California Consumer Groups Dispute ‘Hot Fuel’ Report
Two consumer rights groups in California are claiming that the lead
energy commissioner involved in a gasoline "hot fuel" study has a
conflict of interest because his wife serves in an executive position
with the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
As a result, the two groups contend that the findings of the California
Energy Commission report, on whether to mandate standards for automatic
temperature compensation (ATC) for California’s retail gasoline
stations, were made to support the viewpoints of the oil industry (see
OW 12/15/2008).
One of the groups, Consumer Watchdog, sent a letter to Commissioner
James Boyd on Feb. 9 about his potential conflict of interest, and on
Feb. 24, Consumer Watchdog and Public Citizen filed a request for
public records of the California Energy Commission, seeking
correspondence between energy commission staff and Commissioner Boyd.
Commissioner Boyd is vice chair of the transportation committee for the
California Energy Commission. His committee was charged to prepare the
report.
His wife, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, is WSPA’s chief operating officer.
"The public should know what communications Commissioner Boyd has had
with the Energy Commission’s professional staff on the fuel temperature
report since he became involved in mid-2008," said Consumer Watchdog’s
research director Judy Dugan.
"The report has substantially skewed toward the view of the oil
industry lobbyists who have been working the issue for months. Many of
the companies pushing hardest to stop reform are members of the Western
States Petroleum Association, the employer of Commissioner Boyd’s
spouse. Her sudden resignation of her formal lobbying role [on Feb. 9,
according to Dugan] is just evidence of the inherent legal conflict in
her job."
Consumer Watchdog disagreed with the report’s conclusion, which was
that mandating that California retail gasoline stations be retrofitted
with ATC dispensers to compensate for "hot fuel" resulted in negative
or a net cost to society under all the options examined.
According to the California Energy Commission report’s executive
summary: "If the only criterion for assessing the merit of mandatory
ATC installation for use at California retail stations is a net benefit
to customers, the Transportation Committee (Committee) of the
California Energy Commission concludes ATCs should not be required
since the results of the cost-benefit analysis show a net cost for
consumers."
But Dugan objected to the report’s final recommendations: "Without
temperature compensating pumps, drivers have no way to know the
temperature of the fuel they are buying. They have no way to determine
whether one gas station’s posted price is actually better than another
station’s posted price, [because] fuel temperature can vary widely
between nearby stations."
She later continued, "The report must be reconsidered before submission
to the legislature. Any input on its content by Commissioner Boyd
should be disregarded. At the very least, the report must reflect
variances of even economists’ opinion on whether and how much consumers
would save from temperature compensation of fuel. And it must regard
transparency and fairness in economic transactions as a fundamental
consumer protection, not a mere ‘public perception.’"
The California Energy Commission, which was set to vote on the final
report of the fuel delivery temperature study, rescheduled the vote to
Mar. 11, after already rescheduling the original Feb. 11 vote to Feb.
25.