Order Code RL32865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Renewable Fuels and MTBE:
A Comparison of Provisions in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58 and H.R. 6)
Updated October 3, 2006
Brent D. Yacobucci, Mary Tiemann, and James E. McCarthy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
Renewable Fuels and MTBE:
A Comparison of Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58 and H.R. 6)
Summary
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), Congress established
a requirement for the use of renewable fuels and revised Clean Air Act and
underground storage tank regulatory requirements to address public health and
environmental concerns associated with the use of fuels and fuel additives, especially
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Much contentious debate centered on the issue
of how to address water quality problems associated with MTBE use while
preserving air quality benefits of reformulated gasoline and, at the same time,
promoting the use of renewable fuels (especially ethanol). This report compares the
renewable fuel and MTBE provisions in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 6
with the provisions Congress ultimately agreed to in Title XV of P.L. 109-58.
Among the key fuel-related provisions, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 repealed
the 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. This provision was advanced by both the House and
Senate, largely in response to drinking water contamination problems associated with
the use of MTBE.
In place of this requirement, the Act established a Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) requiring the use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. This
requirement is being met primarily through the use of ethanol. Also consistent with
the House and Senate bills, P.L. 109-58 requires that the reductions in emissions of
toxic substances achieved by RFG be maintained and allows ethanol credit trading
among refiners and importers of fuels.
Major issues that the various versions of the bill treated differently include
whether to grant MTBE producers a safe harbor from product liability lawsuits (the
House version did so, whereas the Senate version and the enacted version did not);
whether to phase out continued use of MTBE in motor fuels (both the House and
Senate versions would have done so, with exceptions, whereas the enacted bill 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 and the
enacted version did so, the House version did not).
The Energy Policy Act also amends the underground storage tank (UST)
regulatory program to specifically authorize EPA and states to use funds appropriated
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to address fuel
leaks involving MTBE and other oxygenated fuel additives. The law also expands
the leak prevention provisions of the UST program and imposes new requirements
on states, EPA, and tank owners.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Side-by-Side Comparison of Fuels and MTBE Provisions in H.R. 6 and
P.L. 109-58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison
of Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58 and H.R. 6)
Introduction
Enacted August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6)
established a requirement for the use of renewable fuels and revised Clean Air Act
and underground storage tank regulatory requirements to address public health and
environmental concerns associated with the use of fuels and fuel additives, especially
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Considerable debate centered on the issue of
how to address drinking water quality problems associated with MTBE use while
preserving air quality benefits of reformulated gasoline and, at the same time,
promoting the use of renewable fuels (especially ethanol).
This report compares provisions concerning renewable fuel (e.g., ethanol) and
the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in Title XV of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 with the provisions in Title XV of the House-passed H.R. 6 and
the provisions in Title II of the Senate-passed H.R. 6.1
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, gasoline sold in numerous areas
of the country with poor air quality was required to contain oxygenates — 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 had two programs that required the use of oxygenates, but the
more significant of the two was 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
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
Report RL33302,
The Energy Policy Act of 2005: Summary and Analysis of Enacted
Provisions, coordinated by Mark Holt and Carol Glover. Of the four authors of this report,
James McCarthy handles the Clean Air Act; Brent Yacobucci, renewable fuels; Mary
Tiemann, underground storage tank issues. “Safe harbor” provisions are addressed by
Aaron Flynn, American Law Division.
CRS-2
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 25 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).
P.L. 109-58 repeals 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.3 In place of this requirement,
it provides a major new stimulus to promote the use of ethanol — a provision that the
annual production of gasoline contain at least 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel
by 2012.
The enacted bill uses the term “renewable fuel” rather than ethanol, so the
requirement can be met by other fuels, including natural gas produced from landfills,
sewage treatment plants, feedlots, and other decaying organic matter. 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
Some provisions of the House- and Senate-passed bills did not survive the
conference. The House- and Senate-passed bills would have established a
nationwide ban on the use of MTBE (although the deadlines and potential exceptions
differed); and both bills would have established a “safe harbor” from product liability
lawsuits for producers of ethanol and other renewable fuels. Neither of these
provisions was included in the enacted version. The enacted bill also dropped the
House bill’s safe harbor for MTBE producers, as well as the transitional assistance
for merchant producers of MTBE that was included in both the House- and Senate-
passed versions.
2 American Water Works Research Foundation,
Occurrence of MTBE and VOCs in Drinking
Water Sources of the United States, 2003.
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
The enacted bill also amends the underground storage tank (UST) regulatory
program under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to better prevent
leaks of petroleum and MTBE from underground tanks. It authorizes EPA and states
to use appropriations from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund for administering their LUST cleanup programs and enforcing tank leak
prevention regulations. Patterned after the House bill, P.L. 109-58, as amended,6
authorizes $1 billion for the cleanup of 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. However, the act’s tax
extension language (§1362) prohibits the use of LUST Trust Fund appropriations for
any new purposes. Thus, while the Energy Policy Act of 2005 markedly expands
states’ leak prevention responsibilities, it prohibits the use of the trust fund money
to support state implementation of the new requirements. Among other provisions,
the act requires EPA or the state to conduct UST compliance inspections every three
years; prohibits fuel delivery to ineligible tanks; directs states to develop training
requirements for individuals responsible for tank operation and maintenance; and
requires EPA to establish a strategy to address releases on tribal lands.
The remainder of this report provides a side-by-side comparison of the MTBE
and renewable motor fuel provisions of the House and Senate bills with the final law,
P.L. 109-58. (For additional information on MTBE, see CRS Report RL32787,
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues, by James E. McCarthy and
Mary Tiemann. For information on ethanol, see CRS Report RL30369,
Fuel
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues, and CRS Report RL33290,
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress, both by
Brent D. Yacobucci. For a legal discussion of the safe harbor provisions as proposed,
see CRS Report RS21676,
The Safe-Harbor Provision for Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE), by Aaron M. Flynn.)
6 Technical corrections to the Energy Policy Act were enacted in P.L. 109-168 on January
10, 2006. The only substantial correction to Title XV was the revision of the dates
authorizing appropriations for Subtitle I, regarding the regulation of underground storage
tanks, from FY2005-FY2009 to FY2006-FY2011.
CRS-4
Side-by-Side Comparison of Fuels and MTBE Provisions in H.R. 6 and P.L. 109-58
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Renewable Content of
A new §211(o) is added to the Clean Air Act.
Significant differences from the House version:
Similar to Senate provision,
Motor Vehicle Fuel
Beginning in 2005, motor vehicle fuel must
Requires that 4.0 billion gallons of renewable
except that 4.0 billion gallons
contain a certain amount of renewable fuel. In
fuel be used in 2006, increasing to 8.0 billion
is required in 2006, increasing
2005, 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuel
gallons in 2012. After 2012, the minimum
to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.
must be sold annually, increasing to 5.0 billion
requirement is the ratio of renewable fuel to
EPA has the authority to
gallons in 2012. After 2012, the percentage of
gasoline in 2012, but EPA has the authority to
establish the requirement in
renewable fuel required in the motor fuel pool
establish a higher requirement. A gallon of
subsequent years, but no
must be the same as the percentage required in
cellulosic ethanol counts as 2.5 gallons of
lower than the percentage in
2012. This standard will largely be met by
renewable fuel (1.5 gallons in the House
2012. A gallon of cellulosic
ethanol, but other renewable fuels, such as
version). Further, after 2012, a minimum of 250
ethanol counts as 2.5 gallons
biodiesel, are eligible. Ethanol from cellulosic
million gallons of cellulosic ethanol is required
of renewable fuel. After
biomass (including from wood and agricultural
in fuel annually (and would not be subject to the
2012, a minimum of 250
residue, animal waste, and municipal solid
increased credit for cellulosic ethanol).
[§211]
million gallons of cellulosic
waste) is granted extra credits toward fulfilling
ethanol is required in fuel
the program’s requirements (1 gallon of
annually.
[§1501]
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]
CRS-5
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Safe Harbor
Renewable fuels, MTBE, or fuels blended with
Renewable fuels used or intended to be used as a
No comparable provision.
renewable fuels or MTBE cannot be deemed a
motor vehicle fuel and any motor vehicle fuel
“defective product.” Applicability of this
containing renewable fuel cannot be deemed
“safe harbor” would be conditioned upon a
defective in design or manufacture. The term
party’s compliance with EPA regulations
“renewable fuels” would be defined by a
issued under § 211 of the Clean Air Act and
corresponding amendment to § 211 of the Clean
any applicable requests for information.
Air Act. Further, ethers, including MTBE,
Assuming these qualifications were met, any
would not be covered by the “safe harbor.”
entity within the product chain, from
Applicability of the provision would also be
manufacturers to retailers, would be shielded
conditioned upon a party’s compliance with
from products liability-based lawsuits, the
EPA regulations issued under § 211 of the Clean
approach that has been taken in most of the
Air Act and any applicable requests for
suits filed. Liability based on other grounds,
information. Unlike the House bill, this
such as negligence or breach of contract, to the
provision would not apply retroactively, and
extent it applies, would remain intact.
pertains only to claims filed on after the date of
[§1502(a)]
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-6
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Claims Filed After
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Under this provision, any
Enactment
claim or legal action filed
after August 8, 2005 that
involves possible MTBE
contamination may be
removed to a federal district
court where jurisdiction and
venue would otherwise be
appropriate. This provision
thus allows state law based
claims that would otherwise
be ineligible for federal court
review to be heard by federal
judges. The substantive law
of the state will still be
applied in federal court,
although most rules of
procedure would be supplied
by federal law.
[§1503]
CRS-7
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Ban on Use of MTBE
Not later than December 31, 2014, the use of
Similar provisions, except that the prohibition
No comparable provision.
MTBE in motor vehicle fuel is prohibited
amends Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act and
except in states that specifically authorize it.
would take effect not later than 4 years after the
EPA may allow MTBE in motor vehicle fuel
date of enactment.
[§223(c)]
in quantities up to 0.5% in cases the
Administrator determines to be appropriate.
[§1504]
Presidential
Allows the President to make a determination,
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Determination
not later than June 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
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Sciences Review
Sciences to 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-8
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
MTBE Transition
Amends §211(c) of the Clean Air Act to
Similar provision, except that $1 billion in
No comparable provision.
Assistance
authorize $2 billion ($250 million in each of
grants are authorized ($250 million in each of
FY2005-FY2012) for grants to assist merchant
FY2005-FY2008). Eligible facilities are those
U.S. producers of MTBE in converting to the
that produced MTBE for consumption in
production of iso-octane, iso-octene, alkylates,
nonattainment areas after the date of enactment.
renewable fuels, and other fuel additives.
[§223(c)]
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]
Protection of Water
No comparable provision.
Amends Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act to
No comparable provision.
Quality
authorize the 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
Identical provision.
[§224(a)]
Identical provision.
eliminate requirement that reformulated
[§1504(a)]
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)]
CRS-9
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Toxic Air Pollutants
Amends §211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act to
Similar anti-backsliding provision, except that
Identical to Senate provision.
require that each refinery or importer of
the base years for determining allowable
[§1504(b)]
gasoline maintain the average annual
emissions are 2001 and 2002. Also provides an
reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants
exception for California, which has more
achieved by the reformulated gasoline it
stringent state requirements.
[§224(b)]
produced or distributed in 1999 and 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. The anti-backsliding provision
applies only to the extent that the quantity
produced or imported is less than or equal to
the average annual quantity produced or
imported in the two base years.
[§1506(b)]
Mobile Source Air
Requires EPA to promulgate final regulations
Similar provision, but the deadline for
Identical to Senate provision.
Toxics
to control hazardous air pollutants from motor
promulgation is July 1, 2007. Also provides that
[§1504(b)]
vehicles and their fuels by July 1, 2005.
if the promulgated regulations achieve and
[§1506(b)]
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-10
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Consolidation of RFG
Eliminates the less stringent requirements for
Identical provision.
[§224(d)]
Identical provision.
[§1504(c)]
Requirements
volatility 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
Identical to Senate provision.
Environmental
manufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to
[§1505]
Impacts of Fuels and
conduct tests of their health and environmental
Additives
impacts (currently, these tests are at EPA’s
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.
Similar to the House provision, except that the
Identical to Senate provision.
Changes
Within four years of enactment, the
Senate version also requires EPA to publish
[§1506]
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
within one year of enactment a study on the
Agency (EPA) must publish a draft analysis of
effects of ethanol content on fuel permeation
the effects of the fuels provisions in H.R. 6 on
through vehicle fuel systems.
[§226]
air pollutant emissions and air quality. Within
five years of enactment, the Administrator is
required to publish a final version of the
analysis.
[§1507]
CRS-11
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
RFG Opt-In
No comparable provision.
Allows governors of 12 northeastern states (the
Identical to Senate provision.
Ozone Transport Region) to petition EPA to
[§1507]
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]
Federal Enforcement
No comparable provision.
At the request of a state, allows federal
No comparable provision.
of State Standards
enforcement of state controls on fuels and fuel
additives.
[§228]
Renewable Fuels
Requires DOE to collect and publish monthly
Similar to House provision, except that DOE
Identical to House provision.
Surveys
survey data on the production, blending,
must also collect and publish data on production
[§1508]
importing, demand, and price of renewable
costs.
[§213]
fuels, both on a national and regional basis.
[§1508]
Not later than December 1, 2006, and annually
Substantially similar to House version.
Identical to House provision.
thereafter, requires EPA Administrator to
[§212(b)]
[§1501(d)]
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)]
CRS-12
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Reducing the
A new provision is added to §211(c)(4) of the
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Proliferation of State
Clean Air Act. The EPA Administrator shall
Fuel Blends
not approve a control or prohibition 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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provisions.
Proliferation of
temporarily waive fuel requirements, including
[§1541(a) and §1541(b)]
Boutique Fuels
state fuel requirements and RFG standards, in
the case of a natural disaster, Act of God,
pipeline or refinery equipment malfunction, or
other unforeseeable 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-13
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Fuel System
The EPA Administrator and the Secretary of
Substantially similar to the House version,
Identical to Senate provision,
Requirements
Energy are required to conduct a study of
except that the report must include the effects on
except that the report must
Harmonization Study
federal, state, and local motor fuels
sensitive populations, and the report must be
also include projected effects
requirements. They are required to analyze the
submitted to Congress by June 1, 2008.
[§229]
on air quality and fuel prices
effects of various standards on consumer
from other federal and state
prices, fuel availability, domestic suppliers, air
fuel and vehicle emission
quality, and emissions. Further, they are
control programs.
[§1509]
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]
CRS-14
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Cellulosic Biomass,
The Secretary of Energy is required to
The Secretary of Energy is required to establish
The enacted law contains
Municipal Solid Waste,
establish a loan guarantee program for the
loan guarantees for no more than four projects to
three similar provisions in
and Sugar Ethanol
construction of facilities to produce fuel
demonstrate the commercial feasibility and
different sections. These
Loan Guarantees
ethanol and other commercial byproducts from
viability of converting cellulosic biomass or
various provisions may
municipal solid waste and cellulosic biomass.
sucrose into ethanol. Loan guarantees can cover
conflict with each other.
Applicants for loan guarantees must provide
a maximum amount of $250 million per project,
assurance of repayment (at least 20%) in the
but in no case for more than 80% of a project’s
Identical to House provision.
form of a performance bond, insurance
estimated cost, as well as up to 80% of project
[§1510]
collateral, or other means. The section
costs in excess of the estimate. No new funding
authorizes such sums as may be necessary for
is authorized.
[§212(c)]
Identical to Senate provision.
the program.
[§1511]
[§1511(b)]
The Secretary of Energy is
required to establish loan
guarantees to demonstrate the
commercial feasibility and
viability of converting
sugarcane and sugarcane
byproducts into ethanol. Loan
guarantees can cover a
maximum amount of $50
million per project, but in no
case for more than 80% of a
project’s estimated cost, as
well as up to 80% of project
costs in excess of the estimate.
No new funding is authorized.
[§1516]
CRS-15
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Cellulosic Biomass
Allows Secretary of Energy to provide grants
Similar to the House version, except that only
The enacted law contains two
Conversion Assistance
for the construction of facilities to produce
facilities that produce ethanol (and not other
similar provisions in different
renewable fuels (including ethanol) from
renewable fuels) from municipal waste or
sections. These provisions
cellulosic biomass, agricultural byproducts,
agricultural residue may qualify. A total of
may conflict with each other.
agricultural waste, and municipal solid waste.
$650 million is authorized between FY2005 and
A total of $750 million is authorized to be
FY2006.
[§212(f)]
Identical to Senate provision,
appropriated between FY2005 and FY2007.
except that a total of $650
[§1512]
million is authorized between
FY2006 and FY2007.
[§1511(e)]
Substantially similar to House
provision, except that $750
million is authorized for
FY2006 through FY2008.
[§1512]
Blending of Compliant
Retailers may blend batches of reformulated
Retailers may blend batches of reformulated
Identical to House provision.
Reformulated
gasoline with and without ethanol, as long as
gasoline with and without ethanol as long as the
[§1513]
Gasolines
both batches are compliant with the Clean Air
resulting fuel is compliant with the Clean Air
Act. In a given year, retailers may only blend
Act. There is no limitation on the number of
batches over two ten-day periods in the
batches or duration of blending.
[§224(c)]
summer months.
[§1513]
CRS-16
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Underground Storage
Amends Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Tanks (USTs)
Subtitle I. New §9004(f) directs EPA to allot
[§1522]
to the states at least 80% of the funds made
available from the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund under
§9014(2)(A). In addition to the current use of
funds to carry out the response program for
petroleum tank leaks, §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. 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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
state, in determining the portion of cleanup
[§1522]
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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
years of enactment, as appropriate, to perform
[§1523]
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]
CRS-17
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
State Compliance
New SWDA §9003(i) requires states to
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Reports
prepare and submit to EPA compliance reports
[§1526(b)]
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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Authorization of
$100 million for each of FY2005-FY2009 to
[§1531]
Appropriations
carry out §9003(i), §9004(f), and §9005(c).
[§1531]
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(A) authorizes the
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Authorization of
appropriation of $200 million for each of
[§1531]
Appropriations for
FY2005-FY2009 from the LUST Trust Fund
(Note: P.L. 109-168, enacted
LUST Response
for EPA and states to carry out §9003(h), the
January 10, 2006, revised the
Program
response program for leaking petroleum tanks
dates authorizing
(except for MTBE and other oxygenated fuel
appropriations for Subtitle I,
remediation).
[§1531]
from FY2005-FY2009 to
FY2006-FY2011.)
Remediation of MTBE
New SWDA §9003(h)(12) authorizes EPA and
Similar, except that funds may be used to
Identical to House provision.
and Other Fuel
states to use funds from the LUST Trust Fund
remediate contamination from MTBE and other
[§1525]
Additives
to remediate underground storage tank releases
ether fuel additives (not ethanol); releases need
of fuels containing
oxygenated fuel additives
not be from underground storage tanks to be
(e.g., MTBE, other ethers, and ethanol).
eligible for funding.
[§222(a)]
[§1525]
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(B) authorizes for this
New SWDA §9011(1) authorizes for this
Identical to House provision.
Authorization of
purpose the appropriation of $200 million
purpose the appropriation of $200 million for
[§1531(a)]
Appropriations
annually for FY2005-FY2009.
[§1531(a)]
FY2005, to remain available until expended.
(See note above.)
[§222(a)]
CRS-18
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Use of LUST Trust
New SWDA §9011 authorizes EPA and states
Adds similar new §9010.
Identical to House provision.
Fund for UST Program to use funds from the LUST Trust Fund to
[§222(b)]
[§1526]
Enforcement
conduct inspections, issue orders, or otherwise
enforce Subtitle I regulations (UST leak
prevention and detection regulations, as well
as LUST response program regulations).
[§1526(a)]
Other UST
Subtitle I makes several other changes to the
No comparable provisions.
Identical to House provision.
Requirements and
UST regulatory program in SWDA, imposing
Funding
new requirements on state and federal
governments, and tank owners, operators and
installers:
UST Operator Training
Revised §9010 requires states to develop
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
operator training requirements, based on EPA
[§1524]
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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
that EPA or a state determines are ineligible
[§1527]
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
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
compliance requirements for USTs under the
[§1528]
jurisdiction of the federal government.
[§1528]
Tanks under Tribal
New §9013 requires EPA, with Indian tribes,
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Jurisdiction
to develop and implement a strategy to address
[§1529]
releases on tribal lands.
[§1529]
CRS-19
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
UST Program:
New §9003(i) provides that, beginning 18
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Other Groundwater
months after enactment, states that receive
[§1530(a)]
Protection Measures
funding under Subtitle I must do one of the
(Secondary
following: (1) require that newly installed or
Containment,
replaced tanks and piping are secondarily
Financial
contained and monitored for leaks if the tank
Responsibility)
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).)
LUST Trust Fund
New SWDA §9014(2)(D) authorizes the
New SWDA §9011(2) authorizes the
Identical to House provision.
Authorization of
appropriation of $55 million for each of
appropriation of $50 million for FY2005 and
[§1531]
Appropriations
FY2005-FY2009 to carry out §9010 (operator
$30 million for each of FY2006-FY2010 to
(Note: P.L. 109-58, §1362, a
training), §9011 (enforcement), §9012
carry out §9010 (enforcement).
tax extension provision,
(delivery prohibition) and §9013 (Indian lands
[§222(b)]
prohibits the use of LUST
strategy).
[§1531]
Trust Fund appropriations for
any new purposes.)
CRS-20
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
UST Program:
New SWDA §9014(1) authorizes the
No comparable provision.
Identical to House provision.
Authorization of
appropriation of $50 million for each of
[§1531]
Appropriations
FY2005-FY2009 to carry out Subtitle I (except
(General Revenues)
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
Identical to Senate provision.
University and Oklahoma State University for
[§1511(c)]
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-
Identical to Senate provision.
Production Research
FY2010 for research, development, and
[§1511(d)]
and Development
implementation of renewable fuel production
Grants
technologies in RFG states with low rates of
ethanol production.
[§212(e)]
CRS-21
Provision
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
H.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
P.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the House
passed by the Senate
Act of 2005, as enacted
Advanced Biofuels
No comparable provision.
Authorizes $110 million in each of FY2005
Identical to Senate provision.
Technology Program
through FY2009 for projects to demonstrate new
[§1514]
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
Substantially similar to the
Program
ethanol from cane sugar, sugarcane, and
Senate version.
[§208]
sugarcane byproducts. The program would be
limited to projects in Florida, Louisiana, Texas,
and Hawaii. A total of $36 million is
authorized.
[§231]