TR Editors' blog

The Energy Bill and Plug-In Hybrids

The House and Senate may usher in new gas-saving technologies.

Kevin Bullis 08/06/2007

  • 3 Comments

On Saturday, the House passed an energy bill that would provide tax credits for plug-in hybrids, vehicles that would allow drivers to commute to work using little or no gasoline. The credits have a good chance of becoming law, even though the Senate's energy bill does not include them.

Several news sources reporting on the bill, including the Los Angeles Times, noted important differences between the House bill and one passed by the Senate in June--differences that will need to be resolved in conference. For example, only the Senate bill raises fuel-economy standards, and only the House establishes a mandate for renewable electricity, according to reports. These issues are likely to be contentious.

But the House and Senate will probably overcome differences in legislation on plug-ins, according to a congressional staffer and a prominent lobbyist. The House bill includes a $4,000 tax credit for buying plug-in vehicles, and the Senate does not. Nevertheless, support in the Senate is strong for such legislation. Similar credits for plug-ins failed to be included in the energy bill because they were part of a controversial amendment and because two key senators weren't in town for the vote.

The real obstacle could be President Bush. The Associated Press reports that the president is likely to veto the final bill if it includes House measures that would decrease tax breaks for oil companies. A veto would be a shame, since plug-in hybrids are one of the rare technologies that could reduce foreign-oil consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions at the same time.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 1653 Days Ago
  • 08/06/2007

Try conservation

All of these nifty plans cost money, either for car companies to develop hybrid technology, or us, through tax breaks you and I actually pay for.

I do put allot of the blame on the car companies for building dinosaurs.  What were they thinking?  They all know oil is a finite fuel.  Common sense says you ration something like that.  But for the here and now,  I have one word:  Conservation.

You don't need a huge engine in your car, or a 6000 lb vehicle---all this coming from a car guy.

Reply

nekote

139 Comments

  • 1652 Days Ago
  • 08/07/2007

Not Conservation - Efficiency

Sorry to quibble.
In essence, they have almost the same meaning.

Conservation and Efficiency.

But Conservation has a conotation of going without.  Of turning down the winter thermostat and being colder.

Efficiency has a conotation of doing more with less.  Getting a bigger bang for the buck.  Plus, usually a bit of prestige as new / high "tech".

Makes a world of difference on people's perspective.

Getting to work efficiently.
Or, "saving" gas.

Reply

Einsteinthecat

1 Comment

  • 1650 Days Ago
  • 08/09/2007

Save money on fuel too

Congress trying to do something intelligent that could actually lead to less foreign oil dependence, reduced carbon emissions -- and the possiblity of paying $1 for the electrical equivalent of a gallon of gas?  Amazing!

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement