Bill may put natural gas on the front burner

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Bill-may-put-natural-gas-on-...


On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., is expected to introduce legislation that would offer incentives for natural-gas-powered vehicles nationwide.

"This is a jobs bill, an energy bill, a conservation bill, and a clean-air bill," Larson said last week. "This is the kind of legislation that is needed and the kind of thing I think the American public is expecting of Congress."

The bill is a revamped version of the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act, or NAT GAS Act that died in Congress in 2008. The original act required 10 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States to run on natural gas and all retail gas stations have at least one natural-gas pump by 2018..

Two federal credits expanded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provide tax credits for natural-gas infrastructure and refueling. The credits equal up to 30 percent of the cost of refueling equipment, with a cap of $30,000 for commercial equipment. Both credits are set to expire at the end of this year.

The exact provisions of the 2011 NAT GAS bill have not yet been made available. For the bill to benefit the natural gas industry, it should include an extension and expansion of the three expiring credits, an official from the Washington D.C.-based Natural Gas Vehicles for America trade organization said.

"If you're buying a personal vehicle in the year that there happens to be a tax credit, that's terrific," NGVA spokeswoman Denise McCourt said.

The NAT GAS Act has a better chance of passing this time around because President Barack Obama is committed to energy diversity, Larson said. Obama outlined a plan to cut foreign oil consumption by one-third by 2025 in a speech last week to Georgetown University students in Washington, D.C. His plan included an order to government agencies to ensure that by 2015, all new vehicles be alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrid and electric.

Larson said the public is more supportive of natural gas initiatives because of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens' three-year, multimillion-dollar campaign calling for broader adoption of the technology.

Pickens and other natural gas advocates say there is enough of the resource to last 200 years, but West Hartford-based energy consultant Joel Gordes pointed out that statistic is at current consumption rates.

"What John is doing is changing that equation," Gordes said. "The minute he pushes the use of more natural gas for vehicles, we are increasing the rates of use."

Larson's legislation should include a provision that says a certain percentage of natural-gas reserves must stay in reserves, Gordes said. The natural-gas vehicles should also have certain efficiency standards, Gordes said.

The argument for adopting propane gas as an alternative fuel also is gaining momentum, and Larson said the NAT GAS Act may be amended to include a provision for it.

"Anything that meets our three A's -- abundant, accessible and American --- we should take advantage of," Larson said.

Environmentalists have expressed concern about hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, the process by which natural gas is removed from the ground. Millions of gallons of water are injected into the ground to fracture the rock to release the gas. Environmentalists say the process contaminates nearby drinking water. Larson echoed Obama's speech and said the Environmental Protection Agency would ensure all environmental precautions are taken.


Buck

Views: 71

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


landownerPermalink Reply by LP on April 4, 2011 at 2:59

Yes !

It seems as if Vitter and Landrieu are clueless about Louisiana's natural gas resource. They need a reminder to represent Louisiana.


landownerPermalink Reply by Max on April 4, 2011 at 5:29

Give each one of them a Haynesville well and you'll see a big change. 

 

Just don't be standing too close, they'll flat out run over you to put that cash into their re-election coffers.


landownerPermalink Reply by CypressKnees on April 4, 2011 at 3:22

How does the NAT GAS Act differ from Senator David Vitter's "Republican energy plan"?

Thanks in advance-


landownerPermalink Reply by Butasha on April 4, 2011 at 5:12

As much as I dislike our current administration and that individual that othes call their President..... Hell as long as they drill baby drill they can call it the PelosiObamaflamingliberalbill and I would happily support it :)

 

 

maybe ;P

Permalink Reply by Josh on April 5, 2011 at 4:09
Thanks Butasha. I laughed my butt off when i read your post.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Ajo Hebert on April 7, 2011 at 8:13

Surely we are not advocating that a Representative from any state introduce a bill that requires, by law, that we build or drive a particular vehicle even if we are sitting on an ocean of natural gas.

If it is a good business idea it should take off by private sponsorship not government demand.


landownerPermalink Reply by JHH on April 7, 2011 at 10:53
I think if the lawmakers and bureaucrats stay the H*LL out of the way... we'll be OK

landownerPermalink Reply by essay on April 7, 2011 at 11:01
Quick everyone, hold your breath.  Wake me up when this makes it through the senate without stifling regulation or a bunch of porked up projects for electric cars and windmills.  On the other hand maybe any legislation is good legislation??

landownerPermalink Reply by Max on April 7, 2011 at 13:01
Oh, Oh, my,my, O-#%^&m, I think I stepped into quicksand, how long do I need to hold my breath before essay gallops up and slings a rope around the blade of an windmill and saves me from the mire of politics?

landownerPermalink Reply by essay on April 7, 2011 at 14:09
sorry, fresh out of rope.  but i did get a nice new shipment of boat anchors

landownerPermalink Reply by essay on April 7, 2011 at 18:24

if you're going to be so cavalier with using events surrounding the deaths of quite a few people to try and score points at least understand it was the tsunami, not the quake itself that wiped out all the backup cooling, which caused the catastrophic fukushima-daiishi situation.  it would be possible to prevent this last particular freak occurrence quite a number of ways.

 

personally i do believe nuclear to be our best long-term solution to generating electricity, despite receiving financial benefit from any public hysteria that could potentially raise natural gas prices.  i'm also well aware that increased wind generation almost necessarily dictates increased natural gas generation.  this still doesn't mean i'm willing to encourage things i believe are generally uneconomical and backward thinking.  i think they used to call that having principles.  or something.


landownerPermalink Reply by essay on April 8, 2011 at 12:41

so what?  i'm really not sure what the point of posting this was.

 

"No new damage reported. TEPCO still checking whether measuring equipment is in working order.

Workers briefly evacuated after quake but are now back after tsunami warning lifted.

No change in radioactivity after quake.


Cool-down efforts at reactors 1, 2, and 3 continuing as before."

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service