Beyond MTBE: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Gasoline Additives

Summary of Costs and Benefits Figure 1 presents the costs and benefits for the three formulations studied, indicating our high and low estimates for the costs and benefits, based on the uncertainties associated with the data. Costs (relative to the baseline, conventional gasoline) are presented in parenthesis. We have stacked up the costs and benefits, to provide a visual appreciation of the size of our cost estimates relative to the benefits. All the formulations represent a net cost (with the low estimate for non-oxygenated gasoline close to zero cost), with MTBE representing the most expensive option. Conclusions In hindsight, it is clear that reformulated gasoline with MTBE was an expensive solution to air quality problems. Spending 1 to 3 billion dollars a year in California alone certainly seems unjustified, once a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits is performed. The major uncertainties were the rate of biodegradation, the toxicity of MTBE and its organoleptic properties. It should have been more evident that a gasoline component used in such large quantities would make its way into the environment and cause more damages than benefits. The existing fate and transport data indicated that there was a possibility that such a gasoline component, used in large quantities would make its way into the environment, with the potential for causing more damages than benefits. The belief that the upgraded USTs would eliminate all spills was perhaps a factor in the decision-making process of oil companies. Granted, a decade ago not all the information needed to make this analysis was available, but the cost of such a research program would have been low, and could have been implemented and completed