• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Industry-Funded NATGAS Act Is Financial Fairy Dust

    Senate Democrats and Republicans are negotiating a number of amendments to attach to the highway transportation bill, including a possible vote on the NATGAS Act.

    The bi-partisan NATGAS Act provides a host of subsidies for producing and buying natural gas vehicles and refueling infrastructure. Similar legislation was introduced in the House last year, but 20 Members, recognizing this subsidy-laden approach as bad for both taxpayers and the economy, withdrew co-sponsorship and stopped any momentum the bill had.

    Proponents of the Senate version argue that the bill “won’t add a dime do the federal deficit” because it will be paid for by a user fee on natural gas vehicle fuel. That, of course, is financial fairy dust to convince Members and the public that this will be a cost-free piece of legislation that will revolutionize our transportation sector.

    The problem is that the tax revenue generated from the user fee won’t come close to covering the subsidy amount. For instance, the maximum allowable subsidy for heavy-duty tractor trailers is $64,000. Assuming that a tractor trailer drives 150,000 miles a year and gets six miles per gallon, the vehicle will use 25,000 gallons per year. The tax revenue generated from the 2014–2021 time frame (these are the years the tax is enacted, increasing from 2.5 cents to 12.5 cents per gallon) would be $15,000—less than a fourth of the subsidy cost. The same holds true for light- and medium-duty trucks.

    But won’t the numbers change when economies of scale hit? President of NGVAmerica Richard R. Kolodziej made that argument when he voiced his support for the NATGAS Act:

    Operating costs for NGVs are significantly less than for gasoline and diesel vehicles. But, right now, our purchase costs are greater. These greater first costs have been the biggest factor holding back faster growth in NGV use. Even with the added cost of the surcharge, the natural gas vehicle industry is confident that the incentives in [the NATGAS Act] will result accelerated demand for NGVs. With economies of scale that will result from this increase in demand, first cost will be driven down even more, and the market will flourish.

    Raise your hand if you’ve heard that one before. Ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and other biofuels? Wind and solar? Synthetic fuels? Hydrogen? Electric vehicles? They just need a five-year window with the taxpayers’ help and the “market will flourish.” Five years later, they’re asking for five more.

    That’s because these subsidies create a dependence on government and do not allow producers to recognize the full costs of entering the market. They centralize power in Washington and allow lobbyists and politicians to decide what companies will produce. They concentrate benefits to the industry and disperse the costs to the rest of us.

    Those who believe in the long-term viability of natural gas vehicles should pony up the purchase costs with the expectations that not only will they recover their investment, but they’ll make hundreds of billions of dollars. The global market for oil is a multi-trillion-dollar market; if natural gas vehicles capture a sliver of that market share, natural gas vehicle producers will collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

    But what about the chicken and egg problem? As President Obama said on March 7, “It doesn’t matter how much natural gas, or flex fuel, or electric vehicles you have if there’s no place to charge them up or fill them up.” It also doesn’t matter how many cell phones you have if there’s no place to obtain a signal. But producers built cell phone towers and sold cell phones without a massive subsidy from Washington. If natural gas vehicles are economically competitive and the price is right, consumers will happily switch over and both the vehicle production and necessary supporting infrastructure will expand at rapid rates.

    Natural gas vehicles are a risk for venture capitalists and the private sector to undertake, not the taxpayers. Too many times the public has been fooled to think a few billion here and there will fundamentally transform our energy sector. These attempts have done nothing but waste taxpayer dollars and benefit special interests. Congress needs to eliminate subsidies in the transportation industry, not make more room for mouths at the government’s trough.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Industry-Funded NATGAS Act Is Financial Fairy Dust

    1. Rhaubib says:

      Subsidies get paid despite the usage of the fuel. Tax credits only get used when the purchase of a truck is made. If the market for this isn't there, freight lines won't buy CNG trucks and there would be no cost. So your comparison to ethanol doesn't exactly measure up. Additionally, I thought conservatives were for lower taxes?

      • David Kreutzer, Ph.D. David Kreutzer says:

        According to your logic there is no point in estimating the cost of any program, for instance, food stamps, because if nobody uses them, there will be no cost.

        Indeed, we are for lower taxes. We suggest there be no subsidy for natural gas trucks and equipment and, therefore, no need for taxes to finance it.

    2. Guest says:

      Your arguement against the Nat Gas Act is static, vehicle cost are declining and infrastructure expansion is currently taking place, making repayment on your investment a shorter duration. The move to natural gas vehicles will happen regardless of government involvement, the Nat Gas Act just accelerates the move.

    3. Guest says:

      It is traditional for politicians to identify a trend and then pass legislation so they can take credit for it. Why is the current crop in Washington so slow to recognize the importance of natural gas for the country's recovery? The move from diesel to natural gas should have been instrumental in 2009 for the creation of jobs in this country. Energy only seems to be important as a campaign issue, that no one wants to go away. Energy is our most important issue and should have been the for last 3 years.

    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.