Some of these fuels are similar to conventional fuels, and can be used inconventional vehicles with little or no modification to the vehicle. Key factors in the ultimate success or failure of any alternative fuel includethe relative cost of the fuel, the ability to develop and expand fueling stations, and the performanceand safety of the fuel. These programs include tax incentives for the purchase ofalternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), purchase requirements for government andprivate fleets, and research grants for the study of alternative fuels. 100-494 ), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA, P.L. 101-549 ),and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486 ). In addition, EPAct provides tax incentives for private purchases(both individual and commercial) of AFVs. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Policies

		The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988

Beginning in FY1990, the Alternative Motor Fuels Act called for the federal government to acquire the "maximum practicable" number of light-duty alcohol and natural gas vehicles. This is because EPAct does not require the use of alternative fuels, only the purchase of AFVs. The order argued that the federalgovernment could provide impetus for the development and manufacture of alternative fuel vehicles,and the expansion of fueling stations and other infrastructure to support privately-owned AFVs. (32) Because of its wide use, if thedemand for LPG as an alternative fuel were toexpand, it is likely that the supply infrastructure could expand proportionally. Performance. Performance. (56) Although moreexpensive than conventional diesel, it has someimportant advantages. Infrastructure. Performance. However, this reduction in range can bemitigated somewhat by increasing fuel tank size (with the associated drawbacks of a larger tank). There are key environmental advantages to ethanol, as well as some drawbacks. Methanol has been touted as potential step from gasoline to hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles because the fueling infrastructure is similar togasoline, while the fuel is much cleaner. Most of this cost is related to the batteries, whichare very expensive to produce. (106) Depending on the fuel mix for local electric powergeneration, overall emissions can be decreased by 90% or more as compared to gasoline vehicles. Coal-Derived Liquid Fuels

Although EPAct recognizes coal-derived fuels as alternative fuels, these fuels have seen little commercial success. Further possible benefits include lower emissions oftoxic pollutants, ozone-forming pollutants, and greenhouse gases. Provisions in various bills would have provided taxcredits for the purchase of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles, and would have expanded the existingelectric vehicle tax credit. It is likely that a similar bill will be introducedin the 109th Congress. Another key piece alternative fuel legislation in the 108th Congress was the CLEAR ACT ( H.R.
The sharp increase in petroleum prices beginning in mid-1999, experiences with tighter supply, and international instability have renewed concern about our dependence on petroleum imports. Oneof the strategies for reducing this dependence is to produce vehicles that run on alternatives togasoline and diesel fuel. These alternatives include alcohols, gaseous fuels, renewable fuels,electricity, and fuels derived from coal. The push to develop alternative fuels, although driven byenergy security concerns, has been aided by concerns over the environment, because manyalternative fuels lead to reductions in emissions of toxic chemicals, ozone-forming compounds, andother pollutants, as well as greenhouse gases.
Each fuel (and associated vehicle) has various advantages and drawbacks. The key drawback of all alternative fuels is that because of higher fuel and/or vehicle prices, alternative fuel vehicles(AFVs) are generally more expensive to own than conventional vehicles. And while many AFVshave superior environmental performance compared to conventional vehicles, their performance interms of range, cargo capacity, and ease of fueling may not compare favorably with conventionalvehicles. Furthermore, because there is little fueling infrastructure (as compared to gasoline anddiesel fuel), fueling an AFV can be inconvenient.
Any policy to support AFVs must address the performance and cost concerns, as well as the issue of fueling infrastructure. Within this context, a "chicken and egg" dilemma stands out: Thevehicles will not become popular without the fueling infrastructure, and the fueling infrastructurewill not expand if there are no customers to serve.
Three key laws, the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-494 ), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( P.L. 101-549 ), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-486 ), as well asthree Executive Orders, support the development and commercialization of alternative fuels andalternative fuel vehicles. These legislative acts and administrative actions provide tax incentives topurchase AFVs, promote the expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure, and require the use ofAFVs by various public and private entities.
The 108th Congress considered comprehensive energy legislation, but a final bill was not submitted to the President for signature. H.R. 6 would have promoted the developmentof renewable fuels, especially ethanol and hydrogen. Further, it would have provided incentives forthe development and purchase of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. In addition tothe energy bill, other bills were introduced to create vehicle purchase tax credits, promote researchand development of fuels, and require the use of alternative fuels. It is likely that similar legislationwill be introduced in the 109th Congress.
This report reviews these issues. It will be updated as events warrant.