{
  "id": "RL30878",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30878",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 369325,
      "date": "2001-03-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:26:38.694941",
      "title": "Electricity Generation and Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Strategies",
      "summary": "Fossil fuel fired electric generating facilities are major sources of air pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg), and of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). A patchwork of regulations to limit PM, SO2, and NOx emissions exists, with further requirements on the horizon. The piecemeal nature of the regulations and the uncertainty of future requirements impose not only direct costs on utilities, but also make planning difficult in an environment already characterized by industry restructuring, volatile energy prices, and technological changes.\nTo bring some consistency and stability to the regulations affecting utility emissions, legislative initiatives have proposed a \u201cmulti-pollutant\u201d strategy. Key elements of the strategy include:\naligning pollution control processes and procedures for PM, SO2, and NOx so that both regulators and utility managers could anticipate requirements and integrate their decisions about how to control emissions;\nadopting efficient economic mechanisms\u2014most notably \u201ccap and trade\u201d strategies\u2014for the control of the pollutants;\nstabilizing requirements over time; and\nincorporating potential future control requirements for other emitted gases (e.g., Hg, CO2) into this more stable scheme.\nThis approach to controlling powerplant emissions would have several tradeoffs. Overall, it exchanges regulatory and economic uncertainty for short to mid-term certainty. For the environment, the current controversy that accompanies the setting of standards and the implementing of regulatory reduction requirements would be exchanged for a specific reduction target that would not change for 10-15 years. From an economic standpoint, implementing emission caps through emission trading would reduce costs, and the straightforward enforcement mechanism would also provide industry with certainty with respect to their responsibilities and potential penalties, and allow industry to plan for the future in the context of a consistent regulatory regime. Finally, the program might open the door for simplifying or replacing elements of the current piecemeal requirements. However, cap and trade systems could conflict with health standards to protect local areas from \u201chot spot\u201d emissions.\nAlthough the Clean Air Act\u2019s evolution has resulted in a structure that some characterize as unwieldy, the number of persons living in areas where air pollution exceeds standards has diminished. Arguably, the Act\u2019s success puts the burden of proof concerning amendment on those favoring change. Amending the Act has always proved contentious; but for many, the opportunities for greater predictability of requirements, fixed emission reductions, and cost efficiency are enticing.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30878",
          "sha1": "485577d17cddf2be48779d7b6104587d75e74fb8",
          "filename": "files/20010313_RL30878_485577d17cddf2be48779d7b6104587d75e74fb8.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30878",
          "sha1": "cfcd8746d0c8a84e63d42612c4e9ee8e407e2fa2",
          "filename": "files/20010313_RL30878_cfcd8746d0c8a84e63d42612c4e9ee8e407e2fa2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}