White House aide: Electric vehicles could form base of bipartisan energy bill
By Ben Geman - 05/25/11 11:27 AM ET
White House energy adviser Heather Zichal said Wednesday that provisions to spur deployment of electric vehicles could form the foundation of bipartisan energy legislation that can gain traction on Capitol Hill.
Zichal’s comments could boost bipartisan electric vehicle legislation that Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) are promoting.
“A lot of the bill has great ideas in it and we are hopeful that it could serve as the underpinning for a broader package that could move through Congress,” said Zichal, the deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change.
Zichal, speaking at a forum hosted by The National Journal, said measures on electric vehicles could be the “base” of a targeted bill that also includes provisions on oil-and-gas production, building efficiency and green-energy R&D. “We are working very closely with both sides of the aisle on how to answer that question of what is do-able,” Zichal said.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is also bullish on the Merkley-Alexander plan.
Their bill contains a suite of provisions aimed at expanding the use of electric vehicles, which are now just a tiny niche market but are viewed as a promising way to curb oil dependence.
The legislation would create new Energy Department programs, such as expanded technical assistance to state and local governments and support for workforce training needed around charging infrastructure and other issues.
A key provision would create “deployment communities” throughout the country, with goals including deployment of 400,000 plug-in vehicles in these areas.
Other features of the communities — which are designed to provide models for rapid national deployment — would include demonstration of how the vehicles are integrated into the electric grid and increasing domestic manufacturing, among others.
The bill also authorizes funding for various R&D programs, requires new planning by utilities and authorizes loan guarantees for charging infrastructure, among many other measures.
8 Comments
Like No
Post as …
Dmac
9 months ago
@BruceMCF,
That is why the hydrogen would be pressureized in a suitable and safe container. As you know, when pressureized it becomes a cool liquid. It drives down our roads and highways everyday like this in tanker trucks. And as I am sure you know, no pollution controls would be required as it is highly efficient in that 100% of it will burn in cylinder and the exhaust is water vapor.
i reiterate, we are'nt using it because it would be too difficult for the for the Government to ripp us off with all their taxes and fees for pollution controling laws and devices.
The public should start demanding it.
Wake up to what "fracking" for natural gas is doing. It's polluting every aquifer and water well its done near. Natural gas surely has its place, but "fracking" for it should be outlawed immediately.
reply
Brianna- FCHEA
9 months ago
While bipartisan legislation on electric vehicles is undoubtedly a good idea, the White House and DOE Sec. Steven Chu have ignored the incredible potential of fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen. FCEVs have significantly longer ranges than battery electric vehicles and the Department of Energy has shown that FCEVs are more efficient and emit less greenhouse gasses than Hybrids, plug in electric and battery electric vehicles. The DOE is on track for reaching its goal of hydrogen costing $2-$3 per gallon of gasoline equivalent by 2015 A recent McKinsey study showed that FCEVs will be cost competitive with traditional combustion vehicles and will require less infrastructure investment than plug-in electric vehicles -- and that America, Europe and Asia cannot meet stated energy and environmental goals without FCEVs as a robust part of the alternative vehicle mix. Yet, the DOE is disproportionately cutting funding to fuel cell and hydrogen research, market transformation and commercialization. We need to invest in a range of solutions to reduce our dependence on petroleum and to increase energy security. FCEV's need to be part of that solution.
Brianna - Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
reply
Charles Dover
9 months ago
This is fine, but unless we build new electrical power generation plants, it is just whistling Dixie. The Congress (and everyone else) ignores projections of increasing demand for electricity. Not one electrical plant has been built in California in how long? Energy efficiency is an absolute need however, to ignore the increase in demand is dangerous, not to mention foolish.
reply
JD Plus
9 months ago
Would electric vehicles be helpful to the people of Joplin? Would the vehicles for search and rescue be running if it was up to electric vehicles?
Anything that is rechargeable for fueling purposes that is not able to be shipped in immediately is not an alternative. It is a death sentence.
Fueling for vehicles must be something that can be brought in from outside any given area.
Electricity is often out in areas just when disaster strikes. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or simply bad cold storms or hot hot days.
Where is the common sense.
reply
BruceMcF
9 months ago
@DMAC Why bypass hydrogen ~ do you mean as in H2? Because hydrogen is, like batteries, not an energy source, but only a means of energy storage. And its a means of energy storage that is hard to transmit, hard to store, and requires energy consumption in the form of supercooling.
Ammonia, NH4, is a form of hydrogen energy storage that makes much more sense.
@NO TO ELECTRIC CARS ~ or the electricity could come from wind power, which we have in abundance and could harvest with mature technology if ideology did not get in the way. However, electric cars do share with gasoline and natural gas powered cars the problem of being idle 90% of the time. A sensible transport policy will naturally also include energy efficient common carrier transport like high speed rail, at about 380 passenger-miles per gallon of gasoline energy equivalent.
reply
something smells
9 months ago
Like all the other plans of Obama, the motivation is that it favors certain corporations that have been supportive of Obama coming to power. In this case, GE. Of course, GM will follow obama since they are now indebted to him.
reply
Dmac
9 months ago
She must own stock in Gubment Motors. The fact is electric cars are expensive in the sense that we will have to build more power plants to charge them up.
Why are we bypassing hydrogen? Because it would be cheap and it doesn't pollute when burned so there would be no need for most of the pollution regulations and we would have to lay off most EPA employees.
We should have jumped on hydrogen right after 9-11.
reply
something smells
9 months ago
The administration needs to admit to the American people that electric cars are a BAD IDEA for the environment.
Biofuel and natural gas, I understand. But electric vehicles? Fossil fuels (primarily coal, the dirtiest fuel) will be burned to power the batteries. How is that beneficial to the environment? Unless they plan to expand the nuclear power industry in the US - no thanks, we don't need a Japan-type nuclear nightmare here
reply
The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure
No comments:
Post a Comment