No Si Ba Lasi?

WHY is the entire city hall up in arms over the setting up of two auto gas LPG stations? Although two hardly accounts for a population that can properly be called ‘‘mushrooming’’ as some reports are wont to exaggerate, you could die laughing at how some of our honorable legislators pontificate about the "potential and safety hazards of LPG." Hee-haw!

Petron presented its ‘‘plan’’ (meaning wala pa ni, drawing pa) to put an LPG refilling station in Osmena, barely a month after Pryce Gas set up a pioneering one along the highway in Gusa.

Petron and Pryce both contend that LPG is safe to use for vehicles. In reply, city hall said it will be issuing a "cease and desist order" against Pryce Gases for its two operating LPG stations. Is it because of the owner’s political inclination rather than safety precautions? I hope not.

Neither do I buy the alleged complaints of foul odor by residents near the two stations and their fears it’s a fire hazard. Hello? Kinsa ba ang dugay nang gagamit ug LPG sa balay? Dayon baho? Delikado sa sunog? Dawbi ang gasoline ug diesel, way baho? Dili ba flammable pud?

A cursory look at the comments of the honorable members of the city council on their objections to the setting up of LPG refill stations for motor vehicles appear to be almost scripted. Meeting all safety and environmental standards is SOP for all types of business establishments, so why are our councilors so worked up about it being a highly flammable material and consistent with zoning ordinances, and all that eck-eck.

As I said earlier, we’ve been using LGP inside our very own homes for decades so everyone is already familiar with its smell and the dangers it poses to the neighborhood, which I bet anyone is considerably lesser than the odors emitted by your conventional gas stations peddling diesel, kero and gasoline. Si Ed Cabanlas ra man ang medyo tarong-tarong sa iyang comentaryo, because storing gas cylinders underground is in fact already standard with all those gas stations located amidst built-up and highly populated urban centers.

Why wasn’t there a peep when the new entrants to the petroleum products industry set up new gas stations in the midst of densely populated neighborhoods like Carmen Ilaya, Nazareth, Kauswagan and Cogon?

LPG is liquid petroleum gas, mostly propane and butane. It is a by-product of oil refining and can be liquefied at room temperature using moderate pressures. The city bus fleet of Vienna, Austria runs on LPG. The fuel is a good substitute for gasoline but suffers from two disadvantages: LPG vehicles are banned from underground parking structures since it is heavier than air but normally odorless and invisible; any spill in an enclosed space creates a serious fire hazard. The chemical industry uses LPG as a feedstock, which drives up prices. Hence, LPG is unlikely to increase its currently low share of the motor fuel market.

Instead of pressing the panic button (at the behest of gas station owners, no doubt), why don’t our honorable members of the city council study Taipei’s experience with LPG-run vehicles? I think it will be a good educational tour for everyone, especially since 2007 is just around the corner.

When Greater Taipei encountered difficulties in setting up LPG filling stations, its EPA sat down with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and other agencies to loosen up regulations to increase the willingness of businesses to apply to set up LPG fill up stations.(Ah na na na na na! Bale na hinuon atong konseho imbes nga mo-encourage sa mga investors niini!)

The EPA noted that promoting LPG as a fuel for motor vehicles is an important policy for the agency. To speed up the process, the EPA announced administrative guidelines for subsidizing the upgrade or substitution of regular cabs for LPG ones (That costs a cool P20,000 for a taxi in CDO, just for the record).

The guidelines use economic incentives from the Air Pollution Fund to encourage cabs to switch to LPG. We could use a similar scheme working through the Clean Air Act and we don’t have to wait for the House and the Senate either. The city council can enact this as a local ordinance.

The EPA points out that from the opening of subsidies up until November of 1999, subsidies were given to help 24,539 cabs switch over to LPG. Of these, 14,238 were in the Greater Taipei area, 8,655 in Taipei City, and 5,583 in Taipei County.

However, because the number of LPG refill stations had not grown apace of the number of LPG cars, promotion of LPG vehicles hit a bottleneck. The EPA actively offered suggestions to the Energy Commission of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) on how to break through the impasse.

These suggestions were aimed at revising unreasonably strict regulations that would help out LPG taxis with no place to refill. After a number of meetings and negotiations between various departments, the regulations governing set up of gas stations and LPG stations have been revised.

Now, gas stations and LPG stations can be set up together and the total required area reduced significantly. Furthermore, the installation of private LPG storage facilities has been permitted so that shipping and construction industries, factories or other organizations can install such facilities with central government approval.

The EPA noted that the regulatory revisions have significantly raised businesses willingness to set up LPG stations. Instead of harping about the threats to safety and the environment posed by LPG refill stations, why don’t our honorable councilors simply take a page out of the Greater Taipei experience? Or better still, take an educational tour cum trade mission to Taipei to learn first hand how the Taiwanese did it?