Factbox: Details of postponed climate bill in Senate

(Reuters) - Senator John Kerry, the lead writer of the compromise U.S. climate bill, said on Tuesday the legislation is being sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis despite a breakdown in bipartisan talks over the measure.

The unveiling of the bill in the Senate, initially scheduled for Monday, was postponed after Republican Lindsey Graham dropped out of talks with Kerry, a Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, an independent.

But Graham was on board with sending the legislation for analysis, Kerry said, an important step in the legislative process.

The bill could be unveiled at a later date if Graham rejoins the group, or Kerry gets more support from climate moderates, though time is growing short to pass it before November elections.

The EPA will examine the economic impact of the bill's provisions aimed at curbing climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.

Reuters has obtained many of the details likely to be included in a bill. Here is what is known so far, according to sources, although details could change:

-- A 17 percent reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, from 2005 levels, would be the goal. Many scientists think that is insufficient to keep global temperatures from rising a dangerous 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial times. The bill hopes to achieve around 80 percent reductions by 2050.

-- The Environmental Protection Agency would be barred from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. State and regional "cap and trade" programs to reduce carbon pollution would be terminated. States could still impose energy-efficiency standards and renewable energy standards.

-- Electric power utilities would be put under a cap and trade program, starting in 2013, to force them to reduce carbon emissions. It would force a reduction in carbon pollution over the years and required pollution permits could be traded on a regulated market.

Still unclear is how the pollution permits would be allocated to utilities and whether all of them would initially be given away or whether some would be sold.

The legislation is expected to avoid the term "cap and trade" in favor of something more descriptive, possibly "pollution reduction targets."

-- Manufacturers would be incorporated into the same program starting in 2016.

-- New incentives would be included for heavy trucks to switch from diesel fuel to cleaner-burning natural gas.

-- Domestic and international "offsets" would be allowed to help companies achieve pollution-reduction goals. Instead of reducing some of their smokestack emissions, they could invest in projects that aim to cut emissions, such as saving forests. More details on the number and type of offsets were unknown.

-- Additional government loan guarantees and other incentives expected to help spur construction of 12 new nuclear plants.

-- Oil refiners may be required to obtain pollution permits based on the amount of carbon in their motor fuels, but full details of the transportation portion of the bill were not yet available.

-- More government funds to help the coal industry develop clean technology, such as "carbon capture and sequestration." Last month, $10 billion was included in one draft, but changes were more recently made and details were not available.

-- An expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling in parts of Alaska and the East, excluding the Northeast. There's been a fight over whether states would share some of the federal revenues generated from the new drilling, with some senators vehemently opposed, either because they are against expanded drilling or they come from noncoastal states.

-- A price collar to prevent large market fluctuations in the price of carbon pollution permits. The collar would aim to keep prices initially in the range of $10-$25 per ton.

-- Consumer rebates to help cover the costs of higher energy prices.

-- Border protections for energy-intensive industries such as steel, paper, glass and chemical manufacturers. The goal is to have a mechanism in hand that would be used by the United States if foreign countries with weaker climate controls tried to flood the United States with their cheaper products.

-- Senators also were fighting over an oil industry proposal to allow states, instead of Washington, to regulate the production of natural gas from shale.

-- Pollution-reduction would be aimed at larger companies, such as those with emissions above 25,000 tons a year.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Timothy Gardner, Ayesha Rascoe and Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)