By DEAN BILLING.
California was the first state to attempt to remove the lead from 100LL by lawsuit. Unfortunately, the result of the unsuccessful CEH lawsuit only increased the cost of 100LL in the state.
Now, along comes Oregon, which wants to tax the lead out of 100LL. I have a feeling this method will appeal to other states, so prepare to see it find traction in your state legislature.
I received an email from the FBO at Lebanon State Airport, which happens to be one of two airport operators that sells mogas on the airport in Oregon, informing me that there is a bill in the legislature to increase the fuel tax on leaded aviation fuel. It is HB 3193, and it will get its first hearing today, April 6, in the Oregon House Committee On Transportation and Economic Development. (You have to love the irony of a tax that will stifle aviation economic development in Oregon being heard in the Committee On Economic Development.)
One of the truly frightening features of the bill is that the tax rate increase is left up to state bureaucrats to set, and there is even a provision that it shall be increased each year thereafter … I guess until the lead is taxed out of aviation fuel or when there is no general aviation left in Oregon, whichever occurs first. The tax could be in the dollar(s) per gallon, and none of the tax is designated to fund aviation projects in the state.
Turns out we have someone to thank for getting this bill introduced: Oregon Aviation Watch. If there is a similar organization in your state, be prepared to see similar legislation introduced in your legislative body, especially if this bill passes.
It is interesting to note that the Oregon legislature has an opportunity to change the lead footprint that general aviation produces if it wants to. In the bill, unleaded aviation fuel is designated separately from leaded aviation fuel. The only FAA approved unleaded aviation fuel, mogas, will continue to be taxed at $0.09 at gallon.
If the legislature is serious about wanting unleaded aviation fuel to be used more widely in Oregon, it should abolish the tax on unleaded fuel, remove the cumbersome requirement to collect the state road tax for on-airport sales of mogas, and provide a program to help airports add mogas infrastructure through programs like the Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank.
If you would like to comment on HB 3193, send your comments to the Transportation and Economic Development committee members. I did.
I’ll let you know if this legislation moves out of the committee after the hearing. The majority of bills die in committee after their first hearing, but if the bill is sent to some other committee or the House floor for a vote, you will hear it here. Stay tuned.
Wouldn’t this FAA policy apply?
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/07/2014-26408/policy-and-procedures-concerning-the-use-of-airport-revenue-proceeds-from-taxes-on-aviation-fuel
California faces the same FAA policy, see the amended SB-747:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB747
AOPA made this exact argument in their filing at the hearing. It is obvious that this bill was not written with any input from the aviation community. Reminds me of our mandatory state ethanol law which was written with no exceptions for aircraft use because nobody in the legislature, nor even in the Oregon Department of Aviation, knew that auto fuel is an approved aviation fuel, but can’t have ethanol in it.
Sure. So the tax on leaded avgas will go to airport purposes. Cool.
A hearing for HB 3193 was held on schedule on 6 April 2013 and copies of testimony written materials can be viewed here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Committees/HTED/2015-04-06-15-00/HB3193/Details
Forty three written comments were submitted and all of them were against the bill.
Been running Auto fuel in my O-200 for many years. It’s octane minimum is 81. I add stuff to stop spoilage in case I don’t use it quick enough. Much less wear on cylinders and rings due to no lead. Ethanol only causes a very slight loss of power – hardly noticeable! and NO heating issues! I wish I could buy Auto fuel at airports.
I forgot to mention the much cleaner combustion chambers and NO sticking valves!
Hi, Dean. Mary Rosenblum, here, president of Oregon Pilots Association. I want to say that this bill, HB 3193, which was soundly opposed at the hearing, is a powerful example of why aviation needs to have a legislative awareness today. The reason that 45 people responded about the downside of this punitive bill, the reason that we had 19 people to testify against it in person at the hearing and only the sponsor, Rep. Mitch Greenlick, to support it, is largely because Oregon Pilots Association sent out a warning about this bill with an email link for testimony to our members and those who are not members, but who subscribe to my Places to Fly newsletter. If we had not publicized this bill and its threat, the danger is that only a small number of people would have known about it in time to comment on it, and the committee might have been swayed by the (some of it outright erroneous) information about the ‘lead hazard’ that was presented by Representative Greenlick. I, as first to testify, was able to counter that erroneous information with facts. Many followed to present more facts about the harm this bill would cause. I am proud of our members and non-members who took the time to do this. Thank you!
We, in our community, need to become actively involved in what goes on in our capitols or risk being blindsided by legislation. Before the committee hearing, quite a bit of lobbying was done by both Oregon Pilots Association and AOPA against it. Living in the valley, I have the ability to drive or fly to Salem and sit down with legislators to present information in person. I do that quite often. Oregon Pilots Association will continue to be our watchdog in Salem, as I move into the role of VP of Legislative Affairs after our annual meeting in June.
Whether you live in Idaho, Washington, or Oregon, it behooves all of us to pay attention to what goes on at our capitols. There are many ways that GA can suffer from bills affecting land use, fuel use, or airspace use, and today it is the squeaky wheel that gets greased, whether that squeaky wheel is the builders, environmentalists, or us pilots. We either speak up or get steamrollered.
Thanks for bringing this bill to the attention of General Aviation News subscribers!
An oh yes, and we are currently working toward Department of Aviation grants for FBOs to put mogas tanks in place. Just an FYI.
Mary Rosenblum
President Oregon Pilots Association
Thanks for your work Mary.
If the non-aviation folks would help us from the aspect of promoting the use of non-ethanol 92 octane auto fuel by introducing and sponsoring a measure to remove the $.030 Oregon State road tax when used for aircraft fuel we could actually work together on on common ground…….
You know, you can actually get a rebate from the Department of Transportation, who collects the taxes, if you use non ethanol auto gas for aviation. They collect the tax, give Department of Aviation their 9 cent share and keep the rest. Aviators are entitled to get it back. I believe that the distributors apply for the rebate at that level, but it is worth checking out. Tell you what, I will do so.
Mary
Mr. Billing’s article is, in my opinion, somewhat disingenuous.
First, the lawsuit was not brought by California in an attempt to rid itself of low leaded aviation fuel. It was brought by the CEH, a private, lawyer based, environmental org which has a successful history of seeking out offenders, and money, from a very poorly written environmental law California passed years ago.
While the CEH is an environmental organization, it has also proven to be a successful business profit center. Therefore, it was not a surprise to most that a financial settlement was reached.
The complexity involved in lowering octane ratings on aircraft engines certified on 100LL must be daunting. Consider for a moment the legal ramifications if injury or death result due to a mistake in the process. To state that “most engines” will run on lower octane is an over simplification of the problem. And replacing aviation fuel with auto fuel isn’t necessarily the answer either.
We all want a timely solution to the 100LL elimination. However, not at the cost of rendering a large amount of aircraft useless. The FAA has a process that must be followed to insure safety of GA and its operation.
Getting politicians involved, so it appears they are “doing something”, is the worst thing that can happen. Need proof? How about Ethanol? An extremely expensive attempt to rid ourselves of foreign oil dependency. The result, higher fuel prices and lower gas economy due to Ethanol’s lower BTU rating.
Let the FAA and EPA do their jobs. It will happen.
Unfortunately I think their job is to do things that will make money for someone and they couldn’t care less what’s best for (small GA) pilots. Meanwhile, Small aviation is dying – It’s only niche is as a stepping stone to bigger aviation.IMHO!
I did likewise, emailed each committee member with a taylored message to their particular area and constituency. There is a nice page with links on the Oregon State website tab under “Comittees” as the link in the article shows.
I like the idea of removing the road tax on non-ethanol mo-gas and getting it more widely available. The other issue I talked about with a local FBO is the 90 day lifetime before synthesis, getting a preservative compatible with aircraft engines would help further the cause.
I emailed each member of the committee.