# Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34018

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 11, 2008
- **Citation:** RL34018

## Text

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the
110th Congress
-name redactedSpecialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
-name redactedSpecialist in Environmental Policy
February 11, 2008

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34018

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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 costeffective 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).

Congressional Research Service

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

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......................................................................3
Hg Controls ..........................................................................................................................4
CO2 Reduction Requirements................................................................................................4
Related Regulatory Provisions ..............................................................................................4

Tables
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants ...........................................1

Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals ......................................................6

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

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 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
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.
3
S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005).

Congressional Research Service

1

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

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 “fourpollutant” 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.
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.

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 (name redacted) and (name redacted), and CRS Report RL33165, Costs and
Benefits of Clear Skies: EPA’s Analysis of Multi-Pollutant Clean Air Bills, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
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.
6
For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404, Climate Change Action Plans, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted) (out of print, available from the authors).

Congressional Research Service

2

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

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 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.

7

Besides its multi-pollutant control provisions for electric utilities, S. 1554 contains separate titles on transportation
fuel efficiency, renewable fuels, elimination of certain tax provisions for the oil industry, and research on abrupt
climate change.
8
P.L. 101-549.

Congressional Research Service

3

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

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 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.

Congressional Research Service

4

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

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 nonattainment 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.
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.

Congressional Research Service

5

Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals
S. 131 (Inhofe)
(109th Congress)

S. 1168
(Alexander)

S. 1177
(Carper)

S. 1201
(Sanders)

S. 1554
(Collins)

Emissions
cap on
NOx

1.473603 million tons in
the East in 2008,
declining to 1.07603
million tons in 2018.
0.714794 in the West
beginning in 2008.

1.45 million tons in the
East in 2009, declining
to 1.3 million tons in
2015. 0.32 million ton
in the West beginning
in 2015.

1.39 million tons in the
East in 2012, declining
to 1.3 million tons in
2015. 0.40 million tons
in the West in 2012,
declining to 0.32 million
tons in 2015.

1.51 million tons in
2010, declining to 0.9
million tons in 2013.
Additional reductions
may be required for O3
NAAQS compliance.

1.51 million tons in
2012, reduced annually
by emission emitted by
small electric generating
facilities. Additional
reductions may be
required if necessary to
protect public health or
welfare or the
environment.

Estimated at 1.51
million tons in 2010.

Emissions
cap on SO2

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

3.5 million tons in the
East in 2010, declining
to 2.0 million tons in
the 48 contiguous
states in 2015.

3.5 million tons in 2012,
declining to 2.0 million
tons in 2015.

1.9755 million tons in
the East in 2010,
declining to 1.1414
million tons in 2013.
0.2745 million tons in
the West in 2010,
declining to 0.1586
million tons in 2013.

1.975 million tons in
the East and 0.275
million tons in the
West in 2012, reduced
annually by emission
emitted by small
electric generating
facilities. Additional
reductions may be
required if necessary to
protect public health or
welfare or the
environment.

Estimated at 2.225
million tons in 2010.

Not covered.

2.3 billion metric tons
(tonnes) in 2011,
declining to 2.1 billion
tonnes in 2015, 1.8
billion tonnes in 2020,
and 1.5 billion tonnes in
2025.

Estimated at 2.47 billion
metric tonnes in 2012,
declining to 2.39 billion
tonnes in 2015,
declining by 1% annually
beginning in 2016, and
by 1.5% beginning in
2020.

2.3 billion metric
tonnes in 2011,
declining to 2.1 billion
tonnes in 2015,
declining to 1.803
billion tonnes in 2020,
and finally declining to
1.5 billion tonnes in
2025. Further
reductions required
after 2025. Cap also
reduced by emissions
from small electric
generation facilities.

2.05 billion metric
tonnes in 2022,
reduced annually by
emission emitted by
small electric generating
facilities. Additional
reductions may be
required if necessary to
protect public health or
welfare or the
environment.

Estimated at 1.94 billion
metric tonnes in 2015,
declining to 1.46 billion
tonnes in 2020,
declining to 0.97 billion
tonnes in 2030,
declining to 0.68 billion
tonnes in 2040, and
finally declining to 0.39
billion tonnes in 2050.

Provisions

Emission
cap on CO2

CRS-6

H.R. 3989
(McHugh)

Additional reductions
may be required if
necessary to protect
public health or
welfare.

Additional reductions
may be required if
necessary to protect
public health or
welfare.

Provisions

S. 131 (Inhofe)
(109th Congress)

S. 1168
(Alexander)

S. 1177
(Carper)

S. 1201
(Sanders)

S. 1554
(Collins)

H.R. 3989
(McHugh)

Emissions
cap on
mercury

34 tons in 2010,
declining to 15 tons in
2018.

Less stringent of 60%
reduction or 0.02
lb./Gwh four years after
enactment, declining to
the lesser of 90%
reduction or 0.0060
lb./Gwh in 2015. One
year extension available
to install equipment.

Less stringent of 60%
reduction or 0.02
lb./Gwh in 2012,
declining to the lesser
of 90% reduction or
0.0060 lb./Gwh in 2015.
Subject to EPA review.

5 tons and, to the
extent practicable,
achieve a 90%
reduction on a facilityspecific basis by 2013.

2.48 grams of Hg per
Gwh on a facility
specific basis by 2011.

Emission rate limit set
at 0.6 lb. per trillion Btu
for new (2009) and
existing (2011) coalfired units. (Roughly
equivalent to 0.0060
lb./Gwh.)

Scope

50 states, DC, and
territories.

48 contiguous states
and DC.

50 states and DC.

50 states and DC.

50 states and DC.

50 states and DC.

Affected
units

Existing electric
generating facilities 25
Mw or greater (coalfired only for Hg); cogeneration sources
exempted.

Electric generating
facilities greater than 25
Mw for CO2 , fossil
fuel-fired electric
generating facilities for
NOx and SO2 (coalfired only for Hg).

Electric generating
facilities greater than 25
Mw, including
incremental nuclear
capacity for CO2, fossilfuel-fired electric
generating facilities for
NOx, Title IV definition
for SO2, coal-fired only
for Hg.

Electric generating
facilities 25 Mw or
greater (coal-fired only
for Hg).

Electric generating
facilities 15 Mw or
greater (coal-fired only
for Hg).

Electric generating
facilities 25 Mw or
greater (coal-fired only
for Hg and CO2).

Penalties
for noncompliance

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, the number
of excess emissions is
multiplied by 1.5 for
penalty purposes.

NOx, SO2 and CO2:
two-for-one offset from
future emission
allocations, plus an
excess emissions
penalty.

NOx: Twice the
average annual price in
the appropriate zone
per excess ton plus at
least an one-for-one
offset from future
emission allocations.

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

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

NOx and SO2 same as
CAA, title IV.

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

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

Hg: $50,000 per excess
pound, indexed to
inflation.

SO2: Twice the average
annual price per excess
ton plus at least an onefor-one offset from
future emission
allocations.
Hg: $50,000 per excess
pound emitted.
CO2: Twice the two-

CRS-7

Hg: $10,000 per ounce
of excess emissions.
CO2 : $150 per ton,
adjusted for inflation.

Provisions

S. 131 (Inhofe)
(109th Congress)

S. 1168
(Alexander)

S. 1177
(Carper)

S. 1201
(Sanders)

S. 1554
(Collins)

H.R. 3989
(McHugh)

Beginning 5 years after
enactment, all
powerplants 30 years
or older must meet
most recent NSPS, Part
C (PSD) and Part D
(non-attainment)
requirements under the
Act.

year average price plus
at least an one-for-one
offset from future
emissions allocations.
Special
provisions

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 and offset
requirements. The
exemption does not
apply to PSD-BACT
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 Section 126
petitions before
December 31, 2014.

CRS-8

Revises NSR program
to require affected
electric generating units
40 years or older to
meet specific SO2 and
NOx performance
standards beginning in
2020.

Revises NSR program
to require affected
electric generating units
40 years or older to
meet specific SO2 and
NOx performance
standards beginning in
2020.

Beginning in 2015, all
powerplants 40 years
or older must meet
emission limitations
based on current best
available control
technology for a new
major source.

Beginning in 2016, all
powerplants 40 years
or older must meet
emission limitations
based on current best
available control
technology for a new
major source.

Beginning in 2015, New
NSPS established for
CO2.

Beginning in 2015, New
NSPS established for
CO2. More stringent
NSPS begins in 2025.

New CO2 emissions
standard for baseload
powerplants that
commerce operation
after 2011. Standard
would be based on the
emission rate of a new
combined cycle natural
gas generating plant.
EPA may increase the
stringency to at least
90% by 2030. All
baseload plants must
meet New CO2
emission standard by
2031, if feasible.

Creates a new
Efficiency Performance
Standard and credit
program beginning in
2007.

Annual SO2 and NOx
caps under CAIR
eliminated in 2015.
Extensive provisions
providing for
greenhouse gas offsets
from landfill CH4, SF6
projects, afforestation
or reforestation, energy
efficiency, agricultural
practices (manure
management), and
biomass.
CO2 program includes
allowance allocations
for clean coal
technology under a
Climate Champions
Program.

Annual NOx cap under
CAIR eliminated in the
later of 2012 or
effective date of NOx
regulations.
CO2 program includes
allowance allocations
for incremental nuclear
capacity, clean coal
technology, and
renewable energy,
along with
sequestration and early
action provisions.

New minimum Hg
standard for new
sources established as
of the date of
enactment.
Creates a new LowCarbon Generation
Requirement and credit
trading program
beginning in 2015.

Creates a Renewable
Portfolio Standard and
credit program,
beginning in 2009.
Contains separate titles
on transportation fuel
efficiency, renewable
fuels, elimination of
certain tax provisions
for the oil industry, and
research on abrupt
climate change.

Revenues from CO2
auctions to fund
research and
development of
renewable energy
projects.
Appropriations
authorized for several
monitoring networks.

Provisions

S. 131 (Inhofe)
(109th Congress)

S. 1168
(Alexander)

S. 1177
(Carper)

S. 1201
(Sanders)

S. 1554
(Collins)

H.R. 3989
(McHugh)

Tradeable allowance
system for SO2, NOx
and CO2. Allowances
allocated to various
sectors and interests,
including households,
dislocated workers and
communities, electricity
intensive industries,
energy efficiency and
renewable energy
activities, sequestration
activities, and
ecosystem restoration.

Tradeable allowance
system for SO2, NOx
and CO2.

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.
Implementation
strategy

Tradeable allowance
system for SO2, NOx,
and Hg. Allocation
formulas based on
historic fuel usage
adjusted by factors
specified in the bill.
Special reserves for
new units provided for
SO2, NOx and Hg.

Tradeable allowance
system for NOx, SO2
and CO2. For NOx,
and CO2, allocations
based on historic heat
input adjusted for each
fuel’s generally
applicable emissions
rate for that pollutant.
For SO2 current Title
IV allocations are
revised and adjusted for
newer units.
Special reserves for
new units provided for
CO2 and SO2
Beginning in 2011, 25%
of CO2 allowances to
be auctioned with
proceeds going to
electricity consumers

CRS-9

Tradeable allowance
system for NOx, SO2
and CO2. For NOx,
and CO2, allocations
based on historic
electricity output.
For SO2 current Title
IV allocations are
revised and adjusted for
newer units.
Special reserves for
new units provided for
NOx, CO2, and SO2.
Beginning in 2012, 18%
of CO2 allowances to
be auctioned, a
percentage increased 3
percentage points
annually until 2030
when the rate is
increased to 5

Tradeable allowance
system for SO2, NOx
and CO2. Allocations to
be based on economic,
equity, and international
competitiveness criteria
specified in the bill.
Allowances allocated to
various sectors and
interests, including
households, dislocated
workers and
communities, electricity
intensive industries,
energy efficiency and
renewable energy
activities, sequestration
activities, and
ecosystem restoration.
Beginning in 2010, at
least 50% of CO2
allowances to be
auctioned, with

For Hg, plant-wide
averaging is permitted.

SO2, and NOx
allocations left to EPA
discretion.
CO2 allowances are
100% auctioned.
Hg emissions rate limits
are on a unit-by-unit
basis.

Provisions

S. 1168
(Alexander)

S. 1177
(Carper)

S. 1201
(Sanders)

and energy-intensive
industries.

percentage points until
2036 when 100% is
auctioned. Revenues
from the resulting
Climate Action Trust
Fund shall be used for
innovative low- and
zero emitting carbon
technologies program,
clean coal technologies
program, and research
and analysis, and an
energy efficiency
technology program.
Other funded activities
includes worker and
community impact
assistance, adaptation
assistance, and
protecting fish and
wildlife habitat.

successive increasing to
raise it to 100% within
15 years of the date of
enactment.

S. 131 (Inhofe)
(109th Congress)

For Hg, plant-wide
averaging is permitted.

For Hg, facility-wide
averaging is permitted.
Source: Congressional Research Service.

CRS-10

For Hg, plant-wide
averaging is permitted.

S. 1554
(Collins)

H.R. 3989
(McHugh)

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 110th Congress

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

11

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34018. Public record. Not legal advice.