MTBE should never have been forced upon the gas companies. It was a horrible idea from several different points of view.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
" -FINAL-
PHASE 2 RFG ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY - JULY 19, 1994
Introduction
To ensure the smooth transition to Phase 2 reformulated gasoline
(RFG), the RFG Advisory committee met on July 19, 1994, in the
first of a series of planned meetings. The purpose of the
Advisory Committee is to provide a mechanism for discussing
issues and concerns with all parties affected by the plan to
produce, distribute, and use reformulated gasoline in California.
The Advisory Committee's Chairwoman is Miss Jacqueline Schafer,
Chairwoman of the Air Resources Board (ARB). The committee
consists of major California oil producers, most automobile
manufacturers, automobile or fuel dispensing equipment
manufacturers, transportation companies and others.
Miss Schafer began the meeting by welcoming the attendees.
Pointing out the significant environmental and economic impacts
of RFG, she stated that RFG is the critical half of the ARB's
motor vehicle control strategy. Implementing the RFG regulation
will result in 20,000 temporary jobs and hundreds of permanent
jobs; also, many refineries will improve their overall efficiency
with the modernizations required for producing RFG. Miss Schafer
instructed that three subcommittees should be formed to provide
technical review and expertise on compatibility, supply, and
public education regarding RFG. All parties were encouraged to
participate on the subcommittees. She acknowledged antitrust
concerns of the oil companies and wanted to assure them we would
work to avoid any conflicts with antitrust laws. She proposed
that advisory committee meetings be held quarterly.
Overview of the Reformulated Gasoline Program
Mr. James Boyd, Executive Officer of the ARB, presented an
overview of California's RFG program, ARB activities related to
our RFG program, and the federal RFG program. He made the
following points:
- Vehicles are major contributors to California's air quality
problems (75% of ozone violations in CA).
- Vehicle and fuel programs are an integral part of our efforts to
reduce air emissions.
- California's reformulated fuels program will result in
significant and immediate emission reductions (an average of 310
TPD ozone precursors).
- The California RFG program is cost effective (approximately
$4/lb.).
- ARB staff is committed to ongoing efforts to ensure a smooth
transition to Phase 2 RFG through monitoring efforts, public
education and performance testing.
- At this time, refiners are on schedule (10 of 13 refiners
completed CEQA and 9 have air permits).
- The EPA is implementing Phase 1 and Phase 2 RFG programs
effective January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2000 respectively.
- Periodic updates will be provided to the Air Resources Board
about every six months on California's Phase 2 implementation
issues including activities of the Advisory Committee.
Formation of Subcommittees
Mr. Peter Venturini, Chief of the Stationary Source Division for
ARB, discussed the ARB recommendations for the roles and
responsibilities of the subcommittees mentioned earlier. The
subcommittees would be performance, supply [later renamed
transition], and public education.
- The performance subcommittee would ensure performance and
compatibility with motor vehicles and storage systems and advise
ARB on the design of a vehicle testing program.
- The supply [transition] subcommittee would monitor supply,
demand, distribution, and compliance. Also, the subcommittee
would evaluate the adequacy of potential supply.
- The public education subcommittee would inform the public about
the impacts and benefits of RFG.
Investigation of Compatibility and Performance
Mr. Dean Simeroth, Chief of the Criteria Pollutants Branch for
ARB, presented information regarding the existing California
vehicle fleet and RFG specifications. Further, he discussed
current ARB investigations in this area and proposed a test
program to identify potential compatibility problems with the
introduction of RFG.
The existing fleet of 23 million on-road and 6 million off-road
vehicles and engines consume approximately 36 million gallons of
gasoline per day. This large number and diversity of engines
present potential compatibility problems with the introduction of
RFG. To identify potential problems, the ARB will conduct a
vehicle testing program. Regarding this, the following issues
were discussed:
- Related studies and ARB internal workgroup investigations
- Testing issues, i.e., material compatibility and vehicle
performance
- Vehicle fleet selection criteria
- Sample size and data collection
- Lab testing and vehicle testing
- Phase 2 test fuel criteria
- Amount of fuel required for the test program
General Motors Presentation
Dr. Gerald Barnes, Manager of Alternative Fuels and Heavy-Duty
Activities for General Motors Corporation, discussed potential
Phase 2 gasoline issues and testing. He stated the automobile
industry has, in general, supported the use of RFG as a means of
reducing emissions in both new and existing vehicles. Specific
concerns with an RFG fuel are as follows:
- A reduced lubricity leading to wear in fuel pumps and injectors
- Incompatibility with elastomers leading to swell, shrinkage, or
other changes
- Corrosion of metallic parts, particularly when the alcohols are
used as oxygenates
- Intake deposits that will affect vehicle performance
- Driveability as related to low temperature performance and cold
starting
- Impact of RFG on fuel economy since most of the proposed changes
will reduce the fuel's energy content
- Fuel switching, i.e., the use of federal fuels in California
vehicles and the impact on vehicles equipped with OBD II systems
- Additional cost of RFG
GM and others have conducted both bench and vehicle testing of
fuels in anticipation of the introduction of Phase 2 RFG.
Testing thus far has not shown any problems with Phase 2 RFG.
Some testing includes the following:
- GM has simulated a 100,000-mile durability test using an entire
fuel system.
- Ford tested for metallic wear using various fuel compositions.
- Nearly all of the major auto manufacturers have tested for
elastomer compatibility; and, all are testing for durability
certification.
- The GM/WSPA/ARB low RVP fuel tests included vehicles dating back
to a 1969 model.
- ARCO has marketed fuels similar to, if not identical to, phase 2
fuels.
Mr. Barnes also suggested additional vehicle testing using a
representative mix of vehicle fueling technologies and model
years including older vehicles. He also suggested testing under
different ambient temperature conditions using fuels of different
compositions.
ARCO Presentation
Mr. Jack Segal, Manager of Fuels Development for ARCO Products
Company, presented ARCO's experience with their EC series of
gasolines. The EC fuels are similar to RFG and have been used in
southern California for a number of years.
EC-1, introduced in 1989, was a replacement for the leaded
regular gasoline and was designed for pre-catalytic cars and
trucks: the older fleet. ARCO is still selling EC-1 today for
use in off-road vehicles and engines. The EC-P fuel, introduced
in 1990, was intended for the premium market. When ARCO
introduced the EC-P, they formed a committee to monitor
complaints; to date, there have been almost no complaints. ARCO
is supplying a Phase 2 RFG to the Federal Express Clean Fleet
Program; twenty-one of the vehicles using RFG have been running
for two years without incident.
Mr. Segal displayed a slide comparing the EC fuels with Phase 2
RFG; the fuels are very similar. Of the eight regulated
parameters, four are being met by the EC fuels: aromatics,
oxygen, benzene, and T50; the other four parameters are not that
far off. He also proposed fuel parameters for fleet
compatibility testing, and noted that fuel is going to be an
expensive part of a test program.
General Discussion
After the foregoing presentations, Miss Schafer opened the
meeting to questions and comments. Many participants voiced
support for the advisory committee and what the committee hopes
to accomplish. The auto manufacturers and others also expressed
support for the use of RFG as a means of achieving emission
reductions. Many of the oil refiners added that they felt ready
for the introduction of RFG in 1996 and did not anticipate
problems. There was also general support for a vehicle test
program and public education. Some participants supported the
investigation of supply and demand; however, as noted previously,
the oil companies had serious concerns regarding antitrust issues
and were uncertain about participating in these discussions.
Other comments included the following:
- The subcommittees should set up a timetable with completion
dates for reporting to the advisory committee.
- Miss Schafer agreed that, at the least, the performance
subcommittee should prepare a report on their findings.
- Various members expressed concern regarding the EPA RFG and the
implications its introduction will have on California RFG.
- The increase in price of gasoline is a concern especially for
those representing fleets.
- The auto manufacturers "fuel economy" will remain unchanged
since the test fuel will remain the same; however, RFG has a 2%-
4% lower energy density and will lower the user's fuel economy.
CBG Program Advisory and Subcommittee Activities
FLASH..FLASH..FLASH
Miss Schafer has gone on to bigger and better roles since 1994:
"Jacqueline E. Schafer was sworn in on November 1, 2005, as Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade (EGAT), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Schafer was appointed by President George W. Bush to this Senate-confirmed position."
"Mr. Peter Venturini, Chief of the Stationary Source Division for
ARB,"
Can you really believe a man named Venturini is on an air resource board for fuel emissions of cars that were largely in 1994 still carbureted?
I agree it shouldn't have been forced upon them, but it sure cleaned up the smog problems in targeted cities.And the hysteria of the leaking storage tanks was created by the huge corn lobby. In effect, banning oxygenates like MTBE has driven up the price of gasoline by removing around 200MBPD out of the gasoline pool. It has also indirectly driven up the price of oil, due to the increased demand on the market to make up the shortfalls. Also, Ethanol is no bargan, as it costs more to produce, store and blend. Therefore, as MTBE and other oxygenates are removed, be prepared to pay more for our oil and gas.