California Fuel Distributors File Unleaded Fuel Court Defense
Fuel distributors and FBOs have filed their response to a motion that would stop them from selling leaded avgas.
Credit: GAMI
California aviation fuel distributors say there are too many gaps in accessibility and too many questions about GAMI G100UL's suitability for some aircraft to make it the only high octane choice at California airports. In their response to a motion by the Center for Environmental Health for the California Superior Court to enforce the terms of a 2014 settlement agreement regarding the sale of unleaded fuel (copied in full below), the fuel distributors and 17 FBOs covered by the settlement agreement say granting CEH's motion would "ground a significant portion of the general aviation fleet, including aircraft used for fighting fires, law enforcement, and other essential public services" and orphan tens of thousands of aircraft.
The businesses signed the settlement agreement in 2014 to end a three-year lawsuit by CEH concerning the environmental and health effects of leaded avgas. In essence, it said that as soon as an aviation gasoline with less lead in it than 100LL became available then they would switch to distributing and selling it. The current action and the signatories opposition to it is the definition of "commercially available." CEH argues that since G100UL is approved by the FAA via an STC, is available in commercial quantities and is being sold at two California airports it meets that test. The signatories say that because G100UL does not have an industry standard specification and its STC does not apply to some aircraft (up to 17 percent of the piston fleet by their calculation) it's not a viable exclusive alternative to 100LL. The response characterizes the court motion as CEH's "crusade to force the use of G100UL" and notes that major engine and aircraft manufacturers will not honor warranties for products that have used G100UL.
The matter was scheduled to go before a judge in Alameda County on Jan. 28 but this filing lists Feb. 4 as the date. It's not clear how long the proceedings will be or when a decision might be made. The signatories have included hundreds of pages of affidavits and supporting documents. We've only copied the formal response, which references some of those documents.
