Thanks again dude. I am now think that its time to protest CNBC until he is gone.This dude is a classic 1 percent let me screw in the market troll.
Flash's comment about giving new regulatory power to EPA is not true.
I had to research the US Code that is being modified by S 1863. It seems the bill only clarifies "converted" and provides credits. The trucking industry is already regulated and the bill adds nothing even indirectly to the regulation that I can detect.
The emissions controls in Title 42 already apply to heavy duty trucking, since the term "motor vehicles" is defined as
(e) "motor vehicle" has the meaning specified for that term in section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550(2))
and that definition is given there as:
(2) The term “motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway.
I found that Title 42 Chapter 85 Subchapter II "EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR MOVING SOURCES" includes the following paragraphs that specifically apply to gas/diesel fueled heavy duty trucks:
(ii) Effective for the model year 1998 and thereafter, the
regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection applicable to emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from gasoline and diesel-fueled heavy duty trucks shall contain standards which provide that such emissions may not exceed 4.0 grams per brake horsepower hour (gbh).
(D) Rebuilding practices. - The Administrator shall study the practice of rebuilding heavy-duty engines and the impact rebuilding has on engine emissions. On the basis of that study and other information available to the Administrator, the Administrator may prescribe requirements to control rebuilding practices, including standards applicable to emissions from any rebuilt heavy-duty engines (whether or not the engine is past its statutory useful life), which in the Administrator's judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare taking costs into account. (It continues).
I quoted the paragraph from HR 1380, Section 403 that I am concerned about:
"HR 1380, SEC. 403. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING EPA AND NHTSA REGULATION OF MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES AND VEHICLES."
"It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission regulations for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles should provide incentives to encourage and reward manufacturers who produce natural gas powered vehicles. Such regulations should take into account the petroleum reductions provided by such vehicles and also quantify all greenhouse gas emission reductions provided by natural gas powered engines and vehicles."
To my best knowledge, the Congress has never affirmed that monitoring or regulating greenhouse gas emissions is a Federal policy goal. The above paragraph seems to do that. To the contrary, the Republicans in the House passed a bill just last April, HR 910, that specifically says:
"To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating
any regulation concerning, taking action relating
to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse
gas to address climate change, and for other purposes."
HR 910 has not been voted on in the Senate.
Here is the text of HR 910:
When the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill failed to pass in the Senate, (even though it had passed in the Pelosi led House in summer, 2009), many people from both the right and left said that the far left would try to go around the Congress with EPA directives, and executive orders from the Whitehouse, to regulate greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions. HR 1380 opens the door for that to happen more easily. JMO.
In Cramer's defense, he's trying to tell it like it is. He clearly supports the NATGAS Act, sponsoring CLNE through interviews with its CEO, Littlefair, but he acknowledges the obstacles presented by the chemical and coal industries. Chemicals do not want higher natgas prices, their primary feedstock, and coals do not want to lose their grip on the power industry. However, this is such a strong bi-partisan cause that I think Cramer may be overstating the negatives due to the highly speculative nature of the outcome. It could be a watershed event if we do the right thing.
<In Cramer's defense, he's trying to tell it like it is.>
I believe you're right about that.
However, I believe Cramer is partially wrong when he states the President is against NG and oil :
"The President wants to send an anti-fossil-fuel message".
I have seen no statements against NG by the President.
In fact I believe he has recognized NG as a cleaner alternative to oil and a possible means of oil independence for the U.S.
Blaming the nat gas acts not passing up to now on the Republicans, or just the chemical and coal industries is incorrect. The Democrats never once tried to pass either of the nat gas acts during the 111th Congress when they had control of Presidency, Senate and House, S. 1408 in the Senate or HR 1835 in the House. They let these bills die in committee with no report out of committees because there is a huge anti fossil wing of Democrats in the Congress and the Whitehouse.
Here is the bill history for the nat gas act in the Senate:
Here is the bill history for the nat gas act in the House:
The Pelosi led house did pass an energy bill in the House, HR 2454, the Waxaman-Markey cap and trade bill, which heavily taxed natural gas as a carbon polluter. There is a huge anti fossil fuel wing in the Democrat party. Obama's own Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is on record saying he wants to drive our fuel prices to those of Europe so non fossil fuel, green energy becomes an economical alternative.
As for the new nat gas act, the devil is in the details. The current nat gas act in the House, HR 1380, has a provision in the bill that gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions. Expanding the regulatory authority of the ideological, anti fossil fuel EPA is a terrible idea and would be bad for nat gas for transportation proponents in the long run.
The Nat Gas bill would not have been introduced in the Senate if the votes were not there for passage in a bipartisan manner. The question is "will someone kill it in committee"? Once again Crammer's charity pumps and dumps.
Did any one of you guys listen to C-SPAN today regarding the Natural Oil and Gas Commission?
Of course you didn't because if you did you would be shorting the index or putting together a winning strategy of a stradle together.
Listen to the Department of Interior Salazar.
Otherwise your both just a bunch of DB who just like to run your lip rather then listen to the guys in sitting in the seat who love to refer to each other as "gentleman".
Quick questions!! you will learn the answer too!!
How far down is the Gaseous Layer they want to Frack?
Where are the aqueducts located, how deep in the earth?
How desperate the Republicans are to get Natural Gas going and providing jobs to their state their argument is for 60 years we did and we should continue to do it despite if we are starting to suspect that carcinogens are being left behind in the earth 15x times did you Republican say?
60 years they didn't govern Fracking but now they are? Does that mean if it worked for 60 years its OK? Defintely not with out a study being performed.
Simple Solution: You and your entire family drink the water with the fracking solution mixed with odorless natural gas and we can talk then. Show us how safe it is, ok?
We get it you want jobs for your state but at what cost?
We get it the Republican want to take credit for U.S. now producing over 50% of it own oil finally!! Will you take all the bad credit also? You know like Exxon Valdez and Deep Water Horizon? The other leaks across the planet.
Side Bar, I don't give a hoot about F.D.R. prayer going on the side of a Memorial. We have more pressing work to do pal.