100LL replacement - California court case

comanchepilot

comanchepilot

En-Route
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
4,020
Location
Tucson
Display Name
Joe Farrell, yeah, him
Home Airfield
TUS
AOPA reported this morning the Judge has issued a tentative ruling that he will not force the 100 No Lead replacement on to California pilots.

Once again, the California bureaucrats overstepped - they will now retrench and instead of mandating unleaded 100 octane avgas, simply BAN the sale of any gasoline in California which uses lead. Problem solved. They cannot force people to buy something - but they can prevent people from buying something.

The ban on all leaded fuel will come at the airports that currently mandate the unleaded fuel and will simply spread everywhere as CARB or the Calif EPA issue the ruling banning the sale of leaded fuel anywhere in the state . . . .

Doubt if the FAA is going to get involved permitting the sale - which arguably will create an issue of preemption and the supremacy clause - but - we will see.
 
comanchepilot said:
Once again, the California bureaucrats overstepped - they will now retrench and instead of mandating unleaded 100 octane avgas, simply BAN the sale of any gasoline in California which uses lead.
Click to expand...

The case was brought by the CEH. What kind of state bureaucrats do you think they are, and what right do you think they have to mandate things?
 
I'm not against an unleaded alternative to 100LL. I am against the STC requirement when it becomes the only viable option, especially when the STC so far appears to be a paperwork drill.
Say an out of state pilot visits or flys over Ca and decides to stop for fuel. Without the STC and with the state banning the sale of leaded fuel the pilot is now stuck until they agree to purchase the STC. Add in that there are some reports of the unleaded fuel causing issues with seals and fuel bladders and the pilot may not want it in their plane.
 
Will Kumley said:
I'm not against an unleaded alternative to 100LL. I am against the STC requirement when it becomes the only viable option, especially when the STC so far appears to be a paperwork drill.
Say an out of state pilot visits or flys over Ca and decides to stop for fuel. Without the STC and with the state banning the sale of leaded fuel the pilot is now stuck until they agree to purchase the STC. Add in that there are some reports of the unleaded fuel causing issues with seals and fuel bladders and the pilot may not want it in their plane.
Click to expand...

Hopefully folks just ignore it in mass to the point that its a no factor

Ship it in from out of state
 
Latest news. It's still not a ruling, just a hint at how the judge is leaning.
www.aopa.org

California judge appears reluctant to force unleaded fuel

A California judge did not immediately confirm or modify a preliminary ruling that would deny an environmental group's effort to force certain FBOs and fuel distributors operating in the state to sell unleaded fuel.
www.aopa.org
 
> Be GAMI
> Rally STC sales 18 months before shipping product "to save GA"
> Get caught writing legal briefs in support of an early ban on 100LL, betraying your supporters
> ...the opposite of "profit"
 
comanchepilot said:
Once again, the California bureaucrats overstepped - they will now retrench and instead of mandating unleaded 100 octane avgas, simply BAN the sale of any gasoline in California which uses lead.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the legalities I think on a political basis the chance of California banning the sale of 100LL anytime soon when there is no practical and generally available alternative is close to zero.
 
Domenick said:
Latest news. It's still not a ruling, just a hint at how the judge is leaning.
www.aopa.org

California judge appears reluctant to force unleaded fuel

A California judge did not immediately confirm or modify a preliminary ruling that would deny an environmental group's effort to force certain FBOs and fuel distributors operating in the state to sell unleaded fuel.
www.aopa.org
Click to expand...
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" Mark Twain.
 
I am not looking forward to the price increase, but I am looking forward to leaded aircraft fuels being illuminated.
 
Shame they don’t make the people pushing for this stuff foot the full legal bill when it gets laughed out of court.

It’s like in the air race classic, if you want to make a objection to a rule bust you need to pay money, if you were right you get it back, if it was frivolous whining you lose the money and no points for you
 
Roller said:
Nah

Look, there comes a moment when it ain’t just that simple anymore, you know? The Fed’s been sitting back, letting too many states run wild, way overstepping their bounds, flexing muscle they don’t even rightly have, while regular American folks are the ones takin’ it on the chin. It’s a mess, man, a real gut-punch to the idea of what this country’s supposed to be.

Even when a Supreme Court ruling comes out and states just ignore it, no enforcement of the violating bureaucrats while they violate US citizens
Click to expand...
found the guy who doesn't understand federalism.

let CA ban leaded gas... it's within their rights.
 
States rights? Heard a state is going to pass a law that its residents don't have to pay fed taxes. States rights?

Of course there are limits, and ensuring availability of fuel to support interstate commerce across federally regulated airspace is beyond the limit of state authority, just as passing a law protecting its residents from paying fed taxes is beyond state authority.
 
pfarber said:
found the guy who doesn't understand federalism.

let CA ban leaded gas... it's within their rights.
Click to expand...
That might flood the used plane market with a rush to sell CA. planes, or good for engine overhaul shops.
 
Good to see California is ostracizing another group of residents,and a source of income for a state that is bankrupt.we all know pilots and GA are a bunch of rich people,with an exspensive hobby.
 
Domenick said:
FAA decides CA airports who took fed funds cannot ban 100LL:

www.aopa.org

FAA rules avgas ban violated grant assurances

The FAA ruled March 24 that no unleaded fuels are ready to completely displace avgas without violating federal grant assurances.
www.aopa.org
Click to expand...

I read that as the airports can ban the fuel, but if they do so, the grants have to be forfeited or repaid if that’s the course of action taken.
 
robin ardoin said:
Article from January, 6 of this year. How is that holding up? (I'm not from Cali, but curious)
Click to expand...
I don't know; that one turned up on a Google search.

I'm not from Cali either, which is a City in Colombia.
 
Is California the only state with budget concerns? From what I see online, I don’t think so. And with the current “efficiency” model being rolled out, some states will probably face challenges they didn’t face three months ago.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Is California the only state with budget concerns? From what I see online, I don’t think so. And with the current “efficiency” model being rolled out, some states will probably face challenges they didn’t face three months ago.
Click to expand...

no, they're just the worst and happens to be the one this thread is talking about.
 
What make
Llewtrah381 said:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...l-deficits-hit-record-low-in-fiscal-year-2022

Not true
Click to expand...

What makes it somewhat difficult or misleading* is that many states are not allowed to have a deficit budget (at least with the operating budget).

Interestingly, the website you referenced shows massachusetts revenue at 96.7% of expenses despite having a requirement for a balanced budget. I live in massachusetts, so naturally I looked at my state, er commonwealth.

(*I'm not saying anyone is deliberating misleading anyone)
 
Bob Noel said:
What make


What makes it somewhat difficult or misleading* is that many states are not allowed to have a deficit budget (at least with the operating budget).

Interestingly, the website you referenced shows massachusetts revenue at 96.7% of expenses despite having a requirement for a balanced budget. I live in massachusetts, so naturally I looked at my state, er commonwealth.

(*I'm not saying anyone is deliberating misleading anyone)
Click to expand...
Thanks for an intelligent response.

What’s also not shown in the data is how much of a state’s budget is Federal, especially Medicaid, but also a lot more. There are some states that I think are in for a substantial shift in their planning in the very near future.

People here seem to love to pig-pile on CA while ignoring some other realities. A broader set of facts is helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top