"This is a significant victory for retailers and consumers," said NACS vice [image-nocss] president of government relations John Eichberger said in the National Association of Convenience Stores' newsletter. "After several years of debate and several analyses of costs and benefits, the states' regulators finally determined there is insufficient justification to support a change in the way motor fuels are sold. NCWM determined that ATC will result in higher costs for consumers while providing little to no benefit. The vote of the entire conference confirms that consensus has coalesced against implementing ATC at retail."
Eichberger reported that during the open hearing on the topic, at least 47 individuals spoke to the issue. Of those, more than 40, including industry representatives and state officials, voiced opposition to the proposals. Meanwhile, those speaking in favor were two consultants (at least one of whom has been hired by the plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation) and three individuals from various areas in the state of California.
"NCWM operates as a consensus organization," Eichberger explained. "Given the overwhelming opposition expressed against these proposals, the conference realized that it was impossible to move forward with the issue. By withdrawing the proposals, the conference affirmatively removed the issue from the conference agenda. This can be considered a full repudiation of the 'hot gas' allegations and the ATC issue in general."
According to NACS, the final report adopted by the Conference stated: "The overwhelming majority of comments were opposing ATC under 232-1 [required] and 232-2 [voluntary]. Primary reasons for the Committee's decision were conference consensus against ATC, economic cost factors, lack of benefit to consumers, absence of uniformity in the marketplace, and the additional cost to Weights and Measures officials and service companies. Due to the current economic situation, States currently have decreasing budgets which limits their resources for additional testing time and equipment. Consumers may have to incur the cost for the implementation of ATC and would have to deal with the possibility of fewer retailers in the marketplace. There was also concern with retailers in rural areas and how this additional burden would be a financial and economic hardship. Two studies, the California Energy Commission (CEC) study titled 'Fuel Delivery Temperature Study' and the Alaska Fuel Metering Project, were submitted. With the release of the CEC study, it was documented that it was not cost beneficial for either consumer or industry. A few stakeholders expressed that making it permissive and or mandatory would be anti-competitive. There was concern about educating consumers on ATC. Consumers would have to know the difference between purchasing gas in today's market and an ATC market in order to make a value comparison."
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.