Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmakers Abandon MTBE Liability Shield to Help Clear Way for Passing Energy Bill.
ap ^ | Jul;y 23, 2005 | H. Josef Hebert

Posted on 07/24/2005 6:07:54 PM PDT by Thebaddog

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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, 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, 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 legislation creates billions of dollars in tax breaks and other federal subsidies such as loan guarantees for energy industries and for energy conservation. It also would provide a boon to farmers by requiring billions of gallons of corn-base ethanol to be used in gasoline, although the amount remains to be negotiated.

Bush telephoned the House-Senate conference leaders on Sunday, reiterating his desire to get energy legislation passed this week before lawmakers begin their summer recess. "It was a very cordial, positive kind of touching-based phone call," said Barton. He said specific issues such as MTBE were not discussed.

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 includes a House-favored measure that would shield MTBE makers against lawsuits claiming the additive is a defective product and that the industry knew years ago it would pose cleanup problems if leaked into water supplies.

An additive introduced into widespread use in the mid-1990s to reduce air pollution, MTBE has been found in drinking water supplies in at least 36 states, causing foul taste and smell. 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.

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 gasoline station owners. But the proposal drew criticism from all sides.

The oil industry talked having to pay $4.1 billion into the fund, while water agencies argued the fund had too many loopholes and not enough money to meet cleanup needs.

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, the conference leaders said they were optimistic of getting agreement on a bill, perhaps by Monday night.

"We're making tremendous headway," said Domenici as the conferees took up 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 in 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.

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 the ethanol mandate. 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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; boondoggle; energybill; epa; mtbe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
My hair hurts hearing about MTBE. Wasn't it the feds that told the oil companies to use the stuff? But then you have to read further down the article to read about the other mischief that the senate is up to
1 posted on 07/24/2005 6:07:54 PM PDT by Thebaddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

mtbe has been found in all the lakes and reservoirs of california.


2 posted on 07/24/2005 6:09:19 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
They didn't prescribe MTBE. They set standards which logically could be best attained by MTBE, but were attainable with other additives. Of course the feds were aware it was being used and didn't object until it was too late. My thinking is that unless you protect MTBE producers to some degree - do not expect a lot of work to get done on future additives. Funds and effort will flow to something which has a positive ROI and no remote chance of enormous surprise liability.
3 posted on 07/24/2005 6:14:34 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, but never in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

It was the government that mandated MTBE on business. Should business have to pay for government regulations? Business should now sue all governments that mandated this junk and the enviro wacko's that forced it.


4 posted on 07/24/2005 6:15:31 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

yeah.

the cal epa was in bed with the oil co's.

dr. bill wattenberg at kgo san fran used to scream his head off about 1990: this is a carcinogen!

but to no avail.


5 posted on 07/24/2005 6:17:07 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

This will only further increase gasoline prices.


6 posted on 07/24/2005 6:17:40 PM PDT by chudogg (www.chudogg.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chudogg

How bad is this stuff really? Has anybody quantified the hazzard?


7 posted on 07/24/2005 6:19:12 PM PDT by Thebaddog (Hail Britannia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
I loaded up on PEIX (Pacific Ethanol) last week @ $7.50 on a 40% pullback...........

up 12% from my buy price.

8 posted on 07/24/2005 6:22:07 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

fyi:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447980/posts


9 posted on 07/24/2005 6:23:43 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

fyi


10 posted on 07/24/2005 6:25:13 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

Actions ought to have a consequence. They ought to pay for this out of some liberal backed program - I dunno - withold our UN dues and use it to clean up MTBE's.


11 posted on 07/24/2005 6:28:12 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas

Is this the same Barton as Barton Creek in Austin? I'd bet it is. Figures.


12 posted on 07/24/2005 6:28:58 PM PDT by datura (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
For all the people like me tearing their hair out, MTBE isn't the Mean Time Between anything, it's methyl tiertiary butyl ethyl(ene).
13 posted on 07/24/2005 6:32:10 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Did any body else reading this get sick when they first introduced MTBE?

Notice your engine ran like crap, and got worse mileage?

--Travis--


14 posted on 07/24/2005 6:32:25 PM PDT by TravisABQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
For all the people like me tearing their hair out, MTBE isn't the Mean Time Between anything, it's methyl tiertiary butyl ethyl(ene).

LOL

Certainly not the first time you have heard of MTBE, no ?

I'm getting too old to pull my hair out for anything.....just trying to conserve what is left!

LVM

15 posted on 07/24/2005 6:36:33 PM PDT by LasVegasMac ("God. Guts. Guns. I don't call 911." (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
and speaking of additives.....

Does anyone else remember Dick Cheney stating that there were, something like, 95 different grades / blends of gasoline throughout the US - and that those numbers need to be reduced - ?

I've never heard anymore about it.

LVM

16 posted on 07/24/2005 6:41:20 PM PDT by LasVegasMac ("God. Guts. Guns. I don't call 911." (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

That's it in a nutshell. MTBE was created at the behest of Washington DC.


17 posted on 07/24/2005 6:41:29 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Scratch a Liberal. Uncover a Fascist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac

LOL


18 posted on 07/24/2005 6:43:31 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
It was the government that mandated MTBE on business. Should business have to pay for government regulations? Business should now sue all governments that mandated this junk and the enviro wacko's that forced it.

An interesting defense would be if you have to something by law then you should not be held liable for those 'legal' actions.

I wonder what the Federal Supreme Court would say on this. If they side with the eco-nuts, then it open the door for massive entrapment in that it will situation where 'even if you obey the law you still go to jail' for following that law.

19 posted on 07/24/2005 6:46:34 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

By not doing a MBTEn liability shield, the Congress is making trial attorneys even more dangerous and rich.


20 posted on 07/24/2005 6:48:22 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson