I would also be interested in a cost-benefit analysis for this intervention (full service pumping) compared to, say, different fire safety protocols, rules that allow only essential gas pumping to be done (like when your tank is below half full), or other approaches.

I also wonder if it's OK that we let each state decide for themselves rather than creating a federal mandate with what is judged by leading experts to be the best solution.

> From the article gas station fires cause $20B in damage annually.

No. That number is wildly wrong.

What percent of those calls are actually necessary calls though? I used to watch a fire truck roll up at least once a week to check up on the same dude napping on the sidewalk. Not to try and say that the majority of their calls are like that, but that does suggest a system with at least some spare capacity.

I doubt even 1/4 of those are actual fires, in my town firefighters show up to car crashes and heart attacks and shootings and all sorts of things that aren't on fire.

If one firehouse gets 80+ calls a day, 3000 calls per year nationwide is nothing.

Yes, but it's rare for one to be for a serious fire. Most firefighter calls these days are for medical issues.

I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just interested in the facts.

Your phrasing in the comment I initially replied to suggested that you believe the pump mandate reduces the number of fires. If that's the case, it should be demonstrable with data and it should be front and centre in every discussion, surely?