Western States Petroleum Association is suing the California Air Resources Board in a conflict ripe for political moralism: oil vs. air; special interests (oil companies) vs. public interest (a government agency); bad guys vs. good guys-in California, no less. Here's hoping the bad guys win.
WSPA-the bad guys, as popular image would have it-has taken proper action for good reasons. Because the case has implications beyond California, oil and gas companies everywhere should take note. WSPA is showing that it doesn't hurt to wear the bad guy's black hat when the cause is right.
THE CASE
The association says a proposed CARB regulation would give methanol an undue advantage in the vehicle fuel market. The regulation would set a higher emissions standard for vehicles burning M85, a blend of 85% methanol and 15% gasoline, than for those fueled by gasoline reformulated under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Although vehicles emit more ozone ingredients burning M85 than they do with straight gasoline, CARB says M85's emissions are less reactive in the atmosphere than gasoline's. This, the agency says, justifies a higher gross emissions standard for M85.
As environmental policy-making goes in the U.S., this is fairly sophisticated. Assessment not only of gross emission amounts but also of reactivity of the substances emitted goes at least one distinction beyond the norm. For that, CARB deserves applause.
But many scientists, including some CARB experts, disagree with the agency's reactivity measurements. They doubt the proposed regulation's assertion of an emissions-reactivity tradeoff. Acknowledging the uncertainty, CARB plans to revise the regulations every 3 years.
WSPA thinks regulators ought to base their actions on better science than this. Executive Director Douglas Henderson says the CARB regulation creates the impression that methanol is an environmentally superior fuel (OGJ, Dec. 7, p. 28). "We are concerned about a regulation that could actually worsen air quality," he says, "especially when the scientific basis is in such dispute."
THE ISSUES
Is it possible that CARB simply wants to mandate a vehicle fuel change and has ignored important scientific questions about its plan? Is it possible that a fuel's regulatory treatment can be shaped more by its popular image than by its true environmental performance? Have officials in California or anywhere else in the U.S. ever rushed environmental regulations into effect in advance of scientific findings that ultimately made the regulations look premature and excessive?
Whatever science ultimately decides about M85's ozone precursors, CARB looks hasty with its methanol promotion. Californians should not change fuels if there's no certain reason to do so. Regulators should not impose the costs of change when there's no promise of commensurate air quality gain-especially if there's a chance for air quality loss. And no government agency should be able to dodge science and induce fuel choices when consumers, given accurate information, might reach other conclusions about what's best for them.
Twisted science, disregard for cost, and the rushed exercise of unbridled government power have come to characterize modern environmental politics. The result is a growing body of environmental laws and regulations that exert too much control, impose too many costs, and gain too little for the environment. The process won't stop until more of the popular bad guys, like WSPA, forget about image and fight nonsense with legal action. For popular bad guys, public relations is seldom enough.
Copyright 1992 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
