Market-based policies that put a price on greenhouse gases can achieve cost-effective reduction in emissions while driving clean energy innovation. In the current Congress, carbon pricing proposals have been introduced in both chambers. Sens. Sanders and Boxer introduced their Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S. 332) in February 2013, and Rep. Waxman, Sen. Whitehouse, Rep. Blumenauer, and Sen. Schatz released a Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft in March 2013. In addition, Rep. Delaney released a States Choices Act of 2014 discussion draft in May 2014. Below is a comparison.
The following table compares the Climate Protection Act of 2013 as introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on February 14, 2013, the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft as released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) on March 12, 2013, and the State Choices Act discussion draft as released by Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) on May 21, 2014.
While these proposals would institute a fee on carbon, the proposals differ on the coverage and scope of the respective programs. For instance, the Sanders-Boxer proposal would require certain upstream or midstream fossil fuel sources (i.e., coal mines, refineries, natural gas processing plants, or importers) to pay a fee on greenhouse gas emissions, while the authors of the Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft would require the largest sources covered by the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to purchase permits for their direct greenhouse gas emissions. The Delaney proposal would allow states to use a carbon tax to meet the requirements of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations of existing power plants.
In addition, the proposals differ on: the starting price of the carbon fee, how much to increase the fee each year (i.e., the escalation rate), and how to use the revenues. The Sanders-Boxer proposal would establish a $20 per ton carbon fee, rising 5.6 percent a year over a 10-year period, and would direct 60 percent of the revenues back to consumers through a rebate, and the rest towards investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and deficit reduction.
The authors of the discussion draft are considering various initial carbon fee and escalation rates as well as uses for generated revenue. Note that certain provisions in the discussion draft are bracketed, which suggests a number of provisions will be refined based on additional analysis and deliberation.
|Policy Features||Sens. Sanders and Boxer's
Climate Protection Act of 2013
|Rep. Waxman, Sen. Whitehouse, Rep. Blumenauer, and
Carbon Pollution Fee discussion draft
|Rep. Delaney’s States Choices Act of 2014|
|Start Date||The earlier date of January 1, 2014, or the first calendar year beginning at least 180 days after enactment||January 1, 2014||2015|
|Regulating Authority||Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)||Jointly administered by Treasury Department and EPA. EPA would implement and enforce emissions reporting under EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Internal Revenue Service (Treasury) would assess, collect, and enforce the fee requirements.||States would be allowed to use a carbon tax to meet the regulatory requirements of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations of existing power plants.|
|Substances Covered Under a Carbon Pollution Fee||Carbon polluting substance defined as: coal, petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas that when used, will release greenhouse gas emissions.||Carbon pollution defined as any
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and other fluorinated greenhouse gases—identified
A-1 to Subpart A of the GHG reporting rule.
Excludes from coverage:
|Greenhouse gas defined to mean any
of the following: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfure
hexafluoride, hydroflourocarbons, and perflurocarbons.
|Point of Coverage (i.e, covered entity)||Any manufacturer (such as an oil
refinery or natural gas processing facility), producer, or importer of a
carbon polluting substance.
(Sanders-Boxer estimate their proposal would cover 2,700 facilities, or 85 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
|Covered entities are those required to report emissions under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requirements of 40 CFR 98. This includes owners and operators of facilities (such as electricity generators) and suppliers of products (such as oil refineries).
Facilities are not covered if they emit 50,000 metric tons or less of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in combined annual emissions from stationary fuel sources.
Certain sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases are exempted where the associated carbon pollution is also reported by another covered entity.
(The sponsors estimate their discussion draft would cover 7,000 facilities, or 85-95 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)
|Stationary source as defined by
Sec. 111(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(3)).
|Emission Targets and Timetables||Bill expresses the sense of Congress that the United States carry out activities to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.||Greenhouse gas emission targets and timetables not specified, except for a 90 percent reduction of emissions from HFCs attributed to specified entities.||N/A|
|Emission Allowance||N/A||A covered entity must purchase a
carbon pollution permit for the compliance year by May 1
of the following year.
Unless authorized by the Secretary of Treasury, permits are only valid for the specified calendar year and cannot be traded, sold, or banked.
|Escalation Rate||Fee imposed on full carbon content
of product (including fractional amount).
The fee would start at $20 per ton of carbon dioxide content (including carbon dioxide equivalent content of methane) of the carbon polluting substance. In subsequent years, the tax increases by 5.6 percent (rounded to the nearest dollar) above the previous year's amount.
|Fee imposed on carbon pollution emitted during, or attributed to, a compliance year (rounded to the nearest whole ton) as reported by the covered entity under the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
Sets a carbon permit fee of [$15/$25/$30] per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent of carbon pollution emitted, or attributed, for 2014, increasing at a real rate [2%-8%] annually.
|The tax would start $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. In subsequent years, the tax increases not less than 4 percent above inflation (as measured by the measured by the Consumer Price Index).|
|Credits or Refunds||Not specified.||Requires the Secretary of Treasury to refund fees for any extra permits obtained by a covered entity for a compliance year.||N/A|
|Energy Intensive, Trade Exposed||Imposes a carbon equivalency fee on
imports of carbon-intensive goods.
This annual fee would be differentiated by classes of products and country of origin, taking into account the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released during the manufacture and transport of the carbon pollution-intensive good.
This fee would expire when exporting countries adopt equivalent measures, or the EPA Administrator deems it no longer appropriate.
|Exported products whose emissions are required to be under EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule are excluded from purchasing a carbon pollution permit.||N/A|
|Use of Revenue||60 percent of the revenues (not including the import fee) would be rebated to U.S. citizens and
legal residents on a monthly basis.
40 percent of the revenues will be allocated to a Pollution Reduction Trust. For each of the first 10 years, this fund will allocate: $7.5 billion to mitigate impacts of the fee on energy intensive-trade exposed industries; $5 billion for weatherization of low income homes; $1 billion for clean energy job training; $2 billion for ARPA-E; and the balance would go toward deficit reduction.
Carbon equivalency fee on imports would be evenly split between building/improving critical infrastructure and improving resiliency to climate change.
|[To be supplied. Seeking comments on the use of revenues, such as: mitigating energy costs for low-income households, reducing the federal deficit, reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses, protecting jobs of energy-intensive trade exposed industries, and investing in other activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.]||N/A|
|Treatment of Existing State Programs||Not specified.||[To be supplied.]||N/A|
|Other||The bill would create a
$5 billion Sustainable Technologies Finance program under EPA to provide
financial assistance (i.e. loans, credits, loan guarantees) for eligible
renewables, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation projects) that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill would strengthen EPA's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, including requiring gas operators to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process. EPA would also be authorized to assess civil penalties for violations of those regulations up to $10,000 per day but capped at $125,000.
|Does not affect the application of any other provision of law to a covered entity.||N/A|
Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax, February 2013.
Market Mechanisms: Understanding the Options, March 2012.
Australia's Carbon Price Mechanism, December 2011.
|The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent nonprofit organization working to promote practical, effective policies and actions to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change.|
|2101 Wilson Blvd. Suite 550 Arlington, VA 22201 703-516-4146||