As I am planning on moving back to California when I retire (SLO county) this gives me some added stress.
I specifically ordered my Maule when I had it built to have an engine that is approved for Mogas, but I believe all Mogas in California is all contaminated with alcohol so that door is closed.
It’s entirely possible that no (affordable and readily available) alternative will be available, thus effectively killing GA in the entire state.
Flying is one of my great Earthly joys and I am looking forward to doing much more of it in retirement.
News this bad, although expected, may affect where I move.
I currently live in Washington state, whose policies mirror California, so staying here will likely provide no benefit.
4 replies
Long overdue. Long past time for GA to realize that it has to reform its image from lead-spewing aircraft flown by a small number of folks into one which is appealing, innovative, interesting, and healthy. I’ve been flying in California and around the world for nearly 40 years and have wanted GA to continue to be the fun adventuring experience it often is. The emergence of drones, air taxis, space, and so much more are all in contrast to the decline we see in GA. The lead needs to go as there is very little worse to be associated with.
And let’s not get into hating on California. Seriously. We’re as successful a place as exists on the planet and the vast majority of the world wants to be here. Aviation owes a lot to California and perhaps this latest move will help move GA into the future.
2 replies
Every state has good and bad, it all depends what your priorities are, and no place will ever meet them all. For me, and 40 million other people, California is good. You can live where you choose also.
I would normally say that I don’t think CA even has the authority to ban 100LL since aviation is interstate commerce and thus controlled at the federal level. However, with the destruction of the Chevron Deference by the SCOTUS, that may give way to actually allowing this ban to go into effect.
This just means that like it or not, there has to be a drop-in replacement for 100LL, or GA as we know it will end in 2030. And such a fuel does exist right now, if only we can get it to be distributed to the airports.
1 reply
This will create an interesting legal situation if the unleaded fuel research goes nowhere. Could the FAA claim exclusive jurisdiction under the supremacy clause of the US constitution and overrule any state enacted ban? Or maybe the industry will be forced to accept GAMI’s fuel and make it available nationwide. This mess keeps getting worse as time goes by!
“California is the first state to pass a leaded fuel ban. Several other states have similar legislation moving through their legislatures.”
It might be starting in CA, but it most certainly won’t end in CA. If enough states ban 100LL (and especially if they currently use a lot of fuel), it doesn’t really matter what state you live in if the producers feel it is no longer economially viable for them to produce it. And even if you happen to fly an aircraft that doesn’t require 100LL, and you happen to be in a state where you can readily find non-ethanol-contaminated fuel (in many states, this is not the case), it will still ultimately affect you.
1 reply
It’s easy to get here in Washington. I’m not sure how long it will remain that way though.
This should have been done a long time before now by the Federal Government. To bad California has to be the leader when it comes to doing the right thing just because Federal politics is such a mess.
I wouldn’t count on that EAGLE initiative to actually work and fix the leaded fuel problem as many other initiatives have come and gone with no result. Putting the end of lead six years away, is still is too far and shows that California is not really that strong of a leader. If California was really a leader in this matter, they would start, mandating that some alternative unleaded fuel be available at all airports in California alongside the leaded fuel. This would help reduce the hazard of lead and give the consumer a choice.
The CA SB1193 is tied to the FAA reauthorization bill, which has the same text, eliminating 100LL on Dec 31,2030.
see 49 U.S. Code § 47107 section [22];
We need to get the GAMI fuel in the market place right away so we have a few years to tweak the formula if there are problems. The worst thing that can happen is we get a politically connected fuel supplier to make a fuel just a few months before the ban takes affect, and then we find out it doesn’t work right after the 100LL infrastructure goers away.
I would agree with the comment made “don’t hate California.” And I live and lfy here.
But emotion aside, there are other considerations (besides health and environmental concerns) that should drive a move to unleaded fuel – what about supply chain? Look at where the supplier for TEL is located.
But that said – what about research needed to make sure the new fuel is safe? Compatibility goes far beyond making sure an engine runs properly. This goes to the point that JohnS makes.
And – as a closing note – electric has its place but it doesn’t solve the problem – either for autos or for airplanes.
Cheers!
Belief is one thing, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to check out this website which shows a list of 24 places in California that sell ethanol-free gasoline:
I have been to the Sinclair station listed in Indio, and can confirm the past availability of their ethanol-free 110 octane Mogas. It’s spendy, and the 100 Octane stuff at VP fuels in Paso Robles (in SLO county) may be even worse, but ethanol-free Mogas is certainly available in California.
California has a history of making strong environmental decisions, like switching to unleaded gasoline, which greatly improved air quality. There were complaints back in the 1950s and 1960s, but now 40 million people enjoy cleaner air. Phasing out leaded aviation fuel follows the same idea—helping the industry move forward and keeping people healthy. These changes might be tough at first, but they lead to a cleaner, healthier future for Californians.
It’s why I bought my turbine Bonanza. I am sure a substitute will be found but none of the engine manufacturers are going to certify their engine to use it. No one is going to take the risk and since lawyers rule the country, good luck to the piston users.
1 reply
Can I fly over CA in my lead spewing aircraft?
Do Californians know that most of the country is laughing at them? And the labeling on some packages claiming some minute content will cause cancer, but only if used in California? We sure see a lot of California plates here in the Carolinas. Of course, the simple fuel solution for 70% of the legacy piston fleet and nearly all new piston planes with powerplants from Rotax, ULPower, Verner, Jabiru, Rotec, etc. is to use Mogas - without ethanol. But wait, California has managed to screw that up, too. Look at the map of ethanol-free sellers of mogas, pure-gas.org. California is an ethanol-free desert. You people out there deserve the government you have supported for decades, now your chickens are coming home to roost.
1 reply
For the younger folks here is some information about lead in gas. There are two grams of lead per gallon of avgas. TWO GRAMS! That is the equivalent of a half teaspoon of sugar. In the olden days all gasoline had lead. Millions of cars drove around burning leaded fuel, not even low lead. You were lucky to get seven miles to the gallon. That was a lot of leaded fuel being burned. The people at risk for lead poisoning were the gas station attendants, (in those days someone pumped your fuel for you). The attendant pumped gas all day constantly. There is no comparison to the usage of low lead in airplanes. Banning low leaded fuel for airplanes running ancient designed engines is ridiculous. Feel good legislation with a very negative impact on the aviation community.
1 reply
In Florida most marinas and gas stations offer ‘Rec Fuel’ which is 90 octane non-ethanol gas. Price is less than 100LL at the airport.
The present producers of leaded avgas don’t want to give up a very profitable product.
Just like the cigarette manufacturers trying to hang on.
Behind the scenes, avgas producers fighting reality.
Lots of people who truly don’t understand commenting!
Lead is bad for engines; never mind that it is bad for people.
There is a perfectly acceptable unleaded fuel available right now.
Time to get on with it; no reason for further delay; GAMI available; now!
Totally agree! As much as I love California, but despise Newsome - this is the only way to get rid of 100LL. Cleaner engines, less oil changes, cleaner spark plugs…let’s get moving on this! Start the weening process off 100LL.Nothing but arguing.
Remember when you were a teenager who absolutely refused to heed the alarm clock? The avgas-burning aviation community has been rolling over in bed for decades, hoping that if it ignored the alarm, we could sleep a little longer. Now, California has turned on the lights, opened the shades, and ripped the sheets off of our desperate attempts to delay the inevitable. Someone has to be the responsible adult that keeps us from missing the bus, and the worse consequences that would follow.
And you know that if Mom has to call Dad to rip you bodily out of bed, the result will be much worse.
The State of California is known to cause cancer. That’s all you need to know about what’s happening here.
You all realize of course that this will be a very short intermediate step. CA has also banned the sale of unleaded fuel vehicles starting in 2035, mandating electric-only. How much longer do you think you can hold them off from mandating electric aircraft engines, at least for GA?
1 reply
“ And let’s not get into hating on California. Seriously. We’re as successful a place as exists on the planet and the vast majority of the world wants to be here”
This may be the funniest thing I’ve read in quite a while! With a population loss of 2%, and multi-billion corporations moving out of California daily (ever heard of Chevron). The only thing California leads the nation in is virtue signaling. As evidence by using the same language as the EPA finding.
I want unleaded fuel as much, if not more than anyone here. But just like our national transition from fossil fuels, it should be done in a market based phased approach, not government mandates. EV car sales are cratering, Ford Motor just loss $5B on EVs, and is slowing production.
The solution has been found, if you’re willing to accept it, and yes, probably at a higher price. So exactly how much is the California virtue signaling worth? $8/gallon, 9?, 10?. California please go first and show us how much more virtuous you really are.
I think the elephant in the room here is the single comercial producer of TEL in the world, Innospec. 100LL until 2030 assumes that Innospec will continue to produce it.
Perhaps it’s time we stop flying dinosaurs >> https://rapidskyhelicopters.com/we-are-overdue-for-modern-engines/
2 replies
Hopefully this pushes the FAA to get something done. I own a STC from GAMI and look forward to using their G100UL. Quit complaining about California making things TRULY better for everyone. I remember the awful smog in Los Angeles years ago and getting rid of lead in auto fuel worked very well. I admit that our leaded fuel is almost no problem. Lots of you people need to wake up and realize that the public in general is against continued use of leaded fuel. SO, it doesn’t matter what you think. I say G100UL is perfectly safe so let’s go get it done, NOW !!
1 reply
I have to disagree with the ascertain that lead in fuel was/ is related to LA smog. It is not. The brown LA smog was caused by NOx emissions. Also, the hidden LA smog problem was ozone. Both were fixed with legislation on big producers and the adoption of catalytic converters. Yes unleaded fuel was needed for cats to work, but the lead did not cause the pollution.
Funny thing, the LA power plants were built on the coast to reduce LA ozone. Turns out the math was wrong and those power plants actually made the ozone slightly worst. Bad math not discovered until 1986 UCLA chemistry research paper.
Sorry people feel they should keep from living their flying dreams because of all this noise. It took a long time for the govt to get this way, and it will take a while longer to get it back to being reasonable. I hate to see people give up and loose their dream for a transitory situation. We all need to fight and push for the govt we want. Lets debate and make good decisions and get all the stupid people out of the govt.
Not a bad solution but many CA airports do not allow owners to bring their own fuel tanks/trucks onto airport property—liability reasons, supposedly. The truth is probably that FBOs and fuel vendors don’t want to allow anything on field that would cut into their sales.
100LL is on its way out; no matter what its real hazard to the public (minuscule), there’s no doubt that use of leaded fuel is terrible optics for GA. That ship has sailed, and logic simply does not apply. GAMI’s G100UL is already approved by STC for all reciprocating engines and the roadblocks put up by entrenched interests at FAA and in the avgas industry need to get out of the bloody way.
I’ve reached the age, temperament, financial stability and skill that I could acquire a very nice airplane. Maybe even a twin.
But it’s clear the government has the “long knives” out for activities that consume carbon based fuels, so I’m saying “no way” to that ‘craft. In this political environment, it just ain’t happening. If the leftists win this election cycle, G/A - in the US - will be completely dead in 3 - 5 years.
Let’s hope I’m wrong — but I’m betting I’m right.
Seems to me everybody has a position on 100LL and it’s replacement. Setting a date 6 yrs in the future to BAN 100LL in CA is about as crazy as banning cows to stop passing gas. To much methane being released, so, what ban cows, or provide a different feed that won’t make them fart - and give um 6 years to make that happen? Then what? Bans cows?
Actually, I have lived in California for all of my 63 years. Contrary to your statements, California is becoming more unsuccessful every year as businesses leave due to high taxes, but then I guess your definition of success may be different than mine. The state is also turning into a crap hole, both figuratively and literally. Newsom is ruining this state. Like most legislators, he has no formal education himself in any of the technical issues he sticks his fingers in. He and his friends also have no idea of the unintended consequences of a lot of their decisions, nor do they care. If this goes through, and I’m sure it will, airports will close, airplanes will be grounded either by necessity or owners simply giving up the fight of battling bureaucracy, and the freedom to travel by one’s own means will increasingly become a concept of the past. For the pilots who own airplanes outside of California, they will not want to fly here, nor will they be able to in many cases. If you agree with this proposal, then you are someone who wants all of the negative consequences to happen as well. I was hoping to pass my airplane down to my grandsons, but that may not happen with the legislation that people we stupidly elect put in place. When are you running for office? You have the perfect attitude for it.
I can see that the haters will emerge regardless of pleas to the contrary. I stand by all of my words and request that the personal attacks cease. I live in California, learned to fly in California, have lived and worked all over the world, know exactly how it stands economically, with quality of life, etc., and legally. The idea that California is virtue signalling or that this is somehow trivial is … weird.
As a biologist, I am on firm footing that lead has only harmful effects upon all forms of life, including humans. There is no safe level for lead any more than there was for DDT. Time to move on and bring out the adult solutions to save your privileges in flying these older machines around.
1 reply
Chickens spew nastier stuff than lead, so that’s not an option.
Can you state the research that supports 100LL produces any meaningful lead into our ecosystem? What new “the sky is falling “ will be discovered about the replacements? Trading a known for an unknown is a crap shoot.
If it is banned, then there is no interstate commerce involved.
I’m not a constitutional scholar (nor do I play one on YouTube), but I don’t think that the federal controls trump a state’s right to impose unilateral bans on items that the state deems to be potentially harmful. Consider California’s existing bans on certain agricultural products, which also involve interstate commerce.
California’s decision to phase out leaded aviation fuel by 2031 will lead the U.S. into a new era of cleaner, safer aviation, setting a precedent on a national scale.
I’m a political conservative and worked in the oil & gas industry for 37 years. This is good. It reminds me of low sulfur diesel regs that finally cleaned up diesel fuel. Sometimes there has to be an absolute mandate and it will happen.
The article does indeed highlight fuels, as well as the other half of the equation… replacing the engines that use 100LL. There are alternatives, as the article suggests.
By the way, this article is scheduled to be published in the December issue of AvBuyer, which is dedicated to alternative fuels. As I write articles for AvBuyer, I took the liberty of posting a link to it here, inside the AvWeb ecosystem.
Hope it helps the discussion.
As annoying as my California’s government typically is to me, I have to admit my initial knee-jerk reaction of “geez, here they go again” has morphed into viewing this as being (hopefully) useful in breaking the logjam. Of course, I can be somewhat more sanguine than most because it is unlikely I will continue flying that long anyway 
I’m a newbie to GA, but I have lived in L.A. 60 years. IMO, the reason for such a negative reaction to lead gas ban is because in the last 10 years CA govt acts first and then walks away, forcing John q public to pay for the changes. Paper government only.
Banning leaded may be good, but even if it is, CA will create the law with no regard for how the public has to spend billions on equipment, supply side gas, conversion kits for legacy planes, bla bla.
Newsom is large on decisions, but very tiny on caring how we get through the change.
Ya think CA is going to help pay for all the new changes to infrastructure? No. That’s why we end up leaving.
What California has done is MEANINGLESS, since the US Congress has passed the FAA Re-authorization bill, which INCLUDES section 49 U.S. Code § 47107 section [22]; ‘…prohibits the sale of 100LL after Dec. 31, 2030…’
So, the comments on CA, or other states or airports are moot. The FEDs have put the stake in the ground.
100LL is GONE in Jan. 2031.!!!
I wonder if ForeFlight, or any of the other EFB’s have considered adding a map layer that will specifically show Mogas or 94UL availability across the country. Currently, if I drill down, I can see everything an FBO offers with regard to fuel, but on a map layer, I can only see prices for 100LL or JetA. It would be good to see where 94UL can be had across the country when planning my flights. Not sure about everyone else, but I fly long distances and only about 1 in 4 fuel stops are at my home base.
1 reply
It’s a mess. give G100UL the green light and let’s move on. You can only push a snowball so far uphill until it is gone. As someone once said 'don’t confonfuse me with the facts, just make a decision"! Some logic prevails but it’s relegated to the self interest factor which doesn’t score high on public opinion. The time is not right to oppose the tidal wave, better to pick a more favourable timeslot.
Instead of banning 100LL fuel, why not subsidize the installation of 100UL tanks like the electric charging stations have been subsidized. Sneak in a few cents higher UL AVGAS FET and it’s paid for.
Let’s be real: this leaded avgas ban isn’t just about health—it’s a convenient excuse for some communities to push out general aviation from small airports that they’ve encroached upon. The ban could be used to restrict operations and limit access, threatening the future of GA. We need to fight for our rights as pilots to ensure that aviation remains accessible, rather than allowing these communities to chip away at our freedom to fly under the guise of environmental concerns.
1 reply
California’s approach to environmental issues, from the 1947 Air Pollution Control Act to today’s green aviation initiatives, shows that bold actions can make a big difference. Just like there were doubters—whether politicians or skeptical civilians—who questioned the 1947 Act, which is now recognized as a key turning point in environmental policy, there will always be naysayers who question new initiatives like those in aviation. But California’s track record proves that bold, forward-thinking solutions are essential for long-term success, even if the benefits aren’t immediately obvious. So, to the skeptics: quit your complaining and recognize that real progress takes vision and strong action.
1 reply
Thank you, Raf, for always working to climb above the dark clouds.
Dave Miller
Out of the 200 public-use airports in California, I estimate that about 30 to 50 airports might not receive federal funding. This number includes small public-use airports, private-use airports, and landing strips like Ocotillo Wells.
The 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was the realization of President John F. Kennedy’s vision, stated in an address to a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961, that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”
Americans do some amazing things when we set goals. Removing lead is not only a good thing generally, if we don’t, the public at large will remove us from the sky. I suggest the naysayers step aboard and join their fellow Americans in resolving this issue.
Theres a way to remove ethanol from fuel. I know a guy who does this for his vehicles. Unfortunately you will need containers to do it.
Basically you get a container almost full of gas, pour water in it, and mix it around a bit/wait. The ethanol loves water and will come out of the fuel. This is basically forcing what happens with vehicles that sit with ethanol fuel for a while. Condensation forms, pulls the ethanol out of the gas and it pools conveniently at the bottom.
A huge inconvenience but it may be worth trying.
1 reply
That’s not what I read;
" (22) the [airport] owner or operator may not restrict or prohibit the sale or self-fueling of any 100-octane low lead aviation gasoline for purchase or use by operators of general aviation aircraft if such aviation gasoline was available at such [airport] at any time during calendar year 2022, until the earlier of—
(A) December 31, 2030; or
(B) the date on which the [airport] or any retail fuel seller at such [airport] makes available an unleaded aviation gasoline that—…"
It applied to all US airports, no mention of fed funding.
1 reply
You’re missing the start of the reg.:
§ 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport operations
(a) General Written Assurances.—The Secretary of Transportation may approve a project grant application under this subchapter for an airport development project only if the Secretary receives written assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary, that—
(1) the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination;
(2) […]
.
.
.
(22) the airport owner or operator may not restrict or prohibit the sale or self-fueling […]
Section (22) falls under section (a) which pertains to project grant applications. No grant app, no fuel restrictions.
1 reply
OK, I missed that beginning text.
So then, the question is, how many of the 5,000+ public use airports have not received Fed funds ?
I’ve forwarded the question to my CA legislators…what fuel do we use after Dec. 31, 2030.?
1 reply
This is very good and long overdue. I wish we had the same ban (with the same timeline) at the Federal level. The only thing keeping us from having unleaded gas available is corporate laziness and greed. The fuel exists (GAMI) and is proven to be a drop-in replacement. As a bonus, you get fewer spark plug issues. What more do you need?
Just recently, both Continental and Lycoming started to threaten warranty voiding for people using G100UL even though it was properly STC’ed and tested to be safe for the engine. I think they’ll just use it to try to weasel their way out of potential metallurgical defects on their side; these folks can’t be trusted. On the other hand, fuel manufacturers will do anything in their power to not invest a single additional dollar – they will never be at a forefront of unleaded fuel adoption. Without laws like this, we’ll still have leaded fuel at the end of this century. This is just a complete circus.
I’ve forwarded the question to my CA legislators…what fuel do we use after Dec. 31, 2030.?
Unleaded fuel. That’s the point. Things like G100UL, for example.
No, it’s the other way around: if the law is adopted, the fuel manufacturers/distributors would have no choice but to start ramping up unleaded fuel production. Manufacturers of GA airplanes and engines would have to make sure unleaded fuel is properly STC’ed instead of pretending it doesn’t exist and it’s not their problem. Once this happens – these communities will lose their convenient excuse (and I agree – they do use it a lot).
Let’s solve the problem; we have the tools. This is a good law; as an operator of a GA airplane, I support it.
2 replies
My contacting our legislators is exactly that…They have banned our only fuel, so
now they need to legislate a replacement, and organize a plan to approve and distribute it.
Whether it’s G100UL or some other UL fuel, 100 octane or some combination of fuels, we need a follow up plan.
It took 30+ years to get to where we are now. I hope that a fuel will be readily available within the next 5 years.
BTW, I too fly a GA aircraft, a 1961 Cessna 175B, that was originally certified to use 80/87 octane fuel.
No one what’s the lead out of avgas more than the engine manufactures.
People in cali once again showing how nuts they are out there, doing everything they can do to ruin their economy. $20 an hour minimum wage, large gap between the rich and the poor, middle class disappearing. Ban gas vehicles by 2045 I think it is. I enjoy watching them going down. Oh yeah, just think about all those poor kids at Oshkosh every year that has lead “spewed” on them, OMG.
Mixing water to remove ethanol will work, but it reduces octane by around 2.5 points. The solution to that is to add about 25% 100LL. The other problem is that the resulting water/ethanol mix is considered in some states to be hazardous waste. Disposing of that puts one in danger of violating anti polution laws.
CA up to its same ole tricks.
I hope Elon Muck directs his attention to developing GA turbines. If someone was to design a complete throw away turbine with a TBO around 3,000 hours, I imagine it could be produced cost effectively enough to replace all the gas engines. If there was a turbo prop in the 350hp range and a turbine in the 1,500lb thrust range, we could start running those and just use Jet-A.
The environmentalist are just way off the reservation with leaded fuel. They won’t stop till whatever fuel we use costs $25 a gallon.
There were web sites helping you find mogas without ethanol.
Some fiefdoms, like B.C., facilitate the top octane to not have ethanol, so Chevron stations don’t, perhaps Peninsula Co-op stations as well. (The facilitation is specifying an average ethanol content in total sales, the top octane may be a small proportion of sales.)
I’d ask car racers.
I’m confused. Any studies or FACTUAL information about how gas station attendants were more at risk of ingesting lead from the fuel? Were they drinking it?
I think asking the industry to finally find a viable solution in seven (!) more years is not undue pressure. If against all odds no lead elimination solution can be found then I’m sure there will be a proposal for an extension after 2030 to get it done.
Small correction; the ban is on new sales. Used gas burners can continue to be resold.
We love lead, especially in California!