Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico: CRS Experts

Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy

The following table provides access to names and contact information for CRS experts on policy concerns relating to oil spills.


Date of Report: January 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: R40883
Price: $19.95

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.

EPA’s Utility MACT: Will the Lights Go Out?

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

On December 21, 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced final standards aimed at reducing mercury and other air toxics emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) by about 90%. The rule, commonly referred to as the “Utility MACT” or the “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (MATS), has been more than a decade in the making (Congress authorized the standards in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), and it is among the most expensive rules that EPA has ever promulgated. EPA estimates the annualized cost at $9.6 billion in 2015. Industry estimates have been higher.

The benefits are also large, according to EPA, ranging from $37 billion to $90 billion annually. The benefits mostly reflect the monetized value of avoiding up to 11,000 premature deaths annually.

The rule’s costs will fall primarily on older coal-fired units that do not have state-of-the art pollution controls. EPA says that this is a minority of coal-fired plants and an even smaller share of all electric generation: the agency estimates that 56% of coal-fired units have already installed equipment that can be used to meet the standards. In addition, about 55% of the nation’s electricity supply comes from natural gas, nuclear, and renewable sources that are not subject to the rule’s requirements.

This report describes the rule and its potential impact. The report discusses previous EPA efforts to regulate utility mercury emissions, the court decision overturning those regulations, the specifics of the new rule, its estimated costs and benefits, the impact of the rule on electric reliability, and legislation related to it that has been or may be considered in the 112th Congress.

Industry and environmental groups have been keenly interested in both the substance of the rule and the schedule for its implementation, and the House has already passed legislation (H.R. 2401) that would change both. A particular issue has been whether the standards will lead to retirement of a significant number of electric generating units, with negative effects on the reliability of the power supply. EPA and many other analysts maintain that this will not be the case.

To address this question, this report reviews industry data on planning reserve margins and potential retirement of units that do not currently meet the standards. Based on these data, it appears that, although the rule may lead to the retirement or derating of some facilities, almost all of the capacity reductions will occur in areas that have substantial reserve margins. Two areas that may have difficulty meeting reserve margins, Texas and New England, will experience few plant retirements and deratings, according to industry data. Furthermore, to address the reliability concerns expressed by industry, the final rule includes provisions aimed at providing additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution controls or add new capacity to ensure reliability in specific areas. As a result, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by the rule.

Another potential concern, given the rule’s cost, is what impact it may have on the price of electricity. EPA estimates that the average price of electricity nationally will increase by 3.1% by 2015, as a result of the rule. Electricity prices have declined more than 20% in real terms since 1980. The impact of price changes would be relatively small compared to this downward trend, and well within the normal range of historical price fluctuations.


Date of Report: January 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R42144
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.

EPA’s Proposed Vessel General Permits: Background and Issues

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

In November 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to regulate certain types of discharges from vessels into U.S. waters. The proposed permits would replace a single Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued in 2008 that is due to expire in December 2013. As proposed, the permits would apply to approximately 71,000 large domestic and foreign vessels and perhaps as many as 138,000 small vessels. This universe of regulated entities is diverse as well as large, consisting of tankers, freighters, barges, cruise ships and other passenger vessels, and commercial fishing vessels. Their regulated discharges are similarly diverse, including among other pollutants aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, and toxic chemical compounds that can have a broad array of effects on aquatic species and human health, many of which can be harmful.

EPA has proposed two draft permits, one for large vessels to replace the 2008 VGP (draft VGP), and one for smaller vessels that currently are covered by a congressionally enacted temporary moratorium (draft sVGP). Public comments on the draft permits must be submitted by February 21, 2012. EPA expects to take final action by November 2012. By proposing them well in advance of the VGP’s expiration, EPA intends to provide ample time for the regulated community to prepare for the application of new requirements.

The CWA requires that all regulated discharges must meet effluent limitations representing applicable levels of technology-based control. The draft permits largely retain the current permit’s approach of relying on best management practices to control most discharges, because EPA concluded that it is infeasible to develop numeric effluent limits for most controlled discharges. However, the draft VGP for larger vessels includes for the first time numeric ballast water discharge limits, which are consistent with a pending Coast Guard rule and standards in an international convention.

The principal benefits of the permits will be reduced risk of introducing ANS into U.S. waters and enhanced environmental quality resulting from reduced pollutant discharges, but the magnitude of benefits is not calculable, according to EPA. The agency acknowledged significant uncertainty about several assumptions affecting estimated costs of the permits, including the types and extent of discharge control practices currently implemented and the number of vessels expected to implement new practices.

EPA’s proposal raises two key issues. One concerns inclusion of specific numeric ballast water discharge limits in the draft VGP. At issue has been whether EPA would propose more stringent numeric limits, as some environmental groups have favored and a few states have already adopted. A second issue concerns the role of states in regulating vessel discharges.

Congressional interest in this topic has been evident for some time, as reflected in two bills enacted in 2008 to exempt certain vessels from a CWA permit requirement, thus restricting the population of vessels subject to the current VGP. Similar interest is evident in the 112th Congress. A Coast Guard reauthorization bill passed by the House in November 2011 (H.R. 2838) includes provisions to establish a uniform national standard for ballast water discharges, which would supersede EPA and Coast Guard ballast water management requirements, void the VGP, and supersede existing state standards or permits for any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a commercial vessel. Counterpart Senate legislation (S. 1665) has no similar provisions.


Date of Report: January 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R42142
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.

Cars, Trucks, and Climate: EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

In 2011, the Obama Administration took two major steps toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles. On July 29, the White House announced that it had reached agreement with 13 auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, the state of California, and other interested parties under which GHG emissions from new cars and light trucks will be reduced about 50% by 2025, and average fuel economy will rise to nearly 50 miles per gallon. On November 16, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) jointly proposed regulations for those vehicles. In addition, on August 9, EPA and DOT promulgated the first GHG and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty trucks.

These steps have been taken as the Congress (particularly the House) and the Administration have reached an impasse over climate issues. The Administration has made clear that its preference would be for Congress to address the climate issue through new legislation. Nevertheless, in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, it has moved forward on several fronts to define how the CAA will be used and to promulgate regulations.

On April 1, 2010, EPA used its authority (§202 of the CAA) to set the first national GHG emission standards: the standards will control emissions from new cars and light trucks beginning in model year 2012, requiring cars, SUVs, minivans, and other light trucks to meet combined emissions levels that the agency estimates will average 250 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2016, about a 30% reduction in emissions compared to 2010 levels. The standards will be gradually phased in, with the first reduction targets set for model year 2012. As part of an agreement brokered by the White House, EPA’s standards were issued jointly with fuel economy (CAFE) standards developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the state of California agreed to harmonize state-level GHG emission standards, so that the auto industry would have a single national set of standards to meet. In July 2011, the White House announced that it had reached agreement on a second phase of these standards, under which CO2 emissions will be reduced to about 160 grams/mile by 2025. Detailed standards were proposed November 16; a public comment period runs through January 30, 2012.

The key to using the CAA’s authority to control greenhouse gases was for the EPA Administrator to find that GHG emissions are air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. Administrator Jackson promulgated such an endangerment finding in December 2009. With the endangerment finding finalized, the agency can proceed to regulate emissions from motor vehicles of all kinds. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are next in line: EPA proposed GHG emission standards for them October 25, 2010, and finalized them August 9.

In all, EPA has received 11 petitions asking that it make endangerment findings and proceed to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. Ten of the 11 petitions addressed mobile sources: besides motor vehicles, the petitions cover aircraft, ships, nonroad vehicles and engines, locomotives, and fuels, all of which are covered by Title II of the CAA. This report discusses the full range of EPA’s authority under Title II and provides information regarding other mobile sources that might be regulated under this authority, in addition to describing the car and truck regulations.

Regulation of GHGs from mobile sources has led the agency to establish controls for stationary sources, such as electric power plants, as well. Stationary source options, the authority for which comes from different parts of the CAA, are addressed in CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options.


Date of Report: December 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R40506
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.

International Climate Change Financing: The Green Climate Fund (GCF)

Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Over the past several decades, the United States has delivered financial and technical assistance for climate change activities in the developing world through a variety of bilateral and multilateral programs. The United States and other industrialized countries committed to such assistance through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, Treaty Number: 102-38, 1992), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), and the UNFCCC Cancun Agreements (2010), wherein the higher-income countries pledged jointly up to $30 billion of “fast start” climate financing for lower-income countries for the period 2010-2012, and a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020. The Cancun Agreements also proposed that the pledged funds are to be new, additional to previous flows, adequate, predictable, and sustained, and are to come from a wide variety of sources, both public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

One potential mechanism for mobilizing a share of the proposed international climate financing is the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund (GCF), proposed in the Cancun Agreements and accepted by Parties during the December 2011 conference in Durban, South Africa. The fund aims to assist developing countries in their efforts to combat climate change through the provision of grants and other concessional financing for mitigation and adaptation projects, programs, policies, and activities. The GCF is to be capitalized by contributions from donor countries and other sources, including both innovative mechanisms and the private sector. Currently, the GCF complements many of the existing multilateral climate change funds (e.g., the Global Environment Facility, the Climate Investment Funds, the Adaptation Fund); however, as the official financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, some Parties believe that it may eventually replace or subsume the other funds. Many issues remain to be clarified during the initial phases of the fund’s implementation, and some involve long-standing and contentious debate. They include what role the CGF would play in providing sustained finance at scale, how it would fit into the existing development assistance and climate financing architecture, how it would be capitalized, and how it would allocate and deliver assistance efficiently and effectively to developing countries.

The U.S. Congress—through its role in authorizations, appropriations, and oversight—would have significant input on U.S. participation in the GCF. Congress regularly determines and gives guidance to the allocation of foreign aid between bilateral and multilateral assistance as well as among the variety of multilateral mechanisms. In the past, Congress has raised concerns regarding the cost, purpose, direction, efficiency, and effectiveness of the UNFCCC and existing international institutions of climate financing. Potential authorizations and appropriations for the GCF would rest with several committees, including the U.S. House of Representatives Committees on Foreign Affairs (various subcommittees); Financial Services (Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs); and the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations (Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection); and Appropriations (Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs). As of December 2011, the U.S. Administration—through its State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 150 account—has made no budget request for appropriated funds to be contributed to the GCF.


Date of Report: December 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41889
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.