Fuel rationing chaos looms in New York State

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Rationing gasoline and diesel under the Climate Act is a predictable prescription for chaos. It is the mobility these motor fuels provide that guarantees rationing to meet the 2030 emissions target will not work.

First a little background. When the Climate Act was passed back in 2019, the utopian assumption was that a massive switch to EVs would quickly occur. So, they set a very aggressive 2030 emission reduction target of 40%. Getting rid of internal combustion exhaust was thought to be beneficial, so the law actually specifies that poor communities should be targeted for the biggest cuts.

Of course, the EV switch never happened. Emission reductions overall have only gone down 10%, mostly from switching from coal to gas in power generation. So, under the Climate Act, the State faces an incredible mandatory 30% emission reduction to be achieved in just four years.

The proposed draconian mechanism for achieving this reduction is by rationing the sale of fossil fuel, including gasoline and diesel. This is to be done under the “Cap and Invest Program,” which I explain here.

Reducing emissions by rationing motor fuel simply does not work, for several reasons, all due to mobility.

First and foremost, the people living or working relatively close to the state line can just drive over to fill up where their fuel is not rationed. In New York State, this is a large fraction of the folks. In New York City, you can walk to New Jersey. In this case, the amount of driving actually goes way up, which increases emissions. This has to be factored into modeling how to meet the ridiculous Climate Act 2030 target.

Second, note that if the New York gas stations near the borders lose enough business to other states they might then have a lot more fuel to sell to those further interior. This too could increase driving and hence emissions.

Third, there are the huge numbers of people that drive into New York and back out again, using less than a tank of fuel in the process. Some are visitors, others just passing through. These drivers simply have to buy their fuel in another state. Their driving does not increase, but their emissions do not go down.

These three cases taken together strongly suggest that emissions cannot be significantly reduced by rationing the sale of motor fuel. They certainly cannot be reduced by 30%. But the fuel distribution system could take a big hit financially.

Some other adverse behavioral changes are also likely to occur. The first is people carrying a trunk full of jerry cans full of fuel, especially if they have to drive a long way to get it. This practice can increase the number of people who can go out of state to tank up.

The second is one we saw in the 1970’s gas shortage scare. This is likely in the deep interior where the rationing actually works. Fearing a shortage, people keep their tanks full by topping off after using just a few gallons. This creates long lines at the pumps with a lot of anger.

And, of course, where there is rationing, there is bootlegging. An additional feature of the Cap and Invest scheme is that the price of fuel is to be driven way up as an “inducement” to using less. This hits the poor especially hard. If the price is a lot higher than in neighboring states it will pay people to put big tanks in their pickups and run fuel like it was moonshine. They might even buy tank trucks.

In summary, the idea that New York State can significantly reduce emissions by rationing gas and diesel is ridiculous. The Climate Act assumed massive sales of EV’s which did not happen. The answer is not rationing; it is to change the law.