06-14-07 by dugan
You wouldn’t have known from the MSM in California that three modest proposals for curbing Big Oil’s consumer abuses passed their first key committee votes in the California Legislature this week. There’s one good reason… jaded reporters figure Chevron and friends are biding their time—to amend the bills to meaninglessness, bury them in a Senate committee, gut them later in a final conference committee or, their final ace in the hole, depend on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto them.
These are the fates that befell nearly every bill that Big Oil opposed in the state Legislature last year, and the third bill below has already been amended to mush.
Still, if groups like OilWatchdog and their supporters can keep up the pressure this year, there’s at least a chance that the other two measures will amount to something.
Here are the bills:
AB1552 by Los Angeles Assemblyman Mike Feuer. It’s probably the best of the lot, because its requirement for much more complete reporting about the refinery business empowers state regulators, provides somewhat more public information and makes it easier for the state Attorney General to take legal action. It’s also the hardest one for the industry to oppose or Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto: no overt regulation, no tax.
AB1610 by Speaker Fabian Nuñez. Gives the state some authority to directly oversee refinery operations, including downtime, and to send inspectors to determine the cause and duration of outages—which were the cause of this year’s short supply. OilWatchdog wishes the bill required refiners to keep more supply on hand, which could include imports as well as direct production, but at least it recognizes the source of the problem: If refiners aren’t actually gaming the system, they’ve neglected maintenance and modernization so thoroughly that their refineries are not reliable. Either is a cause for action.
AB868 by Assemblyman Mike Davis. This bill has already been amended to near uselessness. It purports to attack the “hot fuel” ripoff that costs California drivers about half a billion dollars a year. Gasoline expands as it gets warmer and provides less miles per gallon as the temperature goes up. Hotter fuel is more profitable for retailers, because they buy it at a price adjusted to a 60-degree standard and sell the expanded version. Gasoline should be sold through temperature-adjusted nozzles so motorists get a fair measure for the buck–it’s not rocket science. The bill acknowledges the dishonesty, then punts, calling for “studies” of the problem until 2008. An amendment then calls for an "advisory group," including industry representatives, to study for another year. Put your hopes on a federal bill.