By OGJ editors
WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 25 -- US Senate leaders Tuesday predicted a new streamlined energy bill could pass the chamber as soon as March.
In mid-February, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said they expected the full Senate to vote the week of Feb. 22 on a less expensive bill; now the timetable has shifted to March because of protracted negotiations over how the bill will be considered on the Senate floor.
The latest version of the legislation is estimated to contain about $14 billion in tax incentives, compared to an earlier $31 billion bill the Republican-led House supported.
In its current form the Senate legislation contains no product liability protections for any clean fuel additives, including fuel ethanol or methyl tertiary butyl ether; an earlier bill that contained the "safe harbor" protections failed to get through the Senate last November.
House leaders say they won't consider a bill if it does not include MTBE protection, and the White House has largely been on the sidelines on the issue. President George W. Bush however has been vocal in his support for a related provision in the bill designed to more than double fuel ethanol demand over the decade.
Not too surprisingly, the White House is not alone in supporting the ethanol market proposal this election year. There is also strong bipartisan interest from Congress in passing the ethanol mandate portion of the bill, known as a "Renewable Fuels Standard." That measure is widely expected to become law, one way or another. It may be part of the pending energy bill or, if that legislation fails, it may be added on to less combative legislation or wrapped into an annual appropriations bill.
The RFS requires 3.1 billion gal of renewable fuel use in the transportation sector in 2005, increasing to 5 billion gal by 2012. In 2013 and beyond, the share of renewable fuel is to remain proportional to what was sold in the US market in 2012.
Other titles in the energy bill may not be able to muster as much support on Capitol Hill as the ethanol provision however.
The Senate bill, for example currently contains financial sweeteners for a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48. These include a "commodity risk" provision for natural gas producers and loan guarantees for pipeline operators.
The House opposes both measures but at one point was willing to accept a conditional loan guarantee, while the White House opposes the Alaska commodity provision because it fears it may distort the natural gas market.
