RE: The Politics of MBTE

["Chao, Harvey" <harvey.chao@xxxxxxxx>]

Hey - I'm NEVER wrong --  unless I am incorrect!  :-)

Actually I was unaware of the Unocal version.  Everything I have read or
heard indicated that the State mandates the reformulated gasoline
composition.  Guess there's a first time for everything.

Harvey
For no particular reason, doesn't buy Unocal gas.
Standing corrected.

> ----------
> From: 	SMILLER@domain.elided
> Sent: 	Thursday, August 6, 1998 10:07 AM
> To: 	bmw-digest@domain.elided; harvey.chao@domain.elided
> Subject: 	Re:  The Politics of MBTE
> 
> Harvey, I hate to contradict anything that sounds so authoritative, but
> when you said (in part):
> 
> >Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 11:05:49 -0700
> >From: "Chao, Harvey" <harvey.chao@domain.elided>
> >Subject: Re: Ethanol in '95 540ia (long)
> >
> >The problem here is that the California State Air Resources Board
> >(CARB, cleaner air cops run amuck) have managed to MANDATE the
> >use of MBTE.  It gets political in that ARCO is a major refiner in
> >California, coincidentally, a major provider of MBTE, and that the "feed
> >stock" used to make this stuff used to be a refinery "waste product". 
> and...
> >To compound the problem, the law on "cleaner burning gasoline"
> >specifies what the formula shall be, not that the gas shall be of a
> >formulation that burns X% cleaner (which would then allow alternative
> >methods of achieving the desired end result - 
> >Harvey
> 
> ...you didn't exactly explain why Unocal (also a major refiner in CA) is
> able to sell gasoline with ethanol instead of MBTE, which they advertise
> and proudly proclaim on signs in their gas stations here in CA.  Are they
> blatently breaking the law?  Did they "pay off" the right politicians to
> get
> an exemption?   Are they lying?  How does that work?
> 
> Just wondered...
> 
> Scott Miller
> Golden Gate Chapter
> BMW CCA #44977
> 

------------------------------