# Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 108th Congress

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31779

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** November 17, 2003
- **Citation:** RL31779

## Text

Order Code RL31779

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

Air Quality:
Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 108th Congress

Updated November 17, 2003

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 108th 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 108th Congress, eight bills have been introduced that would impose multipollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 999/S. 485, are the
Administration’s three-pollutant proposal, and two other bills, H.R. 203 and S. 1844,
are modified versions of the Administration’s proposal. The other four bills are fourpollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 366, is similar to a bill reported
by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress while
S. 843 and H.R. 3093 are modified versions of S. 3135 introduced in the 107th
Congress . Likewise, H.R. 2042 is similar to H.R. 1256 introduced in the 107th
Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, typically taking
place in 2008-2009; and most include a tradeable credit program to implement that
cap. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in S. 366, H.R. 203, S. 843, H.R.
2042, and H.R. 3093 are generally more stringent and take effect earlier than the
comparable provisions of H.R. 999/S. 485 and S. 1844. S. 366, S. 843, H.R. 2042,
and H.R. 3093 would cap 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 these bills. This report will be
updated as warranted.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Bush Administration’s Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 108th 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 1: Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 108th 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 67%
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
announced its intention to regulate mercury. 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 of constructing new ones.

Table 1: Emissions From U.S. Fossil-fuel Electric Generating Plants
(thousands of short tons)
Emissions

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

SO2

14,211

11,437

12,053

12,317

12,432

11,968

NOx

6,790

6,737

6,996

7,227

7,221

7,051

CO2

1,986,079

1,995,471

2,065,339

2,142,118

2,209,286

2,191,576

Source: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1999, vol. II, p. 40

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) which have not yet been implemented.
SO2 and NOx emissions could be affected by regulations of PM2.5. Current concerns about
emissions from fossil-fuel electric generating plants do not explicitly address PM, but could
indirectly do so through attention to SO2 and NOx.
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
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
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. Thus,
mandatory federal CO2 controls in the United States appear unlikely in the near term.
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.3

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, it was introduced in the 108th Congress on February 27, 2003 as H.R. 999
and S. 485.
The second proposal (for which no legislation has been introduced) initiates a
new voluntary greenhouse gas reduction program, similar to ones introduced by the
earlier George H. W. Bush and Clinton Administrations.5 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
3

Larry Parker and John Blodgett, Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-pollutant
Strategies, CRS Report RL30878.

4

Papers outlining the Administration’s proposals are available from the White House web
site: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html] for the three
pollutant proposal and, for the climate change initiative:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html].

5

For a discussion of those previous plans, see Larry Parker and John Blodgett, Climate
Change Action Plans, CRS Report 94-404 ENR, May 9, 1994. (archived, available from the
author)

CRS-3
gas emissions at their 1990 levels by the year 2000 through voluntary measures. The
new proposal introduced by the Bush Administration 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 underway.

Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 108th
Congress
In the 108th Congress, eight bills have been introduced that would impose multipollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 999, introduced by request by
Representative Barton, and S. 485, introduced by request by Senator Inhofe, are the
Administration’s three-pollutant proposal. Two other bills are modified versions of
the Administration’s Clear Skies proposal. H.R. 203, introduced by Representative
Sweeney, is a shortened and more stringent version of the Administration’s proposal,
while S. 1844, introduced by Senator Inhofe, would maintain the deadlines contained
in Clear Skies and includes provisions that, among other things, would weaken the
phase 1 Hg cap and exempt co-generation facilities from the bill’s mandates. The
other four bills are four-pollutant proposals that include carbon dioxide. S. 366,
introduced by Senator Jeffords, is basically the same as S. 556 as reported by the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during the 107th Congress (S.Rept.
107-347).6 S. 843, introduced by Senator Carper, and H.R. 3093, introduced by
Representative Bass, are similar to S. 3135 introduced in the 107th Congress. H.R.
2042, introduced by Representative Waxman, is similar to H.R. 1256 introduced in
the 107th Congress. All of these bills involve some form of emission caps, typically
taking place (at least initially) in 2008-2009; and most include a tradeable credit
program to implement that cap. S. 366, S. 843, H.R. 2042, and H.R. 3093 would cap
emissions of CO2.
The eight bills are summarized in Appendix 1. Each of these bills builds on the
SO2 allowance trading scheme contained in title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA).7 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.
SO2, NOx, and Hg Controls. As indicated in Appendix 1, for SO2 and
NOx, the caps in H.R. 999/S. 485 and S. 1844 are less stringent for 2008 than S.
366's or H.R. 2042's requirements for 2009 or H.R. 203's requirements for 2012; and

6

The primary difference is S. 366 compliance deadlines for its reduction requirements have
been extended one year to 2009 (except for Hg which remains at 2008).

7

Public Law 101-549.

CRS-4
remain less stringent than S. 366 or H.R. 2042 even through the second phase
beginning in 2018. H.R. 203 would require full compliance with its SO2 and NOx
provisions by 2012, in effect accelerating the Administration’s proposed emission
caps by 6 years. For S. 843 and H.R. 3093, their NOx caps are initially more stringent
than the Administration’s proposal and S. 1844 but are achieved a year later, while
its final NOx cap is the same as the Administration’s proposal and S. 1844 but
achieved 5 years earlier. S. 843's and H.R. 3093's SO2 cap is initially the same as
Clear Skies and S. 1844 but achieved a year earlier and its final cap is more stringent
and achieved 2 years earlier.
Allowance allocation schemes for the bills also differ, with S. 366 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, the Administration’s proposal initially allocates
SO2, NOx and Hg allowances to affected sources free, with a small percentage sold
at auction. Over time, an increasing percentage of the allocation is sold at auction
with affected sources receiving fewer allowances free. S. 843 and H.R. 3093 allocate
NOx, Hg, and CO2 allowances based on a powerplant’s generating efficiency and its
SO2 allowances based on current formulas within title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. S. 1844 bases its allowance formulas on fuel usage adjusted by factors
specified in the bill while H.R. 203 and H.R. 2042 leaves the allocation issue to EPA.
On mercury, H.R. 999/S. 485 and S. 1844's emissions goal allows about 3 times
more emissions and ten additional years for compliance than allowed by S. 366,
which also mandates plant-by-plant controls; H.R. 2042 is likewise three times more
stringent than H.R. 999/S485 and S. 1844, mandates plant-by-plant controls, and has
a compliance deadline 9 years in advance of the Administration’s bill. H.R. 999/S.
485 is also less stringent than S. 843 and H.R. 3093. H.R. 203 requires EPA to
promulgate Hg regulations before 2005. (It is difficult to compare the Hg controls of
the Administration’s proposal, S. 366, or H.R. 2042 to H.R. 203, which does not
specify an Hg emissions goal, leaving regulation up to EPA).
Related Regulatory Provisions. In addition to the emissions caps, H.R.
999/S. 485 and S. 1844 would substantially modify or eliminate several provisions
in the Clean Air Act with respect to electric generating facilities. The bills 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), PSDBACT requirements, visibility (Best Available Retrofit Technology) BART
requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements for
Hg, and non-attainment LAER requirements. The exemption does not apply to PSDBACT 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

CRS-5
standard specified in the bill along with good combustion practices to minimize
carbon monoxide emissions within 3 years of enactment. S. 843 and H.R. 3093
would restrict NSR to new facilities (including replacing an existing boiler) and
projects that result in increased hourly emissions of regulated pollutants. For pre1971 generating facilities, S. 843 and H.R. 3093 would impose SO2 and NOx
performance standards beginning in 2020. In contrast, S. 366 requires all
powerplants 40-years or older to meet emission limitations based on current best
available control technology for a new source.
H.R. 999/S. 485 and S. 1844 also 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 2012 (2014 in
the case of S. 1844). S. 843 and H.R. 3093 provides for removal of Hg MACT
provisions for electric generating facilities, but requires EPA to carry out its
responsibilities under the residual risk provisions of the CAA within 8 years of
enactment.
Neither H.R. 203, S. 366, nor H.R. 2042 provide such regulatory relief
provisions.
CO2. Of the eight bills, S. 366, S. 843, H.R. 2042, H.R. 3093 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 Report8 (CAR) for projections to 2010,
table 2 presents estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, assuming the
Administration’s voluntary program reaches its goals.9 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. 366, S. 843, H.R. 2042,
and H.R. 3093 with the Administration’s voluntary program is comparing apples to
oranges. The first is legally binding, the second is an exhortation.
While S. 366, S. 843, H.R. 2042, and H.R. 3093 focus on electric utility
emissions, their 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.10 However, neither S. 366, S. 843,
8

This is the U.S. report to the UNFCCC Secretariat on U.S. emissions and measures taken
to reduce them. The Climate Action Report -- 2002, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html

9

For a discussion of emission projections and trends, see John Blodgett and Larry Parker,
Global Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Status, Trends, and Projections,
CRS Report 9-235 ENR.
10

The assessment assumes that the Administration’s proposal actually achieves its goal in
(continued...)

CRS-6
H.R. 2042, H.R. 3093, nor the Administration’s initiative would be sufficient to bring
U.S. emissions near the level committed to in the 1992 UNFCCC.
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 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.11 However, S. 366 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.
Business as Usual (2010)

Percentage Change v.
1990 levels per UNFCCC

S. 366

-7.5%

+24.2%

S. 843 and H.R. 3093*

-5.1%

+27.5%

H.R. 2042

-9.5%

+21.7%

-4.4 to -4.5%

+28.3%

0

+34.4%

Administration’s
Voluntary Program**
Business as Usual

*Assumes requirement of S. 843 and H.R. 3093 is achieved in 2010, rather than 2013.
**Assumes goal of the Administration’s voluntary program is achieved in 2010, rather than
2012.
Source: CRS calculations based on projections contained in 2002 CAR.

10

(...continued)
2010, rather than 2012.
11

Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2000, Washington D.C.,
DOE/EIA-0383 (2002), December 2001. p. 177.

CRS-7

Appendix 1: Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals

Provisions

H.R. 203
(Sweeney)

S. 366 (Jeffords)

H.R. 999/S. 485
(Administration’s
Proposals)

S. 843 (Carper)

H.R. 2042
(Waxman)

H.R. 3093
(Bass)

S. 1844
(Inhofe)

Emissions
Cap on NOx

2.1 million
tons in 2008,
declining to
1.7 million
tons in 2012

1.51 million tons
in 2009

2.1 million tons in
2008, declining to
1.7 million tons in
2018

1.87 million tons
in 2009, declining
to 1.7 million tons
in 2013

estimated at 1.5
million tons in
2009

1.87 million tons
in 2009, declining
to 1.7 million tons
in 2013

2.1 million tons in
2008, declining to
1.7 million tons in
2018

Emissions
Cap on SO2

4.45 million
tons in 2008,
declining to
3.0 million
tons in 2012

2.25 million tons
in 2009

4.5 million tons in
2010, declining to
3.0 million tons in
2018

4.5 million tons in
2009, declining to
2.25 million tons
in 2016

2.23 million
tons in 2009

4.5 million tons in
2009, declining to
2.25 million tons
in 2016

4.5 million tons in
2010, declining to
3.0 million tons in
2018

Emission Cap
on CO2

not covered

2.05 billion tons
in 2009

none, program is
voluntary

estimated at 2.6
billion tons in
2009, declining to
an estimated 2.3
billion tons in 2013

estimated at
1.937 billion
tons in 2009

estimated at 2.6
billion tons in
2009, declining to
an estimated 2.3
billion tons in
2013

none

Emissions
Cap on
Mercury

EPA to
promulgate
regulations by
December 15,
2004

5 tons in 2008

26 tons in 2010,
declining to 15 tons
in 2018

24 tons in 2009,
declining to 10
tons by 2013

estimated at 4-5
tons in 2009

24 tons in 2009,
declining to 10
tons by 2013

34 tons in 2010,
declining to 15 tons
in 2018

Scope

50 states and
DC

50 states and DC

50 states, DC, and
territories

50 states and DC

50 states and
DC

50 states and DC

50 states, DC, and
territories

CRS-8

Provisions

H.R. 203
(Sweeney)

S. 366 (Jeffords)

H.R. 999/S. 485
(Administration’s
Proposals)

S. 843 (Carper)

H.R. 2042
(Waxman)

H.R. 3093
(Bass)

S. 1844
(Inhofe)

Affected Units

electric
generating
facilities 25
Mw or greater;
Hg regulations
to include
industrial
sources

electric
generating
facilities 15 Mw
or greater (coalfired only for Hg)

for SO2, NOx, and
Hg: existing electric
generating facilities
25 Mw or greater
(coal-fired only for
Hg); new facilities
have no size
minimum (except
for natural gas
units); voluntary
CO2 program is
economy-wide

fossil fuel-fired
electric generating
facilities greater
than 25 Mw (coalfired facilities in
the case of Hg
controls)

electric
generating
facilities 15
Mw or greater

fossil fuel-fired
electric generating
facilities greater
than 25 Mw (coalfired facilities in
the case of Hg
controls)

existing electric
generating facilities
25 Mw or greater
(coal-fired only for
Hg); co-generation
sources exempted

Penalties for
noncompliance

NOx: $6,000
per excess ton
plus one-forone offset from
future emission
allocations

determined by
EPA

NOx: $5,000 per
ton plus one-forone offset from
future emission
allocations

Hg: not
specified, CAA
enforcement
provisions
would apply

Hg: three times
the average Hg
control costs per
gram of excess
emission

NOx, SO2, Hg:
reduces the excess
emissions penalties
under CAA, title
IV to the EPA
auction clearing
price for allowances
plus one-for-one
offset from future
emission
allocations, if paid
within 30 days.
Otherwise, penalty
is three times the
clearing price plus
offsets

NOx: $5,000 per
ton plus one-forone offset from
future emission
allocations

SO2: same as
CAA, title IV

NOx , SO2 and
CO2 same as
CAA, title IV
except excess
emission penalty
is three times the
average market
price for
allowances

NOx, SO2, Hg:
reduces the excess
emissions penalties
under CAA, title
IV to the EPA
auction clearing
price for allowances
plus one-for-one
offset from future
emission
allocations, if paid
within 30 days.
Otherwise, penalty
is three times the
clearing price plus
offsets

CO2: none –
voluntary program

SO2: same as CAA,
title IV

SO2: same as
CAA, title IV

Hg: $10,000 per
lb. plus one-forone offset from
future emission
allocations

Hg: $10,000 per
lb. plus one-forone offset from
future emission
allocations

CO2: $100 per ton
plus one-for-one
offset from future
emission
allocations

CO2: $100 per ton
plus one-for-one
offset from future
emission
allocations

CRS-9

Provisions
Special
Provisions

H.R. 203
(Sweeney)
EPA to
determine by
2012 whether
emission
reductions
sufficient to
protect
sensitive
regional
ecosystems; if
not, EPA must
promulgate
rules requiring
additional NOx
and SO2
reductions
within two
years of such
determination

S. 366 (Jeffords)
beginning in
2014, all
powerplants 40years or older
must meet
emission
limitations based
on current best
available control
technology for a
new major source
SO2 cap divided
by region (West
and East) with no
trading permit
between regions
EPA to determine
by 2012 whether
emission
reductions
sufficient to
protect sensitive
regional
ecosystems; if
not, EPA must
promulgate rules
requiring
additional NOx
and SO2
reductions within
two years of such
determination
other provisions
to protect local air
quality

H.R. 999/S. 485
(Administration’s
Proposals)
new performance
standards for new
sources replace
current NSPS for
new sources.
Compliance with
bill’s provisions
exempts facilities
from New Source
Review (NSR),
PSD-BACT
requirements,
visibility BART
requirements, and
non-attainment
LAER
requirements. The
exemption does not
apply to PSDBACT requirements
if facility is within
50 Km of Class 1
area. Existing
sources can opt in
by meeting a
particulate standard
exempts utility units
from Hg regulation
under CAA, Section
112, including
residual risk
provisions
prevents EPA from
enforcing any
Section 126 petition
before 2012
NOx cap divided by
region (West and
East)

S. 843 (Carper)
tonnage limitations
in effect for 20
years; EPA to
reassess after 15
years
CO2 limitations
include provisions
providing CO2
allowances for
renewable energy,
sequestration, and
other greenhouse
gas emission
reduction projects
revises New
Source Review
(NSR) to cover
new units; and
imposes new SO2
and NOx
standards on pre1971 units
beginning in 2020;
in 2009, a cost
threshold is
included in
determining
Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate
(LAER)and the
offset requirement
in non-attainment
areas is eliminated
for new electric
generating
facilities

H.R. 2042
(Waxman)

H.R. 3093
(Bass)

S. 1844
(Inhofe)

all powerplants
30-years or
older must
meet current
New Source
Performance
Standard
(NSPS)
requirements

tonnage limitations
in effect for 20
years; EPA to
reassess after 15
years

new performance
standards for new
sources replace
current NSPS for
new sources.
Compliance with
bill’s provisions
exempts facilities
from New Source
Review (NSR),
PSD-BACT
requirements,
visibility BART
requirements, and
non-attainment
LAER
requirements. The
exemption does not
apply to PSDBACT requirements
if facility is within
50 Km of Class 1
area. Existing
sources can opt in
by meeting a
particulate standard

CO2 limitations
include provisions
providing CO2
allowances for
renewable energy,
sequestration, and
other greenhouse
gas emission
reduction projects
revises New
Source Review
(NSR) to cover
new units; and
imposes new SO2
and NOx
standards on pre1971 units
beginning in 2020;
in 2009, a cost
threshold is
included in
determining
Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate
(LAER)and the
offset requirement
in non-attainment
areas is eliminated
for new electric
generating
facilities

exempts utility units
from Hg regulation
under CAA, Section
112, including
residual risk
provisions
prevents EPA from
enforcing any
Section 126 petition
before 2014
NOx cap divided by
region (West and
East)

CRS-10

Provisions
Implementation
Strategy

H.R. 203
(Sweeney)
tradeable
allowance
system for SO2
and NOx.
Hg compliance
on a source-bysource basis

S. 366 (Jeffords)
tradeable
allowance system
for SO2 (restricted
between East and
West regions),
NOx and CO2.
Allowances
allocated to
various sectors
and interests,
including
households,
dislocated
workers and
communities,
electricity
intensive
industries,
affected utilities,
energy efficiency
and renewable
energy activities,
and sequestration
activities

H.R. 999/S. 485
(Administration’s
Proposals)
tradeable allowance
system for SO2,
NOx, and Hg.
Allocation formulas
in the bill initially
provide most
allowances to
affected sources
free, with a small
percentage sold at
auction. Over time,
an increasing
percentage of the
allocation is sold at
auction with
affected sources
receiving fewer
allowances free

S. 843 (Carper)
tradeable
allowance system
for SO2, NOx Hg,
and CO2.
Allocation
formulas for NOx,
Hg, and CO2 based
on generating
efficiency; SO2
allocations based
on current CAA,
title IV provisions
Allocations
formulas for all
four pollutants
include a new
source reserve to
provide allowances
to newly
constructed
sources

H.R. 2042
(Waxman)

H.R. 3093
(Bass)

S. 1844
(Inhofe)

to be
determined by
EPA – market
mechanisms
permitted
(except for Hg)

tradeable
allowance system
for SO2, NOx Hg,
and CO2.
Allocation
formulas for NOx,
Hg, and CO2 based
on generating
efficiency; SO2
allocations based
on current CAA,
title IV provisions

tradeable allowance
system for SO2,
NOx, and Hg.
Allocation formulas
based on historic
fuel usage adjusted
by factors specified
in the bill

Allocations
formulas for all
four pollutants
include a new
source reserve to
provide allowances
to newly
constructed
sources

Hg compliance
on a source-bysource basis
(plantwide
averaging
explicitly
allowed)

Unless otherwise noted, estimates by CRS using Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency data.

7% of SO2 and 5%
of NOx and Hg
allowances are set
aside for new units

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31779. Public record. Not legal advice.