California Gas Switch Went Unnoticed
Here’s a story on ethanol, California, and a new way of paying for, and dictating, what news and feature stories get written. In this part of the story, we’ll reprint the first of a series of articles written by freelance author, Alexis Madrigal for www.gas2.org and ecoLocalizer. Here’s the scoop on how California’s gasoline formula was changed:
What happens if, all of a sudden, you need to change the entire energy infrastructure on which California’s transportation system runs?
Most Californians probably haven’t noticed, but that’s exactly what a combination of Midwestern farmers, Big Oil companies, railroad operators, and fuel terminal owners have done over the last decade.
In switching out MTBE, a former component of California gasoline, in favor of ethanol, a behind-the-scenes change of huge proportions took place. The state and its industrial infrastructure companies managed to start putting a billion gallons of ethanol into our gas tanks a year, without anyone really noticing.
“Gasoline is just one component in what is legislated to be motor fuel. You can’t sell it without the ethanol,” says John Mahon, who runs renewable fuels for Kinder Morgan, a key player in California’s liquid fuels market. “Ethanol becomes a critical path.”
In 2000, California consumed about 60 million gallons of ethanol. That grew to 100 million gallons by 2002 and 600 million gallons by 2003, according to the California Energy Commission. In 2006, California consumed about 970 million gallons of ethanol. That’s a 1,500% increase in use of the biofuel in seven years.
Some in the energy debate say that this type of transformation is impossible. Other say radically changing our energy infrastructure is necessary. Many realists seem to suggest that both statements are true.
My note: Is anyone else bothered by the idea of so-called experts who claim something is impossible to do — after it’s been done? I think this needs some clarification and hope we see it in future articles in this series.
The MTBE-to-ethanol exchange is evidence that change can happen fast, but it might come at a price. It required no new behavior on the part of consumers and doesn’t appear to have added to the run-up in gas prices at the pump. On the other hand, the changes occurred out of public view in the industrial ports and railyards of the state, and now we’re stuck importing a fuel that may not actually reflect the politics of the people who use it.
My note: Two things strike me here. First is that consumers didn’t even know what was happening. We really are so much happier not having to think about things like gasoline. We will put in our tank whatever is easiest to find if it’s price isn’t too far out of line with other choices. While this switch happened in the railyards, it probably could have happened at every corner gas station without attracking too much comment unless it closed a station during rush hour.
BUT… one thing we do know about ethanol is that it does not burn as efficiently as gasoline (about 72% as efficiently) which means that gallon for gallon, you will use more of it. It also costs more to produce than gasoline (on a national average about $4.13 per gallon), so this fuel was and is more expensive for Californians to use.
The switch to ethanol has been so effective that while the Federal mandate that required ethanol use has gone by the wayside, refiners don’t have any alternative additives for making gasoline that fits the state’s bill.
Now, with a host of new state regulations sending oil, refining, and supply chain companies scrambling to reduce their carbon output, ethanol’s lessons have never been more relevant.
This alternative fuel experiment reveals how flexible our industrial infrastructure is, but also how difficult reducing our dependence on foreign oil is going to be without leaving our energy system more vulnerable than it already appears to be.
