Congestion in America highlights inefficiency in the surface transportation system, and particularly the challenge of urban congestion, as a growing cause of wasted time and fuel. Total fuel wasted from urban congestion has fallen between 100,000 and 150,000 barrels of oil per day over the past ten years, and in 2010 alone drivers in U.S. metropolitan areas wasted over 1.9 billion gallons of fuel. Furthermore, in 20 of the nation’s largest cities, annual costs of congestion exceed $1 billion. In the absence of substantial policy intervention, estimates suggest that these costs in fuel waste and travel delays will increase by 30 percent by 2015 and 65 percent by 2030.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

SAFE urges a comprehensive and balanced approach to increasing traveler mobility and reducing congestion related fuel waste. The report outlines the range of options available to policymakers to alleviate the costs of congestion, grouped into the following categories:

• Pricing and other flow management techniques to reduce or eliminate recurring congestion
• Accident/Incident management for mitigating the likelihood and effect of non-recurring congestion
• Improved public transit service and other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel
• Strengthened long-term urban planning and development initiatives

Current federal surface transportation legislation, funding over $50 billion annually in highway and transit programs, expires on March 31 of this year. The policies outlined in Congestion in America present market-based mechanisms to cut oil consumption and increase the efficiency of surface transportation infrastructure while improving energy security. As Congress seeks to pass long-term transportation legislation, it is imperative that these instruments are incorporated, and energy security remains forefront as a key policy priority.

Click Here to Read the Full Report

The proposed regulations were formulated jointly between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, and the Obama administration is praising them as a move which will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump.  Of even greater importance, it is a huge step for our national and energy security, weakening our dependence on foreign oil.

SAFE has long advocated for increasing fuel economy standards, which can be reached through technology improvements and alternative fuels such as hybrid and electric vehicles.  SAFE President and CEO Robbie Diamond remarked, “Improving fuel efficiency standards is an essential component to address the threats posed by the nation’s oil dependence, the administration should be commended for publishing the proposed rule so they can progress through the rulemaking process as quickly as possible.

“As the proposed standards are debated between now and the expected publication of a final rule next summer, it is critical to recognize that cars and trucks, which use the majority of our oil to power our economy, are almost completely dependent on oil,” continued Diamond. “Improving fuel efficiency standards will have a direct and immediate impact on our energy security. These improvements in efficiency will strengthen our economy and our national security by reducing substantially our oil consumption and its attendant risks.”  SAFE’s complete analysis of the oil savings from the proposed fuel economy standards can be found here.

In other energy policy news this week, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu testified before lawmakers on Thursday about the bankruptcy of Solyndra.  Some Republicans suggested that Dr. Chu should resign, however, Dr. Chu expressed that the incident was “extremely unfortunate” but remained unapologetic.  He explained that the two main reasons Solyndra failed could not have been foreseen, specifically a softened market for solar panels due to Europe’s debt woes, and an unanticipated emergence of less expensive solar panels from China and elsewhere.  Photovoltaic solar panel prices have dropped 70 percent in the past two and a half years.  Dr. Chu also remarked that the company attracted over half a billion dollars of private investment.  The lesson, he argues, is that “When it comes to the clean energy race, America faces a simple choice: compete or accept defeat.  I believe we can and must compete.”

Finally, Speaker of the House John Boehner made an announcement yesterday about a proposed bill to pay for improvements to the nation’s transportation system through revenues from expanded drilling.  He said his proposal “removes government barriers to long-term job growth.”  Called the American Initiative and Energy Act, the bill would authorize transportation funding for five years, and calls for projects some would consider controversial, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for drilling and shale oil exploration.  House Democrats have expressed that the plan lacks details, and may draw insufficient revenues.  SAFE strongly supports expanded access to domestic energy resources, as well as development of transportation infrastructure focused on long term oil savings.  However, given that the amounts generated from expanded production are likely to be relatively small compared to the significant costs associated with our country’s transportation infrastructure projects, SAFE views that these revenues would be more effectively utilized on targeted efforts to broaden the use of electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, this week has seen a pleasant level of press attention to the continued development of electric vehicle popularity and infrastructure, with substantive articles appearing in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, Reuters and the Economist.  Pieces were mixed in expectations of growth in the EV sector, but it’s encouraging to see the news media giving this important issue the attention it truly merits.

The Wall Street Journal drew attention to the huge strides which have been made by the EV industry, beginning one article with this positive assessment:

“The plug-in automotive future we’ve long been promised is, after a fashion, here. Industry pundits have been prophesying these strange days for decades, with internal combustion falling from grace, usurped by a cleaner, quieter and more sustainable technologies. And now you really can pop round to your local dealer and drive away in an all-electric family car. Not so many years ago this was unthinkable—now it’s a daily reality, one that has leapt from the designer’s easel, by way of the exotic prototype, to our own driveways with remarkably little fanfare.”

Further commenting on the stealth emergence of the EV in everyday life, the Financial Times remarks that German automakers like VW were once skeptical about EVs and hybrids have come to actively embrace the technologies.  There is plenty to be optimistic about.  Indeed, because electric vehicles are such a dramatic technological shift, there are lower barriers to entry for manufacturers of automobiles, batteries, chargers, and other electronic equipment.  In addition to creating opportunities for established car companies to reinvent themselves or their brand by launching an EV, the industry is being opened to new players in a way that could result in positive developments in the long term.

Some businesses, like Nissan, are excited about the business challenges associated with launching a new kind of vehicle which requires a new kind of infrastructure.  Others are experimenting with how to make EVs safer by adding sounds to the silent engines, which some consumers find disquieting, and may pose a safety hazard for the visually impaired.

One area in which EVs are particularly useful are through fleet deployments.  Companies utilizing large vehicle fleets may be more adapted to switching to an EV infrastructure, and are drawn to the lifetime cost effectiveness of EVs as gas prices remain volatile and high.  One article profiled the Electrification Coalition’s position that EVs are perfectly suited to the roles of many fleet vehicles, and can help bridge the gap between this developing technology and broad based public acceptance.

With Congress reconvening, and lots of press coverage on EVs, here’s hoping to a busy and active fall!

This is one of those. When the 2009 stimulus was put together, many questioned whether the DOE energy conservation grant program could handle a sudden influx of roughly five times typical annual funding — $2.5 billion not to a grant program “established” by the stimulus, as the WaPo incorrectly reports, but to an existing, kind of sleepy program that really sounds good on paper but didn’t have a track record of massive spending.

Unfortunately, not every state even had a robust program to receive and spend that kind of money, and of course energy efficiency construction and retrofits have to navigate the same myriad of permitting and regulatory obstacles that conventional projects do.

Nonetheless, the DOE was required to shovel the money out the door and state grant recipients were required to spend the funding within a three-year time frame. And the DOE-IG found what everyone else already knew: “a series of permit requirements established by the National Historic Preservation Act and other environmental laws” has slowed the spending. And of course “several states are ill-equipped to quickly review eligible programs.”

No kidding. The truth is it’s amazing that states have managed to spend two-thirds of the money already — yet the report laments that they haven’t been able to spend the remaining 1/3rd. The IG rightly warns that trying to rush spending to meet the deadline might “prompt recipients to spend the funds unwisely or without proper consideration for taxpayer interests.” That’s true, of course, but not the biggest criticism of the approach.

The real lesson here? Good energy investments are not and cannot be short-term stimulus spending. They should be designed to allow our children and grandchildren to live free of the tyranny of our dependence on foreign oil and to lessen the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel consumption. Anything else is missing the point.

This week  Congressional leaders formed a “Supercommittee,” a12 member panel with the closely-watched task of crafting a 1.5 trillion dollar debt reduction plan by Thanksgiving.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has appointed Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), James Clyburn (D-SC), and Xavier Becerra (D-CA), while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has selected Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Max Baucus (D-MT) and John Kerry (D-MA).  From the Republican side, Speaker John Boehner has appointed Dave Camp (R-MI) Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) as the House GOP members of the panel.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also announced his picks on Wednesday: Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rob Portman (R-OH).

These appointments represent a broad diversity of energy viewpoints.  Leader Pelosi’s picks represent fairly progressive views on energy and environmental issues, and they may be likely to clash with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton’s reported reputation as “the Slasher.”  At least one major issue already prompting speculation is how the Congressional group will handle oil and gas industry subsidies.  Democrats plan to revive their push to repeal the billions of dollars in tax breaks, while Republicans argue that doing so represents a tax increase and threatens job growth.

Energy and transportation issues remain ripe opportunities for the job growth and reducing our country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil.  A thoughtful piece in the Wall Street Journal this week by Ed Rendell (D-former Governor of Pennsylvania) and Scott Smith (R-Mayor of Mesa, Arizona and vice chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors) describes how investment in our transportation infrastructure is a perfect opportunity to create jobs, and essential to maintaining competitiveness with China and Brazil, who have been developing state of the art ports and pipelines.  In September, it will be necessary to reauthorize the federal surface transportation bill – a prime opportunity for both parties to come together on infrastructure development to reduce fuel-wasting congestion and other system inefficiencies. But, only time will tell if a real transportation reauthorization will take place, or if the Congress will punt yet again with another shorter-term extension.

Further connecting emerging markets and job growth, analysts are linking sluggish employment growth to high oil prices, noticing how an oil price spike earlier this year correlated to a dip in otherwise increasing employment rates.  Speculatively, considering the disruptions in oil supply from the turmoil in Libya, as well as the consistently increasing demand from China and Brazil, lawmakers would do well to consider the benefits from increasing domestic oil supply on job growth – both from the perspective of direct job creation, as well as insulating American jobs from a volatile international petroleum market.

Finally, a huge positive step towards reducing this dependency was taken by President Obama this week, as he announced the nation’s first ever fuel economy standards for heavy duty trucks.  This massive step is the first time the government has regulated fuel economy for vehicles over 8,500 pounds, which includes some larger SUVS and pickup trucks.  Furthermore, this move is anticipated to produce long term savings for businesses operating fleets of large vehicles, as the Obama Administration anticipates that any increases in vehicle cost will be offset by fuel savings within 1-2 years.

We hope to see more of these kinds of smart energy policies implemented soon. It has been an active August in DC…which will no doubt lead to a flurry of activity when Congress reconvenes in September.

One of the leading causes of China’s electricity challenges is the fact that 80% of the country’s electricity is supplied by coal. Contributing to the shortage has been the dry climate in China, though recently, with increased rain, some of the difficulties with hydroelectric electricity generation have been alleviated. The electricity shortage in China may serve as an example of the negative consequences that can arise by being too dependent on any one source of energy. High construction rates fueled by large amounts of rural residents migrating to cities are leading government officials to contemplate potential solutions to the growing electricity problem. Residential electricity prices are lower in China than in the U.S., and even though industrial prices are higher, many receive discounts. In light of the supply shortage for energy, the government is considering subsidizing energy-efficient materials and renewable energy technologies.

Chinese officials are beginning to address the importance of being deliberate with new construction, and on decreasing energy consumption, particularly in times of dramatic temperatures. A demand for low-income housing usually calls for use of inexpensive materials, but investing in more effective infrastructure now may help to curb the exacerbation of future energy shortages. The ever-growing population in China clearly sets a challenge to the current infrastructure; recognizing current and future problems is the first step, but the government needs to act on their proposals in order to prevent a worsening situation.

At the same time, China is one of the largest producers of solar panels, but exports most of the components of solar technology it manufactures. The Finance Ministry indicated that incentivizing energy-efficient materials for construction is becoming a greater focus for policymakers; provincial governments have already begun to take measures with regards to energy-efficient products.

The recurring theme in energy demand is the necessity to make current practices more efficient while simultaneously striving to implement and expand energy supply with new technologies. The implementation of policies that correspond with these goals will be crucial going forward, no matter which country is in discussion. While China is in a unique situation regarding population growth, it can serve as a cautionary tale to other nations. Facing an electricity shortage can have devastating effects on a country’s economy and overall welfare; taking preventative action by encouraging efficient energy use and more sustainable forms of power can help to reduce the chances of entering a crisis.

The House and Senate continued to debate the continuing resolution (CR) this week with hopes of reaching agreement on a decision that will keep the government up and running.  More than 400 amendments were submitted by lawmakers, many of which concern energy investments and represent the beginning of this Congress’ debate on fiscal responsibility.  Several amendments which would cut energy spending have already been defeated in the House, including measures that would have eliminated additional investments in DOE efficiency and ARPA-E.   These key votes indicate that lawmakers are committed to investing in energy efficiency and innovation, and are promising for future debate.

Finally, we wanted to provide you all with a little light reading for the long weekend.  This week, the National Journal highlighted the work of Securing America’s Future Energy and the Electrification Coalition as a group with “a track record of success” and the ability to work with both sides of the aisle.  We are pleased to be recognized as one of the organizations shaping the energy policy landscape and are hopeful that our efforts take hold this Congress.  See below for the complete article.

National Journal
Coral Davenport
Friday, February 18, 2011

New Groups Make it Their Business to Influence Agenda

There’s a new crop of energy influencers in town.

Over the last six months, the death of the cap-and-trade climate bill, the House Republican takeover, and the shift by President Obama into a more business-friendly posture has significantly reshaped the energy and environment policy landscape.

The interest groups pushing portions of Obama’s clean energy agenda focus less on “Save the Planet” and more on Silicon Valley. Organizations like the Clean Economy Network, the Electrification Coalition, and the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way now have the ear of the White House and key members of both parties on the Hill. They’re driven primarily by the desire to grow private sectors of the economy and reduce dependence on oil—and ending climate change is incidental to their agendas.

Powerful environmental groups that once drove the debate—organizations like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, and Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection—suddenly hold much less sway.

While the old green groups can rally a portion of the Democratic base, they have no pull with House Republicans, whose support will be essential to moving legislation. Instead of pushing for new policies, the green groups find themselves on the defensive, putting their resources into a campaign to protect the Environmental Protection Agency from conservative efforts to dismantle it.

Many of those traditional green groups had a direct line to the White House through the office of energy and climate change czar Carol Browner, former head of the EPA. But Browner stepped down last month, and the White House—which was attacked by the right for creating that job—seems unlikely to replace Browner with another high-profile leader.

Instead, the day after Browner’s departure was made public, President Obama in his State of the Union speech articulated a new iteration of his energy agenda. Gone were mentions of tackling climate change. Instead, the focus went to innovation and competition, an effort to reach out to business, and an energy agenda with two legislative goals. The first was a “clean electricity standard” that would mandate production of 80 percent of the nation’s power from sources such as wind and solar, nuclear, “clean coal,” and natural gas by 2035. The second is a plan to get 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

Many traditional green groups greeted those announcements with dismay. “We object to [Obama’s] attempt to redefine clean energy to include nuclear and so-called ‘clean coal,’ ” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski.

That doesn’t seem to bother Obama, who continues to link his energy message with the economy, and it appears that outreach on the issue may come more from his economic team—particularly figures like General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who Obama named head of a new White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness on January 21.

That’s where the new energy advocacy groups are stepping in. One that’s actively pushing for the new clean energy standard is the Clean Economy Network. The group of clean-tech CEOs and venture capitalists formed in 2009 gained national attention in November when it led a successful campaign to outspend and defeat an oil industry-backed ballot initiative to roll back California’s climate-change law.

Now it is focused on replicating that at the federal level, but not by focusing on climate change. Rather it’s pushing for the clean energy mandate as a policy that could grow a new job sector and spur private investment and profit for its members, and it’s making its case directly to Republicans.

“The environmental community is incapable of working with Republicans in any kind of meaningful sense,” said Tim Greef, political and policy director for the Clean Economy Network. “You have to have policies that Republicans can support. And the environmental community gets caught up in toeing a larger progressive agenda.”

The Clean Economy Network already has close alliances with Republican leaders such as Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, who recently spoke at the group’s annual conference, and it has hired Republican strategists to reach out to House Republican leaders.

“We don’t hurt their brand because we’re not seen as a lefty, progressive group,” said Greef.

Also gaining traction in the White House and on the Hill is the Electrification Coalition, a group of CEOs of 14 companies, including Nissan and FedEx, pushing for legislation to advance electric cars. And Immelt gives them clout in the White House.

The group has a track record of success. It’s an offshoot of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), which worked in 2007 with then-Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to raise federal-fuel economy standards for the first time in nearly 30 years.

In the push to raise tailpipe standards and to promote electric cars, the Electrification Coalition’s message is simply about reducing oil use. The group has even been reaching out to the tea party, in part with the support of former President Reagan’s chief domestic policy adviser Gary Bauer, president of the pro-growth, nonprofit group American Values and a frequent guest on conservative talk radio.

Coalition President Robbie Diamond is reaching out to freshmen Republicans, and to GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee, to make the case for a bill that would promote electric cars through tax breaks.

Another potential ally on the Hill: House Energy and Commerce Chief of Staff Gary Andres, who in 2008 wrote an article in Real Clear Politics supporting SAFE’s policies.

“We actually thrive in a divided government,” said Diamond. “We can define the issue as one of national security.”

While many environmental organizations called a proposed clean energy mandate inadequate to tackle climate change, Third Way pushed it as a way for American companies to make money. They said firms could capture a growing share of the clean energy market—now the group’s reports are said to be shaping how Hill staffers put together the final legislation.

This article appeared in the Friday, February 18, 2011 edition of National Journal Daily.

As reported in E&E this morning, (www.eenews.net), the House-passed CR includes “the transfer of $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy to help it cover administrative costs, as Congress has only funded the “game changing” innovation program through the stimulus bill. The funds would come from the energy efficiency and renewable energy program.” 

That reporting is about half-right.  The bill, based on only a quick read, to be sure, doesn’t say the $300 million is only for administrative costs, and that’s good.

Here’s why:  The ARPA-E program needs to be granting out at least $300 million per year, and really more like $1 billion, if it’s going to accomplish it’s mission of creative, out-of-the-box, transformational energy research in those areas where industry by itself cannot or will not undertake such sponsorship, where risks and potential payoffs are high, and where success could provide dramatic benefits for the nation.  That previous sentence contains a rough paraphrase of the eloquent 2005 report (Rising Above the Gathering Storm) issued by leading corporate and academic citizens under the aegis of the National Academies of Science that led to the creation of ARPA-E in the America COMPETES Act of 2007.

COMPETES was signed into law by President George W. Bush, and had strong bipartisan support led by the Democratic Chair and Ranking Republican of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici, respectively, to great cheers in the ranks of knowledgeable energy security advocates.

ARPA-E is modeled on the hugely succesful Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA.  The idea is that a focused, risk-taking strategic research team can fund meritorious projects that don’t fit neatly into the boxes of the current applied technology programs at DOE — which largely focus on important but incremental advances in existing energy technologies.  Scholars, scientists, engineers and other thinkers of all ideological stripes have long advocated such an entity, and the bipartisan support for ARPA-E is well-justified.

Sadly, ARPA-E has been a victim of congressional inability to run regular order on appropriations bills for several years now.  In the fiscal year immediately after passage of its enabling legislation, ARPA-E was shut out by the Democratic Congress’ intentional denial of regular order so they could present out-going President Bush with only a CR and let in-coming President Obama pass both a stimulus and a regular appropriations bill.  The FY 2009 appropriations bill that funded ARPA-E provided around $15 million for adminstrative expenses, but the bulk of the R&D money came in the stimulus bill, as E&E correctly notes.  With another CR looming, because this year a Democratic Congress and Democratic Administration rather inexplicably failed to pass a budget and regular appropriations bills, the risk was that ARPA-E would not receive the funding it needs to enhance our energy security through innovative R&D.

The House appears to have provided some small funds for ARPA-E, but by requiring the DOE to shift funds from its other programs.  Here’s hoping the Senate appropriates real dollars for ARPA-E, both this year and in the future.

Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on his new, slimmed-down energy bill, S. 3815 (which includes support for both electric and natural gas vehicles). But just because cloture has been filed does not guarantee the bill will come up for a vote in the two-week lame duck session now scheduled for November 15. Senator Durbin (D-IL) commented in The Hill on the possibility of addressing energy during a lame duck session, “There are many choices and most of them are controversial, so to think that we could do them quickly in a lame-duck is a long shot,” Durbin said. “I think it is when you just look at the limited time and the three major issues that we face, not to mention many other issues in the second tier.”

That said, Reid’s bill might see a slight boost because of two pieces of news this week.  First, Politico reports that the Obama administration is on the verge of announcing new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, approaching 60 mpg by 2025.  Second, on Tuesday, the Baker Institute for Public Policy released a report stating, “The single most effective way to reduce US oil demand and foreign imports would be an aggressive campaign to launch electric vehicles into the automotive fleet.

Some Democrats and Republicans are clinging to a thread of hope that there will be an energy bill this year. Senator Jeff Bingaman this week commented on the chances of passing an RES in E&E, “Senator Brownback and I have introduced this legislation and we hope very much that in the short session of the Congress after the election, that can be brought up and dealt with in a positive way.”  In the same article, Senator John Kerry agrees, “I think that’s one of the pieces we might even be able to do in a lame duck, conceivably, but we have to wait and see.

The president, on the other hand, seems to have already begun looking forward to 2011 and the possibilities of passing a less-that-comprehensive energy package.  Politico reports on his comments: “‘One of my top priorities next year is to have an energy policy that begins to address all facets of our overreliance on fossil fuels,’ Obama said. ‘We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we’re going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it’s good for our national security and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment.’”

The GOP is also looking ahead.  With predicted election wins, Senator Lamar Alexander, in E&E Daily, sees a better climate for energy policy reform: “I think it’s going to help, because I think what we’ve got now is we’ve such an imbalance between the parties that there’s a great temptation by the majority party to say, ‘We won the election, we’ll write the bill and run over the minority… When we’re better balanced, there’s no way to do anything unless we have a consensus in the Senate, and so we get back to doing what we’ve done many times.’”

One thing is clear: many members of Congress want to do something on energy.  The question is can they agree on what that something is … and does anyone know what the landscape will look like after November 2?

Part of the challenge that the agencies face in designing new labels is the tension between labels that are not cluttered and are easy to understand, and the underlying fact that there is a lot of information to convey and some of it, especially with respect to alternative fuel vehicles, is complex.

For instance, the labels report annual operating costs for each vehicle based on a set of assumptions.  But calculating these numbers is challenging for cars that consume electricity from the grid because of the regional variation in electricity prices.  It is particularly challenging problem if the agencies want the data reported to consumers to be meaningful for at least two reasons, and likely more. 

First, for calculating the cost of gasoline vehicles, the agencies use a national average price.  Though gasoline prices vary around the nation, the variation between the high and low states that they report weekly is about 20 percent.  The variation in electricity power prices, however, is far greater.  Excluding Alaska and Hawaii, power prices vary nearly 200 percent, with prices ranging from under 6 cents a kwh in West Virginia, Wyoming and Idaho to over 16 cents a kwh in New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.  That makes this a far greater challenge than gasoline prices. 

Second, even within a state, prices are likely to differ significantly by time of day when time of day tariffs are implemented and made available for EVs, as has already happened in some states, and will likely happen in many more as EVs proliferate and utilities seek to induce consumers to charge overnight during off peak hours.  In short, there really is no good way to do this with a single national label.  It may require regional labels which should theoretically be easy but might in fact not be.

In part, this may be addressed by placing more specific information on a web site.  The label already will require inclusion of a bar code that when scanned or photographed by a smart phone, will automatically connect to a web site with more information.  There, region specific data can be made available to consumers.

In fact, earlier this week, Southern California Edison created such a site.  It allows consumers to enter basic data about their vehicle, their travel and fuel costs, and calculates the difference in operating costs for a gasoline and an electric vehicle. 

SCE’s site is relatively basic, but represents a great starting point for providing consumers with critical information about the cost and performance characteristics of their cars, as they operate them in their communities.  We expect that this will be just the beginning of a plethora of information available to consumers about their grid-enabled vehicles, and look forward to seeing what types of information that others make available to GEV owners and potential owners as the first mass-market grid-enabled vehicles come onto the market later this year.