For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL34018 Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress Updated February 11, 2008 Larry Parker Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division John Blodgett Specialist in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress Summary With the prospect of new layers of complexity being added to air pollution controls, and with electricity restructuring putting a premium on economic efficiency, interest is being expressed in finding mechanisms to achieve health and environmental goals in simpler, more cost-effective ways. The electric utility industry is a major source of air pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg), as well as unregulated 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. "Clear Skies" was re-introduced in the 109th Congress as S. 131. The second initiative begins a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program. This plan, rather than capping CO2 emissions, focuses on improving the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing 2002 emissions of 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. In the 110th Congress, five bills have been introduced that would impose multi- pollutant controls on utilities. They are all four-pollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 1168 and S. 1177 are revised versions of S. 2724, introduced in the 109th Congress. S. 1201 and S. 1554 are expanded and revised versions of S. 150, introduced in the 109th Congress, while H.R. 3989 is a new proposal. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, beginning in the 2009-2012 time frame, with all but S. 1554 including a second phase in 2013-2015 (CO2 only for H.R. 3989). They would employ a tradeable credit program to implement the SO2, NOx, and CO2 caps; all but H.R. 3989 permit plant-wide averaging in complying with the Hg requirements. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in the 110th Congress bills are generally more stringent than the comparable provisions of S. 131 of the 109th Congress. It is difficult to compare the CO2 caps contained in these bills 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). Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Bush Administration's Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Allowance Allocations for SO2, NOx, and CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hg Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CO2 Reduction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Related Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 List of Tables Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants . . . . . . . . . 1 Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress Introduction Electric utility generating facilities are a major source of air pollution. The combustion of fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal), which accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. electricity generation, results in the emission of a stream of gases. These gases include several pollutants that directly pose risks to human health and welfare, including particulate matter (PM),1 sulfur dioxide (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 contributes 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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 SO2 11,297 11,174 10,881 10,646 10,309 10,340 NOx 5,380 5,290 5,194 4,532 4,143 3,961 CO2 2,429,394 2,389,745 2,395,048 2,415,680 2,456,934 2,513,609 Source: Energy Information Administration. Note: Includes emissions from combined-heat-and-power plants. The evolution of air pollution controls over time and as a result of growing scientific understanding of health and environmental impacts has led to a 1 Particulate matter is regulated depending on the particle size; current regulations address particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); the 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 In addition, steam-electric utilities produce minor amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead -- on the order of 2% or less of all sources. CRS-2 multilayered and interlocking patchwork of controls. Moreover, additional controls are in the process of development, particularly with respect to NOx as a precursor to ozone, to both NOx and SO2 as contributors to PM2.5, and to Hg as a toxic air pollutant. Also, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 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 that would be designed not to impose significant harm on the economy.3 For many years, the complexity of the air quality control regime has caused some observers to call for a simplified approach. Now, with the potential both for additional control programs on 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. 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 CO2.4 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 were introduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 227 and S. 131.5 The proposal has not been reintroduced in the 110th Congress. 3 S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005). 4 Papers outlining the Administration's proposals are available from the White House website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html] for the three pollutant proposal, and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange. html] for the climate change initiative. 5 For a further discussion of the Administration's Clear Skies proposal, see CRS Report RL32782, Clear Skies and the Clean Air Act: What's the Difference? by Larry Parker and James E. McCarthy, and CRS Report RL33165, Cost and Benefits of Clear Skies: EPA's Analysis of Multi-Pollutant Clean Air Bills, by James E. McCarthy and Larry B. Parker. Although H.R. 227 adopted the SO2 and NOx emission caps of the Administration's Clear Skies proposal, it did not include many other provisions, including regulatory changes. CRS-3 The second Administration proposal initiates a new voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program, similar to ones introduced by the earlier George H. W. Bush and Clinton Administrations.6 Developed in response to the U.S. ratification of the 1992 UNFCCC, these previous plans projected U.S. compliance, or near compliance, with the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 levels by the year 2000 through voluntary measures. The Bush Administration proposal does not make that claim, projecting only a 100 million metric ton reduction in emissions from what would occur otherwise in the year 2012. Total emissions would continue to rise. Instead, the plan focuses on improving the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing 2002 emissions of 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. It proposes several voluntary initiatives, along with increased spending and tax incentives, to achieve this goal. The Administration notes that the new initiatives would achieve about one-quarter of the objective, while three-quarters of the projected reduction is seen as occurring through existing efforts. Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress In the 110th Congress, five bills have been introduced that would impose multi- pollutant controls on utilities. They are all four-pollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 1168, introduced by Senator Alexander, and S. 1177, introduced by Senator Carper, are revised versions of S. 2724, introduced in the 109th Congress. S. 1201, introduced by Senator Sanders, and S. 1554, introduced by Senator Collins, are similar but revised versions of S. 150, introduced in the 109th Congress.7 In contrast, H.R. 3989, introduced by Representative McHugh, represents a new proposal. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, beginning in 2009- 2012 time frame. S. 1168, S. 1177, and S. 1201 include a second phase beginning in 2013-2015; H.R. 3989 includes a multi-phase program for CO2 only. They would employ a tradeable credit program to implement the SO2, NOx, and CO2 caps while all but H.R. 3989 permit plant-wide averaging in complying with the Hg requirements. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in the five bills are generally more stringent than the comparable provisions of S. 131 of the 109th Congress. It is difficult to compare the CO2 caps contained in these bills 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). The five bills are summarized in the Appendix. Each of these bills generally builds on the SO2 allowance trading scheme contained in Title IV of the 1990 Clean 6 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404, Climate Change Action Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett (out of print, available from the authors). 7 Besides its multi-pollutant control provisions for electric utilities, S. 1544 contains separate titles on transportation fuel efficiency, renewable fuels, elimination of certain tax provisions for the oil industry, and research on abrupt climate change. CRS-4 Air Act Amendments (CAAA).8 Under this program, utilities are given a specific allocation of permitted emissions (allowances) and may choose to use those allowances at their own facilities, or, if they do not use their full quota, to bank them for future use or to sell them to other utilities needing additional allowances. Allowance Allocations for SO2, NOx, and CO2 All five bills introduced in the 110th Congress provide for a tradeable allowance scheme to implement their emission caps on SO2, NOx, and CO2. However, allowance allocation schemes in the bills differ, with S. 1201 and S. 1554 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 addition, S. 1201 requires the increasing use of auctions, mandating 100% of the annual allowance allocation be auctioned within 15 years of enactment. In contrast, S. 1168 bases its allowance formulas on fuel usage adjusted by factors specified in the bill, along with a requirement that 25% of the allowances be auctioned. S. 1177 specifies CO2 and NOx limitations based on electricity output, and SO2 limitations based on the current Title IV program. The bill sets a schedule for increasing the percentage of the annual allowance allocation that is to be auctioned with 100% required in 2036 and thereafter. Finally, H.R. 3989 auctions 100% of its CO2 allowances while providing discretion to EPA to allocate SO2 and NOx allowances. Hg Controls On mercury, all five bills focus on achieving a 90% reduction by 2011 (S. 1554 and H.R. 3989), 2013 (S. 1201) or 2015 (S. 1168 and S. 1177). In contrast, the emissions goal of S. 131 of the 109th Congress would have allowed about three times more emissions and three to five more years for compliance. In addition, all but H.R. 3989 restrict Hg credit trading to plant-wide averaging of emissions, in contrast with the cap-and-trade program of S. 131. H.R. 3989 is even more stringent, imposing the emissions rate limitation on a unit-by-unit basis. CO2 Reduction Requirements The bills currently introduced in the 110th Congress 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. These voluntary reductions should not be taken as a given, as neither the George H. W. Bush Administration's nor the 8 P.L. 101-549. CRS-5 Clinton Administration's voluntary programs achieved their stated goals. Thus, in one sense, comparing a mandatory reduction program such as that proposed by S. 1168, S. 1177, S. 1201, and S. 1554 with the Administration's voluntary program is comparing apples to oranges. The first is legally binding, the second has been criticized as merely an exhortation. The CO2 reduction requirements of S. 1168, S. 1201, and S. 1554 are similar, except that S. 1201 and S. 1554 requires affected sources also offset CO2 emissions from small electric generating units. In contrast, S. 1177 imposes a cap that starts out slightly higher than the other two bills and declines on a slower schedule. Finally, H.R. 3989 has the most detailed reduction scheme with substantial reductions from coal-fired facilities scheduled through 2050. All but H.R. 3989 have provisions to create offsets and facilitate sequestration efforts. Among its titles, S. 1168 has extensive provisions providing for greenhouse gas offsets from landfill methane (CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) projects, afforestation or reforestation, energy efficiency, agricultural practices (manure management), and biomass. The provisions in S. 1177 include allowance allocations for incremental nuclear capacity, clean coal technology, and renewable energy, along with programs to encourage sequestration. Likewise, S. 1554 includes allowance allocations to encourage renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sequestration. Finally, S. 1201 requires the EPA to develop standards for providing allowances for geologic and biological sequestration. Related Regulatory Provisions In addition to emissions caps, S. 131 of the 109th Congress would have substantially modified or eliminated several provisions in the Clean Air Act with respect to electric generating facilities. The bill would have eliminated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 111) and replaced them with statutory standards for SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and Hg for new sources. Modified sources could have also opted to comply with these new statutory standards and be exempted from the applicable Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions (CAA, Part C) or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) determinations under non-attainment provisions (CAA, Part D). Compliance with these provisions would have exempted such facilities from New Source Review (NSR), PSD-BACT requirements, visibility Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements for Hg, and non- attainment LAER and offset requirements. The exemption would not have applied to PSD-BACT requirements if facilities were within 50 km of a PSD Class 1 area. Existing sources could have also received these exemptions if they agreed to meet a particulate matter standard specified in the bill along with good combustion practices to minimize carbon monoxide emissions within three years of enactment. In addition, S. 131 would have provided these exemptions for industrial sources that choose to opt into the Clear Skies program. S. 131 also would have included an exemption for steam electric generating facilities from Hg regulation under Section 112 of the CAA (including the residual risk provisions), and relief from enforcement of any Section 126 petition (with respect to reducing interstate transportation of pollution) before December 31, 2014. CRS-6 The five bills in the 110th Congress generally omit the regulatory changes of S. 131, while introducing new provisions. All five bills would revise the current New Source Review (NSR) program to require affected electric generating units 40 years or older (30 years old in the case of H.R. 3989) to meet more stringent SO2 and NOx performance standard by either 2015 (S. 1201), 2016 (S. 1554), 2020 (S. 1168 and S. 1177), or five years after enactment (H.R. 3989). All except S. 1554 and H.R. 3989 contain provisions establishing a new performance standard for CO2. S. 1168 and S. 1177 would also eliminate the annual NOx and SO2 caps contained in the recently promulgated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In addition to the above, S. 1201 and S. 1554 would create several new regulatory programs and standards, including an Efficiency Performance Standard, and a Renewable Portfolio Standard. These programs would be implemented through a credit trading program. CRS-7 Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) Emissions 1.473603 million tons 1.45 million tons in the East 1.39 million tons in the 1.51 million tons in 1.51 million tons in 2012, Estimated at 1.51 million cap on NOx in the East in 2008, in 2009, declining to 1.3 East in 2012, declining to 2010, declining to 0.9 reduced annually by tons in 2010. declining to 1.07603 million tons in 2015. 0.32 1.3 million tons in 2015. million tons in 2013. emission emitted by small million tons in 2018. million ton in the West 0.40 million tons in the Additional reductions electric generating Additional reductions 0.714794 in the West beginning in 2015. West in 2012, declining to may be required for O3 facilities. Additional may be required if beginning in 2008. 0.32 million tons in 2015. NAAQS compliance. reductions may be required necessary to protect if necessary to protect public health or welfare. public health or welfare or the environment. Emissions cap 4.5 million tons in 3.5 million tons in the East 3.5 million tons in 2012, 1.9755 million tons in 1.975 million tons in the Estimated at 2.225 on SO2 2010, declining to 3.0 in 2010, declining to 2.0 declining to 2.0 million the East in 2010, East and 0.275 million tons million tons in 2010. million tons in 2018. million tons in the 48 tons in 2015. declining to 1.1414 in the West in 2012, contiguous states in 2015. million tons in 2013. reduced annually by Additional reductions 0.2745 million tons in emission emitted by small may be required if the West in 2010, electric generating necessary to protect declining to 0.1586 facilities. Additional public health or welfare. million tons in 2013. reductions may be required if necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment. Emission cap Not covered. 2.3 billion metric tons Estimated at 2.47 billion 2.3 billion metric 2.05 billion metric tonnes in Estimated at 1.94 billion on CO2 (tonnes) in 2011, declining metric tonnes in 2012, tonnes in 2011, 2022, reduced annually by metric tonnes in 2015, to 2.1 billion tonnes in declining to 2.39 billion declining to 2.1 billion emission emitted by small declining to 1.46 billion 2015, 1.8 billion tonnes in tonnes in 2015, declining tonnes in 2015, electric generating tonnes in 2020, declining 2020, and 1.5 billion tonnes by 1% annually beginning declining to 1.803 facilities. Additional to 0.97 billion tonnes in CRS-8 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) in 2025. in 2016, and by 1.5% billion tonnes in 2020, reductions may be required 2030, declining to 0.68 beginning in 2020. and finally declining to if necessary to protect billion tonnes in 2040, 1.5 billion tonnes in public health or welfare or and finally declining to 2025. Further the environment. 0.39 billion tonnes in reductions required 2050. after 2025. Cap also reduced by emissions from small electric generation facilities. Emissions cap 34 tons in 2010, Less stringent of 60% Less stringent of 60% 5 tons and, to the 2.48 grams of Hg per Gwh Emission rate limit set at on mercury declining to 15 tons in reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh reduction or 0.02 lb./Gwh extent practicable, on a facility specific basis 0.6 lb. per trillion Btu for 2018. four years after enactment, in 2012, declining to the achieve a 90% by 2011. new (2009) and existing declining to the lesser of lesser of 90% reduction or reduction on a facility- (2011) coal-fired units. 90% reduction or 0.0060 0.0060 lb./Gwh in 2015. specific basis by 2013. (Roughly equivalent to lb./Gwh in 2015. One year Subject to EPA review. 0.0060 lb./Gwh.) extension available to install equipment. Scope 50 states, DC, and 48 contiguous states and 50 states and DC. 50 states and DC. 50 states and DC. 50 states and DC. territories. DC. Affected units Existing electric Electric generating facilities Electric generating Electric generating Electric generating facilities Electric generating generating facilities 25 greater than 25 Mw for CO2 facilities greater than 25 facilities 25 Mw or 15 Mw or greater (coal- facilities 25 Mw or Mw or greater (coal- , fossil fuel-fired electric Mw, including incremental greater (coal-fired only fired only for Hg). greater (coal-fired only fired only for Hg); co- generating facilities for nuclear capacity for CO2, for Hg). for Hg and CO2). generation sources NOx and SO2 (coal-fired fossil-fuel-fired electric exempted. only for Hg). generating facilities for NOx, Title IV definition for SO2, coal-fired only for CRS-9 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) Hg. Penalties for NOx, SO2, Hg: NOx, SO2 and CO2: two- NOx: Twice the average NOx , SO2 and CO2 NOx , SO2 and CO2 same as NOx and SO2 same as non- reduces the excess for-one offset from future annual price in the same as CAA, title IV, CAA, title IV, except CAA, title IV. compliance emissions penalties emission allocations, plus appropriate zone per except excess emission excess emission penalty is under CAA, title IV to an excess emissions excess ton plus at least an penalty is three times three times the average Hg: $10,000 per ounce of the EPA auction penalty. one-for-one offset from the average market market price for excess emissions. clearing price for future emission price for allowances. allowances. allowances plus one- Hg: $50,000 per excess allocations. CO2 : $150 per ton, for-one offset from pound, indexed to inflation. Hg: three times the Hg: three times the average adjusted for inflation. future emission SO2: Twice the average average Hg control Hg control costs per gram allocations, if paid annual price per excess ton costs per gram of of excess emission. within 30 days. plus at least an one-for- excess emission. Otherwise, the number one offset from future of excess emissions is emission allocations. multiplied by 1.5 for penalty purposes. Hg: $50,000 per excess pound emitted. CO2: Twice the two-year average price plus at least an one-for-one offset from future emissions allocations. Special New performance Revises NSR program to Revises NSR program to Beginning in 2015, all Beginning in 2016, all Beginning 5 years after provisions standards for new require affected electric require affected electric powerplants 40 years powerplants 40 years or enactment, all sources replace current generating units 40 years generating units 40 years or older must meet older must meet emission powerplants 30 years or NSPS for new sources. or older to meet specific or older to meet specific emission limitations limitations based on current older must meet most Compliance with bill's SO2 and NOx performance SO2 and NOx performance based on current best best available control recent NSPS, Part C CRS-10 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) provisions exempts standards beginning in standards beginning in available control technology for a new major (PSD) and Part D (non- facilities from New 2020. 2020. technology for a new source. attainment) requirements Source Review (NSR), major source. under the Act. PSD-BACT Beginning in 2015, New Beginning in 2015, New Creates a new Efficiency requirements, visibilityNSPS established for CO2. NSPS established for CO2. New CO2 emissions Performance Standard and Revenues from CO2 BART requirements, More stringent NSPS standard for baseload credit program beginning in auctions to fund research and non-attainment Annual SO2 and NOx caps begins in 2025. powerplants that 2007. and development of LAER and offset under CAIR eliminated in commerce operation renewable energy requirements. The 2015. Annual NOx cap under after 2011. Standard Creates a Renewable projects. exemption does not CAIR eliminated in the would be based on the Portfolio Standard and apply to PSD-BACT Extensive provisions later of 2012 or effective emission rate of a new credit program, beginning Appropriations requirements if facilityproviding for greenhouse date of NOx regulations. combined cycle natural in 2009. authorized for several is within 50 Km of gas offsets from landfill gas generating plant. monitoring networks. Class 1 area. Existing CH4, SF6 projects, CO2 program includes EPA may increase the Contains separate titles on sources can opt in by afforestation or allowance allocations for stringency to at least transportation fuel meeting a particulate reforestation, energy incremental nuclear 90% by 2030. All efficiency, renewable fuels, standard. efficiency, agricultural capacity, clean coal baseload plants must elimination of certain tax practices (manure technology, and renewable meet New CO2 provisions for the oil Exempts utility units management), and biomass. energy, along with emission standard by industry, and research on from Hg regulation sequestration and early 2031, if feasible. abrupt climate change. under CAA, Section action provisions. 112, including residual CO2 program includes New minimum Hg risk provisions. allowance allocations for standard for new clean coal technology under sources established as Prevents EPA from a Climate Champions of the date of enforcing Section 126 Program. enactment. petitions before December 31, 2014. Creates a new Low- Carbon Generation CRS-11 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) Requirement and credit trading program beginning in 2015. Creates new Energy Efficiency Performance Standard and credit program beginning in 2008. Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard and credit program, beginning in 2008 Requires standards for geological CO2 disposal within 6 years of enactment and biological sequestration within 2 years of enactment. Implemen- Tradeable allowance Tradeable allowance system Tradeable allowance Tradeable allowance Tradeable allowance system Tradeable allowance tation strategy system for SO2, NOx, for NOx, SO2 and CO2. For system for NOx, SO2 and system for SO2, NOx for SO2, NOx and CO2. system for SO2, NOx and and Hg. Allocation NOx, and CO2, allocations CO2. For NOx, and CO2, and CO2. Allocations to Allowances allocated to CO2. formulas based on based on historic heat input allocations based on be based on economic, various sectors and historic fuel usage adjusted for each fuel's historic electricity output. equity, and interests, including SO2, and NOx allocations adjusted by factors generally applicable international households, dislocated left to EPA discretion. CRS-12 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) specified in the bill. emissions rate for that For SO2 current Title IV competitiveness criteria workers and communities, CO2 allowances are 100% pollutant. allocations are revised and specified in the bill. electricity intensive auctioned. Special reserves for adjusted for newer units. Allowances allocated industries, energy new units provided for to various sectors and efficiency and renewable Hg emissions rate limits SO2, NOx and Hg. For SO2 current Title IV Special reserves for new interests, including energy activities, are on a unit-by-unit allocations are revised and units provided for NOx, households, dislocated sequestration activities, and basis. adjusted for newer units. CO2, and SO2. workers and ecosystem restoration. communities, Special reserves for new Beginning in 2012, 18% electricity intensive For Hg, plant-wide units provided for CO2 and of CO2 allowances to be industries, energy averaging is permitted. SO2 auctioned, a percentage efficiency and increased 3 percentage renewable energy Beginning in 2011, 25% of points annually until 2030 activities, sequestration CO2 allowances to be when the rate is increased activities, and auctioned with proceeds to 5 percentage points ecosystem restoration. going to electricity until 2036 when 100% is consumers and energy- auctioned. Revenues from Beginning in 2010, at intensive industries. the resulting Climate least 50% of CO2 Action Trust Fund shall be allowances to be For Hg, plant-wide used for innovative low- auctioned, with averaging is permitted. and zero emitting carbon successive increasing technologies program, to raise it to 100% clean coal technologies within 15 years of the program, and research and date of enactment. analysis, and an energy efficiency technology For Hg, plant-wide program. Other funded averaging is permitted. activities includes worker and community impact CRS-13 S. 131 (Inhofe) S. 1168 S. 1177 S. 1201 S. 1554 H.R. 3989 Provisions (109th Congress) (Alexander) (Carper) (Sanders) (Collins) (McHugh) assistance, adaptation assistance, and protecting fish and wildlife habitat. For Hg, facility-wide averaging is permitted. Source: Congressional Research Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34018