THE CONFLICT: BANNING MTBES
California is phasing out the use of the fuel additive MTBE because of alleged toxic side effects. The Environmental Protection Agency now insists that California switch to fuel additives like ethanol in order to meet federal Clean Air Act requirements. Is the EPA’s insistence based on environmental concerns or the influence of ethanol-producing interests in the Midwest?
On July 26, 1943, in the midst of World War II, the city of Los Angeles was ravaged by a toxic cloud of gas that afflicted thousands of city residents with respiratory and eye irritations. The culprit: industrial pollution and car exhaust.
By 1963 the United States Congress passed the first version of the Clean Air Act, Public Law 88-206, which would later be amended in 1970, 1977 and in 1990.
The monumental CAA regulates the amount of pollution we release into the atmosphere, whether from massive factories or tiny motor scooters, and has established standards for the types of engines that can be built and/or used in the U.S. as well as, most recently, the types of fuels at our disposal.
While gasoline and diesel compounds fuel 99% of our nation’s vehicles, we also import over 50% of our oil from foreign powers. Moreover, gas and diesel are not the cleanest burning fuels when compared to such alternatives as ethanol, hydrogen, methanol, electricity and, yes, solar energy, many of which are actually byproducts of our robust domestic agriculture industry.
With these considerations in mind, the 1990 revision of the CAA called for the development of a cleaner-burning, reformulated gasoline (RFG). One method for improving the energy output of oil in an engine is to introduce oxygen into the mix and this can be done through the introduction of chemicals known as “oxygenates.” One such oxygenate, MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), was already in use as a fuel additive because it enhanced engine performance.
Whereas other oxygenates like ethanol can also help an engine more fully consume its gasoline fuel, MTBE is cheaper to transport and, according to some industries, cheaper to manufacture. By the mid 1990s, 30 percent of the gasoline fuel used in the U.S. was reformulated, of which about 87 percent contained MTBE. In California, the rate of MTBE usage is even higher.
According to the CAA, cities with serious air quality problems such as ground-level ozone or “smog”, the kind that first afflicted L.A. in 1943 and continues to do so today, must use RFG year-long. With southern California alone accounting for more than half of the state’s gasoline consumption, over 90% of the gas sold in the state contains MTBE.
Unfortunately, one of MTBE’s characteristics is also its greatest threat to the public safety: it dissolves easily in water. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory believes it has found over 10,000 leaking underground MTBE storage tanks. Santa Monica lost 75% of its drinking water wells due to MTBE contamination and the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District has lost over one third of its drinking water wells to MTBE. Water tainted with MTBE tastes like turpentine.
While the detrimental health effects of MTBE are the subject of an international dispute, the federal Environmental Protection Agency claims MTBE is a potential carcinogen when consumed by humans. On March 15, 1999, in response to a series of studies and related legislative measures, Governor Gray Davis directed that MTBE be phased out as California’s RFG additive.
However, the federal CAA mandates that California use certain technologies, and, notably, fuel additives like MTBE, to improve air quality. In response, California argued that today’s car engines are sufficiently fuel efficient as to render RFG unnecessary. Davis attempted to procure a waiver from the federal EPA and President Bush in order to discontinue the use of additives altogether. Bush denied the request, possibly as a response to pressure from the manufacturers of the most likely MTBE replacement: ethanol.
Currently, a Canadian company is suing the government of California for $970 million in order to prevent it from discontinuing the use of MTBE while the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is suing the federal government in order to discontinue the use of reformulated gasoline. Meanwhile, the County of Lake Tahoe has reaped millions in damages from its lawsuit against petroleum companies on the grounds that MTBE renders gasoline into a defective product. Efforts to contain and remediate MTBE groundwater contamination are expanding throughout the state. Governor Davis has postponed the full phase-out of MTBE until 2003.
Governor Gray Davis, (D), following the recommendations of a University of California study of MTBE, ordered the removal of the MTBE oxygenate additive from the state’s gasoline supply by December 31, 2002. Hoping to permanently discontinue the use of fuel additives in California, he petitioned President Bush to make an exception for California. This request was denied. Most recently, Davis postponed the phase-out of MTBE until January 1, 2004.
The Environmental Protection Agency, headed by Christie Whitman, has denied Davis’ request for discontinuing the use of reformulated gasoline in California. While the denial recognized the problems associated with MTBE, it also rejected the state’s claims that it could meet Clean Air Act requirements without using a fuel additive; the most likely being ethanol. The EPA, however, is already developing its own plan for eliminating MTBE from the nation’s air quality improvement strategies.
President George W. Bush supported ethanol as a candidate and promised he would continue to do so as president. He has. By denying Davis’ request to simply dispense with reformulated gasoline altogether when the state prohibits the use of MTBE, Bush indirectly sanctioned the introduction of ethanol as California’s sole additive. Lauded by the National Corn Growers Association and the Archer Daniel Midland company, to name only a few of his campaign contributors, this decision will likely yield billions of dollars for the ethanol industry. Ethanol, however, is a bipartisan issue with full support from leading South Dakota Democrat Tom Daschle.
The Sierra Club, along with the Bluewater Network, the Clean Air Trust and Natural Resources Defense Council have all campaigned to ban MTBE from the state’s gasoline supply. Bluewater has even endorsed the use of ethanol as a replacement for MTBE. The Sierra Club, on the other hand, supports the removal of all oxygenates from the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Ethanol lobbies like the Renewable Fuels Association represent a number of corporations and state governments who stand to gain a financial windfall should MTBE be replaced by ethanol in the California fuel market. In addition to massive corporations like ADM, lobbies like the RFA, the American Coalition for Ethanol and the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition represent a wide variety of interested parties, from farmers to refineries. Critics say ethanol will drive up gas prices and actually increase pollution.
Methanex, a Canadian corporation that manufacturers Methanol which, in turn, is used to make MTBE, is suing the state of California under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA) on the grounds that the state’s decision to discontinue the use of MTBE will cost the company over $970 million. Pierre Choquette, President and CEO of Methanex argues that “the ban of MTBE was politically motivated and has no scientific merit” and that the “UC Davis Study cited in the Governor’s ban order is deeply flawed and does not address the true solution — fixing California’s leaking underground gasoline storage tanks.”
California drivers are both protagonists and bystanders to the ongoing MTBE controversy. According to the California Department of Transportation, there are so many of us that California motorists in 1995 used an extra 1.1 million gallons of fuel per day due to urban freeway congestion at a cost of $5.9 million per day. As a state we travel roughly 15 billion miles each month and that number is increasing by about 5% each year. In 1994, California voters rejected a $1 billion rail bond measure.
Those in favor might say:
There is no conclusive evidence that MTBE poses a significant health hazard to human populations. While the smell and taste of MTBE tainted water may be unappealing to most citizens, the problem is not the use of this tried and true fuel additive but rather the shoddy standards that govern how MTBE is stored in leaking underground storage tanks. Rather than introducing the less efficient ethanol to California’s gasoline supply, at great expense to the state’s motorists, the state should better regulate the storage of MTBE.
Those against might say:
California no longer needs oxygenates like MTBE or ethanol to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act given the increased efficiency of new motor vehicles. Increasing fuel efficiency standards (PDF) for vehicles will ultimately make a more dramatic and longer lasting impact on the state’s air quality than fuel additives or reformulated gasoline. Heavy exposure to MTBE has resulted in reports of headaches, dizziness and nausea. Ethanol, the primary and single common ingredient in alcoholic beverages around the world, may be even more of a carcinogen than MTBE.
Excerpts from Executive Order D-52-02, signed March 15, 2002, by the Governor of the State of California, postponing the MTBE phase-out:
IT IS ORDERED that by July 31, 2002, the board shall take the necessary actions to postpone for one year the prohibitions of the use of MTBE…that the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Health Services shall work with California drinking water providers to ensure that the providers continue to take all appropriate measures to prevent discharge of MTBE into surface water reservoirs.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I have been following this issue for a couple of years now. I think the writeup is very good but I don’t think it is up to date. What is happening regarding this issue as of Oct. 2006. I thought I read the Methanex law suit had been denied. As of Oct 2006 what is legally required to be mixed with gas; is it methanol, ethanol or nothing. I think you need to do a show with an update on this issue.