Texas Civil Justice League

ISSUES

04/25/2007
HB 1927 Fact and Fiction

Opponents of HB 1927 have grossly misrepresented the effect and intent of the legislation. HB 1927 provides limited protection from liability for manufacturers and sellers of fuels and fuel additives that comply with specific, mandatory federal and state mandates under the Clean Air Act. The bill does not grant any liability protection for a person, including the manufacturer or seller, who spills a fuel additive or fuel into the environment.

• HB 1927 will not impair the recovery of environmental remediation costs for gasoline spills in any way, including the cost to clean up surface or groundwater. Opponents of the bill, particularly the American Waterworks Association, charge that HB 1927 “sanctions” water pollution and that taxpayers will have to bear the burden of cleaning up polluted water. This allegation is patently false and misleading. The bill specifically states that people who spill fuel into the water are liable for remediation costs and damages. The fact is that more than 95 percent of remediation costs nationwide are already recovered from negligent parties. HB 1927 preserves that recovery. Taxpayers are not currently paying clean-up costs and won’t be under HB 1927.

• The Legislature has already acted to protect manufacturers and sellers of products subject to specific mandatory governmental standards. HB 1927 is entirely consistent with prior legislative policy decisions to protect manufacturers and sellers of products from strict liability if those products comply with mandatory standards similar to those in this case (e.g., Sec. 82.006, which governs firearms and ammunition). In fact, HB 1927 imposes a higher standard in that it ties liability protection to particular statutory and regulatory formula specifications.

• HB 1927 does not sanction the use of MTBE in gasoline. While opponents of the bill are attempting to make MTBE an issue, the fact is that no refiners in Texas or nationwide use MTBE in motor fuels (although MTBE is still used in Europe). Consequently, the levels of MTBE in water are infinitesimally small (less than 1 part per billion, according to the U.S. Geological Survey) and declining every day. Fuel specifications now require ethanol to be used in the nation’s low emissions fuels and ethanol use is expected to expand rapidly.

• MTBE is one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals in commerce. Numerous studies by national and international agencies and health organizations have found no compelling evidence that MTBE has toxic or carcinogenic effects. The fact is, MTBE is a non-issue today and should not distract the discussion on HB 1927, which is focused on mandatory fuel specifications currently in effect and likely to be in effect in the future.

• Refiners have no discretion in the use of a particular fuel additive to meet clean air standards. In the past, MTBE was the only commercially available additive mandated by the EPA. Today’s additive is ethanol. The refiner’s only choice is whether to make the fuel with the mandated additive or no fuel at all. "We recognized that, among the fuel additives the government was mandating for use in cleaning smog-prone city air, MTBE was the only commercially viable alternative at the time." — Former Louisiana Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D), Chairman, Senate Energy Committee, 1990