Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Order Code RL32955

Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Updated January 3, 2007

Brent D. Yacobucci

Specialist in Energy Policy

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Summary

Climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were issues in the 109th

Congress, as they had been in past Congresses. Bills directly addressing climate

change issues ranged from those focused primarily on climate change research to

comprehensive emissions cap-and-trade programs for the six greenhouse gases

covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Additional bills focused on GHG reporting and registries, or on power plant

emissions of carbon dioxide, as part of wider controls on pollutant emissions.

Within several broad categories, the bills varied in their approaches to climate

change issues. For example, some bills covering research issues focused solely on

modeling the effects of future climate change, whereas others addressed the

development of monitoring technologies. Bills focusing on technology deployment

did so through tax incentives and credit-based programs within the United States or

by promoting deployment in developing countries. Bills with greenhouse gas

registries were either voluntary or mandatory and varied in the entities covered and

the gases registered. Bills with emission reduction requirements also varied in the

entities covered, the gases limited, and the target emissions levels.

Most notably, on August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act

of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6). Among other provisions, Title XVI of the bill

established programs to promote the development and deployment of technologies

to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

This report briefly discusses the basic concepts on which these bills were based

and compares major provisions of the bills in each of the following categories:

climate change research, technology deployment, GHG reporting and registries, and

emissions reduction programs.

Contents

Energy Bill Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Climate Change Research Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Deployment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

GHG Reporting and Registry Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

GHG Emission-Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Safety Valve Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Comparison of Emissions Reduction Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

List of Tables

Table 1. Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the

109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Climate Change Legislation

in the 109th Congress

Climate change is viewed as a global issue, but proposed responses generally

require action at the national level. In 1992, the United States ratified the United

Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which called on

industrialized countries to take the lead in making voluntary efforts to reduce

greenhouse gases.1 Over the past 15 years, a variety of voluntary and regulatory

actions have been proposed or undertaken in the United States, including monitoring

of utility carbon dioxide emissions, improved appliance efficiency, and incentives for

developing renewable energy sources. In 2001, President George W. Bush rejected

the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which called for legally binding commitments

by developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the Bush

Administration has focused on reducing the greenhouse gas intensity2 of the U.S.

economy. In the meantime, some states and local governments, as well as private

entities, have taken actions to reduce emissions and limit the potential impacts of

climate change. In light of these actions, a number of bills were introduced in

Congress to address climate change.

In the 109th Congress, numerous bills were introduced that directly or indirectly

address climate change. Several bills addressed the climate change issue directly,

either through emissions limits, incentives for reductions, or research and information

gathering on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. This report

describes and compares bills that directly addressed climate change, as opposed to

those that addressed other issues but could have had ancillary impacts (e.g., energy

efficiency and conservation). Topics covered by these bills fall into four major

categories: (1) those that would have promoted research on the effects of climate

change and on methods to measure and predict climate change; (2) those that would

have created incentives for the deployment of emission-reducing technologies in the

United States or other countries; (3) those that would have established greenhouse

gas (GHG) monitoring systems as a basis for research or for any potential reduction

program; and (4) those that would have established market-based programs to

directly limit greenhouse gas emissions. These categories are not mutually exclusive,

and several bills addressed more than one of the above categories. The major

provisions of these bills are categorized in Appendix 1 and summarized in

Appendix 2.

1

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2, the most ubiquitous and primary greenhouse

gas), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons

(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluorane (SF6). Some other greenhouse gases are controlled under

the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.

2

Greenhouse gas intensity is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide (or equivalent)

emitted per unit of gross domestic product.

CRS-2

In several cases, bill sponsors introduced modified versions of their climate

change bills. For the purposes of the discussion below, it is assumed that the newest

version supersedes earlier versions. These bills include S. 1151 for S. 342 (McCain);

S. 883 for S. 386 (Hagel); S. 887 for S. 388 (Hagel); and S. 1203 for S. 387 (Hagel).

Energy Bill Amendments

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.

109-58). Title XVI established a voluntary national program designed to accelerate

demonstration and deployment of less-carbon-intensive technology to encourage

voluntary reductions in greenhouse gases. The title attempts to support actions

focused on reducing U.S. carbon intensity (the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions per

unit of gross domestic product). The program would not establish a requirement to

reduce emissions. This title also establishes a program to encourage exports of

carbon intensity-reducing technologies to developing countries.

As part of the Senate debate over the Energy Policy Act of 2005, several

amendments on climate change were offered. S.Amdt. 817, which inserted a new

Title XVI in the bill, incorporated language from S. 883 and S. 887. This

amendment was agreed to on a 66-29 vote. These provisions are similar to those

included in the final version of the bill. The House version of the bill did not

expressly address climate change issues.

Not included in the final law was Section 1612 of the Senate bill (S.Amdt. 866),

which expressed the Sense of the Senate that human activities are a substantial cause

of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, causing average temperatures to

rise. Further, the resolution stated that “Congress should enact a comprehensive and

effective national program of mandatory market-based limits and incentives on

emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such

emissions at a rate and in a manner that — (1) will not significantly harm the United

States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are

major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.” This was the first

Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change since S.Res. 98 in 1997, which

voiced concern over the economic effects of emissions limits and the sense that

developing countries must participate in meaningful action to control emissions.

Similar to S.Amdt. 866, S.J.Res. 5 also urged U.S. action on climate change, but this

resolution saw no action after being referred to committee.

The Senate also debated whether to adopt S.Amdt. 826, which contained

language similar to S. 1151. This amendment would have established a mandatory

cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions from covered entities to year

2000 levels by 2010. This amendment was rejected on a 38-60 vote.

Climate Change Research Bills

Global climate change is a complex issue. While most scientists agree that the

climate is changing in response to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, uncertainties

concerning the causes and the effects of climate change remain and are a continuing

CRS-3

subject of extensive scientific research.3 Further, research is ongoing into

technologies to improve efficiency, reduce fossil fuel consumption, and sequester

carbon dioxide emissions.

Research Bills. One bill in the 109th Congress, S. 245 (Collins), focused

solely on climate change research.4 It called for the development and testing of

climate change models based on historic climatic changes, and to incorporate

nonlinear aspects of geophysical systems that could lead to abrupt changes in climate.

Research Provisions in Broader Bills. Several bills included climate

change research provisions as part of a broader climate change legislation.

Specifically, research in S. 1151, S. 3698, S. 4039, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2828 would

have focused on abrupt climate change research and new climate change

measurement technologies. H.R. 5049 would have established a new Advanced

Research Projects Agency within the Department of Energy.

Deployment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technology

In the 109th Congress, several bills would have promoted the deployment and

diffusion of technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either as part of

broader legislation to limit greenhouse gases, or as stand-alone legislation.

Deployment strategies included tax incentives for investment in technologies to

improve efficiency and/or lower emissions and grants, loans, and other incentives for

technology transfer to developing countries. S. 1203 (Hagel) and H.R. 6417

(Meehan) would have established tax incentives for investment in technologies to

reduce greenhouse gas intensity. S. 745 (Byrd), S. 883 (Hagel), S. 1151 (McCain),

and S. 3698 (Jeffords) would have established grant and loan programs to deploy

technologies in developing countries that have been developed or demonstrated in

the United States. S. 887 (Hagel) would establish a credit-based deployment

program for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; support would include

direct loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, and production incentive payments. The

final version of H.R. 6 incorporates language similar to S. 883 and S. 887. H.R. 2828

(Inslee) provides a wide array of incentives for improvements in energy efficiency

and other strategies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. S. 4039 (Kerry)

includes several provisions to either mandate or establish incentives for various lowemission technologies.

In addition to the above bills on technology deployment, §585(b) of the FY2006

Foreign Operations Appropriation Act (P.L. 109-102) required the President to

submit a report on federal agency expenditures (foreign and domestic) on climate

change activities. The act specifically required a report on U.S. Agency for

International Development funding for climate change activities in developing

3

For more information on the science and policy of Global Climate Change, see CRS

Report RL33602, Global Climate Change: Major Scientific and Policy Issues, by John R.

Justus and Susan R. Fletcher.

4

This report does not include bills with other focuses that also had research components

related to climate change (particularly sequestration, renewable energy, and energy

efficiency).

CRS-4

countries, including technology deployment. In April 2006, the White House

submitted to Congress a report titled Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report

to Congress.5

GHG Reporting and Registry Bills

Under the UNFCCC, the United States annually publishes reports on its GHG

emissions.6 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does this

reporting using various techniques (e.g., fuel analysis for CO2). The three dominant

sources of GHG emissions are electricity generation (33.1%), transportation (26.9%),

and industry (19%).7 At the national level, most electric utilities must report their

GHG emissions pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act, but there is no overall national

GHG reporting requirement. However, some states also gather data through

voluntary or mandatory GHG emissions reporting mechanisms.8

H.R. 955 (Olver) focused primarily on expanding emissions reporting to include

a broad array of sources. All entities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of

carbon dioxide equivalent would have been required to report their emissions, except

that farms were exempt. Further, manufacturers and importers of automobiles and

Department of Energy-listed products9 would have been required to report the

emissions from their products. The purpose of the bill was to promote greenhouse

gas reductions and to generate accurate emissions data that can be used by public and

private entities for various purposes.

In addition to H.R. 955, which focused solely on GHG reporting, several other

bills would have required emissions monitoring and reporting as part of a program

to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide or of all greenhouse gases. These emissions

reductions efforts are discussed in the following section. S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730

(Leahy), H.R. 1451 (Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass) would have required electricity

producers to report their carbon dioxide emissions in order to determine compliance

with carbon dioxide caps. S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759 (Gilchrest), and H.R. 2828

(Inslee) would have required major emitters of all six greenhouse gases to report their

emissions; the bills required reporting from entities that emit more than 10,000

metric tons (11,000 tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent. H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.) would

have required all fossil fuel suppliers to report the amount of greenhouse gases that

will result from combustion of the fuel supplied. S. 4039 (Kerry) would have

5

Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy07_climate_change.pdf]

6

For more information, see CRS Report 98-235, Global Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse

Gas Emissions — Status, Trends, and Projections, by John Blodgett and Larry Parker.

7

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2001, p.

ES-6. Additional sources are agriculture (7.6%), commerce (7.2%), and residential

activities (5.4%).

8

For more information, see Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Change

Activities in the United States: 2004 Update, Arlington, VA, 2004.

9

Defined as any product for which the Department of Energy has promulgated final

regulations for energy efficiency, energy conservation, maximum energy use, or energy

consumption.

CRS-5

required reporting from all major sources as defined by Section 169A of the Clean

Air Act.

GHG Emission-Reduction Bills

The United States has no federal GHG reduction requirements, though there

have been proposals to require such reductions. These proposals include “command

and control” regulations on emissions, GHG emission taxes, and market-based

techniques to limit emissions. The latter, market-based programs typically take as

their model the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program.10

In the 109th Congress, bills were introduced that would have established marketbased caps on GHG emissions. These bills are compared in Table 1. Three bills, S.

1151 (McCain), H.R. 759 (Gilchrest), and H.R. 2828 (Inslee), would have capped the

emissions of the six greenhouse gases specified in the United Nations’ Framework

Convention on Climate Change. Five other bills, S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730 (Leahy),

S. 2724 (Carper), H.R. 1451 (Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass), would have focused

on reducing carbon dioxide from electric utilities. Each of these bills would have

used market-based trading mechanisms to limit GHG emissions. Cap-and-trade

programs set strict limits on specific emissions from a particular group of sources,

allowing individual sources to trade reductions. This flexibility in who makes

reductions can lead to lower costs. In an efficient market, entities that face relatively

low emission-reduction costs could achieve extra emission reductions. These entities

could then sell their unused allowances to entities that face higher emission-reduction

costs. An entity facing higher costs could purchase allowances that would allow it

to emit more than its initial emissions allotment would otherwise permit. It should

be noted that in all cases, total U.S. emissions may decrease or increase depending

on the entities covered, the greenhouse gases controlled, and the emissions trading

schemes.

Another market-based option is to require tradeable emissions permits, but

establish a “safety valve” price. In this scenario, if the market value of a permit

exceeds a set price — the safety valve — covered entities can purchase an unlimited

number of permits from the government. In this way, the overall price to covered

entities — and the economy — is limited, but specific emission reduction targets may

not be reached. H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.) would have established a such a system.

Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills. As shown in Table 1, S. 150, S. 730,

H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 focused on electric utility emissions. These “multipollutant” bills would have limited emissions of carbon dioxide, along with other air

10

The acid rain program caps emissions from each source, but allows sources to exceed their

caps if they purchase credits from sources that achieve emissions reductions beyond those

required.

CRS-6

pollutants.11 (See Table 1.) In all four cases, carbon dioxide emissions limitations

would have started in 2010.12

Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions. Unlike other bills

proposed in the 109th Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (H.R. 759), the

New Apollo Energy Act of 2005 (H.R. 2828), and the Climate Stewardship and

Innovation Act of 2005 (S. 1151) focused on achieving market-driven reductions in

all six greenhouse gases (see Table 1). The legislation applied to entities in the

electricity, transportation, industry, and commercial sectors that emit over 10,000

metric tons (11,000 tons) of greenhouse gases per year. Starting in 2010, the bills

would have capped total GHG emissions from all these sources at 6.5 billion tons

(CO2 equivalent emissions), reduced by the amount of CO2 (equivalent emissions)

from non-covered entities in the year 2000. The bills would also have established a

formula for allocating GHG emissions allowances, and a climate change credit

corporation to manage allowance trading. Language similar to S. 1151 was offered

as an amendment on the Senate floor to H.R. 6. This amendment was rejected on a

38-60 vote.

In addition to establishing caps on all six greenhouse gases, the above bills

would have supported climate change research and established a GHG emissions

inventory (see above). The bills also included a requirement that the Administrator

of the EPA establish a national GHG database, and develop methods and standards

to measure and verify GHG emissions.

The Safe Climate Act of 2006 (H.R. 5642), the Global Warming Pollution Act

(S. 3698), and the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006 (S. 4039) would have

granted EPA broad authority to establish regulations such that total greenhouse gas

emissions are reduced to 80% (65% in the case of H.R. 4039) below 1990 levels by

2050. These bills did not designate covered entities or required reduction levels for

specific sectors, but would have left those decisions to EPA’s discretion.

Safety Valve Bills. The Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy

Act of 2006 (H.R. 5049) would have established a system of allowances for fossil

fuel suppliers and a safety valve of $25 per ton of carbon, indexed to inflation.

11

S. 131 (Inhofe) and H.R. 227 (Sweeny) would also establish a cap-and-trade program for

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from utilities. However, the bills do not

address carbon dioxide emissions.

12

For more information on multi-pollutant bills, see CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality:

Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.

CRS-7

Comparison of Emissions Reduction Bills

Table 1. Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Caps

S. 150 (Jeffords)

S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759

(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)

S. 730 (Leahy)

H.R. 1451

(Waxman)

H.R. 1873

(Bass)

S. 2724

(Carper)

Covered sources

Any fossil fuel-fired

electric generating

facility that has a

capacity of greater

than 15 megawatts,

generates electricity

for sale, and emits a

covered pollutant into

the air.

Any electric power, industrial,

or commercial entity that emits

over 10,000 metric tons of CO2

equivalent/year; any refiner or

importer of petroleum products

for transportation use that when

combusted will emit over

10,000 metric tons of CO2

equivalent/year; and, any

importer or producer of HFCs,

PFCs or SF6 that, when used,

will emit over 10,000 metric

tons of CO2 equivalent/year.

All electricity

generating

facilities in the

United States.

Any fossil fuelfired electric

generating

facility that has a

capacity of

greater than 15

megawatts and

generates

electricity for

sale.

Any fossil

fuel-fired

electric

generating

facility that has

a capacity of

greater than 25

megawatts and

generates

electricity for

sale.

Any fossil fuelfired electric

generating

facility that has a

capacity of

greater than 25

megawatts and

generates

electricity for

sale.

Covered

pollutants

One GHG: carbon

dioxide; other

Pollutants: sulfur

dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, and mercury.

All six GHGs.

One GHG: CO2;

other pollutants:

sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides,

and mercury.

One GHG: CO2;

other pollutants:

sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides,

and mercury.

One GHG:

CO2; other

pollutants:

sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen

oxides, and

mercury.

One GHG: CO2;

other pollutants:

sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides,

and mercury.

CRS-8

S. 150 (Jeffords)

S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759

(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)

S. 730 (Leahy)

H.R. 1451

(Waxman)

H.R. 1873

(Bass)

S. 2724

(Carper)

Emissions cap

Utility CO2 emissions

limited to 2.05 billion

tons per yeara

beginning in 2010.

6.5 billion tons of CO2

equivalent per year beginning in

2010 for all covered entities

taken together.

Utility CO2

emissions

limited to 2.05

billion tons per

year beginning in

2010.

Utility CO2

emission cap

estimated at 1.94

billion tons per

year beginning in

2010.

Estimated at

2.46 billion

tons in 2010,

declining to

2.38 billion

tons in 2015.

Estimated at 2.65

billion tons in

2010, declining

to 2.45 billion

tons in 2015.

Implementation

Strategy

Tradeable allowance

system. 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.

Tradeable allowance system.

EPA is directed to determine

allocations based on several

economic and equity criteria,

including efficiency and impact

on consumers. Allowances are

to be allocated upstream to

refiners and importers of

transportation fuel, along with

producers of HFCs, PFCs, and

SF6; downstream to electric

generation, industrial, and

commercial entities.

Absolute caps on

mercury

emissions, no

trading permitted

between facilities

at different sites.

Implementation

strategy for other

pollutants to be

determined by

EPA.

To be

determined by

EPA — market

mechanisms

permitted (except

for mercury).

Tradeable

allowance

system for all

pollutants;

allocations

based on

historic

electricity

output.

CO2 program

includes

allowance

allocations for

incremental

nuclear

capacity and

renewable

energy.

Tradeable

allowance

system varies by

pollutant. For

CO2, allocations

based on historic

electricity

output. CO2

program includes

allowance

allocations for

incremental

nuclear capacity

and renewable

energy, along

with

sequestration and

early action

provisions.

CRS-9

S. 150 (Jeffords)

S. 1151 (McCain), H.R. 759

(Gilchrest), H.R. 2828 (Inslee)

S. 730 (Leahy)

H.R. 1451

(Waxman)

H.R. 1873

(Bass)

S. 2724

(Carper)

Percentage

change in CO2

emissions v.

business as usual

by 2010b

-7.5%

-5%

-7.5%

-9.5%

-0.8%

-0.8%

Percentage

change inCO2

emissions v. 1990

levels (UNFCCC

baseline year)b

+24.2%

+27.7%

+24.2%

+21.7%

+32.2%

+32.2%

Penalties for

noncompliance

Same as Clean Air

Act, title IV except

that the excess

emission penalty is

three times the

average market price

for allowances.

Excess emission penalty equal

to three times the market price

for allowances on the last day of

the year at issue.

To be

determined by

EPA.

To be

determined by

EPA.

$100 per

excess ton plus

one-for-one

offset from

future

emissions

allocations.

$100 per excess

ton plus

one-for-one

offset from

future emissions

allocations.

a. S. 150 would further limit the number of emission allowances in a given year by the number of tons emitted two years prior by small electricity generating facilities, and by any

number required to protect the public health, welfare, or the environment.

b. CRS calculations based on projections contained in the UNFCCC Secretariat’s 2002 Climate Action Report. Available at [http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/

content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.html]. For more information, see CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th

Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.

CRS-10

Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 109th Congress

Climate Change

Research

Bill(s) and Short Title(s)

Technology

Deployment

GHG Reporting

and Registry

MultiPollutant

Bill

X

X

X

X

ENACTED LAW

H.R. 6, P.L. 109-58

Energy Policy Act of 2005

X

SENATE BILLS

S. 150 (Jeffords)

The Clean Power Act of 2005

S. 245 (Collins)

Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005

X

S. 730 (Leahy)

Mercury Emission Act of 2005

S. 745 (Byrd)

International Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets

Investment Act of 2005

X

S. 883 (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act of

2005

X

Emissions

Caps and

Allowance

Trading for

all GHGs

CRS-11

Bill(s) and Short Title(s)

Climate Change

Research

S. 887 (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Deployment and Infrastructure Credit Act

of 2005

S. 1151 (McCain)

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005

Technology

Deployment

GHG Reporting

and Registry

MultiPollutant

Bill

Emissions

Caps and

Allowance

Trading for

all GHGs

X

X

S. 1203 (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act of 2005

X

X

X

X

S. 2724 (Carper)

Clean Air Planning Act of 2006

X

X

S. 3698 (Jeffords)

Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act

X

X

X

X

S. 4039 (Kerry)

Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006

X

X

X

X

S. 342* (McCain)

Climate Stewardship Act of 2005

X

X

X

S. 386* (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act of

2005

X

S. 387* (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act of 2005

X

CRS-12

Bill(s) and Short Title(s)

Climate Change

Research

S. 388* (Hagel)

Climate Change Technology Deployment and Infrastructure Credit Act

of 2005

Technology

Deployment

GHG Reporting

and Registry

X

X

MultiPollutant

Bill

Emissions

Caps and

Allowance

Trading for

all GHGs

* Superseded by newer version

HOUSE BILLS

H.R. 759 (Gilchrest)

Climate Stewardship Act of 2005

X

X

X

H.R. 955 (Olver)

National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Act of 2005

X

H.R. 1451 (Waxman)

Clean Smokestacks Act of 2005

X

X

H.R. 1873 (Bass)

Clean Air Planning Act of 2005

X

X

H.R. 2828 (Inslee)

New Apollo Energy Act of 2005

X

H.R. 5049 (Udall, T.)

Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act of 2006

X

H.R. 5642 (Waxman)

Safe Climate Act of 2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CRS-13

Bill(s) and Short Title(s)

H.R. 6417 (Meehan)

Climate Change Investment Act of 2006

Climate Change

Research

Technology

Deployment

X

GHG Reporting

and Registry

MultiPollutant

Bill

Emissions

Caps and

Allowance

Trading for

all GHGs

CRS-14

Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the 109th Congress

Bill No.

Sponsor

Major Actions

Key Provisions

ENACTED LAW

Omnibus energy bill addressing various climate- and non-climate related topics.

Among other provisions, establishes loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy

technology for greenhouse gas intensity reduction (similar language to S. 887);

requires the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing countries on

projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; establishes an export initiative for

greenhouse gas reduction technology (similar language to S. 883)

SENATE BILLS

H.R. 6, P.L.

109-58

Barton

Introduced April 18, 2005; passed House April

21, 2005; passed Senate June 28, 2005;

conference report file July 27, 2005; agreed to in

House July 28; agreed to in Senate July 29;

signed into law August 8, 2005.

S. 150

Jeffords

Introduced January 25, 2005; referred to Senate

Environment and Public Works.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified

reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and

mercury from certain electric generation facilities by January 1, 2010.

S. 245

Collins

Introduced February 1, 2005; referred to Senate

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Would have established within the Department of Commerce a research program

on abrupt climate change.

S. 730

Leahy

Introduced April 6, 2005; referred to Senate

Environment and Public Works.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified

reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and

mercury from certain electric generation facilities by January 1, 2010.

S. 745

Byrd

Introduced April 11, 2005; referred to Senate

Foreign Relations.

Would have established within the Department of State a program to assist

developing countries in the demonstration and deployment of emission reduction

technologies.

CRS-15

Bill No.

Sponsor

Major Actions

Key Provisions

S. 883

Hagel

Introduced April 21, 2005; referred to Senate

Foreign Relations — see also H.R. 6 (Senate

Version)

Would have required the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing

countries on projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; would have established

an export initiative for greenhouse gas reduction technology.

S. 887

Hagel

Introduced April 21, 2005; referred to Senate

Energy and Natural Resources — see also H.R.

6 (Senate Version)

Would have established loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy technology for

greenhouse gas intensity reduction.

S. 1151

McCain

Introduced May 25, 2005; referred to Senate

Environment and Public Works.

Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of

greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by

2010. Would have allowed: tradeable credits for reductions beyond those

required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,

and emissions reductions in other countries. Would have promoted innovation

on mitigation technologies and would have established incentives for technology

deployment.

S. 1203

Hagel

Introduced June 8, 2005; referred to Senate

Finance.

Would have established tax credits for investment in technologies to reduce

greenhouse gas intensity; also provides tax incentives for nuclear technologies.

S. 2724

Carper

Introduced May 4, 2006; referred to Senate

Environment and Public Works.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified

reductions in emissions carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric

generation facilities by 2010 (2007 for nitrogen oxides).

S. 3698

Jeffords

Introduced July 20, 2006; referred to Senate

Environment and Public Works.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve an 80%

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050; would have

established efficiency and/or emissions standards for various sectors; would have

promoted research and development

CRS-16

Bill No.

Sponsor

Major Actions

Key Provisions

S. 4039

Kerry

Introduced September 29, 2006; referred to

Senate Finance

Would have established a mandatory cap-and-trade program beginning in 2010

to reduce annual emissions by a set percentage each year so that annual

emissions are 65% below year 2000 levels by 2050. Would have established

research and development; greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles.

S. 342*

McCain

Introduced February 10, 2005; referred to

Senate Environment and Public Works.

Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of

greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by

2010. Would have allowed tradeable credits for reductions beyond those

required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,

and emissions reductions in other countries.

S. 386*

Hagel

Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to

Senate Foreign Relations.

Would have required the Secretary of State to provide assistance to developing

countries on projects to reduce greenhouse gas intensity; would have established

an export initiative for greenhouse gas reduction technology.

S. 387*

Hagel

Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to

Senate Finance.

Would have established tax credits for investment in technologies to reduce

greenhouse gas intensity; also would have provided tax incentives for clean coal

and nuclear technologies.

S. 388*

Hagel

Introduced February 15, 2005; referred to

Senate Energy and Natural Resources.

Would have established loans, loan guarantees, etc. to deploy technology for

greenhouse gas intensity reduction; would have established a voluntary national

greenhouse gas registry.

*Superseded by newer version

CRS-17

Bill No.

Sponsor

Major Actions

Key Provisions

HOUSE BILLS

H.R. 759

Gilchrest

Introduced February 10, 2005; referred to House Would have required any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of

Science, and House Energy and Commerce.

greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by

2010. Would have allowed: tradeable credits for reductions beyond those

required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration,

and emissions reductions in other countries.

H.R. 955

Olver

Introduced February 17, 2005; referred to House Would have required EPA to establish a GHG emissions information system to

Energy and Commerce.

collect information submitted regarding an entity’s GHG emissions. Would have

established mandatory registry for entities that emit more than 10,000 metric

tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

H.R. 1451

Waxman

Introduced March 17, 2005; referred to House

Energy and Commerce.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified

reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric

generation facilities by 2010.

H.R. 1873

Bass

Introduced April 27, 2005; referred to House

Energy and Commerce.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve specified

reductions in emissions carbon dioxide and pollutants from certain electric

generation facilities by 2010 (2009 for nitrogen oxides).

H.R. 2828

Inslee

Introduced June 8, 2005; referred to House

Energy and Commerce, among other

committees.

Omnibus energy bill addressing various climate- and non-climate related topics.

Among other provisions, would have required any entity that emits more than

10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to

year 2000 levels by 2010. Would have allowed tradeable credits for reductions

beyond those required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon

sequestration, and emissions reductions in other countries.

CRS-18

Bill No.

Sponsor

Major Actions

Key Provisions

H.R. 5049

Udall, T.

Introduced May 24, 2006; referred to House

Energy and Commerce, among other

committees.

Would have established a system of tradeable allowances for greenhouse gas

emissions from fossil fuel supply and combustion, with a maximum “safety

valve” price of $25 per ton of carbon, adjusted for inflation. Would have

established an Advanced Research Projects Agency within the Department of

Energy.

H.R. 5642

Waxman

Introduced June 20, 2006; referred to House

Energy and Commerce, among other

committees.

Would have amended the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to achieve an 80%

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.

H.R. 6417

Meehan

Introduced December 7, 2006; referred to House Among other provisions, would have established a tax credit for investment in

Ways and Means

technologies to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.