Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thackney

I agree the “Pickens Plan” is short on specifics but long on drumming up popular support for reducing USA reliance on OPEC oil by converting the heavy truck and bus fleet from diesel fuel to NatGas, a worthy goal few would oppose. Too bad the Nat Gas Act of 2009-12 never was signed into law. It contained mainly extensions of existing legislation which have since expired, I suppose. There were some new tax credits intended as incentives to heavy duty truck fleet operators to convert existing fleets from diesel power to NatGas. IMO, nothing in the Act would have enriched Pickens directly but indirectly he would certainly benefit from his financial interests in CLNE, WPRT and various natural gas holdings. But as you pointed out above in #14, CLNE is going ahead anyway building NatGas fueling stations with PRIVATE FUNDING, NOT govt. subsidies.

The “mandates” in the legislation were probably “pork” inserted by politicians, not Pickens. At any rate the Nat Gas Act is a dead duck; for this reason I have shied away from getting long CLNE and WPRT because these companies are not profitable without the Act - progress is too slow. There may be some local govt. incentives for building these fueling stations.

Thanks for all the links. The comments following the Heritage article at #30 are interesting too. I’m saving this thread to my FR home page.

FReegards,
Otter


38 posted on 02/27/2013 6:07:53 PM PST by shove_it (Long ago Huxley, Orwell and Rand warned us about 0banana's USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: shove_it
IMO, nothing in the Act would have enriched Pickens

Do you understand that Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels? They were, and still are, the largest Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Supplier in the country.

The “mandates” in the legislation were probably “pork” inserted by politicians, not Pickens.

Since we don't actually get to see what the plan is (only the goal), I don't know how you make that claim.

The comments following the Heritage article at #30 are interesting too.

I think most conservatives will agree, the Heritage Foundation is unbiased in comparing competing technologies.

40 posted on 02/28/2013 5:01:08 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson