Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/12/2009 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Review of House Judiciary Report on Retail Gasoline Prices in Alaska|| Hb68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
[Contains discussion of HB 68]
CO-CHAIR MILLETT announced that the only order of business would
be a review of the House Judiciary Standing Committee Report on
retail gasoline prices in Alaska.
3:08:46 PM
Ed Sniffen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair
Business Section, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL),
summarized the conclusion of the Attorney General's Report 2008
Alaska Gasoline Pricing Investigation, and said that there was
no evidence of illegal activity related to the pricing of
gasoline. He described the investigative process of collecting
information, looking at documents, and interviewing witnesses
from the retail, distribution, and refinery businesses of the
retail gasoline market. The collected information was then
reviewed by a petroleum economist. Mr. Sniffen informed the
committee that after careful consideration, the conclusion
reached was that there are market reasons for the recent
movement in the price of gas. The initial investigation began
in August when the differential between the price of gas in
Anchorage, compared to prices in the Lower 48, grew to $1.06;
the difference in gas prices between the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska is historically about $0.13 and questions were raised
about the cause of this increase.
3:11:15 PM
MR. SNIFFEN stated that after looking at the information, the
economist concluded that the record pace of the rise, and
subsequent fall, of oil prices was unprecedented. The pricing
volatility of crude oil pricing was coupled with Alaska's unique
oligopoly market. He explained that an oligopoly is a
concentrated market with a few competitors that account for all
of the market share. Even when competitors do not collude, in
this type of environment competitors' market strategies are well
known to each other. These two factors can explain the price
differentials to some extent, although oil companies may have
taken advantage of this scenario and earned healthy profits.
Mr. Sniffen advised that the Department of Law (DOL) could find
no evidence of a violation of state law in documents or in
testimony. He concluded that high prices are unfortunate and
frustrating; however, the DOL was "satisfied that there was
nothing illegal going on."
3:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether "price-gouging"
legislation that is now proposed before the Senate, if enacted,
would have spurred an investigation by the attorney general into
price fixing by refineries.
3:16:11 PM
MR. SNIFFEN opined oil refiners would have raised prices anyway;
however, an investigation would have ensued when prices did not
fall with those in the Lower 48 and the differential exceeded
the statutory cap.
3:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN gave a point of order on the discussion
of proposed bills.
3:16:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS presented the House Judiciary Committee
Report titled Alaska Gasoline Pricing Report, and explained that
the report was tasked by the speaker of the house during the
summer of 2008. Representative Ramras commended his staff
members for their contributions and the DOL for its assistance
in preparing the report. He noted that the report was prepared
entirely "in-house" and his office is wholly responsible for its
content and the process; nonetheless, all members of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee were offered the opportunity to
attach addendums. Thus, addendums are attached by
Representatives Gruenberg, Lynn, and Holmes. Also attached for
reference is the Alaska Petroleum Products Pricing Investigation
Closing Report prepared by the DOL and dated 11/21/2002.
3:21:56 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked for clarification on the timing of the
Attorney General's report and that of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
3:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS explained that the governor charged the
attorney general to look into possible illegal activity, and the
speaker of the house charged the House Judiciary Standing
Committee (HJUD) to make recommendations to the legislature for
possible action. The reports contain similar data, although the
intent of the judiciary committee was to consider price-gouging
legislation; in fact, the legislation that has been proposed to
the current legislature is referenced in the report.
Representative Ramras confirmed that the HJUD committee reached
the same conclusion as the attorney general. He opined
government has three options: to regulate the market, through
proposed price-gouging legislation; to subsidize the market,
through a discount on the cost of royalty oil; and to
incentivize the market. Representative Ramras then described
the status of Alaska refineries and their product share.
3:25:22 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON asked whether there is vertical integration in
Alaska, from the refinery level down to the retail [outlets.]
3:26:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested there is a "Gordian knot." He
explained the State of Washington produces 10 times the volume
of gasoline as Alaska; however, Alaska produces twice as much
jet aviation fuel. The HJUD committee was interested in the
fuel storage situation and the incentive of building large
storage tanks in Anchorage. However, an unintended consequence
of this incentive is to open up the market for large grocery
chains that are in a position to fill the tanks with unbranded
retail gas and put smaller independent dealers out of business.
Representative Ramras said that the attorney general's report
concurs with the HJUD committee's concern that if the state
provides a large tanker and storage in the urban and Railbelt
market, the price of the stored gasoline over time may be higher
than recent, smaller shipments.
3:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS discussed the production of retail
gasoline with Petro Star, Inc. (Petro Star), and its
representative said that Alaska is a static market and its
market share is two tenths of one percent of the national total.
Furthermore, Alaska has a very "efficient market, with matched
buyers and matched sellers," thus the refineries can charge
whatever the market can bear. He relayed that Petro Star is not
interested in entering the retail market even with inducements
from the government because the market is static, the market is
not growing, the market is well served, and there are too many
regulatory hurdles to overcome. Representative Ramras returned
to his description of the unusual period of time surrounding the
fluctuating gas pricing. During this time, the Lower 48
marketplace suffered from demand destruction, conservation
practices, recessionary economic conditions, and a surplus
supply of refined gasoline. There is a spectrum of refineries
across the nation, from complex refineries to simple refineries,
as are found in Alaska. A complex refinery is more efficient
but can not adjust its output. Alaska's simple refineries, like
Tesoro Corporation (Tesoro) and Flint Hills Resources (Flint
Hills) refineries in Alaska, can adjust their output according
to the marketplace. He then explained that demand destruction
is when consumers can not purchase a product because the price
is too high. Conservation is an adjustment to how consumers use
the product. A recessionary economic condition effects whether
consumers purchase the product, and a surplus supply places too
much of the product on the market.
3:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS gave an example of this effect. He
stressed that Alaska's simple refiners were able to respond to
the market and were not forced to drop their prices "far below
its break-even price." The result was that the refiners in
Alaska had a great advantage over the consumers, whereas in the
Lower 48, the consumers held the advantage. Representative
Ramras said the comparison between the Alaska and Washington
markets was completely inappropriate. Furthermore, refineries
in the Lower 48 can easily sell to a multi-state market, putting
lower prices within the reach of everyone connected by a
highway. This situation is not the same for Alaska, even for
the folks who live in the shadow of a refinery.
3:41:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS returned to the boundaries of the HJUD
investigation and noted that concerns were raised about whether
confidential and proprietary information should be revealed to
committee members. As the task of the committee was to
determine why the gasoline prices are still high and what
solutions can be legislated, the committee turned to other
variables in the Southcentral and Railbelt areas. He indicated
that separate investigations should study the peculiarities
surrounding the Southeast and Western Alaska retail gas markets.
3:44:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS further explained that the HJUD committee
continued its search for another significant variable in the
Southcentral and Railbelt marketplace that could negatively
impact the consumer, and concluded that it was the production of
jet aviation fuel. He referred to page 46 of the HJUD report
and read:
'Opportunity cost' is defined by Google as: 'The
value of the next best choice that one gives up when
making a decision.'
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reminded the committee that Alaska refines
twice the amount of aviation fuel as Washington. On a personal
note, he said that he was not defending the refineries and
described the effect of high gasoline prices on his business.
He then reminded the gallery that the reason refineries exist in
Alaska is for the production of jet aviation fuel, and not for
the purpose of producing refined gasoline and diesel fuel for
vehicles or home heating oil. He pointed out that the Stevens
Anchorage International Airport is the fourth busiest cargo
airport in the world due to its geographic location and
competitively priced jet aviation fuel. Furthermore, the price
of jet aviation fuel is set by the world market and the
Anchorage airport must compete.
3:49:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS called the committee's attention to the
[bar chart] on page 4 of the HJUD report that indicated the
average spread between Anchorage and Seattle retail gasoline
prices from 2002 to 2008. In March 2008, began a decoupling of
the spread that led to the investigations by the attorney
general and the HJUD committee. The HJUD committee theorized
that the U. S. went into a recession at the end of 2007 and
early in 2008, along with the rest of the world. Furthermore,
the chart indicates that in April 2008, the disparity in pricing
between Alaska and Seattle moved from $0.20 to $0.80. This
happened because at the same time there was a glut in the
refined gasoline market causing gas to be dumped in the Lower
48, jet aviation fuel was also being dumped onto the global
market, lowering its market price. Representative Ramras
acknowledged that the HJUD report was prepared without subpoenas
and the investigation of proprietary information; however, the
committee found that the Alaska refineries have two markets, the
global jet aviation marketplace and the Railbelt. Furthermore,
the two refineries, Tesoro and Flint Hills, must match the
global price of aviation fuel in order to maintain the
competitive position of the Anchorage airport. Representative
Ramras emphasized the financial connections between the
Anchorage airport and Fairbanks International Airport and the
fiscal importance of the production of jet aviation fuel to
both. In fact, the Fairbanks airport is subsided by the
Anchorage airport so that it can serve as a diversionary airport
for Anchorage. He then gave an example of different profit
margins for a variety of products.
3:55:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS reiterated that the accepted conclusion of
the HJUD report is that the refineries are laying off the losses
from jet aviation fuel onto refined gasoline, low-sulfur diesel,
and diesel consumers. Furthermore, seven infrastructure assets,
for example, Eielson Air Force Base and Elmendorf Air Force
Base, were identified as being uniquely dependent on jet
aviation fuel. Representative Ramras remarked:
What if the refiners are laying off a disproportionate
amount of their operating costs when they lose a
dollar a gallon on jet aviation fuel, are they laying
that cost off onto the consumer? Now, the legal term
of art for that we just learned ... is called 'cross
subsidization.' ... If we take testimony from the
public that this will be one of the considerations
that is greatly offensive to the public. ... that the
consumers of Alaska could possibly be subsidizing the
cost of jet aviation fuel for a global marketplace.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS then explained that the HJUD committee
considered the possible unintended consequences of enacting
price regulations: The exit of the Alaska refiners leading to
the loss of the two air force bases, the two refineries, the
Alaska Railroad, the Stevens Anchorage International Airport,
and the Fairbanks International Airport. These losses would
represent about 10 percent of the state's gross domestic product
and 10 percent of the state's work force. In addition, jet
aviation fuel is a value-added product for Alaska, along with
mining, fishing, oil, and gas. Representative Ramras opined
these jobs and infrastructure assets are put at risk when the
government tries to regulate the consumer side of the market and
restricts the refiner's opportunity to lay off some of their
costs. Although this theory is unpopular with the public the
HJUD committee, in light of the attorney general's proof of no
anti-trust [violation], no collusion, and no criminal activity,
is trying to offer the reason why gasoline prices stay high.
4:02:28 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked Mr. Sniffen for his theory.
4:02:47 PM
MR. SNIFFEN said that he had no reason to dispute the factual
basis of the conclusions of the HJUD committee. He opined that
there is cross subsidization between jet aviation fuel and
gasoline, even though the economist felt market factors weighed
more heavily. He concluded that the pricing dynamics of Tesoro
and Flint Hills must include consideration of all of their
products. That said, he differed the question to the economist.
4:04:27 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON returned to page 32 of the HJUD report that
discussed the Tesoro refinery and its 31 convenience stores and
58 branded stores. He asked:
So, in terms of the pricing dynamics from the refiner
to the wholesaler to the retail outlet down to the
consumer, what kind of market presence, the percentage
basis, are the 29 outlets owned by Tesoro? ... Are we
talking 50 percent, 20 percent? Do we know?
4:05:51 PM
MR. SNIFFEN assured the committee that his office looked at the
numbers; however, this is proprietary information. He stated
that there is vertical integration from the Tesoro refinery down
to the company-owned stations. Mr. Sniffen explained that the
branded stations are a little more independent and set their
prices after paying the delivery price at their station (DTW).
The Alaska Tesoro stations are not integrated in that they do
not own the supply of oil; in Alaska, the level of integration
starts at the refiner. Therefore, Tesoro has the advantage of
setting the wholesale and retail price, in addition to its
significant share of the Alaska market. The other major
suppliers are Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Holiday Stationstores, Inc.,
and Shell Oil Company.
4:08:22 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON remarked:
You can't tell the committee the exact percentage of
ownership of our retail outlets that the major refiner
in the State of Alaska which produces 85 percent of
the gasoline, that supplies basically 100 percent of
the Railbelt, you can't tell us that percentage of the
market in Anchorage, but it's a significant amount.
And we know there is vertical integration, but we
can't say that there's price-gouging, we can't say
there's parallel pricing, we can't say if there's
collusion, we can't say that there's monopoly activity
because - can you finish that sentence for me?
4:09:09 PM
MR. SNIFFEN agreed that there is parallel pricing, but not
necessarily due to illegal activity. Furthermore, there is
competition in most of Alaska, with the exception of rural
Alaska, where monopolistic practices exist, but are not
necessarily illegal. This situation is troubling, but the DOL
is limited by what can be done.
4:10:47 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON observed there are two different messages: the
literal interpretation and the "gray area". He called
attention to page 19 of the attorney general's report and read,
"Tesoro owns or leases several tanker trucks to make these
deliveries."
4:11:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN disagreed that consumers are subsidizing
jet fuel. His theory is that traditionally the aviation
industry and airlines like to know in advance the cost of fuel;
thus they contract in advance for 30 to 60 days to lock in
prices and set airfares. Last year the airlines contracted a
price with the refiners, but when the price of oil went up, the
refiners sold jet fuel at a significant loss. That kept the
wholesale price up until now. Representative Petersen noted
that the graph on page 5 of the HJUD report indicates there is
still a large differential between Alaska prices and the Lower
48; therefore the companies have to continue to keep prices high
to "get back to profitability."
4:15:25 PM
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Petersen,
acknowledged that may have been the case for some; however,
airline contracts are keyed to market indices. He opined the
refiners would not have been losing money because losses were
tempered as prices moved with the market.
4:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN observed that Alaska residents want to
know why gasoline and diesel fuel prices are high; neither
report gives a definite answer. He encouraged the committee to
continue to look for satisfactory answers.
4:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS read from Representative Lynn's addendum:
Trying to get definitive answers was difficult. The
best we could do was to confirm a multiplicity of
factors is involved. Many of the public explanations
by the refinery representatives were a rehash of what
we already knew or suspected. ... I have a problem
with government imposed price controls, whether for
gasoline or anything else. Typically price controls
are counterproductive, result in many unintended
consequences, and create more problems than they
solve.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS read from Representative Holmes' addendum:
First, the attorney general's office has been studying
this issue in greater depth and its public report is
expected in the very near future; this committee
would benefit from seeing that report before
finalizing our own. ... Second, the report comments on
newly introduced legislation that has not yet been
heard by any committee, let alone by this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS read from Representative Gruenberg's
addendum:
... it was unfortunate that we do not have that
department's thinking before publishing this
committee's report. ... The laws of other states were
not adequately discussed, there was insufficient
review of other state [laws], such as those from
Hawaii and North Carolina. ... [The report] offers no
serious discussion on whether government should take a
more active role in solving the problem. Finally the
report paints a doomsday portrait should HB 68 pass
before hearings have ever been scheduled on the bill.
Ultimately, the report concludes that the legislature
is powerless to do anything about the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS invited Mr. Sniffen to speak about the
subpoena process used in the DOL investigation, and about
Hawaii's experience with price regulation.
4:21:01 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked Mr. Sniffen whether his report discovered
that any anti-trust laws were broken.
4:21:38 PM
MR. SNIFFEN said no. In response to Representative Ramras he
described Hawaii's price regulation legislation. In 2005, the
power to regulate the wholesale price of gasoline was granted to
the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission. The legislation keyed
the maximum price allowed the two Hawaii refiners to Gulf Coast
and West Coast prices. After Hurricane Katrina, Gulf Coast
prices were driven up, and the refiners immediately set their
prices at the maximum allowable. He opined that the price cap
creates a "safe harbor," that encourages manufacturers to price
products at the cap. On the subject of subpoenas, Mr. Sniffen
affirmed during his investigation subpoenas and civil
investigative demands (CIDs) were issued for interviews and for
written information from the refineries, distributors, and
retailers. Thousands of documents regarding pricing strategies
and wholesale contracts were studied. He said that he was
"comfortable that the conclusions we reached are absolutely
accurate and correct." In response to Representative Edgmon's
comment about price gouging, he advised that in Alaska law, the
only thing illegal about pricing could be anti-trust behavior,
or "unconscionable" pricing that violates the Alaska Consumer
Protection Act. He concluded that gas prices are high because
the market is at work and there is not much competition in
Alaska; these conditions allow the gasoline wholesalers to price
their products as they are unless there is evidence of
collusion.
4:27:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed his disappointment that the
HJUD report did not include Southeast and Western Alaska in its
investigation. He recalled two prior reports on gas pricing,
one issued during the Knowles Administration, that also found
nothing wrong. He said that he has faith in the work done by the
DOL. Regarding price gouging he referred to page [11] of the
attorney general's report and read:
Simply having a high price for gasoline is not price
gouging in Alaska, even if those prices are in excess
of prices in other parts of the country.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN understood the difficulty to consumers,
especially those communities limited to bulk fuel supply by
barge lines or air service. He described the situation in
Ketchikan.
4:31:35 PM
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Ramras, confirmed
that the attorney general's office holds broad subpoena power
not subject to judicial approval. He said that he was not
familiar with legislative subpoena power. In further response
to Representative Ramras, he said that the report was produced
by himself, as the primary and only attorney, with the help of
an investigator and an economist with Econ One Research Inc.
(Econ One). The contract with Econ One cost under $150,000.
4:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS pointed out that the HJUD committee did
not have subpoena powers or CIDs, and had no investigator or
support from an economist. He opined the HJUD committee
produced a report in agreement with the attorney general and
that also presented a hypothesis beyond the scope of previous
reports. He asked Mr. Sniffen whether price gouging legislation
would prevent high prices.
4:35:22 PM
MR. SNIFFEN acknowledged the difficulty of this question and
cited the problem that arose in Hawaii. He opined there are
potential risks, such as driving refiners out of business and
forcing prices higher. In response to Representative Ramras,
Mr. Sniffen provided his resume and title. Regarding price
gouging regulation, he said that he held no authority to speak
to the DOL position with regard to regulatory legislation.
4:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his appreciation for the HJUD
committee report. He referred to the graph on page 5 and
surmised the blue line representing average USA prices would
have been lower had Alaska prices not been included.
4:39:28 PM
JANE PIERSON, Chief of Staff to Representative Jay Ramras,
Alaska State Legislature, agreed.
4:39:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that gasoline prices in July and
August could have been as high as $7 per gallon and asked for an
explanation.
4:39:54 PM
MS. PIERSON opined during this time there was a glut on market
and this was also the time of highest use in Alaska.
Furthermore, in Alaska change does not come as quickly as in the
Lower 48.
4:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to a 2008 Reuters [news agency]
report and read:
American based companies are shipping record amounts
of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries. A
record of 1.6 billion barrels a day for the first four
months of this year up to 33 percent from 1.2
[billion] barrels prior to that year.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed that a shortage of oil causes
prices to up, but there was no shortage. Referring to the chart
on page 13 of the HJUD report, he asked whether petroleum
products refined in Alaska are exported.
4:42:32 PM
MS. PIERSON advised that Alaska does not export gas; however,
she was unsure about jet aviation fuel. In further response to
Representative Tuck, she said that Alaska consumes all of the
gas it refines.
4:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN relayed in Hawaii the legislature
regulated the price of gas, but not of diesel fuel. After
Hurricane Katrina, gas prices came down due to the regulations,
but the price of diesel fuel stayed high. He then asked about
"cross subsidization" and how much is added to the price of gas
to subsidize jet fuel.
4:44:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he was not sure. He gave the example
of Agrium Inc., and surmised the price of jet aviation was the
same for all consumers. He did not offer the legal definition
of the term "cross subsidization."
4:46:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the residents of the North
Star Borough are subsidizing jet fuel by paying higher prices
for home heating fuel.
4:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS assured Representative Petersen that the
residents of Fairbanks are subsidizing the economy of Anchorage
because, if the HJUD committee theory is correct, they are
paying higher prices to protect the supply of aviation fuel that
supports jobs in Anchorage. He strongly expressed his point of
view supporting a free market over more government control.
4:47:51 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked Mr. Sniffen for historical data on how
many previous reports have been issued by the attorney general
on Alaska gasoline pricing.
4:48:07 PM
MR. SNIFFEN said that he was aware of one other that began in
1999. The investigation was slowed by debate over
confidentiality and an interim report was issued in 2000 and the
closing report was issued in 2002. These reports are available
for the committee. Interestingly, in the 80's there was an
investigation of gasoline prices that resulted in prosecutions
of anti-trust violations in Anchorage. In response to Co-Chair
Millett, he added that two or three independent gas station
owners were involved, and the refineries were not.
4:51:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN corrected his previous statement,
although the reports come to the same conclusion, he said.
4:51:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled that the price of gasoline went
down as a result of the investigation.
4:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS pointed out that gas prices came down
after the HJUD committee investigation.
4:53:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK assumed that Alaska is self sustaining as
far as its source of gas. Furthermore, according to the HJUD
committee report, it is not cost effective for another party to
enter the market outside of the existing refineries. If this is
so, there is no reason that Alaska prices would increase. He
then turned to page 9, and paraphrased:
Pricing strategies and the refining/distribution costs
... have global and regional factors, ... which
include but are not limited to electricity costs, gas
fuel cost, environmental regulations, equipment cost,
maintenance cost, labor costs and the cost of
additional capital investments that may be required by
regulation changes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood the increase in energy and
equipment costs and asked whether there have been changes in
environmental regulations. If not, and Alaska is refining its
own gas, there was no reason for the increase in prices.
4:55:48 PM
MS. PIERSON confirmed that there have been strict regulatory
standards, especially regarding the production of low-sulfur
diesel; in fact, Tesoro is the only facility in Alaska producing
low-sulfur diesel.
4:56:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained his question.
4:56:44 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON stated his appreciation of both reports. He
noted frustration over high prices in Alaska; however, no one is
breaking the law and market forces prevail in Alaska and other
states. He cautioned about the danger of crossing the line to
unfair trade practices. Representative Edgmon concluded that
there is a business relationship between major refineries and
the outlets in Anchorage and questions remain for expert
witnesses. He cited the situation in Western Alaska where
residents are "paying incredibly high prices with no real
understanding of what goes into ... the [overall] pricing
structure."
4:59:14 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT thanked the presenters.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Retail Gasoline Study.pdf.pdf |
HENE 2/12/2009 3:00:00 PM |
|
| 2008GasolinePricingReport.pdf |
HENE 2/12/2009 3:00:00 PM |