For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32865 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Among the key fuel-related provisions, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 repealed the Clean Air Act requirement that reformulated gasoline (RFG) contain at least 2% oxygen -- a requirement that led refiners and importers to use MTBE and, to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] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32865