Climate Change Legislation in the 108th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
Climate Change Legislation in the 108 Congress
Updated January 6, 2005
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Kyna Powers
Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Climate Change Legislation in the 108 Congress
Climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were an issue in the 108th
Congress, as they were over the preceding decade. Bills directly addressing climate
change issues ranged from those focused primarily on climate change research (H.R.
1578 and S. 1164) to comprehensive emissions cap and trading programs for all six
greenhouse gases (S. 139 and H.R. 4067). Additional bills focused on GHG
reporting and registries (H.R. 6 (Senate-passed), H.R. 1245, S. 17, and S. 194), or on
power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (H.R. 2042, S. 139, S. 366, and S. 843).
These climate change bills differed within and across categories. Among the
climate change research bills, there were common and divergent research focuses.
For example, a few bills, including S. 139 and S. 1164, would have directed research
on historical instances of climate change to develop climate change models.
Additional bills focused on research to examine vulnerabilities to climate change in
the United States, particularly with respect to human health, environmental, and
economic outcomes. Furthermore, some bills would have promoted research on
political and technological options to reduce GHG emissions.
Among the six bills with GHG reporting and registry requirements, there were
also differences. The primary difference between reporting bills was how each
determined which entities must report. H.R. 6 (Senate version), H.R. 1245, H.R.
4067, and S. 139 would have established GHG emission thresholds, usually around
10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) per year, above which an entity
must submit records of its GHG emissions. However, H.R. 6 and H.R. 1245
excluded farms from the reporting requirement. The remaining bills, S. 17 and S.
194, would have tasked the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with establishing the threshold requirement.
There were also similarities and differences between cap and trade bills.
Specifically, H.R. 2024, S. 366, and S. 843 would have focused on fossil fuel-fired
electric generating facilities, while S. 139 and H.R. 4067 would have covered a
broader array of sources. Furthermore, H.R. 2024, S. 366, and S. 843 would have
capped one GHG — carbon dioxide — while S. 139 and H.R. 4067 would have
capped all six GHGs.
This report briefly discusses basic concepts on which these bills were based, and
compares major provisions of the bills in each of the following categories: climate
change research, GHG reporting and registries, and cap and trade programs. This
report will not be updated.

Climate Change Research Bills...................................1
GHG Reporting and Registry Bills................................6
GHG Emission-Reduction Bills...................................9
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills..............................9
Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions....................9
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Climate Change Research Bills....................3
Table 2. Comparison of GHG Reporting and Registry Bills.................7
Table 3. GHG Cap and Trade Bills...................................11th
Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 108 Congress..................14
Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the th

108 Congress...............................................15

Climate Change Legislation
in the 108 Congress
Since 1992, when the United States ratified the United Nations’ Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a number of voluntary and regulatory
actions have been proposed or undertaken in the United States to decrease
greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these policies have been established primarily to
achieve energy or environmental goals, while also having the effect of reducing GHG
In the 108th Congress, numerous bills were introduced that directly or indirectly
addressed climate change. Most bills focused on energy efficiency, energy
conservation, or non-fossil fuels. However, the focus of this report is on bills that
directly addressed climate change, not on bills that would have had indirect or
ancillary impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. This report describes and compares
climate-related bills, which fall into three major categories: (1) those that would have
established climate change research programs to further examine the origins and
effects of climate change (H.R. 6,2 H.R. 1578, H.R. 4067, S. 17, S. 139, and S.
1164); (2) those that would have established GHG monitoring systems as a basis for
research or for any future reduction program (H.R. 6, H.R. 1245, H.R. 4067, S. 17,
S. 139, and S. 194); and (3) those that would have established market-based
programs to directly limit emissions of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas (H.R. 2024,
S. 139, H.R. 4067, S. 366, and S. 843). The major provisions of these bills are
categorized in Appendix 1 and summarized in Appendix 2. While the body of this
report describes what each bill would have done, none of these bills became law in
the 108th Congress. If Members wish to enact similar legislation in the 109th
Congress (or later), new bills must be introduced.
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 emissions, uncertainties
concerning the causes and the effects of climate change remain and are the subject

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 hexaflurane (SF6). Some other greenhouse gases are controlled under the
Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.
2 For the purposes of this report, H.R. 6 always refers to the Senate-passed bill. The
conference report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375) did not contain provisions on climate change.
The conference report was approved by the House on November 18, 2003. On November

21, a cloture motion on the conference report failed in the Senate.

of scientific research.3 Federally, much of this research is conducted through the U.S.
Global Change Research Program.4
Research Bills. Two bills in the 108th Congress, S. 1164 (Collins) and H.R.
1578 (M. Udall), focused primarily on climate change research.5 As shown in Table

1, these bills would have established research programs with different focuses. S.

1164 called for the development and testing of climate change models based on
historic climatic changes. H.R. 1578 focused on using historic trends to assess the
nation’s vulnerabilities to climatic change and to assess climate change policy.
While S. 1164 did not have any substantial non-research provisions, H.R. 1578
would also have established an interagency committee to develop vulnerability
assessments, facilitate interagency cooperation, and provide representation to
international meetings. This committee would have facilitated the establishment of
the United States Global Change Research Plan. The plan would have established
goals and priorities and would have identified options to achieve those aims.
Research Provisions in Broader Bills. In addition to the research bills
H.R. 1578 and S. 1164, four bills (H.R. 6, H.R. 4067, S. 17, and S. 139) included
climate change research provisions as part of a broader climate change bill.
Specifically, research in H.R. 6 would have focused on climate change mitigation
technology, climate change adaptation, and resolving scientific and economic
uncertainty. The research provisions in S. 17 focused on a national assessment of
climate change impacts and a review of methods to address climate change.
Research under S. 139 would have focused on technology transfer barriers, the
impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the United States, climate change impacts, and
possible methods to reduce GHG emissions. The research provisions of H.R. 4067
were similar to those under S. 139, except that H.R. 4067 did not address technology
transfer or the impacts to the Kyoto Protocol, and added a section on agricultural

3 For more information on the science and policy of Global Climate Change see CRS Issue
Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change.
4 One such document is U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts
on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.
(Washington, DC, 2000). Available at [
nationalassessment/overview.htm], visited August 28, 2003.
5 The research provisions of H.R. 6 (Senate-passed), S. 17, S. 139, and S. 843 are described
in later sections since these bills had other major focuses. 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), including H.R. 238, H.R. 984, H.R.

1213, H.R. 1395, H.R. 1645, H.R. 1777, H.R. 190, and H.R. 2088.

Table 1. Comparison of Climate Change Research Bills
H.R. 1578 (M.H.R. 4067H.R. 6 (Senate-S. 17 (Daschle)S. 139S. 1164 (Collins)
Udall) (Gilch rest) passed) (L i eb erman )
GlobalCreate indicators toModeling andThe economic,Create indicators toCreate indicators to
cusMeasurements understand historicassessment ofpublic health, andunderstand historicunderstand historic
Studies of historicclimate changeclimate changeenvironmentalclimate changeclimate change
changesImproveeffects onimpacts of globalImproveImprove
Information onunderstanding ofeconomic andwarming andunderstanding ofunderstanding of
economic andthresholds andsocial systems.climate change onthresholds andthresholds and
demographicnonlinearities ofUnderstandingthe United States.nonlinearities ofnonlinearities of
trends that affectgeophysicalresponse of humanFunding andgeophysicalgeophysical
iki/CRS-RL32055vulnerability toclimate changesystems related toclimate change(social andeconomic) andeffectiveness ofprogramssystems related toclimate changesystems related toclimate change
g/wInteraction ofDevelop and testnatural ecosystemsestablished toDevelop and testDevelop and test
s.orphysical,climate changeto climate change. reduceclimate changeclimate change
leakchemical,modelsUnderstanding thegreenhouse gasmodelsmodels

://wikibiological andClimate changeavailability,emissions.Climate change
httpsocial processesstandards andbenefits and costsstandards and
related to globalprocessesof policy andprocesses
changeVulnerability andtechnology optionsVulnerability and
Initiatives toadaptation toto mitigate climateadaptation to
determine, andclimate changechange risks.climate change
then meet, theTechnology transferCarbon sequestrationTechnology transfer
information needsbarriersGHG emissions frombarriers
of decision-Agricultural effectsfederal facilities
makers.of climate
and welfare, andchange and
human social andopportunities
economic systemsfor carbon

H.R. 1578 (M.H.R. 4067H.R. 6 (Senate-S. 17 (Daschle)S. 139S. 1164 (Collins)
Udall) (Gilch rest) passed) (L i eb erman )
(Continued) (Continued)
cusEffects of globalImpact of the Kyoto
climate change onProtocol on
agriculture, energyUnited States:
production andindustry,
use, international
transportation,cooperation on
human healthscientific research
Adoption rates ofand development,
policy andUnited States
technology toparticipation in
iki/CRS-RL32055reduce climateenvironmental
g/wchange variabilityclimate change
s.orand examinemitigation efforts
leakmarket and policyand technology
://wikibarriers deployme nt
httpurce of United States GlobalNational ScienceNational Academy ofDetermined by theNational ScienceDepartment of
Change ResearchFoundation, Sciences, Executive OfficeFoundation, Commerce

ProgramDepartment ofDepartment ofof the PresidentDepartment of
(interagency)CommerceEnergy (multipleCommerce
Department ofoffices),
AgricultureDepartment of
Agriculture, and
Office of National
Climate Change
Policy in the
Executive Office of
the President

H.R. 1578 (M.H.R. 4067H.R. 6 (Senate-S. 17 (Daschle)S. 139S. 1164 (Collins)
Udall) (Gilch rest) passed) (L i eb erman )
omesVulnerabilityModels of climateRegionalA nationalModels of climateModels of climate
Assessmentchangevulnerabilities andassessment ofchangechange
Policy AssessmentReport on technologyadaptationclimate changeReport on technology
Annual Reporttransfers income andassessment impactstransfers income and
Interagency climateroyaltiesAssessment ofAnnual descriptionroyalties
and other globalReport on Unitedclimate changeof measures theReport on United
change dataStates impact ofeffects onUnited States hasStates impact of
managementKyoto Protocoleconomic andadopted orKyoto Protocol
working groupNew measurementssocial systemsimplemented toNew measurements
and standardsAnnual Reportsreduce climateand standards
National ScienceChange in NationalchangeNational Science
iki/CRS-RL32055FoundationGlobal ChangeFoundation
g/wresearchResearch Planresearch
s.orEducation programClimate change
leakfor farmers onstrategy
://wikiglobal climatechange
httpTechnical assistance
to coastal states on
adapting to
climate change
None specifiedYesYesNone specifiedYesYes


GHG Reporting and Registry Bills
Under the UNFCCC, the United States annually 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, 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
Four bills, Title 10 of H.R. 6 (Senate-passed version),9 H.R. 1245 (Olver), S. 17
(Daschle), and S. 194 (Corzine) focused primarily on expanding emissions reporting
to a broad array of sources. (See Table 2.) While S. 17 and S. 194 directed the EPA
to determine who must report emissions information, H.R. 6 established a category
of covered sources. Furthermore, these bills would have established a national
registry to collect annual lists submitted by entities on their GHG emissions and
sources, and would have established a national GHG registry to collect voluntarily
reported information on GHG emissions reductions. S. 17 and S. 194 would also
have required the EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Commerce, Agriculture,
and Energy to develop tools for quantifying, verifying, reporting, and accounting for
GHG emissions, and would have required the EPA Administrator to publish an
annual national GHG emissions inventory. While these bills established reporting
requirements as the basis for future regulations, two other bills (S. 139 and H.R.
4067) would have established a monitoring program as the basis for a GHG cap and
trade program. Specifically, these bills would have 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.
In addition to their different GHG reporting strategies, these bills had other
major components. For example, S. 17 set a goal for the President to reduce the
federal government’s net GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2013. H.R. 6 would have
established the Office of National Climate Change Policy to develop a National
Climate Change Strategy with the long-term goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations. S. 17 would also have authorized $2 billion per year in grants to state
and local governments to reduce GHG emissions.

6 See CRS Report 98-235 ENR, Global Climate Change: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
— Status, Trends, and Projections.
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 See CRS Report RL32043, Climate Change: State and Local Actions to Address
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
9 The Senate-passed version of H.R. 6 was identical to the Senate-passed version of H.R.

4 from the 107th Congress. There were no climate change provisions in the House-passedth

version of H.R. 6 from the 108 Congress, or in the conference report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept.


Table 2. Comparison of GHG Reporting and Registry Bills
H.R. 6 (SenateH.R. 1245 (Olver)H.R. 4067S. 17 (Daschle)S. 139S. 194 (Corzine)
Passed) (Gilch rest) (L i eb erman )
Entities that emitEntities that emitEntities that: Entities that exceedEntities that: Entities that exceed
ntitymore than 10,000more than 10,000(A) own or controlthresholds to be set(A) own or controlthresholds to be set
metric tons of CO2metric tons of CO2 sources of GHGby the Administratorsources of GHGby the
(or equivalent)(or equivalent)emissions in theof the EPAemissions in theAdministrator of
Major manufacturerselectric power,electric power,the EPA

or importers ofindustrial, orindustrial, or
motor vehiclescommercial sectorscommercial sectors
Manufacturers orof the United Statesof the United States
iki/CRS-RL32055importers of DOE-listed productseconomy, refine orimport petroleumeconomy, refine orimport petroleum
g/w products for use inproducts for use in
s.ortransportation, ortransportation, or
leakproduce or importproduce or import
://wikiHFCs PFCs, orHFCs PFCs, or
httpSF6, and SF6, and
(B) emit more than(B) emit more than
10,000 metric tons10,000 metric tons
of GHG/ year (CO2of GHG/ year (CO2
or equivalent) oror equivalent) or
produce or importproduce or import
petroleum petroleum
products, HFCs,products, HFCs,
PFCs, SF6, orPFCs, SF6, or
other greenhouseother greenhouse
gases that, whengases that, when
used, will emit overused, will emit over
10,000 metric tons10,000 metric tons
of GHG/year CO2of GHG/year CO2
(or equivalent)(or equivalent)

H.R. 6 (SenateH.R. 1245 (Olver)H.R. 4067S. 17 (Daschle)S. 139S. 194 (Corzine)
Passed) (Gilch rest) (L i eb erman )
ludedFeedlots and FarmsFarmsNone indicatedNone indicatedNone indicatedNone indicated
The 6 GHGs: CO2,The 6 GHGs: CO2,The 6 GHGs: CO2,The 6 GHGs: CO2,The 6 GHGs: CO2,The 6 GHGs: CO2,
GsCH4, N2O, HFCs,CH4, N2O, HFCs,CH4, N2O, HFCs,CH4, N2O, HFCs,CH4, N2O, HFCs,CH4, N2O, HFCs,
Other substances mayOther substances may
be addedbe added
udes Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s

leakpor t i n g

GHG Emission-Reduction Bills
The United States has no federal GHG reduction requirements, though proposals
to require such reductions have been made. These proposals have included
“command and control” regulations on emissions, GHG emission taxes, and market-
based techniques to limit emissions. The last, market-based programs, typically take
as their model the Clean Air Act acid rain program.10
In the 108th Congress, bills were introduced that would have established market-
based GHG reductions (see Table 3). One pair of bills, S. 139 and H.R. 4067, would
have capped the emissions of the six greenhouse gases specified in the United11
Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change. Three other bills, H.R. 2042,
S. 366, and S. 843, 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 leads to lower costs. One method is to
allocate emissions allowances to each source. Allowances can be bought or sold. In
a well-functioning market, entities that face relatively low emission-reduction costs
would achieve extra emission reductions. Then these entities would sell their unused
allowances to entities that face higher emission-reduction costs. An entity facing12
higher costs could then purchase allowances to exceed its initial emissions cap.
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Bills. As shown in Table 3, H.R. 2042
(Waxman), S. 36613 (Jeffords), and S. 843 (Carper) focused on electric utility14
emissions. These bills would have limited emissions of carbon dioxide, along with
other air pollutants.15 (See Table 3.) The first round of emissions reductions would
have gone into effect in the year 2009. S. 843 would also have included a second
phase of emissions reductions beginning in 2012.
Comprehensive GHG Emissions Reductions. Unlike other bills
proposed in the 108th Congress, the Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139 and H.R. 4067)
focused on achieving market-driven reductions in all six greenhouse gases (see Table

3). The legislation applied to entities in the electricity, transportation, industry, and

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 extra emissions reductions.
11 The six greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexaluoride.
12 For more information on market mechanisms, see CRS Report IB97057, Global Climate
Change: Market-Based Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gases.
13 S. 366 was similar to S. 566 from the 107th Congress.
14 S. 485 (Inhofe), the Clear Skies Act of 2003, also established a cap and trade program for
nitrogen oxides from utilities. However, S. 485 is not included in Table 3 because it did not
address carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas.
15 This report does not discuss bills that would have reduced other pollutants without
including CO2. Such bills included H.R. 203, H.R. 999 and S. 485.

commercial sectors that emit over 11,023 tons of greenhouse gases per year. Starting
in 2010, the bills would have capped total GHG emissions at 6.5 billion tons (CO2
equivalent emissions), reduced by the amount of CO2 (equivalent emissions) from
non-covered entities in the year 2000. After 2015, S. 139 would have further
restricted emissions to 5.65 billion tons, reduced by the amount of emissions from
non-covered entities in 1990. Both bills would also have established a formula for
allocating GHG emissions allowances, and would have established a climate change
credit corporation to manage allowance trading.
In addition to establishing caps on all six greenhouse gases, the bills would have
supported climate change research and established a GHG emissions inventory. 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. (See Table 1 and Table 2.)

Table 3. GHG Cap and Trade Bills
H.R. 4067 (Gilchrest)S. 139 (Lieberman)H.R. 2042 (Waxman)S. 366 (Jeffords)S. 843 (Carper)
Any electric power,Any electric power,Any fossil fuel-firedAny fossil fuel-firedAny fossil fuel-fired16
rcesindustrial, or commercialindustrial, or commercialelectric generatingelectric generatingelectric generating
entity that emits overentity that emits overfacility that has afacility that has afacility that has a
10,000 metric tons of10,000 metric tons ofcapacity of greater thancapacity of greater thancapacity of greater than
CO2 equivalent/year; anyCO2 equivalent/year; any15 megawatts and15 megawatts, generates25 megawatts and
refiner or importer ofrefiner or importer ofgenerates electricity forelectricity for sale, andgenerates electricity for
petroleum products forpetroleum products forsale.emits a covered pollutantsale.
transportation use thattransportation use thatinto the air
when combusted willwhen combusted will
emit over 10,000 metricemit over 10,000 metric
iki/CRS-RL32055tons of CO2tons of CO2
g/wequivalent/year; and, anyequivalent/year; and, any
s.orimporter or producer ofimporter or producer of
leakHFCs, PFCs or SF6 thatHFCs, PFCs or SF6 that
://wikiwhen used will emit over10,000 metric tons ofwhen used will emit over10,000 metric tons of
httpCO equivalent/year.CO equivalent/year.
2 2
All 6 GHGsAll 6 GHGs1 GHG: carbon dioxide1 GHG: carbon dioxide1 GHG: carbon dioxide
antsOther Pollutants: sulfurOther Pollutants: sulfurOther Pollutants: sulfur
dioxide, nitrogendioxide, nitrogendioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercuryoxides, and mercuryoxides, and mercury

16 The regulations for mercury are for coal-fired electric generating units rather than fossil fuel-fired. Covered sources are also
different for sulfur dioxide.

H.R. 4067 (Gilchrest)S. 139 (Lieberman)H.R. 2042 (Waxman)S. 366 (Jeffords)S. 843 (Carper)
issions cap6.49 billion tons of CO26.49 billion tons of CO2Reduce CO2 emissionsCO2 emissions to 2.05Tons of CO2 emitted
equivalent/year fromequivalent/yearto 1990 levels by 2009billion tons/yr17from affected units in
2009 to 2015 for allfrom 2009 to 2015beginning in 20092006, beginning in 2009
covered entities takenfor all covered
together.entities takenTons of CO2 emitted
together.from affected units in
5.64 billion tons of CO22001, beginning in 2012
after 2015.
Tradeable allowanceTradeable allowanceTo be determined byTradeable allowanceTradeable allowance
rategysystem. EPA shallsystem. EPA shallEPA — marketsystem. Allowancessystem. Allocation
iki/CRS-RL32055determine allocationsdetermine allocationsmechanisms permittedallocated to variousformulas based on
g/wbased on severalbased on several(except for Hg)sectors and interests,generating efficiency.
s.oreconomic and equityeconomic and equityincluding households,
leakcriteria includingcriteria includingdislocated workers andAllocations includes a
efficiency and impact onefficiency and impact oncommunities, electricitynew source reserve to
://wikiconsumers. Allowancesconsumers. Allowancesintensive industries,provide allowances to
httpto be allocated upstreamto be allocated upstreamaffected utilities, energynewly constructed
to refiners and importersto refiners and importersefficiency and renewablesources.

of transportation fuelof transportation fuelenergy activities, and
along with producers ofalong with producers ofsequestration activities.
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6;HFCs, PFCs, and SF6;
downstream to electricdownstream to electric
generation, industrial,generation, industrial,
and commercial entitiesand commercial entities
17 S. 366 would further limit the number of emission allowances in present 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.

H.R. 4067 (Gilchrest)S. 139 (Lieberman)H.R. 2042 (Waxman)S. 366 (Jeffords)S. 843 (Carper)
tage-5% c -5% b,c -9.5%-7.5%-5.1% a
ss as
tage+27.7% c+27.7% b,c +21.7+24.2%+27.5% a
Excess emission penaltyExcess emission penaltynone specifiedSame as CAA, title IVExcess emission penalty
iki/CRS-RL32055nalties forcomplianceequal to three times theequal to three times theexcept excess emissionof $100 per ton plus one-
g/wmarket price formarket price forpenalty is three times thefor-one offset from
s.orallowance on the last dayallowance on the last dayaverage market price forfuture emissions
leakof the year at issueof the year at issueallowancesallocations
://wikies requirement of S. 843 is achieved in 2010, rather than 2013.
http. Phase 2 would involve a 2016 reduction down to 1990 levels by affected sources.
on actual coverage and the implementation strategies employed by affected sources, reductions achieved could be above the 5% estimate
presented here. CRS estimates based on 85% coverage and U.S.-only implementation would be about 8.8% in 2010, 22.6% above 1990 levels.
ce: CRS calculations based on projections contained in the UNFCCC Secretariat’s 2002 Climate Action Report. Available at:
ttp://]. For more information see CRS Report RL31779.

Appendix 1. Climate Change Bills in the 108th Congress
CO2 andComprehensive
GHGSetCO2 & NOxNOxEmissions Caps
ClimateClarifyReportingEmissionsEmissionAllowanceand Allowance
ChangeResearchandGoal forCaps forTradingTrading for all
Bill (s) and Short Title (s)ResearchMethodsRegistryU.S.UtilitiesProgram GHGsOther
Climate Security Act of 2003, National GHG emissions
ional GHG Emissions Inventory and Registry Act of 2003
iki/CRS-RL32055f ords) XX X
s.or XX X
://wikiollins) X
httpAs passed by the Senate)a XXXX
ional GHG Emissions Inventory Act of 2003
ta Management Act of 2003
ate provisions in House-passed H.R. 6, or in the conference report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375)

Appendix 2. Key Provisions of Climate Change Legislation in the 108th Congress
o.SponsorLast Major ActionKey Provisions
DaschleReferred to Senate Environment andEstablishes a mandatory greenhouse gas database. In addition, it
Public Works — January 7, 2003establishes a commission to help implement the UNFCCC.
Authorizes $2 billion annually in grants to state and local
governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does not
mandate emissions reductions.
LiebermanConsidered by Senate, referred back toRequires any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
Senate Environment and Public Works greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to year
— October 30, 20032000 levels by 2010, and 1990 levels by 2016. Allows: tradeable
credits for reductions beyond those required, reductions from
iki/CRS-RL32055non-covered entities, increases in carbon sequestration, increases
g/win passenger vehicle fuel economy, and emissions reductions in
s.orother countries.
CorzineReferred to Senate Environment andEstablishes mandatory greenhouse gas registries, but does not
://wikiPublic Works — January 17, 2003require emission reductions.
JeffordsReferred to Senate Environment andThe Clean Power Act of 2003 amends the Clean Air Act to
Public Works — February 12, 2003require 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, 2009.
CarperReferred to the Senate Environment andAmends the Clean Air Act to establish a national uniform
Public Works — April 9, 2003multiple air pollutant regulatory program, including for carbon
dioxide, for the electric generating sector.
CollinsReferred to the Senate Commerce,Provides for research to understand, assess, and predict human-
Science and Transportation — June 2,induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change.


o.SponsorLast Major ActionKey Provisions
R. 6 (Senate-TauzinPassed Senate — July 31, 2003;Establishes research programs focusing on vulnerabilities,
ersion)Conference report approved by House — technology, sequestration, and other topics. Establishes
November 18, 2003emissions monitoring and reporting mechanisms.
Cloture motion on conference report
failed in Senate — November 21, 2003
(Conference report and House-passed
version have no climate-related
OlverReferred to House Energy and Requires EPA to establish a GHG emissions information system
Commerce — March 24, 2003to collect information submitted regarding an entity’s GHG
emissions. Establishes voluntary registry to collect information
iki/CRS-RL32055on emissions reductions.
g/wM. UdallHouse Science Committee motion toDirects the President to develop a National Global Change
s.or report failed — May 1, 2003Research Plan. Requires plan to set recommendations for
leakresearch, research priorities, and establish a data management
://wikiworking group to coordinate global GHG research.
httpWaxmanReferred to House Energy and Amends the Clean Air Act to require the EPA to promulgate
Commerce — May 20, 2003regulations to achieve specific reductions of carbon dioxide from
power plants.
GilchrestReferred to House Science, Energy andRequires any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
Commerce — March 30, 2004greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) to reduce emissions to year
2000 levels by 2010. Allows: tradeable credits for reductions
beyond those required, reductions from non-covered entities,
increases in carbon sequestration, and emissions reductions in
other countries.