• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Chemical Industry Fears Job Losses If Congress Subsidizes Natural Gas Cars

    America’s chemical industry is one of the biggest consumers of natural gas. But it is stridently opposed to government interference and taxpayer-funded subsidies for the production, use and purchase of natural gas vehicles.

    American Chemical Council chief executive Cal Dooley, a former Democratic congressman from California, spoke at today’s Bloggers Briefing about the organization’s criticism of the NAT GAS Act. (Watch a recording of Dooley’s remarks.)

    “What is being proposed under the Pickens Plan and the NAT GAS Act is to create a $5 billion taxpayer subsidy that would support the use of natural gas for transportation purposes,” Dooley said at Heritage this afternoon. “It picks winners and losers. We don’t think that’s the appropriate role for government.”

    Dooley fears the government’s interference would stymie growth and jeopardize jobs at a time when the natural gas industry is booming. In fact, he said production of shale gas has the potential to create more than 400,000 new jobs in the chemical sector, totalling more than $132 billion in economic output and about $4.4 billion in local, state and federal taxes.

    Heritage’s Nick Loris has argued that the NAT GAS Act is the wrong approach for Washington on energy policy. He believes lawmakers would be better off eliminating subsidies instead.

    “They provide special benefits to one industry, distorting the market and misallocating resources away from potentially more economically viable alternatives,” Loris wrote last month. “If Congress truly wants to promote NGVs, it should eliminate subsidies in the transportation industry and consider other market-oriented policies—such as full expensing, lowering corporate tax rates, and removing barriers to drilling—that would incentivize the production of profitable endeavors and ultimately lower prices through competition.”

    Dooley shares the concern. He said the legislation will drive up costs for America’s manufacturing sector and divert resources.

    He added: “At a time when Congress is focused on getting our fiscal house in order, when we’re trying to ensure we get spending under control, why would we be asking taxpayers to cough up another $5 billion to subsidize one special use and consumption of it?”

    Heritage Action is tracking the legislation closely. So far 14 co-sponsored have withdrawn their support for the legislation.

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Chemical Industry Fears Job Losses If Congress Subsidizes Natural Gas Cars

    1. Bobbie says:

      Why does the government keep interfering where they're Constitutionally ban? The CONTINUING government CONDUCT of interference is causing TROUBLE then any POSITIVITIY servicing the people!!! Set straight at every given moment! STOP THE ABUSE OF POWER!!!

    2. Redfray says:

      I for one do not like our government interferring in the business progress of America, neither do I like other business lobbists doing the same thing. I'm thinking of how many chemical companies have moved over seas to get away from paying taxes or other government regulations? Mr. Dooley would love to protect his big domain from government interference. What about the needs of the American citizens who are at the mercy of these lobbists and government money bags. We need an amendment that stops the governmnet from subsidizing any type of business. We have heard how many jobs (?) the oil company will create, but what about the natural gas systems for transportation. Who do you believe? We surely can't believe the government, nor can we believe the large companies, they have several elected officials in there back pockets. Stop all contributions to any elected office by business, it is a conflict-of-interest. All contributions must be hand delivered and the person donating must sign a tax ledger. Each amount contributed will be taxed according to the amount given. The more you give and the more a person receives the higher the tax.

    3. Free_market_4_NG says:

      Natural gas has many advantages for vehicles. One is cost.

      Using my last natural gas bill, natural gas costs is about $1.60 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). Adding about $0.50 tax raises the price at the pump for natural gas to $2.10. This price is adequate for natural gas vehicles to stand on their own. The govt needs to remove any restrictions and get out of the way. Private business will do the rest.

    4. Tim AZ says:

      I'll stick with gasoline. Natural gas doesn't have the mileage or the energy conversion that good old petroleum does. Besides I refuse to subsidize Nancy Pelosi's investment in natural gas with T. Boone Pickens Plan. T. Boone should have stuck with petroleum instead of thinking he could corner the natural gas market with the help of the regime.

    5. Free_market_4_NG says:

      Natural gas has many advantages for vehicles. One is cost.

      Using last month's natural gas cost, the gasoline gallon equivalent is about $1.60. Adding $0.50 for tax, the $2.10 is still less than gasoline prices per gallon.

      Remove restrictive government regulations and let the private sector handle this issue. Natural gas is much more competitive than electric cars.

    6. Paul says:

      Natural Gas vehicles appears on the surface as a viable solution to our energy needs. Not sure Gov involvement is needed.

      I like idea of filling up in my carport.

    7. ROYSTOLL2 says:

      Why doesn't this idiotic government take a dose of common sense and reality and quit giving the taxpayer's money away. That want me and the other taxpayers to pay $7500.00 to each person who buys and electric car which is pure and simple bull. If I have to do this then we ought to key every single one to get our money's worth. They don't need to offer huge subsidies to get people to switch to natural gas vehicles. I have four company trucks and if they would just help with the cost of conversion, I would be glad to switch them. We need to have a network of fueling stations for them which would make it very worthwhile. It is stupid to do anything that causes the use of more electricity as we are tapped out right now. Just getting the stupid ethanol out of the gasoline would raise the miles per gallon by 10%. Do you ever wonder whose side this government realy is on? It sure isn't ours.

      • tom says:

        what happens,when disaster hits. and you are in backuu traffic for hours,there you set with a dead batt.in your electric car

    8. Wm Craig Barnard says:

      T Boon Pickens is a multi-billionaire and should not be eligible for any govt hand outs. If he wishes to grow a business then go to his financial cronies and create an investment support system. Go to the bank that holds his equities, they would certainly have an interest in growing their bottom line through a normal standard business proposition with a proven and established businessman like Mr. Pickens.

      Pickens needs to get out of poorer peoples pockets and go to his high flying deep pocketed friends for funding. He will collect the profits, let him assume the risk.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.