Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein Asks EPA to Waive Rule on Fuel [MTBE]
LA Times ^ | 1.29.04 | LA Times

Posted on 01/29/2004 12:39:28 PM PST by ambrose

Feinstein Asks EPA to Waive Rule on Fuel The agency may drop some gasoline additive regulations in New Hampshire; the same is sought for California.

By Elizabeth Douglass, Times Staff Writer

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday called for the Environmental Protection Agency to waive some federal gasoline rules for California after the EPA proposed dropping certain pollution restrictions for gas sold in New Hampshire.

The EPA last week proposed that fuel producers in New Hampshire could make reformulated gasoline without adding in an "oxygenate," such as ethanol or MTBE, as required under the federal Clean Air Act.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cleanairact; environment; epa; gasoline; mtbe

1 posted on 01/29/2004 12:39:31 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Isnt this contradictory of her fellow liberal eco-maniacs?
2 posted on 01/29/2004 12:41:28 PM PST by smith288 (If terrorist hate George W. Bush, then he has my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
a permanent removal of the requirement for ANY oxygenate? Most states are switching to ethanol from MTBE (which is a good idea, this MTBE has been a total disaster), so what is this about? Or is just just temporary because there isn't enough ethanol?
3 posted on 01/29/2004 12:42:23 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smith288
maybe some of the eco-maniacs have seen what this MTBE is doing and realize that just regular old gasoline is much better for the environment.
4 posted on 01/29/2004 12:43:18 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
We are all gonna die. For once it's a liberal doing the killing. Neato.
5 posted on 01/29/2004 12:44:42 PM PST by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
maybe some of the eco-maniacs have seen what this MTBE is doing and realize that just regular old gasoline is much better for the environment.

I agree with you. In Maine, MTBE was found in many wells. Thanks libs for slowly killing us.

6 posted on 01/29/2004 12:45:53 PM PST by New Perspective (Proud father of a 2 month old of son with Down's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
this MTBE has been a total disaster

During the last Democratic debate, John Kerry said that the producers of MTBE should be held responsible and punished for the negative effects of the chemical on the environment. I'm not real familiar with the history of this additive. Any idea why Kerry thinks the MTBE manufacturers should be held responsible when it is the EPA who is mandating its addition to gasoline?

7 posted on 01/29/2004 12:46:42 PM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Most states are switching to ethanol from MTBE

But modern cars with computer controlled fuel injection systems don't need any oxygenates added to their fuel to reduce unburned hydrocarbons. They automatically reduce the amount of air in the fuel air mixture. Oxygnenates reduce the amount of chemical energy available in fuel, because they are an oxidizer. The only reason why oxygenates were added to gasoline was so that older cars could reduce their unburned hydrocarbons. It would be better to get those cars off the road. I doubt if the production of ethanol breaks even in terms of energy used and useful energy produced. The mandate to use ethanol was entirely polically motivated to increase the demand for Midwestern corn.

8 posted on 01/29/2004 12:52:22 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Any idea why Kerry thinks the MTBE manufacturers should be held responsible when it is the EPA who is mandating its addition to gasoline?

The potential problems of MTBE were predicted before the mandate was ever put in place.

9 posted on 01/29/2004 12:54:27 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The potential problems of MTBE were predicted before the mandate was ever put in place.

Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable, if it's the EPA who forced its use? Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all? Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?

10 posted on 01/29/2004 12:57:16 PM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
And we all know that if President Bush had made this exact suggestion the reaction would be the same. NOT
11 posted on 01/29/2004 1:05:55 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
of course, but the trial lawyers want it, thats why the Dems want to go after the producers. Not that you will ever hear a republican explaining this simply and clearly to the people of course.
12 posted on 01/29/2004 1:09:13 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable

It shouldn't. The mandate was forced on the industry despite serious warnings about the problems MTBE and other oxygenates could cause and doubts about the need for oxygenates in the first place. MTBE is soluable in water precisely because it has an ether group which contains oxygen. Most organic compounds are non-polar and are not very soluable in water. The fact that most organic contaminents are both insoluable in water and less dense than wather (hence they float) that allows them to be rather more easily separated from water. It is the soluability in water and the ability of MTBE to actually migrate through aquifers faster than water that causes the contamination problem.

13 posted on 01/29/2004 1:27:50 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The grassroots movement to remove MTBE began here in Fairbanks. One of the founders is an oilman.
14 posted on 01/29/2004 1:29:49 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
I don't know, but I'll bet the reason is do, re, mi ($).

There is talk that crude levels are low, that China is buying more of it, and that gas is about to go through the roof.

In envirowacko states, they have passed laws that exacerbate the price problem by mandating boutique blends of fuel. Illinois is another state that has this issue.

By waving the rules, you do avoid the MTBE issue, but I also believe that you reduce that component of price pressure in those states.

I'm just making a guess.
15 posted on 01/29/2004 1:35:03 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (Only those who dare truly live - CGA 88 Class Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Thanks for the explanation. I'm a ChemE, so I actually understand what you're saying! :)
16 posted on 01/29/2004 1:38:51 PM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
17 posted on 01/29/2004 1:58:30 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ambrose; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
18 posted on 01/30/2004 1:14:46 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
19 posted on 01/30/2004 3:05:26 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: oceanview; Carry_Okie; farmfriend; Phil V.; eldoradude; ScottinSacto; marsh2
When I was a Repellican, I got a resolution passed by our County Board of Supervisors to make our county an M.T.B.E. "free zone" but of course, it was just a symbolic gesture... Oh well.

Your comment was a "direct hit!" Another reason I'm now more than a little embarrassed to have belonged to the Repellican party in the "gay nineties!" (Clintonesque, don'tcha think?)

I'm now a "Decline to State" and will remain so until some danged Repellican, somewhere in CA begins to consistently articulate ideas, concepts and convictions that resonate with righteous conservative constitutional principles!!! That's my story and I'ma stickin to it!!!

20 posted on 01/30/2004 8:57:25 AM PST by SierraWasp (America is our house! Throwing open the door to trespassers is wrong and everybody knows it !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ambrose; farmfriend; Carry_Okie
Thanks for posting this. It just completely exposes the stupid hipocrisy running rampant about EnvironMentalism... Everywhere!!!
21 posted on 01/30/2004 9:00:14 AM PST by SierraWasp (America is our house! Throwing open the door to trespassers is wrong and everybody knows it !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Oh... And I should have added... Especially in the Repellican Party that ought to know better!!!
22 posted on 01/30/2004 9:01:58 AM PST by SierraWasp (America is our house! Throwing open the door to trespassers is wrong and everybody knows it !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
this MTBE has been a total disaster

During the last Democratic debate, John Kerry said that the producers of MTBE should be held responsible and punished for the negative effects of the chemical on the environment. I'm not real familiar with the history of this additive. Any idea why Kerry thinks the MTBE manufacturers should be held responsible when it is the EPA who is mandating its addition to gasoline?

This whole MTBE business makes me sick. I remember back in the early 90's when reformulated gasoline was being forced on Dallas. The Dallas Morning News had information in it every day about the hazards of MTBE. Didn't make a difference, Eco freaks claimed the industry was crying wolf and pushed it anyway.

23 posted on 01/30/2004 9:03:15 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
The potential problems of MTBE were predicted before the mandate was ever put in place.

Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable, if it's the EPA who forced its use? Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all? Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?

The industry tried to point out the problems before hand and they were accused of "crying wolf". The eco lobby pushed the EPA to mandate MTBE. Now the Eco lobby will push to punish the fuel industry for contamination. Isn't political power without responsibility wonderful?

24 posted on 01/30/2004 9:06:43 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor; SierraWasp
Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable, if it's the EPA who forced its use?

The manufacturers and the EPA defrauded the public because that is what environmental regulation largely is: the use of government regulation to make a secure and ill-gotten buck. EPA knew as early as 1981 that MTBE was a threat to groundwater. When ADM first proposed ethanol as an oxygenate, the oil companies (primarily ARCO Chemical (now Lyondell), largely owned by the British royal family) brough forward MTBE in order to keep market share. The oil and gas legal racketeering arm, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only NGO present at the EPA hearings, at which a former (and later to be) NRDC attorney (and now Arnold confidante) Mary Nichols figured prominently. The Schwarzenegger administration is even more rife with these creeps than was Davis.

MTBE was a criminal scam from the start. We shouldn't be talking liability, we should be talking jail time.

Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all?

Yes indeed.

Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?

No. The oil companies have admitted under oath that it was their idea. Interestingly, they also demanded and received indemnification for liability associated with oxygenates in the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1991, signed by our "Environmental President" George Herbert Walker Bush. Why would they make such a demand if they knew it was safe?

For more information on this history, read this post.

25 posted on 01/30/2004 10:25:13 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor; SierraWasp
Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable, if it's the EPA who forced its use?

The manufacturers and the EPA defrauded the public because that is what environmental regulation largely is: the use of government regulation to make a secure and ill-gotten buck. EPA knew as early as 1981 that MTBE was a threat to groundwater. When ADM first proposed ethanol as an oxygenate, the oil companies (primarily ARCO Chemical (now Lyondell), largely owned by the British royal family) brough forward MTBE in order to keep market share. The oil and gas legal racketeering arm, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only NGO present at the EPA hearings, at which a former (and later to be) NRDC attorney (and now Arnold confidante) Mary Nichols figured prominently. The Schwarzenegger administration is even more rife with these creeps than was Davis.

MTBE was a criminal scam from the start. We shouldn't be talking liability, we should be talking jail time.

Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all?

Yes indeed.

Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?

No. The oil companies have admitted under oath that it was their idea. Interestingly, they also demanded and received indemnification for liability associated with oxygenates in the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1991, signed by our "Environmental President" George Herbert Walker Bush. Why would they make such a demand if they knew it was safe?

For more information on this history, read this post.

26 posted on 01/30/2004 10:25:21 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The mandate was forced on the industry despite serious warnings about the problems MTBE and other oxygenates

You are totally wrong. See Post 26 and the reference link.

27 posted on 01/30/2004 10:26:42 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
When ADM first proposed ethanol as an oxygenate,

ADM is a buch of crooks. They are trying to force everyone in the country to have to use ethanol mixed into their gasoline. Ethanol is rather expensive. Yes anyone with a knowledge of organic chemistry and hydro-geology could explain why MTBE would be a problem if it got into ground water.

You should read my previous post #8. The regulation requiring the use of oxygenates was unnecessary. I oppose inflexible rule based enviromental regulations on principle. Regulators are more interested in compliance with rules than actually reducing pollution. Instead of requiring expensive oxygenates added to fuel to reduce unburned hydrocarbons primarily from old cars, it would have been cheaper to create incentives to get old cars off the road. That's why Senator Feinstein wants to waive the rule for California. Even if oxygenates are required, I oppose the government telling me it has to be ethanol (which is expensive has lots of environmental costs associated with its manufacture, and was mandated for purely pork barrel political reasons). I also oppose the government reneging on previous commitments. The government specifically exempted refining companies from liability so the government should be liable.

28 posted on 01/30/2004 12:37:56 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The government specifically exempted refining companies from liability so the government should be liable.

The state of Maine paid for the installation of public water to my home, and about 20 others, in the wake of a gasoline spill that resulted in MTBE contamination. The government accepted the mantle of liability in my case.

29 posted on 01/30/2004 12:46:26 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The regulation requiring the use of oxygenates was unnecessary.

Duh. That doesn't mean that the oil companies had MTBE forced on them by the EPA.

I oppose inflexible rule based enviromental regulations on principle.

So do I. More important, I did something about it.

Regulators are more interested in compliance with rules than actually reducing pollution.

It's more complex than that. Go read that post.

Instead of requiring expensive oxygenates added to fuel to reduce unburned hydrocarbons primarily from old cars, it would have been cheaper to create incentives to get old cars off the road. That's why Senator Feinstein wants to waive the rule for California.

Given that Feinstein is a total crook, but occasionally makes an objective environmental call, it's hard to divine her motives.

Even if oxygenates are required, I oppose the government telling me it has to be ethanol (which is expensive has lots of environmental costs associated with its manufacture, and was mandated for purely pork barrel political reasons).

Given that they are unnecessary, why should they be required? Stick with that and don't go to the latter.

I also oppose the government reneging on previous commitments. The government specifically exempted refining companies from liability so the government should be liable.

That is more complex. I suggest you read that post.

30 posted on 01/30/2004 1:38:03 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; farmfriend; SierraWasp
farmfriend, not sure if you want to do a re-ping on this. I was gonna post it as a new article but saw this thread from yesterday still going...Thanks

FRom the Merc News

First, Feinstein, and now Arnold

Governor asks feds to waive gas additive requirement

Chuck Carroll
Mercury News

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the Bush administration to waive a gasoline additive requirement that California officials believes will cause a huge and wasteful increase in prices at the pump while impeding the state's air pollution efforts.

Under current federal law aimed at curbing smog, the state must add an ``oxygenate'' to gasoline. But in 1999, California banned the oxygenate methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, because it was polluting drinking ground water across the state. The primary additive besides MTBE available to meet the federal requirement is ethanol, which is made from corn.

Corn Belt states, where ethanol is primarily made, have lobbied hard against California's attempt to get the Clinton and Bush administrations to grant it a waiver.

Billions of dollars are at stake, pitting California consumers against Midwest agribusiness.

Schwarzenegger's appeal to federal Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael O. Levitt, expressed in a letter sent Wednesday, puts the Republican governor in a fight started under Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

Gasoline with MTBE can no longer be sold in California after March and has already stopped being produced here.

Some oil industry analysts expect prices to start climbing very soon as long as the federal additive requirement remains in force.

31 posted on 01/30/2004 3:25:36 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ...... /~normsrevenge - FoR California Propositions/Initiatives info...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Update in post 31.
32 posted on 01/30/2004 3:31:06 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I'm not stalking you...I've just discovered I can stay well-informed more efficiently by following you around the forum. :-)
33 posted on 01/30/2004 3:36:01 PM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Sounds like ADM didn't send enough money to Arnold.

I do believe there are several proposals for ethanol plants around Calif...

34 posted on 01/30/2004 3:48:11 PM PST by tubebender (Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
I love the smell of corn alcohol in the morning.. It smells like victory. :-]
35 posted on 01/30/2004 6:19:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ...... /~normsrevenge - FoR California Propositions/Initiatives info...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
Actually, it smells like heck, but I watched Apocalypse Now (Director's cut) last week and I can't get the helicopter, Robert Duvall scenes out of my head.
36 posted on 01/30/2004 6:22:18 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ...... /~normsrevenge - FoR California Propositions/Initiatives info...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
You didn't fool me. I spent a week in Decatur Ill...
37 posted on 01/30/2004 6:31:00 PM PST by tubebender (Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All
WHY GASOLINE IN THE UNITED STATES WILL ALWAYS BE CHEAP — UNLESS THE FAMILY FARM CAN BE DESTROYED FIRST


Beijing plans to put corn in the tank


I probably shouldn't post this one but.. hic ;-}

THE ONLINE DISTILLERY NETWORK

38 posted on 01/30/2004 6:31:21 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ...... /~normsrevenge - FoR California Propositions/Initiatives info...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
39 posted on 01/31/2004 3:06:22 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson