November 18, 2003

ALL AGGIES:

House OKs Energy Bill, Sends to Senate (Fox News, November 18, 2003)

The House passed the bill by a vote of 246-180, sending it to the Senate for final approval, probably later this week.

Despite the wide margin of victory in the House, the bill could run into snags in the Senate over a provision that would shield the makers of a gasoline additive from liability lawsuits. [...]

Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Barbara Boxer of California said Tuesday they may filibuster the legislation in hopes of getting the MTBE measure removed. Schumer said three or four Republicans were ready to join the effort.

But Republicans said they weren't worried.

"I don't think it's a showstopper," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said of the MTBE issue.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the bill's floor leader in the Senate, predicted "support will be overwhelming" because of other provisions in the bill including a doubling of ethanol production and benefits for a wide range of energy sectors from coal companies to manufacturers of wind turbines.

The provision that would double the use of ethanol in gasoline to 5 billion gallons a year could be especially important since many states have significant numbers of farmers raising corn.

"Every senator is an aggie. ... It's the political realities of the place," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday when asked about the MTBE controversy. DeLay, R-Texas, had insisted the liability protection be part of the bill.


Gotta love Congress--first require MTBE then try not to shield companies that make it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2003 8:09 PM
Comments

$1.5 billion to subsidize hybrid vehicles, plus tax benefits for wind-turbine manufacturers...
Better than nothing, but, come on, if this isn't the time to put some real money into alternative power, when will it be ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2003 11:27 PM

Since a number of the MTBE plants are based in Texas, the Democrats' opposition to the liability shield may be positioning for 2004, when they can rail on about "Texas oil interests who polluted our ground and water being shielded from punishment by Bush and his Republican friends in Congress."

Of course, IIRC, the MTBE rule passed during the first two years of the Clinton Administration, when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, and even then, the dangers of MTBE were no secret -- Ed Wallace, who does a car show on Saturdays on Dallas' KLIF radio had been warning about the damage from the stuff for years before the problems came into the spotlight when California environmentalists started complaining.

Posted by: John at November 18, 2003 11:47 PM

OJ:

As Sen. Boxer knows, MTBE was required in California for years because the EPA enforces much tougher air standards here (for the uninitiated, MTBE was added to gasoline to supposedly make the gas burn cleaner -- OK, I have now exhausted my knowledge of chemistry -- don't ask me what 'MTBE' stands for]. Sen. Boxer also knows that MTBE is supposedly toxic (in the extreme) when it leaches into water supplies (e.g. through ruptured gas storage tanks or gas inefficiently burned in 2-stroke engines -- MTBE gas has been banned at Lake Tahoe because jet skis which are powered by 2-strokers). Whether necessary or not, some California municipal water companies have shut down wells due to MTBE contamination. Thus Sen. Boxer knows that there is a multi-billion dollar contingent liability hanging over petroleum suppliers who added Congressionally-mandated MTBE. Given the choice between burdening private enterprise with that liability or requiring government to bail itself out, Sen. Boxer, after much hand-wringing and soul-searching, has apparently flipped a coin. Surprise, it came up heads, corporations pay.

Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco

Posted by: F.A. Jacobsen at November 19, 2003 1:41 AM

Our Senators may join the filibuster because NH just filed a mutli-billion lawsuit over MTBE too.

Posted by: OJ at November 19, 2003 8:12 AM

OJ;

Against who? The corporation that supplied it?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 19, 2003 1:20 PM

AOG:

I've honestly not followed the story, but I believe it is against makers of the additive.

Posted by: OJ at November 19, 2003 2:14 PM
« WHO WON THE POST-WAR? | Main | APPOINT GOLDILOCKS TO THE FED: »