Stimulus bill pumps up plug-ins, public transit, trains, smart grid
by Sebastian Blanco on Feb 14th 2009 at 11:09AM 
Click above and scroll down to watch the video
I heard a phrase on the radio yesterday that described the unappetizing way the stimulus bill was crafted in Congress this past week: emergency sausage. However it was crafted, the deed is now done. The overall impact of the bill is being covered by everyone everywhere, so we'll focus on the green transportation items that were included in the final bill, which is on its way to the President's desk. The big winners were trains and plug-in cars.
- As the Environmental Law & Policy Center and CNN note, high-speed and inner-city rail made out like bandits. The first version of the stimulus bill, written in the House, set aside $300 million for these trains. This ballooned to $8 billion - along with $6.9 billion for public transportation and $1.3 billion for Amtrak - by the time it was done.
- Plug-in vehicles - as well as hybrids and fuel cell EVs - get a $2 billion investment for advanced battery technologies. The number of vehicles that are eligible for the plug-in electric drive vehicle credit jump up to 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer. The EDTA is happy with that, but is disappointed that the PHEV credit is capped at $7,500 and doesn't apply to big vehicles (those that weigh over 14,000 lbs).
- An upgraded smart grid is helped out by $4.5 billion for development and deployment.
- Traditional cars don't lose out, either. People who buy a new car in 2009 and who earn less than $125,000 individually or $250,000 jointly can deduct the sales tax.
What does it all mean? Well, that's something which won't be clear for a while. CalCars, though, is optimistic: "Taken in combination with other external factors, this could be the beginning of the breakthrough we've been hoping for," they write. You can watch a video of the President discussing the stimulus package after the jump. Thanks to Peter G. for sending some of this in.
[Source: CNN, EDTA, Environmental Law & Policy Center, CalCars]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Yikes 4:32PM (2/14/2009)
Sorry, OUR government should not be borrowing money from China to fund transportation projects.
Raise the gas tax and let the revenue from gas usage pay for the roads, bridges....not my grand children and my great grand children.
Reply
dwarg 6:21PM (2/14/2009)
You're absolutely right, but we can't expect anything different until Americans are willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't promise us tax cuts and everything we want for Christmas in order to get elected.
Ross Perot and Walter Mondale are the only candidates in my memory that campaigned on fiscal responsibility with tax increases. We all know how well they did.
JDred 7:06PM (2/14/2009)
(SIGH). Great! let's build more expensive and underused choo-choo trains that will need to be subsidized for ever and ever.
I agree with you yikes as far as the outrageous amount of debt that the "Stimulus" Bill will burden our economy. But raising gas taxes isn't the answer either. The steady tax increases that we've had on gas that has supposedly been for roads and bridges has been squandered on other things.
I don't trust the current crop of politicians to be responsible with yet another tax increase.
Reply
Julius 12:10PM (2/16/2009)
Umm... it's been 50-some years since trains went "choo choo". And Amtrak's high-speed Acela service in the NE Corridor (DC to Boston) has been taking market share away from the airlines (to the tune of 3 million passengers in 2007, and that's only increasing), so I'd definitely not call it "underused". Heck, Amtrak served around 40% of the transit needs in this area, despite poorer funding than other transportation agencies:
The Federal Transit Administration was funded at $9.4 billion in FY 2008.
The Federal Aviation Administration was funded at $14.6 billion.
The Federal Highway Administration was funded at $41.4 billion.
Amtrak received a total of $1.3 billion.
As for the impact of trains on local transport, check this thought out:
http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/aviation_forecast_2008/agenda_presentation/media/matthew_lee.pdf
Oh, and if anyone forgot - Amtrak in the NE Corridor has a major green potential - it's been electrified since the 1920's (e.g. no diesel or jet-fuel related emissions).
Brent 4:04AM (2/15/2009)
Obama needs to merge the 6 billion for public transport with the 2 billion for PHEVs, He could make a deal to change the public trans to phev and run things like the 2008 Beijing Olympics buses(Just switching out fresh batteries instead of refueling, at the bus hubs). Boom, a huge saving in gasoline and also $300,000 of this could go to full solar for the bus hub to offset part of it the coal use.
Reply
asylum 4:57AM (2/15/2009)
why is D.C. getting into the business of automotive engineering, product mix, and marketing of auto mobiles?
hint: if a big tax-credit has to be initiated to sell a type of vehicle, the public does not want that type of vehicle under normal market desires and needs, nor does the public value that vehicle at its true cost.
jeez.....
Reply
Chris M 4:25PM (2/22/2009)
Oh, I'd say a substantial portion of the public does want more fuel efficient vehicles and would eagerly embrace PHEVs and EVs if the price were reasonable. The lack of sales is due mainly to high prices, with the subsidies in place sales will boom, as the resulting cost will be considered reasonable by a lot more people.
The real magic will come with increased demand triggering increased competition and research and development, hopefully that will drive the cost of batteries down enough that further subsidies won't be needed.
RPM 5:42AM (2/15/2009)
"..The big winners were trains and plug-in cars..."
And the looses are ???... the American people and our children...this is truly a sad time for America.
How I hope I'm wrong...I truly do..
Reply
eric 10:06AM (2/15/2009)
agreed.
i'm so happy to live in a country where the government feels compelled to dictate what means of transportation should be available to me and what I should/should not own.
Kevin 8:03PM (2/15/2009)
point 1. nobody gives a rip when $700 billion goes to the banks and hedge funds but when it is actually spent on making our country more efficient everybody makes a huge deal about spending the money.
point 2. if all of you guys have just realized that you have mortgaged off the future of your children then you have been living with your head in the sand for the past 8 years.
Reply
Jim 10:30PM (2/15/2009)
exactly right Kevin...Bush ran up $5 Trillion in debt while selling the U.S. off to big business. Now, everyone wants to stop spending in a repeat of the great depression, leading to a complete collapse of the banking system, 25% unemployment, millions of homeless people, etc. Sound like a great way to spend the next decade? When economists say the government must be the spender of last resort, believe them. And the best way to do it is infrastructure and making the U.S. more efficient.
Scot 9:56AM (2/16/2009)
Listen to economists? How about the hundreds that are running ads across the country telling us what a stupid idea it is to try and spend our way out of a recession. There is no economic theory behind this stupid stimulus bill, if you believe that you have been deceived! We need to stop printing money and start cutting corporate taxes like the rest of the industrialized world. Its disgusting when our education system has failed so miserable that critical thinking has gone into hiding...
oobflyer 10:58AM (2/16/2009)
For those that think we "can't spend our way out of a recession" - perhaps you should check a different news source other than Rush Dittohead Limbaugh, or Fox "news". For those that think there is no precedent for this situation - perhaps you should read a little history. This is exactly what was done in the 1930's and 1940's, which successfully brought us out of the great depression. This is the example that Obama is following.
ECON 101: The money from the paychecks of people with JOBS goes directly back into the economy in the form of house payments (which helps the banking industry), car payments (which helps the auto industry) and other spending (which helps the economy in general). For those of us that actually read - this is common knowledge. Scot's assertion that the education system has failed us - is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Didn't he learn about the great depression in his history class? Or perhaps he was homeschooled?
By the way Mr. Yikes, where did you get the silly idea that we were borrowing this stimulus money from China? What news source are you citing? The reality is that this stimulus bill moves us in the direction of independence from foreign oil - which means we will no longer have to borrow money from China to give to the Arabs (this information is also widely available in print and on the internets...)
The idea of tax-cuts for the rich has been proven to be an ineffective economic strategy. Reagan experimented with this idea in the 80's (there's that history thing again) only to find that the money handed to the rich people and rich corporations didn't "trickle down" to the middle class like he had hypothesized. Our economy went into a recession then too, as a result. Bush, (ever the slow-learner) repeated this experiment for the last 8 years (now why isn't our economy thriving?)
The middle class is the great foundation of our economy - this is where the focus has to be, not the rich 10%, or the rich corporations.
BUT finally, and MOST of all - WHY THE PESSIMISM FROM THE READERS OF THIS BLOG?? Are we not EV enthusiasts? This bill pushes the EV industry forward - so much so that we will actually see EV's in the showrooms and on the roads - SOON! I say HIP HIP HURRAH! FINALLY!
Reply
Julius 12:15PM (2/16/2009)
Just a thought - Clinton didn't balance the budget with tax increases across the board, he did it with increased tax revenues from the internet go-go bubble.
And the reason for the pessimism is that noone will invest in an EV if they barely have any money to survive on now. That's on top of all the quality gains that the manufacturers had put into their cars in the past two decades - keeping a gasoline-fueled vehicle running for hundreds of dollars a year in a down economy makes more sense than buying a new EV for tens of thousands, even if the running cost was pennies per year.
Tim 10:27AM (2/23/2009)
OOBFlyer, you hit the mark with accuracy. The industry needs assistance to get these new ev's in the hands of clients. I remember when cell phones were $3,000. but it still took 6 years before they came down to $99. We don't have the time to waste to get these vehicles commercialized. They technology is ready NOW, it works Now and we need it NOW.
UltimoDragon 1:14PM (2/16/2009)
@ Scot: Turn off the Neal Boortz show long enough to Google "Keynesian economics".
There is plenty of sound economic theory behind what President Obama's stimulus bill intends to do.
Reply
UltimoDragon 1:32PM (2/16/2009)
@ eric: We keep hearing conservatives remind us that nobody is owed a job. Guess what, dittohead--the same applies to cars! You've never had the right to own or buy any car you want, ever. You've had the privilege of buying whatever cars are being allowed and sold where you live.
If you want to keep personal transportation by car a viable option, you'd better hope like hell the scientists and researchers working on electric vehicles and alternative fuels get it right--or start working to shorten your suburban/exurban commute to your job.
Kt Davis 6:31PM (2/16/2009)
As far as energy vehicles and a more efficient energy system in this country goes, I believe the stimulus bill will ultimately help. I certainly hope it does. While not exactly the same situation that FDR was presented with in the 30's and 40's, it is difficult not to see the parallels between his infrastructure goals and those of President Obama. With more efficient energy means will (ideally) come more independent energy spending, more newly created jobs, and a cleaner environment altogether. Therefore, those wanting to "go green" in the near future would appear to be winners through this bill. I watched an interested video on the "Winners & Losers" of the stimulus package earlier. It's worth watching:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/u_s_winners_losers/
Reply
Carney 12:20PM (2/17/2009)
But no flex fuel mandate, neither here nor in the auto bailout bill.
The central factor that crashed the economy in 2008 was high oil prices.
http://tinyurl.com/6fbnn5
OPEC could never have jacked prices up that high if our cars weren't unnecessarily locked in to being one fuel only.
If they were flex fuel capable, able to run as easily on alcohol as on gasoline, people wouldn't make a fetish of fuel economy and shun large, powerful, and profitable vehicles because alcohol fuel is not just cheap during a crash but cheap permanently, as well as being clean burning and not an income source for extremism.
By being able to avoid exorbitant OPEC prices for oil, we have retained the household income necessary to maintain consumer spending and investor confidence to keep the economy doing well, and automakers would have done well too.
Failing to address this point with pie in the sky or someday down the road showcase projects and R&D and distractions, rather than cutting to the heart of the problem with a practical and affordable ($100 per car) plan will prevent the return of investor and consumer confidence necessary for an economic revival, or at least one that will be as fast and robust as it could be.
Reply
Carney 12:21PM (2/17/2009)
I meant "By being able to avoid exorbitant OPEC prices for oil, we *WOULD* have "
Stupid, non editable, primitive Blogsmith comment system.