STAMFORD, CT – A bill making its way through Connecticut's legislature that would give the state more authority to monitor the petroleum industry and clarify the state's price-gouging laws passed unanimously through the state's General Assembly General Law Committee last week, the Stamford Advocate reports. It now heads to the legislature's Judicial Committee.

The bill would require fuel companies to provide information on mergers and acquisitions to federal antitrust investigators and to Connecticut's attorney general. Companies meeting a certain size threshold would be subject to subpoenas from Connecticut's Office of the State Attorney General to determine whether they were engaging in tactics to "stifle" competition.

"Companies will certainly be allowed to grow by acquisition, providing that a business is acting fairly and not restraining trade," said statet Rep. Jim Shapiro, co-chairman of the Law Committee.

Companies looking to expand in Connecticut are likely to take issue with the bill's language, which allows the attorney general significant leeway to probe corporate growth, said Steve Guveyan, executive director of the Connecticut Petroleum Council.

"What if a company wants to build its market share and increases in size by 5 or 6 percent based on just competitiveness?" Guveyan said. "Most companies want to grow, and it appears this law might impede the growth of companies down the road."

The bill also includes a mathematical definition that the state would use to identify gas station price gouging subsequent to natural disasters. The definition would consider both retail and wholesale prices pre- and post-disaster.

"In the past, gas dealers have had trouble knowing what constitutes an emergency and what the definition of gouging is," Shapiro said. "So the current provisions against gouging have been tough to enforce. This new anti-gouging provision clarifies the rules to provide consumers and businesses information to act accordingly when there is problems."

The Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association (ICPA) agrees and remains cautiously optimistic.

"We are absolutely, categorically in favor of clearly defined legislation, but the devil is in the details," Chris Herb, vice president of the ICPA, told NACS Daily. "We are more comfortable because it provide clarification for marketers, but we remain engaged with legislators to determine acceptable levels. At the end of the day, providing definition to the regulated industry is a step in the right direction."