The head of a US Northeast air quality group sharply criticized a pending energy bill before the US Congress at presstime last week, saying the measure does not address water contamination issues related to the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether.
Ken Colburn, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, voiced strong concern that the energy conference did not address the US Northeast's concerns about MTBE. NESCAUM is an interstate association of air quality control divisions in the Northeast states.
NESCAUM's eight-member states include the six New England states, as well as New York and New Jersey.
In an e-mail dated Nov. 23, Colburn called on the region's environmental commissioners and secretaries to urge lawmakers to reject the bill in its current form.
"The 2003 energy bill is a large and complex bill, and each state's delegation members will have to calculate their own pro vs. con calculus before voting on it. As far as its MTBE-ethanol provisions go, however, our conclusion is that this bill should not receive congressional approval, and we urge you to communicate your opinions to your delegation members."
Colburn argued the fuel provisions included in the larger 1,100-page legislation do not follow the spirit of a compromise worked out with environmental groups and clean fuel interests nearly 2 years ago. Congressional and industry sources, however, predict the bill is not likely to be changed and will likely be passed this month.
House vote
At presstime last week, the US House already had voted 246-180 to approve the bill, which includes a provision NESCAUM and environmentalists object to that shields MTBE producers from product liability suits (see Watching Government, p. 7). The MTBE issue alone was not expected to derail the larger bill's passage.
Four years ago, NESCAUM under then director Jason Grumet, formed an unusual coalition with ethanol producer group Renewable Fuels Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council to work with US Senate staff on a politically workable way to update clean fuel rules.
Key items of the "grand compromise" reached nearly 2 years ago included a ban on MTBE in gasoline and an elimination of the 2% oxygenate mandate in reformulated gasoline. The deal also stipulated that there be no backsliding on gasoline toxicity, no safe harbor liability protection for MTBE, a requirement to use (ultimately) 5 billion gal/year in the nation's fuel supply, and geographic and chronological averaging of the ethanol used so as to reduce the cost of the mandate.
Along with the liability language, Colburn said the pending energy legislation offers too many loopholes for MTBE to continue to be used past the phase out date of Dec. 31, 2014.
"The upshot is that under this bill, we could easily end up with all the 'bad' provisions of the grand compromise (i.e., those we 'gave' on), and none of the 'good' ones (i.e., those we 'took')." He said that ethanol would still be mandated at 5 billion gal/year, and MTBE would still be used widely.
Industry reaction
Responding to the letter, API defended the omnibus bill, including the clean fuels title, saying the bill is good for consumers, the environment and the industry.
"Our compromise with NESCAUM agreed on a 4-year MTBE phase down, not a ban. The 10-year phase down in the bill is longer than API wanted—but [the US Environmental Protection Agency] could shorten it."
API also said that the antibacksliding provision remains in the bill, and a provision to allow states to waive the phase down of MTBE was agreed to by NESCAUM.
The industry group also said transition assistance has always been in the bill. "It may originally have been a slightly smaller amount, but in any case, the funds also have to be appropriated and it is that process that weighs the relative benefits of different government expenditures," API said.
Regarding the controversial MTBE liability clause, API said that while it is not in the original agreement, the MTBE safe harbor is very limited, and would not impact responsibility for remediation expenses.
"Since there has yet to be a court finding of a defective product liability, it would not have effected remediation efforts and expenses in the NESCAUM states or elsewhere."
