Environmental Group Asks Court To Enforce Unleaded Avgas Consent Agreement

A California Superior Court judge will hear arguments Jan. 28 that could result in 100LL becoming unavailable in California and replaced by GAMI's G100UL unleaded avgas. The court will also be asked to require the four major fuel distributors serving California airports to carry G100UL.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/g100ul-court-action

So if the CEH prevails, and G100UL is the only fuel available, do I still need the STC from GAMI ?
Maybe I’ll have to fly to Nevada to get 100LL…!!

My, my. It’s deja vu all over again.

Not sure if this is good, or, bad. My sense tells me it’s good. Sometimes people have to be pushed into the pool. As California goes, so goes the nation. I’m starting to get a little bit excited now. This action may have been what has been needed for decades.

1 Like

Yet another example of misuse of courts to settle an issue best left to those who understand it. I get that some wish to force this issue, but this method serves to harm, not redress. Instead of eliminating fuel availability to owner’s whose aircraft don’t fit into the “nearly all” category, CEH should be suing the FAA and ASTC.

This is a contractual dispute largely motivated by Kizzy Charles-Guzman, the CEO of CEH. The facts of the case will be argued in a judicial forum in the weeks / months ahead. However, any final legal resolution to this contractual dispute cannot violate federal law, including the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. It is my understanding that the vast majority of airfields in California are part of NPIAS and currently receive grant assurances and therefore cannot be compelled to violate federal law.

Be advised that Swift Fuels has been actively providing unleaded avgas in California for over 9 years, and we expect to greatly expand our work to more airfields in the months ahead as we work collaboratively with engine / airframe OEM’s, ASTM International, and the major fuel suppliers – including several defendants in this case. Our unleaded fuel customers include many pilots at KRHV and E16. As I previously advised Kizzy, I believe the CEH legal tactics in this case are pointless, untimely, and highly unproductive, particularly if they interfere with my firm’s existing commercial relationships in this market.

Chris D’Acosta
CEO – Swift Fuels, LLC

If the FAA would do their job, this legal action would be overruled by federal action.

1 Like

CEH is asking the court to do two things:

  1. require the sale of G100UL, and
  2. Restrict the sale of 100LL.
    If the court decides to do the first but not the second, then both fuels can be available to whoever needs them.

I wish the environmental groups in CA would spend their energies on human waste in the streets, waste runoff from “homeless” camps, and loss of water and food production due to “renewable” fuel production. You know, the real things that are reducing the lifespan of people and messing with the environment.

1 Like

Just get it over with and replace 100LL. We already have to post noticed that neighborhoods are exposed to lead etc. it’s harming the reputation of GA. Until 100LL is banned fbo’s wont carry it as they can’t carry different blends. The time to fight for 100LL is long gone. It’s a losing position there is 0% chance it will be legal in 10 years in the United States.

2 Likes

If the FAA was really doing their job lead would already be gone from Avgas and all this court stuff wouldn’t be happening.

1 Like

While I’ll all for moving to unleaded this is not the way to do it. Letting a small group of emotional ecoTerrorists dictate operation of dangerous machines simply to “make themselves feel better” is unacceptable. Give them safety blankets and let them hide under their beds.

1 Like

No, neighborhoods are using “bad science” and correlations to get rid of airports that they already do not like.

Look up lead exposure on the EPA site and there is zero mention of aircraft as a hazard: Your kids get lead from paint, water pipes, lipstick, or toys and jewelry made in other countries. Zero mention of living near airports.

I’m just curious to how many aircraft is owned and operated by CEH. Does any of its members fly in the general aviation arena, or do they fly commercial (jet fuel) when they travel long distances? Just asking, to see if they actually have a dog in this fight or just like to interfere with general aviation for the sake of lawsuits and possible financial advantages.

1 Like

The real reason this quest for unleaded fuel is going on is the NIMBY’s thought it would be a way to close airports. Now it seems that didn’t work out for them. In the mean time GA owners are forced to spend several dollars per gallon more for fuel, in order to satisfy an environmental edit that will have a negligible effect on the environment.

From Russ:
So far, the price of G100UL has been in the same range as 100LL and about 50 cents a gallon more expensive where both are available.

1 Like

G100UL is not commercially available as the plaintff argues. It has not been approved for my airplane under its TC. I cannot legally purchase and use this in my aircraft under its TC. To use it I must purchase a license to use it, making this a private club purchase, similar to the old alcohol rules in Utah. Can’t buy a drink unless you join the private club.

To purchase this, the manufacturer sells a supplement to my TC to allow me to join its club to purchase its product. This is not commercial availability, but private, restricted availability. I can use Swift Fuel without an STC and mogas because I bought an STC decades ago which allows me to buy and use any mogas meeting the specification, not restricted to a specific factory or process. Mogas and SwiftFuel are commercially available.

From Russ:
Are you sure your mogas STC covers Swift?

“ The court will also be asked to require the four major fuel distributors serving California airports to carry G100UL.”

While we’re at it, can we also require the distributors to carry Moon Pies and RC Cola?

2 Likes

It is long past time for the country to stop being bullied by California and simply stop doing business there. Yes, they are 15% of the population, but the other 85% of us shouldn’t put up with this insanity. If car makers stopped selling cars there, if every pilot who could do so flew to Nevada or Arizona for fuel, we could impose “crippling sanctions” on this rogue state. They could chose between continuing to deteriorate or throwing the lunatics out of their government and rejoining the rest of the country. Enough!

Only if used in low octane engines.