Update via ITS America

House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., will introduce the committee’s multi-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal tomorrow — Thursday, July 7, at 11 a.m. Eastern time. According to Chairman Mica, the bill will not only reauthorize and reform the nation’s federal highway, transit and highway safety programs, but will also make significant improvements to passenger and freight rail programs and maritime transportation policy. “This fiscally responsible, multi-modal initiative would streamline federal programs, cut red tape, better leverage our federal resources, make wise investments in our infrastructure and create needed jobs for Americans,” according to the Chairman. The rollout event is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes.  Live video of the event will also be available at www.transportation.house.gov by clicking the “Live Webcasts” link.

Streetsblog Capitol Hill reports that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, wants transportation reauthorization bill passed soon in order to avoid the loss of 600,000 jobs in the construction and transit industries. She issued a call to action this morning, pushing for a new bill before the current extension of SAFETEA-LU expires on September 30.   Though she had initially pushed for a six-year bill, Boxer made it official that the EPW proposal is for a two-year bill that will only cover current funding levels plus inflation—about $109 billion over the two years.

At today’s press conference, Boxer focused mostly on the urgency of saving 500,000 construction sector jobs and 100,000 transit jobs, citing new Federal Highway Administration stats about the ramifications if Congress passes Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, with its 30 percent cuts to transportation. Boxer’s aides pulled out charts detailing just how many jobs would be lost in each state (See Chart here), and Boxer pointed to the over 43,000 that her home state of California would shed. Click here to read the rest on Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Note: And I found this interesting nugget on infrastructure spending on the EPW Press Release. It shows we have a long way to go to match the Chinese: According to a report by the Department of the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisors, the United States currently spends 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure, a 50 percent decline from 1960. Meanwhile, China is spending close to 9 percent of their GDP on infrastructure.

Update Courtesy: ITS America

As the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee continues to work on finalizing its six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill in anticipation of an early July introduction, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced plans to introduce the Senate version of the bill during the week of July 11, hold hearings the week of July 18, and is expected to proceed with a Committee mark-up on July 27.  The Senate bill, which is rumored to be a two-year bill instead of six, is expected to face a $12 billion funding shortfall which would require the Senate Finance Committee to come up with additional revenues before the legislation could be passed.  Committee staff continues to craft the bill in a bipartisan fashion with their most recent work focusing on a freight section.  ITS America is working closely with Senate staff to include provisions that would promote greater deployment of ITS.

On the House side, T&I Committee majority staff continues to work on their bill but have provided limited details as to what specific policies and programs will be included.  Speculation continues about the time frame for moving a surface transportation bill through the House, with Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA/7) taking heat for not including the reauthorization bill in a June 10 memo to House Republicans outlining key pieces of legislation that will be debated on the House floor this summer.  The American Road & Transportation Builders Association obtained the memo and has posted the document on its website here.

Meanwhile Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY/24), Vice-Chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, joined ITS America’s Congressional Roundtable members for breakfast to discuss ITS and the transportation reauthorization bill.  As a businessman who spent nearly three decades in the construction industry before being elected to Congress, Rep. Hanna stressed the need for technology solutions that can help public agencies do ‘more with less’.  The Congressman made note of Portland, Oregon as an example of a city that is investing in ITS to help create a more efficient, user-friendly transportation network, while acknowledging the pressure many agencies face to roll out more visible ‘bricks and mortar’ projects.  He also said the “argument is building daily” for investing in transportation as a means to create jobs and bring down the nation’s high unemployment rate.  Read more about the Congressional Roundtable in the AASHTO Journal.

(Source: AP via Yahoo & New York Times)

The Senate will vote to extend the popular “cash-for-clunkers” program before going home on Friday, Majority Leader Harry Reid declared Tuesday in a strong signal the government won’t let the trade-in rebates die under the surging demand that has almost exhausted federal backing.

Images via Apture

Reid’s GOP counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, predicted his party would not block a vote and “the matter will be completed.” Republicans were still demanding a chance to amend a House-passed version that would extend the program into September, but Democrats were confident the bill wouldn’t be changed.

“There obviously is a real pent-up demand in America,” the Transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, said. “People love to buy cars, and we’ve given them the incentive to do that. I think the last thing that any politician wants to do is cut off the opportunity for somebody who’s going to be able to get a rebate from the government to buy a new automobile.”

Visiting the White House for a lunch with the President, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, was also asked about the program.

“We’ll pass ‘cash for clunkers,’ ” he said. And Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who is the minority leader, said there would be a vote, but he did not suggest an outcome.  Opposition to extending the program has been dissipating. One vocal GOP critic, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, said Tuesday he would not try to block the legislation. And three lawmakers who wanted the program limited to the purchase of even more fuel-efficient vehicles said Monday they would back the plan.

Republicans have said it puts the government in the bad position of picking winners and losers.

“People want to know what’s going to be next. Cash for shoes? Cash for groceries?” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

The first $1 billion in funding is expected to lead to sales of 250,000 vehicles and the additional $2 billion would generate sales of perhaps a half-million more vehicles.  The program has encouraged about a quarter-million Americans to buy new cars at time when the economy is still in recession and badly needs a boost.

Buyers of new cars and trucks have swamped formerly deserted auto dealers to claim their rebates — up to $4,500 when they trade in older models that get significantly worse gas mileage. The older vehicles are then scrapped.

Because the House has already recessed for August, any change by the Senate would effectively interrupt the rebate program until Congress returns in September. Consumers who don’t get in on a deal this week would have to wait until then to take advantage of the rebates, assuming eventual passage.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Associated Press, The Detroit News, Streetsblog & Jalopnik)

With the “Cash for Clunkers” bill successfully clearing the House floor, there is a lot of chatter about the fate of this bill in the Senate.   The auto industry and Michigan lawmakers are pushing for quick Senate action on this legislation to boost auto sales, after the House overwhelmingly passed the bill Tuesday.

But it remains unclear when Senate supporters may overcome the objections of Senate appropriators and a group of senators who say the House proposal doesn’t do enough to improve fuel efficiency on the nation’s highways.

The House approved its version Tuesday, 298-199, with substantial Republican support despite the opposition of House leaders including Minority Leader John Boehner and whip Eric Cantor.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., introduced a nearly identical bill in the Senate, but had to withdraw an attempt to get a floor vote last week.

Opposition came from members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which objected to funding provisions of the bill, and from senators who want tougher fuel economy requirements.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a competing proposal on Monday.   Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.  The requirements for car trade-ins aren’t much better under the Stabenow and Sutton plans, with a mere4 mpg increase in fuel economy triggering the $3,500 tax credit.  With Rep. Sutton’s plan winning the House approval this week, Stabenow’s Senate counterpart could potentially get a leg up over Feinstein’s.

While we await the Senate action, I put together a quick side by side comparision of the two bills  (data from Associated Press).

Data Courtesy: Associated Press

Also, our friends at Jalopnik have compiled an awesome visual that simplifies the rs details of this “Cash for Clunkealong” with some great analysis about the worthiness of the program for buyers.

First of all, operable vehicles are required and there aren’t many people driving around with vehicles worth less than $1,500. Many old crappy cars, in fact, can still demand up to $2,500 on the open market. This means you’re going to get, max, $2000 for your trade-in. The least valuable qualifying cars, of course, are actually the more efficient compact vehicles, which makes getting the necessary 10 MPG improvement unlikely.

The second problem, stemming from the first, is quantifying the number of people who actually drive around in cars worth less than $2,500 and can actually afford a new car. Our instinct tells us there aren’t many people. This means people taking advantage of the program will, typically, have to be excited by the prospect of saving $1,000 or $2,000. These people should already have been swayed by intense discounting from automakers in recent months.

Image Courtesy: Jalopnik

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source:  Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)

The U.S. House approved the “cash for clunkers” legislation earlier today, paving the way for consumers to snag up to $4,500 for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport.

The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler’s “reinvention” – during the economic downturn.

The House bill sets aside $4 billion to pay for electronic vouchers given to owners of older vehicles toward new models. With auto sales running at their lowest rate in four decades, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could spur sales of about 625,000 vehicles; backers are hoping for 1 million.

The act “will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies,” said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. “It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

The government’s interest in goosing the vehicle market extends to its ownership inGeneral Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are counting on a healthier U.S. market in the coming years for survival.

“The auto industry is going through a tremendous restructuring,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak. “If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed.”

Under the plan, owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model.

(Source: Streetsblog & Rotor.com)

The House is poised this week to take up the so-called “cash for clunkers” bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.

With the Senate Majority Leader threatening to make Senators work five days a week to speed up work on legislative priorities, lawmakers expect to finish a war supplemental bill this week that would include a provision for cash for clunkers and then Congress will turn its attention to healthcare and climate change legislation.

House Democrats must settle the issue of whether to include in the war supplemental a provision that would give car buyers a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.  There is tremendous bipartisan support for this proposal, especially with the recent bankruptcy of General Motors.

The likely passage of Sutton’s bill this week could be bad news for a stronger “cash for clunkers” plan that’s being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan “the auto industry’s version” of “cash for clunkers” and “unacceptable” to American drivers.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

(Source:  The Detroit News & SFGate.com)

Supporters have dropped an attempt to add “cash for clunkers” legislation to a tobacco regulation bill now before the Senate, a setback in efforts to boost car sales with federal subsidies.

“There are technical details to work out and the senator continues to look for a vehicle to pass this very important piece of legislation,” said Brad Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Two congressional aides said the measure was derailed by objections from the Senate Appropriations Committee to using money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package for the measure, which would offer up to $4,500 credits for consumers trading in older, low-gas-mileage vehicles.

In January, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill, S247, that would give vouchers to people who turn in a car or truck that gets 15 or fewer miles per gallon to a dealer that scraps it.

Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, introduced one in the House, HR1550. A compromise version was attached to the 900-page energy bill that was passed last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., introduced an almost identical one in the Senate. Her bill, S1135, would provide vouchers of $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference in gas mileage between the clunker and the new vehicle. The vouchers could only be used to buy or lease new vehicles, not for used vehicles or mass transit.

Environmentalists oppose the two industry-supported bills because they would provide vouchers to people who scrap more fuel-efficient vehicles (18 mpg or less) than under the Feinstein proposal (15 mpg or less).

Last month, Sen. Feinstein proposed an alternative that is less stringent than her original bill but stricter than Stabenow’s. For details, see links.sfgate.com/ZHHC.

It’s not clear whether the Senate will back the Stabenow bill, the new Feinstein approach or a compromise.

“Fiscal conservatives and environmentalists oppose the more permissive Stabenow bill as an expensive subsidy for the ailing auto industry, while union and manufacturing interests oppose the stricter Feinstein approach, which would likely favor fuel-efficient imported vehicles,” said Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, in a report.

“The Senate could vote on both amendments and add the most popular one to unrelated legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products,” Salisbury wrote.

Idea likely to stick around

That didn’t happen Wednesday, as many expected. But with President Obama in favor of cash for clunkers, the idea is not likely to die.

Becker hopes Congress will not rush into passing a bill without enough research and debate to determine how much the program will cost and who will benefit most. “Somebody might come along and do clunker dating,” matching up people who want to buy new cars with people who have clunkers, he says.

He adds that Germany started a 1.5 billion euro cash-for-clunkers program this year and it has already swelled into a 5 billion euro program.

Consumers waiting to buy a new car until a bill passes should first figure out if their existing car would qualify under the scrapping plan. If so, the next question is whether the voucher would be worth more than the price they would get if they sold or traded in their car. If so, they should figure out whether the new car they want to buy would qualify. With so many unknowns remaining, it’s hard to reach a conclusion.

(Source: Timesonline, UK & Autocar, UK)

A £2,000-a-car scrappage scheme aimed at kick-starting Britain’s depressed motor industry has hit trouble after a dispute between car companies and the Government over costs.

Manufacturers, including Ford and Honda, have told dealers not to register any new vehicles under the scheme, which is starting today.

Consumers are being offered £2,000 towards a new car if they trade in a motor that is at least ten years old.

The car companies said that they were seeking “clarification” from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) over “administrative” details.

The Government insisted that it had been clear on details of the scheme, under which manufacturers would pay £1,000 and the Government £1,000 towards the cost of the incentive.

However, the car manufacturers want dealers to share the cost.

The eleventh-hour hitch will come as a huge embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who had heavily promoted the “bangers for cash” scheme as the route to revitalising Britain’s depressed motor industry.

Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, visited a Nissan dealership today to talk to consumers signing up to the scheme.

Mr Brown said the £300 million project would prove “very popular” and “a great help to the British car industry.” It would help the economy to “move forward,” he said.

A BERR spokesman said: “Thirty-eight manufacturers have signed contracts with the Department which set out clearly that manufacturers provide £1,000 and the Government matches it.

“We understand several dealers are unhappy about the idea they should share the costs. The Government also needs to ensure VAT is paid in accordance with the scheme.”

Though the scheme was revealed in the Budget the final details emerged only at a meeting on Thursday, manufacturers said.

However, President of the AA Edmund King has pointed out that the £2000 incentive can be used as a deposit to help car buyers get finance. He added that the scheme would “transform the chances of survival in a crash for thousands of car owners” whose current old cars offer substantially less protection than newer models.

But Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the scrappage scheme was “a lost opportunity”.

“A well-designed scheme could have played a limited role in cutting emissions from our roads,” he said. “But, unlike some other countries, the UK scheme doesn’t prevent motorists part-exchanging an old, small model for a brand-new gas guzzler.”

Business secretary Peter Mandelson visited a car dealership today to launch the scheme and said there has been a positive response from the industry.

“I am delighted by the response of the motor industry. Thirty-eight companies have signed up – all the major UK car manufacturers and a number of other companies. This means more choice for consumers and a boost for British brands. 



“The scheme has been met with a flood of enquiries from customers. It will provide a boost to the industry and kick-start sales.” 



The confirmed list of manufacturers who have signed up to take part are: Allied Vehicles, Bentley, BMW, Chevrolet, Citroen, Daihatsu, FIAT, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Land Rover, London Taxis International, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, MG Motor, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Perodua, Peugeot, Porsche, Proton, Renault, Rolls Royce, SAAB, SECMA UK, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Volvo, Koelliker UK Ltd, Iveco Ltd, Chrysler and Renault Trucks UK Ltd.

As stimulus spending on highways and bridges ramps up, Senate Democrats submitted legislation Thursday that suggests the nation’s transportation policy is headed for a major overhaul, with a strong emphasis on reducing automobile use and carbon emissions and boosting public transit, inter-city rail and rail freight service.

 Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation that they say lays out the guidelines of what they expect the next five-year federal transportation spending plan to accomplish. Their goal is to influence the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is responsible for drafting the spending plan. The House plan is expected in early June, and the bill is due for reauthorization this fall.  The Rockefeller-Lautenberg marker, which got some early love from the Washington Post, states that the next federal transportation bill should accomplish the following:

• Reduce national per-capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
• Cut national motor vehicle-related fatalities in half by 2030;
• Cut national surface transportation-generated carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030;
• Reduce surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis; 
• Get 20 percent more critical surface-transportation assets into a state of good repair by 2030;
• Increase the total usage of public transit, intercity passenger rail and non-motorized transport on an annual basis.

The focus for those trying to ascertain the administration’s transportation agenda has since turned to the five-year bill, which is expected to cost at least $400 billion. One big question is how the government plans to fund transportation spending, with revenue from the gas tax increasingly falling short. The new Senate bill does not address that problem.

Another big question is how much the bill will provide for public transportation. As it now stands, 80 percent of federal transportation money goes to highways. But David Goldberg, an official with the advocacy group Transportation for America, said Congress and the White House are sending signs that the new plan could represent a major break. The White House has already said it hopes to spend $1 billion per year on high-speed rail.

(Source: USA Today & Image: Jalopnik)

As the American lawmakers are getting ready to pass the landmark “cash for clunkers” legislation, many of you are still left wondering what this legislation entails and how it will affect you.  The media chatter in the past has offered very little except that the legislation would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their older vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they’d qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, the USA Today captured the details of this legislation in a nice Q & A format:

Image: Newsday

Q: What’s the idea behind “cash-for-clunkers”?

A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.

Q: What’s the bill’s status?

A: It’s in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.

Q: Sounds like a sure thing.

A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don’t think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.

Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?

A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill “will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security,” says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.

Q: What’s the price tag?

A: About $4 billion. The money is currently proposed to come from Energy Department funding included in the already enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?

A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.

Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at www.fueleconomy.gov.

Q: What about trucks?

A: It’s more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don’t have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?

A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.

Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?

A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.

Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?

A: No. It’s an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they’re financing less.

Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?

A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can’t be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.

Q: What’s to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?

A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they’ve already been taken off the road.

Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?

A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it’s unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.

Q: What’s wrong with environmentalists’ idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?

A: Opponents say the environmentalists’ fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.

The council charged that the bill “aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” rather than to seriously cut fuel use.

Q: How soon could this become law?

A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this “fleet modernization” bill is attached.

If it becomes part of a larger bill that’s likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it’s attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president’s desk.

A current plan is to add the program as an amendment to climate change legislation now being considered.

As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.