Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Mandate for Cellulosic Biofuels: Questions and Answers

Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) in an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, promote biofuel use, and stabilize transportation fuel prices, among other goals. Over a 15-year period, the RFS seeks to establish a market for biofuels in the transportation sector by requiring that increasing amounts of biofuels—36 billion gallons by 2022—be blended into transportation fuel. The mandate is to be accomplished with an assortment of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels—fuels produced from cellulosic materials including grasses, trees, and agricultural and municipal wastes. However, analysis suggested the United States did not have sufficient cellulosic biofuel production capacity to meet the 2010 and 2011 RFS mandate instituted by Congress in EISA, and this is likely to continue for the 2012 mandate.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to lower the cellulosic biofuel standard if the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less than the applicable volume specified in the statute. The cellulosic biofuel allotment in the mandate, as established by Congress in EISA, was 100 million gallons due in 2010, 250 million gallons in 2011, and 500 million gallons in 2012, increasing to 16 billion gallons by 2022. EPA lowered the RFS cellulosic biofuel mandate to 6.5 million gallons in 2010 and 6.6 million gallons in 2011. For the 2012 cellulosic biofuels mandate, EPA proposed a range of volumes from 3.55 to 15.7 million ethanolequivalent gallons from which to consider a value. EPA is accepting comments on what the final value should be. The cellulosic biofuel community may fare better at achieving the lower mandates set and proposed by EPA if certain obstacles are overcome. Roadblocks include unknown levels of feedstock supply, expensive conversion technology that has not yet been applied commercially, and insufficient financial support from private investors and the federal government.

EPA reports that very few, if any, facilities are consistently producing cellulosic biofuel for commercial sale. Some financial support from the Departments of Energy and Agriculture is available to expedite cellulosic biofuel production. For example, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), created under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill; P.L. 110-246), is to support establishment and production of crops for conversion to bioenergy in selected areas, and to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility. Also, the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program, created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05, P.L. 109-58), distributes loan guarantees to eligible commercial-scale renewable energy systems, including cellulosic biofuel plants, although criticisms have been raised that the program has been slow to get started.

Many questions regarding cellulosic biofuels and the RFS may arise as the 112th Congress engages in energy legislation debates. EPA compliance data indicate that there was no commercial production of cellulosic biofuel (RINS or volume) under the RFS for 2010. Can and will the 2011, 2012, and future RFS mandates for cellulosic biofuels be met? What impact will the continued lowering of the cellulosic ethanol mandate have on investment in cellulosic ethanol production? What are the next steps the 112th Congress could take to influence cellulosic biofuel production? This report, in a question and answer format, discusses some of the concerns facing the cellulosic biofuel community, including feedstock supply estimates and potential legislative options to address cellulosic biofuel production uncertainty for the RFS.


Date of Report: July 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41106
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Wetlands: An Overview of Issues

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Recent Congresses have considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands. Many reflect issues of long-standing interest, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments.

The issue receiving the greatest attention recently has been determining which wetlands should be included and excluded from permit requirements under the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) program that regulates waste discharges affecting wetlands. As a result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 (in the SWANCC case) that narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands, and in 2006 (in the Rapanos-Carabell decision), the jurisdictional reach of the permit program has been narrowed. In response, legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings in these cases has been introduced regularly since the 107th Congress. In the 111th Congress, for the first time, one such bill was approved by a congressional committee (S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act); no further legislative action occurred. The Obama Administration did not endorse any specific legislation, but identified general principles for legislation that would clarify waters protected by the CWA. In April 2011 the Administration proposed new interpretive guidance intended to clarify jurisdictional uncertainties resulting from the Court’s rulings. The new guidance would apply protection to additional waters and wetlands, a conclusion that pleases some observers and alarms others.

Wetland protection efforts continue to engender controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S. wetlands are located on private lands.

Many recent public and private efforts have sought to mitigate damage to wetlands and to protect them through acquisition, restoration, and enhancement, particularly coastal wetlands. The 3.4 million acres of marsh, swamp, forests, and barrier islands in coastal Louisiana constitute the largest wetland complex in the lower 48 states and are important spawning grounds for fish and shellfish, as well as habitat for migratory birds. The state’s wetlands have been weakened by flood control and other engineering projects that have altered water flow and led to erosion of land. These areas were damaged by hurricanes in 2005 and 2008 and were threatened by oil from the April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, as were other coastal wetlands in the Gulf.

One reason for controversies about wetlands is that they occur in a wide variety of physical forms, and the numerous values they provide, such as wildlife habitat, also vary widely. In addition, the total wetland acreage in the lower 48 states is estimated to have declined from more than 220 million acres three centuries ago to 107.7 million acres in 2004. The national policy goal of no net loss, endorsed by administrations for the past two decades, has been reached, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the rate of loss has been more than offset by net gains through expanded restoration efforts authorized in multiple laws. Many protection advocates say that net gains do not necessarily account for the changes in quality of the remaining wetlands, and many also view federal protection efforts as inadequate or uncoordinated. Others, who advocate the rights of property owners and development interests, characterize them as too intrusive. Numerous state and local wetland programs add to the complexity of the protection effort.


Date of Report: June 24, 2011
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: RL33483
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

In 2006, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food, mainly for European and Asian consumers. In 2007, court action effectively closed the Texas plants, and a state ban in Illinois closed that plant. However, horses continue to be shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter, and several states have explored opening horse slaughtering facilities. Animal rights activists and advocates for horses continue to press Congress for a federal ban. Lawmakers have prohibited the use of funds or user fees for inspection of horses for human food in several years’ appropriations measures, including FY2010 (P.L. 111-80). Pending at the start of the second session of the 111th Congress were bills (H.R. 503, S. 727) that would have made it a crime to knowingly possess, ship, transport, sell, deliver, or receive any horse, carcass, or horse flesh intended for human consumption. The bills were referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, respectively, and no further action was taken. A provision in the House-passed FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2112, Section 739) would prohibit any funds to pay salaries or expenses to inspect horses under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603).

In a June 2011 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended action on the unintended consequences of ending horse slaughter in 2007. The report provided evidence of a rise in state and local investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007.


Date of Report: June 30, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS21842
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:FY2012 Appropriations

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous other entities.

The President requested $31.34 billion for FY2012 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, a $1.73 billion (5.9%) increase over the FY2011 appropriation of $29.61 billion. The President proposed increases for many of the major agencies funded by the bill, including the following: 

• $554.6 million (14%) for the Indian Health Service, 
• $290.9 million (3%) for the Environmental Protection Agency, 
• $280.4 million (11%) for the National Park Service, 
• $248.2 million (5%) for the Forest Service, 
• $191.5 million (13%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
• $101.9 million (13%) for the Smithsonian Institution. 

The President proposed fewer decreases for major agencies in the bill, and these decreases tended to be smaller than the increases requested for other agencies. Among the decreases were the following: 

• $93.4 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
• $16.9 million (5%) for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, and 
• $16.6 million (10%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have held hearings on the FY2012 agency budget requests. No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2012 has been introduced to date. Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s appropriations legislation. These issues have included energy development onshore and offshore, wildland fire fighting, royalty relief, Indian trust fund management, climate change, DOI science programs, and wild horse and burro management. Other issues have included appropriate funding levels for Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and education; Indian Health Service construction and contract health services; wastewater/drinking water needs; the arts; land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the Superfund program.


Date of Report: June 30, 2011
Number of Pages: 61
Order Number: R41896
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal areas; many federal laws and regulations guide their management as well as the management of their habitat. Aquaculture or fish farming enterprises seek to supplement food traditionally provided by wild harvests.

Commercial and sport fishing are jointly managed by the federal government and individual states. States generally have jurisdiction within 3 miles of the coast. Beyond state jurisdiction and out to 200 miles in the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the federal government (National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS) manages fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) through eight regional fishery management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in international agreements relating to specific areas or species. The 112th Congress may oversee implementation of the MSFCMA as well as address individual habitat and management concerns for U.S. commercial and sport fisheries in an attempt to modify the balance between resource use and protection. Additional concerns might include providing additional flexibility in managing harvests to eliminate overfishing; determining the appropriate level of funding for fishery disaster assistance; determining whether to modify fishing vessel capacity reduction and limited access privilege (catch-share) programs; modifying programs to better control bycatch of nontarget species; amending various fishery laws to strengthen enforcement to stop illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; amending and reauthorizing the Oceans and Human Health Act; amending and reauthorizing the Coral Reef Conservation Act; enhancing efforts to monitor, restore, and protect marine ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico; implementing the Antigua Convention for eastern tropical Pacific tuna; authorizing a national strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and providing additional support to maintain the character of traditional fishing communities.

Aquaculture—the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants in a controlled environment—is expanding rapidly abroad, yet with little growth in the United States. In the United States, important species cultured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and trout. The 112th Congress may consider whether National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration policies and regulations can balance development and regulation of the aquaculture industry in the U.S. EEZ, and whether to prohibit regional fishery management councils from authorizing aquaculture in federal offshore waters through fishery management plans and their amendments under the MSFCMA.

Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). With few exceptions, the MMPA prohibits harm or harassment (“take”) of marine mammals, unless permits are obtained. It also addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin mortality associated with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The 112th Congress may consider bills to amend the MMPA, including the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, as well as measures to address specific marine mammal habitat and management concerns, such as how to deal with the effects of increasing noise in the ocean and an expanded research program for the recovery of the southern sea otter.

The level of appropriations for fisheries, aquaculture/hatchery, and marine mammal programs administered by the NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service may be an issue during the 112th Congress amid pressures to reduce federal spending.


Date of Report: June 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41613
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.