California gas stations choose to close instead of buying vapor-reducing pumps
Photo by ellievanhoutte. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
This April, a mandate from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) called the Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program (EVRP) will go into effect. The idea behind the program is to get next-generation clean nozzles and equipment installed at fuel pumps in the state in order to control emissions. Sounds like a good thing, right? The environment wins becasue ground-level ozone should be reduced and people win, too.
What's the problem? These new cleaner gas stations aren't cheap, and "dozens, and potentially hundreds" of gas stations in California might close down instead to upgrade. In other words, in this case, going green means going out of business. According to the Pasadena Star-News, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has heard from 76 refueling sites (of about 4,500 total in its area) that will shut down because of the high costs of the EVRP. CARB responds by saying that gas prices will go up by about 0.68 cents a gallon to cover the cost of upgrading.
[Source: Pasadena Star-News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Tim 3:44PM (1/28/2009)
So the little independent gas stations are FORCED to close because they can not afford to comply with Statism’s central planning directives.
BIG SURPRISE!
I'm sure that the big corporations who can afford to comply with (and actually orchestrated) the central planning are glad to see these fleas go.
With less competition, they can increase their prices and profits while spending less on service and innovation. They win, WE lose!
Giant corporations LOVE Statism and that's why they spend BILLIONS every year to bribe politicians who help them destroy their competition.
Statitst are evil and will thrive because PROGRESSIVES are schmucks!
Oh, JOY! Change is here!
Welcome to the New World Order. Resistance is futile.
Prepare to be assimilated or you will be exterminated!
Reply
Max 6:24PM (1/28/2009)
It's right wing skum like you that's costing this country billions of dollars for nothing. Try $100 million to promote abstinence...with absolutely no effect. $20bn in Iraq funds unaccounted for.
And then they bitch about measures made to protect our air, out health and the environment.
Chris M 10:33PM (1/28/2009)
Max, I think you'll find that Tim is more of a Libertarian Anarchist than a "Right winger". Judging by his past posts, Tim seems to think the only function of government should be Military and Policing, and he is even a little leery about that.
I'm certain he didn't approve of the "abstinence only" programs or the disasterous misadventure in Iraq. Oh, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
UltimoDragon 12:39AM (1/30/2009)
Hey Tim: For all of the complaining about 'da gubmint' putting regulatory hurdles on businesses and corporations, you rarely hear anyone suggest that those same ventures make changes to their business model to adjust and compete. The government is going to get theirs through taxes and tariffs either way--you might as well adapt your business for the better, or get left behind by smarter entrepreneurs.
If a man is not owed a job, he's certainly not entitled to a failed business model, either.
Tim 9:48AM (1/30/2009)
UltimoDragon,
You don't understand the concept of property RIGHTS, do you?
ChrisM,
I believe that Washington and Madison were right and Hamilton was a traitor and an agent for the English banking cartel known as "The Crown" which is the same group of families that now own the Fed and World Bank which are collapsing all nation's fiat currency so sheeple will beg for a ONE GLOBAL ORDER which THEY can more easily control. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Gordon Brown have ALL spoken openly of this end game.
You, my friend are wrong in that ignorance is NOT always bliss.
Statism = Tyranny, NOT “progress”!
Be careful of what you wish for. You may find it’s not what you really wanted.
Matt 4:11PM (1/28/2009)
yeah, what he [Tim] said
Reply
BoomBoom 4:33PM (1/28/2009)
Tim,
You're right. We shouldn't mandate anything that might put someone out of business. That is terrible.
Last time I checked, the boards of all the big oil companies were conservatives, not progressives...
Reply
BlueGreen 4:58PM (1/28/2009)
Wow, that is the most amazing conflation of thoughts I have seen in a long time. Central Planning Communists, Big Corporation step-on-the-little-guy Conservatives and Environmental Progressives all in the same bed? Who's left? 2-shotguns-and-a-cabin-in-the-woods Libertarians?
Reply
Edsel 5:22PM (1/28/2009)
The above responses are funny.
Massachusetts tried these recovery nozzles several years back and they didn't work. No one could pump a tank of gas without these nozzles shutting off every few seconds. We all reverted to holding open the outer rubber recovery part of the nozzle to finish filling our gas tanks.
None of the gas stations use these recovery devices anymore, at least not in my area.
slk23 6:55PM (1/28/2009)
Gas stations in the metropolitan areas of California have been using the vapor-recovery nozzles for years. No one seems to have a problem operating them.
When I go to gas stations in the country the non-vapor-recovery nozzles look strange and old-fashioned to me ;-}
MT 5:20PM (1/28/2009)
Now we have to put up with gorr and tim posting different but similar drivel in every other article.
So if something is detemined to be a risk to the public health or safety, the little guy gets a pass? That means mom and pop oil change shops get to dump their used oil instead of paying to have it recycled. Or the mom and pop garbage dump gets to burn their garbage or let in drain into streams or the water table. Anybody wanna open up a mom and pop nuclear waste disposal/storage facility?
Brilliant!
Reply
Don 6:49PM (1/28/2009)
Edsel, so why do Europeans fill up their cars with vapor recovery pumps and have no technical problems with it?
This is the 21st century, if you can't keep up with technology then you have to go. Or do you still heat your home with coal?
Respiratory problems caused by polluted air cost an estimated $220 billion a year in health care costs, but that's not something oil-war corrupted Republican ba$tards want to hear.
Reply
murc 12:45AM (1/29/2009)
well...I get my electricity from a coal plant...so I guess my answer then would be yes.
Nick 6:37PM (1/28/2009)
Tim, I should thank right-winger pro-life folks like you for assuring that my air is cancerous! With the tens of billions of $ spent on health care every year for air quality related respiratory issues.
Remember when W became mayor of Houston? Houston's air quality quickly became the worst in the nation...which adversely affected the economy...except for these oil and gas companies that later funded his campaings.
Tim, you are the kind of fool that the world makes fun of for your inability to comprehend and the stubborness with your idiotic ideas.
Reply
jfsvo 7:27PM (1/28/2009)
When was "W" the mayor of Houston?
DBinSD 4:49PM (1/29/2009)
Nick, apparently *you* are the kind of fool who thinks W was the mayor of Houston.
Oh, and you can't spell.
Gabe 2:46PM (1/30/2009)
Ah, yes, George W. Bush's term as mayor of Houston. That was right after six terms of being Duke of Corpus Christi, and just before he became vice-empress of Nacogdoches and the greater Lufkin area.
Chris M 8:57PM (1/28/2009)
All the gas stations in California have had vapor recovery nozzles for at least 20 years, so it is a bit puzzling what the flap is about. There was little resistance when vapor recovery nozzles were first introduced, as the cost wasn't all that much, and a busy station could recover several gallons worth of gasoline from the trapped vapors. With high gas prices and enough business, it actually paid to have vapor recovery installed.
The only thing I can figure is that there must be some "new and improved" version, which costs a lot of money and produces a minimal improvement in vapor emissions.
Reply
Paul 9:23PM (1/28/2009)
I'm certainly one of those "conservative scum" of whom you speak (well, fiscal anyway). And honestly, this IS a good example of bumbling government legislation resulting in unintended consequences, but one that really isn't all that disturbing. I can't abide by the CARB's insistence on harmful (yes harmful) state-by-state emission standards, but this one only hurts (or helps depending on your perspective) Californians, so who cares. Yeah, a few mom-n-pops might be gone, but honestly, they aren't a competitive force for driving down prices anyway. Since when did Joe's Gas and Bait Shop provide gas cheaper than a mega station?
On the ironic side, though, I'm wondering if the extra emissions required to now go to the next closest gas station (for those who were closest to the defunct ones) might actually offset any gains in pollution reduction achieved by mandating these nozzle condoms?
Don, I'd love to see the unbiased research (not something from Greenpeace or "Dr. so and so estimates...") that proves that air quality accounts for well over 10% of our overall health care expenditures. I'm all for reducing emissions, but I'm also all for facts. Our air quality today is already MUCH better today than 20-30 years ago. Catalytic converters, no lead, etc. have had a huge impact. So was it 20% or 30% of the healthcare budget back in 1975? Unless you count cigarette smoke as bad air quality, then I'm dubious...though I'm willing to be persuaded...even by some jack leg who thinks all Republicans are oil-war corrupted ba$tards.
Reply
texmln 9:40PM (1/28/2009)
So which is it? First you enviro-nutjobs claim that 'corporate America' is evil, withholding vital environmentally friendly technology and driving the little guys with great ideas out of business. Now you claim that only corporate America has the wherewithall to implement environmentally conscious changes and the little guy is evil and should go out of business because he can't afford to buy the state mandated environmental equipment.
As always, none of you have done a basic cost-benefit analysis on any of this stuff. Why don't you go take a look at the every-increasing costs of 'green' mandates with regard to cars and gasoline vs. the declinging impact of each incremental step. Bang for the buck disappeared a long time ago.
Reply