Order Code RL32865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Renewable Fuels and MTBE:
A Comparison of Selected Provisions in H.R. 6
Updated July 13, 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 Provisions in H.R. 6
Summary
This report responds to congressional interest in comparing the House and
Senate energy bill (H.R. 6) provisions involving ethanol and the gasoline additive
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). On April 21, 2005, the House passed H.R. 6; the
Senate passed H.R. 6 on June 28, 2005. Many provisions in the House and Senate
versions of this bill are similar to the 108th Congress bills of the same number, which
came close to passage, but the conference report failed to pass in the Senate.
Many provisions from Title XV of the House-passed H.R. 6 are similar to those
in Title II of the Senate-passed version. Both 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, 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.
Further, both bills would provide a “safe harbor†from product liability lawsuits for
producers of ethanol and other renewable fuels, and both bills would ban the use of
MTBE. In addition, the bills would 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 that the bills treat differently include whether to grant MTBE
producers — in addition to ethanol producers — a safe harbor from product liability
lawsuits (the House version does so, while the Senate version does not); and whether
to require manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to evaluate their impacts on
public health and the environment (the Senate version does so, the House version
does not).
In addition, both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 6 would amend the
underground storage tank (UST) regulatory program to authorize the use of funds
appropriated from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund for
enforcement of the UST program. Both bills also would authorize LUST Trust Fund
appropriations for the remediation of leaks involving MTBE and other certain fuel
additives. The House bill is much broader, and would add new leak prevention
provisions to the UST program, and impose new requirements on states, EPA, and
tank owners.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Side-by-Side Comparison of Fuels and MTBE Provisions in H.R. 6 . . . . . . . . . . 4
Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison
of Selected Provisions in H.R. 6
Introduction
This report compares provisions concerning renewable fuel (e.g., ethanol) and
the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in Title XV of the House-
passed energy bill (H.R. 6) with similar provisions in Title II of the Senate-passed
bill. H.R. 6 passed the House on April 21, 2005; it passed the Senate June 28.1
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 (124 counties
with a combined population of 73.6 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
at least 36 states,2 and 22 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).
Both versions of H.R. 6 would repeal the Clean Air Act requirement that
reformulated gasoline contain at least 2% oxygen — the requirement that forces
1 This report focuses on provisions that address Clean Air Act, renewable fuel, and
underground storage tank leak prevention and cleanup issues. It does not address other
provisions of the comprehensive energy bill; for an overview of these provisions, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10143. 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.
2 American Water Works Research Foundation, Occurrence of MTBE and VOCs in Drinking
Water Sources of the United States, 2003.
CRS-2
refiners and importers to use MTBE, ethanol, or other oxygenates in their RFG.3 In
place of this requirement, both bills 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. The House version would require 5 billion
gallons by 2012; the Senate version would require 8 billion gallons in the same year.
The bills use the term “renewable fuel†rather than ethanol, so the requirement
could be met by other fuels. In fact, both 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.4
Biodiesel, the next most significant renewable motor fuel, is currently consumed at
a rate of about 50 million gallons annually, less than 2% of the amount of ethanol
consumed.5
Besides the oxygenate and renewable fuel provisions, the bills are similar in
establishing a nationwide ban on the use of MTBE (although the deadlines and
potential exceptions differ); both bills establish a “safe harbor†from product liability
lawsuits for producers of ethanol and other renewable fuels; both require that
reductions in emissions of toxic substances achieved by RFG be maintained; both
require the consolidation of summertime volatility standards for RFG produced for
northern and southern markets; and both allow ethanol credit trading among refiners
and importers of fuels.
Major issues the bills handle differently include:
! when to ban MTBE — the Senate bill would ban its use four years
after enactment, while the House bill would allow use for nine years
and gives the President authority to determine that it should not be
banned;
! how much to authorize for grants to assist merchant MTBE
production facilities in converting to the production of other fuel
additives — the House bill would authorize $2 billion in such
assistance, as compared to $1 billion in the Senate bill;
3 It should be noted that while overall requirements for RFG formulation have significantly
reduced the emissions of ozone-forming pollutants, some research indicates that these
emissions reductions have resulted from RFG requirements other than the oxygenate
standard, and that the benefits of the oxygenate standard alone are questionable.
4 This is roughly 2% of total U.S. gasoline demand. Renewable Fuels Association, Ethanol
Industry Outlook 2005, Washington, D.C., January 2005.
5 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
! whether to grant MTBE producers (in addition to ethanol producers)
a safe harbor — the House bill would, the Senate bill would not;
! whether to require manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to
evaluate their impacts on public health and the environment — the
Senate bill would do so, the House bill would not;
! whether to allow EPA to control or prohibit fuels and fuel additives
in order to protect water quality — the Senate bill would do so, the
House bill would not;
! how stringent to make the required maintenance of toxic emission
reductions in RFG — the Senate bill establishes a more stringent
baseline; and
! what amount to authorize from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund for remediation of contamination by
MTBE and other fuel additives — the House version of H.R. 6
would authorize $1 billion for the cleanup of underground storage
tank (UST) leaks of fuels containing MTBE or other oxygenates
(including ethanol), and another $1 billion for EPA and states to
administer and enforce the current LUST cleanup program; the
Senate bill would authorize $200 million for the cleanup of MTBE
and other ether fuels (but not ethanol) from USTs and other sources.
In addition to authorizing appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund for
remediating gasoline leaks involving MTBE, the House and Senate bills would
amend Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to allow LUST Trust
Fund appropriations to be used to enforce UST leak prevention regulations. The
House bill, which is much broader, would make numerous amendments to the UST
regulatory program, adding several new leak prevention provisions and new
requirements for states, EPA, and tank owners. As noted, other key differences are
that the Senate bill would allow funds to be used to clean up releases of MTBE and
other ether fuel additives, whether a release is from an UST or other source, while the
House bill would allow funds to be used to remediate releases involving MTBE and
other oxygenated fuels (including ethanol), but from USTs only.
The remainder of this report provides a side-by-side comparison of the MTBE
and renewable motor fuel provisions of the 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 information on the safe harbor provisions,
see CRS Report RS21676, The Safe-Harbor Provision for Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE). 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
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Renewable Content of
A new §211(o) is added to the Clean Air Act. Beginning in
Significant differences from the House version: Requires that
Motor Vehicle Fuel
2005, motor vehicle fuel must contain a certain amount of
4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used in 2006, increasing
renewable fuel. In 2005, 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuel
to 8.0 billion gallons in 2012. After 2012, the minimum
must be sold annually, increasing to 5.0 billion gallons in 2012.
requirement is the ratio of renewable fuel to gasoline in 2012,
After 2012, the percentage of renewable fuel required in the
but EPA has the authority to establish a higher requirement. A
motor fuel pool must be the same as the percentage required in
gallon of cellulosic ethanol counts as 2.5 gallons of renewable
2012. This standard will largely be met by ethanol, but other
fuel (1.5 gallons in the House version). Further, after 2012, a
renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, are eligible. Ethanol from
minimum of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol is
cellulosic biomass (including from wood and agricultural
required in fuel annually (and would not be subject to the
residue, animal waste, and municipal solid waste) is granted
increased credit for cellulosic ethanol). [§211]
extra credits toward fulfilling the program’s requirements (1
gallon of cellulosic ethanol counts as 1.5 gallons of renewable
fuel). 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 used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle
or MTBE cannot be deemed a “defective product.†Applicability
fuel and any motor vehicle fuel containing renewable fuel
of this “safe harbor†would be conditioned upon a party’s
cannot be deemed defective in design or manufacture. The
compliance with EPA regulations issued under § 211 of the
term “renewable fuels†would be defined by a corresponding
Clean Air Act and any applicable requests for information.
amendment to § 211 of the Clean Air Act. Further, ethers,
Assuming these qualifications were met, any entity within the
including MTBE, would not be covered by the “safe harbor.â€
product chain, from manufacturers to retailers, would be shielded
Applicability of the provision would also be conditioned upon
from products liability-based lawsuits, the approach that has been
a party’s compliance with EPA regulations issued under § 211
taken in most of the suits filed. Liability based on other grounds,
of the Clean Air Act and any applicable requests for
such as negligence or breach of contract, to the extent it applies,
information. Unlike the House bill, this provision would not
would remain intact. [§1502(a)]
apply retroactively, and pertains only to claims filed on after the
date of the provision’s enactment. [211(a)]
The provision would apply retroactively to claims filed on or
after September 5, 2003, thereby nullifying numerous pending
lawsuits. [§1502(b)]
CRS-5
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
MTBE Transition
Amends §211(c) of the Clean Air Act to authorize $2 billion
Similar provision, except that $1 billion in grants are authorized
Assistance
($250 million in each of FY2005-FY2012) for grants to assist
($250 million in each of FY2005-FY2008). Eligible facilities
merchant U.S. producers of MTBE in converting to the
are those that produced MTBE for consumption in
production of iso-octane, iso-octene, alkylates, renewable fuels,
nonattainment areas after the date of enactment. [§223(c)]
and other fuel additives. Eligible facilities are those that
produced MTBE before April 2003 and ceased production after
the date of enactment. The 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 MTBE
Not later than December 31, 2014, the use of MTBE in motor
Similar provisions, except that the prohibition amends Section
vehicle fuel is prohibited except in states that specifically
211(c) of the Clean Air Act and would take effect not later than
authorize it. EPA may allow MTBE in motor vehicle fuel in
4 years after the date of enactment. [§223(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 June
No comparable provision.
Determination
30, 2014, that the restrictions on the use of MTBE shall not take
place. [§1505(b)]
National Academy of
Separately, requires the National Academy of Sciences to
No comparable provision.
Sciences Review
conduct a review of MTBE’s beneficial and detrimental effects
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
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Protection of Water
No comparable provision.
Amends Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act to authorize the
Quality
EPA Administrator to regulate, control, or prohibit the
manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or
sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle or
engine if it causes or contributes to water pollution. [§223(c)]
Oxygen Content
Amends §211(k) of the Clean Air Act to eliminate requirement
Identical provision. [§224(a)]
that reformulated gasoline contain at least 2% oxygen. Provision
takes effect 270 days after enactment, except in California, where
it takes effect immediately upon enactment. [1506(a)]
Toxic Air Pollutants
Amends §211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act to require that each
Similar anti-backsliding provision, except that the base years
refinery or importer of gasoline maintain the average annual
for determining allowable emissions are 2001 and 2002. Also
reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants achieved by the
provides an exception for California, which has more stringent
reformulated gasoline it produced or distributed in 1999 and
state requirements. [§224(b)]
2000. This provision is intended to prevent backsliding, since
the reductions actually achieved in those years exceeded the
regulatory requirements. Establishes a credit trading program for
emissions of toxic air pollutants. [§1506(b)]
Mobile Source Air
Requires EPA to promulgate final regulations to control
Similar provision, but the deadline for promulgation is July 1,
Toxics
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and their fuels by
2007. Also provides that if the promulgated regulations achieve
July 1, 2005. [§1506(b)]
and maintain greater overall reductions in emissions of air
toxics from RFG than what would be achieved under the anti-
backsliding requirements described above, the anti-backsliding
requirements shall be null and void. [§224(b)]
CRS-7
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Consolidation of RFG
Eliminates the less stringent requirements for volatility
Identical provision. [§224(d)]
Requirements
applicable to reformulated gasoline sold in VOC Control Region
2 (northern states) by applying the more stringent standards of
VOC Control Region 1(southern states) to both regions.
[§1506(c)]
Public Health and
No comparable provision.
Amends §211(b) of the Clean Air Act to require manufacturers
Environmental
of fuels and fuel additives to conduct tests of their health and
Impacts of Fuels and
environmental impacts (currently, these tests are at EPA’s
Additives
discretion and do not include environmental effects). Also
requires EPA, within 2 years, to conduct a study of the health
and environmental effects of MTBE substitutes, including
ethanol-blended RFG. [§225]
Analyses of Fuel
A new §211(p) is added to the Clean Air Act. Within four years
Similar to the House provision, except that the Senate version
Changes
of enactment, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
also requires EPA to publish within one year of enactment a
Agency (EPA) must publish a draft analysis of the effects of the
study on the effects of ethanol content on fuel permeation
fuels provisions in H.R. 6 on air pollutant emissions and air
through vehicle fuel systems. [§226]
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 states (the Ozone
Transport Region) to petition EPA to require RFG use in
attainment areas in their states. The Administrator shall do so
unless he determines that there is insufficient capacity to
produce RFG, in which case the commencement date of the
requirement shall be delayed. [§227]
CRS-8
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Federal Enforcement
No comparable provision.
At the request of a state, allows federal enforcement of state
of State Standards
controls on fuels and fuel additives. [§228]
Renewable Fuels
Requires DOE to collect and publish monthly survey data on the
Similar to House provision, except that DOE must also collect
Surveys
production, blending, importing, demand, and price of renewable
and publish data on production costs. [§213]
fuels, both on a national and regional basis. [§1508]
Not later than December 1, 2006, and annually thereafter,
Substantially similar to House version. [§212(b)]
requires EPA Administrator to conduct a survey to 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)]
Reducing the
A new provision is added to §211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
No comparable provision.
Proliferation of State
The EPA Administrator shall not approve a control or prohibition
Fuel Blends
respecting the use of a fuel or fuel additive unless 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.
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
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Fuel System
The EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Energy are required
Substantially similar to the House version, except that the
Requirements
to conduct a study of federal, state, and local motor fuels
report must include the effects on sensitive populations, and the
Harmonization Study
requirements. They are required to analyze the effects of various
report must be submitted to Congress by June 1, 2008. [§229]
standards on consumer prices, fuel availability, 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, 2009. [§1510]
Cellulosic Biomass and
The Secretary of Energy is required to establish a loan guarantee
The Secretary of Energy is required to establish loan guarantees
Municipal Solid Waste
program for the construction of facilities to produce fuel ethanol
for no more than four projects to demonstrate the commercial
Loan Guarantees
and other commercial byproducts from municipal solid waste
feasibility and viability of converting cellulosic biomass or
and cellulosic biomass. Applicants for loan guarantees must
sucrose into ethanol. Loan guarantees can cover a maximum
provide assurance of repayment (at least 20%) in the form of a
amount of $250 million per project, but in no case for more
performance bond, insurance collateral, or other means. The
than 80% of a project’s estimated cost, as well as up to 80% of
section authorizes such sums as may be necessary for the
project costs in excess of the estimate. No new funding is
program. [§1511]
authorized. [§212(c)]
Cellulosic Biomass
Allows Secretary of Energy to provide grants for the construction
Similar to the House version, except that only facilities that
Conversion Assistance
of facilities to produce renewable fuels (including ethanol) from
produce ethanol (and not other renewable fuels) from municipal
cellulosic biomass, agricultural byproducts, agricultural waste,
waste or agricultural residue may qualify. A total of $650
and municipal solid waste. A total of $750 million is authorized
million is authorized between FY2005 and FY2006. [§212(f)]
to be appropriated between FY2005 and FY2007. [§1512]
Blending of Compliant
Retailers may blend batches of reformulated gasoline with and
Retailers may blend batches of reformulated gasoline with and
Reformulated
without ethanol, as long as both batches are compliant with the
without ethanol as long as the resulting fuel is compliant with
Gasolines
Clean Air Act. In a given year, retailers may only blend batches
the Clean Air Act. There is no limitation on the number of
over two ten-day periods in the summer months. [§1513]
batches or duration of blending. [§224(c)]
CRS-10
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Underground Storage
Amends Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) Subtitle I. New
No comparable provision.
Tanks (USTs)
§9004(f) directs EPA to allot to the states at least 80% of the
funds made available from the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund under §9014(2)(A). [§1522]
New Uses of LUST
In addition to the current use of funds to carry out the response
No comparable provision.
Trust Fund
program for petroleum tank leaks under §9003(h)(7)(A) (i.e.,
enforcing and carrying out corrective actions, and cost recovery),
§9004(f) of SWDA 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. Also authorizes EPA to use funds not allotted to
states to enforce any Subtitle I regulation. [§1522]
Cost Recovery
New SWDA §9003(h)(6)(E) requires EPA or a state, in
No comparable provision.
determining the portion of cleanup costs to recover from a tank
owner or operator, to 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.
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 SWDA §9003(i) requires states to prepare and submit to
No comparable provision.
Reports
EPA compliance reports on government-owned tanks in the state.
[§1526(b)] (Note: §1530(a) also adds a new SWDA §9003(i) on
additional groundwater protection measures.)
LUST Trust Fund
§9014(2)(C) authorizes the appropriation of $100 million for
No comparable provision.
Authorization of
each of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out §9003(i), §9004(f), and
Appropriations
§9005(c). [§1531]
CRS-11
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(A) authorizes the appropriation of $200
No comparable provision.
Authorization of
million for each of FY2005-FY2009 from the LUST Trust Fund
Appropriations for
for EPA and states to carry out §9003(h), the response program
LUST Response
for leaking petroleum tanks (except for MTBE and other
Program
oxygenated fuel remediation). [§1531]
Remediation of MTBE
New SWDA §9003(h)(12) authorizes EPA and states to use
Similar, except that funds may be used to remediate
and Other Fuel
funds from the LUST Trust Fund to remediate underground
contamination from MTBE and other ether fuel additives (not
Additives
storage tank releases of fuels containing oxygenated fuel
ethanol); releases need not be from underground storage tanks
additives (e.g., MTBE, other ethers, and ethanol). [§1525]
to be eligible for funding. [§222(a)]
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(B) authorizes for this purpose the
New SWDA §9011(1) authorizes for this purpose the
Authorization of
appropriation of $200 million annually for FY2005-FY2009.
appropriation of $200 million for FY2005, to remain available
Appropriations
[§1531(a)]
until expended. [§222(a)]
Use of LUST Trust
New SWDA §9011 authorizes EPA and states to use funds from
Adds similar new §9010.
Fund for UST Program the LUST Trust Fund to conduct inspections, issue orders, or
[§222(b)]
Enforcement
otherwise enforce Subtitle I regulations (UST leak prevention
and detection regulations, as well as LUST response program
regulations). [§1526(a)]
CRS-12
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
Other UST
Subtitle I makes several other changes to the UST regulatory
No comparable provisions.
Requirements and
program in SWDA, imposing new requirements on state and
Funding
federal governments, and tank owners, operators and installers:
UST Operator Training
Revised §9010 requires states to develop operator training
No comparable provision.
requirements, based on EPA guidance (applicable to persons
with primary and daily tank operation and maintenance
responsibilities, and spill response responsibilities). [§1524]
Delivery prohibition
New §9012 prohibits product delivery to tanks that EPA or a
No comparable provision.
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]
Federal Facilities
Amends §9007 to clarify and expand compliance requirements
No comparable provision.
for USTs under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
[§1528]
Tanks under Tribal
New §9013 requires EPA, with Indian tribes, to develop and
No comparable provision.
Jurisdiction
implement a strategy to address releases on tribal lands. [§1529]
Other Groundwater
New §9003(i) provides that, beginning 18 months after
No comparable provision.
Protection Measures
enactment, states that receive funding under Subtitle I must do
(Secondary
one of the following: (1) require that newly installed or replaced
Containment, Financial
tanks and piping are secondarily contained and monitored for
Responsibility)
leaks if the tank or piping is within 1,000 feet of a community
water system or potable well; (2) require that UST manufacturers
and installers maintain evidence of financial 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(a)]
(Note: §1526(b) and §1530(a) both create a new §9003(i).)
CRS-13
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed the House
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(D) authorizes the appropriation of $55
New SWDA §9011(2) authorizes the appropriation of $50
Authorization of
million for each of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out §9010 (operator
million for FY2005 and $30 million for each of FY2006-
Appropriations
training), §9011 (enforcement), §9012 (delivery prohibition) and
FY2010 to carry out §9010 (enforcement).
§9013 (Indian lands strategy). [§1531]
[§222(b)]
Authorization of
New SWDA §9014(1) authorizes the appropriation of $50
No comparable provision.
Appropriations
million for each of FY2005-FY2009 to carry out Subtitle I
(General Revenues)
(except for §9003(h) (LUST cleanup program),§9005(c)
(inspections), §9011(enforcement), and §9012 (delivery
prohibition). [§1531]
Resource Center
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $4 million for the Mississippi State University and
Oklahoma State University for each of FY2005-FY2007 for a
resource center to further develop bioconversion technology
using low-cost biomass for the production of ethanol. [§212(d)]
Renewable Fuel
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $25 million in each of FY2006-FY2010 for
Production Research
research, development, and implementation of renewable fuel
and Development
production technologies in RFG states with low rates of ethanol
Grants
production. [§212(e)]
Advanced Biofuels
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $110 million in each of FY2005 through FY2009
Technology Program
for projects to demonstrate new technologies for the production
of biofuels. The program must fund at least 4 different
technologies for producing cellulosic biomass ethanol and at
least 5 technologies for the production of value-added biodiesel
fuel coproducts. Preference is given to projects that enhance
geographical diversity of alternative fuel production and to
projects with feedstocks used in 10 percent or less of annual
ethanol and biodiesel production. [§230]
Sugar Cane Ethanol
No comparable provision.
Establishes a program to study the production of ethanol from
Program
cane sugar, sugarcane, and sugarcane byproducts. The program
would be limited to projects in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and
Hawaii. A total of $36 million is authorized. [§231]