If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
gas station

Expect CNG Price Hike as Tax Credit Expires

gas stationCompressed natural gas (CNG) prices at the pump for cars and trucks will increase 30 percent at some stations because of a federal tax credit set to expire Jan. 31, FuelFix reports.

Most stations use the incentive — a 50-cent tax credit on each gasoline gallon-equivalent of natural gas sold — to cover costs.

But some, such as the 19 stations in in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico run by natural gas producer Apache pass the credit on to consumers as a fuel discount, FuelFix says. For example, Apache’s Houston refueling station currently charges $1.67 for each gasoline gallon equivalent of natural gas. The next cheapest station in the Houston area charges $2.04.

Apache spokesman Bill Mintz tells the website that once the tax credit expires, the company will raise its pump prices by 50 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent.

Apache has see an 88 percent jump in CNG sales at its stations in 2013, due to the low natural gas costs, Mintz says.

The number of natural gas vehicles on roadways worldwide will reach nearly 35 million by 2020, according to a Navigant Research report published in June.

As more natural gas vehicles hit the road, the need for refueling stations is becoming urgent, says a different Navigant Research report that predicts 40 percent of the stations that will be opened in the next two years will be in North America.  By 2020, there will be 30,000 stations worldwide, the report forecasts.

Photo Credit: gas station via Shutterstock


Stormwater Management Programs: How to Integrate New Technologies to Improve Processes and Operations
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

EHS & Sustainability Journey Infographic
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Emerging Technologies in Learning
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems


11 thoughts on “Expect CNG Price Hike as Tax Credit Expires

  1. This scheme reminds me of Brazil. Vehicles burn ethanol, made from sugar cane, which replaces food crops needed by the poor. Brazil subsidizes ethanol, so that the rich can drive their new ethanol cars about, for less of their money.
    The poor try to grow food by clearing “rain forest” and are run off by U.S. soldiers, to starve in their own huts.
    Here, we tax the ones lucky enough to have jobs, to pay for natural gas subsidy, for those who can afford fancy newer CNG vehicles.
    CA is set to install some 4,000 Hydrogen dispensers, costing estimated $4,000,000 each. Inefficiently burning methane, wasting all energy from the carbon atom, to then compress the much less energetic Hydrogen to 4,000 psi. All electrical energy used to compress is WASTED also.
    Sure glad the public gets roped into these idiot schemes.
    Oh, be sure to ask who gets the no-bid contract to build these energy monsters.
    Solyndra all over again.
    Can’t wait for Dougie the Troll to chew on this one.

  2. Oh, yes CO2good; it is soooooooo much better to rip non-renewable oil out of the ground and to then burn it like there is no tomorrow – isn’t it? Yummmmmm – all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere to further warp our climate and to degrade our future. Yesiree – way to bash any and all possible alternatives to that fossil-fuel-conglomerate-dictated future. Good work there, CO2good the troll.
    Of course, I’m not aware that there are U.S. soldiers running around in Brazil; harassing and starving the poor. What’s that – another outright lie by CO2good? GASP.
    I guess it goes along with this further falsehood: that burning methane somehow wastes “all energy from the carbon atom” (which doesn’t even make any logical sense and is also scientifically incorrect).
    And of course CO2good conveniently chooses to gloss over the fact that every CO2 molecule that is released by burning biofuels represents one less CO2 molecule that would otherwise have been added to our biosphere by burning the fossil fuel that was replaced.

    I and many others choose to explore potential solutions to our climate problems, our energy security concerns, our other environmental risks (fossil-oil supertanker spills for example), etc.; and we likewise choose to support those potential solutions that appear to be the likeliest to succeed and that show the most promise in mitigating those problems. Others (like CO2good for example) apparently instead choose to simply cast aspersions, to continually lie, to continue to blindly support fossil fuel interests, and to blindly continue to oppose all alternatives. Which side does each reader of these posts choose to count themselves on?

  3. Oh, and a comment regarding this CO2good quote: “All electrical energy used to compress is WASTED also.” If you are so concerned about wasted energy, CO2good, then ask yourself: what about all the energy that is wasted to extract one barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia (or from anywhere else)? And all the energy wasted to transport it halfway around the world? And all the energy wasted to refine it? And all the energy wasted to transport the refined product around the country and around the world? And all the energy wasted to provide military security for politically troubled oil-rich regions and to secure the sea-based transport of the commodity?

    And …? And …? And …?

  4. Somehow, Dougie the Trole’s comments are OK, but mine are not? They disappeared? Hmmmm. Does Dougie work for EL?
    In case you missed it:
    If Dougie the Troll was all knowing, as he pretends, he’d know that the methane (CH4) is not “burned” but partly burned (limited O2, so that some H is separated from the CH4, thus, all energy from the C atom is wasted (i.e. not used for propulsion purposes), because the fuel cell can only use Hydrogen, not Carbon. So, at least 50% of potential CH4 energy is WASTED!!!!
    Yes, the amazing amount of electrical energy to compress the resulting H2 to 4,000 psi is completely WASTED also.
    Having to ship oil from OPEC is also INSANE. That ship also has to return with water in it, so that it does not capsize. So, 2 trips of polution, for one load of OPEC oil. But, that is your fearless leader’s idea, isn’t it?
    Hey Dougie Troll, how about those environmental whackos looking for Global Warming, who got stranded on the ice? Even an ice breaker couldn’t get there. Ha ha. They didn’t get out much either. Like you Dougie Troll.
    Global Warming is only a TAX SCHEME that King George would be proud of.

  5. Drilling for oil in the Middle East and shipping large quantities of it to the U.S. has been the norm for decades and decades now. It is not the new idea of any “fearless leader”; rather, it is simply business as usual. Business that supports the entrenched fossil fuel industry. Business that contributes much of the anthropogenic GHG that is leading to global warming and climate change.
    Biofuel alternatives are one set of ways to mitigate this ongoing damage. And CO2good the troll continues to rail against such mitigating measures, both here and elsewhere. CO2good is clearly among the group of deniers who choose to pretend that global warming doesn’t exist, and that any alternative to the fossil-fuel-conglomerate-dictated business-as-usual model should be opposed with all his (illogical) arguments and castigated with his ongoing lies.
    Pretending, as CO2good does, that a ship stuck in ice while cruising near the pole somehow represents evidence against global warming; represents more ignorance and illogical argumentation. Pack ice often forms near the pole; and cruising there often represents a risk. Nothing about this situation represents any argument for or against global warming – period. But CO2good doesn’t get out much, and he clearly just doesn’t get this concept.
    “Global Warming is only a TAX SCHEME that King George would be proud of.” Global warming is not a tax scheme; it is a scientific summary of decades and decades of observation, of prediction and confirmation, of climate modeling and refinement; and it is the conclusion of 98% of top climatologists from all over the world. Regardless of the rantings of CO2good. CO2good is not a scientist – he clearly has no scientific training, and just as clearly he understands little about science or the scientific method. Somehow, he has convinced himself that despite his shortcomings, his own unproven and unsupported opinions should take precedence over the trained and supported conclusions of the best cadre of climatologists that the entire world has produced. 98%: that is a remarkable showing of scientific agreement, and it is backed up here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.

  6. Dougie the WH Troll can’t admit that a tax is a tax. A carbon tax is a tax. Get it?
    Global Warming has been debunked, long ago. Ask the stranded G.W. “scientists” at the antartic. Ice breakers even got stuck & the crews may have to be rescured.
    1 + 1 = 2
    Tax scheme + false excuses to tax the poor = TAX SCHEME.
    Couldn’t be simpler.
    Bet Dougie wishes he lived during the reign of King George. He’d make a heck of a delusional tax collector.

  7. In 1999, Al Gore said that the polar ice caps would disappear by 2014. It’s 2014 and the ice caps are still there. Where’s Al’s apology?

  8. First off, the U.S. does not have any “carbon tax” – period. Furthermore, there is no “carbon tax” legislation pending in Congress. The apparent fixation that CO2good has to cry about and to bemoan a “carbon tax” is nothing more than his own hysterical table-thumping – an issue he invents out of thin air to justify some fairly ridiculous postings.
    Global warming has not been debunked, plain and simple. CO2good cannot point to a single reliable source that documents the majority of scientists agreeing that the hypothesis has been debunked. One keyword there is ‘reliable’ – and denialist-operated websites do not qualify for that adjective. In contrast, I can point to a variety of sources that document quite well how the vast majority of climatologists are in agreement with the tenets of global warming; and how they also agree that mankind is largely responsible. The scientific reference I gave earlier today is one such source. The IPCC is another – in fact, they have spent years documenting the mountains of evidence that support AGW. I could easily point to other reputable sources as well. So you see, CO2good, that despite your uninformed opinion to the contrary; AGW is well-accepted.

  9. Soon to be deleted by EL editor, AGAIN!
    Here Dougie, are Carbon TAX LAWS, AGAIN. LAWS that are TAXES, based upon Carbon emissions. Get it?
    California AB32 (effective 1/1/2012)
    2020: reduce to 1990 levels
    2050: reduce to 80% below 1990 levels

    Lieberman – McCain Bill S. 280
    2012: reduce to 2004 levels
    2020: reduce to 1990 levels
    2050: reduce to 60% below 1990 levels

    Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 S. 1766 (targets decline in each calendar year):
    2012: 6,652 MtCO2e
    2020: 6,188 MtCO2e (approximately 2006 emissions levels)
    2030: 4,819 MtCO2e (equal to 1990 emissions levels)
    2050: 2,475 MtCO2e (60% below 2006 emissions levels, if president approves)

    Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 S.2192
    2030: ~$0.53 increase in the price of gasoline
    2050: ~$1.40 increase in the price of gasoline

    The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 S. 1733 &
    American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – H.R. 2454
    2050: 83% below 2005

    Cap and Trade bill (if passed, is expected to)
    2020: reduce to 17 percent below 2005 levels

    E.P.A. (CO2 added as “pollutant”)
    2016: 35.5 mpg corporate fleet average fuel economy (light duty trucks to be included)
    2025: 54.5 mpg corporate fleet average fuel economy

  10. OK, CO2good, let’s go through your sad little list one item at a time:
    CA AB32: This is not a “carbon tax” law. This is a California voter-sponsored and voter-approved law to control CO2 emissions. There is no “carbon tax” mandated by this initiative. Instead, the CA emissions board (CARB) set up a carbon cap&trade market. Under this scheme, GHG-emitting companies receive free emissions credits – they do nothing and spend no money to receive these. If their yearly emissions exceed these freebie limits, then they have their choice of several different strategies available to them in order to achieve CA AB32 compliance. None of those choices is a “carbon tax”.
    Lieberman – McCain Bill S. 280: This 2007 bill died in committee the same day it was introduced, and never became a U.S. law.
    Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 S. 1766: This 2007 bill also died the same day it was introduced, and never became a U.S. law.
    Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 S.2192: This 2008 bill likewise died the same day it was introduced, and never became a U.S. law.
    The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 S. 1733 & American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – H.R. 2454: These bills (one in the Senate and one in the House) likewise died, and never became U.S. laws.
    Cap and Trade bill: No Cap and Trade bill was ever passed by either the House or the Senate. In fact, to my recollection, no Cap and Trade bill was ever even introduced to either chamber.
    E.P.A. (CO2 added as “pollutant”): This is not a legislative bill and therefore cannot represent a tax of any kind.
    So as can be seen, this little list so lovingly drawn up by CO2good is mostly a list of bills that never became law (or in one case was never even introduced for consideration or debate); and one item is not a legislative bill at all and therefore does not represent a tax of any kind. The one and only item on his list that exists today is the voter-approved California emissions limit law that utilizes a Cap&Trade market to control emissions; and likewise is not a “carbon tax” law.
    CO2good, I’m sure that ExxonMobil and others really appreciate your ongoing efforts – but really, can’t you do any better than this?

Leave a Comment

Translate »