I didn't mean to gloss over your comment but I was trying to avoid a long winded discussion of how society also benefits by more widespread adoption of nat gas as a fuel source let me summarize the high points:
1) Ability to cut carbon emmissions and improve air quality; 2) Reduce dependence on foreign oil derived primarily from politically unstable areas in the middle east. This stability will help promote national security. 3) Help foster gasoline price stability by adjusting supply demand dynamic. 4) Create jobs building critical infrastructure to refuel nat gas vehicles. 5)Support Nat Gas energy suppliers which have been one of the few areas of the economy that was thriving up until about 6 months ago when the price of nat gas fell to $2mcf.
TBP or CLNE and Road Pilot are spending their own money building fueling stations, however you are talking about a mammoth undertaking when you consider the # of miles of highway in the US. The initiative will expand with or without government involvement since the economic incentives already exist in the form of cheaper fuel. However, the build out will take decades if only private equity is utilized. I suspect GM's and Dodge's release of nat gas and/or bifuel pick up trucks next year will mark the start of more widespread use of Nat Gas for passenger vehicles. This should spur more private equity interest since the market is huge.
The nat gas adoption will likely start with small businesses which can justify installing refueling devices. CNBC indicates that the cost for a refueling compressor/dispenser will be closer to $4000 than the $2000 I quoted a few weeks ago (see link). My numbers were based on Canadian and Italian costs where there is more of an economy of scale.
Everyone is playing their own investment angle (or you ought to assume it if your an investor), the question is whether they are aligned with the majority of the population as a whole. I think widespread use of a clean domestic fuel is clearly in the Country's best interest. The Koch Bros see long term cheap nat gas as a distinct advantage to many of their businesses. So they are lobbying the Senate to secure long term cheap gas that benefits them.
The tax payers should only be hit up for funds if there is a long term payoff. Taxing the nat gas fuel provides the means of providing that payoff. Economists also believe in multiplier effects. I've heard economists estimate that Kennedy's decision to put a man on the moon resulted in a payoff to the economy that was at least 40 times the amount invested in NASA. Think of all the new technology and industries that sprung up out of this initiative (computer processing, propulsion, aeronautical engineering, composite materials, rocket defense systems, etc.). What was the national prestige worth? I think these points make the case for gov involvement under the right circumstances.
I'll concede when the country is $15T in debt which equates to about $50,000 for every man woman and child, we need to be careful how and where we spend. I believe that a nat gas energy plan is one of the few places where the benefits will outweigh the costs of the investment.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
