Cities Are Starting To Ban New Gas Stations (axios.com) 301
Petaluma, California, has voted to outlaw new gas stations, the first of what climate activists hope will be numerous cities and counties to do so. From a report: The movement aims to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles.
"This is not a ban on the existing gas stations, which are providing all the gas currently needed," Matt Krogh, U.S. oil and gas campaign director for the environmental group Stand.earth, tells Axios. "The problem with allowing new gas stations is we don't really need them and they're putting existing gas stations out of business." In Petaluma -- where neighborhood opposition to a new Safeway gas station prompted years of litigation -- the council voted unanimously last week to move forward with a permanent ban on new stations; a final vote will happen Monday.
Existing stations won't be allowed to add new gas pumps, though they're encouraged to build electric charging bays. "The city of roughly 60,000 people is host to 16 operational gas stations, and city staff concluded there are multiple stations located within a 5-minute drive of every planned or existing residence within city limits," per the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. The city councilor who introduced the measure, D'Lynda Fischer, is quoted as saying: "The goal here is to move away from fossil fuels and to make it as easy as possible to do that."
Existing stations won't be allowed to add new gas pumps, though they're encouraged to build electric charging bays. "The city of roughly 60,000 people is host to 16 operational gas stations, and city staff concluded there are multiple stations located within a 5-minute drive of every planned or existing residence within city limits," per the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. The city councilor who introduced the measure, D'Lynda Fischer, is quoted as saying: "The goal here is to move away from fossil fuels and to make it as easy as possible to do that."
need to force an electric plug standard (Score:5, Insightful)
need to force an electric plug standard
Re: (Score:2)
But I would like to see a major move on charging availability and setting standards is one thing the government could really help with. Tesla is doing its thing pretty well, but it's like AOL before the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with government standards is that they're always way too slow to react to the technological requirements to update quickly.
Didn't Tesla open-source and/or make a lot of their things patent-free? Isn't their power connector part of that?
Re: (Score:3)
Europe has done this with CCS, even Tesla have to use it. Problem is that Tesla charge points are still Tesla specific, taking up valuable space.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has done this with CCS
America has a few different standards. But that isn't a problem for me. I just keep a few adapters in my car so I can snap on whatever is needed. I've never seen a charging station that I can't use.
Problem is that Tesla charge points are still Tesla specific
Market leaders tend to resist standardization the most because it benefits them the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Dongles for your car...
Re: (Score:2)
There's a joke about cars, dongles and compensation in there somewhere. Best not to think about it too hard though.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for USB-Double-D.
Re: (Score:2)
We have converters for that... But the real issue isn't gas stations but the business around it.
Most electric car owners charge up at home, and will use a charging station only when they are going on long trips. This means there will less number of charging stations than gas stations. Perhaps 1 every 10 miles or so, and normally along more major road ways. Also the attached Quickie Mart that is common with them, will need to be expanded to a larger sit down, place often with extra activities as customer
Re: (Score:2)
We have converters for that... But the real issue isn't gas stations but the business around it.
Most electric car owners charge up at home, and will use a charging station only when they are going on long trips.
I can charge at home, but people in an apartment with no fixed parking probably can't
Re: (Score:2)
I can charge at home, but people in an apartment with no fixed parking probably can't
They can in California. Apartment owners are required by law to allow EV owners to install chargers.
Re: (Score:3)
But who pays for the charger and the installation?
The EV owner.
The fixed, non-removable part of the system should have to be paid by the apartment owners
The charger benefits the EV owner, not the apartment owner.
One reason for California's housing shortage is that rental properties are being pulled off the market due to onerous regulations. Yet another cost being dumped onto landlords will exacerbate that problem.
But the apartment owner may agree to pay for the installation in return for extra monthly rent.
Re: (Score:3)
Apartment complexes offer all sots of amenities, many of which a lot of tenants never take advantage of. They have exercise rooms, "libraries" of a few DVDs, club rooms, pools, "concierge services", carports, garages, and so on.
Sure, you might have to pay for a garage, but most residents probably aren't driving electric cars yet either. An outlet to plug in to can be offered as a free amenity or for an additional charge. You could even just be charged for the electricity you use. It's an investment on th
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the owners of the charging stations can switch from the gas pumps + convenience store with toilets to a charging station + convenience store with toilets model.
And surely there's something similar in other countries to what we've seen in Canada for over a decade if not two: a central gas station/convenience store with small fast food places built around them. Simply remove the fuel pumps and add charging stations to all the parkings, they're there already because of the fast food places.
Re: (Score:2)
need to force an electric plug standard
There is one. Actually there's 3. I hope you're not proposing a 4th ;-)
Cali Needs To Do Better Than That (Score:2)
Nearly double the number of vehicles than even Texas has [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Both the GP data and yours don't hint us on the number of car by person in each state. Without this ratio, comparison between the two states is useless.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Damn, it's too bad we're not connected to some sort of information network that easily lets us do the math ourselves.
Oh wait!!
Population of CA: 39,613,500 [worldpopul...review.com]
Population of TX: 29,730,300 [worldpopul...review.com]
Using the registered vehicle count from GPP:
CA: 15,065,827 vehicles / 39,613,500 people = 0.380320522, or 380/thousand
TX: 8,248,322 vehicles / 29,730,300 people = 0.277438236 or 277/thousand
Re: (Score:2)
I am lazy. You're the man! I tried to figure it out only by reading the numbers in the parent posts and all I could come up with was:
CA: 14,000,000 vehicles
TX: 7,000,000 vehicles
and CA has 10,000,000 more people
There was definitely something missing so I was wondering if they were arguing or agreeing.
Re: (Score:3)
Just FYI, in California the number includes both cars and passenger trucks. In Texas, only cars are included.
According to the TX DMV, there are almost 24 million registered vehicles in TX.
https://www.txdmv.gov/about-us [txdmv.gov]
The rationale is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The rationale is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In future they will install chargers as loss leaders. Seems like a decent way to encourage that, because chargers don't need special handling or licences like gas stations do it means everyone can compete, not just the big stores.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're forgetting that gas stations make almost no profit on gasoline. When was the last time you saw a place that only sold gas and didn't masquerade as a fast food restaurant?
Re: (Score:3)
Cardlock stations like Pacific Pride do exactly this. All they do is have a place where one pulls over, uses pumps, then gets back on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of gas only stations in NJ since you're not allowed to pump your gas, often people don't get out of the car.
Re:The rationale is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't protect them any further than the city limits. If people want more or better gas stations they'll ultimately end up getting built. If I had to guess it's really about protecting a local gas oligopoly that's engaged in price fixing and gives a few kickbacks to the city council. The size of the city is about right for that to have developed and I've seen it happen before. A big enough town with gas prices 10% higher than anywhere else in the area for no reason and absolutely no deviation from that price by anyone in city limits.
I tend to agree with you. It sounds environmental but it really just protects the existing stations in a town that is only 14 square miles. Anybody could just drive to a neighboring town to get gas.
Re: The rationale is a lie (Score:3)
Not the first cause co-opted by business interests (Score:2)
It was pure bullshit, but
Re: (Score:2)
Even without this pressure, I have three abandoned gas station in my 20 minute commute home. There is nothing there. It is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "the market" really applies here since the US Government subsidizes oil and gas to the tune of billions per year. That is why gas costs $8 a gallon in Germany, as opposed to whatever you're paying in the US.
Germany has just about the highest taxes on gasoline in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The rationale is a lie (Score:5, Interesting)
For that reason, it ought to be "cap and trade" of gas stations rather than a ban on new ones. So if you want to build a new gas station, you have to buy the rights from an old one.
Re: (Score:3)
If it puts existing gas stations out of business, it is neutral or even a net positive because the newer station may have newer equipment.
These politicians are smarter than you think. Underground fuel tanks have a lifespan, usually with an upper limit of 40 years, assuming no corrosion or other issues. If you build a new service station then it has a brand new fuel tank, and it it will easily last past 2050 (I think the latest fuel tanks are some kind of composite that have even longer lifespans). Thus an existing station will have less lifespan left for its tanks than a new one - and that could be a significant difference if those tanks w
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't call it a "lie"; I'd call it a weak argument. The counter-argument is weak too; if a new gas station puts an old gas station out of business, that doesn't necessarily mean it serves any meaningful need that wasn't being met before. Even if you argue that *by definition* a business that displaces another business meets a need, need is only half the equation; the other is costs -- particularly *externalized* cost like traffic or creating an abandoned brown field. It all depends on circumstances
Re: (Score:2)
The newer stations, like the Safeway one mentioned or the ones at Costco and Walmart, are getting their supply at a bulk discount not available to the small business that own one or half a dozen stations. That's how they drive existing stations out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is just complete bullshit. If a new station isn't needed, it will be unprofitable and will close.
If a new station isn't needed, some gas station will be unprofitable and close. It won't necessarily be the new one.
Closed gas stations frequently have hefty environmental cleanup costs. Leaks and waste from the underground tanks, spilled gas and oil on the surface, and so on. Heck, digging up the tanks and filling in the space that used to be tank is surprisingly costly.
When the gas station goes out of business, the small corporation that actually owns the station declares bankruptcy and walks away, lea
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
The big deal is that gas stations require massive cleanup when they close. At least in some states there is a state fund for this (a small portion of the gas tax goes into the fund), but any large pool of money is tempting for the politicians wanting to find ways to fund their pet projects, so I really doubt any state is fully prepared for large numbers of gas stations to shut down.
One City (Score:2)
Petaluma, California, has voted to outlaw new gas stations, the first of what climate activists hope will be numerous cities and counties to do so.
One city M'Smash. Singular. One. Not "cities".
Electric charging at a gas station (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I picture getting to the shopping center you want to shop at and having all the chargers full, 80% of the time.
The obvious solution to that problem is for the shopping center to install more chargers.
The wrong solution is to convert gas stations into electric charging stations. That makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, if the pattern holds, those charging stations will be blockaded by the "coal rolling" mob who think that electric cars are a communist plot by "libtards" to make the baby jesus cry. And good luck getting the cops to come to cite and tow/impound the non-electrics.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: Electric charging at a gas station (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Used needles are dangerous and sharps containers are cheap compared to dealing with a used needle stick.
If 2 people a day needed it, it's probably worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I actually commented on it. They said that it was so bad around there that every day there were over 400 needles lying on the ground. What threw me off was that it was a FlyingJ. I normally stop at Loves or Pilot/FlyingJ Travel Centers because they typically have the cleanest restrooms as well as attached restaurants. They even have showers for the truckers to clean up and freshen up. This was not one of those flyingJ's. Its size was much smaller and the bathrooms were 'dont touch anything' level dirty
Re: (Score:2)
This model of "charge at the pump" appears constantly in media writing about electric vehicles, and demonstrate the writer doesn't have one.
When you actually have an EV, you just plug it in at night at home. It's full every morning. You don't go somewhere to fill up occasionally, because you don't need to.
"But what about apartments or street parking!?!?!?!!?"
Not hard to add a 120V outlet to a few parking spaces, and if EVs take off as expected they'll be installed. There was a time apartments didn't have
Global Warming is an existential threat (Score:2, Interesting)
But this sounds like a terrible way to address it.
EVs have a chicken/egg problem with respect to charging stations, so I'm fairly supportive of subsidies to create new charging stations.
But banning/capping existing gas stations? You're just screwing up the gas market for no good reason. Not to mention creating a recipe for corruption when the wealthy new suburb rightfully complains that they deserve a gas station and then city council decides to give someone a "special exception" to build a gas station to s
Re: Global Warming is an existential threat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EVs already have charging stations. Every house and apartment in the country is already electrified.
Yes, an apartment complex may need to add a plug to their parking spaces, but that's one of the most trivial electrical modifications they could do. And slapping a card reader on that plug isn't very hard either, which easily finances the tiny installation cost.
Not to mention creating a recipe for corruption when the wealthy new suburb rightfully complains that they deserve a gas station and then city council decides to give someone a "special exception" to build a gas station to service them.
You appear to have a European or "East Coast" concept of a city. This is California. Cities are geographically tiny. For example, what most peopl
Re: (Score:2)
But banning/capping existing gas stations?
Capping new stations when 100% of existing needs are met is not going to upset the fuel market. If anything it'll stop creating hazardous facilities near people's homes.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
How the hell do Californians power their snowblowers??
Santa Ana wind power.
Re: (Score:2)
Television advertising.
Exactly the wrong thign to do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Should instead be requiring all new gas stations to have at least one electric charging station per gas pump.
Instead of trying to prevent the undesired activity, you promote the desired one.
Or simply put in/raise the gasoline tax.
Re: Exactly the wrong thign to do. (Score:2)
This isnâ(TM)t about protecting the environment thatâ(TM)s just an excuse. If it was about the environment they would be working on expanding EV charging and thatâ(TM)s not what theyâ(TM)re doing.
Re:Exactly the wrong thign to do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas station approach is terrible for EV.
Gas station is designed for being there as long as it takes to pump a few dozen gallons of liquid. Gas stations have to be carefully planned and appropriately isolated from other concerns due to the risks of that much gasoline having to be stored and transported.
EV charging takes much longer, and you need *something* to do other than babysit the charging. On the flip side, it's relatively easier to slip charging capacity into parking for things like theaters, restaurants, malls, retail stores, hotels, office buildings, homes, etc, compared to a gas pump.
So hotels and restaurants would be the primary place to charge your car long run for road trips, and your home for commuting. For those in apartments, this will start to be an amenity that the apartment manager has to deal with to stay competitive.
If I'm being tin-hat, this move is more about protecting existing stations. If I'm being more trusting, then they don't want to be blighted by dead gas stations in a couple of decades as a number of them wind down to meet the reduced demand that we (hopefully) will see.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas station is designed for being there as long as it takes to pump a few dozen gallons of liquid.
[pedantic mode on]
"a few" - 3 or more
"a few dozen" - 36
Unless they are driving a large pickup, AND running it below 5% capacity before refuelling, nobody's pumping a few dozen gallons into a passenger vehicle.
Re: Exactly the wrong thign to do. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a camping stove that burns white gas. A bottle typically lasts a whole season. I would rather not drive an hour to buy one. Fortunately, they're available at hardware stores and outdoor stores pretty much everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get a gallon of gas without burning many gallons of fuel in shipping, energy in refining, fueling a navy, air force, dropping a few bombs, and greasing palms of one cartel or another. None of that is good for anything. So powering a single lawn mower contributes significantly to the problem.
Electric lawn mowers are a thing, and they work very well. Same with trimmers. 2-stroke engines are incredibly inefficient. Try an electric trimmer, your ears will thank you. An electric vehicle should po
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Should instead be requiring all new gas stations to have at least one electric charging station per gas pump.
Considering all existing fuel needs are being met I think they are promoting a desired activity by not building ever more.
Texas here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your Tesla power wall will get its power from your rooftop solar installation.
It sounds like... (Score:3)
It sounds like owners of existing gas stations know how to lobby. "Hey look, a greenwashed bill that kills any potential competition".
This is a big subsidy (Score:2)
This will be a big subsidy to existing gas stations. We already have prices nearing $4/gallon here in North California, and this will only make the issue worse in the future.
Do not get me wrong, I drive electric for daily commute. However SUV still takes the day for longer trips. Unless they can somehow make Tesla as cheap as a Honda, and make the electric grid reliable (i.e.: do not go offline for days for no reason), we will have gas vehicles.
And existing gas station owners can increase the prices while t
Re: (Score:2)
Petaluma isn't particularly large nor isolated. The existing stations already directly compete with stations in the adjoining cities.
Is Petaluma also banning growth? (Score:2)
If the city grows outward, at a certain point, it's going to take far more gas to get to a gas station than makes sense. So they'll be encouraging more gas use. Not everyone is going to have an electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
Geography already took care of that. Hard for a city to expand into mountains. At least, at the sort of density where someone would add a gas station.
Why stop at gas stations? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupid with a capital S (Score:2)
They're not making anything *easier* - they're making it more difficult to get gasoline.
"The problem with allowing new gas stations is we don't really need them and they're putting existing gas stations out of business."
Until you do need them. Lefties have problems understanding that top-down control of an economy never works. Ever. In history.
The market will get rid of gas stations as electric cars become more popular. And there's no reason to add charging ports at the gas station. Nobody is going to
There's some missing context in the comments here (Score:3)
First, Petaluma [goo.gl] is a small, gentrified city North of San Francisco. The vast majority of residents are not going to be working in Petaluma, so getting to another city's gas stations is not at all a problem.
Second, gas stations tend to require a ton of environmental cleanup when they close down, which is often left to the city. The small corporation that owns the gas station declares bankruptcy as they go out of business, and now the city's on the hook to clean up the waste from the underground tanks, spilled gas & oil, and so on.
This story is the city betting that gas stations will decline and shut down as EVs become popular, and the city doesn't want to be left with more cleanup costs. Their residents aren't going to be particularly harmed if this bet goes bad, because the city is small enough that getting to other gas stations isn't an issue. Plus the residents are commuting to other, larger cities and will pass dozens of gas stations outside of Petaluma every day.
Missing the forest for the trees. (Score:2)
The problem with allowing new gas stations is we don't really need them and they're putting existing gas stations out of business.
Why would a company want to open a new gas station and close the existing one? Oh, right, the old one is not as profitable or may need major repairs like new in-ground tanks. Maybe they want to add a convenience store and it is more cost effective to build the new station and close the old one rather than expand the old one.
Gas Station Owner in Council (Score:2)
My conclusion is that there are one or more existing gas station owners in the city council.
A gas station is a very simple thing - it is really just a liquids vending machine - so pivoting to a new form of energy is not hard at all and it will happen without new regulation, as soon as there is real demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandating Solutions Are Detrimental (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like their main goal was to prevent Safeway from installing a gas station, but they couldn't make a law specifically against Safeway, so they banned all new gas stations.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like their main goal was to prevent Safeway from installing a gas station, but they couldn't make a law specifically against Safeway, so they banned all new gas stations.
This is correct. When people claim that regulation isn't used by entrenched interests against newcomers to a market, this is a good counterexample. This harms safeway, it harms the city, and it harms the residents of the city. The winners are the people who own gas stations, which will now become taxi medallions.
Re: (Score:2)
You have absolutely no clue what communism is. It's not this.
Re:Another commie related post by the same person (Score:5, Insightful)
Ayn Rand died in a public hospital, cared for with taxpayer dollars.
Actually, she didn't. She died in her home. Ms. Rand was wealthy from the sale of her books.
But it doesn't matter. The way democracy works is that you vote for what you want, and then you accept what you get.
So pacifists vote against war but still pay taxes to fund invasions. Libertarians vote for vouchers but still pay taxes to public schools and use public roads. Socialists often work for private corporations and shop at capitalist grocery stores.
None of these actions make them hypocrites. No one is obligated to treat their political beliefs as a suicide pact.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
She did die at home, but the public helped pay for her healthcare:
Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[97] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.
Re:Another commie related post by the same person (Score:5, Insightful)
Then she signed up to receive Social Security checks
So what? She paid her taxes and was entitled to receive SS.
I know many progressives who support a higher minimum wage. Yet, when they go to McDonald's, they pay the listed price instead of voluntarily handing over extra cash to the employees.
They also believe that we should house the homeless. Yet, they don't invite the homeless to come and live in their spare bedrooms.
Does that mean that progressives are lying hypocrites? Of course not. Yet that is just as ridiculous as what you are saying.
Re:Another commie related post by the same person (Score:5, Insightful)
According to her Objectivist philosophy, it was morally wrong to receive Social Security.
Many progressives believe it is morally wrong to wage unnecessary wars, burn fossil fuels, and leave the homeless in the streets.
Yet they pay their taxes, charge their cellphones, and walk past the homeless every day.
There is nothing hypocritical about living by society's rules while still believing those rules should be changed.
If you expect people to individually opt-out of receiving entitlements, then you should also be ok with them individually opting out of the taxes that pay for them.
Re:Another commie related post by the same person (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the merits is "can everyone actually live in the way Rand says we should?".
No, it isn't. Ayn Rand never claims that her system "works for everyone." On the contrary, the entire basis of her philosophy is that a system that "works for everyone" is not a collective responsibility.
we should evaluate if that's going to actually work.
No, you shouldn't. If you are concerned about how Objectivism will affect the people at the bottom of society, you are doing it wrong. You are rejecting a core tenet: Their welfare isn't your problem. If you disagree with that, then Objectivism isn't for you.
Her example of it not working is important
Nonsense. She received SS, but she also paid for SS. Her view is that people should neither pay nor receive. You want to take away the benefit while still burdening her with the cost.
There are plenty of very good arguments against Objectivism. You should focus on those instead of attacking her as a person.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly did her money "run out"? Copyrights last 75 yrs past your death and she never sold the rights.
Are you operating under the illusion that demand for a book is constant once it's been printed?
1. People bought a lot of her books. That made her a lot of money. She spent some of it.
Then
2. People bought fewer books. That made her not much money. She spent more money than she was making from her books.
When the money gained in step 1 has been spent, and can't be replaced because she's in step 2, the money has run out.
Re: (Score:2)
Had roman_mir threaten me with dismemberment one time he got so frustrated. My wife didn't think it was as amusing as I did.
Re: (Score:3)
They were required to pay taxes at the point of a government gun so it's not unreasonable for them to collect the benefits while also calling for winding down the program.
By your logic, anyone calling for higher taxes should make a voluntary tax contribution to make up the difference between what they are required to pay and what they think someone in their position should pay - yet this is quite rare. For example, voluntary gifts [treasurydirect.gov] to the United States to pay down the national debt have amounted to less than
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes move to Texas where profits are more important than people.
Re:People are more important than the earth (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 5 gas stations within 3 minutes of me. Of these 5 stations, 3 are owned by the same company and the pricing for the levels of fuel are within 0.03 of each other. The gas was all refined at the same locations with the same mandated additives. There is no discernable difference in the fuel.
So, tell me why I would WANT more stations taking up space that could be better utilized? Go ahead. We'll wait.
Your ridiculous bias is showing. Not everything is about owning the libs or owning the conservatives. Sometimes it's just about doing what's logical and what the community wants not what corporations want. Folks talk about politicians being bought and sold to do what the fatcats want. In this case, it's about doing what the people in the community want. So, you should probably go find a quiet place to rethink your knee-jerk reactions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Nothing About This Is Good or Will Work (Score:2)
4kWh/mile isnâ(TM)t even close to correct. A Chevy Volt consumes about 0.15 kWh/mile.