Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Pickens Nat Gas Bill (+ Alt Energy) Defeated in Senate

edited March 2012 in Off-Topic
Yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/usa-transportation-natgas-idUSL2E8ED7QO20120313
"WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate will vote Tuesday on tax incentives for natural gas vehicles, a bipartisan plan praised by those who say it could reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil but panned by conservative groups as an unnecessary subsidy.

The idea, which is unlikely to find enough support to pass, pits billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has been promoting natural gas since 2008, against Koch Industries, an energy conglomerate that sees the plan as interference in the private sector.

CONSERVATIVE GROUPS TRACKING VOTES

Conservative groups including the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity have put senators on notice that they will be tracking who votes for the bill.

The groups have said the program might not generate enough money to pay for the subsidies and argued the private sector should adopt the vehicles as it sees fit."

___________________________________________________________

Later that day.... (well, yesterday)

Senate defeats tax break for natural gas trucks,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46722672

"WASHINGTON - A bipartisan proposal to provide tax incentives for natural gas vehicles was defeated in a Senate vote on Tuesday, but a key backer of the bill said it will be revised and reintroduced to address concerns from industry.

The five-year plan, to be financed by fees charged to users of the fuel, was designed to spur purchases of long-haul trucks and commercial vehicles that can run on cheap and abundant U.S. natural gas. It would also help defray the costs of building pumps and other infrastructure for fueling."


I hate political threads on this forum probably more than anyone else and really dislike the mentality that "the other side is responsible for this problem, that problem and the other problem", but the idea that groups can say that they are "putting senators on notice" (and it happens with both sides, but this instance provides a conservative example) that they are tracking votes is a sad statement on where we're at in this country.

Additionally, as I've noted before, putting nat gas to greater use could make all the sense in the world, but for whatever reason - lobbying, special interests, someone with money who doesn't want it to happen and who won't support senators who vote for it, yadda yadda.

As I said in the other thread started by Old Joe a couple of weeks ago on this country exporting nat gas, wider/widespread adoption of alternative energy or a real energy plan of any kind ain't going to happen in this country until we don't have any choice.

A kicker to the nat gas bill defeat:

"A Senate proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and advanced biofuels also failed to garner enough support to be attached to the bill, in a 49-49 vote.

Wind turbine makers such as GE and Denmark's Vestas had been closely watching the vote for signs that the incentive, called the production tax credit, would be extended after it expires at the end of the year."

Comments

  • It looks a lot like going to court - whichever side has the most money wins. For a quick and simple example check out celebrity(?) court appearances vs. ordinary people appearances for the exact same offense.

    Alternative energy/fuels/you name it will never see acceptance until we deplete the world of oil and/or those with all of the oil money have effectively locked up a hold on the alternatives. Greaseballs the whole bunch of them.
  • edited March 2012
    Hi Scott/Mark- believe it or not, I don't particularly like politically biased arguments in this forum either. But that's not quite the same thing as meekly accepting that one viewpoint has some sort of license to rant, without fear of challenge. Enough on that.

    With respect to Koch, read "coal", but I'll bet that you knew that already. A great example of the sublimation of the country's interests to private interests. We are gifted with a large supply of relatively clean and inexpensive fuel, which you would think should work to our national advantage with respect to electrical energy production, thus lowering manufacturing costs and enhancing competitiveness (aka: "Jobs for Americans"), to say nothing of the advantages of lowering our national dependence upon essentially unstable foreign sources of energy.

    I certainly don't believe that any government anywhere is capable of running anything efficiently, but short of some sort of federal mandate or inducement to the private sector, that natural gas resource is not going to be used for our nation's benefit, but will be squandered for the basest private profit possible. ie: "the private sector should adopt the vehicles as it sees fit." And that quote from the folks who love to wear little American flag pins in their lapels. Right.

    Regards- OJ
  • Does anyone have opinion re: FBR's Gas Utility Index Fund: GASFX ?
  • edited March 2012
    Reply to @ibartman: GASFX It is not a Nat. Gas fund. It is a utility fund and mostly benefits when gas prices are actually low and electricity prices and demand are going up.
Sign In or Register to comment.