Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Less MTBE, more daylight in energy bill

Posted by Matthew Wheeland at 2:04 PM on July 25, 2005.


Lots of big and little progress made in the halls of Congress this week on Bush's two-year-old energy bill.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

Widely reported today is the marvelous news that Congress has rejected a provision in the energy bill to shield oil companies from MTBE lawsuits.

The House of Representatives floated a proposal for an $11 billion fund to clean up MTBE contamination, with just $4B coming from oil companies. But Senator Pete Dominici of New Mexico said as of yesterday both the proposed fund and the liability protection are gone from the bill.

Dropping the shield for oil companies is a huge boon for cities facing multi-billion dollar cleanup costs for groundwater contaminated by the gasoline additive.

Recent studies by the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies found that the total costs for MTBE cleanups in the 36 states that have so far reported contamination could top $85 billion.

According to a recent Bloomberg News article, "In the only MTBE case in which a jury reached a verdict, California's South Lake Tahoe Water District in 2002 won a judgment that MTBE and gasoline blended with MTBE were defective products. Total payments from a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Equilon Enterprises and other companies, came to over $69 million.

"In 2003 Exxon Mobil, Shell and Chevron Corp. agreed to pay the city of Santa Monica, California, $92.5 million and spend hundreds of millions more to remove MTBE from the municipal water supply."

The MTBE bailout was one of the biggest obstacles preventing Congress from passing the two-year-old energy legislation. Among the other major roadblocks still facing the bill are whether tax subsidies should help fund renewable energy or the oil industry, and just how much corn-based ethanol the Midwest should pump out nationwide.

Should the energy bill ever get to the White House for Bush's signature, taxes and corn oil won't likely catch the attention of the average American. But another issue that has hardly raised eyebrows in D.C. will certainly provoke cries of joy or rage across the country.

The L.A. Times reported last week that members of the House and Senate agreed to extend daylight-saving time by four weeks as part of the energy bill. Clocks would jump forward in mid-March, and roll back at the beginning of November under the new plan, meaning that Halloween will have a lot more sun, and a lot fewer pranks, for better or worse.

Digg!

Matthew Wheeland is an Associate Editor at AlterNet.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Still no word about PUHCA
Posted by: crossword on Jul 26, 2005 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read several accounts of the new soon-to-be-completed energy bill, but not much mention that the House and Senate versions both wanted to dump the PUHCA (Public Utilities Holding Company) in favor of even further deregulation of the utilities [omigod, remember Enron?]. Molly Ivins wrote a nice piece about it but mostly it was not even mentioned in the mainstream press. A web search didn't turn up much either except that Warren Buffett's group really did want to get a "hold" of some nice public utilities.

I have an uneasy feeling about an energy bill so short on conservation and alternate energy incentives and consumer protection measures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]