Lawmakers Remove Roadblock to Energy Bill (but..)

WASHINGTON - House and Senate conferees abandoned giving makers of the gasoline additive MTBE liability protection against environmental lawsuits on Sunday, removing the major roadblock to enactment of broad energy legislation.

Senate negotiators rejected a House proposal for an $11.4 billion MTBE cleanup fund that House Republicans had hoped would serve as a compromise and still provide the liability shield to the oil industry.

But Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said "the proposal has not been accepted by the Senate" and that he would offer another MTBE proposal on Monday.

Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., leader of the Senate energy negotiating team, said while some MTBE issues were still being discussed, those did not include a cleanup fund, nor liability protection.

"Those are gone," Domenici told reporters as the House-Senate conferees held an unusual Sunday session in hopes of completing work on a sweeping energy bill by Monday night.

If the negotiators are successful an energy bill could pass Congress before week's end, meeting an Aug. 1 goal to have a bill at the White House as urged by President Bush.

The MTBE liability issue has dogged lawmakers trying to pass an energy bill for more than two years. Many senators have vowed to block any bill that gives the oil industry protection against environmental lawsuits.

But the House has pushed a provision that would shield the MTBE makers against lawsuits that claim the additive is a defective product because it has been found to contaminate drinking water.

On Friday, Barton proposed a $11.4 billion cleanup fund for MTBE, a third of which would be paid for by the oil industry, including MTBE manufacturers, refiners and corner gasoline stations owners.

MTBE, an additive introduced into widespread use in the mid-1990s to reduce air pollution, has been found to contaminate drinking water supplies in at least 36 states. Communities and water agencies say they're facing billions of dollars in cleanup costs. More than 150 lawsuits have been filed seeking cleanup payments from MTBE producers.

But the cleanup fund proposal immediately drew criticism from all sides in the MTBE dispute.

The oil industry thought the plan's requirement they that they contribute $4.1 billion into the fund was too much. Water agencies argued the fund had too many loopholes and not enough money to meet cleanup needs.

Barton's proposal would have included liability protection for MTBE manufacturers.

The MTBE liability issue had been viewed by Senate negotiators, especially Domenici, as a deal breaker that — as it did two years ago — would scuttle any chances of getting an energy bill through the Senate.

While a number of contentious issues remained to be worked, none was expected to create a roadblock that could not be overcome.

Barton, chairman of the negotiating conference, and Domenici both expressed optimism that they will finish the legislation in the coming days, hopefully by Monday night.

"We're making tremendous headway," said Domenici as the conferees took up fairly noncontrovesial issues Sunday related to hydropower and geothermal energy.

Elsewhere, negotiations were picking as congressional tax writers sought a compromise on the energy bill's tax provisions. Those have been conducted behind closed doors is separate negotiations with little information surfacing

The Senate approved a $14 billion tax package, focused heavily on subsidizing renewable energy sources and conservation, while a smaller House-passed $8 billion package leaned more toward supporting oil, gas and nuclear industries.

It has been widely believed among senators and House members negotiating the broader bill that the final tax proposal that a compromise will be reached in the coming days with a cost somewhere between the two versions.

Among the non-tax issues still to be resolved were whether to require electric utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels and how much corn-based ethanol refiners will be required to put into gasoline.

The Senate has called for refiners to use 8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. The House has limited the requirement to 5 billion gallons. Barton said he's strongly opposed to the higher number.

Good. I had heard about this little break for the energy companies, and I didn't appreciate very much personally. Glad to see it go.

2 posted on 07/24/2005 4:06:13 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

Good. I had heard about this little break for the energy companies, and I didn't appreciate very much personally. Glad to see it go.

So the government requires environmental additives in gas, like MTBE, but you want oil companies to take the legal hit for it.

Sounds like the greenpeas plan to me. Anti-corporate. Anti-oil. Guaranteed to raise gas prices.

Thanks loads.

States like Kalifornia required oil companies to add MTBE to gasoline. Now the cost of the clean-up will be entirely borne by the industry. Of course, the other side of the coin is that the oil industry and their downstream retailers should have been more careful in transporting, storing and distributing the chemical.

You want to take the hit for them? Lunatic! The day the oil companies start covering my liabilties, I'll start covering theirs. What a sucker.

6 posted on 07/24/2005 5:16:20 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

It's real simple. I don't want to cover ANY of the oil companies' liabilities. The gubmint makes all of us do all kind of things. But it doesn't mean I want to cover every one else's ass. My own ass is enough of a liability, thank you. Or as the Good Book says, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

7 posted on 07/24/2005 5:17:48 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

You're hilarious. I didn't realize using taxes collected by the Federal gubmint to cover the liabilities of private industries was now considered conservative. It's called being a victim of success. Once you have so many accolytes, the low end of the bell curve comes in and wrecks the place.

8 posted on 07/24/2005 5:20:02 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

Am I crazy? I don't see why I the taxpayer should be on the hook for anything these companies produced. Would they ever come bail ME out? What the hell is wrong with people? They are haggling over how many billions WE should pay into a fund to clean up their product? And some mouth breather is calling me a liberal because I guess I'm not in synch with the GOP/Hannity talking points.

9 posted on 07/24/2005 5:25:52 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

On Friday, Barton proposed a $11.4 billion cleanup fund for MTBE, a third of which would be paid for by the oil industry, including MTBE manufacturers, refiners and corner gasoline stations owners.

Oh, that sounds sooo good... Let's force the evil oil industry to pay for part of this.

Hey Barton, ya think we're stupid or something? 1/3 of $11,400,000,000 is $3,800,000,000. Where do you think the oil industry is gonna get their share? From the same place the rest of the $11,400,000 is gonna come from... my pocket!

10 posted on 07/24/2005 5:52:38 PM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)

The Feds allowed refiners to chose which oxygenate to use. Some picked MTBE. I believe California mandated MTBE.

The refines shouldn't get off scott-free, but they should have to eat the whole enchilada either.

HMMM---didn't see a mention of ANWR...guess it didn't make it again?

If it didn't make it----I DO NOT want to hear one dem complain of gas prices, and having to do business with the Saudis...

gubmint? You now sound like Janeane Garafalo... I suggest you unplug from Air America for awhile and get some quiet time away from your liberal bretheren...

If you had a posting partner -- I, as in the tradition of President Bush would give you a loving pet name the "ambiguously conservative duo"... ---Ambiguously conservative, contrarian and bashing of the administration and some fine Republicans give you all the markers of a troll in my book...

You want to take the hit for them? Lunatic! The day the oil companies start covering my liabilties, I'll start covering theirs. What a sucker.

Who pays -the tooth fairy?

Get a clue liberal -money does not come from heaven...

The considerations being extended the corporations involve competetiveness and viability... As it is now our conuntry is losing the capability to refine our own petroleum products and if this continues we will not only have a rust belt we will have a sludge belt...

Micromanaging the fuels of the fleet is paying off for ~~Congress~~ the concessionaires of Congress--the other private sector that sucks at the hind teat of the public sector.

The billions you want to give away come from taxpayers. Looks like you're the lib.

16 posted on 07/24/2005 7:00:27 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

So you're recommendation is to let the gubmit settle up with our money instead of the free market? My, conservatism sure has drifted.

17 posted on 07/24/2005 7:01:45 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

Wherever the money comes from, you can bet 2 things: 1) Oil companies will not take the hit... 2) Because whether oil or gubmint writes the check, we all will be footing the bill...

18 posted on 07/24/2005 7:05:34 PM PDT by dirtbiker ("..fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction" Prov 1:7)

1) Oil companies will not take the hit... 2) Because whether oil or gubmint writes the check, we all will be footing the bill...

Maybe so. All the same, I think the conservative thing is to let the legal system work with the fed gubmint butting in. If a water company wants to sue an oil company, I say let the best man win, and leave me the taxpayer out of it.

19 posted on 07/24/2005 7:20:38 PM PDT by Huck ("John Roberts will almost certainly pull the Supreme Court to the right."-Rich Lowry)

So you're recommendation is to let the gubmit settle up with our money instead of the free market? My, conservatism sure has drifted.

Where does the government get its money?

Where does the oil industry get its money?

20 posted on 07/24/2005 8:11:23 PM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.