{ "id": "R45472", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R45472", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses", "retrieved": "2022-08-22T04:03:36.670225", "id": "R45472_23_2022-07-18", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2022-07-18_R45472_970bdbde44b3a27e8f715d6bcca885f4d83e5d5c.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45472/23", "sha1": "970bdbde44b3a27e8f715d6bcca885f4d83e5d5c" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-07-18_R45472_970bdbde44b3a27e8f715d6bcca885f4d83e5d5c.html" } ], "date": "2022-07-18", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45472", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses", "retrieved": "2022-08-22T04:03:36.669231", "id": "R45472_21_2021-09-03", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-09-03_R45472_05a81e26cf81f8392f7389a581889e96364eee50.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45472/21", "sha1": "05a81e26cf81f8392f7389a581889e96364eee50" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-09-03_R45472_05a81e26cf81f8392f7389a581889e96364eee50.html" } ], "date": "2021-09-03", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45472", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses", "retrieved": "2022-08-22T04:03:36.668744", "id": "R45472_20_2021-05-06", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-05-06_R45472_f867febdbda24bc25b373589b86df1a39fec736a.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45472/20", "sha1": "f867febdbda24bc25b373589b86df1a39fec736a" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-05-06_R45472_f867febdbda24bc25b373589b86df1a39fec736a.html" } ], "date": "2021-05-06", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45472", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses", "retrieved": "2022-08-22T04:03:36.668245", "id": "R45472_19_2021-01-12", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-01-12_R45472_3e75d80bf5b13b9ee9fa75f3c695738fd0aff19d.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45472/19", "sha1": "3e75d80bf5b13b9ee9fa75f3c695738fd0aff19d" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-01-12_R45472_3e75d80bf5b13b9ee9fa75f3c695738fd0aff19d.html" } ], "date": "2021-01-12", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45472", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses", "retrieved": "2022-08-22T04:03:36.666657", "id": "R45472_16_2020-09-29", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-09-29_R45472_6d493aaf31190b22259551df23c535ce7b4572e4.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45472/16", "sha1": "6d493aaf31190b22259551df23c535ce7b4572e4" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-09-29_R45472_6d493aaf31190b22259551df23c535ce7b4572e4.html" } ], "date": "2020-09-29", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45472", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 615105, "date": "2020-01-29", "retrieved": "2020-01-30T23:02:38.502423", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th through 116th Congresses", "summary": "Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 15 years. During that time, legislation has often involved market-based approaches, such as a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or emissions fee program. Both approaches would place a price\u2014directly or indirectly\u2014on GHG emissions or their inputs, namely fossil fuels. Both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow emission sources to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control\u2014emission levels or emission prices. \nA primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values. \nAs the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 115th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. Most of the proposals from the 116th Congress would establish a carbon tax or emissions fee program. The proposals range in the scope of emissions covered from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. In addition, the proposals differ by how, to whom, and for what purpose the fee revenues or allowance value would be applied. Some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax, fee, or emission allowance revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the carbon price. \nFigure 1.Number and Type of Introduced GHG Emission Reduction Bills\n108th Congress through 116th Congress\n/\nSource: Prepared by CRS.\nNotes: \u201cOther Approaches\u201d include (1) proposals that did not specify the overall framework but would have authorized EPA to establish a GHG emission reduction program and (2) proposals that combine elements from a cap-and-trade system with price control features in a carbon tax or emissions fee system, sometimes described as hybrid approaches.\nThis report includes a separate table for each Congress, comparing GHG emission reduction legislation by the following characteristics: \nGeneral framework: the proposed program structure and scope in terms of emissions covered, multiple GHG emissions, or just carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\nCovered entities/materials: a list of the industries, sectors, or materials that would be subject to the program.\nEmissions limit or target: the GHG or CO2 emissions target or cap for a specified year.\nDistribution of allowance value or tax revenue: how emission allowance value or carbon tax or fee revenue would be distributed.\nOffset and international allowance treatment: the degree to which offsets and international allowances could be used for compliance purposes and the types of offset activities that would qualify.\nMechanism to address carbon-intensive imports: a U.S. GHG reduction program may create a competitive disadvantage for some domestic businesses, particularly carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries.\nAdditional GHG reduction measures: other mechanisms designed to further reduce GHG emissions that are not covered in the central program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45472", "sha1": "194b2466b0cd1a22ab948a37728be76119e4fbd3", "filename": "files/20200129_R45472_194b2466b0cd1a22ab948a37728be76119e4fbd3.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/0.png": "files/20200129_R45472_images_cfe848b86a7072ab84f8a75c8e028f524c95f45b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/1.png": "files/20200129_R45472_images_a2573ac49a612ac88931b8dbe0e6c5bdec5550a7.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45472", "sha1": "a0f3b83ea982395a3c36b0dda6025fb4cb01ae44", "filename": "files/20200129_R45472_a0f3b83ea982395a3c36b0dda6025fb4cb01ae44.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4781, "name": "Economic Impacts of Environmental Regulation" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606555, "date": "2019-10-23", "retrieved": "2019-10-23T22:15:17.203582", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th through 116th Congresses", "summary": "Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 15 years. During that time, legislation has often involved market-based approaches, such as a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or emissions fee program. Both approaches would place a price\u2014directly or indirectly\u2014on GHG emissions or their inputs, namely fossil fuels. Both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow emission sources to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control\u2014emission levels or emission prices. \nA primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values. \nAs the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 115th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. Most of the proposals from the 116th Congress would establish a carbon tax or emissions fee program. The proposals range in the scope of emissions covered from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. In addition, the proposals differ by how, to whom, and for what purpose the fee revenues or allowance value would be applied. Some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax, fee, or emission allowance revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the carbon price. \nFigure 1.Number and Type of Introduced GHG Emission Reduction Bills\n108th Congress through 116th Congress\n/\nSource: Prepared by CRS.\nNotes: \u201cOther Approaches\u201d include (1) proposals that did not specify the overall framework but would have authorized EPA to establish a GHG emission reduction program and (2) proposals that combine elements from a cap-and-trade system with price control features in a carbon tax or emissions fee system, sometimes described as hybrid approaches.\nThis report includes a separate table for each Congress, comparing GHG emission reduction legislation by the following characteristics: \nGeneral framework: the proposed program structure and scope in terms of emissions covered, multiple GHG emissions, or just carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\nCovered entities/materials: a list of the industries, sectors, or materials that would be subject to the program.\nEmissions limit or target: the GHG or CO2 emissions target or cap for a specified year.\nDistribution of allowance value or tax revenue: how emission allowance value or carbon tax or fee revenue would be distributed.\nOffset and international allowance treatment: the degree to which offsets and international allowances could be used for compliance purposes and the types of offset activities that would qualify.\nMechanism to address carbon-intensive imports: a U.S. GHG reduction program may create a competitive disadvantage for some domestic businesses, particularly carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries.\nAdditional GHG reduction measures: other mechanisms designed to further reduce GHG emissions that are not covered in the central program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45472", "sha1": "5d97277df1b9c2320806c517c803e4c5e8f07ebd", "filename": "files/20191023_R45472_5d97277df1b9c2320806c517c803e4c5e8f07ebd.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191023_R45472_images_acd1b2c089c9e469a4d30462c304709e8f6f0fb8.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191023_R45472_images_ee006314196435d9291ac855c361834373714cc1.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45472", "sha1": "e41234b73d9b6912dba0c29635d2ddadc163dafa", "filename": "files/20191023_R45472_e41234b73d9b6912dba0c29635d2ddadc163dafa.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4781, "name": "Economic Impacts of Environmental Regulation" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 604103, "date": "2019-08-28", "retrieved": "2019-08-28T22:20:43.310728", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 116th Congresses", "summary": "Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 15 years. During that time, legislation has often involved market-based approaches, such as a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or emissions fee program. Both approaches would place a price\u2014directly or indirectly\u2014on GHG emissions or their inputs, namely fossil fuels. Both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow emission sources to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control\u2014emission levels or emission prices. \nA primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values. \nThis report includes a separate table for each Congress, comparing GHG emission reduction legislation by the following characteristics: \nGeneral framework: the proposed program structure and scope in terms of emissions covered, multiple GHG emissions, or just carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\nCovered entities/materials: a list of the industries, sectors, or materials that would be subject to the program.\nEmissions limit or target: the GHG or CO2 emissions target or cap for a specified year.\nDistribution of allowance value or tax revenue: how emission allowance value or carbon tax or fee revenue would be distributed.\nOffset and international allowance treatment: the degree to which offsets and international allowances could be used for compliance purposes and the types of offset activities that would qualify.\nMechanism to address carbon-intensive imports: a U.S. GHG reduction program may create a competitive disadvantage for some domestic businesses, particularly carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries.\nAdditional GHG reduction measures: other mechanisms designed to further reduce GHG emissions that are not covered in the central program.\nAs the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 115th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. \nFigure 1.Number and Type of Introduced GHG Emission Reduction Bills\n108th Congress through 116th Congress\n/\nSource: Prepared by CRS.\nNotes: \u201cOther Approaches\u201d include (1) proposals that did not specify the overall framework but would have authorized EPA to establish a GHG emission reduction program, and (2) proposals that combine elements from a cap-and-trade system with price control features in a carbon tax or emissions fee system, sometimes described as hybrid approaches.\nMost of the proposals from the 116th Congress would establish a carbon tax or emissions fee program. The proposals range in the scope of emissions covered from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. In addition, the proposals differ by how, to whom, and for what purpose the fee revenues or allowance value would be applied. Some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax, fee, or emission allowance revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the carbon price.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45472", "sha1": "e9b86041aa85c5c9edd0220e5945c8ccd668ec01", "filename": "files/20190828_R45472_e9b86041aa85c5c9edd0220e5945c8ccd668ec01.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190828_R45472_images_7265628be6c346e1de52aaf9dff1ef1c583f93f5.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190828_R45472_images_63621e9527f5e60498af5016f628a0edced8308c.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45472", "sha1": "79e39d38584a1dd046f36c57f973411429ca8e7c", "filename": "files/20190828_R45472_79e39d38584a1dd046f36c57f973411429ca8e7c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 598154, "date": "2019-05-07", "retrieved": "2019-05-14T22:18:51.428508", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 116th Congresses", "summary": "Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 15 years. During that time, legislation has often involved market-based approaches, such as a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or fee program. Both approaches would place a price\u2014directly or indirectly\u2014on GHG emissions or their inputs (e.g., fossil fuels), both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow emission sources to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control\u2014emission levels or emission prices. \nA primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result from the program. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values. \nThis report includes a separate table for each Congress, comparing GHG emission reduction legislation by the following characteristics: \nGeneral framework: the proposed program structure and scope in terms of emissions covered, multiple GHG emissions, or just carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\nCovered entities/materials: a list of the industries, sectors, or materials that would be subject to the program.\nEmissions limit or target: the GHG or CO2 emissions target or cap for a specified year.\nDistribution of allowance value or tax revenue: how emission allowance value or carbon tax or fee revenue would be distributed.\nOffset and international allowance treatment: the degree to which offsets and international allowances could be used for compliance purposes and the types of offset activities that would qualify.\nMechanism to address carbon-intensive imports: a U.S. GHG reduction program may create a competitive disadvantage for some domestic businesses, particularly carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries.\nAdditional GHG reduction measures: other mechanisms designed to further reduce GHG emissions that are not covered in the central program.\nAs the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 115th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. \nFigure 1. Number and Type of Introduced GHG Emission Reduction Bills\n108th Congress through 116th Congress\n/\nSource: Prepared by CRS.\nNotes: \u201cOther Approaches\u201d include (1) proposals that did not specify the overall framework but would have authorized EPA to establish a GHG emission reduction program, and (2) proposals that combine elements from a cap-and-trade system with price control features in a carbon tax or emissions fee system, sometimes described as hybrid approaches.\nThe proposals from the 116th Congress range in their scope of emissions covered from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. In addition, the proposals differ by how, to whom, and for what purpose the fee revenues or allowance value would be applied. Some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax, fee, or emission allowance revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the carbon price.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45472", "sha1": "2298accea99cfa116d4cdf151181693011dd0984", "filename": "files/20190507_R45472_2298accea99cfa116d4cdf151181693011dd0984.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190507_R45472_images_bce4d8b9aeabf6692ce76076c6e47e210517a7e6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190507_R45472_images_b6e044f1bc3ccc65cac7884fd10d0135ca0b49a6.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45472", "sha1": "c6584dd8a6063a1ab2fa1a91257d3e190388dff3", "filename": "files/20190507_R45472_c6584dd8a6063a1ab2fa1a91257d3e190388dff3.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 590284, "date": "2019-01-25", "retrieved": "2019-04-17T14:29:59.525052", "title": "Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 115th Congresses", "summary": "Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 15 years. During that time, legislation has often involved market-based approaches, such as a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or fee program. Both approaches would place a price\u2014directly or indirectly\u2014on GHG emissions or their inputs (e.g., fossil fuels), both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow emission sources to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control\u2014emission levels or emission prices. \nA primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result from the program. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values. \nThis report includes a separate table for each Congress, comparing GHG emission reduction legislation by the following characteristics: \nGeneral framework: the proposed program structure and scope in terms of emissions covered, multiple GHG emissions, or just carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\nCovered entities/materials: a list of the industries, sectors, or materials that would be subject to the program.\nEmissions limit or target: the GHG or CO2 emissions target or cap for a specified year.\nDistribution of allowance value or tax revenue: how emission allowance value or carbon tax or fee revenue would be distributed.\nOffset and international allowance treatment: the degree to which offsets and international allowances could be used for compliance purposes and the types of offset activities that would qualify.\nMechanism to address carbon-intensive imports: a U.S. GHG reduction program may create a competitive disadvantage for some domestic businesses, particularly carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries.\nAdditional GHG reduction measures: other mechanisms designed to further reduce GHG emissions that are not covered in the central program.\nAs the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 115th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. \nFigure 1.Number and Type of Introduced GHG Emission Reduction Bills\n108th Congress through 115th Congress\n/\nSource: Prepared by CRS.\nNotes: \u201cOther Approaches\u201d include (1) proposals that did not specify the overall framework but would have authorized EPA to establish a GHG emission reduction program, and (2) proposals that combine elements from a cap-and-trade system with price control features in a carbon tax or emissions fee system, sometimes described as hybrid approaches.\nThe carbon tax/fee proposals from the 115th Congress ranged in their scope from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. They also varied in their initial carbon price from $24/ton to $50/ton. In addition, the proposals differ by how, to whom, and for what purpose the new tax or fee revenues would be applied. Depending on the level of the tax or fee, some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax or fee revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the tax or fee.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45472", "sha1": "a3da5e6675c548b2da2d2863fe6ff8a4aa966977", "filename": "files/20190125_R45472_a3da5e6675c548b2da2d2863fe6ff8a4aa966977.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190125_R45472_images_1eceed09513c2ca85c97a682d7cd6ffa8628e93b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45472_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190125_R45472_images_5072ba233be9acae49e7f25eff67a9b39a924fcb.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45472", "sha1": "dc858f24bf9a4a75c37cc89d0470a9d1d59af5e4", "filename": "files/20190125_R45472_dc858f24bf9a4a75c37cc89d0470a9d1d59af5e4.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }