Posted on 07/24/2005 4:00:42 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
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.
You need deprogramming LOL...
The billions you refer to are liability [potential] as in maybe... vapor cash... The liability is of our own choosing... We or better yet in extreme cases the enviro whackos have decided that we find value is enviromental causes and as such must add this cost into our products e.g oil...
Simply put -what you advocate here is but a mini self imposed Kyoto protocol -think about it [now tell me you are for Kyoto? LOL] -we are killing our refineries and losing US jobs so that we can safe the environment while decimating our energy infrastructure and losing US jobs... The Republicans simply were seeking a compromise position to "share" the potential risk/cost of this anti-competetive 'value added' expense... It is simple economics -more risk = more expense that share holders [people like you & I] consider when deciding yea or nay as to who gets capital...
Taxpayers.
Where does the oil industry get its money?
Customers.
If you can't tell the difference, you're beyond help.
Dude, a water company is suing an oil company, and you want the federal government to step in and give one side a few billions dollars of someone else's money. That's a fact. Deal with it. You're a socialist.
This is hilarious. A so-called conservative advocating the use of billions of dollars in taxes to reduce a business risk to a particular industry, and all the while calling the taxpayers "shareholders." Remind me, what sort of dividend do the oil companies pay out to me, the taxpayer? You are so far gone in the kool aid you don't even know which way is up.
Actually he's not. He's just parroting standard Republican mantra. Although it's getting difficult to differentiate the two. Of course we haven't heard much of this in over a hundred years from this side of the aisle. But look to the origins of the Republican party and their views on subsidization of business when 'necessary' for precedent. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. And people call Democrats liberal?
Taxpayers are customers.
Where does the government get its money? You and me.
Where does the oil industry get its money? You and me.
Without you and me neither could exist.
If the government agreed to pay for the entire cleanup and cover any lawsuits filed, who, ultimately, would pay the costs? You and me.
If the government forced, via legislation, the oil industry to pay for the entire cleanup and cover any lawsuits filed, who, ultimately, would pay the costs? You and me.
In the second example, if you could avoid paying any money to the oil industry, yes, you would avoid paying for the cleanup and lawsuits. But that's not gonna happen since virtually anything you buy is tied, one way or another, to the oil industry. Think transportation, shipping, plastics, chemicals, etc.
So let's let the market take care of it. Or is modern day conservatism now in favor of a centrally managed economy?
What kills me is so called conservatives arguing in favor of the fed gov taking their tax money and giving it to someone else. That's completely nuts. You can only call someone like that a sucker.
Your arguments are heavy on the ad hominem and light on anything substantive...
Your reference frame is myopic -we are discussing world economics... In an isolated economy your logic might be valid; however, we compete with the world -we compete with slave & child labor -poverty wage AND other industries unencmbumered by extreme whacko environmental 'value added' government requirements that subtract from the bottom line. The pie in the sky ideology that premises your arguments is more worldly tree hugger than national republican...
Wipe out the restrictive environmental requirements imposed by the US on only US industry and the market competion would be equal and the so called subsidization that is subject of this thread not likely even a topic of discussion...
As it stands now -we regulate an industry, tie one arm behind its back and expect it to compete with the world while we buy from the cheapest in the world --LOL -- short term we may be shouting whoopee as we save a few bucks now or patting ourselves on the back as we save a tree and other countries decimate forests; however, long term we are devastating our infrastructure, capital assets and capabilities as a nation...
In case no one's told you, ours is the richest economy in the world. But you are saying that in order for us to compete, the federal government should spend billions of our tax dollars (never mind we're fighting a global war with no end in sight that already has us deep into red ink) to bail out any potential liabilities that befall the oil industry? That's your position?
Therefore, says DBeers, let's use billions of dollars of taxpayer money (that we don't even have, by the way) to provide liability coverage, free of charge, to the oil industry. How does that grab you? Have I lost my mind, billbears? Is this conservatism?
You seem to effectively argue with yourself quite well -LOL... Try refrencing some of what I post and then reply with some ideas of your own maybe... It may be entertaing to mischaracterize my comments and then ridicule them -however, this is not DU -get with the oprogram...
Yeah...liberals are loving to sue the companies that are doing what they TOLD them to do. I feel for those companies
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.