Energy bill is flawed; still needs reworking
This week, U.S. senators could revive the energy bill, which died last fall because lawmakers were rightly opposed to its damaging provisions.
It's still a disappointing piece of legislation, and it needs to be reworked.
ONE AVERTED disaster worth mentioning is that the chairman of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Pete Domenici, R- N.M., attempted
to attach the energy bill as an amendment to the massive highway funding bill.
Thankfully, this idea fizzled when Republican senators failed to agree.
A 1,200-page piece of legislation has no business being an
"amendment" to another bill. Such an action would have deprived the
bill of the scrutiny it so desperately deserves, and it would have made a
mockery of the democratic process.
When House lawmakers work on their version of the bill, they should not
attempt such a backhanded tactic.
IT'S POSSIBLE that the energy bill itself will die out as well because of a
deleted provision related to liability for MTBE pollution. Just as Democratic
(and some Republican) senators said they would refuse to pass any energy bill
that included a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
exploration and drilling, House leaders are refusing to negotiate on MTBE.
Sen. Domenici removed a contentious provision in the bill that would have
exempted gasoline manufacturers from liability for MTBE contamination, and
rightly so.
The exemption issue doesn't belong in the energy bill. It belongs in
congressional hearings. The additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether, was put into
fuel to make it burn cleaner, but it's a water- soluble pollutant and spreads
fast when it spills. Just a tiny amount of the chemical can contaminate large
water supplies.
The sticking point is that Congress required fuel manufacturers to make
reformulated gas that contains oxygen, and MTBE was the cheapest, most available
additive to make that happen.
Lawmakers have rightly decided to phase out the use of this chemical, but the
energy bill won't require that until 2014.
Ten years is not fast enough, particularly when the issue of liability hasn't
been decided. The safety of public drinking water is too important to wait for
its protection.
The issue of MTBE liability should be decided outside the energy bill, but
lawmakers can still adopt a quicker phase-out of the chemical and should do so.
THERE ARE other reasons to reject this bill. Though scaled down from last
fall's version, it still contains too many negative provisions - or leaves out
good ones - to merit acceptance.
Both Maine senators have reservations about this energy bill, and that's
good.
It still delays the cleanup of air pollution in smoggy areas, which will lead
to an increase in asthma attacks and lung damage. Maine already has the highest
asthma rate in the nation, and it suffers because dirty air is transported here
on the jet stream from other parts of the country.
The bill also would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, or PUHCA,
which will leave electricity consumers virtually without protection against
higher bills and market manipulation.
It also exempts some oil and gas activities from the Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Sen. Susan Collins, in particular, isn't happy that the $3 billion Energy
Saving Performance Contract program, which was designated to make the federal
government more energy efficient, was removed.
The bill also subsidizes the energy industry with billions of dollars without
working aggressively to improve efficiencies and the use of renewable resources.
Such a lopsided plan will have difficulty in gaining support, as it should.
Maine's senators have been steadfast supporters of protecting the state's and
the nation's environment, and that shouldn't stop now.
They should vote against the new version of the bill.