Obama: 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles by 2015
Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has proposed a new ten-year $150 billion energy plan today in Michigan. A large part of the plan centers around transportation -- both the use of petroleum and the types of cars we are to drive in the future. For automakers, $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees would be made available for PHEV development, with one-million of the vehicles to be ready for sale by 2015. For consumers, a $7,000 tax credit would be offered for their purchase of said vehicle. Also, in a more short-term effort, Obama proposes that the U.S. sells some seventy-million barrels of oil from America's strategic petroleum reserve. While those PHEVs are being developed, Obama's plan would increase fuel economy standards 4-percent per year. What's more, Obama would mandate at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030 while requiring that fuel producers reduce their fuel's carbon emissions by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years. To make those biofuels have as large an impact as possible, all new vehicles would be required to have flex-fuel capability within four years.
Lastly, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug?ins within one year (does this include the new presidential limo that will debut in January?) and half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug?in hybrids or all?electric by 2012. See the entire plan in .pdf form at this link.
[Source: Barack Obama - .pdf]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
EVan 3:48PM (8/04/2008)
There are some really good ideas there but...
The strategic oil reserve is for EMERGENCIES! The recent increase in gas prices isn't an emergency at all, furthermore the oil reserve is a splash in the ocean of oil demanded by American consumers each year.
Reply
axiom 5:06PM (8/04/2008)
The recent increase in gas prices IS AN EMERGENCY. Why the hell do you think businesses are crashing and inflation is spiking. Its an emergency. Just because you don't see dead people in the street as you walk to starbucks for your morning latte doesn't mean its not an emergency.
Bill Clinton opened the reserve when prices were alot lower than this, the only reason Bush hasn't is because he's protecting the interests of the people who sponsored his stolen election, the oil cartel.
meme 5:27PM (8/04/2008)
From an earlier article, the plan was described as a strategic reserve oil *swap*:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKWAT00987320080804
Replacing light oil in the reserves with heavy oil. The heavy oil wouldn't be replaced immediately, so it does temporarily amount to tapping it, but it won't cause a significant gasoline price increase when it's refilled, since they're refilling it with heavy. Meanwhile, refiners are working to get more capacity to handle heavy crude.
I still disagree with it, since it's not an *immediate* swap, but it's not a simple tapping of the reserves.
And yes, I love the newfound stress on PHEVs. He used to be more focused on alternative fuels. This is a very welcome change. Alternative fuels are the "easy solution" that looks nice and may score you some votes but isn't really a solution at all. Transportation electrification is a real solution.
We'll soon see whether he backs up his words with votes, since the Gang of 10 compromise in the Senate, which he supports, should allow the Dems to get renewables legislation through in exchange for passing the issue of oil drilling off to the individual states.
jpm100 7:47PM (8/04/2008)
Heavy crude is more difficult to refine and therefore would bottleneck using the oil to provide relief from an unexpected shortage.
Floorman56 10:20AM (8/05/2008)
What I don't understand is the Dem's say increasing supply with drilling in a 97 Billion barrel oil field won't help.
But pulling oil from the 707.2 million barrel SOR will.
How does that work?
GROM 3:57PM (8/04/2008)
I don't believe a word this man says. He has flipped on every issue who's to say that he'll do anything he says.
2015 hmmmmm that's right after his first term.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 8:45PM (8/04/2008)
You don't want to go there Grom.
McCain is the "Experienced" Jedi Warrior of the Flip-Flop:
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/by_no_means_comprehensive_list_of_mccain_flip_flops
But, I can understand Mr. McCain's problem, first he was a moderate, but, then he win's a nomination with a right-wing-nut propaganda machine to contend with.
But, the problem with Mr. McCain, is he's ping-ponged so much I don't know what he stands for or where he stands. Moderate? Conservative? Ultra-Conservative? Wacko-Right-WingNut? Neo-Con?
In the final analysis I can only guess that since every one in his campaign committee is a Neo-Con, then they will continue to run thing country into the ground while he takes his afternoon nap.
But, I still Love the guy. Not, that I'm crazy enough to vote for him.
swift boater 5:18PM (8/05/2008)
ummmm, yea Mike, I do want to go there. Obama would change his shoe size if he saw a poll saying another size was going to get him votes. Either by stretching or amputation, wouldn't matter to him.
But please, keep reciting your delusions to people who actually have half a brain and can see the facts for themselves. Obama makes Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
I do believe one thing tho- that if he wins he will revert back to his Socialist roots and enact laws which, include but are not limited to, elimination of some free speech, elimination of some secret balloting, confiscation of private property without due process, etc.
How do I know this? I read his book. Why do all these Socialists tell us exactly what they are going to do and then people act shocked, SHOCKED I say, when they do it?
Chris M 10:21PM (8/05/2008)
I see the "swiftboaters" are back with more lies.
Elimination of some free speech?
Elimination of some secret balloting?
Confiscation of private property without due process?
Why would Obama (or for that matter, McCain) want to imitate Bush II?
But were you aware that the President cannot "enact laws"?
The President can only suggest a law to Congress, only Congress has the power to enact Federal laws. Oh, but maybe he'll use "signing statements" and "executive orders" instead, just like Dubya did...
GoodCheer 4:20PM (8/04/2008)
I agree with EVan, I like much of this plan. I especially like the $7000 credit for the PURCHASE of plug-in vehicles... I'm a big fan on demand-side stimulation, let the market sort out which companies and technologies win. I hope such a rule would be written to include the likes of Aptera.
However I also agree with GROM, insofar as approaching an election it's not wise to take anything any candidate says as gospel. I mean look at what Bush sounded like in 2000! Looking at their records, I get the feeling that either candidate would be a HUGE improvement in energy policy. I sure hope so, cause we need some some leadership, or at least some federal getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way (I'm looking at you Stephen Johnson).
Reply
fnc 5:02PM (8/04/2008)
Sounds good, but strikes me as being feel good rhetoric more than projections based in reality. The ramp up to get 1 million plug ins on the road in five years would be tremendous considering GM, the only domestic player, is talking tens of thousands for the first few years. Is there even enough projected battery production capacity to do that?
Overall I like the way he's talking, that tax incentive for buying plug ins sounds nice. But talk is extremely cheap for a politician, and if he's elected I won't be surprised if "adapting to the situation" becomes codespeak for "fat checks from the oil companies to preserve their monopolies a bit longer". Oh, and keep the emergency reserves in reserve please. We can't get OFF of oil if everybody thinks the government will just open the spigots on our emergency supplies when it gets expensive and there's no real emergency. And it's not like the reserve comes anywhere near our needs for any length of time anyway.
At this point, just pump lots of bucks into better tech for battery production processes and storage, without focusing on any particular application. Batteries are one of those technologies that will have useful applications far and wide outside of transportation, why limit our search for advances to that area?
Reply
meme 5:43PM (8/04/2008)
"The ramp up to get 1 million plug ins on the road in five years would be tremendous considering GM, the only domestic player, is talking tens of thousands for the first few years"
Aptera, Tesla, Fisker, etc? Ford cross-licensing E-flex from GM? And let me tell you, $4B for the automakers and $7k purchase tax credits would *seriously* set the ball rolling. If that applied to the Aptera, why, that'd make the Typ-1e only cost $20k!
GM's current plan is 10k Volts in 2010, 60k in 2011, and increasing numbers after that. If they can average 100k a year, GM alone would provide 500,000. 1 million is difficult, but certainly doable, especially with these kinds of incentives.
fnc 6:49PM (8/04/2008)
"1 million is difficult, but certainly doable, especially with these kinds of incentives."
Ford, GM and Toyota are probably the only ones who could make a dent in that number anytime soon. I still have to wonder about production capacity for that many batteries considering we're currently expecting to see a fraction of that one million number in the next few years. But I've heard of some Asian companies investing heavily in production right now, so maybe it will come on line in time. At any rate, I hope you're right and I'm proven wrong. Every time I crawl under a car to change the oil or nervously check the coolant levels of the hideously complex whirling amalgam of tightly machined parts that is the ICE, I curse and wonder where my electric car is.
It would be nice to see Obama apply this incentive (or more) to pure EV's and not just hybrids. A 20K Aptera would be incredible. And a surge in demand for pure or partially electrified cars like this incentive would create will ensure that the much needed battery production capacity increases as companies besides petroleum ones begin chomping at the bit to get to play a part in the future of energy.
Luke 8:11PM (8/04/2008)
I like most of the ideas. My next car purchase will be an American-made EV, or else I will continue to buy used cars until one becomes available.
I'm one of the rare conservatives that thinks that high gas prices are a good thing. The temporary shock it introduces into the economy is needed, sadly, to get people to purchase vehicles that meet their needs, not their egos. We aren't going to become energy independent if we don't change our behaviors, and merely talking about it hasn't helped change things in the past.
Dipping into the reserves is moronic. Oil prices have already dropped, and a temporary dip isn't going to help much of anything. In addition, the reserves will then need to be replenished, which will in turn drive up the price of oil
The idea of going after the oil companies to take away profits is a moronic idea. The companies will simply leave the country, as they should. It will be decades before the economy grows enough to replace the money lost. And what will Obama go after once they leave? The automakers? The coffee industry? Get real. The ones who will have to step up the the plate and pay for the lost governmental income will be the same ones who sold their vote to Obama to get their $1,000 check. They will pay with their wallets or their jobs. Either way, the loss will be in the tens of thousands in any given person's lifetime.
Reply
meme 8:37PM (8/04/2008)
"The companies will simply leave the country, as they should."
They're going to haul entire refineries overseas? Really? And some things are physically impossible to relocate -- our national distribution infrastructure of terminals, pipelines, and so on?
There are several ways the oil companies could respond, and they'll probably take a combination of them. One, they'll start buying up stock and acquiring other companies. You already see this to a lesser extent. These capital expenditures will shrink their profit margins small enough to not be affected by the tax. When times turn sour, they can then sell off these assets. Two, they can spin off US assets into separate companies that are structured not to get major windfalls. For example, there's virtually no profit margin on refining gasoline these days, and the diesel margin is at best enough to offset the gasoline margin. Spinning off a refining division to the US and headquartering the very profitable production division overseas (even if just from a Jamaican P.O. box) would be an effective way to escape the tax.
If the tax is modified to try and get overseas companies to prevent these dodges -- something more akin to a tarriff -- well, that's just a roundabout gas tax. And I, like you, support high gas prices, as it encourages change.
Rei 8:40PM (8/04/2008)
"The companies will simply leave the country, as they should."
They're going to haul entire refineries overseas? Really? And some things are physically impossible to relocate -- our national distribution infrastructure of terminals, pipelines, and so on?
There are several ways the oil companies could respond, and they'll probably take a combination of them. One, they'll start buying up stock and acquiring other companies. You already see this to a lesser extent. These capital expenditures will shrink their profit margins small enough to not be affected by the tax. When times turn sour, they can then sell off these assets. Two, they can spin off US assets into separate companies that are structured not to get major windfalls. For example, there's virtually no profit margin on refining gasoline these days, and the diesel margin is at best enough to offset the gasoline margin. Spinning off a refining division to the US and headquartering the very profitable production division
overseas (even if just from a Jamaican P.O. box) would be an
effective way to escape the tax.
If the tax is modified to try and get overseas companies to prevent these dodges -- something more akin to a tarriff -- well, that's just a roundabout gas tax. And I, like you, support high gas prices, as it encourages change.
Rei 8:41PM (8/04/2008)
Ack, now it posts :P
Luke 1:38AM (8/05/2008)
"They're going to haul entire refineries overseas? Really?"
No, and I didn't say so. They will move their HQ's overseas.
It apparently hasn't occurred to you that companies pay taxes on the profit they make to the countries in which they reside. Obama is complaining about Exxon's profits, for example. He isn't complaining about the profits foreign comanies are making (even though some of them are proabaly 50X the size of Exxon) because they don't reside in the US. Foreign companies can also refine oil anywhere they are allowed to build refineries. What country isn't going to welcome them with open arms?
Of course, Obama could try to get even and tax gas, but then he'd be back to where he started.
Serge 3:28PM (8/05/2008)
I agree that selling oil from the SPR is an unfortunate addition (akin to a gas-tax holiday) to an otherwise reasonable set of proposals. If the purpose of this proposal is to help taxpayers deal with increased burden of high gas prices, then a tax or monetary rebate should provide a more targeted relief.
Increasing tax burden on a [successful] company is unfair. It is also unfair for a successful company to solicit government subsidies. All subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies should be stopped and proceeds used to fund alternative fuel and relief programs.
meme 8:22PM (8/04/2008)
"Heavy crude is more difficult to refine and therefore would bottleneck using the oil to provide relief from an unexpected shortage."
Did you miss where I mentioned that refiners are currently trying to scale up their ability to handle heavy crude? Here's an example:
http://www.topix.com/business/oil-gas/2008/06/marathon-oil-begins-construction-on-detroit-refinery-heavy-oil-upgrade-project
Tapping light and putting in heavy, for when we'll have more capacity to process heavy, makes sense to me.
"Ford, GM and Toyota are probably the only ones who could make a dent in that number anytime soon."
I don't know... Tesla and Aptera are both shooting for 10k a year around the same time GM is shooting for 10k a year (2010). And both have been leaching industry talent quite a bit recently. So, while it'll certainly be an uphill battle for them, I wouldn't rule out them contributing a significant number of vehicles, even if not the lion's share.
Reply