Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Order Code RL32955
Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress
Updated January 3, 2007
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress
Summary
Climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were issues in the 109th
Congress, as they had been in past Congresses. Bills directly addressing climate
change issues ranged from those focused primarily on climate change research to
comprehensive emissions cap-and-trade programs for the six greenhouse gases
covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Additional bills focused on GHG reporting and registries, or on power plant
emissions of carbon dioxide, as part of wider controls on pollutant emissions.
Within several broad categories, the bills varied in their approaches to climate
change issues. For example, some bills covering research issues focused solely on
modeling the effects of future climate change, whereas others addressed the
development of monitoring technologies. Bills focusing on technology deployment
did so through tax incentives and credit-based programs within the United States or
by promoting deployment in developing countries. Bills with greenhouse gas
registries were either voluntary or mandatory and varied in the entities covered and
the gases registered. Bills with emission reduction requirements also varied in the
entities covered, the gases limited, and the target emissions levels.
Most notably, on August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6). Among other provisions, Title XVI of the bill
established programs to promote the development and deployment of technologies
to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
This report briefly discusses the basic concepts on which these bills were based
and compares major provisions of the bills in each of the following categories:
climate change research, technology deployment, GHG reporting and registries, and
emissions reduction programs.

Contents
Energy Bill Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Climate Change Research Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Deployment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
GHG Reporting and Registry Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GHG Emission-Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Safety Valve Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Comparison of Emissions Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the
109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Climate Change Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Climate change is 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 making voluntary efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases.1 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. Instead, the Bush
Administration has focused on reducing the greenhouse gas intensity2 of the U.S.
economy. In the meantime, some states and local governments, as well as private
entities, have taken actions to reduce emissions and limit the potential impacts of
climate change. In light of these actions, a number of bills were introduced in
Congress to address climate change.
In the 109th Congress, numerous bills were introduced that directly or indirectly
address climate change. Several bills addressed the climate change issue directly,
either through emissions limits, incentives for reductions, or research and information
gathering on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. This report
describes and compares bills that directly addressed climate change, as opposed to
those that addressed other issues but could have had ancillary impacts (e.g., energy
efficiency and conservation). Topics covered by these bills fall into four major
categories: (1) those that would have promoted research on the effects of climate
change and on methods to measure and predict climate change; (2) those that would
have created incentives for the deployment of emission-reducing technologies in the
United States or other countries; (3) those that would have established greenhouse
gas (GHG) monitoring systems as a basis for research or for any potential reduction
program; and (4) those that would have established market-based programs to
directly limit greenhouse gas emissions. These categories are not mutually exclusive,
and several bills addressed more than one of the above categories. The major
provisions of these bills are categorized in Appendix 1 and summarized in
Appendix 2.
1 Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO , the most ubiquitous and primary greenhouse
2
gas), methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
4
2
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluorane (SF ). Some other greenhouse gases are controlled under
6
the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.
2 Greenhouse gas intensity is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide (or equivalent)
emitted per unit of gross domestic product.

CRS-2
In several cases, bill sponsors introduced modified versions of their climate
change bills. For the purposes of the discussion below, it is assumed that the newest
version supersedes earlier versions. These bills include S. 1151 for S. 342 (McCain);
S. 883 for S. 386 (Hagel); S. 887 for S. 388 (Hagel); and S. 1203 for S. 387 (Hagel).
Energy Bill Amendments
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-58). Title XVI established a voluntary national program designed to accelerate
demonstration and deployment of less-carbon-intensive technology to encourage
voluntary reductions in greenhouse gases. The title attempts to support actions
focused on reducing U.S. carbon intensity (the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions per
unit of gross domestic product). The program would not establish a requirement to
reduce emissions. This title also establishes a program to encourage exports of
carbon intensity-reducing technologies to developing countries.
As part of the Senate debate over the Energy Policy Act of 2005, several
amendments on climate change were offered. S.Amdt. 817, which inserted a new
Title XVI in the bill, incorporated language from S. 883 and S. 887. This
amendment was agreed to on a 66-29 vote. These provisions are similar to those
included in the final version of the bill. The House version of the bill did not
expressly address climate change issues.
Not included in the final law was Section 1612 of the Senate bill (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 stated that “Congress should enact a comprehensive and
effective national program of mandatory market-based limits and incentives on
emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such
emissions at a rate and in a manner that — (1) will not significantly harm the United
States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are
major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.” This was the first
Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change since S.Res. 98 in 1997, which
voiced concern over the economic effects of emissions limits and the sense that
developing countries must participate in meaningful action to control emissions.
Similar to S.Amdt. 866, S.J.Res. 5 also urged U.S. action on climate change, but this
resolution saw no action after being referred to committee.
The Senate also debated whether to adopt S.Amdt. 826, which contained
language similar to S. 1151. This amendment would have established a mandatory
cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions from covered entities to year
2000 levels by 2010. This amendment was rejected on a 38-60 vote.
Climate Change Research Bills
Global climate change is a complex issue. While most scientists agree that the
climate is changing in response to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, uncertainties
concerning the causes and the effects of climate change remain and are a continuing

CRS-3
subject of extensive scientific research.3 Further, research is ongoing into
technologies to improve efficiency, reduce fossil fuel consumption, and sequester
carbon dioxide emissions.
Research Bills. One bill in the 109th Congress, S. 245 (Collins), focused
solely on climate change research.4 It called for the development and testing of
climate change models based on historic climatic changes, and to incorporate
nonlinear aspects of geophysical systems that could lead to abrupt changes in climate.
Research Provisions in Broader Bills. Several bills included climate
change research provisions as part of a broader climate change legislation.
Specifically, research in S. 1151, S. 3698, S. 4039, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2828 would
have focused on abrupt climate change research and new climate change
measurement technologies. H.R. 5049 would have established a new Advanced
Research Projects Agency within the Department of Energy.
Deployment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technology
In the 109th Congress, several bills would have promoted the deployment and
diffusion of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either as part of
broader legislation to limit greenhouse gases, or as stand-alone legislation.
Deployment strategies included tax incentives for investment in technologies to
improve efficiency and/or lower emissions and grants, loans, and other incentives for
technology transfer to developing countries. S. 1203 (Hagel) and H.R. 6417
(Meehan) would have established tax incentives for investment in technologies to
reduce greenhouse gas intensity. S. 745 (Byrd), S. 883 (Hagel), S. 1151 (McCain),
and S. 3698 (Jeffords) would have established grant and loan programs to deploy
technologies in developing countries that have been developed or demonstrated in
the United States. S. 887 (Hagel) would establish a credit-based deployment
program for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; support would include
direct loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, and production incentive payments. The
final version of H.R. 6 incorporates language similar to S. 883 and S. 887. H.R. 2828
(Inslee) provides a wide array of incentives for improvements in energy efficiency
and other strategies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. S. 4039 (Kerry)
includes several provisions to either mandate or establish incentives for various low-
emission technologies.
In addition to the above bills on technology deployment, §585(b) of the FY2006
Foreign Operations Appropriation Act (P.L. 109-102) required the President to
submit a report on federal agency expenditures (foreign and domestic) on climate
change activities. The act specifically required a report on U.S. Agency for
International Development funding for climate change activities in developing
3 For more information on the science and policy of Global Climate Change, see CRS
Report RL33602, Global Climate Change: Major Scientific and Policy Issues, by John R.
Justus and Susan R. Fletcher.
4 This report does not include bills with other focuses that also had research components
related to climate change (particularly sequestration, renewable energy, and energy
efficiency).

CRS-4
countries, including technology deployment. In April 2006, the White House
submitted to Congress a report titled Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report
to Congress.5
GHG Reporting and Registry Bills
Under the UNFCCC, the United States annually publishes reports on its GHG
emissions.6 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does this
reporting using various techniques (e.g., fuel analysis for CO ). The three dominant
2
sources of GHG emissions are electricity generation (33.1%), transportation (26.9%),
and industry (19%).7 At the national level, most electric utilities must report their
GHG emissions pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act, but there is no overall national
GHG reporting requirement. However, some states also gather data through
voluntary or mandatory GHG emissions reporting mechanisms.8
H.R. 955 (Olver) focused primarily on expanding emissions reporting to include
a broad array of sources. All entities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent would have been required to report their emissions, except
that farms were exempt. Further, manufacturers and importers of automobiles and
Department of Energy-listed products9 would have been required to report the
emissions from their products. The purpose of the bill was to promote greenhouse
gas reductions and to generate accurate emissions data that can be used by public and
private entities for various purposes.
In addition to H.R. 955, which focused solely on GHG reporting, several other
bills would have required emissions monitoring and reporting as part of a program
to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide or of all greenhouse gases. These emissions
reductions efforts are discussed in the following section. S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730
(Leahy), H.R. 1451 (Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass) would have required electricity
producers to report their carbon dioxide emissions in order to determine compliance
with carbon dioxide caps. S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759 (Gilchrest), and H.R. 2828
(Inslee) would have required major emitters of all six greenhouse gases to report their
emissions; the bills required reporting from entities that emit more than 10,000
metric tons (11,000 tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent. H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.) would
have required all fossil fuel suppliers to report the amount of greenhouse gases that
will result from combustion of the fuel supplied. S. 4039 (Kerry) would have
5 Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy07_climate_change.pdf]
6 For more information, see CRS Report 98-235, Global Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions — Status, Trends, and Projections, by John Blodgett and Larry Parker.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2001, p.
ES-6. Additional sources are agriculture (7.6%), commerce (7.2%), and residential
activities (5.4%).
8 For more information, see Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change
Activities in the United States: 2004 Update, Arlington, VA, 2004.
9 Defined as any product for which the Department of Energy has promulgated final
regulations for energy efficiency, energy conservation, maximum energy use, or energy
consumption.

CRS-5
required reporting from all major sources as defined by Section 169A of the Clean
Air Act.
GHG Emission-Reduction Bills
The United States has no federal GHG reduction requirements, though there
have been proposals to require such reductions. These proposals include “command
and control” regulations on emissions, GHG emission taxes, and market-based
techniques to limit emissions. The latter, market-based programs typically take as
their model the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program.10
In the 109th Congress, bills were introduced that would have established market-
based caps on GHG emissions. These bills are compared in Table 1. Three bills, S.
1151 (McCain), H.R. 759 (Gilchrest), and H.R. 2828 (Inslee), would have capped the
emissions of the six greenhouse gases specified in the United Nations’ Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Five other bills, S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730 (Leahy),
S. 2724 (Carper), H.R. 1451 (Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass), would have focused
on reducing carbon dioxide from electric utilities. Each of these bills would have
used market-based trading mechanisms to limit GHG emissions. Cap-and-trade
programs set strict limits on specific emissions from a particular group of sources,
allowing individual sources to trade reductions. This flexibility in who makes
reductions can lead to lower costs. In an efficient market, entities that face relatively
low emission-reduction costs could achieve extra emission reductions. These entities
could then sell their unused allowances to entities that face higher emission-reduction
costs. An entity facing higher costs could purchase allowances that would allow it
to emit more than its initial emissions allotment would otherwise permit. It should
be noted that in all cases, total U.S. emissions may decrease or increase depending
on the entities covered, the greenhouse gases controlled, and the emissions trading
schemes.
Another market-based option is to require tradeable emissions permits, but
establish a “safety valve” price. In this scenario, if the market value of a permit
exceeds a set price — the safety valve — covered entities can purchase an unlimited
number of permits from the government. In this way, the overall price to covered
entities — and the economy — is limited, but specific emission reduction targets may
not be reached. H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.) would have established a such a system.
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills. As shown in Table 1, S. 150, S. 730,
H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 focused on electric utility emissions. These “multi-
pollutant” bills would have limited emissions of carbon dioxide, along with other air
10 The acid rain program caps emissions from each source, but allows sources to exceed their
caps if they purchase credits from sources that achieve emissions reductions beyond those
required.

CRS-6
pollutants.11 (See Table 1.) In all four cases, carbon dioxide emissions limitations
would have started in 2010.12
Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions. Unlike other bills
proposed in the 109th Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (H.R. 759), the
New Apollo Energy Act of 2005 (H.R. 2828), and the Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act of 2005 (S. 1151) focused on achieving market-driven reductions in
all six greenhouse gases (see Table 1). The legislation applied to entities in the
electricity, transportation, industry, and commercial sectors that emit over 10,000
metric tons (11,000 tons) of greenhouse gases per year. Starting in 2010, the bills
would have capped total GHG emissions from all these sources at 6.5 billion tons
(CO equivalent emissions), reduced by the amount of CO (equivalent emissions)
2
2
from non-covered entities in the year 2000. The bills would also have established a
formula for allocating GHG emissions allowances, and a climate change credit
corporation to manage allowance trading. Language similar to S. 1151 was offered
as an amendment on the Senate floor to H.R. 6. This amendment was rejected on a
38-60 vote.
In addition to establishing caps on all six greenhouse gases, the above bills
would have supported climate change research and established a GHG emissions
inventory (see above). The bills also included a requirement that the Administrator
of the EPA establish a national GHG database, and develop methods and standards
to measure and verify GHG emissions.
The Safe Climate Act of 2006 (H.R. 5642), the Global Warming Pollution Act
(S. 3698), and the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006 (S. 4039) would have
granted EPA broad authority to establish regulations such that total greenhouse gas
emissions are reduced to 80% (65% in the case of H.R. 4039) below 1990 levels by
2050. These bills did not designate covered entities or required reduction levels for
specific sectors, but would have left those decisions to EPA’s discretion.
Safety Valve Bills. The Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy
Act of 2006 (H.R. 5049) would have established a system of allowances for fossil
fuel suppliers and a safety valve of $25 per ton of carbon, indexed to inflation.
11 S. 131 (Inhofe) and H.R. 227 (Sweeny) would also establish a cap-and-trade program for
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from utilities. However, the bills do not
address carbon dioxide emissions.
12 For more information on multi-pollutant bills, see CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality:
Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.

CRS-7
Comparison of Emissions Reduction Bills
Table 1. Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Caps
S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
S. 2724
S. 150 (Jeffords)
S. 730 (Leahy)
(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
(Carper)
Covered sources
Any fossil fuel-fired
Any electric power, industrial,
All electricity
Any fossil fuel-
Any fossil
Any fossil fuel-
electric generating
or commercial entity that emits
generating
fired electric
fuel-fired
fired electric
facility that has a
over 10,000 metric tons of CO
facilities in the
generating
electric
generating
2
capacity of greater
equivalent/year; any refiner or
United States.
facility that has a
generating
facility that has a
than 15 megawatts,
importer of petroleum products
capacity of
facility that has
capacity of
generates electricity
for transportation use that when
greater than 15
a capacity of
greater than 25
for sale, and emits a
combusted will emit over
megawatts and
greater than 25
megawatts and
covered pollutant into
10,000 metric tons of CO
generates
megawatts and
generates
2
the air.
equivalent/year; and, any
electricity for
generates
electricity for
importer or producer of HFCs,
sale.
electricity for
sale.
PFCs or SF6 that, when used,
sale.
will emit over 10,000 metric
tons of CO equivalent/year.
2
Covered
One GHG: carbon
All six GHGs.
One GHG: CO ;
One GHG: CO ;
One GHG:
One GHG: CO ;
2
2
2
pollutants
dioxide; other
other pollutants:
other pollutants:
CO ; other
other pollutants:
2
Pollutants: sulfur
sulfur dioxide,
sulfur dioxide,
pollutants:
sulfur dioxide,
dioxide, nitrogen
nitrogen oxides,
nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides,
oxides, and mercury.
and mercury.
and mercury.
nitrogen
and mercury.
oxides, and
mercury.

CRS-8
S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
S. 2724
S. 150 (Jeffords)
S. 730 (Leahy)
(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
(Carper)
Emissions cap
Utility CO emissions
6.5 billion tons of CO
Utility CO
Utility CO
Estimated at
Estimated at 2.65
2
2
2
2
limited to 2.05 billion
equivalent per year beginning in
emissions
emission cap
2.46 billion
billion tons in
tons per yeara
2010 for all covered entities
limited to 2.05
estimated at 1.94
tons in 2010,
2010, declining
beginning in 2010.
taken together.
billion tons per
billion tons per
declining to
to 2.45 billion
year beginning in
year beginning in
2.38 billion
tons in 2015.
2010.
2010.
tons in 2015.
Implementation
Tradeable allowance
Tradeable allowance system.
Absolute caps on
To be
Tradeable
Tradeable
Strategy
system. Allowances
EPA is directed to determine
mercury
determined by
allowance
allowance
allocated to various
allocations based on several
emissions, no
EPA — market
system for all
system varies by
sectors and interests,
economic and equity criteria,
trading permitted
mechanisms
pollutants;
pollutant. For
including households,
including efficiency and impact
between facilities
permitted (except
allocations
CO , allocations
2
dislocated workers
on consumers. Allowances are
at different sites.
for mercury).
based on
based on historic
and communities,
to be allocated upstream to
Implementation
historic
electricity
electricity-intensive
refiners and importers of
strategy for other
electricity
output. CO2
industries, affected
transportation fuel, along with
pollutants to be
output.
program includes
utilities, energy
producers of HFCs, PFCs, and
determined by
CO program
allowance
2
efficiency and
SF ; downstream to electric
EPA.
includes
allocations for
6
renewable energy
generation, industrial, and
allowance
incremental
activities, and
commercial entities.
allocations for
nuclear capacity
sequestration
incremental
and renewable
activities.
nuclear
energy, along
capacity and
with
renewable
sequestration and
energy.
early action
provisions.

CRS-9
S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759
H.R. 1451
H.R. 1873
S. 2724
S. 150 (Jeffords)
S. 730 (Leahy)
(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)
(Waxman)
(Bass)
(Carper)
Percentage
-7.5%
-5% -7.5%
-9.5%
-0.8%
-0.8%
change in CO2
emissions v.
business as usual
by 2010b
Percentage
+24.2%
+27.7%
+24.2%
+21.7%
+32.2%
+32.2%
change inCO2
emissions v. 1990
levels (UNFCCC
baseline year)b
Penalties for
Same as Clean Air
Excess emission penalty equal
To be
To be
$100 per
$100 per excess
noncompliance
Act, title IV except
to three times the market price
determined by
determined by
excess ton plus
ton plus
that the excess
for allowances on the last day of
EPA.
EPA.
one-for-one
one-for-one
emission penalty is
the year at issue.
offset from
offset from
three times the
future
future emissions
average market price
emissions
allocations.
for allowances.
allocations.
a. S. 150 would further limit the number of emission allowances in a given year by the number of tons emitted two years prior by small electricity generating facilities, and by any
number required to protect the public health, welfare, or the environment.
b. CRS calculations based on projections contained in the UNFCCC Secretariat’s 2002 Climate Action Report. Available at [http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/
content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.html]. For more information, see CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.

CRS-10
Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 109th Congress
Emissions
Caps and
Multi-
Allowance
Climate Change
Technology
GHG Reporting
Pollutant
Trading for
Bill(s) and Short Title(s)
Research
Deployment
and Registry
Bill
all GHGs
ENACTED LAW
H.R. 6, P.L. 109-58
X
Energy Policy Act of 2005
SENATE BILLS
S. 150 (Jeffords)
X
X
The Clean Power Act of 2005
S. 245 (Collins)
X
Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005
S. 730 (Leahy)
X
X
Mercury Emission Act of 2005
S. 745 (Byrd)
International Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets
X
Investment Act of 2005
S. 883 (Hagel)
Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act of
X
2005

CRS-11
Emissions
Caps and
Multi-
Allowance
Climate Change
Technology
GHG Reporting
Pollutant
Trading for
Bill(s) and Short Title(s)
Research
Deployment
and Registry
Bill
all GHGs
S. 887 (Hagel)
Climate Change Technology Deployment and Infrastructure Credit Act
X
of 2005
S. 1151 (McCain)
X
X
X
X
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005
S. 1203 (Hagel)
X
Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act of 2005
S. 2724 (Carper)
X
X
Clean Air Planning Act of 2006
S. 3698 (Jeffords)
X
X
X
X
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act
S. 4039 (Kerry)
X
X
X
X
Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006
S. 342* (McCain)
X
X
X
Climate Stewardship Act of 2005
S. 386* (Hagel)
Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act of
X
2005
S. 387* (Hagel)
X
Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act of 2005

CRS-12
Emissions
Caps and
Multi-
Allowance
Climate Change
Technology
GHG Reporting
Pollutant
Trading for
Bill(s) and Short Title(s)
Research
Deployment
and Registry
Bill
all GHGs
S. 388* (Hagel)
Climate Change Technology Deployment and Infrastructure Credit Act
X
X
of 2005
* Superseded by newer version
HOUSE BILLS
H.R. 759 (Gilchrest)
X
X
X
Climate Stewardship Act of 2005
H.R. 955 (Olver)
X
National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Act of 2005
H.R. 1451 (Waxman)
X
X
Clean Smokestacks Act of 2005
H.R. 1873 (Bass)
X
X
Clean Air Planning Act of 2005
H.R. 2828 (Inslee)
X
X
X
X
New Apollo Energy Act of 2005
H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.)
X
X
X
Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act of 2006
H.R. 5642 (Waxman)
X
X
Safe Climate Act of 2006

CRS-13
Emissions
Caps and
Multi-
Allowance
Climate Change
Technology
GHG Reporting
Pollutant
Trading for
Bill(s) and Short Title(s)
Research
Deployment
and Registry
Bill
all GHGs
H.R. 6417 (Meehan)
X
Climate Change Investment Act of 2006

CRS-14
Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress
Bill No.
Sponsor
Major Actions
Key Provisions
ENACTED LAW
H.R. 6, P.L.
Barton
Introduced April 18, 2005; passed House April
Omnibus energy bill addressing various climate- and non-climate related topics.
109-58
21, 2005; passed Senate June 28, 2005;
Among other provisions, establishes loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy
conference report file July 27, 2005; agreed to in
technology for greenhouse gas intensity reduction (similar language to S. 887);
House July 28; agreed to in Senate July 29;
requires the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing countries on
signed into law August 8, 2005.
projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; establishes an export initiative for
greenhouse gas reduction technology (similar language to S. 883)
SENATE BILLS
S. 150
Jeffords
Introduced January 25, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Environment and Public Works.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified
reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and
mercury from certain electric generation facilities by January 1, 2010.
S. 245
Collins
Introduced February 1, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have established within the Department of Commerce a research program
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
on abrupt climate change.
S. 730
Leahy
Introduced April 6, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Environment and Public Works.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified
reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and
mercury from certain electric generation facilities by January 1, 2010.
S. 745
Byrd
Introduced April 11, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have established within the Department of State a program to assist
Foreign Relations.
developing countries in the demonstration and deployment of emission reduction
technologies.

CRS-15
Bill No.
Sponsor
Major Actions
Key Provisions
S. 883
Hagel
Introduced April 21, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have required the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing
Foreign Relations — see also H.R. 6 (Senate
countries on projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; would have established
Version)
an export initiative for greenhouse gas reduction technology.
S. 887
Hagel
Introduced April 21, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have established loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy technology for
Energy and Natural Resources — see also H.R.
greenhouse gas intensity reduction.
6 (Senate Version)
S. 1151
McCain
Introduced May 25, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
Environment and Public Works.
greenhouse gases (CO equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by
2
2010. Would have allowed: tradeable credits for reductions beyond those
required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,
and emissions reductions in other countries. Would have promoted innovation
on mitigation technologies and would have established incentives for technology
deployment.
S. 1203
Hagel
Introduced June 8, 2005; referred to Senate
Would have established tax credits for investment in technologies to reduce
Finance.
greenhouse gas intensity; also provides tax incentives for nuclear technologies.
S. 2724
Carper
Introduced May 4, 2006; referred to Senate
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Environment and Public Works.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified
reductions in emissions carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric
generation facilities by 2010 (2007 for nitrogen oxides).
S. 3698
Jeffords
Introduced July 20, 2006; referred to Senate
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Environment and Public Works.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve an 80%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050; would have
established efficiency and/or emissions standards for various sectors; would have
promoted research and development

CRS-16
Bill No.
Sponsor
Major Actions
Key Provisions
S. 4039
Kerry
Introduced September 29, 2006; referred to
Would have established a mandatory cap-and-trade program beginning in 2010
Senate Finance
to reduce annual emissions by a set percentage each year so that annual
emissions are 65% below year 2000 levels by 2050. Would have established
research and development; greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles.
S. 342*
McCain
Introduced February 10, 2005; referred to
Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
Senate Environment and Public Works.
greenhouse gases (CO equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by
2
2010. Would have allowed tradeable credits for reductions beyond those
required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,
and emissions reductions in other countries.
S. 386*
Hagel
Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to
Would have required the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing
Senate Foreign Relations.
countries on projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; would have established
an export initiative for greenhouse gas reduction technology.
S. 387*
Hagel
Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to
Would have established tax credits for investment in technologies to reduce
Senate Finance.
greenhouse gas intensity; also would have provided tax incentives for clean coal
and nuclear technologies.
S. 388*
Hagel
Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to
Would have established loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy technology for
Senate Energy and Natural Resources.
greenhouse gas intensity reduction; would have established a voluntary national
greenhouse gas registry.
*Superseded by newer version

CRS-17
Bill No.
Sponsor
Major Actions
Key Provisions
HOUSE BILLS
H.R. 759
Gilchrest
Introduced February 10, 2005; referred to House
Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
Science, and House Energy and Commerce.
greenhouse gases (CO equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by
2
2010. Would have allowed: tradeable credits for reductions beyond those
required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,
and emissions reductions in other countries.
H.R. 955
Olver
Introduced February 17, 2005; referred to House
Would have required EPA to establish a GHG emissions information system to
Energy and Commerce.
collect information submitted regarding an entity’s GHG emissions. Would have
established mandatory registry for entities that emit more than 10,000 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
H.R. 1451
Waxman
Introduced March 17, 2005; referred to House
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Energy and Commerce.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified
reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric
generation facilities by 2010.
H.R. 1873
Bass
Introduced April 27, 2005; referred to House
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Energy and Commerce.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified
reductions in emissions carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric
generation facilities by 2010 (2009 for nitrogen oxides).
H.R. 2828
Inslee
Introduced June 8, 2005; referred to House
Omnibus energy bill addressing various climate- and non-climate related topics.
Energy and Commerce, among other
Among other provisions, would have required any entity that emits more than
committees.
10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO equivalent) to reduce emissions to
2
year 2000 levels by 2010. Would have allowed tradeable credits for reductions
beyond those required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon
sequestration, and emissions reductions in other countries.

CRS-18
Bill No.
Sponsor
Major Actions
Key Provisions
H.R. 5049
Udall, T.
Introduced May 24, 2006; referred to House
Would have established a system of tradeable allowances for greenhouse gas
Energy and Commerce, among other
emissions from fossil fuel supply and combustion, with a maximum “safety
committees.
valve” price of $25 per ton of carbon, adjusted for inflation. Would have
established an Advanced Research Projects Agency within the Department of
Energy.
H.R. 5642
Waxman
Introduced June 20, 2006; referred to House
Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the
Energy and Commerce, among other
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve an 80%
committees.
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.
H.R. 6417
Meehan
Introduced December 7, 2006; referred to House
Among other provisions, would have established a tax credit for investment in
Ways and Means
technologies to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.