Hillary Clinton's energy plan calls for 55 MPG, $10,000 PHEV tax credit and much more
Hillary Clinton's energy plan includes a fuel efficiency standard of 55 MPG by 2030. For comparison, Edwards proposes 40 MPG by 2016, Bill Richardson 50 MG by 2020 and Obama 40 MPG by 2016 but with a 4 percent increase each year. The Energy Bill, currently being debated, may be 35 MPG by 2020. Hillary's plan is not all sticks and includes some very large carrots: $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers "retool" their plants so vehicles will hit 55 MPG.
Hillary wants to increase current renewable fuel goal from the current level of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 and to 60 billion gallons by 2030. The energy plan calls for a greenhouse gas emissions target for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels to ensure that they move over time towards a standard of emitting at least 80 percent fewer greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline. The energy plan also include loan guarantees to spur the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol capacity.
Hillary's energy plan also calls for a $10,000 tax credit for plug-in hybrids, $2 billion investment in battery research and 100,000 PHEVs in the federal fleet by 2015. AutoblogGreen is all about green transport but there are some really good ideas about smart power grids development and new law forcing corporations to consider climate change that just might impact large automakers in a green way too.
IMHO this is the best energy plan from any of the Democratic candidates. Tell me what you think of this plan in comments. Is 55 MPG impossible or 2030 too much time? Are all those billions just a bribe to corporations to accept these new standards? Below the fold are some quotes from a PDF about Hillary's energy plan. Clinton will speak all week about energy and we will have much more as the story develops.
[Source: Hillary Clinton's website and tipster OhmExcited]
Increasing Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards to 55 Miles Per Gallon: Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030. By 2030, these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons. In addition, Hillary would reform the fuel economy system while ensuring that it encourages the continued production of small cars here in the United States. Cars and light trucks account for about 40 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil consumed every day in the United States. Yet the average fuel economy of American cars has stagnated for the last 15 years. And as our country and economy have grown, flat fuel economy has meant increasing dependence on foreign oil, and an untenable foreign trade situation in which the United States transfers funds that are borrowed from China to Saudi Arabia.
Increasing production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030: Home-grown biofuels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rapid growth of corn ethanol production capacity in recent years and emerging technology that will enable production of ethanol and other biofuels from a range of biomass sources indicate the potential of biofuels to displace a significant amount of gasoline. To spur increased production of ethanol and other renewable fuels, Hillary would raise the national renewable fuels goal from the current level of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 and to 60 billion gallons by 2030. "Advanced biofuels," such as cellulosic ethanol, would comprise an increasing share of that target over time. Hillary will set a greenhouse gas emissions target for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels to ensure that they move over time towards a standard of emitting at least 80% less greenhouse gas as compared to gasoline. In addition, she would provide loan guarantees to spur the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol capacity.
Helping Automakers Meet the Energy Challenge: Domestic automakers face serious competitive challenges due to higher labor costs, older equipment, and higher health care costs than their competition. But they are demonstrating the vision to meet our future energy needs by proposing to build plug-in hybrid vehicles that can run on electricity and flex-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol. Hillary would authorize $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" in order to provide immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to meet her strong efficiency standards. She will address retiree health legacy costs by providing a tax credit for qualifying
private and public retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures that exceed a certain threshold.
Accelerating the Production of "Plug-In" Hybrid Electric Vehicles: - A Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with a more powerful battery that can be plugged into any regular outlet. It can be filled up at the gas station, and it can be "filled up" at home by plugging it into a standard outlet. Half the cars on America's roads are driven 25 miles a day or less, so a plug-in with a 25-mile range battery could eliminate gasoline use in the daily commute of tens of millions of Americans. A recent study showed that a vehicle powered by electricity releases one-third less global warming pollution into the environment than a gasoline powered vehicle, even if the electricity comes mostly from coal-fired power plants. PHEVs offer the promise of achieving more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed; and a flex-fuel PHEV running on E85 can potentially get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. Hillary would invest in research and stimulate demand for the first commercial PHEVs by:
• Investing $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the longevity and durability of batteries;
• Offering consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid; and
• Adding 100,000 PHEVs to the federal fleet by 2015.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Wang 11:29PM (3/17/2009)
Speaking of Hillary Clinton:
There is bad news about her husband.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
Reply
mike 5:34PM (11/05/2007)
The Carrots, investments in new plant, sound great. But, can you break the link between the auto industry and the oil industry. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who funded the hybrid research effort.
Reply
OhmExcited 5:44PM (11/05/2007)
It's always fun to write up new plans, until you have to live within the confines of achievable reality.
She's against nuclear power, which provides 20% of our power virtually CO2-free (including night time base load). She also wants to close down Yucca Mountain. I guess that means we keep piling waste up on plant sites and let our grandchildren worry about it. Many new nuclear plants are on the drawing board now, but I guess they may never materialize if she has her way. She is hand wringing about the costs of nuclear power, but at the same time wants to increase the size of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to police an industry that has never caused a US death (unlike almost ANY other energy provider).
Meanwhile, she sees a future with coal (the absolute worst global warming offender) and throw more money at "clean coal" which never seems to materialize, despite the billions in corporate welfare. It's amazing how interest groups affect our politics so much. It's pretty depressing.
Reply
Tony Belding 5:59PM (11/05/2007)
As I predicted: No carbon tax or increased gasoline taxes. No plan to rebuild America's nuclear power industry. No rollback of subsidies for Big Oil.
More money for research is fine, but we're talking about bread crumbs in comparison to what's regularly ladled out to the fossil fuel industries.
My harshest criticism has to be for CAFE. An aggressive CAFE schedule will push small, underpowered cars onto the public before they're ready -- which will result in many people simply keeping their old gas-guzzlers in service years longer than they otherwise would have. And as for those people who are compelled to buy a more efficient car than they otherwise would have, they are going to find their cost of driving is much reduced. . . and they'll drive more! Is that what we want?
CAFE is a failed concept. It should be scrapped, not expanded.
Biofuels? "Hillary would raise the national renewable fuels goal. . ." Raising the goal is pretty meaningless unless you do something to actually meet it. And why is the government picking and choosing technologies? I don't want Washington mandating that I drive on cellulosic ethanol any more than I want them mandating hydrogen or grid power.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about: "Offering consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid. . ." But if I buy a pure BEV, then I get nothing? (And don't forget, GM insists the Chevy Volt is not a hybrid.)
I'll end on a positive note. One thing I really like about this plan: no mention of a "hydrogen economy". Thank you!
Reply
bluegreen 6:06PM (11/05/2007)
How convenient of Clinton to propose significantly higher goals while stretching the timeline out way past her potential time in office. I call that political grandstanding, there's no accountability once she's out of office. I'm interested in what can be achieved while the winner is IN office. A lot can be accomplished in the eight years of a two term presidency. Edwards' and Obama's goals sound a lot less like grandstanding since there's a good chance they would actually be in office when 2016 rolls around.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 6:16PM (11/05/2007)
It is about time someone gets tough on an energy plan. Efficiency should be our #1 goal. We have only touched the tip of the iceberg on efficeincy. As far as Yucca Mountain goes, how would you like it if other states start shipping their radioactive waste into your state and you can't say no. It is the people in Nevada that truely do not want radioactive waste on their hiways or railways and going through their cities. Can you blame them? Germany is moving away from nuclear energy as fast as possible because they no longer have a place to store the waste. Wind is a much better solution and for all you who think that they kill birds well that is old news and much less of a problem. Very strict site assessments must be done and the blades turn much slower than the older models.
Reply
OhmExcited 6:44PM (11/05/2007)
Germany planned to phase our nuclear, so did Sweden, but they changed their minds when reality set in. Germany buys electric power from France, which is 80+% nuclear derived.
Reply
Joseph 7:54PM (11/05/2007)
Obviously, this plan is far from reality. Unfortunately, there is no way such plans can ever be enacted. Good things take time to happen.
By the way, does ANYONE know if CAFE is rated using 2007 or 2008 mpg rating methodology? ANYONE?
Please, I've asked this so many times on ABG, and no answer. :(
Reply
stevejust 6:34PM (11/05/2007)
Ohm exicited: How much uranium is there left to be mined? Seriously. How many years can uranimum last us, even if we built the plants you so deperately seem to want? You go ahead and get excited all you want about your nuk-u-ler energy. I won't let little things like reality get in your way.
Oh, what's that you say? Enrichment? Then I gess we don't need Yucca Mountain afterall?
All I can say is that this $10,000 rebate plan had better apply equally to the Fisker and the Tesla.
Now, that's a show down I can't wait for, unlike the nuclear energy debate which someone with some critical thinking skills need only think about for all of 10 seconds to realize there is no debate at all.
Reply
OhmExcited 6:44PM (11/05/2007)
stevejust, IAEA estimated all conventional uranium resources to be 14.4 million metric tons which would cover over 200 years supply at current rates of consumption -- about the same as our coal reserves. Several European countries and Japan reprocess used fuel, reducing the need for new primary uranium supplies. But since France and Japan don't have any critical thinking skills, I guess we shouldn't follow suit.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 6:47PM (11/05/2007)
Joseph, Which one?
Reply
Joseph 8:38PM (11/05/2007)
Let me clarify myself, Lascelles.
As you know, EPA mpg estimate methodology is very different for 2007 than for 2008.
As a guess, I would say overall CAFE is 4.5mpg less under 2008 EPA mpg estimate methodology than under 2007 EPA methodology.
So, if 2007 EPA methology is used to rate CAFE, achieving 35mpg CAFE would be easier. If 2008 EPA methodology is used, it will be harder.
So, does anyone know if 2007 or 2008 methodology is used/will be used for determining CAFE?
Reply
Lascelles Linton 8:42PM (11/05/2007)
Joseph, You don't have to guess. They rated 2007 cars with the new ratings. 2007 cars have the same ratings. It's not easier or harder, the rating is there. Even if you sorted out the ratings, Toyota staff and respected sources said CLEARLY contradicting things.
Reply
Dave 1:28PM (11/06/2007)
Tony,
Good analysis. But I'll take ANY tax credit I can get, PHEV, BEV, or any of the above. The purpose of tax credits is to influence the consumer... I'll pass on all the big breaks to the corporations. And 100,000 PHEVs by 2015--who is she kidding.
Reply
stevejust 2:59AM (11/06/2007)
Ohm Excited: at current rates of consumption of uranium based on useage today. The calculation I'm looking for, sorry if I didn't phrase it correctly, is say we wanted to generate all the worlds electricity using uranium. I.e., how long does that 14.4 million metric tons last in light of the world's electricity demand, rather than our current ability to turn it into radioactive waste?
It's a bit of a false argument, just like not all fuel will be replaced completely by biofuels. But I'm trying to put the uranium "solution" next to the perspective of electricity demand. Your 200 years starts to sound a bit silly if you do that.
Reply
AMcA 7:06AM (11/06/2007)
And we have a program, funded by your tax dollars, to do this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this . . . .
This is starting to sound like the '70s. Government is the solution to EVERYTHING!
Reply
Jim 7:19AM (11/06/2007)
Typical politician, telling companies to sell what consumers clearly don't want to buy, instead of telling consumers they are wrong and should change their tastes. That would be too unpopular. We have the technology to make cars and trucks much more fuel efficient, but instead of advertising "best mpg in class", the automakers are advertising "highest HP in class", because that is what sells to more people. Even at $3 a gallon, gas may be too cheap to matter to most people.
Reply
rgseidl 7:24AM (11/06/2007)
If the 2030 target is the only one she is proposing, the plan is fairly useless. The auto industry will gladly take the subsidies and otherwise do as little as possible to reduce fuel economy, because consumers have historically paid little extra for it in the showroom.
Any realistic plan needs to have milestones of some description every 5 years or so, with some combination of carrots and sticks to ensure compliance. Early on, carrots are more appropriate, especially anything that generates consumer demand for high economy vehicles. Later, more sticks can be used.
Reply
Tim 8:42AM (11/06/2007)
Top-down socialism with ZERO accountability. No surprises here..
Who said it, Hilary or Marx? Take the quiz and test your knowledge.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/who_said_it_hilary_or_marx
Reply
mike 9:20AM (11/06/2007)
Tim, before you go Wacko on Hot Hillary,
tell me how great Capitalism is after reading this link:
http://priceofoil.org/2007/10/30/china-pollution-causes-surge-in-deformed-babies/
Reply