Printer Friendly

FOUR OIL COMPANIES PETITION COURT TO SET ASIDE CARB DIESEL FUEL RULING

 SAN FRANCISCO, March 7 -- Chevron (NYSE: CHV), ARCO (NYSE: ARC), Texaco (NYSE: TX) and Unocal (NYSE: UCL) today filed a petition in State Superior Court in Sacramento asking the Court to set aside a recent diesel fuel variance granted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
 The petition states that by granting a variance to Tosco Refining Company, CARB acted "...unlawfully, without jurisdiction, and committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion..." by allowing Tosco to produce and sell a large volume of higher-emissions diesel fuel even though low aromatics diesel fuel is readily available from other sources.
 The issue involves the state's low aromatic diesel (LAD) rule that went into effect on Oct. 1, 1993, which stipulates that diesel fuel may not contain more than 10 percent aromatic hydrocarbon by volume or the equivalent certified through emissions testing.
 Under the LAD rule, independent refineries like Tosco can produce a higher emissions diesel fuel (20 percent aromatics) for a limited time. CARB set Tosco's production for one year at more than 5.26 million barrels, or approximately 14,400 barrels per day.
 Within five months, Tosco had produced the entire 5.26 million barrel allotment of the higher emissions diesel fuel. Anticipating that it would exceed its volume limit, Tosco applied for and received a variance to continue making the 20 percent aromatics diesel.
 Although the LAD regulation allows for variances, the petitioners believe that CARB should have rejected Tosco's variance application because it gives the company an unfair competitive advantage and because Tosco did not meet procedures and standards provided in the regulation.
 The procedures and standards require that a variance cannot be granted unless CARB makes the following three findings, which must be supported by the evidence before the agency. The suit contends that the evidence presented by Tosco was insufficient to meet the three guidelines, which are:
 -- Due to reasons beyond the reasonable control of the applicant, complying with the rule would result in extraordinary economic hardship;
 -- The public interest in mitigating the extraordinary hardship to the applicant by issuing the variance outweighs the public interest in avoiding any increased emission of air contaminants that would result from issuing the variance; and
 -- The applicant's compliance plan can be reasonably implemented and that compliance can be achieved expeditiously.
 Also, the petition contends that CARB exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the variance and did not follow the Staff Guidance Document by failing to impose an economic benefit/environmental mitigation payment as a condition of the variance.
 -0- 3/7/94
 /CONTACT: Mark Nelson of Chevron, 415-894-2282/
 (CHV TX ARC UCL)


CO: Chevron; ARCO; Texaco; Unocal; Tosco Refinery Co.; California Air
 Resource Board ST: California IN: OIL ENV SU:


TM -- SF012 -- 8358 03/07/94 15:46 EST
COPYRIGHT 1994 PR Newswire Association LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:PR Newswire
Date:Mar 7, 1994
Words:456
Previous Article:MK WINS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACT FROM THE U.S. NAVY
Next Article:NATIONAL PORK BOARD APPROVES SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters