CNG fuel of future
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives is considering nine bills collectively known as the “Marcellus Works” package, which — if passed — will provide a foundation for a much cleaner, greener transportation system in our state and across the country. The bills support the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) to fuel vehicles using the state's homegrown natural resource.
Grant programs and tax incentives such as those proposed in the “Marcellus Works” package were a leading factor in Aqua Pennsylvania's decision to transition our larger vehicle fleet to CNG beginning in 2012. Today, Aqua has piloted five CNG vans, two dump trucks and two biofuel pickup trucks in service. We have invested $657,000 in CNG to date, including vehicles and infrastructure, and expect to have 90 CNG vehicles in operation within the next five years.
As a former Department of Environmental Protection secretary and Office of Economic Development director for the commonwealth, I strongly believe CNG is the fuel of the future because it's less expensive and better for the environment. I applaud the ongoing efforts of the DEP that have made drilling for natural gas a safe and environmentally sound alternative to petroleum-based fuels.
The writer is chairman and CEO of Aqua America Inc. (aquaamerica.com), which provides water and wastewater services to approximately 3 million people in 10 states.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns I
- Knives vs. guns II
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- Consequences in space
- Dems’ tax myth
- Tragedy’s ramifications II
- Tragedy’s ramifications I
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Tragedy sensationalized