Order Code RL32865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Renewable Fuels and MTBE:
A Comparison of Selected Legislative Initiatives
Updated April 28, 2005
Brent D. Yacobucci, Mary E. Tiemann, and James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Aaron M. Flynn
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Renewable Fuels and MTBE:
A Comparison of Selected Legislative Initiatives
Summary
This report responds to congressional interest in comparing the House energy
bill (H.R. 6) provisions involving ethanol and the gasoline additive methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) to three other bills in the 109th Congress, H.R. 1608, S. 606, and
S. 650. On April 21, the House passed H.R. 6. This bill is similar to the 108th
Congress bill of the same number, which came close to passage, but the conference
report failed to pass in the Senate. As introduced, H.R. 1608 and S. 650 are identical
companion bills.
Many provisions from Title XV of H.R. 6 are similar to those of the three other
bills described in this report. All four bills would repeal the existing Clean Air Act
requirement that reformulated gasoline (RFG) contain at least 2% oxygen, a
requirement that led refiners and importers to use MTBE, and to a lesser extent
ethanol, in their RFG. In place of this requirement, all of the bills would provide a
major new stimulus for the use of ethanol — a provision that the annual production
of motor fuels contain at least 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel in roughly seven
years. In addition, the bills similarly require that the reductions in emissions of toxic
substances achieved by RFG be maintained; and they allow ethanol credit trading
among refiners and importers of fuels.
Major issues the bills treat differently include whether to ban MTBE (S. 606
would do so within four years, with some exceptions, while H.R. 6 allows 10 years
and gives the President authority to determine that it should not be banned, and H.R.
1608/S. 650 would not ban its use); whether to provide a “safe harbor” from product
liability lawsuits for producers of ethanol and other renewable fuels (H.R. 6 and S.
606 would do so, while H.R. 1608/S. 650 would not); whether to grant MTBE
producers — in addition to ethanol producers — a similar safe harbor from product
liability lawsuits (H.R. 6 does so, while S. 606 and H.R. 1608/S. 650 do not);
whether to require manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to evaluate their impacts
on public health and the environment (S. 606 and H.R. 1608/S. 650 do so, H.R. 6
does not); and whether to allow EPA to control or prohibit fuels and fuel additives
in order to protect water quality (present in S. 606, but not in H.R. 6 or H.R. 1608/S.
650).
In addition, H.R. 6 includes numerous amendments to the underground storage
tank (UST) regulatory program and authorizes the use of funds from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund for several new purposes, including
remediation of UST leaks involving MTBE and other oxygenates. S. 606 authorizes
LUST Trust Fund appropriations for MTBE cleanup and contains other UST and
LUST provisions, while H.R. 1608 and S. 650 contain none.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Side-by-Side Comparison of Fuels and MTBE Provisions in H.R. 6, S. 606,
and H.R. 1608/S. 650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

---

Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison
of Selected Legislative Initiatives
Introduction
This report1 compares provisions concerning renewable fuel (e.g., ethanol) and
the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in Title XV of the House
energy bill (H.R. 6, Barton), with three other bills in the 109th Congress, H.R. 1608
(Herseth), S. 606 (Thune), and S. 650 (Lugar). Markup on the discussion draft of
H.R. 6 was completed by various House committees the week of April 11, 2005. The
bill was introduced on April 18, 2005, and was passed by the House on April 21. S.
606 was introduced March 11, 2005; on March 16, 2005, it was ordered reported
favorably, with amendments, by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. S. 650 was introduced March 17, 2005, and was referred to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 1608 was introduced April 13,
2005, and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. As
introduced, H.R. 1608 and S. 650 are identical companion bills. (This report does not
address other provisions of the comprehensive energy bill; for an overview of these
provisions, see CRS Issue Brief IB10143.)
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, gasoline sold in numerous areas
of the country with poor air quality must contain MTBE, ethanol, or other substances
containing oxygen as a means of improving combustion and reducing emissions of
ozone-forming compounds and carbon monoxide. The act has two programs that
require the use of oxygenates, but the more significant of the two is the reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program, which took effect January 1, 1995. Under the reformulated
gasoline program, areas with “severe” or “extreme” ozone pollution (90 counties
with a combined population of 64.8 million) must use reformulated gasoline; areas
with less severe ozone pollution may opt into the program as well, and many have
done so. In all, portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia use reformulated
gasoline; a little more than 30% of the gasoline sold in the United States is RFG.
Since the mid-1990s, the addition of MTBE to RFG and its use in conventional
gasoline has become increasingly controversial. The additive has caused numerous
incidents of water contamination across the nation. The primary source of MTBE in
groundwater and drinking water has been petroleum releases from leaking
underground storage tanks. MTBE has been detected in drinking water sources in
1 This report focuses on provisions that address Clean Air Act, renewable fuel, and
underground storage tank leak prevention and cleanup issues. Of the four authors of this
report, James McCarthy handles the Clean Air Act; Brent Yacobucci, renewable fuels; Mary
Tiemann, underground storage tank issues; and Aaron Flynn, legal issues, including “safe
harbor” provisions.

---

CRS-2
at least 36 states,2 and 19 states have taken steps to ban or regulate its use. The most
significant of these bans (in California and New York) took effect at the end of 2003,
leading many to suggest that Congress revisit the issue to modify the oxygenate
requirement and set more uniform national requirements regarding MTBE and its
potential replacements (principally ethanol).
All four bills would repeal the Clean Air Act requirement that reformulated
gasoline contain at least 2% oxygen — the requirement that forces refiners and
importers to use MTBE, ethanol, or other oxygenates in their RFG. In place of this
requirement, all four would provide a major new stimulus to promote the use of
ethanol — a provision that the annual production of gasoline contain at least 5 billion
gallons of renewable fuel. H.R. 6 would require 5 billion gallons by 2012; S. 606
would require 6 billion gallons in the same year, while H.R. 1608/S. 650 would
require 8 billion gallons.
The bills use the term “renewable fuel” rather than ethanol, so the requirement
could be met by other fuels. In fact, all of the bills specifically include natural gas
produced from landfills, sewage treatment plants, feedlots, and other decaying
organic matter in the definition. The renewable fuel definition also encompasses
biodiesel, which can be made from soy oil or other cooking oils. However, ethanol
is the only renewable motor fuel currently being produced in significant quantities.
In 2004, roughly 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol were blended with gasoline.3
Biodiesel, the next most significant renewable motor fuel, is consumed at a rate of
about 50 million gallons annually, only about 2% of the amount of ethanol
consumed.4
Besides the oxygenate and renewable fuel provisions, the bills are similar in
requiring that reductions in emissions of toxic substances achieved by RFG be
maintained; they all require the consolidation of summertime volatility standards for
RFG produced for northern and southern markets; and they each allow ethanol credit
trading among refiners and importers of fuels.
Major issues the bills handle differently include:
! whether to ban MTBE (H.R. 1608/S. 650 would not ban MTBE, S.
606 would ban its use four years after enactment, and H.R. 6 would
allow use for 10 years and gives the President authority to determine
that it should not be banned);
! how much (if any) to authorize for grants to assist merchant MTBE
production facilities in converting to the production of other fuel
2 American Water Works Research Foundation, Occurrence of MTBE and VOCs in Drinking
Water Sources of the United States, 2003.
3 This is roughly 2% of total U.S. gasoline demand. Renewable Fuels Association, Ethanol
Industry Outlook 2005, Washington, D.C., January 2005.
4 For additional information on ethanol and biodiesel, see CRS Report RL30758, Alternative
Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues, and
CRS Report RL30369, Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues.

---

CRS-3
additives (H.R. 6 would authorize $2 billion in such assistance, as
compared to $1 billion in S. 606, while H.R. 1608/S. 650 contain no
such funding);
! whether to provide a “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits for
producers of ethanol and other renewable fuels (H.R. 6 and S. 606
would, but H.R. 1608/S. 650 would not);
! whether to grant MTBE producers — in addition to ethanol
producers — a safe harbor (S. 606 and H.R. 1608/S. 650 would
not, H.R. 6 would);
! whether to require manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to
evaluate their impacts on public health and the environment (S. 606
and H.R. 1608/S. 650 would do so, H.R. 6 would not);
! whether to allow EPA to control or prohibit fuels and fuel additives
in order to protect water quality (S. 606 would, H.R. 6 and H.R.
1608/S. 650 would not); and
! what amount (if any) to authorize from the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund for MTBE cleanup (H.R. 6 would
authorize $1 billion for the cleanup of underground storage tank
(UST) leaks of fuels containing MTBE or other oxygenates, and
another $1 billion for cleanup of leaks from petroleum USTs,
generally; S. 606 would authorize $200 million for the cleanup of
MTBE and other ether fuels (but not ethanol) from USTs and other
sources, while H.R. 1608/S. 650 contain no such authorization).
In addition, H.R. 6 includes numerous amendments to the underground storage
tank (UST) regulatory program and the leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
cleanup program. S. 606 contains some UST and LUST provisions, while H.R. 1608
and S. 650 contain none. H.R. 6 would add new tank inspection and tank operator
training requirements; prohibit fuel delivery to ineligible tanks; and require EPA,
with Indian tribes, to develop and implement a strategy to address releases on tribal
lands. H.R. 6 and S. 606 would authorize EPA and states to use LUST funds to
enforce UST release prevention and detection requirements, and both bills would
authorize appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund for this purpose.
The remainder of this report provides a side-by-side comparison of the MTBE
and renewable motor fuel provisions of the three bills. (For additional information
on MTBE, see CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking
Water Issues. For information on ethanol, see CRS Report RL30369, Fuel Ethanol:
Background and Public Policy Issues. For recent legislative actions, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in
Congress.)

---

CRS-4
Side-by-Side Comparison of Fuels and MTBE Provisions in H.R. 6, S. 606, and H.R. 1608/S. 650
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Renewable
A new §211(o) is added to the Clean Air Act. Beginning in
Similar to H.R. 6, except that 3.8
Similar to H.R. 6, except that
Content of
2005, motor vehicle fuel must contain a certain amount of
billion gallons of renewable fuel
4.0 billion gallons of renewable
Motor Vehicle
renewable fuel. In 2005, 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuel
would be required in 2006, increasing
fuel would be required in 2006,
Fuel
must be sold annually, increasing to 5.0 billion gallons in 2012.
to 6.0 billion gallons in 2012. [§101]
increasing to 8.0 billion gallons
After 2012, the percentage of renewable fuel required in the
in 2012. [§101]
motor fuel pool must be the same as the percentage required in
2012. This standard will largely be met by ethanol, but other
renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, are eligible. Ethanol from
cellulosic biomass (including from wood and agricultural
residue, animal waste, and municipal solid waste) is granted
extra credits toward fulfilling the program’s requirements.
Further, the bill would establish a credit trading program to
provide flexibility to refiners and blenders. [§1501]
Safe Harbor
Renewable fuels, MTBE, or fuels blended with renewable fuels
Renewable fuels and fuels blended
No comparable provision.
or MTBE cannot be deemed a “defective product.”
with renewable fuels cannot be
Applicability of this “safe harbor” would be conditioned upon
deemed to be “defective in design or
a party’s compliance with EPA regulations issued under § 211
manufacture.” Applicability of this
of the Clean Air Act and any applicable requests for
“safe harbor” would also be
information. Assuming these qualifications were met, any
conditioned upon a party’s
entity within the product chain, from manufacturers to retailers,
compliance with EPA regulations
would be shielded from products liability-based lawsuits, the
issued under § 211 of the Clean Air
approach that has been taken in most of the suits filed. Liability
Act and any applicable requests for
based on other grounds, such as negligence or breach of
information. So long as these
contract, to the extent it applies, would not be affected.
qualifications were met, any entity in
[§1502(a)]
the product chain would be shielded
from certain products liability-based
The provision would apply retroactively to claims filed on or
lawsuits. Arguably, this language
after September 5, 2003, thereby nullifying numerous pending
would not apply to one variety of
lawsuits. [§1502(b)]
products liability claims, those based

---

CRS-5
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
on failure to provide adequate
warning of product hazards. This
provision would not apply to MTBE
or other ethers. The provision would
not apply retroactively; thus, it would
affect only claims filed after the date
of enactment. [§101]
MTBE
Amends §211(c) of the Clean Air Act to authorize $250 million
Similar provision, except that only
No comparable provision.
Transition
in each of FY2005-FY2012 for grants to assist merchant U.S.
conversions to produce iso-octane or
Assistance
producers of MTBE in converting to the production of iso-
alkylates would be eligible. $250
octane, iso-octene, alkylates, renewable fuels, and other fuel
million is authorized for each of
additives. Amounts to remain available until expended. The
FY2005 through FY2008. [§203(c)]
Secretary of Energy may make grants available unless EPA
determines that such additives may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or the environment. [§1503]
Ban on Use of
Not later than December 31, 2014, the use of MTBE in motor
Similar to H.R. 6, except that the ban
No comparable provision.
MTBE
vehicle fuel is prohibited except in states that specifically
would take effect no later than four
authorize it. EPA may allow MTBE in motor vehicle fuel in
years after enactment. [§203(c)]
quantities up to 0.5% in cases the Administrator determines to
be appropriate. [§1504]
Presidential
Allows the President to make a determination, not later than
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Determination
June 30, 2014, that the restrictions on the use of MTBE shall
not take place. [§1505(b)]
National
Separately, requires the National Academy of Sciences to
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Academy of
conduct a review of MTBE’s beneficial and detrimental effects
Sciences Review
on environmental quality or public health or welfare, including
costs and benefits. The review shall be completed by May 31,
2014. [§1505(a)]

---

CRS-6
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Protection of
No comparable provision.
Amends §211(c)(1) of the Clean Air
No comparable provision.
Water Quality
Act to allow EPA to control or
prohibit fuels and fuel additives in
order to protect water quality, in
addition to current authority based on
protection of air quality. [§203(c)]
Oxygen Content
Amends §211(k) of the Clean Air Act to eliminate the
Nearly identical provision to H.R. 6.
Similar provision to H.R. 6,
requirement that reformulated gasoline contain at least 2%
[§204(a)]
except that the provision takes
oxygen. Provision takes effect 270 days after enactment,
effect one year after enactment.
except in California, where it takes effect immediately upon
[§201(a)]
enactment. [1506(a)]
Toxic Air
Amends §211(k)(1) to require that each refinery or importer of
Substantially similar to H.R. 6.
Similar to H.R. 6, except that
Pollutants
gasoline maintain the average annual reductions in emissions of
[§204(b)]
the baseline for emissions
toxic air pollutants achieved by the reformulated gasoline it
reductions is 2001 and 2002 (as
produced or distributed in 1999 and 2000. This provision is
opposed to 1999 and 2000).
intended to prevent backsliding, since the reductions actually
[§201(b)]
achieved in those years exceeded the regulatory requirements.
Establishes a credit trading program for emissions of toxic air
pollutants. [§1506(b)]
Mobile Source
Requires EPA to promulgate final regulations to control
Identical provision. [§204(b)]
Identical provision, except that
Air Toxics
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and their fuels by
the deadline is July 1, 2006.
July 1, 2005. [§1506(b)]
[§201(b)]
Consolidation of
Eliminates the less stringent requirements for volatility
Identical provision. [§204(d)]
Nearly identical provision.
RFG
applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in VOC Control
[§201(c)]
Requirements
Region 2 (northern states) by applying the more stringent
standards of VOC Control Region 1(southern states).
[§1506(c)]

---

CRS-7
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Analyses of Fuel
A new §211(p) is added to the Clean Air Act. Within four
Substantially similar to H.R. 6,
Substantially similar to H.R. 6.
Changes
years of enactment, the Administrator of the Environmental
except that the section would be
[§203]
Protection Agency (EPA) must publish a draft analysis of the
§211(q) of the Clean Air Act. [§206]
effects of the fuels provisions in the act on air pollutant
emissions and air quality. Within five years of enactment, the
Administrator is required to publish a final version of the
analysis. [§1507]
RFG Opt-In
No comparable provision.
Allows governors of 12 northeastern
Identical to S. 606. [§204]
states to petition EPA to require RFG
use in attainment areas in their states.
The Administrator shall do so, unless
he determines there is insufficient
capacity to produce RFG, in which
case the commencement date of the
requirement shall be delayed. [§207]
Federal
No comparable provision.
At the request of a state, allows
Identical to S. 606. [§205]
Enforcement of
federal enforcement of state controls
State Standards
on fuels and fuel additives. [§208]
Renewable Fuels
Requires DOE to collect and publish monthly survey data on
Similar to H.R. 6, except that the
Substantially similar to H.R. 6.
Surveys
the production, blending, importing, demand, and price of
survey must include data on
[§103]
renewable fuels, both on a national and regional basis. [§1508]
production, blending, and marketing
costs. [§103]
Not later than December 1, 2006, and annually thereafter,
Substantially similar to H.R. 6.
No comparable provision.
requires the EPA Administrator to conduct a survey to
[§102(b)]
determine the market shares of conventional gasoline and RFG
containing ethanol and other renewable fuels in conventional
and RFG areas in each state. [§1501(c)]

---

CRS-8
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Report on
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Requires the Secretary of
Renewable
Energy and the Secretary of
Motor Fuel
Agriculture to report to
Congress, by January 1, 2007,
on recommendations for
achieving 25% renewable
content in U.S. gasoline by
2025. [§208]
Reducing the
A new provision is added to §211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Proliferation of
The EPA Administrator shall not approve a control or
State Fuel
prohibition respecting the use of a fuel or fuel additive unless
Blends
he finds that it will not cause fuel supply or distribution
interruptions or have a significant adverse impact on fuel
producibility in the affected area or contiguous areas. Within
18 months of enactment, the Administrator shall submit a report
to Congress on the effects of providing a preference for RFG or
either of two low volatility (7.0 and 7.8 Reid Vapor Pressure)
gasolines. [§1509]
Reducing the
The EPA Administrator is permitted to temporarily waive fuel
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Proliferation of
requirements, including state fuel requirements and RFG
Boutique Fuels
standards, in the case of a natural disaster, Act of God, pipeline
or refinery equipment malfunction, or other unforseeable event.
[§1541(a)]
In addition, the Administrator may not approve a fuel standard
under a State Implementation plan if that standard would
increase the number of unique state formulations above the
number as of September 1, 2004. [§1541(b)]

---

CRS-9
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Study of
The EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Energy are
Substantially similar to H.R. 6,
Substantially similar to H.R. 6,
Harmonizing
required to conduct a study of federal, state, and local motor
except that the report must be
except that the report must be
Fuel System
fuels requirements. They are required to analyze the effects of
submitted to Congress by June 1,
submitted to Congress by June
Requirements
various standards on consumer prices, fuel availability,
2008. [§209]
1, 2006. [§206]
domestic suppliers, air quality, and emissions. Further, they are
required to study the feasibility of developing national or
regional fuel standards, and to provide recommendations on
legislative and administrative actions to improve air quality,
increase supply liquidity, and reduce costs to consumers and
producers. A report must be submitted to Congress by
December 31, 2007. [§1510]
Commercial
The Secretary of Energy is required to establish a loan
Would authorize an unspecified
No comparable provision.
Products from
guarantee program for the construction of facilities to produce
amount of loan guarantees to be
Solid Waste and
fuel ethanol and other commercial byproducts from municipal
issued under the Federal Nonnuclear
Cellulosic
solid waste and cellulosic biomass. Applicants for loan
Energy Research and Development
Biomass Loan
guarantees must provide assurance of repayment (at least 20%)
Act of 1974 for no more than three
Guarantees
in the form of a performance bond, insurance collateral, or
projects to commercially demonstrate
other means. The section authorizes such sums as may be
the feasibility and viability of
necessary for the program. [§1511]
converting cellulosic biomass derived
from agricultural residue into
ethanol. The provision would set a
maximum amount of $250 million
per project, but in no case for more
than 80% of a project’s costs.
[§102(c)]

---

CRS-10
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Bioconversion
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $4 million for the
No comparable provision.
Technology
University of Mississippi and the
University of Oklahoma for each of
FY2004-FY2006 for a resource
center to further develop
bioconversion technology using low-
cost biomass for the production of
ethanol. [§102(d)]
Research and
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $25 million in each of
No comparable provision.
Development
FY2006-FY2010 for research,
development, and implementation of
renewable fuel production
technologies in RFG states with low
rates of ethanol production.
[§102(e)]
Cellulosic
Allows the Secretary of Energy to provide grants for the
Similar to H.R. 6, except that only
No comparable provision.
Biomass Ethanol
construction of facilities to produce ethanol from cellulosic
facilities that produce ethanol from
Conversion
biomass, agricultural byproducts, agricultural waste, and
cellulosic biomass would qualify. A
Assistance
municipal solid waste. A total of $750 million is authorized to
total of $650 million is authorized for
be appropriated between FY2004 and FY2006. [§1512]
FY2005 and FY2006. [102(f)]
Blending of
Retailers may blend batches of gasoline with and without
Retailers may blend batches of RFG
No comparable provision.
Compliant
ethanol as long as both batches are compliant with the Clean
with and without ethanol as long as
Reformulated
Air Act. In a given year, retailers may only blend batches over
both batches are compliant with the
Gasolines
two ten-day periods in the summer months. [§1513]
Clean Air Act, and as long as the
retailer notifies EPA before such
blending takes place. [§204(c)]

---

CRS-11
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Underground
Amends Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) Subtitle I. New
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Storage Tanks
§9004(f) directs EPA to allot to the states at least 80% of the
(USTs)
funds made available from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund under §9014(2)(A).
New Uses of
In addition to the current use of funds to carry out the response
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
LUST Trust Fund
program for petroleum under §9003(h)(7)(A) (i.e., enforcing
and carrying out corrective actions, and cost recovery),
§9004(f) authorizes states to use funds to pay the reasonable
costs incurred for (1) administrative expenses related to state
funds or assurance programs; and (2) enforcing state UST
programs. EPA may use funds not allotted to states to enforce
any Subtitle I regulation.
Cost Recovery
New §9003(h)(6)(E) requires that, in determining the portion of
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
cleanup costs to recover from a tank owner or operator, EPA or
a state must consider the owner or operator’s ability to pay and
still maintain basic business operations. [§1522]
Tank Inspections
New SWDA §9005(c) requires states, within 2 years of
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
enactment, as appropriate, to perform on-site compliance
inspections of all tanks that have not been inspected since Dec.
1998 (when final UST regulations went into effect). Then, as
appropriate, states must conduct inspections of tanks at least
once every 3 years. EPA may grant a state a 1-year extension to
the first 3-year inspection interval. [§1523]
State Compliance
New §9003(i) requires states to prepare and submit to EPA
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Reports
compliance reports on government-owned tanks in the state.
[§1526(b)]
LUST Trust Fund
§9014(2)(C) authorizes the appropriation of $100 million for
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Authorization of
each of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out §9003(i), §9004(f), and
Appropriations
§9005(c). [§1531]

---

CRS-12
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Authorization of
New SWDA §9014(2)(A) authorizes the appropriation of $200
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Appropriations
million for each of FY2005-FY2009 from the LUST Trust Fund
for LUST
for EPA and states to carry out §9003(h), the response program
Response
for leaking petroleum tanks (except for MTBE and other
Program
oxygenated fuel remediation). [§1531]
Remediation of
New SWDA §9003(h)(12) authorizes EPA and states to use
Similar provision. New SWDA
No comparable provision.
MTBE and
funds from the LUST Trust Fund made available under
§9003(h)(12) authorizes EPA and
Other
§9014(2)(B) to remediate underground storage tank releases of
states to use funds from the LUST
Oxygenated Fuel
fuels containing oxygenated fuel additives (e.g., MTBE, other
Trust Fund made available under
Releases
ethers, and ethanol). [§1525]
§9013(1) to remediate MTBE and
other ether fuel releases (does not
include ethanol). Releases need not
be from underground storage tanks to
be eligible for assistance. [§202(a)]
(Presumably, the authors intended to
reference §9011(1).)
Authorization of
New §9014(2)(B) authorizes for this purpose the appropriation
New §9011(1) authorizes for this
No comparable provision.
LUST Trust Fund
of $200 million annually for FY2005-FY2009. [§1531(a)]
purpose an appropriation of $200
Appropriations
million for FY2005, to remain
available until expended. [§202(b)]
Use of LUST
New SWDA §9011 authorizes EPA and states to use funds from
Similar provision. New SDWA
No comparable provision.
Trust Fund for
the LUST Trust Fund to conduct inspections, issue orders, or
§9010 authorizes EPA and states to
UST Program
otherwise enforce underground storage tank regulations.
use LUST Trust Fund money
Enforcement
[§1526(a)]
available under §9013(2) to enforce
tank regulations. [202(b)]
(Presumably, the authors intended to
reference §9011(2).)

---

CRS-13
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Other UST
Subtitle I makes several other changes to the UST regulatory
No comparable provisions.
No comparable provisions.
Requirements
program, imposing new requirements on state and federal
and Funding
governments, and tank owners, operators and installers.
UST Operator
Revised §9010 requires states to develop operator training
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Training
requirements, based on EPA guidance (applicable to persons
with primary and daily tank operation and maintenance
responsibilities, and spill response responsibilities). [§1524]
Delivery
New §9012 prohibits product delivery to tanks that EPA or a
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
prohibition
state determines are ineligible for fuel delivery. Requires EPA
and states to develop delivery prohibition rosters. Provides for
civil penalties for violations of this prohibition. [§1527]
Tanks under
New §9013 requires EPA, with Indian tribes, to develop and
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Tribal
implement a strategy to address releases on tribal lands.
Jurisdiction
[§1529]
Authorization of
New §9014(2)(D) authorizes the appropriation of $55 million
New §9011(2) authorizes the
No comparable provision.
LUST Trust Fund
for each of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out §9010, §9011, §9012
appropriation of $30 million for each
Appropriations
and §9013. [§1531]
of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out
§9010. [§202(b)]
Federal Facilities
Amends §9007 to clarify and expand compliance requirements
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
for USTs under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
[§1528]
Other Ground-
New §9003(i) provides that, beginning 18 months after
No comparable provisions.
No comparable provisions.
water Protection
enactment, states that receive funding under Subtitle I must do
Measures
one of the following: (1) require that newly installed or
(Secondary
replaced tanks and piping are secondarily contained and
Containment,
monitored for leaks if the tank or piping is within 1,000 feet of
Financial
a community water system or potable well; (2) require that UST
Responsibility)
manufacturers and installers maintain evidence of financial

---

CRS-14
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
responsibility to pay for corrective actions; and require that
persons installing UST systems are certified or licensed, or that
their UST system installation is certified by a professional
engineer or inspected and approved by the state, or is compliant
with a code of practice or other method determined by a state
(or EPA) to be no less protective of human health and the
environment. [§1530]
[Note: §1526(b) and §1530 both create a new §9003(i).]
Public Health
No comparable provision.
Amends §211(b) of the Clean Air Act
Similar provision, except that
and
to require manufacturers of fuels and
the section does not specify
Environmental
fuel additives to conduct tests of their
that the health effects on
Impacts of Fuels
health and environmental impacts
sensitive populations must be
and Additives
(currently, these tests are at EPA’s
studied. [§202]
discretion and do not include
environmental effects), including the
effects on sensitive populations.
Also requires EPA, within two years,
to conduct a study of the health and
environmental effects of MTBE
substitutes, including ethanol-
blended RFG. [§205]
Federal Agency
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Amends the Energy Policy Act
Ethanol-Blended
of 1992 to require federal
Gasoline and
agencies to purchase and use
Biodiesel
ethanol-blended gasoline and
Purchasing
blends of biodiesel and
Requirement
conventional diesel, if those
fuels are available at a
competitive price. [§102]

---

CRS-15
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
S. 606 — Reliable Fuels Act
H.R. 1608/S. 650 —
Fuels Security Act of 2005
Review of
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Requires the Administrator of
Federal
General Services, 180 days
Procurement
after enactment, to report to
Congress on efforts to
implement procurement
policies on government use of
recycled products and federal
vehicle fleet efficiency. [§207]

---