Texas absent from agreement to promote natural gas cars


Four governors from natural gas-producing states banded together last week to push for the development of affordable natural gas vehicles.

The pact made sense. All four governors hailed from states whose economies have directly benefited from the domestic boom in natural gas production.

There was No. 5 domestic natural-gas producer, Colorado. Nos. 2 and 3, Wyoming and Oklahoma, signed it, too. Even No. 12 – Pennsylvania – hopped on board.

Conspicuously absent was the nation’s top natural gas producer – Texas.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin took the lead on the Memorandum of Understanding, in which the governors agreed to work together to add natural gas vehicles to their state fleets.

Her office told me that an invitation to join the NGV agreement was extended to Gov. Rick Perry and every other governor in the country. But Fallin’s office hasn’t received a response from the Texas governor.

When I called Perry’s office, a spokesman’s emailed response said that the office was reviewing the governors’ agreement. Spokesman Josh Havens then noted Perry’s recent moves in support of natural gas vehicles, including his approval of state incentives for companies that purchase natural gas vehicles and funding for natural gas fueling stations in Texas.

When I asked him when Perry’s office will make a decision on whether or not to join the MOU, he emailed me again:

“Our office is still reviewing it.”

Simone Sebastian

14 Responses

  1. Dollar says:

    And the gas industry is not asking for subsidies, just tax credits for fuel stations and conversion by heavy trucking.

    They don’t need a subsidy for the fuel itself.

  2. Dollar says:

    ntangle, you can’t build an electric vehicle, to tow my boat.

    That takes real HP.

  3. Drillnman says:

    shale gas cars are a choice for some ppl. The industry is taxing it’s self already- the tax goes to pay for more CNG cars and trucks in shale states… In pa we are building many new stations for gas cars- and you can have a refuleing station put in your home. The mayor of Williamsport has one.

  4. ntangle says:

    From the link provided by Peter:
    Now the German tuner has built what it’s billing as the world’s fastest natural gas powered car, the BMW M5 Hurricane GS. The car runs on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), in some forms referred to as propane or butane, and it features a 5.0-liter V-10 that has a pair of superchargers attached.
    Last time I checked, in the US natural gas refers to (primarily) methane (C1). Not LPG (C3 & C4). The difference isn’t academic. Larger molecules allow higher energy density, reducing the vapor pressure & making storage easier. And reducing the boost necessary for a given amount of reaction energy in the combustion chamber.

  5. Craig says:

    Read about my personal quest to prove whether CNG is an economical and practical transportation fuel. I started with a brand new Honda Civic GX in 2009. Now I have a 2001 F-150 factory dedicated CNG truck that I bought on Ebay because Ford couldn’t figure out how to sell a new one. Now Parkway Chevrolet in Tomball, TX is converting my 2011 Tahoe to run on gasoline or CNG. Yeah, it pays out like a slot machine and I’m kind of glad not many folks have figured it out because there aren’t enough CNG vehicles available.

  6. Peter says:

    Yes, the Tesla Roadster’s performance numbers are quite impressive; however, the BMW based G-Power natural gas vehicle with 660 hp and a top speed of 206 mph is no slouch either – http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1053558_german-tuner-g-power-builds-worlds-fastest-natural-gas-powered-car

  7. ntangle says:

    Thanks for the link HH. I’ve seen earlier versions of that chart, several years ago. It does a good job of presenting lots of good info…the sources & uses. And it appears the numbers have changed significantly.

  8. HaHA says:

    ntangle… this chart says a lot:
    source on left, end use in middle, energy used vs wasted/lost on right

  9. Ivar says:

    When I asked him when Perry’s office will make a decision on whether or not to join the MOU, he emailed me again:

    “Our office is still reviewing it.”
    Too busy getting ready for debates and campaigning?
    Why not just add a $1/gallon gas tax to promote them and fix infrastructure.
    Taxi cabs in Madrid likely had rain leaks regardless of fuel type.

  10. HaHA says:

    Dollar, I thought you were one of those “no subsidies, no way” kind of folks… unless it is for nat gas?
    Maybe you should’ve been a politician.

    Food for thought…

  11. ntangle says:

    Horsepower — much better than electric car
    Wrong. It’s easy to make electric motors of whatever horsepower is required. Unlike ICE’s, larger electric motors don’t necessarily reduce the efficiency, but they do increase the weight somewhat. Show me a CNG car in production that can outrun a Tesla Roadster.
    For more down to Earth examples, the recently announced CNG Civic has 110 hp, vs. its gasoline counterpart of 140 hp. A Chevy Volt has two 55 kW motors, which totals 149 hp. And because of its instant torque at any speed, even from a stop, it feels like much more than that.

    I have nothing against CNG cars. But I do prefer fair comparisons. Like EV’s, CNG could really help the US’ trade balance (its perennial hemorrhage of dollars).

  12. Bob Palmer says:

    1. Taxi Cabs in Madrid are the basis of my experience and the luggage gets very wet duing rain storms. 2. I will stay with my 4WD Suburban and Pickup. 3. Dividends from oil company stocks more than covers the fuel cost.

  13. Dollar says:

    Bob .. one at a time

    Horsepower — much better than electric car

    Size of tank — when incorporated into design of car, the tank can be located under the frame, as Fiat does in Europe.

    Refueling stations are on the way, they are being built every day by the private sector, if govt gets behind, it accelerates the rate.

    Subsidy — Not necessary, but as I said, would accelerate the process , get us to a place we’re headed, faster.

  14. Bob Palmer says:

    Believe me, natural gas fuel internal combustion engines are not econimical. First with the same engine displacement, there is a loss of horsepower in the range of 20%. Second the fuel tank is much larger and in a conventional sedan, there is greatly reduced luggage space which requires external carriers-likely roof top located whih greatly increases the air drag, further increasing fuel consumption. Third, there will be a serious problem locating refueling locations. Finally, the only solution is for tax payers to subsidize the cost of the program.
    Bob Cat