A pair of California Democratic senators have introduced a bill that would start banning the sale of 100LL at some of its busiest GA airports starting Jan. 1, 2026. The bill, introduced by Sen. Caroline Menjivar and Sen. Henry Stern at a streaming event at Whiteman Airport in Pacoima, in the San Fernando Valley, two weeks ago, would end sales of 100LL at airports next to a “disadvantaged community” (California defines those areas in its Health and Safety Code) or next to a city with more than 700,000 people. Those definitions would cover much of the Los Angeles basin and areas of the San Francisco Bay area. In 2028, the ban would apply to airports next to an urban growth boundary (a development boundary that prevents urban sprawl). On Jan. 1, 2030, 100LL would be banned statewide.

If the law is enacted (it has already been referred to the State Senate’s transportation and judiciary committees) it would start the ban of 100LL four years ahead of the FAA’s timeline, which is aiming for 2030. It would also likely conflict with federal jurisdiction over airport management, but Menjivar said the health and community impacts demand immediate action. She said California has always been at the forefront of environmental action and she said after her state enacts the ban, others will follow. “California needs to lead from the front,” she said. EAA reported last week that it was aware of the new bill and was planning to fight it.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.


    • Once again … the non-aviation versed lunatic politicians in Kalyfornya making laws they don’t need to fix a problem they don’t have.

      • Oh, please. Tetraethyl lead is a nasty poison, it needs to go away, and in this case, the pressure is welcome.
        Lead in the environment causes brain damage.

        • You obviously do not know the details of 100LL. 99% of the lead has been removed and they have studies in residential areas under approach to land path. There is no lead contamination. Live in and with your lies and you’re duped for other liberties canceled. You’re a frog in warm water about to be boiled

        • What needs to go away is this idea we should just ban a fuel we’ve all been required to use without choice for years, and make everyone pay a huge increase for a replacement.
          You act like we are all in favor of spraying lead on people in large doses. Or, are you just unaware about how science ACTUALLY works because you learned about it from Marxists instead of scientists?

        • Actually, if it were to become law before the GA fleet could all use no-lead fuel (and if be adopted by other states) – it would have adverse economic impact to the FBOs and many GA support companies that would see a decline in business by less flying or planes being relocated to sane states. Economic harm is real and has a tendency to domino.

          • Are you guys aircraft owners and or pilots? If you own there’s a lot involved moving to UL. I like UL to help reduce the sticking exhaust valve, led Oxybromide deposits. If you rent you’re not vested in this discussion and don’t understand everything involved. To begin you need to consider direct costs of UL and possible engine damage.

            AOPA quote: No one will argue it’s time to remove from all aviation fuels. It’s important that this transition needs to be done in a way that works for the entire aviation fleet – safely, economically, practically, and efficiently.

            Second, this whole issue of UL as a necessary move to save the earth vs LL is based on lie. We have millions of chicken littles in chicken coups. Yes, you’re being ridiculed for the panic caused by screaming “the sky is falling and the earth is going to burn.”

          • Mark, I was disagreeing. I believe that without a solution like AOPA described, this will hurt America.

            Also, I really don’t like posts like that of Kevin Riley’s. It’s basically a version of “No the opposite, and you are crazy”.

            I think civility requires some reasoning to a contradictory response.

      • A state is stepping in the federal government’s lane because the feds aren’t doing their jobs. California isn’t the only state that does this, it’s just doing it in a way that he doesn’t like.

      • It’s yet another state passing laws in obvious violation of the Constitution, and more specifically, the Bill of Rights (in this case the 10th Amendment).
        These continuous attacks are actually hurting the country. They are most always noise creation that disguise politicians not doing the necessary things. We are rudderless and leaderless. This is the worst weakness of Democracy known since Ancient Greece.

      • How will more legislation weaken America?
        First you manufacture a crisis and then you propose an expensive “fix”.
        This is all a waste of time, talent and money.

        How about subsidizing new tanks for MoGas and 94UL? Build more airports to replace those lost? I don’t know, maybe bringing back aviation and aerospace to CA instead of driving it out?

  1. All the FAA has to do is take California to federal court to assert its jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the new administrator hasn’t shown any initiative to do so.

    • Let’s hope the new FAA reauthorization passes with the current clause mandating 100LL until 100UL is practical. The bill defines practical roughly as widely available in sufficient quantity with reasonable cost.

  2. Let’s ban hydrocarbons at the same time. There are more of them in the air than there is Lead, by factors of thousands. Ans as the Lead is actually at almost undetectable levels, its totally not a health issue.

    • While I doubt that lead from GA is a measurable public hazard, we should have gotten rid of leaded aviation fuels decades ago. I do would worry about the health hazards for those fueling planes and it is also bad for the engines. I fly a experimental plane with a Rotax engine and the airport I currently fly from has only unleaded fuel.

      • There’s nothing wrong with your policy preference, and I applaud you aligning your actions with your beliefs.

        OTOH, if you value civilization and your country, you should be more concerned with the process than the outcome in this case and most other cases. Also, if you don’t want to see more and more airport closings.

  3. Ignorant fools with too much time on their hands wanting to feel important. Probably being paid by the leftists to stir up unrest as yet one more distraction.

    • I doubt it. Probably being paid by Putin and Trump to stir up unrest as yet one more distraction from Trump’s legal woes.

      • Before anyone picks solely on Trump, keep in mind no sitting President since Eisenhower has done anything to help promote GA. If fact it was Clinton who signed the law in 1996 that dropped aviation promotion from the FAA’s mission statement. Even Bush 2 did nothing even though he was a fighter pilot in the national guard.

      • Is this the same Putin that endorsed the treasonous traitor Biden for re-election? We are all born ignorant, but how hard do you work every day at staying totally stupid?

  4. I remember in the mid/late seventies, there was a push to ban “Red Gas” (leaded 80 octane) that Piper Cubs ran so very well and without problems. Mechanics I know have stated the the higher the octane rating, the slower the burn, I noticed the same thing in my subaru XV. When I moved up from 91 octane to p5/98 octane, the vehicle lost its acceleration mojo and became very sluggish..
    There has been the back and forth debate (argument) about one grade of fuel over another, so; what’s the big deal about (100LL)…???

    • Then you got some bad gas. Don’t run anything better than what you need, but certainly “high-test” doesn’t have “much slower burn”.

      • When you quote a word or phrase, you are saying that is what they said. Or wrote. James said neither, so what do YOU mean by “high-test”? If you are referring to higher octane, then you are mistaken because such fuels do have a slower burn rate. Known as flame speed. It is what allows high compression engines because the flame speed is slower and allows the piston to get past top dead center before all the energy is release. Pinging, or pre-ignition is the result if the fuel energy is released just prior to top dead center. You are correct in one thing, never burn a higher octane than what you need.

  5. What most folks are forgetting is that when red 80 octane and green 100 octane fuels went away in favor of one fuel — blue 100LL — the amount of lead being used went UP overall. Had they just kept two fuels, lower overall lead usage would be lower today. A perfect example of unintended consequences. 100 LL has half the lead of 100 but a lot more than the old 80. That’s why low compression engines are leading up … they don’t NEED all the lead in “low lead.” So why not go back to producing ‘red’ gas again ?

    • By coincidence, I happened to be looking back over some old issues of Business/Commercial aviation last week–from 1971. The full-page ad “introduced” 100LL–said that 80 octane with HALF the lead would still. be available, and that “for those that can burn it, we have 80 octane low-lead, with 1/4 of the lead.” The IRONY here–these same “activists” wanted to cut the lead in 100 octane–what they GOT was elimination of a fuel (80 octane and “80 octane LL) that had far less lead in it already ALREADY.

      Here is a ready solution–yet you can bet that California won’t adopt it (so much for their “I CARE” wimpering!)

      Like MOST government, their ill-considered “solution” made the problem WORSE!

      Time for the FAA to adopt the “Interstate Commerce Clause”–prohibiting a hodgepodge of laws by individual states.

    • The important thing to remember in all of this is that the market was not allowed to decide at all. No one outside government should be blamed for any of this.

    • >> when red 80 octane and green 100 octane fuels went away in favor of one fuel — blue 100LL — the amount of lead being used went UP overall.

      That’s inaccurate math, Larry.
      Before: 70% x 4 gms/gal + 30% x 0 gms/gal = average 2.8 gms/gal (and 80 wasn’t always 0)
      After: 100% x 2 gms/gal = average 2.0 gms/gal

      So even if 80/87 was zero lead (and it wasn’t always, depends on factors in the refinery) the total lead emissions went down from introduction of 100LL.

      Yours for doing the math before making bold claims…

      • I think he’s saying they should have kept the 80 Red, and just replaced the 100 Green with 100LL. Then overall lead would have gone down and low compression engines wouldn’t be loading up with lead deposits.

  6. Okay Guys, it’s a bill, not a law. Lots of steps, once it emerges from committee, before it passes and we have resources at work to defeat it, as usual. It may pass, it may not, or it could get watered down as sometimes happens. Once enacted (and yes, it probably will pass in some form) the law suits begin.

    The extremists have always been among us, and they almost never get everything they want, so don’t let your head explode just yet.

    • It’s not a case of “getting everything they want.” Big-Government advocates are “incrementalists”–they propose a bill, let it get “watered down”–THEN come back for “another bite at the apple.”

    • Yes, don’t let your head explode.

      No, do not ignore yet another bill proposed in blatant disregard of the constitution.

  7. One of the many problems we face in our democracy (such as it is) is that we seem to be incapable of choosing political leaders who are capable of rational thought. Elections appear to be nothing more than a popularity contest for the rich, powerful, and too often, the corrupt. Nobody in government asks the question “What could possibly go wrong?” prior to enacting legislation. Perhaps asking that question would stall (pun intended in an aviation forum) useful government action and cause deadlock on important issues? Oh, wait…

    • While I agree with Bruce S, I think the problem is more fundamental, and less substantial.

      Would everyone reading this forum right now, who would be willing to be Legisladuhr in the Sovrin State of Californica, please raise your right hand?

      RIGHT hand, dummies!

      Thought so. This not a job that attracts the thoughtful, or those skilled in any worthwhile profession like septic tank sanitizer. These people often start out as altruists, who see a wrong and want to right it. But they lack a holistic understanding of human nature, society, history, literature, and the “art of the possible”. They may have started out with the purest of intentions, serving pro bono on their local municipal council, school board, or volunteer committee, but it’s not long before they are holding press conferences on the scourge of teenage vaping, sex, illiteracy/innumeracy, or any other flashy bauble of a topic, like outlawing transgender street mimes, that might bring the blessed light of attention to themselves.

      They know that to maintain what little relevance (and income) they have, they must find a series of “Chicken Little” issues to keep their money-pump from cavitating. However, they don’t want a real issue that affects millions of their citizens, like hunger, homelessness, poverty, joblessness, ad infinitum. Those are hard. They want a “problem” that has a “simple” solution that they can “fix” to the acclaim of all their citizens/donors, with little to no public push-back.

      If you know anything about legislative sausage-stuffing, you’ll know that this is merely preening for the cameras, and at this point has about as much chance of being enacted as a bill to outlaw wildfires in California. Move along, nothing to see here for a while yet.

      And not even Kent’s God knows what it will look like then.

    • You left out the part of our government also being a Republic. A democracy always destroys itself which in case is where we’re headed. Example; Three reprobate men and one woman in an elevator decide to vote to remove rape from the code of Hammurabi. By the time they reach the second floor the woman has been violated.

  8. The headline should read “California Bill Would Phase Out Private Aircraft Starting In 2026”. Once Mexifornia’s crazy enviros have killed off piston aircraft, they will come for the turbine aircraft. There is plenty of room for conservative private pilots though here in the South, those who defend their God-given rights to use their property as they wish.

    • Kent, I read both biblical Testaments cover-to-cover in my youth, and I don’t recall any mention of a “God-given” right to much of anything, much less my property. In fact, there are many admonishments that we should donate same to the poor. Historically, those asserting such a “God-given right” have been the worst examples of humanity.

      Is there a New Republican Testament that I haven’t seen in Barnes&Noble?

      • If there was, would its absence from B&A be significant? I don’t see anything positive in arguing over whether rights come from our creator or our mutual agreement. Since one of the most sensible rights is freedom of religion, respect them no matter what your faith says is their source and it all works out, doesn’t it?

        • How is freedom of religion a more ‘sensible’ right than others? In my opinion, freedom FROM religions would be far more sensible.

          • Read the Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215 and then do a little follow up on King John of England. You’ll have a better understanding where you’re unalienable rights come from. You believe your rights safe in the hands of pagans. Read up on Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong. Pagan and Godless governments, ie., Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, had freedom from religion. Seems to be where the USA is headed since people like you are trying, or believe we should remove God from of our government.

          • Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

            Freedom from religion doesn’t have to include freedom of religion. I’m very curious where you find religion being forced upon you in modern America.

      • Aviatrexx.

        I mean did you miss God’s promise of, “The Promised Land” in Israel for the Jews. Does your bible have the book of Job, or Redemption of property in Leviticus 25. Read Genesis 1 through 3 and discover, that we are to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth…

      • Chris, you’re like a frog in lukewarm water. Us older guys can see bad things happening from afar off, where as you are probably under 35 and don’t see the forest for all the trees.

    • What’s your problem? Do you have no idea what’s going on? And you think it’s somehow funny to come here and call people stupid? How about you actually respond to what’s really going on? Pilots want a fair transition. We did not choose 100LL, the FAA did. They also prevented replacement technology and are still working actively to do just that.

  9. Here’s more,

    “Even more startling was lead’s toll on intelligence: childhood lead exposure may have blunted America’s cumulative IQ score by an estimated 824 million points – nearly three points per person on average. The researchers calculated that at its worst, people born in the mid-to-late 1960s may have lost up to six IQ points, and children registering the highest levels of lead in their blood, eight times the current minimum level to initiate clinical concern, fared even worse, potentially losing more than seven IQ points on average.”


    • More what? More inappropriate science to use as scare tactics?

      Do you have any idea how much lead there was in urban air in those days?

  10. All of Western civilization has abandoned lead as a motor fuel additive (yep, it is a poison). But, because GA aircraft piston engine were designed for lead (some 80 years ago), a tiny group of pilots believes that they should get a lead exemption for as long as they want.

    Sorry, but we are not so special that we can continue to spray lead into the air just because we use less TEL than cars used to. Lead is going away and we have known this fact for decades. Making fun of California may feel good to some of us, but it does nothing constructive.

    • Point taken–BUT–while people recoil in horror over “lead” (even in miniscule amounts)–they ignore the fact that almost EVERY means of propulsion has hydrocarbons as a side effect–even “electric” propulsion means additional load on hydrocarbon-fueled power plants.

      There are some that would seem to have us go back to the “horse and buggy” days–I would direct their attention to the manure-filled streets of nearly every city in the days before the automobile.

  11. It is incredible that people keep electing only the dumbest of dumb to lead the charge into oblivion. When, AND ONLY WHEN, everything is done and in place for a seamless transition should one remove the only other option, which is 100ll, for use to everyone. These new fuels are NOT ready for everyone yet. There needs to be some common sense in this process, NOT lust shutting down GA. STC’s are not the proper avenue in this process as fuels need to have a seamless transition that isn’t up for exclusion by insurance companies.

    • And you know they are the “dumbest of the dumb” how?

      The phase out of lead in auto gas began in 1975. maybe the fact that it was 50 years ago has people wondering if this si the only way that GA will ever get serious about it. Plus, there is solid data that show lead is bad for humans and especially children

      • You know what else is bad for humans and children? Joe Biden letting in to America, pedophiles, terrorists, fentanyl, child sex traffickers, and criminals murdering Americans daily, about 10 million at last count. Jeffco airport in Colorado, a state run by the “dumbest of the dumb”, had nearby cities hire professional air sample companies to show how bad lead pollution was raining down on the poor citizens around the airport. Funny thing though, after the results were in, nobody reported them, until it was discovered, the amount of lead could not even be measured. Guess they are going to have to find another way to close the airport, and the “dumbest of the dumb” in the State House have already come up with plan B, “let’s ban all 100L gas in the state by January 1, 2026.”

      • Ah, so forget science, appropriate process, logic, or fairness?

        I don’t know who exactly “GA” is, but it’s been the FAA keeping 100LL without competition for decades, not some fungible institution you want to call “GA”.

        You want High Performance aircraft owners punished for something they did not create and did only at the behest of the FAA? You want that to be quite expensive and have large repercussions to everyone in the US. You want this in spite of the science showing the lead in AvGas, like the arsenic in your tap water, is not dangerous.

        What are your motivations?

  12. Somebody educate me. Why does unleaded fuel beat out the valve seats? I’m sure the data that indicates that is valid, but I’ve been flying my 1962 182E on unleaded for over a decade and so far the only difference I’ve seen is that at annual I never have to clean the plugs.

    • Lead is bad for engines and people; Lead is not needed for engines; proven over decades of operating on unleaded fuel.
      80/87 had no lead in it where I live; lead was allowed if needed for the octane, but it wasn’t needed. Engines did fine on the unleaded fuel; started having valve and sludge problems on leaded 100″LL”.

      • All non important facts in this discussion though, aren’t they? There is no pro lead lobby, Brian. The question is how we proceed to get rid of it. Please stop it with the irritating straw man tactics.

  13. By coincidence, I happened to be looking back over some old issues of Business/Commercial aviation last week–from 1971. The full-page ad “introduced” 100LL–said that 80 octane with HALF the lead would still. be available, and that “for those that can burn it, we have 80 octane low-lead, with 1/4 of the lead.” The IRONY here–these same “activists” wanted to cut the lead in 100 octane–what they GOT was elimination of a fuel (80 octane and “80 octane LL) that had far less lead in it already ALREADY.

    Here is a ready solution–yet you can bet that California won’t adopt it (so much for their “I CARE” wimpering!)

    Like MOST government, their ill-considered “solution” made the problem WORSE!

    Time for the FAA to adopt the “Interstate Commerce Clause”–prohibiting a hodgepodge of laws by individual states.

  14. It has been proven over decades of operation on Mogas, and also unleaded Avgas in Scandinavia, that Lead is not required for aviation engines; period.
    So; if Aviation had not dragged its’ feet for decades, this issue would not even exist.
    Lead is bad for engines and people; unleaded fuel is available; get on with it!
    Sorry you don’t want to be told what is good for you; but “freedom” doesn’t allow you to cause problems for others; only for yourself.
    Thus; you can’t smoke in a restaurant; or impose your loud music on others at night; etc; etc.
    This is no different; get over it!

    • Could we get some data on what happens in a turbo or normally aspirated 540 or 550 when flying on Scandinavian fuel in Scandinavia? Or, is this a scandalous attempt to throw fuel on the fire of disagreement?

      (Couldn’t resist that last bit, but I’m honestly interested in reading a white paper or similar if you can commend one).

  15. This is Sicko!
    I would also ban all Jet A1 while they are at it, after all, Electric Aircraft are now here.
    The only solution, reign in the FAA, and Elect Trump 2024.

  16. Show us where Trump stands to make one dollar on the elimination of leaded fuel, and I’ll believe that he will do anything about it.

  17. I read through all the comments and I’m convinced, absolutely everyone, is a simpleton, a moron or both. I saw a bunch of “leftest” comments some “trumper” comments, essentially all political leaning comments. This bill is less about do-gooder democrats, and pretty much 100% about MONEY. It’s no surprise it’s targeting communities of at least 700,000. That’s where the real estate value is the highest. I’ll digress into terms you simpletons can understand…Republican real estate developers are whispering into the ears of do-gooder democrats (and donating to their campaign), about how they can stop poisoning those poor communities from lead gas. Cutting the fuel supply just so happens to strangle airports, which then they close and build strip malls and condos. It’s a win-win for the republicans as they can label the democrats as “leftest” and make truck loads of cash. Same stuff happening at Reid Hillview RHV. Wake up people!! Stop falling for the head-fake. I could go on but I’ll wait for the rebuttals.

    • No name calling, Brett. You can get your point (which is valid) across without calling everyone a simpleton. I left this one because it’s a relatively mild term and I doubt anyone burst into tears when they read it but it’s a rule and I’ll ask you to respect it going forward.

      • Point taken Russ. It’s part tough-love and part frustration from pretty much every discourse being argued as right vs left. Everything, is almost always about money. This clearly is no exception.

  18. This isn’t really about leaded fuels, it’s about trying to close Whiteman Airport (KWHP). Sadly many people that live around GA airports don’t see the value of having one in their backyard and, with the shortage of land and housing in LA County, GA airports are an easy target of opportunity for politicians and developers. Maybe this bill will won’t pass but airports and pilots will still need to do a better job of showing the communities around their airports what an asset an airport can be and how much it contributes to the community.

  19. This just looks to me like part of a multi-year and ongoing effort to close Whiteman airport (KWHP). Every time anything at all happens at or near the airport, there are press events like this. Usually they straight-up talk about shutting the airport, which would suit property owners and developers but not local residents, some of whom have objected on the grounds that they fear gentrification – in other words, having an airport in the area helps to keep rents affordable! So, now we have a new angle.

  20. Short version: I am sure that the FAA will execute on the side of safety and I am sure that California politicians are a combination of incompetent and for sale (California resident).

  21. – Lead is bad for piston engines, especially low compression ones.

    – The lead additive for every ounce of 100LL in the Western world comes from one factory in England. It is a single point of failure

    – There is no safe lower limit for lead exposure, especially for children

    – Alternatives to 100LL exist right now.

    This has ultimately nothing to do with aviation fuel it is about facilitating the re zoning of airports to allow developers to make a killing, which is why the dirty little secret is most of the GA haters are funded by those developers.

    Personally I think we should upend the narrative with the alphabet agencies strongly advocating for a quick transition to unleaded Avgas while pointing out the problem is the regulators need to collate their feces and sort out the regulatory mess surrounding the approval of unleaded fuels

    Fighting this is just playing into their narrative that we are entitled rich “private” pilots who don’t care about anyone but ourselves. It’s a loser argument

  22. Lead from AVGAS is not responsible for the mental and physical decline in children. Bad parenting, terrible schools and a total lack of discipline are the reasons. Don’t the youth in minority communities have more lead in their bodies from gunshot wounds?
    After environmentalists ban AVGAS, they will find another problem with GA.
    Basically, evironmentalists hate any business or recreation that they don’t approve.
    The real winners after airports are closed? Real estate developers and their favorite political puppets.

  23. Colorado is trying a different idea. Another publication is reporting that a bill has been introduced into the Colorado legislature to add a 50 cent per gallon of 100LL “impact” tax to the price. If the FAA administrator doesn’t get off his behind, this patchwork of aviation fuel rules will really become a mess. Considering what California is doing to diesel powered cars and trucks, would not surprise me at all that diesel powered airplanes will face restrictions in California as well.

    • Ah, working as intended though. This and the “friendly lawsuit” are two of the more insidious things going on in our government these days, and most people cannot be bothered to try to understand it.

  24. Couldn’t agree more with all previous commentary. Out of curiosity I looked these two so called representatives up. From their bio profiles they have lead very accomplished lives as advocates for environmental causes. Good thing that science is so far proven correct on all their complaints. Not saying the views are skewed in anyway. However these people and those that pad their pockets only see data from their view point. Perhaps taking the fight back to them and the districts they represent are better than waiting for them to come after GA aviation. So tired of socialist views, environmental lunacy and outright takeover of GA activities

  25. I fear we are going to see more of this knee jerk legislation as the future becomes clear that November may bring changes to Washington DC and maybe even California. So I think our elected officials are getting all their “good” ideas out now, while they still can.

  26. California has banned the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 and is pushing electric powered heavy trucks that do not come close to diesel trucks in performance.
    The trend here is clear and it’s the environmental extremists are working to eliminate any and all fossil fuel powered transportation they can. They want you in electric cars that the grid cant power, in electric trains that don’t exist and who know what they plan for aircraft, they sure don’t know except for their infantile magical thinking.

    Don’t think they will stop at transportation. They will come for your “big carbon footprint” single family houses next. Banning fossil fuel energy production and causing electricity shortages and prices to skyrocket. These are dangerous people who want to control everything about you life and if people don’t start voting them out of power they will suffer the catastrophic consequences.

    • Tom, wow, just stop worrying. Back out of that rabbit hole, stop shivering under your blanket. I mean, I don’t know where to start in your fearful diatribe. But for starters, fossil fuels will NEVER be banned. If and when the world is off of fossil fuels, it will be because we ran out of them or it’s too expensive to harvest them and that’s not happening our life time nor our kid’s kid’s life time. I hate too give you a life lesson but it really seams like you need some guidance as well as many other readers here. This and almost everything in life is about money. It’s not red vs blue. It’s about making money, full stop. This is clearly about closing airports and redeveloping them into condos and strip malls. Follow the money Tom. If your reasoning starts to sound like a bad movie script then you need to take a step back and re-examine. Be a critical thinker Tom. I’m not saying there isn’t any environmental extremists, there certainly are. There’s all kinds of extremists. What I’m asking is how do the environmental extremest make any money? Who makes money by stopping the sale of 100LL at airports in communities of 700,000 or more? Follow the money Tom and where ever you’re getting your information and world view….stop it…it’s making you stupid.

      • EPA proposes requiring 67.5% of vehicles sold by 2032 are electric. Keystone pipeline canceled by Biden and others blocked. ANWR drilling canceled by Biden. Biden admin proposes “net zero” economy by 2050. Big money in climate crisis hysteria, Greta Trollberg is a millionaire. feel free to send her more money and you might want to look up the “Green New Deal” Wake up if you enjoy freedom.

        • Correct Biden cancelled ANWR’s oil leases, but he did approve the Alaska’s Willow project. You failed to mention that. Besides the ANWR’s oil is still there. It’s not gone. I recall what the late Charlie Munger said about the United States’ oil reserves. Essentially he said…”strategically, it’s best to use up the rest of the world’s oil reserves and preserve ours”… I’m sure you can grasp the strategy he’s referring to….Besides ConocoPhillips owned those leases and no banks were lending for Alaska development so ANWR wasn’t getting developed anytime soon. In fact it’s not economically feasible to develop ANWR until there’s no ice year round. So much easier to transport without ice. Therefore, ConocoPhillips wasn’t going to develop that anytime soon. You need understand something Tom, these big oil companies want to own as many leases, ie reserves, as they can. Why, because that a major part of their company’s valuation. If an oil explorer has no oil reserves, then the company is pretty much only worth the equipment and stuff they own. You can think of reserves as future revenue. If no future revenue that stock will plummet. Wall St rewards future revenue and punishes no future revenue. I haven’t looked but I’m pretty sure their stock fell after the lease was cancelled. So that angers them because their stock falls, they gripe to fox news, fox news tells it’s audiance how we’re all going to run out of oil, prices will skyrocket and the sky is falling and it’s all those environmental extremists are trying to control your lives blah blah etc etc….It’s all about money Tom. You’re being manipulated for someone else’s benefit. You need to take control of your own life.

          Regarding the EPA proposal, is just that, a proposal. Even if it was a mandate…So what? Drive your ICE vehicle as long as you want. When you need a new car chances are you’ll love the EV you end up buying. Also that’s 8 years from now. California’s ban on new ICE cars is in 11 years. Which will probably get pushed out the closer we get. Your gloom and doom fears about society collapsing are unfounded and non-sense. Like I said, where ever your getting your fear from, you need to stop. You need to start being a critical thinker and stop being scared of everything you hear on whatever BS medium you’re watching/listening. Those people have an agenda which is molding you into a little pawn they can easily manipulate. Which is working. Stop being a puppet. Everything you’ve spewed out here is illogical and unrealistic. You’re pretty deep in that rabbit hole and I doubt anyone can pull out.

          • It’s my understanding those federal leases have reasonably short durations like under ten years.

            I don’t think companies are buying them without plans to operate on them. I don’t really know, but I do know it’s complicated because people I do know that know are pretty reticent to try to explain.

  27. Everybody is an environmentalist,and its a nice characteristic.Most of us just don’t get any perks for being one.

  28. This effort has to be about the CO2 emissions and is posed as a lead pollution problem.
    The ‘funny’ thing is that burning 100LL does not put any lead into the atmosphere.!!
    Besides the TEL in the fuel, it also has ethylene-dibromide. So when the fuel is burned the TEL converts to lead-oxide, which is then converted to lead-bromide.
    Lead-bromide remains as a gas at temps above 370 degrees F, so it is exhausted from the cylinder.
    In the exhaust system , the temps drop below 370 degrees, so it becomes a solid and a lot of it is deposited at the exhaust pipe tips.
    [ Go look at any aircraft and you will see the gray-white deposits.]
    Any lead-bromide that escapes the exhaust system quickly becomes small solid particles and falls to the ground.

    This was well known in 1937 when the military aircraft needed higher octane fuel, and 100 octane was developed to replace the 80-87 octane fuel.
    TEL and ethylene-dibromide were part of this development….The TEL alone was found to be very corrosive to the engine internals, but they were using 3-5 cc of TEL at the time.

  29. How long are we going to delay the inevitable? 100LL is going away sooner or later.
    The delay tactic is just mind-boggling. FAA tried to delay 100UL approval as much as they could. Even after 100UL approval they still figured they could create another money-wasting PAFI initiative. Delay, delay, delay until the house of cards comes crashing down.

    • The mogas certificate I have on my old Cessna states, ’87 octane NO ETHANOL’.
      Ethanol is corrosive to aluminum, especially if it absorbs any water.
      The fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel selector, are all aluminum, unlike cars which use steel for these parts.

  30. AVweb already published the story of the FBO Consent Agreement that was imposed via a lawsuit with the Center of Environmental Health and already mandates that UL Fuel will be sold in CA as soon as it becomes commercially available. This bill could be a PR Effort from CA Senator Menjivar who has joined the former executive in the California Realtors Association, now LA City Councilwomen Monica Rodriquez’s team of friends, has campaigned to close KWHP, and alleged that KVNY is a significant polluter, etc.

  31. As an environmental analytical chemist, and who lived for years in Baton Rouge where much of the tetra ethyl lead was produced, I have watched this topic for some time. While the small increases in lead near airports are hard to quantify, it should be clear that aviation fuel add significant lead to the total environment.

    Lead in plumbing and fixtures was only reduced a few years ago. So FAA foot dragging, although normal for federal agencies, should not be tolerated and that is why California has done the knee jerk action.

    One report on Avweb indicated that valve seat damage was the result of one of the new aviation fuels. So current engines might not be acceptable for aviation. If aviation engines were built to automobile standards, this wouldn’t have happened. I personally would feel more comfortable flying behind an off the shelf automotive engine, without dual ignition, than the Lycoming I have flown behind.