We have all read the recent stories that mandatory use of ethanol in states that have banned MTBE (including California, New York and Connecticut) could mean higher gas prices as gasoline marketers shift to summer fuel blends. With that in the background, you might be interested in dramatic new evidence by the state of California, which shows that forced use of ethanol in gasoline will also mean more pollution in California.
California recently sent the evidence to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of its effort to obtain a waiver from mandatory use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. California’s evidence shows that forced use of ethanol will mean higher nitrogen oxides and particle soot pollution — and inhibit the state’s ability to meet federal air quality standards for particle soot. California also argues that requiring high-volatility ethanol will mean increased smog-forming hydrocarbon pollution from lawn and garden equipment and gasoline containers.
This evidence appears very solid. If the Bush administration rejects this request, it will appear very politically motivated, suggesting the administration is more interested in electoral votes from farm states than in sound science or the health of breathers in high-pollution areas. It would also appear to doom a similar request by the state of New York — and raise the specter of a real gas crunch in the Northeast this spring (since oil companies have to make a special, lower-volatility blendstock to compensate for higher-volatility ethanol.)
You may recall that California tried earlier (under Governor Gray Davis) to obtain a waiver. The EPA career staff not only recommended such a waiver, but actually wrote a proposed rule that would have granted it. President Clinton left office without taking action on the request, and the Bush EPA rejected it in 2001 following heavy lobbying by farm state interests. California sued, and won an initial battle in federal court. It submitted the new information as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to fight for the right to permit companies to sell cleaner-burning gasoline without ethanol.
Please don’t hesitate to call Frank O’Donnell (202-785-9625 / 202-262-6026) if you’d like to discuss. You can also contact Charlie Peters of the Clean Air Trust at (510) 537-1796 or cappcharlie@earthlink.net
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=144-07192004
Renewable Energy Action Project Named Clean Air Trust ‘Villain of the Month’
Contact: Frank O’Donnell of the Clean Air Trust, 301-941-1987 or 202-262-6026, Web: http://www.cleanairtrust.org
WASHINGTON, July 19 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following statement on the July “Villain of the Month” was released today by the Clean Air Trust:
Why would an organization claiming to represent environmental groups favor dirtier air in California?
And is there a connection to a race for a U.S. Senate seat from California?
These are mysteries raised by this month’s “clean air villain of the month” for July 2004 — the California-based Renewable Energy Action Project (REAP).
The organization, whose letterhead says it represents such well-known entities as Greenpeace and the Bluewater Network, raised eyebrows earlier this month when it sided with pro-Bush administration corn growers and attacked a coalition of respected clean-air advocates who seek to permit California gas stations to sell gasoline without the forced use of ethanol.
The clean-air coalition, which includes the Sierra Club, American Lung Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Environmental Trust, Clean Air Trust Education Fund, and Our Children’s Earth Foundation, had urged EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt to grant California’s request to waive mandatory use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline sold in California.
“In California, the federal oxygen requirement met with ethanol exacerbates already unhealthy levels of air pollution throughout the state,” the coalition noted. “We believe the need to grant California’s oxygen waiver request is urgent. It would benefit public health and the environment and could very well lower gasoline prices almost immediately.”
The clean-air coalition’s request appeared to upset REAP, which told Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report that it was “at odds” with the clean-air coalition on this issue. “The national environmental groups have not been involved in the California process and have no understanding of it,” a REAP source told the publication.
In fact, the clean-air coalition based its comments on detailed research by the California Air Resources Board, which believes that mandatory ethanol use will make it harder to meet clean air standards for deadly fine particle matter.
So why does REAP support the mandatory use of ethanol even when the state of California says that will mean dirtier air? REAP claims it knows more about the issue than the state’s scientists.
But some people say it’s because the group is closely affiliated with the ethanol industry.
REAP appears on a media “contact list” put out by the Renewable Fuels Association, whose board includes not only small ethanol producers, but big-corn growers such as Archer Daniels Midland. And REAP’s positions on ethanol echo those of the industry.
We do know the issue is politically volatile — at both the national and state levels. It is widely believed that the Bush administration is sitting on California’s request to avoid offending voters in corn-growing states, including Iowa. There was added evidence for this thesis last week, when the National Corn Growers Association gave the Bush administration the “friend of corn growers award.”
The Iowa media reported the award came in part because the Bush administration had stonewalled California’s request to permit sales of cleaner gasoline without ethanol. “By doing so, corn growers said the 650-million-gallon ethanol market was preserved. Iowa continues to build and open new ethanol plants increasing the demand for corn,” the Waterloo/Cedar Falls (Iowa) Courier reported.
The California/ethanol clash is also a point of controversy in a race in California for a U.S. Senate seat: Republican candidate Bill Jones is part owner of an ethanol company. His opponent, incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is among those who have repeatedly urged EPA to permit California to sell reformulated gasoline without ethanol.
One footnote to that Senate race: Jones founded Pacific Ethanol Inc. in 2002, a year after the Bush administration rejected California’s waiver request. A federal court later ruled the Bush administration acted illegally. Pacific Ethanol and related properties are being acquired by Accessity Corp. in a merger said to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Jones announced last week that he would invest $2 million of his own money in the Senate race. As the Los Angeles Times noted last week, “His wealth — at least on paper — increased dramatically this spring with the announced merger.”
Pacific Ethanol’s Chairman and CEO is Neil Koehler, who also heads the California Renewable Fuels Partnership. Which is a prominent member of REAP.
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters / (510) 537-1796 / cappcharlie@earthlink.net)