• Nov 5th 2007 at 5:24PM
  • 49
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.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 49 Comments
      • 8 Months Ago
      HELLO AMERICA FROM ENGLAND. so much blah, blah about climate change. do you hear it? all the time in England. it never stops! we, as individuals, in England feel, at times, we can't make a difference! however, as an individual we can... what our family have learned is that plastic is something that affects the whole planet.. actually what's happening in England is that we are working towards being plastic free wherever we can. it's not easy, but in all ways everyday things make a difference. u know plastics are bad for you, me, the environment and all that rubbish that is washed up on your beaches too. how much damage to seals, seabirds, dolphins. whales, just to name a few. anyway i digrese. u Americans know what matters for today - the analogy is pennies today, pounds tomorrow. well, that is the same for where u live now and where your great, great grandchildren will live. no country on earth is safe from plastic pollution. THANK U AMERICANS FOR EVEN TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS FROM a simple english woman. god bless u all.
      • 8 Months Ago
      hello America. living in england we have serious concerns about oil and petrol for our cars just to get to work and keeping warm and having a hot shower. this stuff is important in communities who do not experience a year round mellow climate.... so do we, who experience cold climates move to the oil producing nations who have all year sunshine. what a nightmare. think about it.. use less fuel, light, gas or whatever u call it. just burn less and buy less stuff that burns petrol based energy. that basically means that avoid anything made of plastic. try banning anything plastic that u dont need, like plastic bags. demand corn starch bags at ur super market. love u america. angie england
      • 8 Months Ago
      Enron fell by Delusional Accounting: "Mark and Book", where you could book all future profit for an energy plant at then end if it's construction, but before it actually produced any power.

      Enron could have "begged" Author Anderson for some regulation, but they didn't need to, they could have simply complied with GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, but they didn't.
      • 7 Years Ago
      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?
      • 7 Years Ago
      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.
      • 8 Months Ago
      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.
      • 8 Months Ago
      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/
      • 8 Months Ago
      Hey mike, your last post was pure drivel. There is virtually no free market in health care first of all. It is virtually all controlled by the govt and 60% of it is directly paid for by the govt. When a 3rd party is always paying (govt or insurance) people pay little attention to costs. The failure for cheap health care in the US is almost entirely the fault of the govt. A smaller portion is the fault of insurance companies.

      Health insurance is not a policy that covers all of your medical expenses. That's not insurance. Does your car insurance pay for your wipers, gasoline, new tires, etc? No. But that's what "health insurance" is in the US. Govt directly squashes competition in health care. The govt also has it setup so if you have insurance, you almost never can know costs beforehand.

      The tax code punishes individuals for buying their own health insurance, while rewarding employers for doing so. This directly raises the cost of health insurance and gives less choices by creating less competition incentives. That employer-attached health insurance system we have was set up by Congress after WW2. It keeps people at jobs they don't like. Sometimes it keeps people at jobs they are overqualified for.

      I can keep going. I have a brother who is a hardcore leftist that I wrote 20 times as much regarding this topic to and he realized he was ignorant on the subject, as most of the public is.

      Everyone wants a free lunch.

      Shall I school you on Enron too? They begged for regulation. Their collapse was not a result of the free market.

      The housing market? Another boom and bust, just like the business cycle. Not a result of a free market. A result of manipulation by the Federal Reserve which was trying to soften the blow by the tech bubble.

      Capitalism is responsible for liberty and choice. Socialism is immoral and greed.

      -The welfare of humanity is the alibi of tyrants.
      It was the alibi of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, it's the alibi of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. It's the alibi of Hugo Chavez, who can only remain in power because oil is expensive, the profits of which he uses to bribe his citizens.
      • 8 Months Ago
      Interesting Quote from your link:
      "I certainly think the free market has failed."

      In health care it has failed. The Insurance Industry are only interested in people who don't need coverage, "cherry picking" by "pre-existing conditions" or "family history" or even "genetic testing".

      The "free market" has failed in international trade, with the new chinese slave class.

      The "free market" failed with the California "energy crisis", which turned out to be market manipulation or fraud.

      The "free market" is failing in the sub-prime mortgage market, and it will continue to fail for the next two years.

      The call for less "government regulation" seems to be the favorite slogan of crooks. Because, if there are rules and laws, we can put them in jail.

      • 8 Months Ago
      Sigh... Some people like to throw around insulting terms like "marxist" and "communist" and "nazi" and "fascist" without really understanding them, or even knowing what is wrong with those political doctrines.

      Hilary Clinton is not perfect, but she isn't a
      "marxist" either. If you want to argue against any of her political positions, fine, but please stick to the facts and avoid childish ad-hominem attacks. If you can't figure out a rational argument, then perhaps you should shut up and reconsider, you just might be wrong.
      • 8 Months Ago
      Here's what happened in the housing market.
      Banks were allowed to "print money".

      Step 1:
      You apply for a mortgage, the bank grants you one, then they sell the mortgage to a third party, just taking a fee( that's all the profit they want ). The mortgage liability is now off their books and is someone else's problem.

      Step 2:
      Fred applies for a mortgage he can't afford, the bank grants it, but Mis-Represents the Quality of that mortgage, and sells it to a third party, taking a bigger fee.

      Step 3: the bank realizes it's got a money machine and goes wild, with No Govt Regulation.

      Step 4: people who could not actually afford those mortgages default, and the whole think collapses.

      This was a PURE FRAUD play, with out government regulation.

      • 8 Months Ago
      Tim, haven't you any idea what the current "Privatization" of the Government is costing? We've just hit 9 TRILLION Dollars of Federal Debt. The Clinton government has a Vastly Better Track Record on the Economy.

      I don't care if you want to call Mr. Clinton's government "Marxist", because you can't argue with a Track Record of Success.

      Never before have I seen a government a government staffed with people with No Experience, something a business would Never Do. And that's probably the main reason this government is failing.



    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X