Government▼Watch
The much-debated U.S. energy bill may be held up by a provision that exempts the oil industry from cleaning up water contaminated by methyltert-butyl ether (MTBE). The issue is a hot potato, because it is one of several that caused energy legislation to fail in 2003. President Bush made passage of an energy bill a priority in 2000, and he recently told a group of business leaders that the White House wants to help craft an MTBE compromise. The energy bill passed by the House of Representatives in April includes liability protection for oil producers that sold MTBE. The legislation would also provide $1.75 billion to help oil companies phase out production and mandates an end to the additive by 2015. If the producers are exempted from cleanup, the costs will be borne by the water utilities and passed along to water consumers, says Al Warburton
PHOTODISC
Water utilities may be stuck with MTBE cleanup
A U.S. energy bill could be stalled over who cleans up MTBE contamination.
of the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The cleanup costs may reach $29 billion nationally, AWWA estimates. Water is contaminated in 29 states and in 1861 water systems, according to data supplied by local water districts and analyzed by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. The U.S. EPA approved MTBE as an oxygenate additive in gasoline sold to consumers in mostly urban areas that experience smog problems in the summer. Although the additive does
clean the air, it has made its way into groundwater and aquifers, where it produces a foul turpentine smell that turns off consumers. Current data are not adequate to estimate potential health risks of low-level MTBE exposure in drinking water, according to EPA’s Office of Water. However, the data support the conclusion that at high doses MTBE is a potential human carcinogen, the agency writes. Since the mid-1990s, local communities and states have filed more than 100 lawsuits against oil companies, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO estimates that settlements for these types of lawsuits have ranged from several million dollars to well over $100 million. The Senate energy bill won’t include a liability provision, according to Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Riding along the clean-car corridor In May, Washington became the ninth U.S. state to adopt vehicle tailpipe standards that are tougher than the federal government’s. Washington’s action comes weeks after Canadian officials announced a voluntary agreement with automakers to meet similar standards, and Oregon’s governor strongly suggested that his state move in the same direction. If Oregon adopts the rules, low-emission vehicles (LEVs) could soon make up as much as 35% of the North American car market. California’s LEV standards (LEV-II) call on the auto industry to produce low-, ultralow-, and zero-emission vehicles that significantly cut back on emissions of volatile organic compounds and NOx . Perhaps more controversial is California’s update of its LEV-II in September 2004 with the socalled Pavley standards, which address greenhouse gases (GHGs). Once California’s standards are in place, which the state Air Resources Board expects with the 2009 model year, the other states that use the California emission standards will adopt the Pavley rules. Washington’s standards won’t go into effect until Oregon approves the LEV rules for its automobiles, which could happen in the next few years. Efforts to get a bill through the Oregon legislature have failed, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D)
© 2005 American Chemical Society
recently said he would create a task force to consider the effect these standards would have, according to spokesperson Anna Richter Taylor. U.S. automakers strongly oppose the recently updated California standards to control GHGs. The rules will add as much as $3000 to a car’s price without providing any safety or environmental benefits, says Eron Shosteck, communications director of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The industry filed a lawsuit asking that the Pavley standards be withdrawn, and the Bush Administration supports the carmakers. However, the industry already sells cars in California that can meet the first phase of the rules. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) noted that gasoline savings would offset any possible increase in purchase cost. LEV supporters are delighting in what they call “the creation of a clean-car corridor” along the Pacific coast. K. C. Golden, the policy director of Climate Solutions, an advocacy group in Washington, says the bottom line is that consumers in the coastal western states want LEVs because they are worried about poor air quality and global warming. “I think this sends out a very strong statement about fuel prices and oil markets,” Golden adds. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
JULY 1, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 279A
