{ "id": "R45451", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45451", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596661, "date": "2019-04-18", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T19:25:17.637856", "title": "Clean Air Act Issues in the 116th Congress", "summary": "Review and rollback of Clean Air Act rules to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, cars and trucks, and the oil and gas sector has been a major focus of the Trump Administration since it took office in 2017. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, to require the review of regulations and policies that \u201cburden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.\u201d The E.O. directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which set limits on GHG emissions from existing power plants, and several other regulations for consistency with policies that the E.O. enumerates, and as soon as practicable, to \u201csuspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules.\u201d GHG rules for new power plants, for cars and trucks, and for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, in addition to the CPP, are subject to the executive order and are under review at EPA, as well as being challenged in the courts. \nThe CPP, which was promulgated by the Obama Administration\u2019s EPA in 2015 and would limit GHG emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants, has been one focus of debate. The Trump Administration\u2019s EPA has proposed to repeal the CPP and replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), a rule that defines the \u201cbest system of emission reduction\u201d for coal-fired power plant GHGs as efficiency improvement technologies. As proposed, the CPP repeal and ACE rules would remove federal numerical carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits for existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, eliminating one backstop on power plant GHG emissions. Final agency action on ACE is expected later this year. Some Members of Congress have submitted comments to EPA on the ACE proposal. Congress may be interested in conducting oversight of the ACE rule.\nClean Air Act GHG standards for cars and light trucks are the subject of another EPA review. An August 2018 proposal would freeze EPA\u2019s GHG standards for new cars and light trucks at the level required in model year (MY) 2020. Current regulations, promulgated in 2012 and reaffirmed in January 2017, set increasingly stringent emission standards through MY2025. The EPA proposal would cause a projected increase in vehicle fuel consumption of about a half million barrels of gasoline per day (equivalent to about 186,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per day) when fully implemented, according to EPA and the Department of Transportation. The proposal would also withdraw California\u2019s Clean Air Act waiver for new vehicle GHG standards applicable to MY2021-MY2025. The California standards have been adopted by 12 other states and cover about 35% of the new vehicle market.\nFollowing promulgation of these or other Clean Air Act regulations, Congress could address the issues through legislation affirming, modifying, or overturning them. The threat of a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to proceed, however, has generally prevented Senate action. In the 116th Congress, the new majority in the House has indicated a greater interest in addressing climate change issues rather than rolling back regulations. One result may be a new focus on oversight of agency actions to address climate change and its impacts.\nThe 116th Congress may also be interested in issues related to EPA air quality standards for what are called \u201cconventional\u201d or \u201ccriteria\u201d pollutants. EPA faces statutory deadlines to complete reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the two most widespread of this group: ozone and particulate matter (PM). The agency has proposed to speed up the review process, while simultaneously eliminating the scientific review panels that have historically assisted agency staff in conducting the reviews. The Clean Air Act has minimal requirements for how the agency is to conduct NAAQS reviews, leaving the details to the EPA Administrator. Nevertheless, congressional oversight is considered possible as EPA moves forward with the ozone and PM reviews.\nOther issues Congress might consider include air toxics regulations (e.g., the Mercury and Air Toxics rule for power plants), standards for new residential wood heaters, and the Renewable Fuel Standard.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45451", "sha1": "ac8ebbbe7973b37e05a8c4ce03f6d82238c189bf", "filename": "files/20190418_R45451_ac8ebbbe7973b37e05a8c4ce03f6d82238c189bf.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45451_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190418_R45451_images_ae27ffabf8222e4f6ffbd2b6ea3e768eaae16b70.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45451", "sha1": "f6fc5065824bbffc8586b72c53ed94679a77d9c1", "filename": "files/20190418_R45451_f6fc5065824bbffc8586b72c53ed94679a77d9c1.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4814, "name": "Environmental Review & Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 589451, "date": "2019-01-03", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:09:02.240534", "title": "Clean Air Act Issues in the 116th Congress", "summary": "Review of regulations issued under the Obama Administration, with the possibility of their modification or repeal, was the main focus of interest on Clean Air Act issues in the 115th Congress and in the executive and judicial branches in 2017 and 2018. This may continue in the 116th Congress\u2014although with a different emphasis, given the new majority in the House. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, cars and trucks, and the oil and gas sector have been of particular interest. \nReducing GHG emissions to address climate change was a major goal of President Obama, but, for a variety of reasons, Congress has not passed comprehensive legislation. In the absence of congressional action, President Obama directed EPA to promulgate GHG emission standards using existing Clean Air Act authority. This authority has been upheld on three occasions by the Supreme Court. The specifics have been controversial, however, and subject to debate in Congress, the Trump Administration, and the courts. \nThe Clean Power Plan (CPP), which was promulgated in 2015 and would limit GHG emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants, has been a frequent subject of debate. Implementation of the CPP has been stayed by the Supreme Court since February 2016, pending the completion of judicial review. Prior to the stay, challenges to the rule had been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by more than 100 parties, including 27 states. The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the case in September 2016; as of this writing, the court has not issued a decision. The Trump Administration\u2019s EPA has proposed to repeal the CPP and replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), a rule focused on improving efficiency at coal-fired power plants. The D.C. Circuit has held the litigation in abeyance during EPA\u2019s review of the CPP.\nMore broadly, on March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, to require the review of regulations and policies that burden the development or use of domestically produced energy. The E.O. directed EPA to review the Clean Power Plan and several other regulations for consistency with policies that the E.O. enumerates, and as soon as practicable, to \u201csuspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules.\u201d GHG rules for new power plants, for cars and trucks, and for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, in addition to the CPP, are subject to the executive order and are under review at EPA, as well as being challenged in the courts. \nCongress could address the issue through legislation affirming, modifying, or overturning any of these regulations. The threat of a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to proceed, however, has generally prevented Senate action. In the 116th Congress, the advent of a Democratic majority in the House may give that chamber leadership that is more interested in addressing climate change issues rather than rolling back regulations. One result may be a new focus on oversight of agency actions to address climate change and its impacts.\nThe 116th Congress may also be interested in issues related to EPA air quality standards for what are called \u201cconventional\u201d or \u201ccriteria\u201d pollutants. EPA faces statutory deadlines to complete reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the two most widespread of this group: ozone and particulate matter (PM). The agency has proposed to speed up the review process, while simultaneously eliminating the scientific review panels that have historically assisted agency staff in conducting the reviews. The Clean Air Act has minimal requirements for how the agency is to conduct NAAQS reviews, leaving the details to the EPA Administrator. Nevertheless, congressional oversight is considered possible as EPA moves forward with the ozone and PM reviews.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45451", "sha1": "5d885fbbd2ee2a6a73b65064ad988c8d33b93819", "filename": "files/20190103_R45451_5d885fbbd2ee2a6a73b65064ad988c8d33b93819.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45451_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190103_R45451_images_b3628c173cb88ad4842f1b92004b16ab4d05949d.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45451", "sha1": "85ee0cd44d58e30fee452c2ae15a41314d3d639e", "filename": "files/20190103_R45451_85ee0cd44d58e30fee452c2ae15a41314d3d639e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4814, "name": "Environmental Review & Policy" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }