Congress approves three-wheelers for DOE funds

[spear-fish]

As reported on Autobloggreen,

Looks like its pretty much a done deal. Maybe NOW Aptera will give us some info on production dates.

Following months of debate, Congress has approved a bill that will pave the way for three-wheeled vehicle manufacturers like Aptera to qualify for funding from the Department of Energy. Next step: President Obama's desk, and the Commander-in-Chief is reportedly expected to sign the bill into law in short order. Rep. Brian Bilbray, a Republican from California that co-sponsored the bill, says:

This is a huge win for scientific innovation and the environment. We need more innovation and less regulation when it comes to promoting new ways to save energy while saving money at the pump.

Indeed, three-wheeled vehicle platforms sometimes have the potential to use less energy to operate than their four-wheeled siblings, though some still question the inherent safety of such designs. Assuming the bill passes the President's desk, any manufacturer of enclosed three-wheeled vehicles that can carry at least two adults while returning at least 75 miles per gallon will be eligible for funding, though the DOE will still approve applications on a case-by-case basis.

[Tamerlin]

50% of the web sites say this includes a requirement for 3-wheelers to meet DOT safety rules. Does anyone know the facts?

[KarenRei]

50% of the web sites say this includes a requirement for 3-wheelers to meet DOT safety rules. Does anyone know the facts?

If someone can show me where in the bill it says anything like that... because I read it, and it doesn't appear to say that at all.

[iwannaptera]

If someone can show me where in the bill it says anything like that... because I read it, and it doesn't appear to say that at all.

I agree, it doesn't say that at all. There is no way this new legislation could be anything but good for Aptera Motors.

[SEGsby]

Sweeeeet. :) :aptera:

[Tamerlin]

Here's one web site, "Green Car Report"

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1036747_its-official-aptera-2e-and-other-three-wheelers-are-cars-now

All such vehicles must meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety standards, which require multiple airbags, specify various crash tests, and impose other requirements.

So I get confused.

[KarenRei]

As mentioned, we know they're *reporting* that. But that isn't in the bill, as far as we can tell. You're free to read the bill (links posted in the other thread) and let us know if you can find anywher to support that claim.

[JimmyDreams]

The bill is about funding. It amended it's definition of 'vehicle' to include 3 wheeled designs. It's for the FUNDING or award of funds, nothing more.

Now, if you try and get a vehicle licensed for use on US roadways, then the definition becomes very important, what with all the requirements for bumpers, etc. to make it street legal.

The bill that Aptera recently qualified for was for funding research for new vehicle types and high MPG platforms, etc. Nowhere does it assume that only street legal vehicles may apply. You submit a plan for a vehicle, get the money to research it and build one, and ONLY when you're attempting to release a street legal version must you comply with all requirements and laws...but not before.

Yes, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

;)

[OC-LA driver]

Each little section of the code has its own definition of vehicles to which it applies. You'd think there'd be one definition, but there isn't. As discussed in the other thread, the Aptera seems to qualify as an advanced technology vehicle for the purpose of being permitted to apply for loans. But as a three-wheeled vehicle meeting certain other criteria, it is exempt from having to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, virtually all three-wheeled motorcycles.

[pudgie_child]

Each little section of the code has its own definition of vehicles to which it applies. You'd think there'd be one definition, but there isn't. As discussed in the other thread, the Aptera seems to qualify as an advanced technology vehicle for the purpose of being permitted to apply for loans. But as a three-wheeled vehicle meeting certain other criteria, it is exempt from having to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, virtually all three-wheeled motorcycles.

I hope you're right about that. Otherwise, they may have opened Pandora's Box.

[Apt3448]

I hope you're right about that. Otherwise, they may have opened Pandora's Box.


I believe OC-LA driver is right, but I wouldn't be surprised if eventually some of those rules will get harmonized, if only as the result of a push by the competition. At least with respect to crash tests Aptera has always said it would confirm to the car-standards, and in general they seem to want to confirm to all car-saftety guidelines, if only to be able to avoid claims that the vehicle is not safe. But there will no doubt be some silly detail somewhere which will be missing eventually, causing a huge engineering headache. And I fully expect Aptera not to be surprised; Paul Wilbur knows the industry well enough.

[magnru]

Seventeen Senators (2 Democrats and 15 Republicans) voted against H.R. 3183, 'The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010' on October 15, 2009, and I thought we should all know which Reps. voted NO. Alabama-Jefferson Sessions (R), Arizona-John McCain (R), Georgia-Saxby Chambliss (R) and John Isakson (R), Indiana-Evan Bayh (D), Iowa-Charles Grassley (R), Kentucky-Jim Bunning (R), Missouri-Claire McCaskill (D), Nebraska-Mike Johanns (R), Nevada-John Ensign (R), North Carolina-Richard Burr (R), Oklahoma-Thomas Coburn (R) and James Inhofe (R), South Carolina-Jim Demint (R) and Lindsey Graham (R), Texas-Kay Hutchison (R), and Utah-Orrin Hatch (R). I don't live in one of the above states but if I did would never vote for any of these shady characters. magnru 'TYPE 2H' #2783

[KarenRei]

I can't stand Grassley. He's one of my senators.

[Rat]

The corn staters (read "ethanol") and oil producers (e.g. Texas, Oklahoma) seem to be opposed to EV progress. I wonder why.

[magnru]

Excerpt from DOE ATVM Loan Program http://www.atvmloan.energy.gov/faqs.html #1) Completed Application (Done) #2) Eligibility (as soon as Obama signs HR3183- it's on his desk) #3) Evaluation, Terms, Conditions, and Decision by DOE #4) Negotiation and Closing of Loan. The entire process will involve dialogue and exchange of information between the applicant and DOE in each step. How long will #3 and #4 take? My guess is 60-90 days for each or 4-6 months. Then it's up to Aptera how fast they can produce.

[TheAeronut]

Hutchison is my rep, but sure as hell doesn't represent ME! She is conservative - even relative to the 'nominal' republican. No, I didn't vote for her.

J.P.

[jhm614]

Hutchison is my rep, but sure as hell doesn't represent ME! She is conservative - even relative to the 'nominal' republican. No, I didn't vote for her.

J.P.
Prepare yourself, brother. She's probably going to be your next governor.

[byplug]

RE: The 'NO' votes on H.R. 3183 and a detail...
Let's give credit where credit is due - so just to make sure....... Check the 'NO' or 'Nay' votes again .....
One of the 'NO' votes (Grassley) is showing on a forum post above as voting 'NO' on H.R. 3183.... but govtrack.us says he is a 'Yea' IA Grassley, Charles [R] and voted in favor of H.R. 3183.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248

[KarenRei]

RE: The 'NO' votes on H.R. 3183 and a detail...
Let's give credit where credit is due - so just to make sure....... Check the 'NO' or 'Nay' votes again .....
One of the 'NO' votes (Grassley) is showing on a forum post above as voting 'NO' on H.R. 3183.... but govtrack.us says he is a 'Yea' IA Grassley, Charles [R] and voted in favor of H.R. 3183.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248

Perhaps the reporting is on different portions of the vote -- for example:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-322

[byplug]

Perhaps the reporting is on different portions of the vote -- for example:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-322

I performed a Google search and found 'Senate Vote on Passage' for the actual Bill and Grassley is recorded as voting in favor .. and I also noticed that your link on the same site has a later date and indeed applies to a 'Conference Report' that accompanies the passed Bill.... the later date (your link) appears to be a different recording (for Grassley) on the same issue ....it is interesting to note what political forces at the time were working on him and convinced him to change his mind between votes.....perhaps this is a way to (dance) vote 'Yea' and then do some 'CYA' with more conservative voters...

[Balance]

It's messy. Real Congressional procedures are not quite as straightforward as Schoolhouse Rock might lead one to believe. I'll try to sum up what I've parsed out of the official sources (the Library of Congress and GovTrack) as well as OpenCongress.org.

1) The House Appropriations Committee introduced the original version of the bill on 7/13/2009.

2) The House passed it on 7/17, 320-97.

3) Between 7/17 and 7/29, 89 amendments to the bill were proposed in the Senate. One by Dorgan was accepted, and one (of many) by McCain was rejected. One of the other 87 was proposed by Grassley, who wanted the bill to force GM and Chrysler to reestablish all the dealership franchise agreements that were nullified a while back. I looked his up in the Congressional Record; it was "ordered to lie on the table", which is the polite way of killing such things. I gather that the remaining 86 met the same fate.

4) The Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the amended bill (85-9) on 7/29. This is the bill Grassley voted in favor of. Since it was different from the version that the House passed, a conference was required to iron out the differences.

5) On 9/30, the conference report was filed. This was essentially the new, combined version of the bill, which had to be approved by both House and Senate before moving on to the President.

6) On 10/1, the House approved the report 308-114. It lost 12 "aye" votes to the compromises with the Senate (and possibly other factors--supporters missing the vote, and so forth).

7) On 10/14, the Senate voted for cloture on the new version. "Cloture" is the call to close the debate and vote, and requires a 60% majority to pass. (Hence all the fuss about a 60-seat majority in the Senate--it lets you break filibusters.) Cloture was approved 79-17. Grassley was one of the "nays"; he wasn't even willing to bring the compromise version to a vote. Since it's entirely possible to vote in favor of cloture, then vote against the bill, it suggests that he really didn't like this version.

Bonus trivia: All 17 "nays" on the cloture vote were Republicans.

8) On 10/15, the Senate voted to approve the conference report 80-17, and it headed for the Oval Office.

Those who love sausage and respect the law....

[magnru]

Charles Grassley (R) IA Originally voted YES for HR3183 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248 on July 29, 2009, but when the final vote was taken after the favorable changes were made to allow Aptera the loan he voted AGAINST HR3183 http://govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-322 on Oct. 15, 2009 (the version that goes to Obama).

[palmer_md]

Charles Grassley (R) IA Originally voted YES for HR3183 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-248 on July 29, 2009, but when the final vote was taken after the favorable changes were made to allow Aptera the loan he voted AGAINST HR3183 http://govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-322 on Oct. 15, 2009 (the version that goes to Obama).

So he was for it before he was against it.

[magnru]

Yes, and read post #21 by Balance on this thread. My thought is Iowa is a corn belt state = ethanol = no vote on EV's. Lots of pressure on him to vote no. He may have voted no for other reasons that I am not aware of. My point is when the final vote was taken Grassley voted NO. magnru #2783 'TYPE 2H'

[Balance]

So he was for it before he was against it.
I suspect he was for it while he thought he could get something out of it.

The American Conservative Union rates Grassley at 84% conservative--four points to the right of John McCain, who voted against the bill at every opportunity, and who tried to amend it practically out of existence. His voting record is considered consistently anti-environment even by the Republicans for Environmental Protection, which rated him at 7% pro-environment in 2005 and 0% pro-environment in 2006. His anti-environment votes include voting against measures on global warming, improving fuel economy, and renewable resources.

Given his record, I can't imagine him voting for this bill unless there was something in it for him. Maybe he was hoping to get his amendment reintroduced during the conference process somehow. Maybe he was just looking for something to placate his Democratic and independent constituents with. He's previously been mysteriously popular with them, but his approval rating among non-Republicans has been dropping like a rock this year, and he needs them--Iowa is a swing state, with only 34% identifying as Republican.

[jstdadd]

Opensecrets.org has financing information up-to-date on nearly every US and State leader in the country.

Grassley: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00001758

Follow the money...therein you will find the votes.

His top 5 industries and top 5 corporate contributors? Pharmaceuticals, insurers and health care providers. Wanna guess what his Health Bill votes will be? Oh, and Occidental Petroleum is in his top 5 corporate contributors.

[KarenRei]

Maybe he was just looking for something to placate his Democratic and independent constituents with. He's previously been mysteriously popular with them

Don't ask me why. Thankfully his numbers are finally falling:

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Susaiowa.jpg

he may be up for a serious challenge this year from the wife of our old governor and long-shot presidential candidate, Tom Vilsack. I hope Christie uses Tom's old (http://wonkette.com/218782/tom-vilsack-starting-to-scare-the-shit-out-of-us) logo (http://wonkette.com/218414/tom-vilsack-fever-sweeps-nation) ;)

[eestorfan]

I can't stand Grassley. He's one of my senators.
I'm soooo glad McCain didn't become president. I can't stand him either!