By OGJ editors
HOUSTON, July 8 -- The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) has requested court permission to file a brief supporting California's attempt to obtain a waiver of the 2% oxygenation requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) in that state.
Permission to file the brief must be granted by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing the case.
California is suing the US Environmental Protection Agency. The lawsuit argues that EPA should not have denied California's request to waive the oxygenate standard for RFG under federal clean air rules (OGJ Online, Oct. 5, 2001).
In June 2001, EPA denied California's request for a waiver from the federal oxygenate standard. The state has banned methyl tertiary butyl ether and said there is not enough ethanol available to replace it (OGJ Online, Sept. 17, 2001).
The brief establishes NPRA's interest in the suit as a national trade association whose members own or operate most US refining capacity. NPRA argues California met its burden to obtain a waiver by showing that a waiver would help the state meet the air quality standard for ozone.
Waiver ban effects
NPRA also points out that "the real-world impact of EPA's decision under current law is to establish an ethanol mandate in RFG within California. This is because California has decided to ban MTBE, the only competing oxygenate. The resulting de facto ethanol mandate conflicts with the overriding goal of the Clean Air Act, which is to improve air quality," an NPRA news release said.
The organization reminded the court of the decision in the API and NPRA vs. EPA lawsuit concerning the failed 1994 attempt to impose a nationwide ethanol mandate in reformulated gasoline.
NPRA believes the earlier decision should affect the current case. EPA cited the need to "encourage the use of domestically produced, renewable energy sources" when it denied California's waiver application. This is the same argument that the court specifically rejected in API and NPRA vs. EPA, NPRA said.
The brief concludes by pointing out that EPA's decision denied NPRA and other affected parties the right to comment on an ethanol mandate, which should be imposed only through formal rulemaking. NPRA says it opposes fuel-related mandates and bans because they threaten energy supply and increase the cost of meeting US fuel requirements.
