2012. S.Amdt. 2917 (Daschle)
proposed February 15, 2002, and further modified March 5, 2002. Amendment agreed to by
voice vote, April 25, 2002. Amendment incorporated into H.R. 4 and passed by the Senate,
April 25, 2002. Conferees appointed by the Senate, May 1, 2002, and by the House, June
12, 2002.
H.R. 20 (Greenwood)
Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air Act to require the EPA Administrator to waive
the reformulated gasoline program’s oxygen content requirement in response to a state
petition; requires EPA to limit use of MTBE beginning in 2005; and allows EPA to control
or prohibit the use of any oxygenate, or to permit the states to do so under limited
circumstances. Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 25 (Sweeney)
Acid Rain Control Act. To reduce acid deposition by requiring additional controls on
sources of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 52 (Condit)
Amends the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of California state
regulations regarding reformulated gasoline in federal RFG areas within the state. Introduced
January 3, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
CRS-8

IB10065
02-04-03
H.R. 454 (T. Johnson)
MTBE Elimination Act. Prohibits the use of MTBE as a fuel additive, effective 3 years
after the date of enactment; establishes an MTBE ground water contamination and
remediation research grants program within the Environmental Protection Agency; and
allows reformulated gasoline containing 3.5% ethanol to exceed current standards for
volatility. Introduced February 6, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 608 (Ganske)
Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2001. Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air
Act to prohibit the use of MTBE 3 years after the date of enactment, to provide flexibility
within the oxygenate requirement of the RFG program, and to prevent backsliding on
emissions by limiting the aromatic hydrocarbon content of RFG. Introduced February 14,
2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1256 (Waxman)
Clean Smokestacks Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide from electric powerplants.
Introduced March 27, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1335 (Allen)
Clean Power Plant Act of 2001. Requires reductions in emissions of mercury, carbon
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating
units. Introduced April 3, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1647 (Barton)
Electricity Emergency Relief Act. Includes provisions designed to temporarily waive
NOx emission requirements for power plants during electricity emergencies. Introduced May
1, 2001; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and on Resources. Approved,
amended, by Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, May 10,
2001.

H.R. 1695 (Pombo)
Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air Act to require EPA to prohibit the use of MTBE
as a fuel additive and to prohibit any additive in gasoline unless it has been determined
(through scientific testing and peer review) not to have any adverse effects on the public.
Introduced May 3, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1891 (Bryant)
Clean Diesel Fuel Provider Relief Act. Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air Act to
eliminate the phase-in period (2006 to 2010) for the reduction of sulfur content in diesel fuel,
making EPA’s new sulfur standard effective September 1, 2006, and sets cetane and aromatic
content requirements for such fuel. Introduced May 17, 2001; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1999 (Nussle)
Ethanol Energy Promotion Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use
of MTBE as a fuel additive and to require federal vehicles to use ethanol fuel, and to modify
the small-ethanol-producer tax credit. Introduced May 24, 2001; referred to Committees on
Energy and Commerce and on Ways and Means.
CRS-9

IB10065
02-04-03
H.R. 2017 (Green)
Directs the EPA Administrator to conduct a study of the feasibility of developing
regional vehicle fuel specifications for the United States and of implementing the use of a
uniform blend of gasoline in the Midwest. Introduced May 25, 2001; referred to Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2116 (Taylor)
Great Smoky Mountains Clean Air Act of 2001. Requires reductions of emissions of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide from Tennessee Valley
Authority electric powerplants by January 1, 2007. Introduced June 7, 2001; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2230 (King)
Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of the fuel additive MTBE
in gasoline. Introduced June 19, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2249 (Blunt)
Gasoline Access and Stabilization Act of 2001. Amends Section 211 of the Clean Air
Act to require a more uniform formula for gasoline and diesel fuel so that gasoline and diesel
fuel manufactured for one region of the country may be transported to and sold in other
regions. Introduced June 20, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2270 (Issa)
Identical to H.R. 52. Introduced June 21, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 2729 (Allen)
Amends the Clean Air Act to require reduced emissions of mercury from fossil
fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units, commercial and industrial boiler units, solid
waste incineration units, medical waste incinerators, hazardous waste combustors,
chlor-alkali plants, and Portland cement plants. Introduced August 2, 2001; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3362 (Condit)
Transported Air Pollution Mitigation Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to impose
certain requirements on areas upwind of ozone nonattainment areas. Introduced November
28, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3596 (Ryan)
Amends the Clean Air Act to ban the use of MTBE in gasoline, eliminate the RFG
program’s oxygen requirement, require the use of renewable fuel, and reduce the number of
“boutique” fuels. Introduced December 20, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 3880 (Fossella)
Provides a temporary waiver from certain transportation conformity requirements and
metropolitan transportation planning requirements under the Clean Air Act for areas in New
York where the planning offices and resources have been destroyed by acts of terrorism.
Introduced March 6, 2002; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and on
CRS-10

IB10065
02-04-03
Transportation and Infrastructure. Forwarded by Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
to Full Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 24, 2002. Reported, amended, by
Committee on Energy and Commerce, September 9, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-649 Part 1). Passed
the House (377-0), September 10, 2002. Passed the Senate by unanimous consent,
September 12, 2002. Signed into law October 1, 2002.
H.R. 3946 (Sensenbrenner)
Fuel Price Stability Act of 2002. Amends the Clean Air Act to allow the Governors of
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin to permit the sale of conventional gasoline in reformulated
gasoline areas if the Governor finds that reduced availability of RFG has resulted in, or is
likely to result in, a significant price increase in that area Introduced March 12, 2002;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 4611 (Olver)
Amends the Clean Air Act to establish an inventory, registry, and information system
of United States greenhouse gas emissions. Introduced April 25, 2002; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 5261 (Kirk)
Great Lakes Mercury Reduction Act. Prohibits the issuance of new source permits
under the Clean Air Act for certain sources that would result in the deposition of mercury
into the Great Lakes. Introduced July 26, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 5266 (Barton, by request)
Clear Skies Act of 2002. The Administration’s multi-pollutant legislation for electric
utility emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Introduced July 26, 2002;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 5433 (Barcia)
Amends the Clean Air Act to ensure reasonable emissions standards for highway
motorcycles. Introduced September 24, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R.5732 (K. Brady)
Amends the Clean Air Act regarding the conformity of transportation projects to state
implementation plans. Introduced November 14, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
S. 60 (Byrd)
National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act. Authorizes accelerated
research and development programs for advanced clean coal technologies for use in
electricity generating facilities; amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide financial
incentives to encourage retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of coal-based electricity
generating facilities to protect the environment and improve efficiency and encourage the
early commercial application of advanced clean coal technologies. Introduced January 22,
2001; referred to Committee on Finance.
CRS-11

IB10065
02-04-03
S. 265 (Fitzgerald)
MTBE Elimination Act. Prohibits the use of MTBE as a fuel additive, effective 3 years
after the date of enactment and establishes an MTBE ground water contamination and
remediation research grants program within the Environmental Protection Agency.
Introduced February 6, 2001; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 389 (Murkowski)
National Energy Security Act of 2001. To protect the energy and security of the United
States and decrease America’s dependency on foreign oil sources to 50% by the year 2011
by enhancing the use of renewable energy resources, conserving energy resources, improving
energy efficiencies, and increasing domestic energy supplies; to improve environmental
quality by reducing emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases; and to mitigate the
effect of increases in energy prices on the American consumer, including the poor and the
elderly. Introduced February 26, 2001; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 517 (Bingaman)
Energy Policy Act of 2002. Comprehensive energy legislation. As modified by
S.Amdt. 2917 (Daschle), Section 819 requires increasing use of ethanol or other renewable
fuels in motor vehicle fuel each year from 2004 to 2012. Sections 831-839 would ban the
use of MTBE in gasoline within 4 years, allow governors to waive the oxygenate requirement
in reformulated gasoline, prevent backsliding on emissions of air toxics from RFG, and
authorize funds for remediation of MTBE leaks. S. 517 introduced March 12, 2001.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute introduced February 15, 2002; amendment, as
modified, adopted March 5, 2002. Senate consideration began March 5, 2002.
S. 556 (Jeffords)
Clean Power Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide from electric powerplants. Introduced
March 15, 2001; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings
held, November 1 and 15, 2001, and January 29 and June 12, 2002. Reported with
amendments (S.Rept. 107-347), November 19, 2002.
S. 588 (Schumer)
Acid Rain Control Act. Amends the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric powerplants. Establishes a NOx
emissions trading program. Introduced March 21, 2001; referred to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
S. 670 (Daschle)
Renewable Fuels Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to ban MTBE from the U.S.
fuel supply not later than 4 years after the date of enactment, to increase production and use
of ethanol, and to authorize $400 million from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund
for remediation of MTBE contamination. Introduced March 30, 2001; referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 892 (Harkin)
Clean and Renewable Fuels Act of 2001. Amends the Clean Air Act to phase out the
use of MTBE in fuels or fuel additives and to promote the use of renewable fuels. Introduced
May 15, 2001; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CRS-12

IB10065
02-04-03
S. 947 (Feinstein)
Amends the Clean Air Act to allow Governors to waive the oxygen content requirement
for reformulated gasoline. Introduced May 24, 2001; referred to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
S. 950 (B. Smith)
Federal Reformulated Fuels Act of 2001. Requires EPA to ban the use of MTBE as a
fuel additive within 4 years of enactment; allows Governors to waive the oxygen content
requirement for reformulated gasoline; requires maintenance of toxic air pollution reductions
achieved under the reformulated gasoline program; authorizes $400 million from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for remediation of MTBE leaks, release prevention,
and compliance; requires studies of the health and environmental effects of MTBE
substitutes; expands the authority for states to opt in to the RFG program; and other
provisions. Introduced May 24, 2001; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Reported December 20, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-131).
S. 1131 (Leahy)
Clean Power Plant and Modernization Act of 2001. Promotes economically sound
modernization of U.S. electric power generation capacity, establishes requirements to
improve the combustion heat rate efficiency of fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating
units, reduces emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide,
requires that all U.S. fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units meet new source review
requirements, promotes the use of clean coal technologies, and promotes alternative energy
and clean energy sources. Introduced June 28, 2001; referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 1870 (Corzine)
Amends the Clean Air Act to establish an inventory, registry, and information system
of United States greenhouse gas emissions. Introduced December 20, 2001; referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 1875 (Leahy)
Amends the Clean Air Act to establish requirements concerning the operation of fossil
fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units, commercial and industrial boilers, solid
waste incinerators, medical waste incinerators, hazardous waste combustors, chlor-alkali
plants, and Portland cement plants to reduce emissions of mercury to the environment.
Introduced December 20, 2001; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
S. 2065 (Campbell)
To implement air quality programs on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in Colorado.
Introduced March 21, 2002; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 2579 (Bond)
Amends the Clean Air Act to limit access to off-site consequences analysis information
submitted to EPA by facilities handling hazardous chemicals, in order to reduce the risk of
criminal release from stationary sources. Introduced June 5, 2002; referred to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
CRS-13

IB10065
02-04-03
S. 2815 (B. Smith, by request)
Clear Skies Act of 2002. The Administration’s multi-pollutant legislation for electric
utility emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Introduced July 29, 2002;
referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 3135 (Carper)
Clean Air Planning Act of 2002. Amends the Clean Air Act to establish a national
uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric generating sector.
Introduced October 17, 2002; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality. H.R. 1647, The Electricity Emergency Act of 2001. May 1 and May
3, 2001.
––. Accomplishments of the Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act Implementation: Experience
of State and Local Regulators. May 1 and June 5, 2002.
––. Committee on Science. Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: What Does the
Science Say? May 8, 2002.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. S. 556, the Clean
Power Act. November 1 and 15, 2001; January 29 and June 12, 2002.
––. Impact of Air Emissions from the Transportation Sector on Public Health and the
Environment. August 1, 2001.
––. Health and Environmental Effects of Power Plant Emissions. July 26, 2001.
––. Health Effects of PM Emissions. October 2, 2002.
2.5
––. MTBE in Gasoline. April 27, 2001.
––. Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. Clean Air
Act and National Energy Policy. March 21, 2001.
—. Committee on the Judiciary. New Source Review Program of the Clean Air Act. July 16,
2002.
CRS-14

IB10065
02-04-03
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL30432. Air Quality and Electricity: Enforcing New Source Review, by Larry
B. Parker and John E. Blodgett.
CRS Report RS20553. Air Quality and Electricity: Initiatives to Increase Pollution
Controls, by Larry B. Parker and John E. Blodgett.
CRS Report 98-236. Air Quality: EPA’s Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126
Petitions — A Hazy Situation?, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
CRS Report RL31326. Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation, by Larry Parker and John
Blodgett.
CRS Report RL31515. Air Toxics: What Progress Has EPA Made in Regulating Hazardous
Air Pollutants? by Anne L. Hardenbergh.
CRS Report RL30853. Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements,
by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report RL30737. Diesel Fuel and Engines: An Analysis of EPA’s Proposed
Regulations, by Brent D. Yacobucci, James E. McCarthy, John W. Fischer, Alejandro
E. Segarra, and Lawrence C. Kumins.
CRS Report RL30878. Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Strategies,
by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
CRS Report RL30369. Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues, by Brent D.
Yacobucci and Jasper Womach.
CRS Report RL30131. Highway Fund Sanctions and Conformity Under the Clean Air Act,
by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report 98-290. MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues, by James
E. McCarthy and Mary Tiemann.
CRS Report RL31531. Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards: Background and Current
Developments, by Anne L. Hardenbergh.
CRS Report RL31149. Snowmobiles, Environmental Standards, and Access to National
Parks: Regulatory and Legislative Issues, by James E. McCarthy.
CRS Report RS20860. The Supreme Court Upholds EPA Standard-Setting Under the Clean
Air Act: Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, by Robert Meltz and James E.
McCarthy.
CRS-15