James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Although air quality has improved substantially in the United States in the 40 years of EPA’s Clean Air Act regulation, many issues remain unresolved, and, in recent months, members of Congress from both parties have raised questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of, and authority for, EPA actions. This report focuses on three general areas of likely interest to the 112th Congress: greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, emissions from power plants (including interstate pollution and mercury emissions), and air quality standards.
EPA regulatory actions on GHG emissions using existing Clean Air Act authority have been the main focus of congressional interest in clean air issues in recent months. Although the Obama Administration and EPA spokespersons have consistently said that they would prefer that Congress pass legislation to address climate change, EPA has begun to develop regulations using its existing authority. On December 15, 2009, the agency finalized an “endangerment finding” under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which requires it to regulate pollutants for their effect as greenhouse gases for the first time. Relying on this finding, EPA finalized GHG emission standards for cars and light trucks on April 1, 2010. The implementation of these standards will, in turn, trigger permitting requirements and the imposition of Best Available Control Technology for new major stationary sources of GHGs beginning in January 2011.
It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources (power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc.) that has raised the most concern in Congress: legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate in the 111th Congress—but not enacted—aimed at preventing EPA from implementing these requirements, and similar legislation can be expected in the 112th. The legislation has taken several forms, including resolutions of disapproval for EPA regulatory actions under the Congressional Review Act, and stand-alone legislation that would forestall specific EPA regulations. Meanwhile, EPA has itself promulgated regulations and guidance delaying the applicability of requirements for stationary sources and focusing its regulatory efforts on the largest emitters while granting smaller sources at least a six-year reprieve.
EPA’s GHG regulatory actions came as the 111th Congress struggled with climate change and energy legislation. The House narrowly passed a bill establishing a comprehensive GHG regulatory program (H.R. 2454), but comparable legislation (S. 1733 and S. 1462) did not reach the Senate floor.
Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of air pollutant regulations, generally in response to the courts. Several Bush Administration regulatory decisions were vacated or remanded to the agency: among them, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Rule—rules designed to control the long-range transport of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants through cap-and-trade programs. EPA will address these court decisions through new regulations—the agency proposed a replacement for CAIR July 6, 2010, and is expected to propose regulations for power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants in March 2011. Some in Congress have wanted to address these issues through legislation, an approach that might reduce the likelihood of further court challenges. The agency is also in the midst of reviewing ambient air quality standards for the six most widespread air pollutants. These standards serve as EPA’s definition of clean air, and drive a wide range of regulatory controls.
Date of Report: January 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41563
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Although air quality has improved substantially in the United States in the 40 years of EPA’s Clean Air Act regulation, many issues remain unresolved, and, in recent months, members of Congress from both parties have raised questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of, and authority for, EPA actions. This report focuses on three general areas of likely interest to the 112th Congress: greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, emissions from power plants (including interstate pollution and mercury emissions), and air quality standards.
EPA regulatory actions on GHG emissions using existing Clean Air Act authority have been the main focus of congressional interest in clean air issues in recent months. Although the Obama Administration and EPA spokespersons have consistently said that they would prefer that Congress pass legislation to address climate change, EPA has begun to develop regulations using its existing authority. On December 15, 2009, the agency finalized an “endangerment finding” under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which requires it to regulate pollutants for their effect as greenhouse gases for the first time. Relying on this finding, EPA finalized GHG emission standards for cars and light trucks on April 1, 2010. The implementation of these standards will, in turn, trigger permitting requirements and the imposition of Best Available Control Technology for new major stationary sources of GHGs beginning in January 2011.
It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources (power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc.) that has raised the most concern in Congress: legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate in the 111th Congress—but not enacted—aimed at preventing EPA from implementing these requirements, and similar legislation can be expected in the 112th. The legislation has taken several forms, including resolutions of disapproval for EPA regulatory actions under the Congressional Review Act, and stand-alone legislation that would forestall specific EPA regulations. Meanwhile, EPA has itself promulgated regulations and guidance delaying the applicability of requirements for stationary sources and focusing its regulatory efforts on the largest emitters while granting smaller sources at least a six-year reprieve.
EPA’s GHG regulatory actions came as the 111th Congress struggled with climate change and energy legislation. The House narrowly passed a bill establishing a comprehensive GHG regulatory program (H.R. 2454), but comparable legislation (S. 1733 and S. 1462) did not reach the Senate floor.
Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of air pollutant regulations, generally in response to the courts. Several Bush Administration regulatory decisions were vacated or remanded to the agency: among them, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Rule—rules designed to control the long-range transport of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants through cap-and-trade programs. EPA will address these court decisions through new regulations—the agency proposed a replacement for CAIR July 6, 2010, and is expected to propose regulations for power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants in March 2011. Some in Congress have wanted to address these issues through legislation, an approach that might reduce the likelihood of further court challenges. The agency is also in the midst of reviewing ambient air quality standards for the six most widespread air pollutants. These standards serve as EPA’s definition of clean air, and drive a wide range of regulatory controls.
Date of Report: January 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41563
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
