For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32755 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL32755 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress Updated May 8, 2006 Larry Parker Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division John Blodgett Specialist in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress Summary With the prospect of new layers of complexity being added to air pollution controls, and with electricity restructuring putting a premium on economic efficiency, interest is being expressed in finding mechanisms to achieve health and environmental goals in simpler, more cost-effective ways. The electric utility industry is a major source of air pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg), as well as suspected greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). At issue is whether a new approach to environmental protection could achieve the nation's air quality goals more cost-effectively than the current system. One approach being proposed is a "multi-pollutant" strategy -- a framework based on a consistent set of emissions caps, implemented through emissions trading. Just how the proposed approach would fit with the current (and proposed) diverse regulatory regimes remains to be worked out; they might be replaced to the greatest extent feasible, or they might be overlaid by the framework of emissions caps. In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality initiatives. The first, "Clear Skies," would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on electric utility emissions of SO2, NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable allowance program, the emissions caps would generally be imposed in two phases: 2008 and 2018. The second initiative begins a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program. This plan, rather than capping CO2 emissions, focuses on improving the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. In the 109th Congress, seven bills have been introduced that would impose multi-pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 and S. 131, are modified versions of the Administration's three-pollutant proposal. The other five bills, S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873, are four-pollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R. 1451 is similar to H.R. 1256, introduced in the 107th Congress. H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 are revised versions of S. 843, introduced in the 108th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; most include a tradeable credit program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally more stringent and take full effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131. S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of CO2. It is difficult to compare those CO2 caps with the Administration's proposal concerning CO2 -- both because the Administration's proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO2 emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be higher under the Administration's proposal than those allowed by S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451. This report will be updated as warranted. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Bush Administration's Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . 3 SO2, NOx, and Hg Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Related Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants . . . . . . . . . 1 Table 2. Comparison of Administration's Voluntary Program with Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress Introduction Electric utility generating facilities are a major source of air pollution. The combustion of fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal), which accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. electricity generation, results in the emission of a stream of gases. These gases include several pollutants that directly pose risks to human health and welfare, including particulate matter (PM),1 sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg). Particulate matter, SO2, and NOx are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated rules to regulate mercury beginning in 2010. Other gases may pose indirect risks, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), which may contribute to global warming.2 Table 1 provides estimates of SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions from electric generating facilities. Annual emissions of Hg from utility facilities are more uncertain; current estimates indicate about 48 tons. Utilities are subject to an array of environmental regulations, which affect in different ways both the cost of operating existing generating facilities and the cost of constructing new ones. Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants (thousands of metric tons) Emissions 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 SO2 12,445 11,297 10,966 10,515 10,643 10,307 NOx 5,732 5,380 5,045 4,802 4,326 3,951 CO2 2,326,558 2,429,394 2,379,603 2,395,232 2,415,804 2,444,443 Source: Energy Information Administration. Includes emissions from combined-heat-and-power plants. The evolution of air pollution controls over time and as a result of growing scientific understanding of health and environmental impacts has led to a multilayered and interlocking patchwork of controls. Moreover, additional controls are in the process of development, particularly with respect to NOx as a precursor to ozone, to both NOx and SO2 as contributors to PM2.5, and to Hg as a toxic air pollutant. Also, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 1 Particulate matter is regulated depending on the particle size; current regulations address particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); EPA has promulgated regulations for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) that are in the process of being implemented. SO2 and NOx emissions would be affected by regulations of PM2.5. 2 Steam-electric utilities produce minor amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead -- on the order of 2% or less of all sources. CRS-2 Change (UNFCCC), the United States agreed to voluntary limits on CO2 emissions. The current Bush Administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would impose mandatory limits, in favor of a voluntary reduction program. In contrast to the Administration's position, in June 2005, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate calling for mandatory controls on greenhouse gases while not imposing significant harm to the economy.3 For many years the complexity of the air quality control regime has caused some observers to call for a simplified approach. Now, with the potential both for additional control programs on SO2 and NOx and for new controls directed at Hg and CO2 intersecting with the technological and policy changes affecting the electric utility industry, such calls for simplification have become more numerous and insistent. One focus of this effort is the "multi-pollutant" or "four-pollutant" approach. This approach involves a mix of regulatory and economic mechanisms that would apply to utility emissions of up to four pollutants in various proposals -- SO2, NOx, Hg, and CO2. The objective would be to balance the environmental goal of effective controls across the pollutants covered with the industry goal of a stable regulatory regime for a period of years.4 The Bush Administration's Proposals In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality proposals to address the control of emissions of SO2, NOx, Hg, and CO2.5 The first proposal, called "Clear Skies," would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on electric utility emissions of SO2, NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable allowance program, the emissions caps would be imposed in two phases: 2010 (2008 in the case of NOx) and 2018. As part of a complete rewrite of Title IV of the Clean Air Act, the Administration's proposal was introduced in the 108th Congress as H.R. 999 and S. 485. Revised versions of Clear Skies legislation have been introduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 227 and S. 131.6 The second Administration proposal initiates a new voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program, similar to ones introduced by the earlier George H. W. Bush and Clinton Administrations.7 Developed in response to the U.S. ratification of the 1992 UNFCCC, these previous plans projected U.S. compliance, or near compliance, with 3 S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005). 4 CRS Report RL30878, Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Strategies, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett. 5 Papers outlining the Administration's proposals are available from the White House website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html] for the three pollutant proposal, and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange. html] for the climate change initiative. 6 While H.R. 227 adopts the SO2 and NOx emission caps of the Administration's Clear Skies proposal, it does not include many other provisions, including regulatory changes. 7 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404 ENR, Climate Change Action Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett, May 9, 1994 (archived, available from the authors). CRS-3 the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 levels by the year 2000 through voluntary measures. The Bush Administration proposal does not make that claim, only projecting a 100 million metric ton reduction in emissions from what would occur otherwise in the year 2012. Instead, the plan focuses on improving the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. It proposes several voluntary initiatives, along with increased spending and tax incentives, to achieve this goal. The Administration notes that the new initiatives would achieve about one-quarter of the objective, while three-quarters of the projected reduction would occur through already existing efforts. Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 109th Congress In the 109th Congress, seven bills have been introduced that would impose multi-pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 (Sweeney) and S. 131 (Inhofe), are modified versions of the Administration's three-pollutant proposal. The other five bills, S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730 (Leahy), S. 2724 (Carper), H.R. 1451 (Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass), are four-pollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R. 1451 is similar to H.R. 1256, introduced in the 107th Congress. Finally, H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 are revised versions of S. 843, introduced in the 108th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; most include a tradeable credit program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally more stringent and take full effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131. S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of CO2. It is difficult to compare those CO2 caps to the Administration's proposal concerning CO2 -- both because the Administration's proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility CO2 emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be higher under the Administration's proposal than those allowed by S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451. The seven bills are summarized in the Appendix. Each of these bills, except S. 730, generally builds on the SO2 allowance trading scheme contained in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).8 Under this program utilities are given a specific allocation of permitted emissions (called allowances) and may choose to use those allowances at their own facilities, or, if they do not use their full quota, to bank them for future use or to sell them to other utilities needing additional allowances. In contrast, S. 730 permits emissions averaging within a single facility, but not across sites. SO2, NOx, and Hg Controls. As indicated in the Appendix, the caps for SO2 and NOx in S. 131 are less stringent for 2010 than in S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451, and remain less stringent even through the second phase beginning in 2018. 8 P.L. 101-549. CRS-4 H.R. 227 would require full compliance with its SO2 and NOx provisions by 2014, in effect accelerating S. 131's proposed phase 2 emission caps by four years. However, S. 131's phase 1 NOx reduction would begin two years earlier (2008) than S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 227, or H.R. 1451, and one year sooner than H.R. 1873. Allowance allocation schemes for the bills also differ, with S. 150 containing detailed provisions for allocating SO2, NOx, and CO2 allowances to various economic sectors and interests. In most cases, these interests (or their trustees in the case of households and dislocated workers and communities) would auction off (or otherwise sell) their allowances to the affected utilities, and use the collected funds for their own purposes. In contrast, S. 131 would base its allowance formulas on fuel usage adjusted by factors specified in the bill, while H.R. 227 and H.R. 1451 would leave the allocation issue to EPA. S. 730 provides no specifics on allocating and implementing its SO2, NOx, and CO2 caps on electric utilities, whereas H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 specify CO2 and NOx limitations based on electricity output, and SO2 limitations based on the current Title IV program. On mercury, S. 131's emissions goal would allow about three times more emissions and eight more years for compliance than S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451, which also would mandate plant-by-plant controls; H.R. 227 would require EPA to promulgate Hg regulations by March 15, 2005; and H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 provide for limitations in between those of S. 150 and S. 131, but includes unit-by-unit emissions limitations. (It is difficult to compare the Hg controls of S. 131, S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, or H.R. 1873 to H.R. 227, which does not specify an Hg emissions goal, leaving regulation up to EPA.) S. 730 is the most comprehensive bill with respect to Hg control, including not only a stringent cap on electric utility emissions but also substantial reduction requirements for six other categories of Hg emitters. Related Regulatory Provisions. In addition to the emissions caps, S. 131 would substantially modify or eliminate several provisions in the Clean Air Act with respect to electric generating facilities. The bill would eliminate New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 111) and replace them with statutory standards for SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and Hg for new sources. Modified sources could also opt to comply with these new statutory standards and be exempted from the applicable Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions (CAA, Part C) or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) determinations under non-attainment provisions (CAA, Part D). Compliance with these provisions exempts such facilities from New Source Review (NSR), PSD-BACT requirements, visibility Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements for Hg, and non-attainment LAER and offset requirements. The exemption does not apply to PSD-BACT requirements if facilities are within 50 km of a PSD Class 1 area. Existing sources can also receive these exemptions if they agree to meet a particulate matter standard specified in the bill along with good combustion practices to minimize carbon monoxide emissions within three years of enactment. In addition, S. 131 would provide these exemptions for industrial sources that choose to opt into the Clear Skies program. H.R. 1873 also contains significant regulatory provisions. The bill would revise the NSR program to require pre-1971 electric generating units to meet specific SO2 CRS-5 and NOx performance standards (a provision also contained in S. 2724 but with more stringent standards). In addition, H.R. 1873 would require LAER and BACT definitions be revised on a biannual basis and place a cost cap on any LAER definition. In conjunction with these changes, the bill would eliminate the current CAA offset requirement in non-attainment areas beginning in 2010. H.R. 1873 would also provide affected units a 20-year exemption from BART requirements under the CAA visibility provisions. Other changes to the visibility provision include the codification of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) agreement with respect to sulfur dioxide emissions. S. 150 would require all powerplants 40 years or older to meet emission limitations based on current best available control technology for a new source. In a similar vein, H.R. 1451 would require all powerplants 30 years or older to meet current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements. S. 131 also would include an exemption for steam electric generating facilities from Hg regulation under Section 112 of the CAA (including the residual risk provisions), and relief from enforcement of any Section 126 petition (with respect to reducing interstate transportation of pollution) before December 31, 2014. In addition to its NSR provision, S. 2724 would eliminate the annual NOx cap established under EPA's recently promulgated Clean Air Interstate rule (CAIR) upon promulgations of S. 2724's new NOx program or January 1, 2009, whichever occurs last. It would retain CAIR's seasonal NOx cap for ozone. Neither H.R. 227, S. 150, S. 730, nor H.R. 1451 would provide such regulatory relief provisions. CO2. Of the seven bills, S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would specify CO2 reductions. In contrast, the Administration's CO2 proposal relies on various voluntary programs and incentives to encourage reductions in greenhouse gases from diverse sources, including CO2 emissions from electric generation. Based on the estimate provided by the Administration's climate change proposal, and using the 2002 Climate Action Report9 (CAR) for projections to 2010, Table 2 presents estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, assuming the Administration's voluntary program reaches a proportional percentage of its 2012 goals.10 This should not be taken as a given, as neither the George H. W. Bush Administration's program nor the Clinton Administration's program achieved their stated goals. Thus, in one sense, comparing a mandatory reduction program such as that proposed by S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, or H.R. 1873 with the Administration's voluntary program is comparing apples to oranges. The first is legally binding, the second is an exhortation. 9 Climate Action Report -- 2002, at [http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/ index.html]. This is the U.S. report to the UNFCCC Secretariat on U.S. emissions and measures taken to reduce them. 10 For a discussion of emission projections and trends, see CRS Report 98-235 ENR, Global Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions -- Status, Trends, and Projections, by John Blodgett and Larry Parker. CRS-6 While S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451 focus on electric utility emissions, the mandated reductions would result in lower total greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 than those projected to occur under the Administration's initiative that includes all sources of all greenhouse gases. Both H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 require fewer reductions than the Administration hopes to achieve from its economy-wide initiative. However, neither the proposed legislation nor the Administration's initiative would be sufficient to bring U.S. emissions near the 1990/1995 baseline used under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, much less the 7% reduction in emissions from that baseline that would have been assigned to the United States under the Protocol. Discussion in the CAR observes that the pace of economic growth would affect emissions. A high economic growth scenario would increase energy use and related carbon emissions, compared to the reference case of "business as usual"; likewise, lower economic growth would decrease emissions. For example, under a high economic growth scenario, greenhouse emissions in 2010 would increase 37.7% above those in 1990, based on energy growth alone. This increase would represent an additional 53 million metric tons of emissions over the reference case.11 However, S. 150 and S. 730 would cap emissions from increased electricity generation at 1990 levels, which would reduce the 53 million metric tons by 16 million metric tons, or 30% of the high growth increase. The Administration's initiative is voluntary and addresses carbon intensity, not absolute emission levels; it does not cap emissions growth. Table 2. Comparison of Administration's Voluntary Program with Proposed Legislation Percentage change v. Percentage change v. 1990/1995 baseline levels business as usual (2010) per the Kyoto Protocol S. 150, S. 730 -8.2% +21.2% H.R. 1451 -9.4% +19.6% H.R. 1873/S. 2724a -1.5% +30.1% Administration's -3.6% +27.3% Voluntary Programb Business as Usual 0 +32.0% Source: CRS calculations based on projections contained in 2002 CAR. a. Bills include a second phase in 2015 that would further reduce emissions. b. Assumes 80% of the Administration's 2012 voluntary goal is achieved in 2010. 11 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2000, DOE/EIA-0383 (Washington, DC, 2002), December 2001, p. 177. CRS-7 Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals H.R. 227 S. 131 S. 730 H.R. 1451 H.R. 1873 S. 2724 Provisions S. 150 (Jeffords) (Sweeney) (Inhofe) (Leahy) (Waxman) (Bass) (Carper) Emissions 2.1 million 1.51 million tons 2.19 million tons in 1.51 million tons Estimated at 1.87 million tons 1.9 million tons in Cap on NOx tons in 2010, in 2010. 2008, declining to from utilities in 1.5 million in 2009, 2009 (East)/2010 declining to 1.79 million tons in 2010. tons in 2010. declining to 1.7 (West) declining to 1.7 million 2018. million tons in 1.62 in 2015. tons in 2014. 2015. Emissions 4.45 million 2.25 million tons 4.5 million tons in 2.25 million tons 2.23 million 4.5 million tons 4.5 million tons in Cap on SO2 tons in 2010, in 2010. 2010, declining to 3.0 from utilities in tons in 2010. in 2010, 2010, declining to 2.0 declining to million tons in 2018. 2010. declining to 3.5 million tons in 2015. 3.0 million million tons in tons in 2014. 2014, and to 2.25 million tons in 2017. Emission Cap Not covered. 2.05 billion tons Not covered. 2.05 billion tons Estimated at Estimated at Estimated at 2.65 on CO2 from utilities in from utilities in 1.937 billion 2.65 billion tons billion tons in 2010, 2010. 2010. tons in 2010. in 2010, declining to 2.45 declining to 2.45 billion tons in 2015. billion tons in 2015. Emissions EPA to 5 tons in 2009. 34 tons in 2010, 5 tons in 2009 Estimated at 24 tons in 2010, Estimated at 19-23 Cap on promulgate declining to 15 tons in from utilities; 4-5 tons in declining to 10 tons in 2010, Mercury regulations by 2018. percentage 2010. tons in 2015. declining to 7-8 tons March 15, reductions up to in 2015. 2005. 95% for other Hg sources. Scope 50 states and 50 states and DC. 50 states, DC, and 50 states and DC. 50 states and 50 states and 50 states and DC. DC. territories. DC. DC. Affected Electric Electric Existing electric For all pollutants: Electric Electric Electric generating Units generating generating generating facilities all electric generating generating facilities 25 Mw or facilities 25 facilities 15 Mw 25 Mw or greater generating facilities 15 facilities 25 Mw greater (coal-fired Mw or or greater (coal- (coal-fired only for facilities. Mw or or greater (coal- only for Hg). greater; Hg fired only for Hg); co-generation greater. fired only for regulations to Hg). sources exempted. For Hg only: Six Hg). include categories of CRS-8 H.R. 227 S. 131 S. 730 H.R. 1451 H.R. 1873 S. 2724 Provisions S. 150 (Jeffords) (Sweeney) (Inhofe) (Leahy) (Waxman) (Bass) (Carper) industrial industrial boilers, sources. processes, incinerators and combusters. Penalties for NOx: $6,000 NOx , SO2 and NOx, SO2, Hg: For NOx, SO2 Determined NOx: $5,000 per NOx: Twice the non- per excess ton CO2 same as reduces the excess CO2: not by EPA. excess ton plus average price per compliance plus one-for- CAA, title IV, emissions penalties specified, CAA one-for-one excess ton plus one- one offset except excess under CAA, title IV to enforcement offset from for-one offset from from future emission penalty the EPA auction would apply. future emission future emission emission is three times the clearing price for allocations. allocations. allocations. average market allowances plus one- Hg: CAA price for for-one offset from enforcement SO2: same as SO2: same as CAA, SO2: same as allowances. future emission defined. CAA, title IV. title IV. CAA, title IV. allocations, if paid Hg: three times within 30 days. Hg: $10,000 per Hg: $50,000 per day Hg: not the average Hg Otherwise, the excess pound for each excess pound specified, control costs per number of excess plus one-for-one emitted. CAA gram of excess emissions is offset from enforcement emission. multiplied by 1.5 for future emissions CO2: $100 per excess provisions penalty purposes. allocations. ton plus one-for-one would apply. offset from future CO2: $100 per emissions allocations. excess ton plus one-for-one offset from future emissions allocations. CRS-9 H.R. 227 S. 131 S. 730 H.R. 1451 H.R. 1873 S. 2724 Provisions S. 150 (Jeffords) (Sweeney) (Inhofe) (Leahy) (Waxman) (Bass) (Carper) Special EPA to Beginning in New performance SO2 cap divided All Revises NSR NOx cap divided by Provisions determine by 2014, all standards for new by region (West powerplants program to region (West and 2014 whether powerplants 40 sources replace and East); 30 years or require pre-1971 East). emission years or older current NSPS for new however, regions older must electric reductions must meet sources. Compliance are not defined. meet current generating units Revises NSR program sufficient to emission with bill's provisions New Source to meet specific to require affected protect limitations based exempts facilities Performance SO2 and NOx electric generating sensitive on current best from New Source Standard performance units 50 years or older regional available control Review (NSR), PSD- (NSPS) standards. to meet specific SO2 ecosystems; if technology for a BACT requirements, requirements. Requires EPA to and NOx performance not, EPA must new major visibility BART revise LAER standards beginning in promulgate source. requirements, and and BACT 2020. rules requiring non-attainment LAER definition on bi- additional SO2 cap divided and offset annual basis and NOx and SO2 by region (West requirements. The puts a cost cap reductions and East) with no exemption does not on LAER within two trading permitted apply to PSD-BACT definition. years of such between regions. requirements if Current CAA determination. facility is within 50 offset EPA to determine Km of Class 1 area. requirement in by 2013 whether Existing sources can non-attainment emission opt in by meeting a areas eliminated reductions particulate standard. in 2010. sufficient to protect sensitive Exempts utility units Western regional from Hg regulation Regional Air ecosystems; if under CAA, Section Partnership not, EPA must 112, including (WRAP) promulgate rules residual risk agreement requiring provisions. codified. additional NOx and SO2 Prevents EPA from Exempts reductions within enforcing Section 126 affected units two years of such petitions before from visibility determination. December 31, 2014. BART requirements for Other provisions NOx cap divided by 20 years. to protect local air region (West and quality. East). CRS-10 H.R. 227 S. 131 S. 730 H.R. 1451 H.R. 1873 S. 2724 Provisions S. 150 (Jeffords) (Sweeney) (Inhofe) (Leahy) (Waxman) (Bass) (Carper) Implemen- Tradeable Tradeable Tradeable allowance For SO2, NOx, To be Tradeable Tradeable allowance tation allowance allowance system system for SO2, NOx, and CO2: no determined allowance system for NOx Strategy system for for SO2 (restricted and Hg. Allocation allocation by EPA -- system for all (restricted between SO2 and NOx. between East and formulas based on formula or market pollutants. For east and west regions), West regions), historic fuel usage implementation mechanisms NOx, Hg, and SO2 and CO2. For Hg NOx and CO2. adjusted by factors strategy specified. permitted CO2, allocations NOx, and CO2, compliance on Allowances specified in the bill. (except for based on historic allocations based on a source-by- allocated to For Hg from Hg). electricity historic electricity source basis. various sectors 7% of SO2 and 5% of electric output. For SO2 output. For SO2 and interests, NOx and Hg generating allocations based allocations based on including allowances are set facilities: on current Title current Title IV households, aside for new units. allocation is IV scheme. scheme. dislocated based on workers and electricity output. Special reserves CO2 program includes communities, Emissions for new units allowance allocations electricity averaging is provided for all for incremental intensive permitted within a pollutants nuclear capacity and industries, facility. covered. renewable energy, affected utilities, along with energy efficiency For Hg from CO2 program sequestration and and renewable other sources: includes early action energy activities, allocation is allowance provisions. and sequestration based on a allocations for activities. percentage incremental For Hg, a source-by- reduction from an nuclear capacity source limitation is Hg compliance historic baseline and renewable based on the less on a source-by- or, for some energy, along stringent of an output- source basis categories, an with based performance (plantwide emission sequestration standard or percent averaging performance rate. and early action reduction from inlet explicitly provisions. Hg levels. Emissions allowed). averaging is permit- For Hg, unit-by- ted within a facility. unit emissions limitations Reserves for new units included. provided for CO2, NOx, and SO2. Source: Congressional Research Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32755