Reader comments
Paying more at the pump

Dave | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

If natural gas is so environmentaly friendly, why is Redford and his co-harts doing everything they can to prevent it from being developed?

Joel Wright | 8:54 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

What I find most ironic about the Utah Public Service Commission's decision to stop subsidizing CNG (or clean natural gas) here in Utah is that they did not even consider the cost of pollution, or the benefits of energy independence. They were completely irrelevant -- it was like they didn't even exist. To some extent I think they were afraid to consider them, because it might make their job hard, or lead them to a different conclusion. Alternatively, maybe they were prohibited by law from considering such benefits. More information is needed.

And where is the Governor on all this? In the past he has been a strong and brave advocate for CNG here in Utah, and even paid to have his cars converted to CNG.

Orthogon | 9:17 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

It's so easy to be environmentaly friendly when someone else is paying the bill for you. Seems to me that most of the environmentaly friendly people are always looking for free rides. If they are so serious and concern about pollution, wouldn't be better if they give us an example by only using bicycles for transportation, and get rid of their evil vehicles for good. If you can't not afford it, don'y buy it, unfortunately this is the message that our politicians are preaching now days, and most people love to hear that!

Comments continue below

veedub | 9:26 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

So home nat gas users are subsidizing auto nat gas users? And when the auto nat gas price is raised 188%, just how much is that going to lower home nat gas prices? None? Hmm. I thought so.

MTJ | 9:52 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

This was my concern with CNG all along and why I didn't ever go for a CNG vehicle. The goverment giveth and the government taketh away. It was an artificial price controlled by the gov't. THen again, gasoline could likely increase in cost again so that $1.50 for CNG might seem like a bargain.

Bart | 10:37 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Oh, Pleaaaassseee! with the picture!

American Citizen | 11:29 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

The problem is air pollution. CNG cars are far cleaner to drive. As the Wasatch Front gets more crowded, the air is going to get dirtier, and the EPA is going to put more expensive pollution requirements on Utah government and drivers. CNG cars deserve an incentive from the government, not from a private company.

As for the whiney CNG drivers, CNG burns so clean that their engines last about twice as long. Utah regular gas will be $3.00 or more a gallon again soon, so be brave.

iamdlogan | 11:37 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Leave it up to government to take a great idea when all else is crashing around you and destroy your efforts to save gas for those who couldnt convert to natural gas...I spent $3500.00 to convert so that others could have more and what did it get me, a slap in the face and prices that will get even more expensive...I'll go back to gas now and use more so the rest of you will have less...
Thanks to GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Nice picture! | 11:55 a.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Rocky's my hero! He's a shining example for all liberal blowhards.

Abusive Govt | 12:00 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Last week, I was with my brother when he filled his CNG truck. We paid $0.79 per gallon in Fillmore. The sticker on the pump said Fed taxes were 48 cents per gallon, state taxes-- Zero. Well that changed Jan 1st. Now the state is taking 8 plus cents per gallon?

Good grief! The producers, distributers, gas stations etc have had to divy up roughly 30 cents for their efforts and the Government now takes 56 or 57 cents for theirs?

Right on!

Government over the people, of the Government, by the Government, and for the Government.

Isn't it about the planet? | 1:36 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

I am curious why people are using natural gas. I thought it was all about saving the planet. If it is only about saving money then get off the green horse. People want a clean world and don't want to pay a high premium for it.

Chris | 1:44 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

The death nail in the coffin? What--are we confusing "death nail" with "the final nail in the coffin"? Who is sounding the death knell for "death knell"?

That's depressing... | 1:51 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

I though Rocky had moved to Massachusetts, Vermont, or France. Based on the photo, my day has been made a little worse...thanks

justired | 2:26 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

i didn't think i would ever agree with anything Rocky had to say, but i do think the low price of CNG in utah was a good thing.

did this all come about because one guy almost killed his children with a blown do-it-yourself CNB installation?

when considering whether to pony up the up-front costs to convert my vehicle to CNG a few months ago, i checked CNG prices in surrounding states and quickly vereyfied that our's in Utah was artificially low. Assuming that it wouldn't stay that way forever, i didn't change any of my vehicles over, and withing a couple of months the price of gas went waaaay down.

however, it could go back up just as quickly or at least eventually. Apparently, now CNG will have to compete on it's own merits, instead of a screaming price incentive. and there are merits, whether it is subsidized or not.

Greedy | 2:55 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Just give me your money. That all I want anyway.

/the Gov.

PAUL | 4:14 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

look, the goverment doen'twant to give anyone a break. they'll find a way foe it to cost us the same no matter what kind in vehicle we drive,whether it be gas,CNG,electric,or diesl.

Help me on the math here | 4:15 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Ummm... it was 80 cents. Now, it's going to be $1.43. How is that a 188% increase? I count a 63 cent increase, which amounts to a 79% increase.

Robert | 5:45 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

If the paper correctly quoted Anderson, ("He said that the Salt Lake Valley's poor air quality and over-dependence on foreign oil are major concerns that need to be considered of the utmost importance right now"), he needs to learn a lesson.

No gasoline from foreign oil is sold in the Salt Lake Valley.

Taylor | 8:42 p.m. Jan. 4, 2009

Of course, "Rocky" drives a CNG Honda. I'm sure he has no personal interest in subsidized natural gas though; I'm sure he's not thinking he's above the rest of us and therefore we should subsidize his hiney. After all, as DN reported while he was mayor, he parked his CNG Honda in short-term parking at the airport for a personal excursion for a couple of weeks and expected taxpayers to pick up the tab. No self interest there either.

And the math comment is correct, the difference is just below 79% increase (why didn't the journalist check his math?? Or was this purposefully sensational?). The rest of us are paying that on gasoline; why should we subsidize natural gas users? They already save by driving in the HOV lane (uses much less gas than idling in rush hour) and running a much cleaner. And they'll still be saving a bunch when gasoline increases again. But, they figure they should pay .80 per gallon while the rest of us pay $4.50.

CNG is good; I've considered it. But I'd expect to pay a reasonable price for it. Let the market decide the price.

John Mitton | 9:03 a.m. Jan. 5, 2009

What the PSC completely missed in its ruling is that public CNG refueling is a natural monopoly wherever it exists. This ruling will do for Utah what happened elsewhere in the country: The gas utility will sell the stations to one commercial provider. We then will have an unregulated monopoly in place of a regulated one.

Click on "Fueling Station Map" on my chat board referenced in the article and browse around the country to see what has happened in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, New England, So Cal, No Cal, Texas, etc. You have a monopoly provider in each of these markets, be it Clean Energy, AVSG, PG&E, etc.

Do the math right! | 9:38 a.m. Jan. 5, 2009

If you remove the tax from the equation like you should before calculating,the true CNG increase is 188%.

We should all consider the "true cost" of converting and driving a CNG vehicle. We must realize that it is more expensive to us per mile and that less power is available from the car's engine and that we are willing to pay extra for a very small and temporary amount of clean air.

When you comment be correct!

Kelly | 11:11 a.m. Jan. 5, 2009

CNG is a great alternative fuel, it has tremendous environmental advantages. However, it is inconvenient to use. We as consumers need to be more broad minded and realize the need to at times place incentives to foster new methods. I have a cng Honda, it holds 8 gallons of cng. I could count on one hand the number of times that I have been able to fill it. The pressure at the pump is seldom there. In order to make this industry grow, and I believe move into the large truck industry, we need to make it viable. By viable, I mean, available and worthwhile to go to the trouble of using. I believe that the result would be positive for all involved. If you raise the price so dramatically, then you kill the incentive.

Hidden costs of CNG | 5:05 p.m. Jan. 5, 2009

There are significant additional costs involved with driving an NGV not least of all the fact that there are very few locations to get fuel. With low pressure and high temps in the summer my dedicated NGV gets about 100-110 miles on a fill up, but those fill ups are rare. I can't take it out on the road due to range issues so my CNG car is just about completely limited to my work commute. That is fine by me since that is why I bought it in the first place. Now it sits in the driveway as an additional vehicle.

Pollution is much less than regular gasoline powered vehicles, but my vehicle will sit until gasoline prices climb to the level when it is affordable once again to drive it. In the mean time it will be back to gasoline.

And finally, air quality is something that everybody contributes to and everybody should be tapped to fix the problem. Natural gas vehicles are only part of the solution, but a vital part that could be greatly expanded given the proper incentives.

What Environment? | 7:46 p.m. Jan. 5, 2009

Personally, I could care less about the environment. Ride a bike if you care that much. I just want cheaper fuel and my money not be going to terrorist-supporting nations (i.e. everywhere in the Middle East). But until we can get CNG going solid, we really need to drill in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. So few people will ever see those places enough to care anyway.

Lew Jeppson | 12:44 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

The problem is that users of gasoline powered vehicles are not covering the costs they impose on society because of their emissions. This is the classic case of a negative market externality. Government has two choices, it can subsidize CNG vehicles (which presently constitute a positive market externality) or impose additional taxes on gasoline powered vehicles. Jay, one is as legitimate as the other. However, CNG suppliers should not provide said product at below cost, as that introduces yet additional market distortions.

Real Macaw | 2:14 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

What no one has menionted on here is CNG tanks are very expensive. New tanks cost thousands of dollars. Some vehicles have 4 or 5 small ones, others have one or two large ones. These tanks have a lifetime of about 15 years, whether they are being used or not! After a date printed on them you are not supposed to use them and the car probably can't be registered. This is a MAJOR cost for CNG owners no one has mentioned. CNG car owners have so many inconveniences. If their financial incentive is taken away, then this cleaner burning transportation technology, that uses US fuel, dies or doesn't reach the masses. We then remain dependant on foreign oil and sucking up to bad governments. This forces us to continue paying trillions of dollars in taxes to be the world's free police and being hated globally for it.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

2 photos

Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

The price of a gallon equivalent of compressed natural gas for vehicles will increase by 79 percent by next summer. The hike will take place in two phases.

Gallery (2 photos)