Order Code IB10128
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Alternative Fuels and
Advanced Technology Vehicles:
Issues in Congress
Updated September 9, 2004
Brent Yacobucci
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Congressional Interest
Legislative Background
Current Issues
Fuel Tax Incentives
Ethanol and MTBE
Ethanol Imports
Vehicle Purchase Requirements
Vehicle Purchase Tax Incentives
Biodiesel
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
Hybrid Vehicles
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10128
09-09-04
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles:
Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
Alternative fuels and advanced technol-
On November 17, 2003, the conference
ogy vehicles are seen by proponents as inte-
committee on H.R. 6 issued its report (H.Rept.
gral to improving urban air quality, decreasing
108-375). The House approved the report on
dependence on foreign oil, and reducing
November 18. However, on November 21,
emissions of greenhouse gases. However,
2003, a cloture motion on the bill failed in the
major barriers — especially economics —
Senate. On February 12, 2004, S. 2095 (a
currently prevent the widespread use of these
modified version of the H.R. 6 conference
fuels and technologies. Because of these
bill) was introduced in the Senate. It is un-
barriers, and the potential benefits, there is
clear when S. 2095 will see floor action.
continued congressional interest in providing
Further, on June 15, 2004, H.R. 4503 was
incentives and other support for their develop-
passed in the House. This bill is identical to
ment and commercialization.
the H.R. 6 conference report. It is unclear
what further action will be taken on the energy
In the 108th Congress, alternative fuels
bill.
and advanced technology vehicles have re-
ceived a good deal of attention, especially in
Because of concerns over the energy bill,
the debate over omnibus energy legislation
there have been suggestions that some of the
(H.R. 6, among others). Major topics have
alternative fuels provisions from the bill —
included tax incentives for alternative fuel
especially those related to ethanol and MTBE
production; the future of ethanol and the fuel
— could be inserted into other bills, including
additive MTBE, including the establishment
the highway reauthorization bill.
of a renewable fuels standard (RFS); and

research and development of hydrogen fuel
The conference on H.R. 3550, the high-
and fuel cells. Other topics have included
way reauthorization bill, convened in June.
government vehicle purchase requirements;
Among other provisions, the bill would
tax credits for vehicle purchases; promotion of
reauthorize existing programs for alternative
biodiesel fuel; and incentives for hybrid elec-
fuel buses and other transit projects. Also, it
tric vehicles.
would modify the tax incentives for ethanol-
blended fuel.
The omnibus energy bill contains many
provisions relevant to alternative fuels and
On April 8, 2004, tax provisions from the
advanced technology vehicles. Among its
energy bill were inserted into the Foreign
provisions, the bill would extend and expand
Sales Corporation (FSC) bill (S. 1637), which
existing tax incentives for the purchase of
passed the Senate May 11. However, the
alternative fuel and advanced vehicles; autho-
House version (H.R. 4520), does not contain
rize R&D funding for hydrogen fuel and fuel
these provisions. The conference on H.R.
cells; require that gasoline contain ethanol or
4520 convened in July.
other renewable fuel; ban the use of the fuel
additive MTBE; and expand tax incentives for
the production of ethanol and biodiesel.

---

IB10128
09-09-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On July 22, 2004, two bills on ethanol imports were introduced. S. 2762 would limit
the amount of duty-free ethanol imports currently allowed under the Caribbean basin
initiative. S. 2769 would preclude the use of imported ethanol in meeting any future
renewable fuel mandate. These bills were introduced in response to reports that at least one
company is planning on constructing a new facility in El Salvador to reprocess ethanol from
Brazil for sale in the United States. Both bills have been referred to committee.
On June 9, 2004, the conference on H.R. 3550, the highway reauthorization bill,
convened. Among other provisions, the bill would reauthorize grant programs for alternative
fuel buses and would permit states to exempt low emission and energy efficient vehicles
from HOV lane restrictions. In addition, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit
(VEETC, originally S. 1548) would eliminate the current excise tax exemption for ethanol-
blended gasoline and replace it with a tax credit.
On November 17, 2003, the conference committee on H.R. 6, the omnibus energy
package, issued its report (H.Rept. 108-375). The House approved the report on November
18, but on November 21 a cloture vote on the bill failed in the Senate. H.R. 6 contains
several key provisions related to alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles. These
include authorizations for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D funding, tax credits for the purchase
of vehicles, and a requirement that gasoline contain ethanol or other renewable fuels. It is
unclear what further action will be taken on the energy bill.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Congressional Interest
Legislative Background. A combination of concerns — the oil crises of the 1970s,
the rise in awareness of environmental issues, energy security, vehicle emissions, and fuel
conservation goals — have increased interest in moving the United States away from
petroleum fuels for transportation and toward alternative fuels and advanced technologies.
Most notably, the 102nd Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-
486). Among other provisions, this law requires the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles by
federal, state, and alternative fuel providers. Under EPAct, a certain percentage — which
varies by the type of fleet — of new passenger vehicles purchased for an agency’s or
company’s fleet must be capable of operating on alternative fuels, including ethanol,
methanol, natural gas, or propane. In addition, EPAct established a tax credit for the
purchase of electric vehicles, as well as tax deductions for the purchase of alternative fuel
and hybrid vehicles.
(For background on alternative fuels, including legislative history, see CRS Report
RL30758, Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles. For background on advanced
vehicle technologies, see CRS Report RL30484, Advanced Vehicle Technologies.)
Other laws affecting alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles include the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163), which established fuel economy
standards for passenger cars and light trucks; the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
CRS-1

---

IB10128
09-09-04
(P.L. 101-549), which requires cities with significant air quality problems to promote low
emission vehicles; highway authorization bills, including TEA-21, which established and
reaffirmed tax incentives for ethanol and other fuels; and numerous laws that authorize
federal research and development on alternative fuels, advanced technologies, and enabling
infrastructure.
Current Issues. Recent events have renewed interest in alternative fuels and
advanced vehicles. For example, high pump prices for gasoline and diesel fuel have raised
concerns over oil imports, energy security, and fuel conservation. In light of this, there is
growing interest in more efficient vehicles or vehicles that abandon the use of petroleum
altogether. This is especially true as the rapid growth in the sales of light trucks — these
include sport utility vehicles (SUVs), mini-vans, and pickups — which tend to have lower
fuel economy than passenger cars, has lowered the overall fuel economy of the new vehicle
fleet.
Furthermore, ongoing developments in hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, and hydrogen fuel
have raised key policy questions. These questions include whether more generous tax
incentives for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles should be established; the costs associated with
production of hydrogen as a major transportation fuel; and whether research and
development funds should be focused on such potentially high-risk technologies as fuel cells
or on near-term, conventional technologies, such as hybrids.
In light of these and other energy policy concerns, Congress has been working on
comprehensive energy legislation since 2001. In the 107th Congress, an energy bill stalled
in conference. The 108th Congress has continued the debate over energy legislation (H.R.
6). The conference report (H.Rept. 108-375) includes provisions on vehicle tax credits,
amendments to vehicle purchase requirements under EPAct, a requirement that gasoline
contain ethanol or other renewable fuels, and a tax credit for ethanol-blended fuels.
Fuel Tax Incentives
There is ongoing interest in tax incentives for the production and purchase of alternative
fuels. Supporters of this approach argue that the market favors conventional fuels, and that
the widespread infrastructure and nearly ubiquitous use of conventional fuels in automobiles
makes it difficult for alternative fuels to compete without economic incentives. Currently,
some alternative fuels do receive incentives for their production or sale. Most notably,
gasoline blended with ethanol receives a partial exemption from the motor fuels excise tax.
This exemption makes ethanol-blended fuel (gasohol) price-competitive with regular
gasoline. Because of this, more than 99% of ethanol produced in the United States is
blended with gasoline, according to the Energy Information Administration.
However, the excise tax exemption has been criticized because it reduces revenue for
the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). For every gallon of gasoline sold in the United
States, a federal tax of 18.4 cents is imposed, all but 0.1 cents of which goes to the HTF. The
remaining 0.1 cents goes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to
mitigate problems from fuel leaks. However, gasohol with 10% ethanol is taxed at 13.2
cents per gallon (an exemption of 5.2 cents per gallon). Of the 13.2 cents, 10.6 cents goes
to the HTF (and an additional 0.1 cents goes to the LUST fund). The remaining 2.5 cents is
transferred to the general Treasury fund for debt reduction. Therefore, for every gallon of
CRS-2

---

IB10128
09-09-04
10% gasohol sold, the HTF “loses” 7.7 cents; the overall foregone revenue is 5.2 cents. (The
exemption is prorated for blends with less ethanol.) The Joint Committee on Taxation
estimates that the exemption has resulted in about $7.5 billion in cumulative foregone
revenue from FY1979 through FY2000, while the U.S. Treasury estimates the figure at about
$11 billion. (The discrepancy in estimates arises from differing assumptions made by the
Treasury and the Committee.)
Because of this concern, a Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) has been
proposed (S. 1548). This credit would replace the existing excise tax exemption with a tax
credit. While the total value of the incentive to blenders might not change, the incentive
would be paid from the general Treasury fund, as opposed to the federal Highway Trust
Fund. Therefore, while overall revenue concerns would not be addressed, the effects of the
ethanol tax incentive on the HTF would be eliminated.
The VEETC was discussed as part of the debate over H.R. 6, and a version of this credit
was inserted into the conference report on the bill. However, while the version in H.R. 6
would establish the VEETC, it would not eliminate the existing deduction, allowing blenders
to claim either incentive, but not both. Because the excise tax exemption is taken at the point
the fuel is blended, it is likely that most blenders would prefer the current exemption, as
opposed to waiting for a refund of the VEETC. However, it is unclear what action will be
taken on H.R. 6 in the second session. A possible substitute to H.R. 6 — S. 2095 — has
been introduced, and this bill also would establish the VEETC. However, because of
concerns that action on the energy bill may stall, supporters of the VEETC have suggested
inserting the credit into the revenue section of a highway reauthorization bill.
The Administration’s proposal for highway reauthorization (H.R. 2088) includes a
revenue title and an extension of the tax exemption for ethanol (as opposed to the VEETC)
through 2014. The House and Senate versions of the bill (H.R. 3550 and S. 1072) include
the VEETC. The conference on H.R. 3550 convened June 9.
In addition to the credit for ethanol-blended gasoline, there is interest in establishing a
similar credit for biodiesel blended into conventional diesel fuel. In fact, the VEETC would
apply to biodiesel as well. Because the biodiesel market is in its infancy, there is also interest
in creating a per-gallon tax credit for the production of biodiesel fuel. The conference report
on H.R. 6, as well as the Senate highway bill, provides a tax credit of up to $1.00 per gallon
for the production of biodiesel.
(For more information on the ethanol tax exemption, see CRS Report 98-435, Alcohol
Fuels Tax Incentives. For more information on the tax provisions in H.R. 6, see CRS Report
RL32042, Energy Tax Incentives in H.R. 6: The Conference Agreement as Compared with
the House Bill and Senate Amendment.)
Ethanol and MTBE
Outside of tax incentives, ethanol has been of key interest in recent Congresses,
especially in its role as an alternative to MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE and
ethanol are used (among other purposes) to meet Clean Air Act requirements that
reformulated gasoline (RFG), sold in the nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas, contain
at least 2% oxygen (by weight), to improve combustion. Under the RFG program, areas with
CRS-3

---

IB10128
09-09-04
“severe” or “extreme” ozone pollution (90 counties with a combined population of 64.8
million) must use reformulated gas; areas with less severe ozone pollution may opt into the
program as well, and many have. In all, portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia
use RFG, and about 30% of the gasoline sold in the United States is RFG, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The law requires that RFG contain at least 2% oxygen by weight. Refiners can meet this
requirement by adding a number of ethers or alcohols, any of which contains oxygen and
other elements. By far the most commonly used oxygenate is MTBE. In 1999, 87% of RFG
contained MTBE, a number since reduced to about 62%, according to EPA. MTBE has also
been used since the late 1970s in non-reformulated gasoline as an octane enhancer, at lower
concentrations. As a result, gasoline with MTBE has been used throughout the United States,
whether or not an area has been subject to RFG requirements.
MTBE leaks, generally from underground gasoline storage tanks, have been implicated
in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. The substance creates taste and odor
problems in water at very low concentrations, and some animal studies indicate it may pose
a potential cancer risk to humans. For these reasons, 17 states (AZ, CA, CO, CT, IL, IN, IA,
KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, NY, OH, SD, WA) have taken steps to ban or regulate its use,
according to the Renewable Fuels Association. The most significant of the bans (in
California and New York) took effect at the end of 2003, leading many to suggest that
Congress revisit the issue to modify the oxygenate requirement and set more uniform
national requirements regarding MTBE and its potential replacements, principally ethanol.
Support for eliminating the oxygenate requirement on a nationwide basis is widespread
among environmental groups, the petroleum industry, and states. In general, these
stakeholders have concluded that gasoline can meet the same low emission performance
standards as RFG without the use of oxygenates. But agricultural interests present a potential
obstacle to enacting legislation to remove the oxygen requirement. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 10% of the nation’s corn crop is used to produce the competing
oxygenate, ethanol. If MTBE use is reduced or phased out, but the oxygen requirement
remains in effect, ethanol use would soar, increasing demand for corn. (In fact, according to
EPA, ethanol use is already growing as MTBE begins to be phased out.) Conversely, if the
oxygen requirement is waived by EPA or legislation, not only would MTBE use decline, but
so, likely, would demand for ethanol. Thus, some Members of Congress and governors from
corn-growing states have taken a keen interest in MTBE legislation and related oxygenate
requirements.
To help promote the market for ethanol if the oxygen standard were eliminated, a
renewable fuels standard (RFS) has been suggested. This would require that all gasoline
contain ethanol or other renewable fuel. This concept has been supported by agricultural
interests, the oil industry, and some environmental groups. Opponents have included states
that do not produce ethanol, due to fears that the mandate could raise gasoline prices.
As approved by the conferees, H.R. 6 contains numerous MTBE and ethanol provisions
in Title XV. It would ban the use of MTBE as a fuel additive, except in states that
specifically authorize its use, after December 31, 2014, unless the President determines not
to ban it. The Clean Air Act requirement to use MTBE or other oxygenates in RFG would
be repealed, 270 days after enactment. In place of this requirement, the bill would establish
CRS-4

---

IB10128
09-09-04
a renewable fuels standard (RFS). Under the RFS, annual production of gasoline would be
required to contain at least 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuel (more than
double the current production of ethanol) by 2012. To prevent “backsliding” on air quality,
the bill requires that reductions in emissions of toxic substances achieved by RFG be
maintained; it authorizes $2 billion in grants to assist merchant MTBE production facilities
in converting to the production of other fuel additives; and, perhaps most controversially, it
would provide a “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE,
ethanol, and other renewable fuels (product liability lawsuits have been used to force
petroleum and chemical companies to pay for cleanup of ground and surface water
contaminated by releases of fuels containing MTBE). The bill also authorizes funds for
MTBE cleanup.
Because the “safe harbor” provision is seen as one of the obstacles to the passage of
H.R. 6, a substitute bill (S. 2095) has been introduced. S. 2095 does not contain the safe
harbor provision for renewable fuels or MTBE. Otherwise, the ethanol title is identical to
that in the H.R. 6 conference report. The House substitute bill, H.R. 4503 contains identical
language to H.R. 6, including the safe harbor for both renewable fuels and MTBE.
(For a detailed comparison of the House and Senate provisions, see CRS Report
RL31912, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 6 and S. 2095.
For additional background on the MTBE issue, see CRS Report 98-290, MTBE in Gasoline:
Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues. For information on ethanol, see CRS Report RL30369,
Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues.)
Ethanol Imports
There is growing concern among some stakeholders over ethanol imports. Because of
lower production costs and/or government incentives, ethanol prices in Brazil and other
countries can be significantly lower than in the United States. To offset the U.S. excise tax
incentive that all ethanol (imported or domestic) receives, most imports are subject to a 54-
cent-per-gallon tariff. This tariff effectively negates the excise tax incentive for covered
imports, and has been a significant barrier to ethanol imports.
However, under certain conditions imports of ethanol from Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI) countries are granted duty-free status. This is true even if the ethanol was produced
in a non-CBI country. In this scenario the ethanol is produced in another country
(historically Brazil or a European country), dehydrated in a CBI country, then shipped to the
United States. This avenue for imported ethanol to avoid the tariff has been criticized by
some stakeholders, including some Members of Congress. In the spring and summer of
2004, two companies announced the possibility of constructing new dehydrating facilities
in CBI countries and shipping ethanol from Brazil. In response, two bills were introduced
in Congress. S. 2762 (Grassley) would establish additional limits to the quantity of
dehydrated ethanol that could be imported under the CBI. S. 2769 (Daschle) would preclude
the use of imported ethanol in any future renewable fuels standard (see above). Both bills
have been referred to committee.
(For more information on ethanol imports from CBI countries, see CRS Report
RS21930, Ethanol Imports and the Caribbean Basin Initiative.)
CRS-5

---

IB10128
09-09-04
Vehicle Purchase Requirements
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486) established mandatory alternative
fuel vehicle purchase requirements for various vehicle fleets. Under the law, 75% of the
passenger vehicles purchased by federal and state vehicle fleets must be capable of operating
on alternative fuels; 90% of the vehicles purchased by alternative fuel providers must be
alternative fuel vehicles.
The alternative fuel vehicle provisions of EPAct have been criticized as ineffective
because, while EPAct requires the purchase of vehicles, it does not mandate the use of
alternative fuels. In most cases, the vehicles purchased to meet the requirement are dual-fuel
vehicles (i.e., they can operate on either a conventional fuel or an alternative fuel). Further,
those vehicles are primarily fueled using gasoline, because gasoline tends to be less
expensive and more widely available than alternative fuels. In addition, despite the vehicle
purchase mandate, many agencies have failed to meet their statutory obligation. As a result,
in 2002 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. In July 2002, the court ruled that several federal agencies
failed to meet their quotas and ordered those agencies to prepare reports on their compliance
with EPAct (Center for Biological Diversity v. Abraham, N.D. Cal., No. CV-00027).
In addition to the requirements for federal, state, and fuel provider fleets, EPAct grants
the Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to extend the requirements to local
government and private fleets. However, as of 2002, DOE had not made a determination on
requirements for local and private fleets. As part of the above lawsuit, the Center for
Biological Diversity also asked the court to force DOE to promulgate new rules. In ruling on
the above case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered DOE
to establish a timeline for a new rulemaking. DOE compiled a timeline, and on March 4,
2003, DOE issued a proposed rulemaking determining that such a program would not
promote the goals of EPAct, neither reducing dependence on foreign oil nor leading to
greater use of alternative fuel vehicles (68 Federal Register 10319).
The conference report on H.R. 6 (as well as S. 2095, the Senate substitute energy bill,
and H.R. 4503, the House substitute) would significantly modify the existing requirements
for EPAct compliance. First, all dual-fuel vehicles purchased to meet the EPAct quotas
would be required to operate on alternative fuels, unless an agency is granted a waiver by the
Secretary of Energy. Second, fleets would be permitted to purchase hybrid gasoline/electric
(or diesel/electric) vehicles to meet their quotas. Third, an agency would be permitted to
waive the purchase requirement if the agency certified an alternative measure that reduced
petroleum consumption as much as the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Finally, the Secretary
of Energy would be required to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the EPAct
requirements.
(For more information on vehicle purchase requirements, see CRS Report RL30758,
Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and Development
Issues.)
CRS-6

---

IB10128
09-09-04
Vehicle Purchase Tax Incentives
Some supporters of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles argue that tax
incentives for the purchase of vehicles and fuels are more effective than any purchase
mandate. In addition to the mandatory purchase requirements, EPAct established a tax credit
for the purchase of electric vehicles and a tax deduction for “clean-fuel vehicles,” including
alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Taxpayers may claim a credit of 10% of the
vehicle purchase cost, up to $4,000, for the purchase of a new electric vehicle. The clean
fuel vehicle deduction is a maximum of $2,000 for passenger vehicles, $5,000 for heavy-duty
vehicles up to 26,000 pounds, and $50,000 for the heaviest vehicles. Both the tax credit and
the deduction are being phased down starting in 2004, reaching zero after 2006. Opponents
of the purchase incentives see them as supporting an already profitable industry —
automakers — without significantly decreasing petroleum use.
However, because supporters see tax incentives as a key tool in promoting vehicle
purchases, there is interest in extending the existing incentives or establishing new
incentives. The CLEAR ACT (Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car
Technologies Act, H.R. 1054 and S. 505) and the energy bill (H.R. 6) would significantly
expand the vehicle purchase incentives. The conference report on H.R. 6 would replace the
existing deductions for alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles with tax credits. The maximum
credit for alternative fuel passenger vehicles would be $5,000 ($3,400 for hybrids); the
maximum credit for the heaviest alternative fuel vehicles would be $40,000 ($30,000 for
hybrids). Further, the H.R. 6 conference report would establish a tax credit for the purchase
of a fuel cell vehicle (up to $8,000 for a passenger vehicle, $40,000 for the heaviest vehicles).
S. 2095 and H.R. 4503 would establish similar tax credits.
(For more information on these tax incentives, see CRS Report RS21277, Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Tax Incentives and the CLEAR ACT.)
Biodiesel
Biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters) is a synthetic diesel fuel produced from oils, including
soybean and canola oils, animal fats, and recycled cooking grease. It can be blended with
conventional diesel fuel and used in diesel engines with few or no modifications. Further,
with some engine modifications, it can be used in nearly pure form. Because biodiesel can
displace conventional diesel without the use of new (and in many cases costly) vehicles, there
is growing interest in its use. Further, because it can be produced from agricultural products,
there is keen interest in its development by farmers (especially soybean and canola farmers),
and some environmentalists as a way to promote rural economies, reduce agricultural wastes,
and limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, biodiesel production is currently expensive:
wholesale biodiesel from virgin oils costs roughly two to three times conventional No. 2
diesel; biodiesel from recycled grease is less expensive but still costs considerably more than
conventional diesel.
The cost barriers for biodiesel production have generated interest in providing tax
incentives for biodiesel, either in the form of production tax credits or an excise tax
exemption, or both. Further there is interest in developing new technologies to help reduce
production costs. However, the organic oils used as raw materials are one of the largest costs
CRS-7

---

IB10128
09-09-04
in production. Therefore, to significantly reduce biodiesel production costs, the costs of
soybean oil and other oils would need to decrease substantially.
The conference report on H.R. 6, as well as H.R. 4503 and S. 2095, would provide a tax
credit of up to $1.00 per gallon for the production of biodiesel. Further, H.R. 6 and S. 2095
would provide an excise tax credit for biodiesel blends (i.e. biodiesel and conventional
diesel). Producers would be eligible for one credit or the other, but not both. The excise tax
credit is included in S. 1072, the Senate highway reauthorization bill (see “fuel tax
incentives” above).
(For more information on biodiesel, see CRS Report RS21563, Biodiesel Fuel and U.S.
Agriculture.)
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
Over the past few years, interest has grown substantially in hydrogen fuel and fuel cells.
Hydrogen fuel can be produced using any energy source, and has thus been touted as a way
to limit dependence on energy imports. Further, when hydrogen is used in a fuel cell (a
device that produces electricity by converting hydrogen to water), only heat and water are
produced, drastically reducing vehicle emissions. However, hydrogen fuel production is
currently very expensive, as are fuel cells. In addition, depending on the original fuel source,
overall fuel-cycle emissions can be a key concern.
Because of the potential benefits from hydrogen and fuel cells, and because of the
existing barriers to their commercialization, the Bush Administration has strongly supported
research and development (R&D). In January 2002, the Administration announced the
FreedomCAR initiative, which promotes cooperative R&D between the “Big Three”
American auto manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors) and the federal
government. While the partnership is conducting research on many technologies, hydrogen
and fuel cell vehicles are a key focus. Further, in his January 2003 State of the Union
address, President Bush announced the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which would
increase federal spending on hydrogen fuel and stationary fuel cell R&D. Overall, the
President requested $1.8 billion over five years for both initiatives, including $720 million
in new funding.
Opponents of the initiatives argue that hydrogen fuel and fuel cells may never be
commercialized and that the initiatives draw funding away from near-term technologies such
as hybrid vehicles. Further, some argue that research and development alone will not reduce
petroleum dependence and that Congress should instead consider tightening fuel economy
standards for all vehicles.
For FY2004, Congress agreed to increase funding for this research to $235 million from
$185 million in FY2003 (P.L. 108-108 and P.L. 108-137). However, this increase was still
less than requested by the Administration ($257 million). In addition to the appropriations
bills, the conference report on the energy bill (H.R. 6) would reauthorize hydrogen and fuel
cell R&D at a level slightly higher than that requested by the President — $2.15 billion over
five years, as opposed to the requested $1.8 billion. With or without this authorization, it is
likely that increased federal hydrogen and fuel cell R&D funding will continue, as
CRS-8

---

IB10128
09-09-04
demonstrated by the congressional support for the Administration’s requested funding
increase in FY2004.
(For more information on hydrogen and fuel cells, see CRS Report RL31296, A
Hydrogen Economy and Fuel Cells: An Overview. For more information on the
Administration’s initiatives, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle
R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.)
Hybrid Vehicles
Hybrid gasoline/electric (and diesel/electric) vehicles are becoming increasingly popular
in the United States. Hybrids combine a gasoline (or diesel) engine with an electrical motor
system to improve efficiency. If their use becomes more widespread, they could help
improve the overall efficiency of the vehicle fleet and could help limit oil consumption.
Further, they could do so without significant changes to existing infrastructure, which has
been a key barrier to the expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles. Honda and Toyota offer
vehicles with hybrid powertrains, and American manufacturers, including Ford and General
Motors, plan to introduce vehicles with a hybrid option within the next few years. At the
present time, only passenger cars are available in the United States, but hybrid sport utility
vehicles (SUVs), trucks, and vans are expected in the near future.
Because of their energy and environmental benefits, some states have provided drivers
of hybrid vehicles an exemption from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane requirements.
Under TEA-21 (which expired on September 30, 2003), states had the authority to grant
HOV exemptions for so-called “Inherently Low Emission Vehicles” (ILEVs). The ILEV
standard requires that a vehicle have no evaporative emissions, a standard that is not met by
any current hybrid. However, because of the reduced emissions and improved fuel economy
of hybrid vehicles, there is congressional interest in explicitly granting states the right to
exempt them from HOV lane requirements. The conference report on H.R. 6 would grant
the exemption. Further, the Administration’s proposal on highway and transit
reauthorization (introduced as H.R. 2088), as well as the House- (H.R. 3550) and Senate-
passed bills (S. 1072) , would reauthorize the HOV lane exemption and expand it to certain
“low-emission and energy efficient vehicles,” including hybrids.
Further, as was stated above, there is interest in expanding the incentives for the
purchase of hybrid vehicles (see “Vehicle Purchase Tax Incentives” above).
(For more information on hybrid vehicles, see CRS Report RL30484, Advanced Vehicle
Technologies: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 6 (Tauzin)
Energy Policy Act of 2003. Title VII establishes an excise tax credit for ethanol and
biodiesel fuels, establishes a tax credit for biodiesel production, and establishes tax credits
for the purchase of alternative fuel, fuel cell, and hybrid vehicles. Title VIII authorizes $2.15
billion over five years for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D. Title XV requires renewable fuels
CRS-9

---

IB10128
09-09-04
in gasoline (3.1 billion gallons in 2005, increasing to 5.0 billion gallons in 2012), bans
MTBE after 2014 unless the President determines otherwise (states can choose to authorize
its use); eliminates RFG oxygen requirement, and authorizes funding for MTBE cleanup.
Introduced April 7, 2003; referred to several committees; passed House April 11; passed
Senate July 31; conference Report (H.Rept. 108-375) adopted by House November 18,
2003. Motion to invoke cloture failed in Senate November 21, 2003.
H.R. 1054 (Camp)
Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting From Advanced Car Technologies Act (CLEAR
ACT). Extends existing tax credit for electric vehicles. Establishes purchase tax credits for
alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. Establishes tax credit for retail sale of alternative fuels.
Introduced March 4, 2003; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. Some provisions
inserted into H.R. 6 conference report.
H.R. 2088 (Young)
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) of
2003. Extends tax exemption for ethanol blended fuels. Authorizes grant funding for
municipalities to purchase alternative fuel buses and other vehicles. Reauthorizes HOV lane
exemptions and expands exemptions to include hybrids and other vehicles. Introduced at
request of President May 14, 2003; referred to Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure November 20, 2003.
H.R. 3550 (Young)
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Authorizes grant funding for
municipalities to purchase alternative fuel buses and other vehicles. Introduced November
20, 2003; passed House April 2, 2004; passed Senate May 19, 2004; conference convened
June 9, 2004.
H.R. 4503 (Barton)
Energy Policy Act of 2004. Identical to H.R. 6 conference report. Introduced June 3,
2004; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well several other committees.
H.R. 4520 (Thomas)
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Amends the tax code to comply with World
Trade Organization rulings. Includes provisions on ethanol tax incentives. Introduced June
4, 2004; passed House June 17, 2004; passed Senate July 15, 2004; conference committee
has not convened as of this writing.
S. 505 (Hatch)
CLEAR ACT (see H.R. 1054). Introduced March 4, 2003; referred to Committee on
Finance.
S. 1072 (Inhofe)
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) of
2003. Authorizes grant funding for municipalities to purchase alternative fuel buses and
other vehicles. Reauthorizes HOV lane exemptions and expands exemptions to include
hybrids and other vehicles. Introduced May 15, 2003; passed Senate February 12, 2004;
inserted into H.R. 3550 May 19, 2004.
CRS-10

---

IB10128
09-09-04
S. 1548 (Grassley)
Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) Act of 2003. Eliminates the existing
partial tax exemption for ethanol-blended gasoline. Establishes an excise tax credit for
ethanol- and biodiesel-blended fuels. Establishes a tax credit (coordinated with the excise
tax credit) for the use of biodiesel and biodiesel blends. Introduced July 31, 2003; referred
to Committee on Finance; ordered reported by Finance Committee September 17, 2003;
language inserted into S. 1072 February 12, 2004.
S. 1637 (Grassley)
Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. Amends the tax code to comply with
World Trade Organization rulings; amended to include various energy tax incentives.
Introduced September 18, 2003; energy tax provisions inserted April 4, 2004; passed Senate
May 11, 2004; inserted into H.R. 4520 July 15, 2004.
S. 2095 (Domenici)
Energy Policy Act of 2003. Similar provisions to H.R. 6 conference report. Introduced
February 12, 2004.
S. 2762 (Grassley)
Amends the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to limit the quantity of duty-free imports of
dehydrated ethanol from Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. Introduced July 22, 2004;
referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 2769 (Daschle)
Precludes the use of imported ethanol to meet any future renewable fuels standard.
Introduced July 22, 2004; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
California Energy Commission. ABCs of AFVs: A Guide to Alternative Fuel Vehicles.
Sacramento, CA. November 1999.
Electric Drive Transportation Association. Electric Drive Technologies and Products.
Washington, DC. Updated January 2004.
[http://www.electricdrive.org/edtech/index.html]
Fuel Cells 2000. Online Fuel Cell Information Center. Washington, DC. Updated January
2004. [http://www.fuelcells.org/]
Methanol Institute. Methanol Institute Homepage. Washington, DC. Updated January
2004. [http://www.methanol.org/]
National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel Basics. Jefferson City, MO. Updated January 2004.
[http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/biodiesel_basics/]
National Hydrogen Association. Hydrogen Quick Facts. Washington, DC. Updated
January 2004. [http://www.hydrogenus.org/hydrogen-basics.asp]
CRS-11

---

IB10128
09-09-04
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. About NGVs. Washington, DC. Updated May 2003.
[http://www.ngvc.org/ngv/ngvc.nsf/bytitle/fastfacts.htm]
Propane Vehicle Council. Propane Vehicle Council. Washington, DC. Updated January
2004. [http://www.propanevehicle.org/]
Renewable Fuels Association. Ethanol Industry Outlook 2003. Washington, DC. February
2003. [http://www.ethanolrfa.org/outlook2003.shtml]
U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Cities Program. Alternative Fuels Data Center.
Washington, DC. Updated May 2004. [http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/afdc/]
U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel Cell Report to Congress. Washington, DC. February
2003.
——. National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. Washington, DC. November 2002.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Energy Policy Act of 1992: Limited Progress in Acquiring
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Reaching Fuel Goals. Washington, DC. February 2000.
——. Tax Incentives for Petroleum and Ethanol Fuels. Washington, DC. September 2000.
CRS-12

---