Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
th
in the 109 Congress
Updated May 8, 2006
Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
John Blodgett
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 109th Congress
Summary
With the prospect of new layers of complexity being added to air pollution
controls, and with electricity restructuring putting a premium on economic efficiency,
interest is being expressed in finding mechanisms to achieve health and
environmental goals in simpler, more cost-effective ways. The electric utility
industry is a major source of air pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg), as well as suspected greenhouse gases, particularly
carbon dioxide (CO2). At issue is whether a new approach to environmental
protection could achieve the nation’s air quality goals more cost-effectively than the
current system.
One approach being proposed is a “multi-pollutant” strategy — a framework
based on a consistent set of emissions caps, implemented through emissions trading.
Just how the proposed approach would fit with the current (and proposed) diverse
regulatory regimes remains to be worked out; they might be replaced to the greatest
extent feasible, or they might be overlaid by the framework of emissions caps.
In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality initiatives.
The first, “Clear Skies,” would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on
electric utility emissions of SO2, NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable
allowance program, the emissions caps would generally be imposed in two phases:
2008 and 2018. The second initiative begins a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction
program. This plan, rather than capping CO2 emissions, focuses on improving the
carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons per
million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012.
In the 109th Congress, seven bills have been introduced that would impose
multi-pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 and S. 131, are
modified versions of the Administration’s three-pollutant proposal. The other five
bills, S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873, are four-pollutant proposals
that include carbon dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R.

1451 is similar to H.R. 1256, introduced in the 107th Congress. H.R. 1873 and S.


2724 are revised versions of S. 843, introduced in the 108th Congress. All of these
bills involve some form of emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; most include
a tradeable credit program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO2,
NOx, and Hg in S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally
more stringent and take full effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131.
S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of
CO2. It is difficult to compare those CO2 caps with the Administration’s proposal
concerning CO2 — both because the Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather
than mandatory and because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions
rather than just utility CO2 emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions would be higher under the Administration’s proposal than
those allowed by S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451. This report will be updated as
warranted.



Contents
In troduction ..................................................1
The Bush Administration’s Proposals..............................2th
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action in the 109 Congress.......3
SO2, NOx, and Hg Controls..................................3
Related Regulatory Provisions................................4
CO2 .....................................................5
List of Tables
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants.........1
Table 2. Comparison of Administration’s Voluntary Program with
Proposed Legislation...........................................6
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals...............7



Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
th
in the 109 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 health1
and welfare, including particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), and mercury (Hg). Particulate matter, SO2, and NOx are currently regulated
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
promulgated rules to regulate mercury beginning in 2010. Other gases may pose
indirect risks, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), which may contribute to global
warming.2 Table 1 provides estimates of SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions from electric
generating facilities. Annual emissions of Hg from utility facilities are more
uncertain; current estimates indicate about 48 tons. Utilities are subject to an array
of environmental regulations, which affect in different ways both the cost of
operating existing generating facilities and the cost of constructing new ones.
Table 1. Emissions from U.S. Fossil-Fuel Electric Generating Plants
(thousands of metric tons)
Emissions 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SO2 12,445 11,297 10,966 10,515 10,643 10,307
NOx 5,732 5,380 5,045 4,802 4,326 3,951
CO2 2,326,558 2,429,394 2,379,603 2,395,232 2,415,804 2,444,443
Source: Energy Information Administration. Includes emissions from combined-heat-and-power plants.
The evolution of air pollution controls over time and as a result of growing
scientific understanding of health and environmental impacts has led to a
multilayered and interlocking patchwork of controls. Moreover, additional controls
are in the process of development, particularly with respect to NOx as a precursor to
ozone, to both NOx and SO2 as contributors to PM2.5, and to Hg as a toxic air
pollutant. Also, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate


1 Particulate matter is regulated depending on the particle size; current regulations address
particles less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); EPA has promulgated regulations for
particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) that are in the process of being
implemented. SO2 and NOx emissions would be affected by regulations of PM2.5.
2 Steam-electric utilities produce minor amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
carbon monoxide (CO), and lead — on the order of 2% or less of all sources.

Change (UNFCCC), the United States agreed to voluntary limits on CO2 emissions.
The current Bush Administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which would
impose mandatory limits, in favor of a voluntary reduction program. In contrast to
the Administration’s position, in June 2005, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate
calling for mandatory controls on greenhouse gases while not imposing significant
harm to the economy.3
For many years the complexity of the air quality control regime has caused some
observers to call for a simplified approach. Now, with the potential both for
additional control programs on SO2 and NOx and for new controls directed at Hg and
CO2 intersecting with the technological and policy changes affecting the electric
utility industry, such calls for simplification have become more numerous and
insistent. One focus of this effort is the “multi-pollutant” or “four-pollutant”
approach. This approach involves a mix of regulatory and economic mechanisms
that would apply to utility emissions of up to four pollutants in various proposals —
SO2, NOx, Hg, and CO2. The objective would be to balance the environmental goal
of effective controls across the pollutants covered with the industry goal of a stable
regulatory regime for a period of years.4
The Bush Administration’s Proposals
In February 2002, the Bush Administration announced two air quality proposals
to address the control of emissions of SO2, NOx, Hg, and CO2.5 The first proposal,
called “Clear Skies,” would amend the Clean Air Act to place emission caps on
electric utility emissions of SO2, NOx, and Hg. Implemented through a tradeable
allowance program, the emissions caps would be imposed in two phases: 2010 (2008
in the case of NOx) and 2018. As part of a complete rewrite of Title IV of the Clean
Air Act, the Administration’s proposal was introduced in the 108th Congress as H.R.
999 and S. 485. Revised versions of Clear Skies legislation have been introduced in
the 109th Congress as H.R. 227 and S. 131.6
The second Administration proposal initiates a new voluntary greenhouse gas
reduction program, similar to ones introduced by the earlier George H. W. Bush and
Clinton Administrations.7 Developed in response to the U.S. ratification of the 1992
UNFCCC, these previous plans projected U.S. compliance, or near compliance, with


3 S.Amdt. 866 to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (June 22, 2005).
4 CRS Report RL30878, Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Strategies,
by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
5 Papers outlining the Administration’s proposals are available from the White House
website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html] for the three
pollutant proposal, and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.
html] for the climate change initiative.
6 While H.R. 227 adopts the SO2 and NOx emission caps of the Administration’s Clear Skies
proposal, it does not include many other provisions, including regulatory changes.
7 For a discussion of those previous plans, see CRS Report 94-404 ENR, Climate Change
Action Plans, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett, May 9, 1994 (archived, available from the
authors).

the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 levels by the
year 2000 through voluntary measures. The Bush Administration proposal does not
make that claim, only projecting a 100 million metric ton reduction in emissions from
what would occur otherwise in the year 2012. Instead, the plan focuses on improving
the carbon efficiency of the economy, reducing current emissions of 183 metric tons
per million dollars of GDP to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012.
It proposes several voluntary initiatives, along with increased spending and tax
incentives, to achieve this goal. The Administration notes that the new initiatives
would achieve about one-quarter of the objective, while three-quarters of the
projected reduction would occur through already existing efforts.
Proposed Legislation and Legislative Action
in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, seven bills have been introduced that would impose
multi-pollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 (Sweeney) and S. 131
(Inhofe), are modified versions of the Administration’s three-pollutant proposal. The
other five bills, S. 150 (Jeffords), S. 730 (Leahy), S. 2724 (Carper), H.R. 1451
(Waxman), and H.R. 1873 (Bass), are four-pollutant proposals that include carbon
dioxide. S. 150 is similar to a bill reported by the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee in the 107th Congress. Likewise, H.R. 1451 is similar to H.R.th
1256, introduced in the 107 Congress. Finally, H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 are revised
versions of S. 843, introduced in the 108th Congress. All of these bills involve some
form of emission caps, typically beginning in 2010; most include a tradeable credit
program to implement that cap. The provisions concerning SO2, NOx, and Hg in S.
150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 are generally more stringent and take
full effect earlier than the comparable provisions of S. 131. S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724,
H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873 would cap utility emissions of CO2. It is difficult to
compare those CO2 caps to the Administration’s proposal concerning CO2 — both
because the Administration’s proposal is voluntary rather than mandatory and
because it is broader (covering all greenhouse gas emissions rather than just utility
CO2 emissions). However, it appears that actual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
would be higher under the Administration’s proposal than those allowed by S. 150,
S. 730, and H.R. 1451.
The seven bills are summarized in the Appendix. Each of these bills, except
S. 730, generally builds on the SO2 allowance trading scheme contained in Title IV
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).8 Under this program utilities are
given a specific allocation of permitted emissions (called allowances) and may
choose to use those allowances at their own facilities, or, if they do not use their full
quota, to bank them for future use or to sell them to other utilities needing additional
allowances. In contrast, S. 730 permits emissions averaging within a single facility,
but not across sites.
SO2, NOx, and Hg Controls.As indicated in the Appendix, the caps for
SO2 and NOx in S. 131 are less stringent for 2010 than in S. 150, S. 730, and H.R.

1451, and remain less stringent even through the second phase beginning in 2018.


8 P.L. 101-549.

H.R. 227 would require full compliance with its SO2 and NOx provisions by 2014,
in effect accelerating S. 131’s proposed phase 2 emission caps by four years.
However, S. 131’s phase 1 NOx reduction would begin two years earlier (2008) than
S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 227, or H.R. 1451, and one year sooner than H.R. 1873.
Allowance allocation schemes for the bills also differ, with S. 150 containing
detailed provisions for allocating SO2, NOx, and CO2 allowances to various
economic sectors and interests. In most cases, these interests (or their trustees in the
case of households and dislocated workers and communities) would auction off (or
otherwise sell) their allowances to the affected utilities, and use the collected funds
for their own purposes. In contrast, S. 131 would base its allowance formulas on fuel
usage adjusted by factors specified in the bill, while H.R. 227 and H.R. 1451 would
leave the allocation issue to EPA. S. 730 provides no specifics on allocating and
implementing its SO2, NOx, and CO2 caps on electric utilities, whereas H.R. 1873
and S. 2724 specify CO2 and NOx limitations based on electricity output, and SO2
limitations based on the current Title IV program.
On mercury, S. 131’s emissions goal would allow about three times more
emissions and eight more years for compliance than S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451,
which also would mandate plant-by-plant controls; H.R. 227 would require EPA to
promulgate Hg regulations by March 15, 2005; and H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 provide
for limitations in between those of S. 150 and S. 131, but includes unit-by-unit
emissions limitations. (It is difficult to compare the Hg controls of S. 131, S. 150, S.
730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, or H.R. 1873 to H.R. 227, which does not specify an Hg
emissions goal, leaving regulation up to EPA.) S. 730 is the most comprehensive bill
with respect to Hg control, including not only a stringent cap on electric utility
emissions but also substantial reduction requirements for six other categories of Hg
emitters.
Related Regulatory Provisions. In addition to the emissions caps, S. 131
would substantially modify or eliminate several provisions in the Clean Air Act with
respect to electric generating facilities. The bill would eliminate New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 111) and replace them with statutory
standards for SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and Hg for new sources. Modified
sources could also opt to comply with these new statutory standards and be exempted
from the applicable Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations
under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions (CAA, Part C) or
Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) determinations under non-attainment
provisions (CAA, Part D). Compliance with these provisions exempts such facilities
from New Source Review (NSR), PSD-BACT requirements, visibility Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) requirements for Hg, and non-attainment LAER and offset
requirements. The exemption does not apply to PSD-BACT requirements if facilities
are within 50 km of a PSD Class 1 area. Existing sources can also receive these
exemptions if they agree to meet a particulate matter standard specified in the bill
along with good combustion practices to minimize carbon monoxide emissions
within three years of enactment. In addition, S. 131 would provide these exemptions
for industrial sources that choose to opt into the Clear Skies program.
H.R. 1873 also contains significant regulatory provisions. The bill would revise
the NSR program to require pre-1971 electric generating units to meet specific SO2



and NOx performance standards (a provision also contained in S. 2724 but with more
stringent standards). In addition, H.R. 1873 would require LAER and BACT
definitions be revised on a biannual basis and place a cost cap on any LAER
definition. In conjunction with these changes, the bill would eliminate the current
CAA offset requirement in non-attainment areas beginning in 2010. H.R. 1873 would
also provide affected units a 20-year exemption from BART requirements under the
CAA visibility provisions. Other changes to the visibility provision include the
codification of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) agreement with
respect to sulfur dioxide emissions.
S. 150 would require all powerplants 40 years or older to meet emission
limitations based on current best available control technology for a new source. In
a similar vein, H.R. 1451 would require all powerplants 30 years or older to meet
current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements.
S. 131 also would include an exemption for steam electric generating facilities
from Hg regulation under Section 112 of the CAA (including the residual risk
provisions), and relief from enforcement of any Section 126 petition (with respect to
reducing interstate transportation of pollution) before December 31, 2014.
In addition to its NSR provision, S. 2724 would eliminate the annual NOx cap
established under EPA’s recently promulgated Clean Air Interstate rule (CAIR) upon
promulgations of S. 2724’s new NOx program or January 1, 2009, whichever occurs
last. It would retain CAIR’s seasonal NOx cap for ozone.
Neither H.R. 227, S. 150, S. 730, nor H.R. 1451 would provide such regulatory
relief provisions.
CO2. Of the seven bills, S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873
would specify CO2 reductions. In contrast, the Administration’s CO2 proposal relies
on various voluntary programs and incentives to encourage reductions in greenhouse
gases from diverse sources, including CO2 emissions from electric generation.
Based on the estimate provided by the Administration’s climate change9
proposal, and using the 2002 Climate Action Report (CAR) for projections to 2010,
Table 2 presents estimates of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, assuming the
Administration’s voluntary program reaches a proportional percentage of its 2012
goals.10 This should not be taken as a given, as neither the George H. W. Bush
Administration’s program nor the Clinton Administration’s program achieved their
stated goals. Thus, in one sense, comparing a mandatory reduction program such as
that proposed by S. 150, S. 730, S. 2724, H.R. 1451, or H.R. 1873 with the
Administration’s voluntary program is comparing apples to oranges. The first is
legally binding, the second is an exhortation.


9 Climate Action Report — 2002, at [http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/
index.html]. This is the U.S. report to the UNFCCC Secretariat on U.S. emissions and
measures taken to reduce them.
10 For a discussion of emission projections and trends, see CRS Report 98-235 ENR, Global
Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Status, Trends, and Projections, by
John Blodgett and Larry Parker.

While S. 150, S. 730, and H.R. 1451 focus on electric utility emissions, the
mandated reductions would result in lower total greenhouse gas emissions in 2010
than those projected to occur under the Administration’s initiative that includes all
sources of all greenhouse gases. Both H.R. 1873 and S. 2724 require fewer
reductions than the Administration hopes to achieve from its economy-wide
initiative. However, neither the proposed legislation nor the Administration’s
initiative would be sufficient to bring U.S. emissions near the 1990/1995 baseline
used under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, much less the 7% reduction in emissions from
that baseline that would have been assigned to the United States under the Protocol.
Discussion in the CAR observes that the pace of economic growth would affect
emissions. A high economic growth scenario would increase energy use and related
carbon emissions, compared to the reference case of “business as usual”; likewise,
lower economic growth would decrease emissions. For example, under a high
economic growth scenario, greenhouse emissions in 2010 would increase 37.7%
above those in 1990, based on energy growth alone. This increase would represent
an additional 53 million metric tons of emissions over the reference case.11 However,
S. 150 and S. 730 would cap emissions from increased electricity generation at 1990
levels, which would reduce the 53 million metric tons by 16 million metric tons, or
30% of the high growth increase. The Administration’s initiative is voluntary and
addresses carbon intensity, not absolute emission levels; it does not cap emissions
growth.
Table 2. Comparison of Administration’s Voluntary Program
with Proposed Legislation
Percentage change v.Percentage change v.1990/1995 baseline levels
business as usual (2010)per the Kyoto Protocol
S. 150, S. 730-8.2%+21.2%
H.R. 1451-9.4%+19.6%
H.R. 1873/S. 2724a-1.5%+30.1%
Admi nistration’s b -3.6% +27.3%
Voluntary Program
Business as Usual0+32.0%
Source: CRS calculations based on projections contained in 2002 CAR.
a. Bills include a second phase in 2015 that would further reduce emissions.
b. Assumes 80% of the Administrations 2012 voluntary goal is achieved in 2010.


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

CRS-7
Appendix. Comparison of Multi-Pollutant Control Proposals
ProvisionsH.R. 227(Sweeney)S. 150 (Jeffords)S. 131(Inhofe)S. 730(Leahy)H.R. 1451(Waxman)H.R. 1873(Bass)S. 2724(Carper)
Emissions2.1 million1.51 million tons2.19 million tons in1.51 million tonsEstimated at1.87 million tons1.9 million tons in
Cap on NOx tons in 2010,in 2010.2008, declining tofrom utilities in1.5 millionin 2009,2009 (East)/2010
declining to1.79 million tons in2010.tons in 2010.declining to 1.7(West) declining to
1.7 million2018.million tons in1.62 in 2015.
tons in 2014.2015.
Emissions4.45 million2.25 million tons4.5 million tons in2.25 million tons2.23 million4.5 million tons4.5 million tons in
Cap on SO2 tons in 2010,in 2010.2010, declining to 3.0from utilities intons in 2010.in 2010,2010, declining to 2.0
declining tomillion tons in 2018.2010.declining to 3.5million tons in 2015.
3.0 millionmillion tons in
tons in 2014. 2014, and to
2.25 million tons
iki/CRS-RL32755in 2017.
g/wEmission CapNot covered.2.05 billion tonsNot covered.2.05 billion tonsEstimated atEstimated atEstimated at 2.65
s.oron CO2 from utilities infrom utilities in1.937 billion2.65 billion tonsbillion tons in 2010,
leak2010.2010.tons in 2010. in 2010,declining to 2.45
declining to 2.45billion tons in 2015.
://wikibillion tons in
http 2015.
EmissionsEPA to5 tons in 2009.34 tons in 2010,5 tons in 2009Estimated at24 tons in 2010,Estimated at 19-23
Cap onpromulgatedeclining to 15 tons infrom utilities;4-5 tons indeclining to 10tons in 2010,
Mercury regulations by2018.percentage2010.tons in 2015.declining to 7-8 tons
March 15,reductions up toin 2015.
2005.95% for other Hg
so ur ces.
Scope50 states and50 states and DC.50 states, DC, and50 states and DC.50 states and50 states and50 states and DC.
DC. ter r ito r ies. DC. DC.
AffectedElectricElectricExisting electricFor all pollutants: ElectricElectricElectric generating
Unitsgeneratinggeneratinggenerating facilitiesall electricgeneratinggeneratingfacilities 25 Mw or
facilities 25facilities 15 Mw25 Mw or greatergeneratingfacilities 15facilities 25 Mwgreater (coal-fired
Mw oror greater (coal-(coal-fired only forfacilities.Mw oror greater (coal-only for Hg).


greater; Hgfired only forHg); co-generationgreater.fired only for
regulations toHg).sources exempted.For Hg only: SixHg).
includecategories of

CRS-8
ProvisionsH.R. 227(Sweeney)S. 150 (Jeffords)S. 131(Inhofe)S. 730(Leahy)H.R. 1451(Waxman)H.R. 1873(Bass)S. 2724(Carper)
industrialindustrial boilers,
so ur ces. p r o c e sse s,
incinerators and
combusters.
Penalties forNOx: $6,000NOx , SO2 andNOx, SO2, Hg: For NOx, SO2DeterminedNOx: $5,000 perNOx: Twice the
non-per excess tonCO2 same asreduces the excessCO2: notby EPA.excess ton plusaverage price per
complianceplus one-for-CAA, title IV,emissions penaltiesspecified, CAAone-for-oneexcess ton plus one-
one offsetexcept excessunder CAA, title IV toenforcementoffset fromfor-one offset from
from futureemission penaltythe EPA auctionwould apply.future emissionfuture emission
emissionis three times theclearing price forallocations.allocations.
allocations.average marketallowances plus one-Hg: CAA
price forfor-one offset fromenforcementSO2: same asSO2: same as CAA,
SO2: same asallowances.future emissiondefined.CAA, title IV.title IV.
CAA, title IV.allocations, if paid
iki/CRS-RL32755Hg: three timeswithin 30 days. Hg: $10,000 perHg: $50,000 per day
g/wHg: notthe average HgOtherwise, theexcess poundfor each excess pound
s.orspecified,control costs pernumber of excessplus one-for-oneemitted.
leakCAAgram of excessemissions isoffset from
enforcementemission.multiplied by 1.5 forfuture emissionsCO2: $100 per excess
://wikiprovisionspenalty purposes.allocations.ton plus one-for-one
httpwould apply.CO: $100 peroffset from futureemissions allocations.


2
excess ton plus
one-fo r-one
offset from
future emissions
allocations.

CRS-9
ProvisionsH.R. 227(Sweeney)S. 150 (Jeffords)S. 131(Inhofe)S. 730(Leahy)H.R. 1451(Waxman)H.R. 1873(Bass)S. 2724(Carper)
SpecialEPA toBeginning inNew performanceSO2 cap dividedAllRevises NSRNOx cap divided by
Provisionsdetermine by2014, allstandards for newby region (Westpowerplantsprogram toregion (West and
2014 whetherpowerplants 40sources replaceand East);30 years orrequire pre-1971East).
emissionyears or oldercurrent NSPS for newhowever, regionsolder mustelectric
reductionsmust meetsources. Complianceare not defined.meet currentgenerating unitsRevises NSR program
sufficient toemissionwith bill’s provisionsNew Sourceto meet specificto require affected
protectlimitations basedexempts facilitiesPerformanceSO2 and NOxelectric generating
sensitiveon current bestfrom New SourceStandardperformanceunits 50 years or older
regionalavailable controlReview (NSR), PSD-(NSPS)standards.to meet specific SO2
ecosystems; iftechnology for aBACT requirements,requirements.Requires EPA toand NOx performance
not, EPA mustnew majorvisibility BARTrevise LAERstandards beginning in
promulgatesource.requirements, andand BACT2020.


rules requiringnon-attainment LAERdefinition on bi-
additionalSO2 cap dividedand offsetannual basis and
NOx and SO2by region (Westrequirements. Theputs a cost cap
iki/CRS-RL32755reductionsand East) with noexemption does noton LAER
g/wwithin twotrading permittedapply to PSD-BACTdefinition.
s.oryears of suchbetween regions.requirements ifCurrent CAA
leakdetermination. facility is within 50offset
EPA to determineKm of Class 1 area.requirement in
://wikiby 2013 whetherExisting sources cannon-attainment
httpemissionopt in by meeting aareas eliminated
reductionsparticulate standard.in 2010.
sufficient to
protect sensitiveExempts utility unitsWestern
regionalfrom Hg regulationRegional Air
ecosystems; ifunder CAA, SectionPartnership
not, EPA must112, including(WRAP)
promulgate rulesresidual riskagreement
r e q uir ing provisio ns. codified.
additional NOx
and SO2Prevents EPA fromExempts
reductions withinenforcing Section 126affected units
two years of suchpetitions beforefrom visibility
determination.December 31, 2014.BART
requirements for
Other provisionsNOx cap divided by20 years.
to protect local airregion (West and
quality. East).

CRS-10
ProvisionsH.R. 227(Sweeney)S. 150 (Jeffords)S. 131(Inhofe)S. 730(Leahy)H.R. 1451(Waxman)H.R. 1873(Bass)S. 2724(Carper)
Implemen-TradeableTradeableTradeable allowanceFor SO2, NOx,To beTradeableTradeable allowance
tationallowanceallowance systemsystem for SO2, NOx,and CO2: nodeterminedallowancesystem for NOx
Strategysystem forfor SO2 (restrictedand Hg. Allocationallocationby EPA system for all(restricted between
SO2 and NOx. between East andformulas based onformula ormarketpollutants. Foreast and west regions),
West regions),historic fuel usageimplementationmechanismsNOx, Hg, andSO2 and CO2. For
HgNOx and CO2. adjusted by factorsstrategy specified.permittedCO2, allocationsNOx, and CO2,
compliance onAllowancesspecified in the bill.(except forbased on historicallocations based on
a source-by-allocated toFor Hg fromHg).electricityhistoric electricity
source basis.various sectors7% of SO2 and 5% ofelectricoutput. For SO2output. For SO2
and interests,NOx and Hggeneratingallocations basedallocations based on
includingallowances are setfacilities:on current Titlecurrent Title IV
households,aside for new units.allocation isIV scheme. scheme.
dislocatedbased on
workers andelectricity output. Special reservesCO2 program includes
communities,Emissionsfor new unitsallowance allocations
iki/CRS-RL32755electricityaveraging isprovided for allfor incremental
g/wintensivepermitted within apollutantsnuclear capacity and
s.orindustries,facility. covered.renewable energy,
leakaffected utilities,along with
energy efficiencyFor Hg fromCO2 programsequestration and
://wikiand renewableother sources:includesearly action
httpenergy activities,allocation isallowanceprovisions.
and sequestrationbased on aallocations for
activities.percentageincrementalFor Hg, a source-by-
reduction from annuclear capacitysource limitation is
Hg compliancehistoric baselineand renewablebased on the less
on a source-by-or, for someenergy, alongstringent of an output-
source basiscategories, anwithbased performance
(plantwideemissionsequestrationstandard or percent
averagingperformance rate. and early actionreduction from inlet
explicitlyprovisions.Hg levels. Emissions
allowed).averaging is permit-
For Hg, unit-by-ted within a facility.
unit emissions
limitationsReserves for new units
included.provided for CO2,
NOx, and SO2.
Source: Congressional Research Service.