Posted on 03/15/2002 5:22:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
SACRAMENTO -- A new report says banning the fuel additive MTBE this December could cause supply shortages and price spikes, and recommends delaying the ban until 2005.
Irvine-based Stillwater Associates reported Thursday that state gasoline supplies could run 55,000 to 100,000 barrels short daily, with up to 80 percent of the impact felt in southern California.
The consulting firm, in a report to the California Energy Commission, recommends delaying the ban until November 2005 to get "significant additional supplies for the state's gasoline pool."
Three years ago Gov. Gray Davis ordered a ban on MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, no later than Dec. 31, 2002. The executive order followed a University of California study that declared MTBE a threat to groundwater. The fuel additive, which makes gasoline burn cleaner in areas with significant air pollution, has already leaked into 48 wells in California's public water systems, state records showed last August.
Thirteen states use the additive to meet requirements of the federal Clean Air Act.
Davis spokesman David Chi said Thursday the governor is expected to decide next month whether to ban MTBE at year's end. If so, he would make California the first state to eliminate its use, says energy commission spokesman Claudia Chandler.
Marguerite Young, California director of Clean Water Action, a national water quality group, says Davis should stick to his guns.
"Every day we continue to put MTBE into gasoline we are putting more groundwater in peril and more drinking water in peril and adding to the what will be at the end of the day, a very staggering cleanup bill," she said.
A study commissioned last October estimated it will cost $29 billion to remove MTBE from water and soil nationwide.
"I think there may well be economic disruptions from phasing it out," Young said. "But there will be economic disruptions no matter when we phase it out."
The report to CEC noted gasoline prices could double with a January 2003 ban. Stillwater Associates noted that insufficient supplies of ethanol, the alternative to MTBE, would leave the state scrambling for gasoline that distant refiners couldn't deliver. Along with delaying the ban, it recommends that the state expand its refining capacity, add tank storage and establish a strategic fuels reserve.
But Fred Gorell, spokesman for San Francisco-based Chevron-Texaco Corp., said his company is ready for the ban.
"I haven't seen any decision to change the date, and given it's the end of the year, our situation is we're on track to meet that requirement," he said.
The Stillwater report, which says a gasoline shortfall would have its biggest impact on independent marketers and unbranded stations, is only a recommendation to the energy commission, Chandler said. She said commission staffers will write their own report within weeks, presenting options to California EPA Director Winston Hickox and Davis.
------------:
On the Net:
Read the Stillwater report at www.energy.ca.gov/mtbe
Isn't that in the Cheney / Bush Energy plan?
Zooming up to the 30,000 foot level, so we can get the big picture...For EPA to allow states to enforce the Clean Air Act requirements the states must submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA for review and approval that shows how the state will do things to insure compliance with the Clean Air Act air quality standards.
California and some other states have winter air quality problems. To meet those problems they descided to add an oxygenating agent to the winter gasoline to help reduce air pollution concentrations from cars. The State of California choose to add MTBE for a variety of reasons.
Good citizens should be asking if the State of California is opening up its entire SIP to re-examination and revision or if it is just trying to tinker with one element. People should also clearly point out that this is a state imposed problem and has nothing to do with Washington DC. If there is an MTBE crisis, it should be put at the feet of Gov Davis and no one else. Looks alike a good issue for California Republicans this election season.
It is looking like the BIG issue will be taxes.
I'll ping you from the thread where that is getting discussed!
Of course the addition of this percentage of MTBE drops the mileage per gallon by at least 10%. So it would be an even wash just to remove the expensive MTBE.
Then, like you said we could use gas from Nevada, Arizona, Oregon or Washington without the MTBE.
When I mentioned the loss of mileage due to the MTBE addition and the removal of it would bring back the mileage the whacko just looked at me. He refused to comment on the loss of mileage with the addition of MTBE to our gasoline.
Whenever I fish the Upper Russian River, I buy gas from a station without MTBE. The mileage on my Bronco on the road goes from about 15 to 17+mpg or a 13.33% increase in mpg due to no MTBE in the gasoline. Whenever, I drive to Brookings from here I can barely make it into Brookings to buy gasoline on a single tank of gasoline. When I feel up in Brookings (no MTBE), Or. and drive home, I arrive home with over a quarter of tank of gas left in my Bronco on that fillup in Oregon.
This whole additive thing is a farce. One of the best auto/tuners in town told us that most Japanese cars/trucks since the early 1990's need zero additives to meet the epa stamdards re clean air. Then American autos since 1994 need zero additives to meet the clean air standards.
Last but not least, the energy demands to blend and stabilize the mtbe as you pointed out is very high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.