Search Penny Hill Press

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview


James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

As the 113
th Congress continues consideration of air quality issues, oversight of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory actions is expected to remain the main focus. Of particular interest are EPA’s Clean Air Act regulations on emissions of greenhouse gases. President Obama’s June 25 announcement of initiatives to address climate change and EPA’s subsequent (September 20) proposal of GHG emission standards for new fossil-fueled power plants sparked renewed interest in the issue.

Air quality has improved substantially in the United States in the 40 years of EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation. According to the agency’s science advisers and others, however, more needs to be done to protect public health and the environment from the effects of air pollution. Thus, the agency continues to promulgate regulations using authority given it by Congress in CAA amendments more than 20 years ago. Members of Congress from both parties have raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of some of these regulations and/or whether the agency has exceeded statutory authority in promulgating them. Others in Congress have supported EPA, noting that the Clean Air Act, often affirmed in court decisions, has authorized or required the agency’s actions.

EPA’s regulatory actions on GHG emissions have been the main focus of congressional interest in 2013. Although the Obama Administration has consistently said it would prefer that Congress pass new legislation to address climate change, such legislation now appears unlikely. Instead, over the last four years, EPA has developed GHG emission standards using its existing CAA authority. Relying on a finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, the agency promulgated GHG emission standards for cars and light trucks on May 7, 2010, and again on October 15, 2012, and for larger trucks on September 15, 2011. The implementation of these standards, in turn, triggered permitting and Best Available Control Technology requirements for new major stationary sources of GHGs (power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc.).

It is the triggering of standards and permit requirements for stationary sources that has raised the most concern in Congress. A proposal to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants is the focus of attention currently, but other sources (refineries, cement plants, etc.) could be subject to GHG emission controls under the same statutory authority. In addition to the proposed standards for new power plants, the President has directed EPA to develop standards for existing power plants by June 2015. Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate aimed at preventing EPA from implementing such requirements. The House passed several of these bills in the 112
th Congress, but none passed the Senate. Meanwhile, EPA has implemented permit and Best Available Control Technology requirements for new stationary sources of GHGs. A challenge to these requirements will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2014.

Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of other air pollution regulations, generally in response to court actions remanding previous rules. Remanded rules included 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. Other remanded rules included hazardous air pollutant standards for boilers and cement kilns. EPA also recently proposed a controversial rule to lower the sulfur content of gasoline, in conjunction with tighter (“Tier3”) standards for motor vehicle emissions.

Date of Report: November 4, 2013
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R42895
Price: $29.95


To Order:


R42895 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, 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

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Regulations: Background and Legislation in the 113th Congress


Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy

In 1970, Congress enacted legislation directing the President to promulgate oil spill prevention and response regulations. This presidential authority was delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by President Nixon in 1970. In 1973, EPA issued Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations that require applicable facilities to prevent, prepare, and respond to oil discharges that may reach navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. Among other obligations, SPCC regulations require secondary containment (e.g., dikes or berms) for certain oil-storage units. In addition, SPCC plans must generally be certified by a licensed Professional Engineer.

In recent years, the SPCC regulations have received considerable interest from Congress. Most of this interest has involved the applicability of SPCC regulations to farms, which account for approximately 25% of SPCC regulated entities, second only to oil and gas production facilities. Farms may be subject to the SPCC regulations, because they store oil onsite for agricultural equipment use.

In 2002, EPA issued a final rule that made changes and clarifications to its SPCC regulations. The compliance date for this rule was extended on multiple occasions. For most types of facilities subject to SPCC requirements, the compliance deadline was November 10, 2011. However, EPA extended this compliance date for farms to May 10, 2013. Related to this deadline, Congress enacted P.L. 113-6 on March 26, 2013, which included a provision prohibiting EPA from using appropriations to enforce SPCC provisions at farms for 180 days after enactment (i.e., through September 22, 2013).

In addition, some Members in the 113
th Congress have offered multiple proposals that include provisions that would alter the scope and applicability of the SPCC regulations. All of these provisions would revise the applicability to farms under the SPCC regulations. In general, the bills’ provisions would alter the aggregate oil storage threshold that triggers compliance with SPCC regulations. Such provisions are included in the House version of the farm bill (H.R. 2642) and the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 (S. 601).

The argument in support of recent SPCC legislation often concerns the financial impact of the SPCC regulations to farms. For example, a 2012 House report stated that the “mandated infrastructure improvements—along with the necessary inspection and certification by a specially licensed Professional Engineer will cost many farmers tens of thousands of dollars.” However, others have argued that EPA has considered the costs and benefits of its SPCC regulations during multiple rulemaking processes.

Date of Report: November 14, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R43306
Price: $29.95


To Order:



R43306 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, 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

Monday, November 25, 2013

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


Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy

In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996, Congress 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 this program, states receive annual capitalization grants to provide financial assistance (primarily subsidized loans) to public water systems for drinking water projects and other specified activities. Through June 2012, Congress had provided $14.7 billion for the DWSRF program, and combined with the 20% state match, bond proceeds, and other funds, the program generated $23.6 billion in assistance and supported 9,990 projects.

The latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) survey of capital improvement needs for public water systems indicates that these water systems need to invest $384.2 billion on infrastructure improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe tap water. EPA reports that, although all of the identified projects promote the public health objectives of the SDWA, just $42.0 billion (10.9%) of reported needs are attributable to SDWA compliance.

Key program issues 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. Several overarching policy questions are under debate, including, “What is the appropriate federal role in providing financial assistance for local water infrastructure projects?” and “What other funding mechanisms could supplement or replace a program reliant on annual appropriations?”

In recent appropriations acts, Congress has added new conditions to assistance provided through the DWSRF program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA;
P.L. 111- 5) provided $2 billion in supplemental funding through the DWSRF program for drinking water infrastructure projects. ARRA applied Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and “Buy American” requirements to projects receiving any ARRA DWSRF funding, and required that 20% of the funds be reserved for “green” projects. For FY2012, Congress provided $917.9 million for the DWSRF program (P.L. 112-74). In the act, Congress made the green infrastructure reserve discretionary, but expanded the application of Davis-Bacon requirements to the DWSRF program to include FY2012 and all future years.

For FY2013, the President requested $850 million for the program. Under the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (
P.L. 113-6), EPA planned to allocate $861.3 million for the program, after accounting for rescission and sequestration reductions. The President has requested $817 million for FY2014.

The 113
th Congress is considering alternative financing approaches for water infrastructure. The Senate passed S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013. Title X of this bill, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2013, would establish a pilot loan guarantee program to test the ability of innovative financing tools to promote increased development of, and private investment in, water infrastructure projects. The bill states that it is intended to complement, not replace, the SRF programs. S. 335, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2013, would establish a financing program at EPA to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for a range of water infrastructure and water resource management projects.

Date of Report: November 4, 2013
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RS22037
Price: $29.95


To Order:


RS22037 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, 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