PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 621.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 28, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009 - Directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a competitive program to provide between three and seven grants of up to $3 million in each of 3 years to advance research and development and to demonstrate technologies, including plug-in hybrid technology, for advanced heavy duty hybrid vehicles (vehicles with a gross weight between 14,000 and 33,000 pounds that are fueled, in part, by a rechargeable energy storage system). Requires grant recipients to: (1) conduct research and demonstrate advanced hybrid technology by producing or retrofitting advanced heavy duty hybrid vehicles; and (2) demonstrate advanced manufacturing processes and technologies by producing or retrofitting 50 advanced heavy duty hybrid vehicles.
Requires the Secretary: (1) to conduct research into alternative power train designs for use in advanced heavy duty hybrid vehicles; and (2) acting through the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Laboratories and Technology Centers, to establish a pilot program to research and test the effects on the domestic electric power grid of the widespread use of plug-in hybrid vehicles, including those that are advanced heavy duty hybrid vehicles.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the United States Energy Storage Competitiveness Act of 2007 to direct the Secretary to conduct an applied research program on energy storage systems to support vehicles with a gross weight over 16,000 pounds.
People & committees
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] · R–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 621.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-334.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-334.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-699.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3670-3671)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3670)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.679 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.679 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.679 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.679 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.