{ "id": "R44341", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44341", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 576874, "date": "2017-12-19", "retrieved": "2017-12-20T15:11:14.576915", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "On October 10, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama Administration rule that would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The action came in response to Executive Order 13783, in which President Trump directed federal agencies to review existing regulations and policies that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Among the E.O.\u2019s specific directives was that EPA review the CPP, which was one of the Obama Administration\u2019s most important actions directed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. \nThe Clean Power Plan was promulgated in August 2015 to reduce GHG emissions from the generation of electric power. Fossil-fueled electric power plants are the largest individual U.S. sources of GHG emissions, accounting for about 29% of the U.S. total from all sources. The rule set individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The targets for each state were derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014efficiency improvements at individual coal-fired power plants and increased use of renewable power and natural gas combined-cycle power plants to replace more polluting coal-fired units. Although EPA set state-specific targets, states would determine how to reach these goals, not EPA. \nEPA has said it would expect the rule\u2019s targets to reduce total power plant CO2 emissions by about 32% when fully implemented in 2030 as compared with 2005 levels. A variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have already reduced power sector CO2 emissions more than \u00be of this amount as of 2016. \nAlthough EPA is proposing to repeal the CPP, it did not propose repeal of the GHG \u201cendangerment finding,\u201d the 2009 agency finding that emissions of CO2 and other GHGs endanger public health and welfare. Without addressing the finding, EPA appears to have a continuing obligation to limit emissions of CO2 from power plants. Thus, in addition to the proposed repeal of the CPP, EPA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit information on systems of emission reduction that it might require in a future rule to replace the CPP.\nBesides EPA\u2019s proposal to repeal the rule, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged it (while other states and entities have intervened in support of it). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule for the duration of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case in September 2016, but agreed to an EPA request to continue to hold the case in abeyance while the agency proceeds to repeal the CPP. \nThis report provides background information, discusses the statutory authority under which EPA promulgated the rule, and describes the rule\u2019s current status as of November 2017. The Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and seldom interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation.\nThe report also summarizes the provisions of the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, including\nhow large an emission reduction would be achieved under the rule nationwide, \nhow EPA allocated emission reduction requirements among the states, \nthe potential role of cap-and-trade systems and other flexibilities in implementation, \nwhat role the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) and actions by other actors, including energy consumers (i.e., \u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) might play in compliance strategies, and \nwhat role there would be for existing programs at the state and regional level, such as the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader GHG reduction programs such as those implemented in California.\nThe report also discusses options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "e6a7944af55d4d249ed582a9cc25dd617464c999", "filename": "files/20171219_R44341_e6a7944af55d4d249ed582a9cc25dd617464c999.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/4.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_abec6c858a081296c7a81034e13a4e23d0d1d3f8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/3.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_33dcea07a75ce7db50dd53a0880cdb45529aeba3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/1.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_6814cd7a8a83453de3798574e88e2e9c292df8b9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/2.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_3a48f36d1a7387854efb90cf0ec612bfdbf2535f.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_762290f13d9401cd2ac4cef34a0e9675ff37fe98.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/5.png": "files/20171219_R44341_images_de583319907128be240fe403c087e26b1d73b844.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "b92768780bd52e0d0fbea795f96300737fe1f5bc", "filename": "files/20171219_R44341_b92768780bd52e0d0fbea795f96300737fe1f5bc.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4840, "name": "Electricity" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 576286, "date": "2017-12-04", "retrieved": "2017-12-12T14:20:52.341039", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "On October 10, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama Administration rule that would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The action came in response to Executive Order 13783, in which President Trump directed federal agencies to review existing regulations and policies that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Among the E.O.\u2019s specific directives was that EPA review the CPP, which was one of the Obama Administration\u2019s most important actions directed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. \nThe Clean Power Plan was promulgated in August 2015 to reduce GHG emissions from the generation of electric power. Fossil-fueled electric power plants are the largest individual U.S. sources of GHG emissions, accounting for about 29% of the U.S. total from all sources. The rule set individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The targets for each state were derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014efficiency improvements at individual coal-fired power plants and increased use of renewable power and natural gas combined-cycle power plants to replace more polluting coal-fired units. Although EPA set state-specific targets, states would determine how to reach these goals, not EPA. \nEPA has said it would expect the rule\u2019s targets to reduce total power plant CO2 emissions by about 32% when fully implemented in 2030 as compared with 2005 levels. A variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have already reduced power sector CO2 emissions more than \u00be of this amount as of 2016. \nAlthough EPA is proposing to repeal the CPP, it did not propose repeal of the GHG \u201cendangerment finding,\u201d the 2009 agency finding that emissions of CO2 and other GHGs endanger public health and welfare. Without addressing the finding, EPA appears to have a continuing obligation to limit emissions of CO2 from power plants. Thus, in addition to the proposed repeal of the CPP, EPA has prepared and sent for interagency review an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit information on systems of emission reduction that it might require in a future rule to replace the CPP.\nBesides EPA\u2019s proposal to repeal the rule, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged it (while other states and entities have intervened in support of it). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule for the duration of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case in September 2016, but agreed to an EPA request to continue to hold the case in abeyance while the agency proceeds to repeal the CPP. \nThis report provides background information, discusses the statutory authority under which EPA promulgated the rule, and describes the rule\u2019s current status as of November 2017. The Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and seldom interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation.\nThe report also summarizes the provisions of the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, including\nhow large an emission reduction would be achieved under the rule nationwide, \nhow EPA allocated emission reduction requirements among the states, \nthe potential role of cap-and-trade systems and other flexibilities in implementation, \nwhat role the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) and actions by other actors, including energy consumers (i.e., \u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) might play in compliance strategies, and \nwhat role there would be for existing programs at the state and regional level, such as the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader GHG reduction programs such as those implemented in California.\nThe report also discusses options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "69e565b1abdddcd7517d3d55cf871ecf022fa372", "filename": "files/20171204_R44341_69e565b1abdddcd7517d3d55cf871ecf022fa372.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/4.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_abec6c858a081296c7a81034e13a4e23d0d1d3f8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/3.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_33dcea07a75ce7db50dd53a0880cdb45529aeba3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/1.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_6814cd7a8a83453de3798574e88e2e9c292df8b9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/2.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_3a48f36d1a7387854efb90cf0ec612bfdbf2535f.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_762290f13d9401cd2ac4cef34a0e9675ff37fe98.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/5.png": "files/20171204_R44341_images_de583319907128be240fe403c087e26b1d73b844.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "3d4f220135960b112af850092f9d708e589ac615", "filename": "files/20171204_R44341_3d4f220135960b112af850092f9d708e589ac615.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4840, "name": "Electricity" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 573697, "date": "2017-09-22", "retrieved": "2017-10-04T13:55:00.474909", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, directing federal agencies to review existing regulations and policies that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Among its specific provisions, the order directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the Clean Power Plan, one of the Obama Administration\u2019s most important actions directed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. \nThe Clean Power Plan was promulgated in August 2015 to reduce GHG emissions from the generation of electric power. Fossil-fueled electric power plants are the largest U.S. source of such emissions, accounting for about 29% of the U.S. total from all sources. The rule sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The targets for each state were derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014efficiency improvements at individual coal-fired power plants and increased use of renewable power and natural- gas- combined-cycle power plants to replace more polluting coal-fired units. Although EPA set state-specific targets, states would determine how to reach these goals, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in the EPA building blocks.\nWhen the rule is fully implemented, EPA has said it would expect the rule\u2019s targets to reduce total power plant GHG emissions by about 32% in 2030 as compared with 2005 levels. A variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have already reduced power sector GHG emissions about 2/3 of this amount as of 2015. \nWhether the Clean Power Plan will be implemented as promulgated is uncertain, in part because of the executive order\u2019s directive to review and potentially revise or rescind it. The executive order directs EPA to review the CPP for consistency with several broad policies stated in section 1 of the order and, if appropriate, to publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding the rule. \nAdding to questions about implementation, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged it (while other states and entities have intervened in support of it). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule for the duration of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case in September 2016, but agreed on April 28, 2017 to an EPA request to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days while the agency conducts the review required by the executive order. The court ordered the parties to submit briefs by May 15 on whether the court should remand the Clean Power Plan to EPA rather than hold it in abeyance. \nThis report provides background information and discusses the statutory authority under which EPA promulgated the rule. The Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and seldom interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation.\nThe report also summarizes the provisions of the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, including\nhow large an emission reduction would be achieved under the rule nationwide, \nhow EPA allocated emission reduction requirements among the states, \nthe potential role of cap-and-trade systems and other flexibilities in implementation, \nwhat role the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) and actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) might play in compliance strategies, and \nwhat role there would be for existing programs at the state and regional level, such as the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader GHG reduction programs such as those implemented in California.\nThe report also discusses options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "e80486c7acf4a9853dc9588cbfaa181882b1fa36", "filename": "files/20170922_R44341_e80486c7acf4a9853dc9588cbfaa181882b1fa36.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/4.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_abec6c858a081296c7a81034e13a4e23d0d1d3f8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/6.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_de583319907128be240fe403c087e26b1d73b844.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_33dcea07a75ce7db50dd53a0880cdb45529aeba3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_6814cd7a8a83453de3798574e88e2e9c292df8b9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_3a48f36d1a7387854efb90cf0ec612bfdbf2535f.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_762290f13d9401cd2ac4cef34a0e9675ff37fe98.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/5.png": "files/20170922_R44341_images_c7106c14ccd9ef5210ef77322f1743f747bd5caa.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "0e2991bceb1627714ff3b78595824c77165eddc1", "filename": "files/20170922_R44341_0e2991bceb1627714ff3b78595824c77165eddc1.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4840, "name": "Electricity" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461913, "date": "2017-06-05", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T14:29:31.599771", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, directing federal agencies to review existing regulations and policies that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. Among its specific provisions, the order directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the Clean Power Plan, one of the Obama Administration\u2019s most important actions directed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. \nThe Clean Power Plan was promulgated in August 2015 to reduce GHG emissions from the generation of electric power. Fossil-fueled electric power plants are the largest U.S. source of such emissions, accounting for about 29% of the U.S. total from all sources. The rule sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The targets for each state were derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014efficiency improvements at individual coal-fired power plants and increased use of renewable power and natural- gas- combined-cycle power plants to replace more polluting coal-fired units. Although EPA set state-specific targets, states would determine how to reach these goals, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in the EPA building blocks.\nWhen the rule is fully implemented, EPA has said it would expect the rule\u2019s targets to reduce total power plant GHG emissions by about 32% in 2030 as compared with 2005 levels. A variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have already reduced power sector GHG emissions about 2/3 of this amount as of 2015. \nWhether the Clean Power Plan will be implemented as promulgated is uncertain, in part because of the executive order\u2019s directive to review and potentially revise or rescind it. The executive order directs EPA to review the CPP for consistency with several broad policies stated in section 1 of the order and, if appropriate, to publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding the rule. \nAdding to questions about implementation, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged it (while other states and entities have intervened in support of it). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule for the duration of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case in September 2016, but agreed on April 28, 2017 to an EPA request to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days while the agency conducts the review required by the executive order. The court ordered the parties to submit briefs by May 15 on whether the court should remand the Clean Power Plan to EPA rather than hold it in abeyance. \nThis report provides background information and discusses the statutory authority under which EPA promulgated the rule. The Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and seldom interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation.\nThe report also summarizes the provisions of the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, including\nhow large an emission reduction would be achieved under the rule nationwide, \nhow EPA allocated emission reduction requirements among the states, \nthe potential role of cap-and-trade systems and other flexibilities in implementation, \nwhat role the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) and actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) might play in compliance strategies, and \nwhat role there would be for existing programs at the state and regional level, such as the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader GHG reduction programs such as those implemented in California.\nThe report also discusses options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "2c7d58cabc226833f72ebc8a6b3864e6285be079", "filename": "files/20170605_R44341_2c7d58cabc226833f72ebc8a6b3864e6285be079.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/4.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_abec6c858a081296c7a81034e13a4e23d0d1d3f8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/6.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_de583319907128be240fe403c087e26b1d73b844.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/3.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_cdf8f5b23959f511d34ba1ac29424456a2c13b62.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_6814cd7a8a83453de3798574e88e2e9c292df8b9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_3a48f36d1a7387854efb90cf0ec612bfdbf2535f.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_762290f13d9401cd2ac4cef34a0e9675ff37fe98.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44341_files&id=/5.png": "files/20170605_R44341_images_c7106c14ccd9ef5210ef77322f1743f747bd5caa.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "8841a0938e52589894a987d52ddd37fc9c7e3ccd", "filename": "files/20170605_R44341_8841a0938e52589894a987d52ddd37fc9c7e3ccd.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4840, "name": "Electricity" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456437, "date": "2016-10-12", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:16:18.437436", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Taking action to address climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is among President Obama\u2019s major goals. In 2009, President Obama pledged that the United States would reduce its emissions of GHGs 17% by 2020, as compared to 2005 levels. The President set a further goal as the U.S. national contribution to global GHG reductions under the 2015 Paris Agreement: a 26% to 28% reduction from 2005 levels to be achieved by 2025, consistent with a straight-line path to an 80% reduction by 2050. Other countries have also pledged GHG emissions abatement: As of October 12, 2016, 163 intended nationally determined contributions\u2014covering almost 190 countries and including all major emitters\u2014had been submitted for the Paris Agreement.\nSince U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007, a variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have brought the United States more than halfway to reaching the 2020 goal. Getting the rest of the way and reducing emissions further by 2025 would likely depend, to some degree, on continued GHG emission reductions from electric power plants, which are the largest source of U.S. emissions.\nIn June 2013, the President released a Climate Action Plan and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose standards for \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d (i.e., carbon dioxide, the principal GHG) from existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later. EPA proposed the standards on June 2, 2014, and finalized them on August 3, 2015. The rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The Clean Power Plan set a deadline of September 6, 2016, for states to submit implementation plans to EPA detailing how they will meet these targets. However, the Clean Power Plan is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan for the duration of the litigation. The Clean Power Plan therefore currently lacks enforceability or legal effect, and if the rule is ultimately upheld, at least some of the deadlines would have to be delayed. This report summarizes the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, before discussing how the ongoing litigation may potentially impact the rule and its deadlines. \nThe Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and never interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation. The rule sets emission rate goals for each state based on its unique circumstances. The goal for each state was derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014broad categories that describe different reduction measures; in general, however, the policies to be adopted to reach these goals would be determined by the states, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in its building blocks.\nEPA faced a number of issues in developing the Clean Power Plan:\nHow large a reduction in emissions would it require, and by when? \nHow would reduction requirements be allocated among the states?\nHow much flexibility would the Clean Power Plan give to the states? \nWould it adopt a \u201cmass-based\u201d limit on total emissions or a rate-based (e.g., pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity) approach? \nWhat role might state emissions cap-and-trade systems play in meeting the goals? \nWill compliance be determined only by the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) or will actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) be part of compliance strategies?\nWhat role would there be for existing programs at the state and regional levels, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader greenhouse gas reduction programs such as those implemented in California?\nThis report describes how EPA answered these and other questions. In addition to discussing details of the Clean Power Plan, the report addresses EPA\u2019s authority under Section 111 of the CAA, EPA\u2019s previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation, including the stay granted by the Supreme Court. It also discusses challenges to the Clean Power Plan under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "cd498412ebf22ab31c4137f33100e8c95b85156f", "filename": "files/20161012_R44341_cd498412ebf22ab31c4137f33100e8c95b85156f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "e9900dd3620e5cba5cd22aefd0f043671faf0cb2", "filename": "files/20161012_R44341_e9900dd3620e5cba5cd22aefd0f043671faf0cb2.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4840, "name": "Electricity" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455938, "date": "2016-06-15", "retrieved": "2016-09-23T18:07:55.826452", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Taking action to address climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is among President Obama\u2019s major goals. At an international conference in Copenhagen in 2009, he committed the United States to reducing emissions of GHGs 17% by 2020, as compared to 2005 levels. At the time, 85 other nations also committed to reductions. In November 2014, the President set a further goal: a 26% to 28% reduction from 2005 levels to be achieved by 2025\u2014jointly announced with China\u2019s Xi Jinping, who set a goal for China\u2019s emissions to peak by 2030. Since U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007, a variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have brought the United States more than halfway to reaching the 2020 goal. Getting the rest of the way and reducing emissions further by 2025 would likely depend, to some degree, on continued GHG emission reductions from electric power plants, which are the largest source of U.S. emissions.\nIn June 2013, the President released a Climate Action Plan and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose standards for \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d (i.e., carbon dioxide, the principal GHG) from existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later. EPA proposed the standards on June 2, 2014, and finalized them on August 3, 2015. The rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The Clean Power Plan set a deadline of September 6, 2016, for states to submit implementation plans to EPA detailing how they will meet these targets. However, the Clean Power Plan is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan for the duration of the litigation. The Clean Power Plan therefore currently lacks enforceability or legal effect, and if the rule is ultimately upheld, at least some of the deadlines would have to be delayed. This report summarizes the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, before discussing how the ongoing litigation may potentially impact the rule and its deadlines. \nThe Clean Power Plan relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and never interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation. The rule sets emission rate goals for each state based on its unique circumstances. The goal for each state was derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014broad categories that describe different reduction measures; in general, however, the policies to be adopted to reach these goals would be determined by the states, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in its building blocks.\nEPA faced a number of issues in developing the Clean Power Plan:\nHow large a reduction in emissions would it require, and by when? \nHow would reduction requirements be allocated among the states?\nHow much flexibility would the Clean Power Plan give to the states? \nWould it adopt a \u201cmass-based\u201d limit on total emissions or a rate-based (e.g., pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity) approach? \nWhat role might state emissions cap-and-trade systems play in meeting the goals? \nWill compliance be determined only by the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) or will actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) be part of compliance strategies?\nWhat role would there be for existing programs at the state and regional levels, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader greenhouse gas reduction programs such as those implemented in California?\nThis report describes how EPA answered these and other questions. In addition to discussing details of the Clean Power Plan, the report addresses EPA\u2019s authority under Section 111 of the CAA, EPA\u2019s previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation, including the stay granted by the Supreme Court. It also discusses challenges to the Clean Power Plan under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "91cc4aca00a689eb298c1359547cddacfa1a6e80", "filename": "files/20160615_R44341_91cc4aca00a689eb298c1359547cddacfa1a6e80.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "b0636b4f91f98af461adce0882b00888602aba98", "filename": "files/20160615_R44341_b0636b4f91f98af461adce0882b00888602aba98.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2913, "name": "Electric Power Sector" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3878, "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452708, "date": "2016-05-19", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:04:49.390941", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Taking action to address climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is among President Obama\u2019s major goals. At an international conference in Copenhagen in 2009, he committed the United States to reducing emissions of GHGs 17% by 2020, as compared to 2005 levels. At the time, 85 other nations also committed to reductions. In November 2014, the President set a further goal: a 26% to 28% reduction from 2005 levels to be achieved by 2025\u2014jointly announced with China\u2019s Xi Jinping, who set a goal for China\u2019s emissions to peak by 2030. Since U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007, a variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have brought the United States more than halfway to reaching the 2020 goal. Getting the rest of the way and reducing emissions further by 2025 would likely depend, to some degree, on continued GHG emission reductions from electric power plants, which are the largest source of U.S. emissions.\nIn June 2013, the President released a Climate Action Plan and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose standards for \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d (i.e., carbon dioxide, the principal GHG) from existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later. EPA proposed the standards on June 2, 2014, and finalized them on August 3, 2015. The rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The rule set a deadline of September 6, 2016, for states to submit implementation plans to EPA detailing how they will meet these targets. However, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation. The rule therefore currently lacks enforceability or legal effect, and if the rule is ultimately upheld, at least some of the deadlines would have to be delayed. This report summarizes the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, before discussing how the ongoing litigation may potentially impact the rule and its deadlines. \nThe rule relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and never interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation. The rule sets emission rate goals for each state based on its unique circumstances. The goal for each state was derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014broad categories that describe different reduction measures; in general, however, the policies to be adopted to reach these goals would be determined by the states, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in its building blocks.\nEPA faced a number of issues in developing the regulations:\nHow large a reduction in emissions would it require, and by when? \nHow would reduction requirements be allocated among the states?\nHow much flexibility would the rule give to the states? \nWould it adopt a \u201cmass-based\u201d limit on total emissions or a rate-based (e.g., pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity) approach? \nWhat role might state emissions cap-and-trade systems play in meeting the goals? \nWill compliance be determined only by the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) or will actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) be part of compliance strategies?\nWhat role would there be for existing programs at the state and regional levels, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader greenhouse gas reduction programs such as those implemented in California?\nThis report describes how EPA answered these and other questions. In addition to discussing details of the rule, the report addresses EPA\u2019s authority under Section 111 of the CAA, EPA\u2019s previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation, including the stay granted by the Supreme Court. It also discusses challenges to the rule under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "c68800075459f6346b7647891bf6859402ee4b49", "filename": "files/20160519_R44341_c68800075459f6346b7647891bf6859402ee4b49.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "6296d25efd09dac5226665b190cc2c9d0eca94a8", "filename": "files/20160519_R44341_6296d25efd09dac5226665b190cc2c9d0eca94a8.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2913, "name": "Electric Power Sector" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3878, "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451365, "date": "2016-04-05", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:46:55.937028", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Taking action to address climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is among President Obama\u2019s major goals. At an international conference in Copenhagen in 2009, he committed the United States to reducing emissions of GHGs 17% by 2020, as compared to 2005 levels. At the time, 85 other nations also committed to reductions. In November 2014, the President set a further goal: a 26% to 28% reduction from 2005 levels to be achieved by 2025\u2014jointly announced with China\u2019s Xi Jinping, who set a goal for China\u2019s emissions to peak by 2030. Since U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007, a variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have brought the United States more than halfway to reaching the 2020 goal. Getting the rest of the way and reducing emissions further by 2025 would likely depend, to some degree, on continued GHG emission reductions from electric power plants, which are the largest source of U.S. emissions.\nIn June 2013, the President released a Climate Action Plan and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose standards for \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d (i.e., carbon dioxide, the principal GHG) from existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later. EPA proposed the standards on June 2, 2014, and finalized them on August 3, 2015. The rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The rule set a deadline of September 6, 2016, for states to submit implementation plans to EPA detailing how they will meet these targets. However, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation. The rule therefore currently lacks enforceability or legal effect, and if the rule is ultimately upheld, at least some of the deadlines would have to be delayed. This report summarizes the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, before discussing how the ongoing litigation may potentially impact the rule and its deadlines. \nThe rule relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and never interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation. The rule sets emission rate goals for each state based on its unique circumstances. The goal for each state was derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014broad categories that describe different reduction measures; in general, however, the policies to be adopted to reach these goals would be determined by the states, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in its building blocks.\nEPA faced a number of issues in developing the regulations:\nHow large a reduction in emissions would it require, and by when? \nHow would reduction requirements be allocated among the states?\nHow much flexibility would the rule give to the states? \nWould it adopt a \u201cmass-based\u201d limit on total emissions or a rate-based (e.g., pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity) approach? \nWhat role might state emissions cap-and-trade systems play in meeting the goals? \nWill compliance be determined only by the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) or will actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) be part of compliance strategies?\nWhat role would there be for existing programs at the state and regional levels, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader greenhouse gas reduction programs such as those implemented in California?\nThis report describes how EPA answered these and other questions. In addition to discussing details of the rule, the report addresses EPA\u2019s authority under Section 111 of the CAA, EPA\u2019s previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation, including the stay granted by the Supreme Court. It also discusses challenges to the rule under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "681bccd7c80402ff973f951b434e20915402ad6a", "filename": "files/20160405_R44341_681bccd7c80402ff973f951b434e20915402ad6a.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "5d84ac5a2e5a5bf616d070fd387bb48c793a27ee", "filename": "files/20160405_R44341_5d84ac5a2e5a5bf616d070fd387bb48c793a27ee.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2913, "name": "Electric Power Sector" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3878, "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450639, "date": "2016-03-09", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:57:38.021492", "title": "EPA\u2019s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "Taking action to address climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is among President Obama\u2019s major goals. At an international conference in Copenhagen in 2009, he committed the United States to reducing emissions of GHGs 17% by 2020, as compared to 2005 levels. At the time, 85 other nations also committed to reductions. In November 2014, the President set a further goal: a 26% to 28% reduction from 2005 levels to be achieved by 2025\u2014jointly announced with China\u2019s Xi Jinping, who set a goal for China\u2019s emissions to peak by 2030. Since U.S. GHG emissions peaked in 2007, a variety of factors\u2014some economic, some the effect of government policies at all levels\u2014have brought the United States more than halfway to reaching the 2020 goal. Getting the rest of the way and reducing emissions further by 2025 would likely depend, to some degree, on continued GHG emission reductions from electric power plants, which are the largest source of U.S. emissions.\nIn June 2013, the President released a Climate Action Plan and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose standards for \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d (i.e., carbon dioxide, the principal GHG) from existing power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later. EPA proposed the standards on June 2, 2014, and finalized them on August 3, 2015. The rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, sets individual state targets for average emissions from existing power plants\u2014interim targets for the period 2022-2029 and final targets to be met by 2030. The rule set a deadline of September 6, 2016, for states to submit implementation plans to EPA detailing how they will meet these targets. However, the rule is the subject of ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation. The rule therefore currently lacks enforceability or legal effect, and if the rule is ultimately upheld, at least some of the deadlines would have to be delayed. This report summarizes the Clean Power Plan rule as it was finalized on August 3, 2015, before discussing how the ongoing litigation may potentially impact the rule and its deadlines. \nThe rule relies on authority asserted by EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This section has been infrequently used and never interpreted by the courts, so a number of questions have arisen regarding the extent of EPA\u2019s authority and the mechanisms of implementation. The rule sets emission rate goals for each state based on its unique circumstances. The goal for each state was derived from a formula based on three \u201cbuilding blocks\u201d\u2014broad categories that describe different reduction measures; in general, however, the policies to be adopted to reach these goals would be determined by the states, not EPA. Each state can reach its goal however it chooses, without needing to \u201ccomply\u201d with the assumptions in its building blocks.\nEPA faced a number of issues in developing the regulations:\nHow large a reduction in emissions would it require, and by when? \nHow would reduction requirements be allocated among the states?\nHow much flexibility would the rule give to the states? \nWould it adopt a \u201cmass-based\u201d limit on total emissions or a rate-based (e.g., pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity) approach? \nWhat role might state emissions cap-and-trade systems play in meeting the goals? \nWill compliance be determined only by the actions of individual power plants (i.e., \u201cinside the fence\u201d actions) or will actions by other actors, including energy consumers (\u201coutside the fence\u201d actions) be part of compliance strategies?\nWhat role would there be for existing programs at the state and regional levels, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and for broader greenhouse gas reduction programs such as those implemented in California?\nThis report describes how EPA answered these and other questions. In addition to discussing details of the rule, the report addresses EPA\u2019s authority under Section 111 of the CAA, EPA\u2019s previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation, including the stay granted by the Supreme Court. It also discusses challenges to the rule under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence EPA\u2019s action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44341", "sha1": "a9a42e6b007fd74206473eb8fcda0a4c36f31953", "filename": "files/20160309_R44341_a9a42e6b007fd74206473eb8fcda0a4c36f31953.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44341", "sha1": "490d21990d8d38bb145ddc42c9782c5c64c7d0e5", "filename": "files/20160309_R44341_490d21990d8d38bb145ddc42c9782c5c64c7d0e5.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2913, "name": "Electric Power Sector" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3878, "name": "Climate Change Science, Technology, and Policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc824476/", "id": "R44341_2016Jan13", "date": "2016-01-13", "retrieved": "2016-04-04T14:48:17", "title": "EPA's Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions", "summary": "This report summarizes the issues the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encountered when developing regulations for \"carbon pollution\" from existing power plants as part of the Clean Power Plan. The report describes how the EPA resolved these issues. In addition to discussing details of the Clean Power Plan, the report addresses the EPA's authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA's previous experience using that authority, and other background questions. The report discusses the ongoing litigation in which a number of states and other entities have challenged the rule, while other states and entities have intervened in support of the rule. It also discusses challenges to the rule under the Congressional Review Act and other options that Congress has to influence the EPA's action.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20160113_R44341_af35c20488893c4d30652973d118b28aaa84d02e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20160113_R44341_af35c20488893c4d30652973d118b28aaa84d02e.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental policy", "name": "Environmental policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Air pollution", "name": "Air pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Greenhouse gases", "name": "Greenhouse gases" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Environmental Policy", "Science and Technology Policy" ] }