A judge will issue a final ruling no earlier than two week from now on a California environmental group's bid to force the replacement of 100LL with GAMI's G100UL at 17 FBOs. Superior Court Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee said he wants to review the transcript of arguments heard in Alameda on Wednesday before making a final decision. He will determine whether to enforce a 10-year-old consent agreement between the Center for Environmental Health and the FBOs that settled a lawsuit over the use of leaded avgas at the FBOs. The FBOs, along with four fuel distributors, who also signed the agreement, are compelled to stop selling 100LL as soon as a "commercially viable" alternative with lower lead content is ready. CEH argues that's G100UL, which is now sold at two California airport.
Ok, I accept the argument that G100UL likely does not meet the intent of âcommercially availableâ since one has to own the STC to use the fuel, and an STC for helicopters is not available. But calling into question the validity of the STC itself seems like a major overreach beyond the scope of this case.
Since the mission statement of the Center for Environmental Health is to âremedy environmental injusticeâ then we all need to bow to their view on justice. Simple.
I always thought that it was the federal government that was in charge of the rules and regulations. Not the states. Seems to me like the tail is wagging the dog here.
Russ, I think youâre reading the consent judgement too narrowly. It requires the FBOs to sell unleaded, it does NOT prohibit them from selling 100LL. As many have said, let the market decide. But, the market canât decide if the FBOs are circling the wagons in an effort to stave off the agreement they freely (but perhaps not wisely) made in 2014.
The Consent Judgment requires ⌠that defendants sell the aviation fuel with the lowest concentration of Lead that is approved for use and commercially available in California.
Didnât the CEH request to âEnforce and Modify the Consent Judgementâ include the following (page 17).
âFurther, because an unleaded Avgas meets the requirements of approval and Commercial Availability, the Court should modify the Consent Judgment to reduce the maximum allowable Lead concentration pursuant to Section 2.3.1(d) of the Consent Judgment. More specifically, the Consent Judgment should be modified to reduce the permissible Lead concentration in Avgas sold by Distributor Settling Defendants, and purchased by FBO Settling Defendants, to 0.013grams of Lead per liter of fuel. The Consent Judgment provides for modification of its terms by motion to this Court, and the Court is authorized to so modify. Consent Judgment, §§ 2.3.1(d); 5.â
Wouldnât that reduction in lead content effectively eliminate the ability to sell 100LL?
Perhaps the judge was moved by fact that Aircraft Manufacturers (Cessna/Beech, Piper and Cirrus) have all issued letters to owners disapproving of use of G100UL and voiding warranties for use of G100UL. Seems to speak to âfeasibilityâ⌠In addition, aircraft owners around early-adopting Reid Hillview are beginning to file suits for damage to aircraft paint and sealants⌠Popcorn is the appropriate response.
âCommercially availableâ is even more dangerous⌠Who knows what that means? How about $8/gallon? How about from one source with no refinery? How about in form that voids manufacturer warranty? Realistic answer is that GAMIâs fuel has significant issues TODAY in commercial marketplace, and isnât really commercial success. FWIW, Santa Clara County is now selling less than 100 gallons per week combined at both airports in San Jose area, as pilots there have opted to continue with Swiftâs UL94 or resume flying out to other neighboring airports to purchase 100LL.
Clarification:
Supply of some fuels is not from a refinery, but a blender - I think established companies even do that so their refinery efficiency is not degraded by interruption to create the special blends.
Regarding âsignificant issuesâ with GAMIâs fuel, are you speaking of ASTM sluggards (I recall even Swift needs changes to the standard, now Swift is going the STC route too).
As different from cheapskates who refuse to pay to license an STC.
FTR, I do not agree with the push to force elimination of lead. But note many aircraft operators praise better engine condition resuling from use of unleaded fuel.
Well⌠All of the 100LL on the West Coast (including CanadaâŚ_) comes from the dock at Chevron refinery in Richmond CA⌠For Unleaded 100 Octane to be comparably priced, it too will have to come direct from a refinery. Swift started with limited STC while waiting for ASTM to finish, since they completed all of the tests for FAA STC in addition to the ASTM testing. It was a no-brainer to start gaining experience with 100R. And for those of us in California, the politics demand elimination of lead since 2020 and the bogus Zarhan report prepared for Santa Clara County. All the flight schools and most of the individuals able to burn UL94 (including meâŚ) have been happily burning UL94 since fall of 2021, and canât wait for 100R to arrive on the scene later this year. UL94 does mean cleaner plugs, no lead fouling, and cleaner oil with longer intervals between oil changes. Lycoming agreesâŚ
