Re-energized: The Energy Bill is Back

Although the 2005 congressional session has barely begun, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is already talking about reviving the contentious energy bill, which died in Congress in 2004. Members of Congress fight over every energy bill, because each of them needs to support whatever energy producing industry is important to profits and jobs in their district. Coal is critical to some states. Pollution from coal worries the states down wind from coal industries. Farm states like corn additives to gasoline. Natural gas is the product of other states. Oil, produced here or bought from foreign countries is measured against the deficit, Environmental organizations want to preserve wilderness and wildlife. All of these make an energy bill so difficult

Last year, the energy bill sunk under the weight of a few hot button provisions, measures that the Senate committee plans to leave out this year. This strategy is markedly different from the House plan - House Republican leaders want to introduce and pass an energy bill that looks a lot like last year’s.

Banking on newly-won seats in both chambers, House GOP leaders still want to protect petrochemical manufacturers who make the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).

But not all Republicans are in favor of this provision. In 2004, a group of Northeastern Republicans helped to filibuster the 2004 bill because they were opposed to the MTBE provision -- and still are. If House GOP leaders insist on keeping it in the new bill, there may be a repeat of last year’s battle.

What’s up with MTBE?

MTBE is a petrochemical that helps gasoline to burn more cleanly, but it also pollutes groundwater.

During the last congressional session (the 108th) Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) argued against protecting MTBE manufacturers from pending lawsuits over contamination.

Boxer explained that MTBE spills have polluted most of the country, including the drinking water. Boxer’s home state of California has been the most affected, with at least 97 drinking-water sources infected.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that nationwide cleanup costs are estimated at $29 billion. Despite the expense, the provision prohibits communities from suing MTBE manufacturers for damages.

108th argument

Pete Domenici (R-NM), the 2004 energy bill’s sponsor, argued that it would be ridiculous to sue chemical producers for product spills. He explained that the manufacturers are not responsible for the underground storage tanks that have leaked MTBE into the water.

In addition, Domenici contended that the government mandated the manufacture of MTBE in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act. The law requires the production and use of a gasoline additive in order to cut air pollution. From his point of view, it is unfair to sue MTBE makers because it is the US government that requires its manufacture.

The bill’s opponents argued that the government did not authorize the manufacture of MTBE specifically. Rather, the Clean Air Act requires the production of an oxidant in general, and that oxidant could be corn-based ethanol or another additive. MTBE opponents believe that the chemical is defective and that its producers are liable because they failed to warn the public of its dangers.

How the new energy bill will be different

Although the MTBE argument is likely to be repeated, other energy-bill squabbles won’t be.

For example, the fight over drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is likely to be left out of both the House and Senate versions, but may resurface in a separate piece of legislation - so look out for it. For more on ANWR, click here.

The cost of the bill may also be less of an issue in 2005. In 2004, Republicans who were worried about the deficit helped Democrats to block it, but the 2005 version is likely to be much cheaper, so more Republicans may support it.

Why the 2005 energy bill may be cheaper

In 2004, Congress passed a corporate tax bill that included tax incentives that had been part of the energy bill. Since these tax breaks have already passed, the 2005 energy bill will probably be less expensive than the 2004 version.

Included in the corporate tax bill was a provision that lowered the tax rate on energy companies’ profits from 35 to 32 percent. The bill also extended the existing tax incentive for ethanol-blended gasoline to 2010. In addition, it offered a tax break to encourage the construction of a 3,500-mile natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the continental United States.

This project is supported by the fiscal 2005 military construction appropriations bill as well. The legislation, which passed in 2004, gives the Department of Energy the option to approve an $18 billion loan to cover the cost of the pipeline project.

Look out for the upcoming energy bill

With the greater Republican majority and a less-expensive price tag, the energy bill could pass this session. Stay with WomenMatter for bill details, congressional strategy, and party philosophy. And WomenMatter is a place to discuss the issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure our leaders know what’s important to you. To contact your representatives, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Article Posted on: 1/21/2005