Fuming over MTBE provision in energy bill

[DoYouEverWonder]

April 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A far-reaching energy bill approved by the House of Representatives Thursday has almost no chance of passing the Senate as long as it contains a controversial provision shielding makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from liability lawsuits, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview.

"I'm going to filibuster this bill . . . I did it two years ago and it went nowhere," Schumer told Newsday. "It will raise the water charges of the average Long Islander by hundreds of dollars each year. And this bill lets the big oil companies who are responsible off the hook."

The effort by House Republicans to exempt manufacturers of MTBE - a gas additive that helps fuel burn cleaner but is toxic when it seeps into groundwater - from being sued has outraged local governments and environmentalists.

They said blocking lawsuits designed to recoup the cost of clean drinking water contaminated by MTBE is an unfair giveaway to big business at the expense of the taxpayer. The cleanup costs across New York State are expected to exceed $200 million, according to the Water Utility Council, a Syracuse-based organization representing drinking water providers statewide.

more...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmtbe244231786apr24,0,3479291.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines

I'm sure there's something to piss off everybody in this bill. That's just the way Bushco's arrogance works. Seems it's all finally starting to back fire.

[stevedeshazer]

1. MTBE is a disaster

And the folks that profited from it's manufacture knew it was poisoning ground water, and have for years.

The energy industry has a 100% free ride now. No liability, complete vertical integration, control over supplies and big surprise, RECORD PROFITS.

[alarimer]

2. Why should any manufacturere be exempt from liability?

For anything. It is often the only recourse people have if they are injured.

[BadNews]

3. Because in Many states they were required by law to include it.

The state shouldn't madate you do something, then punnish you for doing it.

[seemunkee]

4. Couldn't they have handled it in a way that didn't pollute?

They made money off of it. They did the damage. Shouldn't they be the ones to pay for the cleanup?

[firefox]

5. I disagree with your statement

The industry could have used grain alcohol as an oxygenator, but they had this hazardous waste, MTBE, that they wanted to use and did so. No state required MTBE. In NC they banned MTBE for a time until the industry convinced the legislature that it was to much trouble to have all the different formulas.

Remember this, MTBE was classified as a hazardous waste when the industry chose it over alcohol.

[rodeodance]

7. thanks--that was helpful

[Vincardog]

10. Are you saying the states mandated the Chemical companies

POLLUTE our ground water? The companies could have taken reasonable care and not released it.

[Shallah Kali]

11. Industry lobbied states to use MTBE knowing it was dangerous

where before they had to pay to dispose of it now they got paid to poison people's water supply

The Industry, not the EPA, Promoted MTBE as an Oxygenate
http://www.ewg.org:16080/reports/withknowledge/index2.php

Recently disclosed court documents clearly show that the oil companies, not state or federal regulators, were the boosters of MTBE. The industry developed and promoted the concept of using reformulated gasoline to reduce air emissions, assuring the EPA that reformulated gasoline would be better than other options being considered. ARCO Chemical Co.’s Manager of Business Development from 1987 to 1998 testified: “What I recall is the EPA actually promoting using methanol blends... and the refining industry said here’s another option... we can reformulate gasoline to reduce the emissions... that would be equal to or better than you would get by substituting or mandating the use of methanol vehicles... he oil industry... brought this forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed.” He continued, “The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline.” {
Well before the EPA mandated reformulated gasoline in 1992, the oil industry was aggressively promoting MTBE. According to the American Petroleum Institute, refiners were adding an average of 74,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline per day from 1986 through 1991, roughly one third of the peak amount added to gasoline in 1998. {View document}

In 1987, a representative of ARCO Chemical (later absorbed by Lyondell), which was rapidly expanding its MTBE production, testified before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission that the additive would reduce emissions and improve gas mileage, that supply and price were no barrier, and that consumers didn’t need to be warned about the presence of MTBE in gasoline. Nothing was said about the leak and contamination problems that ARCO and the rest of the industry had known about for at least seven years. ARCO’s representative testified that in the 1980s he played a similar role in “assisting” the states of Arizona and Nevada in the development of oxygenate programs – programs that resulted in those states adopting MTBE. {Excerpt | Full document}

[w4rma]

6. All I know is oil companies are about the only industry raking in *record*

profits, so I think they can MORE than afford to pay the clean up costs associated with their buisness.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Google for MTBE DeLay

Google for MTBE DeLay

I mean, you knew, right?

Just one example:

DeLay at center of energy debate

[high density]

9. The bill is a disaster, period.

The oil companies need no handouts from the federal government.

[Shallah Kali]

12. Salon.com on DeLay & MTBE

DeLay's fumes cloud energy bill

The House majority leader has become the public face of a polluter-friendly provision of the president's energy plan, threatening its long-term prospects.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/21/energy/

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether, designed as a clean-air additive for fuel, has turned out to be fairly nasty stuff. Just a few drops of MTBE, as it's known, can make a water supply unusable. In larger concentrations, scientists say, it causes cancer. The chemical, in widespread use for decades, has been detected in nearly 2,000 water systems in 29 states, and that number is still rising. Although the companies involved -- including some of nation's largest oil refineries and suppliers -- have known for more than 20 years that MTBE was fouling waterways, they've been reluctant to get involved in the cleanup and are facing mounting litigation from affected communities.

{SNIP}

But while DeLay's allegiance to MTBE producers may not have changed, the atmosphere around him has been undeniably transformed in recent months -- even Republicans on the House Ethics Committee now say they are ready for an investigation. DeLay's hardly the only big-time Republican to back MTBE liability immunity -- House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton, who's received around $750,000 from energy interests over the past decade, has also been a strong proponent of the measure -- but since last week's power play, the majority leader has become the public face of MTBE legal immunity, to the delight of Democrats and environmental groups.

{SNIP}

What explains the Hammer's die-hard loyalty to liability immunity for MTBE? He's long stood up for the chemical industry out of conservative principle, and most MTBE manufacturers are Texas-based. But DeLay's detractors point to another motive closer to the bottom line: A recent Public Citizen tally of five years of contributions to DeLay's legal defense fund found that $107,000 came from energy and natural resources companies. His political action committee has been the recipient of even greater industry largesse; according to the Center for Responsive Politics, oil and gas companies, many of whom stand to benefit from the MTBE immunity provision, have donated more than $300,000 over the last three election cycles.

Last year, DeLay drew a rebuke from the Ethics Committee because he "at a minimum, created the appearance that donors were being provided with special access ... regarding the then-pending energy legislation." But it appears the congressman, never one to put much stock in appearances, hasn't yet taken that message to heart. Huntsman Corp., one of the nation's largest MTBE producers, has demonstrated a surge in DeLay-directed generosity over the past few months. Jon M. Huntsman Sr., Huntsman Corp., the Huntsman PAC and company CEO Peter Huntsman all gave the maximum contribution to the DeLay's legal defense fund in the last quarter of 2004; the $20,000 total put them in the top tier of his supporters. (And Huntsman's loyalty to DeLay doesn't stop there: Last January, the company hired the congressman's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, along with two of his colleagues from the Washington firm Alexander Strategies, to round out their formidable energy bill lobbying team.)

to add further insult to injurty the MTBE bill would give the companies $2 BILLIION for "industry transition costs". :mad: :banghead: