After weeks of negotiations, a massive overhaul of US energy policy is ready for a final vote in Congress.
But the sprawling energy bill is unlikely to have the support of anyone in the New Hampshire delegation.
Among other things, the measure would nullify the state's lawsuit against the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE.
NHPR's Washington Correspondent Judith Smelser reports.
REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SENATE NEGOTIATORS HAVE FINALLY RELEASED THE TEXT OF A LONG-AWAITED ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE REPORT.
DEMOCRATS ON THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, BUT IT'S UNLIKELY THEY'LL BE ALLOWED TO DO MUCH.
The provision that's causing the most concern for New Hampshire lawmakers is the so-called MTBE safe harbor.
The gasoline additive has contaminated some fifteen percent of New Hampshire's drinking water.
And earlier this fall, the state filed suit against the product's manufacturers.
But even before House and Senate conferees released the final text of the energy bill, First District Congressman Jeb Bradley knew the state's lawsuit was in danger.
T2 1:08 (13)
"Members of the Committee of Conference on the energy bill are well aware that New Hampshire's already filed a lawsuit, and could basically with a stroke of a pen nix that lawsuit, which would be very unfortunate also."
In the end, that's exactly what happened.
The final bill protects MTBE makers against lawsuits going back to September fifth - almost a month before New Hampshire's suit was filed.
Second District Congressman Charles Bass called the provision "unacceptable."
T2 7:24 (19)
"Obviously, with New Hampshire's lawsuit being filed and a known record of having oil refiners make generous settlements to municipalities in the past that have had MTBE issues, this is clearly an effort to protect, without fully investigating, an issue where the industry knows it's exposed."
But that's not the only reason New Hampshire lawmakers are uncomfortable with the energy bill.
Again, Congressman Bass.
T2 6:55 (19)
"I think that the particular interests of the Northeast have been largely igonred. I don't think there's much representation in the conference from this region. There's not enough emphasis on the types of energy that can be produced in the Northeast - renewables, wood products, hydro, and so forth. And there's enormous emphasis on oil and gas."
The bill provides millions of dollars in tax incentives, loan guarantees, and research grants to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.
The incentives for renewable energy are much smaller by comparision.
That's one of the main reasons environmental groups have declared the energy bill a complete disaster.
Karen Wayland is the Acting Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
:22 (24)
"We think this bill is a sham. It does nothing for our energy security, it's not a forward looking energy bill that does anything to reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels. It destroys some of our most special natural resources places, and it doesn't protect consumers or taxpayers because it gives huge subsidies for polluting industries."
New Hampshire's Freshman Senator John Sununu is especially concerned about the burden the bill would place on taxpayers.
2:04 (24)
"We shouldn't be providing subsidies for research in areas like coal or oil or natural gas - areas that we are producing electricity, they're competitive areas of our economy, mature areas of our economy, and very important ones as well. But we shouldn't be taking taxpayer money and giving them $500 million or a billion dollars a year to do research that will in the long run serve the profitability of those corporations."
The Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued an estimate for how much the tax provisions will cost.
But Democrats say the total could be as much as $115 billion dollars.
Senator Sununu is so strongly opposed to the bill that he says he may consider supporting a filibuster if Democrats decide to go that route.
But the power industry is defending the tax breaks.
Jim Owen is with the Edison Electric Institute, a lobby group for privately-owned power plants.
1:50
"??. I think what we're really talking about in some cases is the development or the extension of new technologies, really to make some of these fuels more efficient and also to make them more environmentally benign, so I think that is a good thing."
The New Hampshire delegation - and the environmentalists - can claim a few victories in the energy bill.
For one thing, it does not open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for drilling - something the Bush Administration had actively pushed for.
That provision was one of the main reasons Congressmen Bass and Bradley voted against the House version of the bill when it passed that chamber in the summer.
The final bill also leaves out a provision that would have ordered a government inventory of oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
But those small victories won't be enough to sway the New Hampshire lawmakers.
Congressman Jeb Bradley has confirmed to NHPR that he intends to vote against the bill.
Given their previous statements, it's very likely that the rest of the delegation will do the same.
For NHPR News, this is JS in Washington.
