Free fuel for thee, but not for me!

City to give electric vehicle owners free fuel

Charging stations similar to this one have
 been  installed in downtown Toledo.
You and I  are paying for them.

I received a press release from the City of Toledo announcing a press conference to unveil their new electric vehicle charging stations:

City to unveil electric vehicle charging stations

Three stations to be available in downtown area

Mayor Michael P. Bell will unveil three electric vehicle chargers at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 10 near 347 North Superior St., the corner of Superior and Adams.

As a pilot program, motorists will pay for metered parking and can plug to the charger in at no additional cost. The city will monitor the usage to determine the need to expand the program in other locations. In total the units cost $7,200 to purchase. Installation assistance was provided through a competitively bid contract with local contractor TAS Electric.

Okay - so the city is spending $7,200 to purchase the chargers and TAS Electric got the contract to install them, for how much it didn't say.

But did you catch this? The cost to the electric vehicle user is the same and you and I would pay to park - the coins we are required to put in the meter.

The electric vehicle owner is getting their juice for free.

The City is paying the cost of the electricity used to charge the vehicles - which means you and I are paying for someone else to charge their car.

Now, when a regular vehicle owner parks downtown, no one pays him or her two hours worth of gas.

Why should electric vehicle owners get their fuel for free while you and I have to pay for our own?

Whatever happened to equal equal treatment?

Mayor Mike Bell said at the press conference that this will contribute to Toledo being a business-friendly town.

Really? What's "business-friendly" about giving some people their fuel for free while charging others for it?

A Honda Fit can go 82 miles on a fully-charged electric battery. It needs 7.25 kW-hrs to go 25 miles which means it needs 23.78 kW-hrs to fully charge the battery. According to Edmonds, the cost of charging the vehicle is 23.78 kW-Hrs times the cost of the electricity.

The cost of electricity varies and the city probably has a special rate, but my current rate is $0.064075/kwh. If I were charging a Honda Fit at home, it would cost me $1.52.

That might not seem to be very much - at first. But numerous cars will be able to plug in, each charging their battery in full, 7 days a week.

But that's not the only cost. The expense the city incurred to install the charging units also needs to be recouped, except the city isn't charging the users for that at all.

This is going to be a constant drain on taxpayers. And since it's a pilot project and Bell hopes to add more, it will be even more of drain as time goes on.

And don't forget the current controversy over the gasoline tax. Electric vehicles, because they use so much less gasoline (if at all), don't pay as much gasoline tax which is used to pay for road maintenance and repair. This has caused some to suggest a meter on vehicles to charge a fee per mile driven. So they're using the roads, but not paying as much for them as you and I.

How difficult would it be to have the users pay an extra $1.50 when they put money in the meter?

And why would the city and its elected officials think it's okay to not charge the users for the fuel they're using?

Can I park at a downtown meter and get $1.50 worth of gas? Can pull up to the city gas pump and put $1.50 worth of their gasoline in my car every day?

Can you imagine if we all demanded equal treatment when it comes to the city paying for vehicle fuel?

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

This is not the proper role of government and tax dollars should not be going to pay for fuel for some but not for others.

The vehicle owners need to be charged for the electricity they use and a portion of the cost of the chargers as well. Anything less is unacceptable.

Time to end corn-based ethanol production

Rep. Marcy Kaptur has, for years, pushed ethanol fuel on us and the nation. She's advocated its use and voted to mandate it for our gas supply. But new research shows it's not anywhere near as 'good' or as environmentally friendly as she claims it to be.

Mark Perry, a University of Michigan - Flint economics professor and scholar at The American Enterprise Institute, wrote an interesting column called "Production of Corn Ethanol as an Automotive Fuel Source Should Cease," (MLive, January 16, 2013). The National Center for Policy Analysis provides this summary:

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) justification for mandating an increase in E15 production, a fuel comprised of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline, is weaker than ever, says Mark Perry, a University of Michigan at Flint economics professor.

* A recent American Automobile Association report found that using E15 causes accelerated engine wear.
* Accelerated wear on the internal parts of a combustion engine results in costly repairs for consumers who believed they were being environmentally-friendly.
* Ethanol produced from corn is the only widely-available biofuel that meets federal guidelines.

Enacted in 2005, the Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing ethanol production capacities and predicted that the biofuel industry would be booming by now.

* As a fuel source, corn ethanol is far less efficient than gasoline, providing 27 percent lower fuel economy than traditional gasoline.
* After a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit companies receive to produce ethanol, it still costs 70 cents more per gallon.
* With 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop being used to produce ethanol, retail food prices for the average American have increased.

While the ethanol lobby has claimed that the production of ethanol will move America toward energy independence, the National Research Council found that it requires significantly more water in its production process than gasoline, as well as requiring large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides that deplete water and soil quality.

* The EPA refuses to rescind the ethanol mandate and has set production to increase from 13 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
* By 2022, the nation's entire corn crop would be devoted to ethanol production.
* Advances in cellulosic ethanol, which is made from wood chips, switchgrass and other sources, could reduce demand for corn.

For these reasons and more, I agree with Perry. Now the question goes to the politicians. Will they 'trust the science' or keep pushing an agenda that is rooted more in politics and control than the actual environment?

My bet is on the latter.

Gas Can Man coming back to Toledo Monday 7 a.m.

Gas Can Man is coming back to Toledo Monday morning at 7 a.m. to roll back the price of gasoline for 100 Toledo area drivers at the True North Shell Station, 4581 Monroe Street in Toledo.

You'll be able to purchase gas for the price it was when Barack Obama took office in 2009...massive savings, though number of gallons per vehicle may be limited.

For more information, check out www.gascanman.com

Gas Can Man bringing $1.84/gal gas to Toledo

Everybody is talking about high gas prices, but Gas Can Man is doing something about it!!

Gas Can Man, is coming to Toledo Thursday. Along with 1370 WSPD, he'll roll back the price of gasoline for 100 Buckeye State drivers beginning at 4 p.m. at a location to be announced on the radio. Brian Wilson will be broadcasting live from the event beginning at 3 p.m.

The lucky drivers will pay the January 2009 price of $1.84/gallon for a maximum of 15 gallons each for unleaded gasoline.

Here is a synopsis of some of the recent media coverage for Gas Can Man to give you a sense of what Toledo can expect.



“High gas prices have been one of the main topics of concern that Americans all over the country have experienced and we are using Gas Can Man to promote the idea that with a “can do” attitude we CAN do better,” said Steve Gill, Chairman of Morning In America, Inc. a 501(c)4 focused on American energy policy and based in Nashville, TN.

“We need an all of the above approach to energy policy, because coal, gas, natural gas, biofuels, solar, nuclear, etc., ALL fit in the CAN!”

Refiners face EPA fines for failing to use product that doesn't exist

A lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency certainly isn't news. People and companies sue the agency regularly - primarily because they have invaded every aspect of our lives in the guise of 'protecting' us. But this latest lawsuit should be a no-brainer, even for liberal judges.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to determine the mandated volume of cellulosic biofuels each year at "the projected volume available." EPA's 2012 rule requires that refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel must use 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels.

The EPA's 2012 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires refiners to pay fees if they are unable to blend the mandated amount of cellulosic biofuels into their gasoline.

So far, this sounds pretty typical of the EPA.

But - and this is a HUGE 'but' - there is currently no commercial supply of cellulosic biofuels in the U.S., so it's impossible for refiners to meet this demand.

Of course, the EPA will probably say that at least this is less than the 250 million gallons that was required in 2007, though it is higher than than the 6.6 million gallons required in 2011.

But when the product doesn't exist, it doesn't make much difference how much is required - and it defies logic to raise a mandate for a product that isn't available.

The end result is that the companies cannot meet the mandate so they will pay fees - actually, a fine. And we all know that when companies have to pay 'fees' (actually TAXES) to the federal government, they'll just tack on that cost to the price we pay for the product. So you and I will end up paying the 'fee' at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing.

In 2011, the fine totaled about $6.8 million. The 2012 fines are expected to be higher. Perhaps the fine is the point. Perhaps the entire purpose is collect monies by mandating use of something that technology cannot provide.

Which is why the American Petroleum Institute has filed suit in Washington Circuit Court.

"EPA's standard is divorced from reality and forces refiners to purchase credits for cellulosic fuels that do not exist," said API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco. "EPA's unrealistic mandate is effectively a tax on manufacturers of gasoline that could ultimately burden consumers."

"Divorced from reality" is being kind. When it takes four years just to get 'permission' to challenge the EPA, you know you've got an agency that is out of control.

Surely any judge will see that it is wrong to penalize a company for failing to achieve the impossible.