AIR BOARD IS LEAPING BEFORE IT LOOKS.

Byline: Eugene Fisher

The California Air Resources Board took a big step at its scheduled hearing in Sacramento. That step was toward phasing out MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a proven air pollution-reducing gasoline additive, from the state's gasoline supply. The vote in Sacramento was never in doubt. The real question is what will replace it in the continuing effort to clean the air we breathe?

There are other major questions unanswered by CARB.

The state air board's new regulations call for a fuel that has never been manufactured or used in large volumes. That means that, like it or not, California drivers and residents will be made subjects in yet another experiment.

What assurances do we have that the results this time won't yield unintended consequences that are just as unfortunate as CARB's earlier, very costly, experiments with diesel fuel and MTBE?

CARB has so far focused its attention on ethanol as a substitute for MTBE. Will an ethanol additive deliver all of the air quality benefits of the current formula for gasoline? More? Less? About the same?

Even with these questions remaining, currently there is not nearly enough ethanol available to meet California's needs - some experts say there's only enough to serve the state for six months. How will the shortage be made up? Where will the additional supplies come from? How soon? What has to actually happen for the ethanol industry to meet its promise? What is California's contingency plan for what to do if the New England states or other areas also switch to ethanol?

If gasoline supplies are lessened or interrupted as a result of production limitations, the simple law of supply and demand says that costs will rise. This could lead to substantial cost-of-living increases. Low-income communities are historically hit hardest by increased gasoline prices, and suffer the greatest impacts of unhealthful air quality.

Because ethanol cannot be transported in our pipelines, it will have to be hauled in diesel trucks. How many trucks? How much air pollution will they be adding? Which communities will bear the brunt of the increased traffic and likelihood of accidental spills or fires? Rush-hour traffic reports far too often include truck-involved accidents.

At the same time CARB is saying that it will crack down on air pollution from diesels, it is virtually mandating more diesel trucks on the road in the state's already most congested areas - Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

The public needs to know about the potential harm of adding thousands of extra trucks hauling hazardous materials on our existing streets and highways. We need to know the truck routes. We need to know what the cumulative impact on entire regions will be. And we need to know all this before CARB orders a switch to ethanol.

Who pays? The California Energy Commission says that the development of ethanol production facilities in California would require major investments of taxpayer funds - how much money would be required, for how long, and would the public ever get its money back?

California is currently totally dependent on a handful of refineries to supply all of its needs, and those refineries can barely meet our needs. A switch to ethanol will reduce the capacity of these refineries 10 to 20 percent. That makes the state's economy even more vulnerable to substantial price increases and supply shortages if anything goes wrong at one of the refineries causing it to shut down. Would we then go back to using dirty gasoline, or waive existing air quality requirements?

Will our water resources be protected? Will the results be even worse than MTBE when ethanol gasoline mixes with water? Phasing out MTBE from California's gasoline will not solve the problems caused by leaking underground pipes and fuel tanks. What is the state doing to fix the leaks expeditiously? How long will that take and what is the cost?

CARB is not taking the time to examine these questions. Without adequate review, it is rushing to make a decision in the next month. Worse, it wants to make this decision without holding one hearing in the areas of the state that will be most affected. The hearing held in Sacramento did not allow sufficient public input from residents of Los Angeles or the Bay Area.

That's not right. CARB needs to meet with the public in the areas of the state with the worst smog problems affecting the largest sensitive and most vulnerable populations. We all deserve an opportunity to be heard in an open process and to help ensure achievement and maintenance of clean air and water for our children, safe streets and reasonable prices at the gasoline pump.