H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation 54 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Fantastic news! Apparently not every politician in Washington, DC is asleep at the wheel. Dan Boren (D-OK) introduced H.R. 1835, The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (or “NAT GAS” Act), to the 111th Congress on April 1, 2009. This bill contains robust support for natural gas transportation initiatives. Key components are:
- Title I: Promote the purchase and use of NGVs with an Emphasis on Heavy Duty Vehicles and Fleet Vehicles
- Title II: Promote Production of NGVs by Original Equipment Manufacturers
- Title III. To Incentivize the Installation of Natural Gas Fuel Pumps and Service Stations and Depots and Domestic LNG Production Facilities for Small Energy Producers
- Title IV: Natural Gas Vehicles (Not later than 2014, at least 50% of all new vehicles purchased by the US Government shall be capable of operating on natural gas.)
The bill contains tax credits for manufacturers and buyers of NGVs as well as for businesses that build natural gas refueling infrastructure.
The full text of the bill can be viewed here.
Introduction of a bill is the first step in the legislative process. Bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go on to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. This bill was referred to three committees:
The members of each of these committees can be found in the links above.
This type of legislation promoting natural gas transportation is exactly what the United States needs right now. If you believe as I do the biggest threat to the American economy and American democracy is peak oil combined with America’s foreign oil addiction, please contact the members of these committees and voice your support for this bill! At a minimum, please contact those members from your home state.
Passage of this bill would have numerous benefits for all Americans. This bill would:
- Reduce foreign oil imports and keep our energy dollars at home
- Revitalize America’s natural gas and energy industries
- Revitalize America’s automobile industry
- Create millions of new jobs
- Increase energy royalty payments to tens of thousands of American farmers and landowners.
- Drastically reduce CO2 and gasoline particulate emissions.
- Reinvigorate moribund American equity markets.
- Create an American energy foundation for a future of extended prosperity, capitalism, self determination, democracy and freedom.
- Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX]
- Rep. Michael Thompson [D-CA]
- Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
- Rep. John Larson [D-CT]
- Rep. Sanford Bishop [D-GA]
- Rep. Harry Teague [D-NM]
- Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
- Rep. Steve Kagen [D-WI]
- Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
- Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]
- Rep. Betsy Markey [D-CO]
- Rep. Michael McMahon [D-NY]
- Rep. Walter Minnick [D-ID]
These fine folks should be congratulated! You all should contact your local representatives and ask them why they were not a cosponsor of this bill.
The investment angle on such legislation is obvious: producers of US natural gas like Chesapeake Energy (CHK), ConocoPhillips (COP), and British Petroleum (BP) would be strong beneficiaries of these policies. Manufacturers of natural gas compressors like General Electric (GE) and Ingersoll Rand (IR) would see large increases in orders. Honda Motor Company (HMC), maker of the Honda Civic GX NGV and shareholder in Fuelmaker (the manufacturer of the “Phill”), would also benefit. And don’t forget Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE). Passage of this bill might even prompt consideration for an investment in the natural gas ETF UNG.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 54 comments:
That is great news, finally less talk and more action in Washington on the NGV front.
Another good investment would of course be Exxon-Mobil who is pioneering many new technologies in tight gas and shale gas extraction. Here is a blurb from the XOM website.
"ExxonMobil technology has opened up so-called “unconventional” energy resources such as tight gas, heavy oil and oil sands — which previously were considered inaccessible or too costly to recover. For example, in Colorado’s Piceance Basin, ExxonMobil’s Multi-Zone Stimulation Technology (MZST) has opened up tight gas resources by allowing operators to create fractures in reservoir rock at a more rapid rate than conventional technology so gas can flow more easily. Using MZST and our Fast Drill Process, ExxonMobil is increasing recovery and production rates at Piceance while reducing development costs and our environmental footprint. Breakthroughs such as these have contributed to a recent increase in U.S. natural gas production"
"ours..." t. boone's constant message has finally reached an
audience that can make it happen: "big time..."
anne
KEEP UP THE FOCUS; THE SUBJECT WILL GET THE MOMENTUM NEEDED.
interesting item on subject, 4/02/09 blog entry by robert rapier-- his I R SQUARED website. he references recent book by Downey. i recommend recent book by stephen leeb also. his focus on interdependencies of ALL commodities and potential impact on survival/lifestyle.
(yes, I counted them)
However Members of Congress only work on Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday, 103 days a year Max.
The vast majority of proposed Legislation NEVER make it out of Committee.
Forget about contacting your Congress Member.
You are only spinning your wheels.
They get millions of emails, snailmails, phone calls, Fax's
and personal visits.
They vote for what THEY want.
The only thing that effects them is they do not get reelected.
And that only happens if they find a boatload of cash in their Freezer.
How much do we pay these people to help us ?
$174,000 a year, for a 3 day work week, that comes to
$3,346.15 per week.
Bobby Curto
Ft. Lauderdale
regardless, how can any US investor not hold a company (XOM) that produces 4 million barrels of oil per day as we head into the era of peak oil? there is a reason XOM's stock held up so well during this "crisis"...i read one guy who said the credit default swap market has placed XOM ahead of the US gov in terms of the probability of going insolvent. just think about that!
redbaron: right on man!
koolsool: i'll look into FSYS, thanks for posting.
sloweanne: yes, pickens deserves much of the credit. however, let us not restrict ourselves like pickens and simply shoot for the fleet markets for nat gas. this won't significantly reduce foreign oil imports. we need NGVs in middle class families garages. we also should replace coal fired electric plants with nat gas, another difference i have with pickens.
fran: well, thanks for giving me a heads up on this issue the other day - i appreciate it. i always remember that one post you made on an article of mine on nat gas trans when you said, "Fitzman, we all agree. What now?". profound! haha. anyhow, HR 1835 is "what now" (remember that line in pulp fiction?). i hope people contact the president, congress and these committees so that it passes. i swear, if this bill does down to defeat, i'm gonna have to pull a michael moore or something and raise money for a documentary!!
thanks again.
I hope I am wrong, and that you are correct.
It is very sad to lose faith in Congress.
Bobby
On Apr 05 11:34 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> bobby: i believe this legislation to be so important to the future
> of the county tat i can not sit by and not do everything in my power
> to make sure it passes. i surely hope everyone is not so cynical
> as you and doesnt take the time to contact their representatives
> by phone, letter, and email to make them know they won't get their
> vote unless they support HR 1835.
Now I know.
Thanks for the Info, CLNE might survive after all.
And on another note, with the salaries these congressmen get, they should be offering to take a haircut too, since they stood by while this financial mess was being created. How about $1.00/year, per man until things settle down, instead of $174,000/yr. They expect everyone else to take a bullet. Typical egomaniac's. Blame everyone else, no accountability. They are all coward's.
Obama's the KEY to this proposed legislation.
redbaron: good action! i am actually going to call the heads of each committee tomorrow and strongly suggest they accelerate this bill's consideration.
conan: imagine what would happen if the bill actually passed...
JPECK: i agree, corn ethanol is an idiotic "fuel", made even worse by the bush ethanol mandates. what is obama's problem?? good question. the guy appears to have a brain, appears to be logical, yet he keeps talking "clean coal" and has yet, as far as i know, even uttered the words "natural gas transportation". i have written him two letters so far ... not even a staffers form response. no doubt obama being on board could greatly accelerate this legislation. that said, obama is turning out to be an "energy problem" as opposed to an "energy problem solver". perhaps this will change, but the early evidence is not good.
don't forget rahm emmanuel who sponsored similar legislation with dan boren in 2008.
also the interested ladies from california[pelosi, boxer]. and henry waxman[this action helps waxman/obama in their case for cap and trade].
one more stock entry--
WPRT-- supplier of NG ignition systems, worldwide[16 wheels to autos to utility fork lift trucks]
On Apr 05 11:34 AM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> bobby: i believe this legislation to be so important to the future
> of the county tat i can not sit by and not do everything in my power
> to make sure it passes. i surely hope everyone is not so cynical
> as you and doesnt take the time to contact their representatives
> by phone, letter, and email to make them know they won't get their
> vote unless they support HR 1835.
www.govtrack.us/congre...
sugcare: yes, the differences between LNG and CNG are more than just price. in order to leverage the existing 2.1 million mile natural gas pipeline grid that goes to over 60,000,000 homes, we need to focus on CNG. that way, people can refuel this cars and trucks at home.
fran: i wasn't aware - what happened to that bill? did it even make it out of committee for a vote? not familiar with WPRT but it sure sounds like that would be a buy if this bill passed.
M. Fitz: I can see it now. Multiple Explosions at multiple locations as " Do It Yourself" kits are sold over the Internet.
As I understand it, the mileage provided by each Full Tank will be far less than that for Gasoline. Without Refueling stations across the country, it will matter very little if you can't get back "Home".
CLNE is in the process of building such stations at Airports. You Can Not use existing facilities.
Even if the Bill were passed tommorow, it would take years, hundreds of Billions and would Increase Nat. Gas prices for everyone in the process.
I am for it as an "interim" solution not the Final Solution.
One question, how do CO2 emmissions compare?
johnP: i agree with your comment. my big concern is the US surviving until 2060! being a believer in peak oil, i believe if we don't signficantly (say by 50%) reduce foreign oil imports within the next 5-10 years, we're going to see huge economic and social disruptions in the US. the current "low" price of oil is very dangerous as it once again lulls the US into a false sense of "security". but nothing has changed...worldwide production appears to have reached a plateau around 86 milllion BPD, exploration and production budgets are being slashed, and the inconvenient truth of depletion rates never sleeps. so, while i am a stong supporter of EVs and longer term in hydrogen, for the very critical next 10 years, i believe the only US produced fuel that can be scaled up to signficantly reduce foreign oil imports is natural gas, and it must be used in the transportation sector. thus, why this piece of legislation is so important.
Not sure I can line up with you about XOM and other big bad "Big Oil" trying to destroy domestic natural gas. Do you know who 2 of the top 3 natural gas producers in the US are? COP and BP, two of the "Big Oil" club. Also, XOM produces a lot of gas in the US and its a critical piece of their overall portfolio. But maybe I'm missing something; can you point me in the direction of things that XOM or other "Big Oil" companies have done to harm domestic NG? I'd like to do some checking.
What I do know is that all of the Big Oil companies have huge portions of their reserves in natural gas and a large portion of their domestic reserves and revenues come from natural gas. It will take me a while to pull the numbers together but I'll try and post them later. But generally its more than 30% and for some companies, it approaches 50%.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "Big Oil" company. They are all "Big Oil & GAS" companies. By the way, for full disclosure, I work for one of those "Big Oil and Gas" companies and have done so for over 30 years. Right now, I'm focused on North America and spend 80-90% of my time working on natural gas prospects.
Great news about the bill pending in congress. Hope it gets to the floor for a vote!
As a motor fuel, natgas burns cleaner than any other source except hydrogen, which is a long way off as a viable alternative.
- Josh Painter
www.skirsch.com/politi...
If we are going to move forward with NG powered vehicles WPRT is in a good position to grow on the heavy truck and bus front. As to hydrogen as the longer term solution consider instead boron. Tom Blees in his Prescription for the Planet advances the reusable boron fuel for vehicles idea.
www.skirsch.com/politi...
One question, where is the legislation to increase availability of NG in North America?
Do you think for a moment that the twin sisters from CA will vote for increased NG production in CA?
How much will Henry the socialist Waxman get behind increasing NG production in CA or anywhere in the USA?
Fritz, this is a part of a great story, the remaining part, and a necessity to our success, is increased production in the USA and Canada, the other part is nailing shut the Cap and Trade energy disaster.
Thankfully, with the recent global cooling trends, we may be able to head off the economic disaster called C & T.
Thanks Fritz, my emails to Congressman Campbell were just sent.
U.S. Production on a BOE basis
% Nat Gas, % Oil/Liquids
Shell 39%, 61%
Exxon 42%, 58%
COP 49%, 51%
BP 42%, 58%
Chevron 37%, 63%
U.S. Proven Reserves on a BOE basis
% Nat Gas, % Oil/Liquids
Shell 40%, 60%
Exxon 50%, 50%
COP 49%, 51%
BP 45%, 55%
Chevron 26%, 74%
Will take me more time to get US revenues by product. But this shows that "Big Oil" is very concerned with natural gas production as it is roughly 40% to 50% of their production and reserves. So I doubt they would be suppressing its production!
josh: conoco and BP have said they are going on with denali pipeline plans regardless of palin and the other pipeline's plans. it's interesting to note that the prudoe bay guys (COP, BP, and XOM) own and produce the natural gas that is going to fill both pipelines, so the transcanada (palin) pipeline will have to buy it from them to have something to transport. going to be interesting to see how those negotiations go since they went off on their own to build a competing pipeline. that said, if we build up our natural gas transportation sector like we should, we'll need both pipelines down the road.
ripskii: i sent my letter (old style, with a stamp and a flag on the mailbox) to obama today:
President Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
i sure hope alot of other folks do too. not sure emails have as much affect, so i do letters and phone calls on important stuff (like this). in addition to suggesting he come out strong for HR 1835 and do whatever it takes to accelerate its adoption, i also asked obama why he keeps mentioning "clean coal" and explained to him why this is an oxymoron. isn't it interesting that the candidate of the "green movement" mentions "clean coal" every chance he gets? ridiculous. is it because of illinois coal money? i dunno. i agree we need nuclear and support hydrogen fusion research dollars. still haven't looked at WPRT yet, but i believe you are the 2nd person to mention that stock.
oldwizard: thanks for you support, and yes, you did tell me so about obama and energy. i wanted to believe otherwise, but he has been a huge dissapointment. everytime he mentions "clean coal" i just shudder. i TOTALLY agree with your stated goal of reducing 5 million barrels of imported oil within 5 years and 10 mil in 10 years. and it's not a pipedream, it is completely doable! we just need the right leadership and we need to make the commitment to nat gas transportation. that's what i loved about robert hefner's book "The GET", he spells out the entire plan and all the savings and how the cost of doing the transition is actually free since all the money that we put into it stays in the country and we'll have an energy infrastructure that will serve us for decades into the future fueled by US produced nat gas. anyhow, you were right, and i was wrong on obama. but, it's still early...perhaps something will change. if this HR1835 gets passed - that will be HUGE. no way it would have happened under "natural gas is for sissies" bush.
jackkreg: thanks! increase nat gas in North America? jeez, we've got so much of it coming out of the shales we've got enough nat gas to last decades and the price is $3.76 and falling on NYMEX. that doesn't even count the alaskan pipeline supplies. that said, the baker huges rig count is shrinking quickly and i am sure we'll go boom-to-bust-to-boom again. but, there is now no doubt the supply is there. the haynesville shale alone may turn out to be one of the largest nat gas fields in the world. thanks for sending out the emails to your reps, so i forgive you for your "global cooling" comment.
wisdomvsinformation: boone pickens does not OWN the natural gas transportation issue - americans do! pickens isn't a big producer of natural gas in the US - there are many many companies bigger: CHK, COP, BP, on and on. people say "nat gas prices will go up" as though they didn't recognize that foreign oil just went to $145/barrel and gasoline to $4.50!! helloooooo!! when gasoline was near $5/gallon in CA, honda civic GX's were being filled up for $2/gallon equivalent..and it was nat gas produced IN THE U.S.A instead of oil from iraq, saudi, russia, venezuela, iran. you talk about "economic dislocation" but yet you neglect to acknowledge the economic dislocations the US has experienced due to its 65% dependence on foreign oil. you might consider changing your SA username because, with all due respect, you simply haven't thought this issue through. you're appear to let your dislike of boone pickens illogically influence both your energy wisdom and the information you chose to pay attention to.
Mmarrk: thanks for that data, but i bet if you dig deeper you'll find that the majority of Exxon's nat gas business is not in the US but in asia and the pac rim. also, the data you show is on an energy content basis, not a revenue or profits basis - correct? as far as proven reserves go, those numbers dont surprise me a bit. reading hefner's book, in the decade of the 90's, while big oil was searching for OIL, they continued to discover more natural gas reserves than oil!! that is one of hefner's reasons for believing natural gas reserves are quite possibly more that of oil and coal - combined! which is of course another reason to embrace nat gas transportation before the next peak oil spike. btw, i didn't say big oil was suppressing natural gas production, i said they were discouraging nat gas *transportation*. those are two separate issues. i'd love to see the revenue and profit breakdowns if you get a chance. btw, may i ask what part of the country are you working? shale? thanks for the posts!
Thanks for publishing the congressional committee information regarding HR 1835. I discovered that my local congressman is on two of the committees and sent him a strong letter to support the bill and get it out of committee. If we all respond with cogent arguments in support of replacing imported oil with domestic gas it should surely have an impact on congress at this time of financial crisis.
The point has been made by some, that it is much more efficient to use NG in power plants than in cars. Is this an efficient use of our natural gas suppies? NG power plants can be made more efficient than they are now, by coupling them with renewables, with fuel cells, capturing waste heat etc.
T. Boone Pickens plan, to replace gas plants with wind farms and then run cars on the NG, doesn't quite add up.
His investment in wind energy is a good thing, but wind with it's intermittency isn't a good match for replacing NG, which can be fired up when needed. Also, I'd rather see coal plants closed than gas plants, which are much cleaner.
The personal transportation issue is a thorny one. I'm not ruling anything out. We obviously need some kind of near term solutions that will help transition to whatever comes next in vehicles.
Renewables, which some of you object to, are ready to build right now, and can be built much quicker than nuclear. Coal with CCS is still experimental. Solar and wind can be built on a large scale, long before CCS will become a reality. In the ten years it would take for the first new nuclear plant to go online, or the first CCS coal, hundreds of gigawatts of renewables could be built. And by then, they will be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, or new nuclear. CCS won't be cheap. Estimates for building new nuclear plants and for the price of their power have skyrocketed. Renewables will only go down in price over the next 10-20 years.
Silicon for PV cells fell off a cliff this year. Grid parity PV is already a reality in expensive energy markets and will be nationwide in a short time.
Look at NRELs report on CPS solar. Look at their estimates for it's potential just in the deserts of California.
Up to ten times as much power as all electricity generated in California now. Their estimates for how many plants would be built by 2015 are already too conservative, based on how many CSP plants are already being built or are approved.
www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...
These can be built from conception to completion in three years.
And look at NRELs study on the economics benefits of CSP which are far greater than from comparable gas plants. (all the reports are in the pdf above)
CSP commercial development isn't as far along as wind, but could have similar growth rates. With heat storage, it's dispatchable steady power even at night. Estimates for power prices are under 10 cents/kWh in 5 years, or more likely at current growth rate, less than 5 years; and 4-8 cents/kWh when industry economy of scale is reached. And like I said, they're ready to build now.
Wind energy in the U.S. grew by 8.3 GW last year, and that is just the beginning of the growth. Even considering winds capacity factor, that's the equivalent of building close to three 1GW nuclear or coal plants in one year.
Even at that rate, 100 GW could be built by 2020. The rate will be much higher going forward, although the current economic situation will likely slow it for the next year.
Wind energy is cheap already.
Why not choose energy sources that don't need fuels. None ever, to prospect for, mine, refine, transport, store, burn, clean up the mess from, pay health costs from, fight wars over, live with wild price flutuations from.
Some things to consider, and everything should be considered.
The point has been made by some, that it is much more efficient to use NG in power plants than in cars. Is this an efficient use of our natural gas suppies? NG power plants can be made more efficient than they are now, by coupling them with renewables, with fuel cells, capturing waste heat etc.
T. Boone Pickens plan, to replace gas plants with wind farms and then run cars on the NG, doesn't quite add up. His investment in wind energy is a good thing, but wind with it's intermittency isn't a good match for replacing NG, which can be fired up when needed. Also, I'd rather see coal plants closed than gas plants, which are much cleaner.
The personal transportation issue is a thorny one. I'm not ruling anything out. We obviously need some kind of near term solutions that will help transition to whatever comes next.
Renewables, which some of you object to, are ready to build right now, and can be built much quicker than nuclear. Coal with CCS is still experimental. Solar and wind can be built on a large scale, long before CCS will become a reality. In the ten years it would take for the first new nuclear plant to go online, or the first CCS coal, hundreds of gigawatts of renewables could be built. And by then, they will be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, or new nuclear. CCS won't be cheap. Estimates for building new nuclear plants and for the price of their power have skyrocketed. Renewables will only go down in price over the next 10-20 years.
Look at NRELs report on CPS solar. Look at their estimates for it's potential just in the deserts of California.
Up to ten times as much power as all electricity generated in California now. Their
estimates for how many plants would be built by 2015 are already too conservative, based on how many CSP plants are already being built or are approved.
www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...
These can be built from conception to completion in three years.
And look at NRELs study on the economics benefits of CSP which are far greater than from comparable gas plants. Water deslinization, and combined heat and power can be had from solar thermal plants. Some are being built just for the heat, for industrial and agricultural processes.
CSP commercial development isn't as far along as wind, but could have similar growth rates. With heat storage, it's dispatchable steady power even at night. Estimates for power prices are under 10 cents/kWh in 5 years, or more likely at current growth rate, less than 5 years; and 4-8 cents/kWh when industry economy of scale is reached. And like I said, they're ready to build now.
Wind energy in the U.S. grew by 8.3 GW last year, and that is just the beginning of the growth. Even considering winds capacity factor, that's the equivalent of building close to three 1GW nuclear or coal plants in one year.
Even at that rate, 100 GW could be built by 2020. The rate will be much higher going forward, although the current economic situation will likely slow it for the next year.
Wind energy is cheap already.
We import most of our uranium. How does that give us energy independence?
Why not choose energy sources that don't need fuels. None ever, to prospect for, mine, refine, transport, store, burn, clean up the mess from, pay health costs from, fight wars over, live with wild price flutuations from.
I'll do more digging on the work you mentioned. But you know, the 70's were a long time ago...I had hair back then!! I've been around for over 30 years and I've seen nothing but positives from all of the majors on natural gas, from technology development to buying acreage. Now, I'll admit that the majors have lagged the Large Independents on getting moving on shales, etc. but COP and BP were early movers in the San Juan basin, Exxon was an early mover in the Rockies and several of them are big in South Louisiana/South Texas in gas fields. Deep gas too.
The revenue split by product is a bit more difficult to pull up so I'll have to plow through those.
I work across the entire U.S., but with very little current exposure in the East. Just an area our company hasn't yet decided if its worth dealing with all the junk the locals are throwing at developers. Love E Texas/N. Louisiana/Arkansas. The Fayetteville is one of my favorites and I think SWN has done a heck of a job locking up a company making position. But if a company hasn't got an effective hedging position, not much of this makes sense right now. CHK is still selling a lot of their gas at $8+ due to their hedges, so their numbers will look better. Others have done the same, except for Big Oil/Gas. Most of them like to stay unhedged and take the market price risk. In rising times, that's good. In falling times, that's not so good!!
Can I get a natural gas driven pick up truck?? or a Suburban? You just look silly pulling up at the C&W dance hall in a Prius!
www.ngvamerica.org/pdf...
and yes, COP has been big in natural gas, obviously with their purchase of burlington resources. BP made a coup when it bought both Amoco and Atlantic Richfield. now, both of these companies should be huge supporters of natural gas transportation..not just because of their lower-48 reserves, but because of their holdings in alaskan natural gas as well. why the executives of these two companies don't publicly and demonstrably don't support pickens, natural gas legislation, and advertise on their own is quite simply beyond me. they are going to have a market for their oil for decades, but the best way to increase their investments in natural gas is to support NG transportation, yet they do not. it's a mystery to me...the only logical explanation is they are protecting their much larger investments in oil and gasoline refining. what a short term view!!
I actually managed to track down the ONLY model of SUV (XL) that was attainable at the time: An '06 GMC Yukon, AND the precise engine type that was approved for conversion (via NGVAmerica's .pdf file).
I then went to my only known source for a conversion kit in California (Baytech), and guess what? They said, NOPE. Ain't gonna do it.
The reason? Because CARB has some ridiculous "Application Fee" of nearly $100,000!! So essentially my installer said, "you could do it, but CARB collects a fixed fee... regardless of the NUMBER of vehicles." So, my Yukon CNG quickly became a fleeting thought. Even if I drove my Yukon to AZ, had it converted and drove back to CA, he said the DMV would reject my registration. The whole thing is nuts!
I wondered.... why? And it became obvious. CARB (and the EPA) will gladly assist municipalities & companies with creating FLEETS. They don't offer any help though, for an individual who wants to convert his own SUV. This seems totally backwards to me, especially in California, a state that "prides itself" on being environmentally prudent. But, their perceived progress actually belies their true concern: that vehicles converted to CNG can avoid paying transportation taxes like millions of other cars on the road.
My feeling is, CARB & the EPA are dragging their feet.... until the gov't can conceive of a reliable way to tax individuals who fill up at home. (You know I would if I could!) Nevertheless, I do believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. Next, I'd like to see CARB change their App. Fee to something sensible... like "a $1,000 per car." Not to mention, the EPA's ridiculous "Re-Cert Fee" that requires OEM installers to re-certify their equipment of each & every model year for every engine type they are authorized to install... That's what makes them throw up THEIR hands in disgust.
In the meantime, I went ahead with my Limo business--Naturalimo--and started with a hybrid. I'm probably going to add a bio-diesel soon, with the possibility of perhaps an all-electric one day. But sad to say, my dream of a CNG limo (and, by the way, the very reason I named my company "Naturalimo" ) remains mothballed. I'm waiting until some intrepid entrepreneur gathers up 20 aftermarket Yukon XL's, converts them, and opens his own CNG truck dealership!
Thanks Fitz. I'll look over these and see if there is a handy place to fill up around here. There used to be a BP place that had it but I'm not sure. Many of the fleet trucks have CNG stickers so I'm assuming there is something. Of course, the "at home" version would work too as I usually don't drive long distances for my commute and I'm home at least 8 hours each night.
Why don't CEO's promote NG? You got me. Guess they are busy counting their gazillions!
I don't know about your NG pickup, but you can get a Peterbuilt or Kenworth 18 wheeler fueled by either CNG or LNG and instantly become the coolest dude at the CW dance hall.
biz.yahoo.com/iw/08101...
biz.yahoo.com/iw/08100...
chrisfive0: yes, i agree that a natural gas powered American economy would lead us to unprecendented growth and prosperity. and yes, Utah is jamming on natural gas (i attribute that to the Mormon survival instinct and a good state government). you may be right on your cap and trade agenda...and nat gas derailing it..that said, nat gas emits less than gasoline or coal (!) that said, i understand your cynicism. sadly, i have become very cynical myself when it comes to the US government and energy policy. and now, i am cynically about obama - he's been a huge dissapointment to me on america's biggest challenges: energy, finance and the economy, and the environment.
On Apr 05 10:15 AM koolsool wrote:
> I hope HR1835 has a chance for going forward because the domestic
> nat gas producers & service industry are going to take a big
> hit from Obama's budget. People should read the article published
> by The Motley Fool on March 25th, titled "Obama's Plan To Punish
> Big Oil Will Backfire". His budget will eliminate $31.5 billion of
> tax incentives that domestic nat gas production now receive. The
> hardest hit will be the shale producers, all the domestic new technology
> stuff that should be encouraged. Maybe if the "Nat Gas Act" passes,
> it will offset the damage done by Obama's budget. A company that
> I like alot to benefit from nat gas transportation is Fuel Systems
> Solutions FSYS.
norseman
1) No mention at the energy summit.
2) Geithner was questioned about jobb losses in NG by LA House Rep Boustany. He managed to answer the question without using the words "NG". He was clearly avoiding it.
3)Obama was on Leno and home refuling came up. Leno only mentioned a hydrogen car not the Honda GX he owns and promotes on the internet. The man owns an NG car and failed to mention it. The interview was highly scripted and once again NG was ommitted.
4) A simple google search of Obama and NG will show no hits of any quotes dated post innauguration.
Obama is avoiding the mention of NG. He's pandering to those who think we can power this nation on renewables starting next week!
XOM is producing NG from coal beds in Colorado now.
Why do we call it 'green technology" when it is CO2 that makes the earth green? Reformulated gasoline makes your vehicle less efficient so it produces more CO2. Catalytic converters maximize the amount of CO2. (just trivia. Nothing to do with article)
We can save more energy through conservation than we can produce through "alternative energy."
"Cap and Trade" sounds like Enron. Selling a non-existent commodity.
I agree that we need to stop talking and utilize every avenue available to us. Great article.
THANKS
- We already import some; increasing use will probably increase that.
- We import from basically the same countries as OPEC; it's another dependence.
(And natural gas producers are talking about forming something like OPEC.)
- Increasing production and use carries similar risks as with other fossil fuels.
- It's cleaner than oil, but does still produce CO2 and other pollutants.
- It requires a new infrastructure (ex: for these vehicles to refuel).
- It's (mostly) a fossil fuel - why build a new dependence on a limited supply that's already declining?
And do we really need to bribe the industry that much? All those tax credits!
I don't see enough advantages to outweigh the disadvantages - what have I missed?