Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58 and H.R. 6)

CRS Report for Congress
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Among the key fuel-related provisions, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 repealed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
In troduction ......................................................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.

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.

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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
able Content ofA new §211(o) is added to the Clean Air Act. Significant differences from the House version: Similar to Senate provision,
ehicle FuelBeginning in 2005, motor vehicle fuel mustRequires that 4.0 billion gallons of renewableexcept that 4.0 billion gallons
contain a certain amount of renewable fuel. Infuel be used in 2006, increasing to 8.0 billionis required in 2006, increasing

2005, 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuelgallons in 2012. After 2012, the minimumto 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.


must be sold annually, increasing to 5.0 billionrequirement is the ratio of renewable fuel toEPA has the authority to
gallons in 2012. After 2012, the percentage ofgasoline in 2012, but EPA has the authority toestablish the requirement in
renewable fuel required in the motor fuel poolestablish a higher requirement. A gallon ofsubsequent years, but no
must be the same as the percentage required incellulosic ethanol counts as 2.5 gallons oflower than the percentage in
iki/CRS-RL328652012. This standard will largely be met byethanol, but other renewable fuels, such asrenewable fuel (1.5 gallons in the Houseversion). Further, after 2012, a minimum of 2502012. A gallon of cellulosicethanol counts as 2.5 gallons
g/wbiodiesel, are eligible. Ethanol from cellulosicmillion gallons of cellulosic ethanol is requiredof renewable fuel. After
s.orbiomass (including from wood and agriculturalin fuel annually (and would not be subject to the2012, a minimum of 250
leakresidue, animal waste, and municipal solidincreased credit for cellulosic ethanol). [§211]million gallons of cellulosic
://wikiwaste) is granted extra credits toward fulfillingethanol is required in fuel
httpthe program’s requirements (1 gallon ofannually. [§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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
e HarborRenewable fuels, MTBE, or fuels blended withRenewable fuels used or intended to be used as aNo comparable provision.


renewable fuels or MTBE cannot be deemed amotor vehicle fuel and any motor vehicle fuel
“defective product.” Applicability of thiscontaining renewable fuel cannot be deemed
“safe harbor” would be conditioned upon adefective 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 andcorresponding amendment to § 211 of the Clean
any applicable requests for information. Air Act. Further, ethers, including MTBE,
Assuming these qualifications were met, anywould not be covered by the “safe harbor.”
entity within the product chain, fromApplicability of the provision would also be
manufacturers to retailers, would be shieldedconditioned upon a party’s compliance with
from products liability-based lawsuits, theEPA regulations issued under § 211 of the Clean
iki/CRS-RL32865approach that has been taken in most of theAir Act and any applicable requests for
g/wsuits filed. Liability based on other grounds,information. Unlike the House bill, this
s.orsuch as negligence or breach of contract, to theprovision would not apply retroactively, and
leakextent it applies, would remain intact.pertains only to claims filed on after the date of
[§1502(a)] the provision’s enactment. [§211(a)]
://wiki
httpThe provision would apply retroactively to
claims filed on or after September 5, 2003,
thereby nullifying numerous pending lawsuits.
[§1502(b)]

CRS-6
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
aims Filed AfterNo comparable provision.No comparable provision.Under this provision, any
actmentclaim 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
iki/CRS-RL32865be ineligible for federal court
g/wreview to be heard by federal
s.orjudges. The substantive law
leakof the state will still be
applied in federal court,
://wikialthough most rules of
httpprocedure would be supplied
by federal law. [§1503]



CRS-7
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
n on Use of MTBENot later than December 31, 2014, the use ofSimilar provisions, except that the prohibitionNo comparable provision.
MTBE in motor vehicle fuel is prohibitedamends 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 fueldate of enactment. [§223(c)]
in quantities up to 0.5% in cases the
Administrator determines to be appropriate.
[§1504]
esidentialAllows the President to make a determination,No comparable provision.No comparable provision.
terminationnot later than June 30, 2014, that the
restrictions on the use of MTBE shall not take
iki/CRS-RL32865place. [§1505(b)]
g/wy ofSeparately, requires the National Academy ofNo comparable provision.No comparable provision.


s.oreviewSciences to conduct a review of MTBE’s
leakbeneficial and detrimental effects on
://wikienvironmental quality or public health or
httpwelfare, including costs and benefits. The
review shall be completed by May 31, 2014.
[§1505(a)]

CRS-8
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
E TransitionAmends §211(c) of the Clean Air Act toSimilar provision, except that $1 billion inNo comparable provision.
authorize $2 billion ($250 million in each ofgrants are authorized ($250 million in each of
FY2005-FY2012) for grants to assist merchantFY2005-FY2008). Eligible facilities are those
U.S. producers of MTBE in converting to thethat 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
iki/CRS-RL32865reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
g/whealth or the environment. [§1503]
s.or
leakotection of WaterNo comparable provision.Amends Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act toNo comparable provision.
ality authorize the EPA Administrator to regulate,
://wikicontrol, or prohibit the manufacture,
httpintroduction 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)]
ygen ContentAmends §211(k) of the Clean Air Act toIdentical 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
xic Air PollutantsAmends §211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act toSimilar anti-backsliding provision, except thatIdentical to Senate provision.
require that each refinery or importer ofthe base years for determining allowable[§1504(b)]
gasoline maintain the average annualemissions are 2001 and 2002. Also provides an
reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutantsexception for California, which has more
achieved by the reformulated gasoline itstringent 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
iki/CRS-RL32865pollutants. The anti-backsliding provision
g/wapplies only to the extent that the quantity
s.orproduced or imported is less than or equal to
leakthe average annual quantity produced or
imported in the two base years. [§1506(b)]
://wiki
httpile Source AirRequires EPA to promulgate final regulationsSimilar provision, but the deadline forIdentical to Senate provision.
icsto control hazardous air pollutants from motorpromulgation 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
RFGEliminates the less stringent requirements forIdentical provision. [§224(d)]Identical provision. [§1504(c)]
quirementsvolatility 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)]
No comparable provision.Amends §211(b) of the Clean Air Act to requireIdentical to Senate provision.
vironmentalmanufacturers of fuels and fuel additives to[§1505]
Fuels andconduct tests of their health and environmental
tives impacts (currently, these tests are at EPA’s
iki/CRS-RL32865discretion and do not include environmental
g/weffects). Also requires EPA, within 2 years, to
s.orconduct a study of the health and environmental
leakeffects of MTBE substitutes, including ethanol-
blended RFG. [§225]
://wiki
http FuelA new §211(p) is added to the Clean Air Act. Similar to the House provision, except that theIdentical to Senate provision.
Within four years of enactment, theSenate version also requires EPA to publish[§1506]


Administrator of the Environmental Protectionwithin one year of enactment a study on the
Agency (EPA) must publish a draft analysis ofeffects of ethanol content on fuel permeation
the effects of the fuels provisions in H.R. 6 onthrough 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
G Opt-InNo comparable provision.Allows governors of 12 northeastern states (theIdentical 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]
deral EnforcementNo comparable provision.At the request of a state, allows federalNo comparable provision.
ate Standardsenforcement of state controls on fuels and fuel
additives. [§228]
iki/CRS-RL32865able FuelsRequires DOE to collect and publish monthlySimilar to House provision, except that DOEIdentical to House provision.
g/wsurvey data on the production, blending,must also collect and publish data on production[§1508]
s.orimporting, demand, and price of renewablecosts. [§213]
leakfuels, both on a national and regional basis.
://wiki[§1508]
httpNot later than December 1, 2006, and annuallySubstantially 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
ng theA new provision is added to §211(c)(4) of theNo comparable provision.No comparable provision.
oliferation of StateClean Air Act. The EPA Administrator shall
el Blendsnot 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
iki/CRS-RL32865volatility (7.0 and 7.8 Reid Vapor Pressure)
g/wgasolines. [§1509]
s.or
leakng theThe EPA Administrator is permitted toNo comparable provision.Identical to House provisions.
oliferation oftemporarily waive fuel requirements, including[§1541(a) and §1541(b)]


://wikiutique Fuelsstate fuel requirements and RFG standards, in
httpthe 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
el SystemThe EPA Administrator and the Secretary ofSubstantially similar to the House version,Identical to Senate provision,
quirementsEnergy are required to conduct a study ofexcept that the report must include the effects onexcept that the report must
rmonization Studyfederal, state, and local motor fuelssensitive populations, and the report must bealso include projected effects
requirements. They are required to analyze thesubmitted to Congress by June 1, 2008. [§229]on air quality and fuel prices
effects of various standards on consumerfrom other federal and state
prices, fuel availability, domestic suppliers, airfuel and vehicle emission
quality, and emissions. Further, they arecontrol 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,
iki/CRS-RL32865increase supply liquidity, and reduce costs to
g/wconsumers and producers. A report must be
s.orsubmitted to Congress by December 31, 2009.
leak[§1510]
://wiki
http

CRS-14
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
llulosic Biomass,The Secretary of Energy is required toThe Secretary of Energy is required to establishThe enacted law contains
nicipal Solid Waste,establish a loan guarantee program for theloan guarantees for no more than four projects tothree similar provisions in
hanolconstruction of facilities to produce fueldemonstrate the commercial feasibility anddifferent sections. These
uaranteesethanol and other commercial byproducts fromviability of converting cellulosic biomass orvarious provisions may
municipal solid waste and cellulosic biomass. sucrose into ethanol. Loan guarantees can coverconflict with each other.
Applicants for loan guarantees must providea maximum amount of $250 million per project,
assurance of repayment (at least 20%) in thebut in no case for more than 80% of a project’sIdentical to House provision.
form of a performance bond, insuranceestimated cost, as well as up to 80% of project[§1510]
collateral, or other means. The sectioncosts in excess of the estimate. No new funding
authorizes such sums as may be necessary foris authorized. [§212(c)]Identical to Senate provision.
the program. [§1511][§1511(b)]
iki/CRS-RL32865
g/wThe Secretary of Energy is
s.orrequired to establish loan
leakguarantees to demonstrate the
commercial feasibility and
://wikiviability of converting
httpsugarcane 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
llulosic BiomassAllows Secretary of Energy to provide grantsSimilar to the House version, except that onlyThe enacted law contains two
nversion Assistancefor the construction of facilities to producefacilities that produce ethanol (and not othersimilar provisions in different
renewable fuels (including ethanol) fromrenewable fuels) from municipal waste orsections. These provisions
cellulosic biomass, agricultural byproducts,agricultural residue may qualify. A total ofmay 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 beFY2006. [§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)]
iki/CRS-RL32865Substantially similar to House
g/wprovision, except that $750
s.ormillion is authorized for
leakFY2006 through FY2008.
[§1512]
://wiki
httpending of CompliantRetailers may blend batches of reformulatedRetailers may blend batches of reformulatedIdentical to House provision.
formulatedgasoline with and without ethanol, as long asgasoline with and without ethanol as long as the[§1513]


solinesboth batches are compliant with the Clean Airresulting fuel is compliant with the Clean Air
Act. In a given year, retailers may only blendAct. There is no limitation on the number of
batches over two ten-day periods in thebatches or duration of blending. [§224(c)]
summer months. [§1513]

CRS-16
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
orageAmends Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)No comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
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;
iki/CRS-RL32865and (2) enforcing state UST programs. Also
g/wauthorizes EPA to use funds not allotted to
s.orstates to enforce any Subtitle I regulation.
leak[§1522]
://wikieryNew SWDA §9003(h)(6)(E) requires EPA or aNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
httpstate, 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]
nk InspectionsNew SWDA §9005(c) requires states, within 2No 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
omplianceNew SWDA §9003(i) requires states toNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
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.)
Trust Fund§9014(2)(C) authorizes the appropriation ofNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
ation of$100 million for each of FY2005-FY2009 to[§1531]
carry out §9003(i), §9004(f), and §9005(c).
[§1531]
iki/CRS-RL32865 FundNew SWDA §9014(2)(A) authorizes theNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
g/wation ofappropriation of $200 million for each of[§1531]
s.ororFY2005-FY2009 from the LUST Trust Fund(Note: P.L. 109-168, enacted
leakST Responsefor EPA and states to carry out §9003(h), theJanuary 10, 2006, revised the
://wikiogramresponse program for leaking petroleum tanksdates authorizing
http(except for MTBE and other oxygenated fuelappropriations for Subtitle I,
remediation). [§1531]from FY2005-FY2009 to
FY2006-FY2011.)
MTBENew SWDA §9003(h)(12) authorizes EPA andSimilar, except that funds may be used toIdentical to House provision.
ther Fuelstates to use funds from the LUST Trust Fundremediate contamination from MTBE and other[§1525]
tives to remediate underground storage tank releasesether fuel additives (not ethanol); releases need
of fuels containing oxygenated fuel additivesnot be from underground storage tanks to be
(e.g., MTBE, other ethers, and ethanol). eligible for funding. [§222(a)]
[§1525]
Trust FundNew SWDA §9014(2)(B) authorizes for thisNew SWDA §9011(1) authorizes for thisIdentical to House provision.
ation ofpurpose the appropriation of $200 millionpurpose the appropriation of $200 million for[§1531(a)]
annually for FY2005-FY2009. [§1531(a)]FY2005, to remain available until expended. (See note above.)


[§222(a)]

CRS-18
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
LUST TrustNew SWDA §9011 authorizes EPA and statesAdds similar new §9010.Identical to House provision.
or UST Programto use funds from the LUST Trust Fund to[§222(b)][§1526]
forcementconduct inspections, issue orders, or otherwise
enforce Subtitle I regulations (UST leak
prevention and detection regulations, as well
as LUST response program regulations).
[§1526(a)]
STSubtitle I makes several other changes to theNo comparable provisions.Identical to House provision.
quirements andUST regulatory program in SWDA, imposing
ng new requirements on state and federal
governments, and tank owners, operators and
iki/CRS-RL32865installers:
g/w Operator TrainingRevised §9010 requires states to developNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
s.oroperator training requirements, based on EPA[§1524]
leakguidance (applicable to persons with primary
://wikiand daily tank operation and maintenanceresponsibilities, and spill response
httpresponsibilities). [§1524]
livery prohibitionNew §9012 prohibits product delivery to tanksNo 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]
Amends §9007 to clarify and expandNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
compliance requirements for USTs under the[§1528]
jurisdiction of the federal government. [§1528]
nks under TribalNew §9013 requires EPA, with Indian tribes,No comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
risdictionto develop and implement a strategy to address[§1529]


releases on tribal lands. [§1529]

CRS-19
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
rogram: New §9003(i) provides that, beginning 18No comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
her Groundwatermonths after enactment, states that receive[§1530(a)]
otection Measuresfunding under Subtitle I must do one of the
following: (1) require that newly installed or
ainment,replaced tanks and piping are secondarily
nancialcontained and monitored for leaks if the tank
sponsibility) 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
iki/CRS-RL32865licensed, or that their UST system installation
g/wis certified by a professional engineer or
s.orinspected and approved by the state, or is
leakcompliant with a code of practice or other
method determined by a state (or EPA) to be
://wikino less protective of human health and the
httpenvironment. [§1530(a)]
(Note: §1526(b) and §1530(a) both create a
new §9003(i).)
Trust FundNew SWDA §9014(2)(D) authorizes theNew SWDA §9011(2) authorizes theIdentical to House provision.
ation ofappropriation of $55 million for each ofappropriation of $50 million for FY2005 and[§1531]
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), §9012carry 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
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
rogram:New SWDA §9014(1) authorizes theNo comparable provision.Identical to House provision.
ation ofappropriation of $50 million for each of[§1531]
ations FY2005-FY2009 to carry out Subtitle I (except
eneral Revenues)for §9003(h) (LUST cleanup
program),§9005(c) (inspections),
§9011(enforcement), and §9012 (delivery
prohibition). [§1531]
source CenterNo comparable provision.Authorizes $4 million for the Mississippi StateIdentical to Senate provision.
University and Oklahoma State University for[§1511(c)]
each of FY2005-FY2007 for a resource center to
iki/CRS-RL32865further develop bioconversion technology using
g/wlow-cost biomass for the production of ethanol.
s.or [§212(d)]
leakable FuelNo comparable provision.Authorizes $25 million in each of FY2006-Identical to Senate provision.
://wikioduction ResearchFY2010 for research, development, and[§1511(d)]


httpimplementation of renewable fuel production
antstechnologies in RFG states with low rates of
ethanol production. [§212(e)]

CRS-21
ovisionH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asH.R. 6 — Energy Policy Act of 2005, asP.L. 109-58 — Energy Policy
passed the Housepassed by the SenateAct of 2005, as enacted
iofuelsNo comparable provision.Authorizes $110 million in each of FY2005Identical to Senate provision.
rogramthrough 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
iki/CRS-RL32865biodiesel production. [§230]
g/w
s.orhanolNo comparable provision.Establishes a program to study the production ofSubstantially similar to the
leakogramethanol from cane sugar, sugarcane, andSenate version. [§208]


sugarcane byproducts. The program would be
://wikilimited to projects in Florida, Louisiana, Texas,
httpand Hawaii. A total of $36 million is
authorized. [§231]