Central Florida for Pickens

Add a Comment

Comment by Faye on March 15, 2009 at 11:56am

Thousands of New Jobs, Megawatts of Renewable Energy, Florida’s Green Economy BOOMING - ONLY YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!

Legislators tell us they MUST see YOUR Faces in Tallahassee in order to pass a
Renewable Energy Dividend policy state wide.
Register at www.FAREnergy.org

Date: 03/24/09
Time: 8:00 am to 2:00 pm
Meet at: Tallahassee Community College Capitol Center
Downtown, 300 West Pensacola St
Please join us for this very important event!

Advocates of effective renewable energy policies will gather at the State Capitol on March 24th, 2009 to show their support for the most effective renewable energy policy our legislature can adopt: Renewable Energy Dividends. Join renewable energy businesses, experts, and advocates, including manufacturers and representatives from the world’s largest renewable energy industry companies. Replicating the success of Gainesville, Florida and introducing a Renewable Energy Dividend policy will bring widespread economic recovery and job creation to Florida, while establishing energy
security and environmental stewardship.

Agenda:
7-8 am Registration
8-9:30 Briefing/Training
9:30-11:45 Lobbying
1 pm Rally & Press Conference
1-5 Lobbying
5:15 Debrief
6 pm Depart

Try to wear YELLOW. It can be a shirt, hat, scarf, ANYTHING to give a bolder message!

The Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy “FARE” is a coalition of concerned individuals, businesses, communities, associations, utilities, policy makers, non-profits, and renewable energy producers. FARE is dedicated to educating and engaging Floridians on effective Renewable Energy Policies.

<
Let Sunshine Power the Sunshine State!

Contact:

Jane Maxwell - FARE Member:
727-709-3398
Register at www.FAREnergy.org


Or

Faye Roller – Administrative Director
Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy
www.FAREnergy.org
faye@solarsource.net

Comment by Roy R on December 5, 2008 at 6:40am

Job Creation, Energy Independence, Environmental Stewardship

The energy market has dominated headlines for as long as can be remembered. As we climb our way out of the current economic cycle, new leaders are created and new industries will lead the way back to a strong, robust economy. Those who look to the future of the energy market know that Renewable Energy is an industry that is boiling over with potential. A growing new Renewable Energy industry in Florida will create untold thousands of jobs, collect millions in local tax revenues, and bring us to the forefront of the national stage on energy independence and environmental stewardship.
Renewable Energy Payments are a policy mechanism that have proven to promote the fastest, cheapest, and most widespread growth of Renewable Energy anywhere in the world, with implementation in over 45 countries. Currently at least 8 states in the U.S. are considering a Renewable Energy Payment (also known as Feed in Tariff) policy mechanism. Today the State of Florida is positioning itself ahead of the curve and providing a beacon for the rest of the country to follow by considering this policy mechanism.
A Renewable Energy Payment (REP) provides a fixed contract to the producers of Renewable Energy. The contracts, which are fixed for typically twenty years, afford the producer the ability to borrow against a mandated, guaranteed payment from their utility company. Also, these contracts, which are transparent, simple to understand, and open for inspection, include long-term agreed upon prices that the utility company will pay the producers for the energy it buys. The prices are set high enough to be an incentive to new producers and encourage existing producers to maximize their capacity.
The key components to a proven successful REP model:
• Anyone can access the grid, democratizing the new market and allowing anyone to produce renewable energy.
• All producers will receive a fixed payment, at reasonable rate of return, for a fixed period of time, typically 20 years, for the renewable energy that they produce.
• There is no limit to the amount of renewable energy that can be produced.
• The contracts are transparent and simple to understand.
With these features included in the design, a Renewable Energy Payment policy would create a stable and competitive renewable energy marketplace. Imagine if homes, churches, schools, hospitals, condo associations and ranchers could all install solar, wind and other renewable energy sources on their rooftops or land and then produce energy and sell it to the utilities for profit.... It could completely transform our economic landscape. Floridians are owed the chance to participate in the Renewable Energy market with a level playing field, and Renewable Energy Payments are the single most effective way to make sure this happens.



The key results of a REP market include:

• Job Creation. All levels of jobs are created including high-skilled positions in engineering, manufacturing, agriculture, and electronics. Jobs in banking and finance, breathing life in to a lending industry.

• Stability and Investment Security. REP incentives also have massive appeal to investors and lenders. Unlike Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) which have annually fluctuating values through a trading mechanism, REP incentives never change and never require any administration or additional cost. As long as the RE system is generating electricity it continues to make the system owner a guaranteed return on their investment.

• Stay at home revenue. With REPS, the revenue from producing renewable energy will stay in the county and state where it is produced. This will create "local wealth" and stimulate the local economy.

• Equality. REPs create a level playing field for all different sizes of renewable energy producers. It encourages individuals, small businesses and larger businesses to become renewable energy producers and rewards them all.

• Reduce Carbon Output. Burning fossil fuels releases 75% of the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. It is estimated that by switching to renewable energy we can cut CO2 emissions in half by 2030.

• Stabilize Energy Costs. Communities that use locally produced renewable energy have more stable energy costs. Once the systems are set up, their renewable fuels such as sun and wind are low cost or free. Overall, energy costs will be more predictable and controllable, creating economic stability.

• Create Energy Security. Renewable energy production will lesson a community’s or nation’s vulnerability to increasing fossil fuel prices and will increase self-reliant economic growth. Those who install renewable energy the soonest will save the most. The costs for renewable energy are expected to decline due to economy of scale and technological progress.





REPs Basic Steps


1. Priority access to the grid over conventional fuel sources [prevents gaming from utilities inhibiting grid access] within [60] days for all systems

2. Purchase guarantee with standard offer contracts (SOC) with the local utility standardized by the Public Service Commission. Contracts shall be 20 years fixed price with an inflation escalator [makes projects financeable with low cost debt versus expensive equity – target should be >70% debt for most technologies]

3. The SOC will be the broadly the same for all system sizes under 20MW – with the intent that the SOC provides a speedy transparent method for a RE producer to sell power to the utility

4. Pricing will be determined by the PSC but would be based on cost plus reasonable profit
a. To mimic the regulatory returns that regulated utilities currently enjoy in Florida for fossil generation projects.
b. Pricing to be differentiated by system size to factor in economies of scale that typically reduce installed costs for larger systems
c. We recommend that the PSC include in its calculation of return all federal ITC and other benefits such as accelerated depreciation.
d. A pricing digression methodology would be employed whereby every [2 years] the PSC can alter prices for new RE producers to factor in changes in costs
e. REPs by utilities for RE would be allowed to be recovered in the normal regulatory adjustment mechanism via a RE surcharge that would be allocated to each customer bill. The surcharge would be allocated by the PSC state wide to ensure that all customers pay for RE not just those customers of any one IOU
















Renewable Energy Payments


REPs are a simple, elegant, and cost-effective mechanism for supporting large-scale RE deployments in aggressive timelines. Germany alone has deployed 12 times the RE as the US since 2001, even though they have 1/7th the population and have ¼ the renewable resources for solar and wind (RE breakdown: 46% wind, 24% biomass, 4% solar). The Germans have already achieved the implementation of RE which accounts for >15% of their total power generation resources.


Germany’s FIT Success Story (through 2007)
1. Total Grid Contribution:
a. Baseline of 6.6% in 2005
b. 15% achieved by 2007
c. New 27% goal by 2020
2. Wind: 20,000+ MW installed (30.5 TWh generated) [45%+ of market]
3. Solar: 5000+ MW installed (US had 250 MW in 2007) [4%+ of market]
4. Biomass: 27% of market
5. Hydro: 24% of market

Approximate Cost in Germany
1. ~$2.80 (USD) a month (price of a loaf of bread)
2. Total Policy Cost of $2.4. B dollars annually
3. Net Policy Benefit of $4.8 B dollars Annually


Benefits of the REP Policy
1. Costs the ratepayers ZERO ($0) if the market does not support
2. REQUIRES NO STATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION or tax credit support
3. Incentives are calculated around each RE technology’s cost structure and are adjusted on a set performance schedule
4. Supports all RE technologies equally or can be adjusted for weighted average
5. Will help lower grid electricity prices through widespread adoption of RE into the power mix with low/no fuel input costs over the long term
REP Policies – Overview

1. Florida should immediately begin to increase its proportion of solar and renewable energy. In doing so it will:

• Improve Florida’s energy security by reducing its dependence on imported fossil fuels
• Create a wealth machine from solar and renewable energy. New construction, installation, electrical, manufacturing and finance jobs emerge as we expand on and establish a vibrant solar and renewable industry in Florida
• Improve our environment now and for the future citizens of Florida

2. REPs greatly increase competition in the renewable electricity generating sector in Florida. REPs policies allow everyone to become a solar and renewable energy producer up to 20MW per project, encouraging residential, commercial and larger investment groups to invest in and participate in solar and other renewable energy production. Each producer is allowed to self generate renewable power and sell the power back to their local utility
3. Utilities have hitherto been reluctant to invest the time and resources in building out small scale renewables projects since it adds minimal benefit to their earnings per share. Conversely, smaller renewable projects are best done by households, local community groups (churches/schools), farmers and developers, commercial groups and renewables companies. These policies therefore encourage renewable generation competition, and allow for a more efficient matching of producer and renewable resources. REPs allow a vast deployment of sub 20MW solar and renewable energy projects by providing solar and renewable energy priority access to the transmission grid and requiring that the utilities buy whatever power is produced.
4. Cost – REPs require NO taxation, NO upfront state payments or subsidies; the cost of paying the renewables producers is passed through to all utility customers through the usual PSC rate recovery mechanism. Costs will only rise if these policies are successful in delivering rapid deployment of renewables. Caps can be introduced to manage the desired growth.
5. Market mechanism – the state policy framework allows the private sector and market forces to work and invest; unlike renewable energy credits, there is no need for any state administration.
6. The solar and renewable energy REPs policy requires that all solar and renewable energy generating technologies are part of the solution. It is required that all renewable energy technologies as defined in [section 366.91] Florida Statutes, become part of the comprehensive REPs policy.







Recent REP Headlines

Nov. 18th Rep. Law introduces a feed in style renewable energy project in Michigan

Nov. 12th Gainesville Moves Forward on Feed-in Tariff

Nov. 7th. "Nov 4th" was a great day for Renewable Energy

Oct. 20th: Florida conference looks at German solar experience

Minnesota Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff Bill

Illinois: Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff Introduced in House of Representatives

Feed-in Tariff for California First

Germany sets shining example in providing a harvest for the world

Solar World expands in Orgeon

Comment by Michael, Houston on November 9, 2008 at 1:00am

MAKE MONEY, HELP SOMEONE YOU KNOW GET A GREEN JOB NOW!
Have you noticed the Referral Rewards up to $1,000 listed on Green Jobs Now! group page? Join the Group!
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/greenjobsnowcom

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 11:04am

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 9:46am

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code
Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,
We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing
initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work
together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call
for:
• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,
• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,
• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and
• Repealing the 16th Amendment
We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and
undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan
we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax
code, including payroll withholding taxes.
We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes.
We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes
with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 –
which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th
Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.
If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:
• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,
• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,
efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of
newly produced goods and services,
• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities,
up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the
burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the
current tax code,
• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,
• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax
revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,
• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of
tax collection changes,
• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,
• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be
needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code,
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-2-
• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along
with their state and local sales taxes,
• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or
undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,
• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services,
whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the
huge “underground economy,”
• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now
embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world
markets,
• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,
• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to
locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and
• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education
to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive
for American families as it is now.
The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair,
complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than
six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs
conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid
by consumers.
The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more
than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and
unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing
more than 2.8 million words).
Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in
productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households,
which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.
Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply
stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our
country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth
and job creation.
In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan
eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of
economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher
standard of living for the American people.
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-3-
The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.
We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25,
although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots
progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality
for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.
We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face
the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the
complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits
offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.
Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive
national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R.
25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Respectfully,
Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Jack A. Chambless
Professor of Economics
Valencia College
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-4-
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Drew Johnson
Fellow
Davenport Institute for Public
Policy
Pepperdine University
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Franklin Lopez
Tulane University
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-5-
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
John Semmens
Economist
Phoenix College
Arizona
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan Universit

Comment by D.Thomas Laskowski on October 3, 2008 at 7:17pm

Problems with the natural gas is drilling piping and still not an endless supply. I'll repeat me earlier question. "Has anyone checked out http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/ seams more fesable than converting to natural gas"
I've checked this book out, lots to read. But not only is this something we can make but he has crops for everyone there that have nothing to do with the food chain. Something that can be done as a singular entity to collaboration. Remember before Henry Ford used peanut oil then gas he used moonshine to fire some of his first engines. What was old can be new again. The engine conversion with install is about $350 to $500. Low to no emissions, easy vehicles conversion, crops that don't disturb the food chain and made in the US. No brainier!!!

PLEASE lets talk about this!!!

Comment by Gary Munson on September 28, 2008 at 1:33am

I keep hoping that Nanosolar and EEstor come to fruition. Like you apparently realize, if they do, all other technologies will be trumped by cheap power and a way to store it. Those two will make PV a stand-alone solution at home...an extra EEstore unit or two to power your car, also. I see Black and Decker released a cordless screwdriver with a super capacitor rather than a battery. It recharges in 90 seconds. I've seen where other companies are also pursuing super capacitor technology. If one succeeds, that will change the game.

Comment by peter upfield on September 27, 2008 at 6:31pm

Has there been ANY information that EEStor or Nanosolar have products that match their claims? I mean if there is affordable .5KWH/Kg storage and $1/W PV production, do we need to worry about CNG vehicles?

Also, which is the best use of the dollar; PV production and storage in each residence or a large PV plant with power distributed thru the existing grid?

And, I was wondering if Plasma Gasification of municipal waste for power production is reasonable to consider for supplementing PV, Wind, Tide, etc power production? You know, for those calm and dark nights.

Comment by D.Thomas Laskowski on September 8, 2008 at 7:42pm

Has anyone checked out http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/ seams more fesable than converting to natural gas

Comment by Gary Munson on August 30, 2008 at 9:07am

What I've seen is that unless you live in Utah, CNG is about as expensive as gas although that's not really a concern with the Pickens Plan. Saving money is nowhere as important as getting off the import addiction. It's just that the conversions I've seen have such a limited range that you'll be using gas most of the time anyway. I'm afraid a lot of people think that CNG will save them money. I doubt that will be true as the demand for CNG as a motor fuel increases.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last