Search Penny Hill Press

Loading...

Friday, January 29, 2010

Climate Change and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): Looking to 2020

Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

The European Union's (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a cornerstone of the EU's efforts to meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. It covers more than 10,000 energy intensive facilities across the 27 EU Member countries; covered entities emit about 45% of the EU's carbon dioxide emissions. A "Phase 1" trading period began January 1, 2005. A second, Phase 2, trading period began in 2008, covering the period of the Kyoto Protocol. A Phase 3 will begin in 2013 designed to reduce emissions by 21% from 2005 levels. Several positive results from the Phase 1 "learning by doing" exercise assisted the ETS in making the Phase 2 process run more smoothly, including: (1) greatly improving emissions data, (2) encouraging development of the Kyoto Protocol's project-based mechanisms—Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI), and (3) influencing corporate behavior to begin pricing in the value of allowances in decision-making, particularly in the electric utility sector. 

However, several issues that arose during the first phase were not resolved as the ETS moved into Phase 2, including allocation schemes and new entrant reserves, and others. A more comprehensive and coordinated response by the EU has been made for Phase 3 with harmonized and coordinated rules being developed by the European Commission. The United States is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol. However, five years of carbon emissions trading has given the EU valuable experience in designing and operating a greenhouse gas trading system. This experience may provide some insight into cap-and-trade design issues currently being debated in the United States. 

• The U.S. requires only electric utilities to monitor CO2. The EU-ETS experience suggests that expanding similar requirements to all facilities covered under a capand- trade scheme would be pivotal for developing allocation systems, reduction targets, and enforcement provisions. 

• In the U.S. debate continues on comprehensive versus sector-specific reduction programs; the EU-ETS experience suggests that adding sectors to a trading scheme once established may be a slow, contentious process. 

• As with most EU industries, most U.S. industry groups either oppose auctions outright or want them to be supplemental to a base free allocation. The EU-ETS experience suggests Congress may want to consider specifying any auction requirement if it wishes to incorporate market economics more fully into compliance decisions. 

• EU-ETS analysis suggests the most important variables in determining Phase 1 allowance price changes were oil and natural gas price changes; this apparent linkage raises possible market manipulation issues, particularly with the inclusion of financial instruments such as options and futures contracts. The EU will examine the matter in preparation for Phase 3. Congress may consider whether the government needs enhanced regulatory and oversight authority over such instruments. 
.


Date of Report: January 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41049
Price: $29.95

You can order this item by phone at (301) 253-0881 or by email at Penny Hill Press, Inc.. Be sure to include the document number. Specify whether you want electronic delivery (pdf file or postal delivery).

CRS Issue Statement on Ocean and Coastal Resources


Eugene H. Buck, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Congress may consider proposals to alter the relationship between environmental protection and sustainable resource management and development as a result of increased use of coastal and marine resources. Of particular interest are threats to marine water quality, pollutants posing risks to human health and safety, stress from continued growth and development of coastal areas, the contribution of offshore energy resources to U.S. energy security, habitat destruction and overharvesting of living marine resources, and climate change. The combination of more information about ocean and coastal resource issues, new recommendations on how they might be addressed, and the need to consider reauthorizing expired laws means that Congress is likely to give substantial attention to this issue area.

Two reports issued in 2004—one by the Pew Oceans Commission and the other by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy—noted declines in marine resources and shortcomings in the fragmented and limited approaches to resource protection and management in federal and state waters. Both reports called for bold responses from Congress and the Administration. Congress may consider whether to (1) provide additional funding for ocean and coastal resource management; (2) replace a fragmented administrative structure for ocean management with a more coherent federal organization; (3) reauthorize certain existing ocean and coastal laws; (4) adopt new approaches for managing marine resources, and (5) conduct oversight of estuarine management and protection programs, implementation of fishery reforms, and expanded OCS activities to foster energy independence.


Date of Report: January 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: IS40356
Price: $7.95

You can order this item by phone at (301) 253-0881 or by email at Penny Hill Press, Inc.. Be sure to include the document number. Specify whether you want electronic delivery (pdf file or postal delivery).

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Emission Allowance Allocation to Electricity Local Distribution Companies (LDCs):Considerations for Policymakers

Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Stan Mark Kaplan
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


This report examines a major component of the emission allowance distribution strategy proposed in two major legislative vehicles under consideration in the 111th Congress: H.R. 2454 (Waxman- Markey), which passed the House on June 26, 2009; and S. 1733 (Kerry-Boxer), which was ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on November 5, 2009. Both bills (among other provisions) would establish a cap-and-trade program that would distribute—in the program's early years—a substantial portion of allowance value to electricity local distribution companies (LDCs) for the benefit of electricity consumers. Considering the magnitude of allowance value directed to LDCs, the potential consequences and challenges associated with this approach raise fundamental policy issues. 

Although an LDC allocation approach would be effective in mitigating cap-related electricity price increases at the household level, a closer examination of this strategy reveals potential concerns. Recent economic studies indicate that an electricity LDC allowance distribution strategy would alter the carbon price signal. The overall cost of the cap-and-trade program would increase if the price signal is channeled away from economic sectors with abundant low-cost abatement opportunities to economic sectors that have fewer such opportunities. In addition, if the price signal is dampened in one sector of the economy or for a particular subgroup of society, the signal may shift to other sectors or other groups, yielding unintended impacts. Several studies have estimated the efficiency loss. The range of estimates indicates that the magnitude of the efficiency loss due to LDC allocation would be uncertain. This uncertainty may pose a challenge for policymakers, when evaluating trade-offs between various allowance distribution strategies. 

Regions that get electricity from more carbon-intensive sources are generally expected to face disproportionate impacts, and many have argued that an electricity LDC allocation approach could be designed to address these impacts. However, recent economic studies suggest that the differences across regions (for the average household) may be relatively modest. A question for policymakers is whether this disparity is worth addressing with an LDC allocation strategy, especially considering the implementation challenges involved. Robust data exist for the carbon intensity of electricity at the point of generation, but analogous data for the carbon intensity of electricity distributed for consumption are substantially less precise. This information gap would likely pose a significant challenge in terms of distributing emission allowances to LDCs, if policymakers seek to account for different carbon intensities of electricity. In addition, a range of stakeholders has expressed concern that the state Public Utility Commissions, which oversee LDCs, would implement the LDC allowance distribution requirements in different ways. Allowing different applications of allowance value (for the benefit of the electricity consumer) could lead to varied impacts across state lines. Some state agencies may allow LDCs to use allowance value to support efforts (unrelated to electricity bill rebates) that may not be allowed in other states. 

Recent economic models indicate that most households would fare better with a lump-sum distribution. This is likely partly due to the expected efficiency loss associated with the LDC allotment. Another factor is that households in different regions use energy in different ways and consume fuels with different levels of carbon-intensity. The lump-sum distribution approach would likely provide households with more flexibility to offset the cost increases specific to their situation, whereas an LDC allocation would favor those impacted the most by electricity price increases.


Date of Report: January 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41041
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Identifying Incentives and Barriers to Federal Agencies Achieving Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Anthony Andrews
Specialist in Energy and Energy Infrastructure Policy

Richard J. Campbell
Specialist in Energy Policy


This report identifies incentives for and barriers to federal agencies achieving the energy efficiency goals and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction-targets outlined in recent laws and executive orders. 

The federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States, but consumes only 1% the total energy used. Federal energy spending represents upwards of 1% of its total budget (discretionary and mandatory spending). Since the 1970s, Congress has enacted various laws that reduce energy consumption in the federal sector by improving energy efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) included measures to reduce energy and water in congressional buildings, install advanced meters to reduce electricity use in federal buildings, enact performance standards to improve federal buildings, and to reduce the federal government's electric energy consumption through renewable energy offsets (P.L. 109-58). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandated further energy savings measures in government operations, including energy upgrades to the Capitol complex, permanent authority to use "energy savings performance contracts," and federal procurement of energy efficient products and renewable fuels (P.L. 110-140). 

Two recent executive orders guide federal agencies in reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions. In 2007, Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental Energy, and Transportation Management directed federal agencies to improve energy efficiency and reduce green house gas emissions by reducing energy intensity. In 2009, Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance established GHG emissions reduction goals for federal agencies. 

Federal agencies can take advantage of several financing mechanisms to make energy efficiency improvements without increasing their operating budgets. These include Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Utility Energy Savings Contracts, and Power Purchase Agreements. In some cases, agencies may share in the savings gained from reduced energy costs made through the improvements. New authority to combine appropriated funds with energy savings performance contracts could further energy efficiency improvements, but the lack of federal rules delays implementation. However, federal agencies may be reluctant to participate in this financing option if it reduces their opportunity to retain savings from the improvements. 

The new GHG reduction goals come after three decades of effort to reduce energy consumption. GHG emissions associated with operating federal buildings result from consuming fossil fuels used in generating electricity and heating. Significant energy reduction resulted early from easily achievable, low-cost improvements that translate into GHG reductions. The opportunity for GHG reductions in the future may come through smaller, more difficult to achieve reductions in energy consumption based on high-tech solutions. 

The prospect of a reducing the federal budget by reducing energy consumption may be low. However, policy makers may wish to weigh direct monetary savings against the benefits of clean energy in terms of avoided emissions of regulated pollutants and greenhouse gases.


Date of Report: January 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41040
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use

Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy


In 2008, coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of the United States' electric power, resulting in as much as 136 millions tons of coal combustion waste (CCW). On December 22, 2008, national attention was turned to issues regarding the waste when a breach in an impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Kingston, Tennessee, plant released 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry. The estimated cleanup cost will likely reach $1.2 billion. 

The characteristics of CCW vary, but it generally contains a range of heavy metals such as arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and mercury. While the incident at Kingston drew national attention to the potential for a sudden catastrophic release of waste, the primary concern regarding the management of CCW usually relates to the potential for hazardous constituents to leach into surface or groundwater, and hence contaminate drinking water, surface water, or living organisms. The presence of hazardous constituents in the waste does not, by itself, mean that they will contaminate the surrounding air, ground, groundwater, or surface water. There are many complex physical and biogeochemical factors that influence the degree to which heavy metals can dissolve and migrate offsite—such as the mass of toxins in the waste and the degree to which water is able to flow through it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that arsenic and lead and other carcinogens have leached into groundwater and exceeded safe limits when CCW is disposed of in unlined disposal units. 

In addition to discussions regarding the potential harm to human health and the environment, the Kingston release brought attention to the fact that the management of CCW is essentially exempt from federal regulation. Instead, it is regulated in accordance with requirements established by individual states. State requirements generally apply to two broad categories of actions—the disposal of CCW (in landfills, surface impoundment, or mines) and its beneficial use (e.g., as a component in concrete, cement, or gypsum wallboard, or as structural or embankment fill). 

In May 2000, partly as a result of inconsistencies in state requirements, EPA determined that national regulations regarding CCW disposal were needed. To date, regulations have not been proposed. However, on March 9, 2009, EPA stated that regulations to address CCW disposal in landfills and surface impoundments would be proposed by the end of 2009. Also, in March 2007, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the disposal of CCW in mines was released by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Draft rules have not yet been proposed. With regard to potential uses of CCW, EPA has stated that there have been few studies that would definitively prove that certain uses of CCW are safe, but that its use should include certain precautions to ensure adequate groundwater protection. It is unknown whether regulations regarding beneficial uses of CCW will be included in the upcoming rulemaking. 

Some Members of Congress and other stakeholders have expressed concern regarding how CCW will ultimately be regulated. Among other issues, there is concern that the upcoming regulations will be either too far-reaching, and hence costly, or not far-reaching enough—meaning that they will not establish consistent, enforceable, minimal federal requirements applicable to CCW disposal units. On December 17, 2009, EPA issued a statement that its pending decision on regulating CCW would be delayed for a "short period due to the complexity of the analysis the agency is currently finishing."


Date of Report: January 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R40544
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Interior and Environment Appropriations

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


Congress typically addresses a wide array of controversial funding and policy issues during consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. These issues reflect the diverse agencies and programs that receive appropriations in the bill. The bill provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except the Bureau of Reclamation), many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. It also funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and two agencies within other departments—the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, the annual bill includes appropriations for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other entities and agencies. Each year Congress debates the level of funding for each of these agencies, relative to each other and in the context of overall federal funding. Among the issues that have continued to be of focus during consideration of the Interior bills are those related to energy, the environment, Indians, wildfires, land acquisition, and facility maintenance. 

Oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been an important issue in the debate over energy security and domestic energy resources. The extent to which the OCS remains open and available for oil and gas drilling is an issue of contention. Former moratoria on offshore oil and gas development in much of the OCS were not retained in FY2009 and FY2010 Interior appropriations laws, and the Bush Administration lifted the executive moratoria. However, a moratorium is still in place for most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico until 2022. Opponents of offshore drilling contend that it would pose unacceptable environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries, while supporters assert that potential offshore resources could increase domestic energy supply.


Date of Report: January 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: IS40510
Price: $7.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Water Quality Management

Claudia Copeland, Coordinator
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist


In the early 1970s, Congress established ambitious goals for cleaning the nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters of pollution and for protecting the public from known and potential hazards in the nation's drinking water. These goals called for achieving water quality that is "fishable and swimmable" and eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters by 1985, and for assuring that public water supply systems meet minimum national standards for protection of public health from harmful contaminants. Two federal laws, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, provide the framework for the nation's efforts to provide safe and healthy water to its citizens. Although much progress has been made towards the goals established in these laws, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. As Congress considers water quality management issues, specific areas of interest include whether additional steps are necessary to achieve the overall goals of these acts; how to meet the costs and technological challenges of providing safe drinking water and cleaning the flow of used water from a community; and what is the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for safe and healthy water and other activities. 

A key legislative focus is water infrastructure financing legislation, since meeting the nation's needs to build, rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater and drinking water treatment plants is a key element in achieving water quality objectives. In addition, Congress is likely to pursue oversight of clean water and safe drinking water issues, especially how the nation is addressing the diversity of existing water quality problems and is identifying and managing new contaminants and threats to public health and the environment. Congress also is focusing on the security of water and wastewater facilities. The House has passed legislation directing EPA to promulgate water facility security regulations that would, among other things, require high-risk facilities to assess adoption of inherently safer technologies, or methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.


Date of Report: January 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: IS40406
Price: $7.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Transportation, Energy, and Environment


Brent D. Yacobucci, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Concerns over energy supply and prices and growing concerns over the environmental effects of transportation have led to increased interest in technologies and strategies to limit energy consumption or to move toward more sustainable mobility. Further, the role of the transportation sector—a source of roughly one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions— will be at the forefront as Congress considers legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

The potential for improved air quality, lower greenhouse gas emissions, improved energy security, and other benefits of energy conservation, biofuels, new technologies, or new transport modes are viewed by proponents as warranting greater government support and mandates. But opponents argue that such measures could distort markets and cause economic harm, and they contend that supply and demand should determine the nation's transportation choices. Further, in some cases, the energy efficiency, total cost, and overall environmental cost/benefit of some transportation strategies have been questioned.


Date of Report: January 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS40402
Price: $7.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act

David M. Bearden
Specialist in Environmental Policy


Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510) in response to a growing desire for the federal government to ensure the cleanup of the nation's most contaminated sites in order to protect the public from potential harm. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-499, SARA) clarified the applicability of the statute's requirements to federal facilities, and modified various response, liability, and enforcement provisions. Since then, several other laws have amended CERCLA for specific purposes, such as relief from cleanup liability for certain persons who were not involved in actions that led to contamination, or who contributed only very small quantities or certain types of waste to a site. Congress also has amended CERCLA to authorize federal assistance for the cleanup of abandoned or idled "brownfields" where the presence or perception of contamination may impede economic redevelopment. 

CERCLA authorizes cleanup and enforcement actions to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment, but generally excludes releases of petroleum and certain other materials covered by other federal laws. Considering the limitation of federal resources to address the many contaminated sites across the United States, CERCLA directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to maintain a National Priorities List (NPL) to identify the most hazardous sites for the purpose of prioritizing cleanup actions. The states and the public may participate in federal cleanup decisions at NPL sites. The states primarily are responsible for pursuing the cleanup of sites not listed on the NPL, with the federal role at these sites limited mainly to addressing emergency situations. 

CERCLA established a broad liability scheme that holds past and current owners and operators of facilities that caused the contamination financially responsible for the costs of cleanup. At waste disposal sites, generators of the waste sent to the site for disposal, and transporters of the waste who selected the site for disposal, also are responsible for the cleanup costs. The liability of these "potentially responsible parties" has been interpreted by the courts to be strict, joint and several, and retroactive. At contaminated federal facilities, federal agencies are subject to cleanup liability under CERCLA as the owners and operators of those facilities on behalf of the United States. 

CERCLA established the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to pay for the cleanup of sites where the potentially responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. A combination of special taxes on industry and general taxpayer revenues originally financed the Superfund Trust Fund, but the authority to collect the industry taxes expired on December 31, 1995. As the industry tax revenues were expended over time, Congress increased the contribution of general taxpayer revenues to make up for the shortfall from the expired industry taxes. These general revenues now provide most of the funding for the trust fund, but other monies continue to contribute some revenues (cost-recoveries from potentially responsible parties, fines and penalties for violations of cleanup requirements, and interest on the trust fund balance). The availability of trust fund monies under the Superfund program is subject to appropriations by Congress. 

Considering the liability of the federal government as a potentially responsible party at its own facilities, the cleanup of federal facilities is not funded with Superfund Trust Fund monies under the Superfund program, but with other federal monies appropriated for other programs administered by the agencies responsible for these facilities. However, EPA and the states still are responsible for overseeing and enforcing the implementation of CERCLA at federal facilities to ensure that applicable cleanup requirements are met.


Date of Report: January 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R41039
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Displacing Coal with Generation from Existing Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

Stan Mark Kaplan
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants is a focus of many proposals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. One option is to replace some coal power with natural gas generation, a relatively low carbon source of electricity, by increasing the power output from currently underutilized natural gas plants. 

This report provides an overview of the issues involved in displacing coal-fired generation with electricity from existing natural gas plants. This is a complex subject and the report does not seek to provide definitive answers. The report aims to highlight the key issues that Congress may want to consider in deciding whether to rely on, and encourage, displacement of coal-fired electricity with power from existing natural gas plants. 

The report finds that the potential for displacing coal by making greater use of existing gas-fired power plants depends on numerous factors. These include: 

• The amount of excess natural gas-fired generating capacity available. 

• The current operating patterns of coal and gas plants, and the amount of flexibility power system operators have for changing those patterns. 

• Whether or not the transmission grid can deliver power from existing gas power plants to loads currently served by coal plants. 

• Whether there is sufficient natural gas supply, and pipeline and gas storage capacity, to deliver large amounts of additional fuel to gas-fired power plants. 

There is also the question of the cost of a coal displacement by gas policy, and the impacts of such a policy on the economy, regions, and states. 

All of these factors have a time dimension. For example, while existing natural gas power plants may have sufficient excess capacity today to displace a material amount of coal generation, this could change in the future as load grows. Therefore a full analysis of the potential for gas displacement of coal must take into account future conditions, not just a snapshot of the current situation. 

As a step toward addressing these questions, Congress may consider chartering a rigorous study of the potential for displacing coal with power from existing gas-fired power plants. Such a study would require sophisticated computer modeling to simulate the operation of the power system to determine whether there is sufficient excess gas fired capacity, and the supporting transmission and other infrastructure, to displace a material volume of coal over the near term. Such a study could help Congress judge whether there is sufficient potential to further explore a policy of replacing coal generation with increased output from existing gas-fired plants.


Date of Report: January 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41027
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA’s Regulatory Program

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states are implementing a federally mandated program for controlling stormwater discharges from industrial plants and municipalities. Large cities and most industry sources are subject to rules issued in 1990, and EPA issued permit rules to cover smaller cities and other industrial sources and construction sites in 1999. Because of the large number of affected sources and deadline changes that led to confusion, numerous questions have arisen about this program. Impacts and costs of the program's requirements, especially on cities, are a continuing concern.

The 109th Congress enacted omnibus energy legislation (P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act of 2005) that included a provision giving the oil and gas industry regulatory relief from some stormwater control requirements. In May 2008, a federal court vacated an EPA rule implementing this provision; EPA expects to issue a revised rule that codifies the statutory exemption in P.L. 109-58 by mid-2010.

Congress often looks to federal agencies to lead or test new policy approaches, a fact reflected in legislation enacted in the 110th Congress. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) requires federal agencies to implement strict stormwater runoff requirements for development or redevelopment projects involving a federal facility in order to reduce stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loadings. EPA has issued technical guidance for federal agencies to use in meeting these requirements.

In 2008 the National Research Council issued a report calling for major changes to EPA's stormwater regulatory program which it criticized as being inconsistent nationally and failing to adequately control all sources of stormwater discharge that contribute to waterbody impairment. In response, EPA is initiating information-gathering and public dialogue activities as a prelude to possible changes to supplement or expand regulations and strengthen the current program. 


Date of Report: January 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: 97-290
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Environmental Management and Policy

Robert Esworthy, Coordinator
Specialist in Environmental Policy


Without an organic statute, an enduring issue for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been to find consistent policies and managerial approaches to the disparate programs established by the media-specific and other statutes it administers. Key common elements of these statutes vary (e.g., in their standards for protection, provisions for enforcement, and federal-state relationships).


These statutory variations, and EPA's administrative efforts to implement environmental policies and programs, have consequences not only for the individual environmental protection programs, but also for broader public policy issues—including overarching environmental concerns, as well as energy, transportation, climate change, public lands, and natural resources. Congress has addressed tensions arising from statutory variability and EPA's policies and management approaches, as well as their implications for broader or related issues, through appropriations language; in specific provisions of energy, transportation, and other statutes; and through congressional oversight.


Date of Report: January 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS40276
Price: $7.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Chemicals in Commerce

Linda-Jo Schierow, Coordinator
Specialist in Environmental Policy


The useful properties of thousands of chemicals provide a wide range of benefits to American consumers and bolster the U.S. economy. However, experiences with certain chemicals—for example, DDT, leaded gasoline, and asbestos—have shown that adverse effects sometimes occur when there is insufficient information about potential toxicity and widespread human or wildlife exposure. To reduce the risk of harmful effects, Congress has enacted various statutes to gather information about chemicals and to manage their production and use. Existing statutes address risks to consumers, workers, and communities of chemical production and use, but issues remain. Recent congressional interest has focused on the adequacy of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act with respect to the regulation of industrial chemical processes and production, agricultural use of pesticides, and contamination of consumer products, respectively.

Some Members and analysts have questioned the adequacy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for generating information about the properties of chemicals in commerce and for regulating unreasonable risks. Since TSCA was enacted in 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated regulations to restrict production or use of five chemicals, and no chemicals have been restricted since EPA's proposed rule to ban asbestos was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1991. Critics of TSCA would amend the law or rewrite it to more closely resemble Europe's recently adopted law, which will phase out more dangerous chemicals in favor of less risky substitutes and force manufacturers to prove the safety of their products. Under TSCA, EPA must prove that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk prior to regulation. Others who lack faith in TSCA propose bans of specific chemicals. Congress has repeatedly amended TSCA to address concerns about asbestos, radon, lead, and elemental mercury. Putting aside the adequacy of TSCA with respect to the regulation of traditional chemical substances, TSCA's definitions and implementing regulations appear to some to be poorly suited to the potential risks posed by newer forms of chemicals that now are entering commerce, such as the products of biotechnology or nanotechnology. In fact, nanomaterials pose significant challenges to regulators across the federal government.


Date of Report: January 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: IS40268
Price: $7.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):Selected Regulatory and Legislative Issues

Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy


Much progress has been made in assuring the quality of public water supplies since the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was first enacted in 1974. Public water systems must meet extensive regulations, and water utility management has become a much more complex and professional endeavor. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated some 91 drinking water contaminants, and more regulations are pending. In 2007, the number of community water systems reporting no violations of drinking water standards was 89.5%. Despite nationwide progress in providing safe drinking water, an array of issues and challenges remain. 

Recent issues have involved infrastructure funding needs, regulatory compliance issues, and concerns caused by detections of unregulated contaminants in drinking water, such as perchlorate and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). Another issue involves the adequacy of existing regulations (such as trichloroethylene (TCE)) and EPA's pace in reviewing and potentially revising older standards. Congress last reauthorized SDWA in 1996. Although funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in FY2003, Congress continues to appropriate funds annually for these programs. No broad reauthorization bills have been proposed, as EPA, states, and water systems continue efforts to implement current statutory programs and regulatory requirements. A long-standing and overarching SDWA issue concerns the cumulative cost and complexity of drinking water standards and the ability of water systems, especially small systems, to comply with standards. The issue of the affordability of drinking water regulations, such as those for arsenic, radium, and disinfection by-products, has merged with the larger debate over what is the appropriate federal role in assisting communities with financing drinking water projects needed for SDWA compliance, and for water infrastructure improvement generally. 

Water infrastructure financing legislation has been offered repeatedly in recent Congresses to authorize higher funding levels for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, and also to provide grants and other compliance assistance to small communities. In the 111th Congress, this issue found early focus in the economic stimulus debate, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) included $2 billion for the DWSRF program. The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, provided $829 million for this program, and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88), included an additional $1.387 billion. In July, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 1005, a drinking water and wastewater infrastructure financing bill, and a bill to establish a water infrastructure trust fund, H.R. 3202, was introduced in the House. 

A newer SDWA issue concerns proposals and research regarding the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has proposed regulations under SDWA to provide a national permitting framework for managing the underground injection of CO2 for commercial-scale sequestration projects. In August 2009, EPA published a notice of data availability and requested additional comment on the proposed rule. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) included carbon sequestration research and development provisions, and specified that geologic sequestration activities shall be subject to SDWA provisions related to protecting underground drinking water sources. Another underground injection issue concerns the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas from unconventional geologic formations. Bills have been introduced to authorize regulation of this practice under the SDWA underground injection control program.


Date of Report: January 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RL34201
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Climate Change: Design Approaches for a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Three events provide impetus for revisiting the cost issue with respect to designing a greenhouse gas reduction program. The first is the election of a new President publicly committed to substantial reductions in greenhouse gases over the next several decades. The second was passage of H.R. 2454 by the House that would mandate a 83% reduction in the country's greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 by 2050. The reduction would be primarily achieved through a market based, cap-and-trade program, beginning in 2012. The third is the Copenhagen Accord that may begin the process of incorporating developing countries in a global climate change framework by committing them to implement "mitigation actions," along with monitoring, reporting, and verification procedures "in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties." Facets of the cost issue that have raised concern include absolute costs to the economy, distribution of costs across industries, competitive impact domestically and internationally, incentives for new technology, and uncertainty about possible costs. 

Market-based mechanisms address the cost issue by introducing flexibility into the implementation process. The cornerstone of that flexibility is permitting sources to decide for themselves their appropriate implementation strategy within the parameters of market signals and other incentives. That signal can be as simple as a carbon tax or comprehensive credit auction that tells the emitter the value of any reduction in greenhouse gases, to a credit marketplace that is constrained by a ceiling price (safety valve) and includes incentives for new technology. As illustrated here, the combinations of market mechanisms are numerous, allowing decision makers to tailor the program to address specific concerns. 

In general, market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the most important being carbon dioxide (CO2), focus on specifying either the acceptable emissions level (quantity) or the compliance costs (price), and allowing the marketplace to determine the economically efficient solution for the other variable. For example, a tradeable permit program sets the amount of emissions allowable under the program (i.e., the number of permits available limits or caps allowable emissions), while allowing the marketplace to determine what each permit will be worth. Likewise, a carbon tax sets the maximum unit cost (per ton of CO2 equivalent) that one should pay for reducing emissions, while the marketplace determines how much actually gets reduced. 

In one sense, preference for a carbon tax or a tradeable permit system depends on how one views the uncertainty of costs involved and benefits to be received. The options discussed here represent a continuum between alternatives focused on the price side of the equation (e.g., carbon taxes) through hybrid schemes (e.g., safety valves) to alternatives focused on the quantity side (e.g., banking and borrowing). They are tools to assist in the assessment of potential greenhouse gas reduction approaches, leaving any policy decision on balancing the price-quantity issue to the ultimate decision makers. 


Date of Report: January 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: RL33799
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Anaerobic Digestion: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Energy Generation

Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy


Anaerobic digestion technology may help to address two congressional concerns that have some measure of interdependence: development of clean energy sources and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Anaerobic digestion technology breaks down a feedstock—usually manure from livestock operations—to produce a variety of outputs including methane. An anaerobic digestion system may reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it captures the methane from manure that might otherwise be released into the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. The technology may contribute to the development of clean energy because the captured methane can be used as an energy source to produce heat or generate electricity. 

Anaerobic digestion technology has been implemented sparingly, with 125 anaerobic digestion systems operating nationwide. Some barriers to adoption include high capital costs, questions about reliability, and varying payment rates for the electricity generated by anaerobic digestion systems. Two sources of federal financial assistance that may make the technology more attractive are the Section 9007 Rural Energy for America Program of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246), and the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (26 U.S.C. §45). 

Congress could decide to encourage development and use of the technology by (1) identifying the primary technology benefit, so as to determine whether it should be pursued in the framework of greenhouse gas emission reduction or clean energy development; (2) determining if the captured methane will count as a carbon offset; and (3) considering additional financing options for the technology. 

This report provides information on anaerobic digestion systems, technology adoption, challenges to widespread implementation, and policy interventions that could affect adoption of the technology.


Date of Report: January 4, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R40667
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

The International Whaling Convention and Legal Issues Related to Aboriginal Rights

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney


The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has 88 members divided almost evenly between countries that condone whaling and those that favor whale conservation. This situation leads to contentious votes and accusations that decisions are not based on science but on politics, in particular, whether or not a country favors whaling. Congress has issued legislation to push U.S. policy onto the IWC. One area of contention is the right of aboriginal groups to hunt whales. Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits are set by the IWC for aboriginal peoples in four countries. Quotas for certain whales are set for the following countries: United States (bowhead and gray); Denmark (Greenland) (fin and minke); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (humpback); and Russia (gray). 

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (the Convention) has addressed aboriginal whaling since it was signed December 2, 1946, by the United States and 14 other countries. Aboriginal whaling is also governed in the United States for Alaska Natives by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Makah Tribe (in the State of Washington) has separate legal rights to whale. Generally speaking, whaling by aboriginal peoples is allowed under U.S. law to the extent it does not conflict with the Convention. Compliance with U.S. law and the Convention depends on the types and numbers of whales and on where and when they are killed. The Convention limits how many bowhead or gray whales aboriginal groups may harvest. However, no domestic law restricts harvest numbers on whales except specific regulations under the ESA or MMPA (provided the harvest is for nonwasteful subsistence use). 

Legislation in the 111th Congress has addressed ending all non-aboriginal whaling, including scientific whaling (H.R. 2455); and would make the U.S. representative to the IWC a federal employee (H.R. 2955). Previous Congresses have addressed whaling in general, and aboriginal whaling in particular. Legislation, primarily in the form of concurrent resolutions, has been drafted in four categories: protesting commercial, scientific, or community (non-aboriginal) whaling; ensuring aboriginal whaling rights; providing a tax break for aboriginal whaling captains; or addressing the United States' policy at the annual meetings of the IWC. 


Date of Report: January 4, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R40571
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the111th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney


The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543) has been one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline. The most common cause of species listing is habitat loss. ESA is considered a primary driver of large-scale ecosystem restoration issues. 

The 111th Congress has considered whether to revoke ESA regulations promulgated in the waning days of the Bush Administration that would alter when federal agency consultation is required. In addition, legislation related to global climate change includes provisions that would allocate funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program and/or to related funds to assist species adaptation to climate change. Other major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision-making, critical habitat (CH) designation, protection by and incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection of listed species, among others. 

The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none was enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th Congress to reauthorize the ESA. 

This report discusses oversight issues and legislation introduced in the 111th Congress to address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.


Date of Report: January 4, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R40185
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Is Revisited by the Supreme Court: Rapanos v. United States

Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy


In 1985 and 2001, the Supreme Court grappled with issues as to the geographic scope of the wetlands permitting program in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In 2006, the Supreme Court rendered a third decision, Rapanos v. United States, on appeal from two Sixth Circuit rulings. The Sixth Circuit rulings offered the Court a chance to clarify the reach of CWA jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent only to nonnavigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters—including tributaries such as drainage ditches and canals that may flow intermittently. (Jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters was established in one of the two earlier decisions.) 

The Court's decision provided little clarification, however, splitting 4-1-4. The four-justice plurality decision, by Justice Scalia, said that the CWA covers only wetlands connected to relatively permanent bodies of water (streams, rivers, lakes) by a continuous surface connection. Justice Kennedy, writing alone, demanded a substantial nexus between the wetland and a traditional navigable water, using an ambiguous ecological test. Justice Stevens, for the four dissenters, would have upheld the existing broad reach of Corps of Engineers/EPA regulations. Because no rationale commanded the support of a majority of the justices, lower courts are extracting different rules of decision from Rapanos for resolving future cases. Corps/EPA guidance issued in December 2008 says that a wetland generally is jurisdictional if it satisfies either the plurality or Kennedy tests. The ambiguity of the Rapanos decision and questions about the agencies' guidance have increased pressure on Congress to provide clarification. In the 111th Congress, legislation intended to do so has been approved by a Senate committee (S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act). 

The legal and policy questions associated with Rapanos—regarding the outer geographic limit of CWA jurisdiction and the consequences of restricting that scope—have challenged regulators, landowners and developers, and policymakers for more than 30 years. The answer may determine the reach of CWA regulatory authority not only for the wetlands permitting program but also for other CWA programs; the CWA has one definition of "navigable waters" that applies to the entire law. 

While regulators and the regulated community debate the legal dimensions of federal jurisdiction under the CWA, scientists contend that there are no discrete, scientifically supportable boundaries or criteria along the continuum of wetlands to separate them into meaningful ecological or hydrological compartments. Wetland scientists believe that all such waters are critical for protecting the integrity of waters, habitat, and wildlife downstream. Changes in the limits of federal jurisdiction highlight the role of states in protecting waters not addressed by federal law. From the states' perspective, federal programs provide a baseline for consistent, minimum standards to regulate wetlands and other waters. Most states are either reluctant or unable to take steps to protect non-jurisdictional waters through legislative or administrative action. 
.


Date of Report: January 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: RL33263
Price: $29.99

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.   

Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy


This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA's efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in November 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. 

FIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act. 

Five federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. Two other pending cases involve the use of pesticides for mosquito control. In these cases, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet addressed whether the application of FIFRA-approved pesticides requires a CWA discharge permit. 

The judicial rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed by many to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in November 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA's actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule, although some would like to see its application broadened to include pesticide drift. The EPA rule was challenged, and in January 2009 a federal court vacated the regulation. Several industry groups petitioned for a rehearing by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while the federal government asked the court to stay for two years, until April 2011, the order vacating the exemption, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the government's request for a two-year delay. Industry groups have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. 

Some believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. Legislation intended to do so by codifying EPA's policy in law was introduced in the 109th Congress, but it was not enacted. For now, it is unclear whether these issues will receive new attention in the 111th Congress.


Date of Report: January 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RL32884
Price: $29.99

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.  

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change: Science and Emerging Technologies

Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Without radical changes globally from current policies and economic trajectories, experts uniformly expect that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will continue to grow and lead to continued warming of the Earth's climate. Experts disagree, however, on the timing, magnitude and patterns of future climate changes. While important uncertainties remain concerning future climate change and its impacts, many experts are convinced that the evidence calls for U.S. action to abate GHG emissions. The economic stakes are potentially large—with both the costs of controls and the "costs of inaction" ranging, by some estimates, into trillions of dollars over several decades. 

Most in Congress support continued research on climate change science, both to expand knowledge and to support decision-making. Many have concluded that the scientific foundation for policy decisions regarding climate change is robust. Some support reassessment of the utility of various lines of inquiry and of priorities within the research program, with greater inclusion of private and public users of the science in priority-setting. One challenge is how to transition research activities into on-going programmatic operations, such as for Earth observations. Another is improving coherence and accessibility of research and observations, as might be accomplished through proposed national climate services (akin to the National Weather Service). Data archiving and management has been a growing priority as information accumulates and attention to the climate change issue increases demand for access to data from a wide array of users. 

In recent years, research has expanded rapidly on technologies that may help to mitigate greenhouse gases and slow climate change. This also helps to address one significant obstacle to consensus—concern about the potential costs of abating GHG emissions, since deep reductions would require extraordinary changes in energy use and technologies. Many in Congress are interested in existing and innovative mitigation technologies, such as solar and wind generation; biochar and other methods of biological sequestration; biofuels; carbon capture and sequestration; methane capture and reuse; etc. As climate change progresses and threatens to accelerate or cause catastrophic impacts, more interest is being given to "geo-engineering" solutions, that may manipulate massive parts of Earth's systems, such as the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation, or large-scale vegetation change, with benefits and ancillary implications that have yet to be explored. Some technologies may present opportunities to expand manufacturing and employment; some may also be subject to significant international trade and competition. Many efforts in technology development, deployment and cost reductions would also benefit from targeted international efforts. 

Congress appropriations several billion dollars for science and technology relating to climate change, and President Obama has proposed to raise these investments by an order of magnitude. Difficult policy questions include appropriate government versus private roles; which policy tools may be most efficient and effective in stimulating desired change; how much and under what conditions to collaborate internationally on advancing technologies; and the interactions between GHG reduction policies and rates of technological advance.


Date of Report: January 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS41021
Price: $19.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881. 

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change: International Dimensions

Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


The debate in Congress about whether and how to address climate change inevitably concerns appropriate actions of the United States in a global context. The United States has contributed more to the historical accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere than any other country, and is the second greatest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, having been surpassed in 2007 by China. The greatest growth in GHG emissions is expected from countries, such as China, India and Brazil, that historically have contributed less, currently emit much less per person, and in many cases lack the requisite economic or institutional capabilities to address the problem. Concerted global action will be needed to stabilize GHG concentrations, since emissions come from all countries. 

A variety of international efforts support cooperative action to address climate change. Global observations of the climate, and research on sources and consequences of climate change, have proceeded for decades. Work has advanced to develop and disseminate technologies and capacities to reduce GHG and to adapt to expected changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided an international forum for experts to assess all peerreviewed information and to provide a scientific basis for political decision-making on mitigation and adaptation. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) has been the international framework for legally binding cooperation to address greenhouse gas emissions, including those from deforestation and forest degradation. It also commits Parties to promote and help finance adaptation to potential adverse impacts of climate change. 

Projected GHG emissions, and related climate change, are expected to have greatest impacts in regions and on people that already experience challenging climates—such as in Africa, indigenous peoples of the far north and the Amazon, and people dependent on snow-fed water supply and who are in drought-prone areas. In the longer-run, rising sea levels are projected to become existential threats, for example to Bangladesh and other low-lying and small island states. Potential impacts hold implications for demand for future foreign aid, migratory pressures, and, if other options fail, international conflict. On the other hand, adaptation actions could be taken internationally that enhance development and security. 

International challenges include how to promote economic development while diminishing climate change risks, and how to act without unduly shifting trade competitiveness or emissions to other locations ("leakage"). All these issues are debated internationally under the UNFCCC, in bilateral relationships, and in the U.S. Congress. While many in Congress seek to exert U.S. leadership and to demonstrate willingness to address climate change, many are concerned with potential costs of further obligations of a treaty or other form of agreement, such as those pursued in the "Copenhagen" negotiations. A particular concern regards parity of actions and trade competitiveness effects among countries, with related debate over the consistency of possible remedial measures, such as free allowances and tariffs, with international trade obligations. Additional issues include the compatibility of any international agreement with U.S. domestic policies and laws; the adequacy of appropriations, fiscal measures, and programs to achieve any commitments under an agreement; and the desirable form of any agreement and related requirements, with a view toward potential Senate ratification of the agreement and federal legislation to assure that U.S. commitments are met.


Date of Report: January 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS41020
Price: $19.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Climate Change: Impacts, Mitigation, and Adaptation

Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Without radical changes globally from current policies and economic trajectories, experts uniformly expect that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will continue to grow and lead to continued warming of the Earth's climate. GHG emissions released now will induce climate changes for centuries. Regions that now are dry are likely to get drier, while regions that now are wet, are likely to get wetter. Extreme precipitation and droughts are expected to become more frequent. Experts project that warming ocean waters will expand, and melting glaciers and ice sheets will add to sea level rise. The Arctic Ocean could become free of pack ice in summers within a few decades. Changes in ocean circulation could reduce ocean productivity and alter continental climates. Abrupt changes in the state of the climate system could occur, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. These have implications for virtually all activities and sectors, including agriculture and forestry, water supply and other infrastructure, insurance, public health, emergency management; and security. 

Experts agree that climate change, in the near term, will create both those who gain (e.g., agricultural producers in cool to moderate and wet climates) and those who will suffer (e.g., agricultural producers in hot and dry climates). Some people are likely to experience such radical changes in their climate that their current ways of life—and possibly their locales—become unsustainable. Some people will have the resources to migrate and adapt successfully—even profit from new opportunities that will emerge—while others could lose livelihoods or lives. Embodied in any debate over climate change and what to do to promote successful adaptation, and how to address the potential inequities of policies to mitigate or to adapt to climate change. 

A growing set of legislative proposals and international actions aim to promote understanding of climate change impacts, and to stimulate adaptation to climate change. Policy options include: 

• improved research and characterization of climate variability, potential change, and implications for different sectors and ecosystems; 

• public information, both broad and targeted to specific risks; 

• development of practical tools to assist decision-makers for their areas of operation (e.g., water management, infrastructure engineering, disease vector prediction, federal or state policy, etc.); 

• financial or regulatory incentives to reduce risks (e.g., to discourage construction in vulnerable flood plains and coastal zones, to encourage insurers to include climate change risks in their premium schedules, etc.); 

• improved emergency planning, etc.; and 

• acquisition of key assets, such as easements in coastal zones or lands along wildlife migratory routes, that may be valuable for long-term adaptation. 

Controversies include the relative priority to give to adaptation versus mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; the appropriate roles of governments at various levels; how much effort and funding to devote to impacts research and adaptation; who should pay; and how to make adaptation efforts most efficient.


Date of Report: January 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS41019
Price: $19.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881. 


 

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard

Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy


The U.S. Coast Guard's (USCG's) environmental activities focus on prevention programs, accompanied by enforcement and educational activities. An important component is maritime oil spill prevention, which includes inspection of U.S. and foreign-flagged ships to ensure compliance with U.S. laws and international agreements. As required by the Oil Pollution Act and the Superfund law, the USCG's pollution preparedness and response activities aim to reduce the impact of oil and hazardous substances spills. USCG's National Pollution Funds Center manages the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, paying certain spill-related costs and certifying that vessels show evidence of financial responsibility. Another prevention effort, minimizing marine debris, addresses commercial items (e.g., lost nets and fishing lines), as well as trash from recreational fishing and boating (e.g., beverage cans, bottles, and pieces of foam plastic).


Date of Report: January 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22145
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Greenhouse Gases: Control and Mitigation

Jane A. Leggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


In the 111th Congress, leadership in both chambers have announced priorities to pass bills to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These intentions are indicative of the pressures Members of Congress increasingly face on whether and how to address human-induced climate change. Contentious debates scrutinize issues of science, economics, values, geopolitics and a host of other concerns. Deliberations also weigh the appropriateness of alternative policy tools and program designs. The economic stakes are potentially large—with both the costs of controls and the "costs of inaction" ranging, by some estimates, into trillions of dollars over several decades. 

In the absence of economy-wide federal legislation aimed at controlling GHG emissions, states and localities have established policies, regulations, and financial incentives. Sometimes these efforts are regionally coordinated, or facilitated through national and international networks. In addition, litigation has proliferated to try to force actions through existing laws. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that as to mobile sources of emissions (cars, trucks), EPA has authority under the act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This decision puts pressure on EPA to move forward as well with regulation of GHGs from stationary sources (power plants, factories). Other suits have been pursued under the Endangered Species Act, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others. Common law tort theories such as nuisance have been invoked, not yet successfully, to force cutbacks in GHG emissions, or payment of damages. Several cases are on appeal. Actions in statehouses and courthouses increase the pressure on Congress to enact an intentional framework to address climate change—both mitigation and adaptation. 

For decision-makers considering climate change legislation, an assortment of policy instruments is available; studies suggest that a combination could be most effective in achieving various climate policy objectives. Current policy attention has focused on "cap and trade" strategies to reduce GHG emissions, with additional policy tools aimed at promoting the technology development considered necessary to slow climate change significantly. In parallel, growing attention is being given to supporting adaptations to expected future changes, as well as to strategies to gain effective international engagement in reducing GHG. One significant obstacle to consensus is concern about the potential costs of abating GHG emissions, since deep reductions would require extraordinary changes in energy use and technologies. Studies suggest that efficiently designed programs could moderate the costs of reducing GHG emissions; technically and politically, though, an "efficiently designed" program may not be realistic. Policy options can ease the adjustments required and modify the distribution of costs—or potential wealth embodied in distribution of emission allowances—across specific sectors or populations. A core challenge of policy design, then, is balancing the climate effectiveness of a policy, the economic costs, and its distributional effects.


Date of Report: January 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS41015
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Perspectives on the Top 20 Emitters and Developed Versus Developing Nations

Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

John Blodgett
Specialist in Environmental Policy


Using the World Resources Institute (WRI) database on greenhouse gas emissions and related data, this report examines two issues. The first issue is the separate treatment of developed and developing nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Copenhagen Accord. This distinction has been a pivotal issue affecting U.S. climate change policy. The second issue is the difficulty of addressing climate change through limiting greenhouse gas emissions to a specified percentage of baseline emissions (typically 1990). The data permit examination of alternative approaches, such as focusing on per capita emissions or the greenhouse gas emission intensity (measured as emissions per unit of economic activity). Key findings include: 

• A few countries account for most greenhouse gas emissions: in 2005, China led by emitting 19% of the world total, followed closely by the United States with 18%; no other country reached 6%; the top eight emitters (those emitting 2% or more of total emissions) accounted for 58% of the 185 nations' emissions. 

• Land-use effects (e.g., deforestation) on emissions are negligible for most nations, but they cause emissions to rise sharply for certain developing nations, most notably Brazil and Indonesia. 

• While countries whose economies are dominated by oil and gas production have the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions, in general developed nations rank high in per capita emissions (in 2005, Australia, the United States, and Canada ranked 6, 9, and 10, respectively, in the world), while developing nations tend to rank low (China, Brazil, Indonesia, and India ranked 81, 84, 117, and 148, respectively). 

• The greenhouse intensity of the economy—the metric by which the George W. Bush Administration addressed climate change, and by which China has proposed to set its objectives under the Copenhagen Accord—varies substantially among developed countries (in 2005, not accounting for land use, Ukraine emitted 512 tons/million international $GDP, while France emitted 80 tons/million $GDP, with the United States at 153 tons/million $GDP; developing nations range from the 136 (Mexico) to 372 (China). 

• The time frame adopted for defining the climate change issue and for taking actions to address greenhouse gas emissions has differential impacts on individual nations, as a result of individual resource endowments (e.g., coal versus natural gas and hydropower) and stage of economic development (e.g., conversion of forest land to agriculture occurring before or after the baseline). 

Differentiating responsibilities between developed and developing nations—as the UNFCCC does—has failed to engage some of the largest emitters effectively. Moreover, many developed countries have not achieved stabilization of their emissions despite the UNFCCC. Given the wide range of situations illustrated by the data, a flexible strategy that allows each country to play to its strengths may be necessary if diverse countries like the United States and China are ever to reach agreement. The difficulty in finding a common strategy was evidenced by the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting, which set a climate change objective of holding global warming to less than 2 degrees C but then left up to each country the choice of how to address emissions.


Date of Report: January 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: RL32721
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.   

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues

Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy


The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help public water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations and to meet the act's health objectives. Under the program, states receive capitalization grants to make loans to public water systems (privately and publicly owned) for drinking water projects and certain other SDWA activities. Since FY1997, Congress has provided more than $13 billion for this program, including $2 billion in stimulus funding. Through June 2008, the DWSRF program had provided a total of $14.6 billion in assistance and supported 6,177 projects. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) latest (2007) survey of capital improvement needs for public water systems indicated that water systems need to invest $334.8 billion on infrastructure improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe water. EPA reports that this amount is similar to the 2003 needs estimate of $276.8 billion ($331.4 billion when adjusted to 2007 dollars). The survey reflects continued improvement in reporting of needs for infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement, and also funding needs related to compliance with several revised regulations and security-related needs. 

Key issues related to the DWSRF program include the gap between estimated needs and funding; the growing cost of complying with SDWA standards, particularly for small communities; the ability of small or economically disadvantaged communities to afford DWSRF financing; and the broader need for cities to maintain, upgrade, and expand infrastructure unrelated to SDWA compliance. 

In the 111th Congress, drinking water infrastructure funding generally, and the DWSRF program specifically, have received attention. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5, H.Rept. 111-16) provided $2 billion for the DWSRF program for drinking water infrastructure projects, and $4 billion for a similar Clean Water SRF that funds municipal wastewater infrastructure projects. Under the DWSRF program, the stimulus funds are being allocated as capitalization grants to the states, which then provide financial assistance (subsidized loans and grants) to public water systems for infrastructure projects. The conference report modifies several program practices for projects receiving stimulus funds. The 111th Congress also completed FY2009 appropriations work with the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which included $829 million for the DWSRF program, and provided another $1.387 billion for the program for FY2010 in P.L. 111-88. In May, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported, amended, S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, which would authorize $14.7 billion over five years for this program.


Date of Report: January 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: RS22037
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.    

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

National Forest System (NFS)Roadless Area Initiatives

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy



Roadless areas in the National Forest System (NFS) have received special attention for decades. Many want to protect their relatively pristine condition—to provide habitat for wildlife, to protect water quality and aesthetics, and to retain their value for dispersed recreation. Others want to use the areas in more developed ways—to explore for and develop minerals (including oil and gas), to harvest timber, and to provide opportunities for motorized recreation or developed recreation. 

Two different roadless area policies have been offered in the last decade. On January 12, 2001, the Clinton Administration's roadless area policy established a nationwide approach to managing roadless areas in the National Forest System to protect their pristine conditions. The Nationwide Rule, as it will be called in this report, generally prohibited road construction and reconstruction and timber harvesting in 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas, with significant exceptions. 

The Bush Administration initially postponed the effective date of the Nationwide Rule, then issued its own rule. It asked for public comment on key questions for managing roadless areas, and issued new interim directives for managing roadless areas. These efforts led to a new rule on May 13, 2005. The State Petition Rule allowed governors to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for a special rule for managing the inventoried roadless areas in their state and to make recommendations for that management. Several states filed petitions; those of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, and Colorado were approved. The petitions of New Mexico and California were halted when the State Petition Rule was enjoined. 

In 2001, the federal District Court for Idaho preliminarily enjoined implementation of the Nationwide Rule, but was reversed by the Ninth Circuit. In 2003, the federal District Court for Wyoming permanently enjoined implementation of the Nationwide Rule. This holding was dismissed as moot by the Tenth Circuit in light of the 2005 State Petition Rule. In 2006, the federal District Court for Northern California enjoined the State Petition Rule until the Administration had complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. The court directed the Administration to apply the Nationwide Rule until it had complied with these requirements. Instead, the Administration allowed governors to petition for a roadless area management rule for their state under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Idaho and Colorado petitions were filed under this procedure. The Idaho petition was approved in October 2008. In the meantime, a new lawsuit in Wyoming led to a second injunction of the Nationwide Rule by that district court. To avoid conflicting rulings, the California district court limited its holding (that the Nationwide Rule applied) to the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In August 2009, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court finding that the State Petition Rule was invalid and that the Nationwide Rule should be in place. An appeal is still pending in the Tenth Circuit, although that court's decision could contradict the Ninth Circuit, leading to a conflict between the circuits and potentially creating an issue that can be resolved only by the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress unless the Forest Service (FS) initiates a new rule. 

Legislation was introduced in the 111th Congress to codify the Nationwide Rule by prohibiting building roads in or harvesting timber from areas designated on maps as roadless, with certain exceptions. (S. 1738/H.R. 3692 (111th).)


Date of Report: January 6, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: RL30647
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.    

Perchlorate Contamination of Drinking Water: Regulatory Issues and Legislative Actions

Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy


Perchlorate is the explosive component of solid rocket fuel, fireworks, road flares, and other products. Used heavily by the Department of Defense (DOD) and related industries, perchlorate also occurs naturally and is present in some organic fertilizer. This soluble, persistent compound has been detected in drinking water supplies, especially in California. It also has been found in milk and many foods. Because of this widespread occurrence, concern over the potential health risks of perchlorate exposure has increased, and some states, water utilities, and Members of Congress have urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a federal drinking water standard for this chemical. Regulatory issues have involved the health risk reduction benefits and the costs of federal regulation, including environmental cleanup and water treatment costs, both of which are driven by federal and state standards. 

EPA has spent years assessing perchlorate's health effects and occurrence to determine whether a national standard is warranted. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has supported this effort by testing produce and other foods for the presence of perchlorate. Interagency disagreements over the risks of perchlorate exposure led several federal agencies to ask the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate perchlorate's health effects and EPA's risk analyses. In 2005, the NRC issued its report, and EPA adopted the NRC's recommended reference dose (i.e., the expected safe dose) for perchlorate exposure. Subsequent studies raised more concerns about the potential effects of low-level exposures, particularly for infants in certain cases. 

In October 2008, EPA made a preliminary determination not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. Then, in early January 2009, the agency announced that it again would seek advice from the NRC before making a final determination. EPA also announced that it was replacing the preliminary remediation goal for perchlorate of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb) with an interim health advisory, which contains a value of 15 ppb. 

In August 2009, the EPA Administrator announced that the agency would reevaluate the science regarding perchlorate's potential health effects, with particular emphasis on evaluating the effects of perchlorate exposure on infants and young children. The agency determined not to ask the NRC to conduct further review of issues related to perchlorate, having concluded that additional NRC review would unnecessarily delay the regulatory decision-making process. EPA intends to consider public comments before making a final regulatory determination. Legislation (H.R. 3206) has been introduced to require EPA to promulgate a drinking water standard for perchlorate. This report reviews perchlorate contamination issues and related developments.


Date of Report: January 11, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS21961
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

A U.S.-centric Chronology of the International Climate Change Negotiations

Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy


Under the 2007 "Bali Action Plan," countries around the globe sought to reach a "Copenhagen agreement" in December 2009 on effective, feasible, and fair actions beyond 2012 to address risks of climate change driven by human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The Copenhagen conference was beset by strong differences among countries, however, and (beyond technical decisions) achieved only mandates to continue negotiating toward the next Conference of the Parties (COP) to be held in Mexico City in December 2010. The COP also "took note of" (not adopting) a "Copenhagen Accord," agreed among the United States and additional countries (notably including China), which reflects compromises on some key actions. 

As background to the ongoing negotiations, this document provides a U.S.-centric chronology of the international policy deliberations to address climate change from 1979-2009. It begins before agreement on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, and proceeds through the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Marrakesh Accords of 2001, the Bali Action Plan of 2007, and the Copenhagen conference in 2009. The Bali Action Plan mandated the Copenhagen negotiations on commitments for the period beyond 2012, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends. This chronology identifies selected external events and major multilateral meetings that have influenced the current legal and institutional arrangements, as well as contentious issues for further cooperation. 

Negotiations underway since 2007 have run on two tracks: one under the Kyoto Protocol (which is subsidiary to the Convention), to extend commitments of developed, Annex I, Parties beyond 2012. This track excludes the United States, which is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol and has said it will not join the Protocol. The second track proceeds directly under the Convention under the Bali Action Plan and focuses on five primary elements: a "shared vision" for reducing global GHG emissions by around 2050; mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; adaptation to impacts of climate change; financial assistance to low income countries; and technology development and diffusion. Among the most difficult issues have been provisions for mutual assurance of compliance among Parties through measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of GHG emissions and removals, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, and financial and technical support from the wealthiest countries for adaptation, technology, and capacity-building. Some progress has been made on arrangements to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus). However, Parties did not reach consensus in Copenhagen on any of these elements, and the mandates for negotiation on the two tracks have been extended into 2010. The Copenhagen Accord may represent a supplemental or alternative track. Currently, the way forward remains unclear. 

Many in the U.S. Congress are concerned with the goals and obligations that a treaty or other form of agreement might embody. A particular concern regards parity of actions and trade competitiveness effects among countries. For U.S. legislators, additional issues include the compatibility of any international agreement with U.S. domestic policies and laws; the adequacy of appropriations, fiscal measures, and programs to achieve any commitments under the agreement; and the desirable form of the agreement and related requirements, with a view toward potential Senate ratification of the agreement and federal legislation to assure that U.S. commitments are met.


Date of Report: January 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R40001
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.