OCR Text |
Show & Joe Spear DOE squanders oil payback funds Washington The big oil companies are currently paying back billions of dollars they overcharged for oil and gas during the 1970s. But thanks to sloppy thinking and even sloppier supervision by the federal bureaucrats entrusted with dispensing dispen-sing the money, the consumer is getting bilked again. Here's the story: In the 1970s, several oil companies were found to have violated oil and gas price controls then in effect. After years of negotiations and red tape, the oil companies have begun paying back the illegal overcharges. It would be impossible to give the . money back to all the individuals liWho were 'actually overcharged several years ago. So the billions of dollars are being put in a kitty controlled by the Department of Energy, which then dispenses it to various states according to the best estimate of fair sharing. The trouble, according to an unreleased General Accounting Office Of-fice report obtained by our associate Tony Capaccio, is that the DOE has allowed "payments to institutions ... that were not actually injured by overcharges." . ' GAO auditors studied consent orders totaling $36 million entered into by DOE and four oil companies: Chevron, Standard Oil of Ohio, Imperial Refineries and Site Oil Company of Missouri. They found that DOE hadn't bothered to consult the overcharged consumers utilities, airlines, schools, small businesses, towns and individuals. This was improper, GAO concluded. But what really bumed the GAO sleuths and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., was that DOE "agreed to settlement terms which may not provide for restitution." For example, exam-ple, DOE allowed these uses of the overcharge repayments:, Repairs and maintenance of highways, bridges and airports. "Hardly akin to restitution for oil overcharges," Dingell complained to DOE Secretary John Herrington. Georgia is being allowed to spend $250,380 of its reimbursement to buy 642 breathalyzers for its drunk-driver testing program. "The connection to overcharged consumers consum-ers is remote," Dingell wrote. Nebraska won DOE approval for spending $100,000 of its overcharge windfall on a project . intended to demonstrate that trees used for shade and windbreaks can help reduce heating and cooling costs. The project would also "instill in students an enthusiasum for tree planting," the GAO report notes. Most outrageous of all, perhaps, was Texas's plan to use its $798,858 share of overcharge restitution restitu-tion money for projects at the state university's bureau of economic geology. In Texas, geology means searching for oil, as the GAO auditors were quick to note. The projects funded by the overcharge refunds, the report explains, "would directly benefit energy producers" the very culprits who overcharged their customers in the first place. It's almost as if a mugger were given the little old lady's purse back after he was found guilty. STRICTLY PERSONAL: A Washington, Wash-ington, D.C., businessman recently received a fancy "information" packet from the U.S. Treasury announcing that new, multicolored, supposedly counterfeit-proof govern ment checks will soon replace the familiar green punch exuds. The businessman asked us to find out why the government was spending so much to publicize the new checks. We learned that the packets were mailed to some 15,000 businesses across the country mostly liquor stores and others that cash government govern-ment checks for customers. The packages of glossy posters and flyers cost "about $5 apiece," according to ' a Treasury official. But the packets were only a small part of the Treasury Department's campaign to tell the public about its new checks.. The total price tag for .'. the public-relations . effort will, come to $500,000. the official said. He explained, "If you're using a certain check for 40 years, it takes a public awareness campaign" to' make a change. Our businessman friend insisted, however, that he could have been sufficiently informed with a simple letter. We've also been hearing many complaints about the latest postal rate hike to 22 cents for a first-class letter. But Earle Stillwell of Bethesda, Md., has a gripe that transcends a mere 2-cents increase. Stillwell sent off payment of a fuel bill to his oil company, but postal employees couldn't read the address. ad-dress. He had neglected to put a return address on the envelope, so the post office opened it to determine the sender. The letter was then returned to Stillwell at a charge of 70 cents. By the time he mailed a new check to the oil company, it was overdue and he had to pay a finance charge of 85 cents. |