BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2098|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2098
Author: Migden (D)
Amended: 8/7/00 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/27/00
AYES: Bowen, Alarcon, Hughes, Kelley, Mountjoy, Solis
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 8/23/00
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-23, 5/30/00 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development
Commission
SOURCE : Attorney General
DIGEST : This bill requires the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission (CEC) to study the
feasibility of financing, constructing, and maintaining a
new pipeline or using an existing pipeline to transport
motor vehicle fuel and its components.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires CEC to develop
contingency plans to deal with possible shortages of
electrical energy or fuel supplies.
CONTINUED
AB 2098
Page
2
This bill requires the CEC, in consultation with the State
Fire Marshal, to study and assess the viability of building
new or expanding existing pipelines as a means of importing
more motor fuel or its components into California from the
Gulf Coast.
This bill also requires the study to include a discussion
about how the state can facilitate the use of a pipeline,
including the use of federal or state funds, as well as tax
credits, that could be used to build or expand a pipeline.
This bill provides that the study shall be conducted in
conjunction with any other studies required by acts enacted
during the 2000 portion of the 1999-00 session dealing with
gasoline prices, and requires the study to be completed by
January 31, 2002.
Comments :
California refiners export about 100,000 barrels of
gasoline a day to other states, which is approximately 10
percent of their overall production.
Currently, there is a pipeline that transports gasoline
from refineries in Los Angeles to Phoenix and another
pipeline that transports gasoline from El Paso to Phoenix.
A third leg of the connection, which would build a gasoline
pipeline from El Paso to Houston, is already under
construction. These three pipelines are owned by three
different companies.
Background :
The subject of high California gasoline prices has been a
recurring one over the past several years. During an
October 1996 San Diego hearing of the Senate Energy,
Utilities and Communications Committee, the Committee
established that oil company supply restrictions prevented
branded franchise dealers from seeking out the least
expensive branded supply. These restrictions were
identified as the major reason why significant wholesale
price differences between Los Angeles and San Diego
persisted during a time of vigorous competition in Los
Angeles, despite the fact that the two markets are 100
AB 2098
Page
3
miles apart. At the time, price differences of up to 15
cents per gallon were reported between San Diego and Los
Angeles, with similar disparities in prices between Los
Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area.
An April 1999 joint hearing held by the Senate Energy and
Utilities Committee and the Senate Transportation Committee
made it clear that the late 1998 and early 1999 dramatic
gasoline price hikes were triggered by a very brief
gasoline shortage and subsequent market speculation. The
testimony at the hearing indicated that the supply of
gasoline is closely matched with the demand for gasoline
and because higher prices don't reduce the demand for
gasoline substantially, any supply disruption causes prices
to rise quickly. The hearing also noted that proposed and
potential oil company mergers will lead to increased market
concentration, reduced competition, and in all likelihood,
higher gasoline prices.
In November 1999, the California Attorney General (AG)
convened a Task Force on Gas Pricing in California. The
purpose of the Task Force, which included representatives
from the oil industry and consumer groups, was to exchange
ideas and assess facts. In May, the Attorney General
issued a report summarizing the Task Force proceedings and
made six recommendations:
1. Increase competition.
2. Consider developing a strategic gasoline reserve.
3. Require the state to purchase imported supplies of fuel
for its own use.
4. Take aggressive steps to increase fuel economy and use
alternative fuels.
5. Free dealers to seek the best price for fuels.
6. Examine barriers to importing gas via pipeline.
Echoes of the California experience are now reverberating
in other states. While gasoline prices in California have
leveled off recently, gasoline price increases in the
AB 2098
Page
4
Midwest have raised the per gallon price of gasoline from
about $1.40 in early May to almost $2.50 for premium in
downtown Chicago, making California's cleaner, and, on
average, slightly higher-taxed gasoline look like a
bargain. In Michigan, the average gas prices jumped over
27 cents per gallon in a week.
The high prices are being blamed on a variety factors that
will sound familiar to those who have been following the
rise and fall of California's gas prices -- unplanned
pipeline and refinery shutdowns, higher crude oil prices,
price gouging, and problems in producing and distributing
clean-burning gas. California has, for a number of years,
had its own higher gasoline standard, but on June 1, new
federal regulations took effect requiring all gasoline to
meet higher standards in order to comply with federal clean
air standards. This "new" gasoline being produced to meet
the new federal standards is close to, but not identical
to, the gasoline produced to meet California's reformulated
gasoline rules.
California's gasoline prices are fairly close to the
national average, yet a number of misconceptions exist
relative to what drove the state's prices through the roof
last year. According to the CEC, in January 1999, branded
unleaded cost $1.13 per gallon while in mid-May it cost
$1.61 a gallon. Of that 48-cent difference, 39 cents is
attributable to higher crude oil costs, 4 cents comes from
increased taxes collect as a result of the higher-priced
gas, and 10 cents come from increased refinery costs and
profit margins (5 cents of which was achieved by reducing
the amount paid to retailers).
The preference of many Californian's for bigger, more
powerful vehicles is showing up in the statewide fuel
economy statistics. For the first time in many years, the
average on-road fuel economy for California vehicles as a
fleet declined. Coupled with a 1.5% annual growth in
vehicle miles traveled, the CEC forecasts that gasoline
demand will increase by 1.7% annually.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
AB 2098
Page
5
$200,000 one time cost from the Energy Resources Programs
Account.
SUPPORT : (Unable to verify at time of writing)
Attorney General (source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Bock, Calderon, Cardenas, Cardoza,
Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Frusetta, Gallegos, Havice, Honda,
Jackson, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Longville,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Mazzoni, Migden,
Nakano, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero,
Scott, Shelley, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson,
Torlakson, Villaraigosa, Vincent, Washington, Wayne,
Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Zettel, Hertzberg
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Bates, Battin,
Baugh, Brewer, Briggs, Campbell, Cox, Dickerson, House,
Kaloogian, Leonard, Margett, McClintock, Olberg, Oller,
Robert Pacheco, Runner, Strickland, Thompson
NC:jk 8/25/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****