The 17 hour markup, which included over 90 amendments, was described as “record-breaking” by Chairman John Mica (R-FL), who also “praised the committee for persevering and passing the bill, which he said would create jobs and keep the transportation system solvent for several more years,” E&E news reports.

Emotions were running high on this particular markup. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has called the bill “the worst transportation bill” he has seen in decades, a sentiment echoed by T&I committee member, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) who also added that the markup itself was “the worst day of [her] life.” Not all conservatives are pleased either; the conservative Club for Growth issued a Key Vote Alert to vote “no” on the legislation due to lack of spending cuts.  Representative Steve LaTourette (R-OH) described the bill as containing “divisive” provisions such as anti-labor provisions, and ending the Transportation Enhancement program which supports infrastructure development for bikers and pedestrians.

General P.X. Kelley of SAFE’s Energy Security Leadership council urged members to incorporate language into the bill based on SAFE’s February 2011 report, Transportation Policies for America’s Future. The amendment, offered by Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN), which was voted down, would have required the Secretary of Transportation to:

• Use the reduction of transportation related oil consumption as a criterion  for selecting projects to be included in the national transportation strategy;
• Encourage states and metropolitan planning organizations to prioritize oil reduction projects in transportation improvement programs in order to enhance our national and economic security by reducing our dependence on petroleum; and
• Encourage metropolitan planning organizations to develop a strategic oil savings plan that includes a target for reduction of surface transportation related oil consumption.

It is disappointing that the committee failed to take this opportunity to include bipartisan oil-saving metrics. Representative Cohen will seek to pass the amendment on the house floor. The full bill is set to see floor action the week of February 13^th.

Energy has played a prominent role in politics during the Obama presidency, and as notable as what he mentioned is what he omitted: Keystone and Solyndra. Conservatives have already responded with criticisms of Obama’s record on oil and gas drilling, continuing to push for the Keystone XL Pipeline, and it is safe to assume these issues will remain forefront as the race for the White House continues. Today is the perfect opportunity to look back at the major energy stories of Obama’s Presidency, and what some of their implications might be for his reelection campaign.

5) Cap and Trade

On Obama’s election night, he famously said “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” raising environmentalists’ hopes that a domestic cap and trade policy would be passed. In 2010, with Democrats holding the executive branch as well as both chambers of Congress, proponents of the environmental policy hoped the carbon mitigation mechanism they had been promoting for  more than a decade would finally come to fruition. However, with the growth of the Tea Party movement, worries about excessive government spending, sluggish economic growth in the wake of the financial crisis, strong industry opposition and the complexity of the policy mechanism itself, cap and trade slowly died.

Campaign liability: Very low. Environmental economists disagree about the best implementation of cap and trade, not to mention inconclusive levels of public support for government action to reduce carbon emissions in general.

4) The Macondo Well Explosion

The catastrophic oil spill which lasted from April through July of 2010 was the worst open-water oil spill in American history, and devastated the Gulf coast region in addition to killing a number of oil field workers. The spill was a huge wake-up call to the potentially devastating consequences of reckless drilling practices, and caused a temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.

Campaign liability: Low. The Obama Administration took a number of steps to restore confidence that the cleanup was effective, most notably by Obama himself taking a dip on the Florida coast with his daughter Malia. Although the spill caused a temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, the White House claims overall oil and gas production has increased during Obama’s presidency. That said, oil and gas leasing on federal land is likely to be subject of extensive debate.

3) CAFE Standards

In summer of 2011, the Obama Administration announced it was increasing the fuel economy standards announced by the Bush Administration in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. By 2025, cars and (for the first time) light duty trucks will have to reach an average of 54.4 miles per gallon (mpg). The rules will account for 90 percent of all vehicles sold within the United States, and was a substantial increase over the 35 mpg by 2020 established by Bush.

Campaign liability: Negligible. The New York Times reported this week that the proposed rules are a win across virtually all stakeholders, as they “create jobs, reduce oil consumption, create cleaner air and save drivers money, all while helping automakers increase their profits.”

2) Keystone XL

Obama rejected TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline earlier this week. The long-awaited decision was a divisive one: protests waged outside the White House for weeks, Congressional Republicans forced Obama to expedite his decision with language attached to the tax bill at the end of 2011, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) launched a national ad campaign in support of the pipeline earlier this month, just to name a few events from the drawn out pipeline battle (which, according to some sources, is far from over).

Campaign liability: Unclear. The Keystone issue is a touchy one, as it has been perceived as a polarizing decision between jobs and the environment. For some, the decision was in direct conflict with the recommendations of the Presidential Jobs Council, and Republicans are unified in opposition against rejecting the opportunity to create domestic construction jobs. However, in the words of one expert, “No one who was planning on voting against the president would have been won over simply because of the approval of Keystone.”

1) Solyndra

Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer and recipient of a $500 million Department of Energy loan, went bankrupt in fall of 2011. Occurring in the immediate wake of the last-minute debt ceiling negotiations, when government spending was front and center, what was at first a source of pride for the Obama Administration has become a PR nightmare, as well as sparking a debate over the legitimacy of the Department of Energy’s entire Loan Guarantee Program.

Campaign liability: Potentially high. The first Obama 2012 ad released by the reelection campaign has focused on green energy, and some are speculating it’s a preemptive strike against Solyndra-based attacks. Critics have argued that DOE’s loans are an example of “government playing venture capitalist,” while others argue it’s important for the federal government to encourage technologies in support of the public good. We fully expect this issue to be used as a symbol for Republican’s opposition to the Obama “Green Jobs” agenda, and it will remain on the opposition’s talking points throughout the campaign cycle.

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.

The program is coordinated by the Transportation and Climate initiative, and the states involved are Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.  The Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting the project with a $1 million grant, in keeping with President Obama’s plan to see 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015.  The region is hoping to account for at least 200,000 of those.

Marc Geller of Plug In America said that this initiative is just one of many efforts nationwide to facilitate public EV infrastructure.  He argues that as 90 percent of charging currently occurs at home, this will help people see EVs “out in the wild,” giving motorists the confidence to drive their cars further and reminding others to consider EVs for their next purchase.

Other energy news this week: Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is pushing for DOE loans to continue, expressing concern that they will be discontinued due to the ongoing Solyndra controversy.  The top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, she has been critical of Solyndra, calling it a “horrible failure,” but maintains that the federal government should have a loan guarantee program that works to enable energy industries such as nuclear and renewable promote innovation and growth.

Also in the Senate this week, Rand Paul (R-KY) has lifted his filibuster of the pipeline safety bill, which was approved Monday, updating safety regulations on natural gas and oil pipelines as well as increasing fines on violators.  A similar measure won unanimous approval from the House Energy Committee last month.  House Democrats are continuing to push the supercommittee to cut oil subsidies, the most recent effort was a letter from 38 members arguing that the United States can no longer afford to give billions of dollars every year to corporations which earn billions of dollars in profits.  A variety of industry incentives and subsides are under consideration.

Modeled on the highly successful Parisian bike-sharing program Velib, this month saw the launch of Autolib (meaning car freedom), which is  currently in the beginning of a two-month pilot phase featuring 66 vehicles.  Operational improvements learned from the pilot program will be factored into a streamlined system, with intended expansion to 3,000 vehicles and 1,000 charging stations.  Billionaire investor Vincent Bolloré won the public contract over Smart and Renault with his company’s Bluecar—a compact EV with a top speed of 80 miles per hour and a single-charge range of 150 miles.  Prospective users pay an annual subscription fee of €144, as well as €4 to €5 per half hour of rental.  The rental process itself is simple, a subscriber can simply arrive at a pickup/charging station, present their driver’s license, ID, and credit card, and the car is theirs.

Mr. Bolloré is the primary financier and stakeholder in this experiment, and although he is not expecting returns for at least seven years, he is optimistic that the investment will yield long-term rewards.  His family’s company, the Bolloré Group, has diverse industrial and investment holdings.  Bluecar is a joint venture between the Bolloré Group and the Italian design firm Pininfarina, which features sophisticated electronics, yet a minimalist interior and control system, which Mr. Bolloré is hoping consumers will grow to love through using Autolib.  He is making a significant investment: $265 million for the vehicles and program administration, in addition to €750 ($1,000) for each parking space every year.

As Paris is one of the world’s most congested cities, the Bluecars are an excellent choice due to the suitability of EVs for urban driving.   Furthermore, EVs require a much lower fuel cost: a gas price of $3 per gallon is roughly equivalent to 10 cents per mile, whereas an average pure electric vehicle requires 2.5 cents worth of electricity per mile.  Common sense solutions such as this should be explored by cities throughout the United States as they facilitate lower levels of vehicle ownership per capita, as well as reduced fuel waste.  Although EV sharing programs will not sever oil dependence alone, they are an invaluable opportunity to help facilitate more widespread electric vehicle adoption.

Advocates of parking policy reform argue that free or publicly subsidized parking represents a market failure.  Drivers pursuing street parking will drive in circles searching for spaces, a process which defers the real cost of parking from the driver to other drivers and the community.  Despite the insufficient supply of street parking in city centers, the artificially low prices encourage drivers to contribute to congestion, air pollution, and fuel waste while driving distractedly.  Fiscally, this is a responsible move.  An analysis by the Institute for Transportation Development Policy calculates that if someone decides to spend 15 minutes of searching to save $12 on parking, it means they value their time to the equivalent hourly rate of $100,000 a year.

A pilot program in San Francisco called SFPark is currently the nation’s most ambitious attempt to ameliorate the external costs of public parking.  The program consists of the following features:

- Dynamic pricing to maintain an 85 percent capacity of curb parking (equivalent to approximately 1 open space per block)

- Expanded public garage facilities metered as part of the SF Park system

- Real time parking availability information regarding both overall density and available spaces, accessible online and through a smartphone application

- Parking meters accepting credit cards and public transit cards

-  Sensors to continually monitor space availability

Within the SFPark neighborhoods, the prices range depending on space availability as follows:

This program is designed to make parking prices responsive to supply and demand, thus improving road conditions for other motorists, cyclists, and transit users, through reductions in double parking and circling.  As the high volume blocks are more expensive per hour, it provides a financial incentive—as well as the information needed— for longer-term parkers to find a space two or three blocks away, leaving spaces on the busiest blocks open for shorter visits.  The system is loosely modeled on airport parking, where lots are separated into temporary, short-term, and long-term parking, with appropriate pricing and location for each one.

The number one goal for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is congestion reduction.  The DOT is currently undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of SFPark for its effect on congestion, transit ridership, local businesses, political and community support, and overall costs and benefits.

Parking is an important but often overlooked aspect of congestion reduction in urban centers.  SFPark combines technology, economics, and policy to address this creatively, and will provide great insight into the effectiveness of dynamic metering.

Still higher levels of congestion are expected to return as the economy strengthens.  The average commuter is expected to see an additional 3 hours of delay by 2015 and 7 hours by 2020.  Wasted fuel will increase to 2.5 billion gallons by 2015.  Under this scenario, the total annual wasted fuel would likely exceed its historical high (observed in 2007) by 2013.

Road traffic congestion is a challenge to transportation system performance in major U.S. cities, and increasingly in smaller cities as well, resulting in greater oil consumption, and severely threatening the potential gains associated with more efficient vehicles and alternative fuels.

The researchers note that, “there is no single best way to solve the problems,” and that the “most economical and effective congestion solutions involve traditional road building and transit use, combined with traffic management strategies such as signal coordination and rapid crush removal, and demand management strategies like telecommuting and flexible work hours.”  Only two weeks ago, partly in response to an article published by the Financial Times highlighting impressive technological improvements in vehicle connectivity, this writer outlined a similarly comprehensive group of solutions.

Transportation infrastructure policies must be flexible and multi-dimensional to properly address traffic congestion across the country.  The U.S. transportation system must become more efficient and policymaking must account for the importance of oil consumption.

Congestion is a huge challenge and it is forecast to worsen.  As researcher Dr. Tim Lomax neatly and rightly concludes, “if we want a strong economy, doing nothing is not a productive option.”

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!

The shift is markedly towards cleaner and more connected (and to a lesser extent, safer) vehicles.  There is also a recognition that driving, especially in cities, is becoming increasingly difficult.  Mobility will become a singular challenge in its own right.

The article notes the regulatory push towards cleaner vehicles (fuel economy standards), and the support for electric vehicles (alternatives to petroleum).  This forum regularly highlights the very real costs and dangers of U.S. oil dependence, and with road travel alone accountable for approximately 60 percent of total U.S. oil consumption, these are unquestionably important initiatives.

The article goes on to say that, “as more people go to live in cities—and often large and congested ones at that—we will be spending much more time in our cars, often travelling at low speeds.”  Among the solutions, for example, is the use of semi-autonomous driving that would allow you to multitask while driving (to an extent more safely than today—think phone calls, texts, smartphone emails etc.)

Such ‘connectivity’ improvements will bring utility to drivers.  However, they are not a solution to the challenge of widespread urban congestion.  They are merely an adaptation.  Sure, being able to join your conference call without risking an accident is perhaps an improvement over the status quo, but a quicker journey and arriving in person for the conference call is even better.

Improving the efficient function of the nation’s transportation infrastructure is critical, and it can be taken as a pre-emptive, rather than adaptive measure.  We have let oil dependence move beyond our control.  The economic cost alone is estimated at more than $300 billion per year, yes, per year.  Now we are reactive.  Road congestion severely threatens the potential gains associated with more efficient vehicles and fuels.

In 2009, drivers in U.S. urban areas were estimated to have wasted 3.9 billion gallons of fuel—equivalent to approximately eight entire days of highway petroleum consumption.  Unlike many other industrialized countries, the United States is expected to experience population growth over the next 25 years, from 310 million people to 390 million people.  Highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is expected to increase almost twice as fast as the population over this period.  Levels of U.S. urbanization are also forecast to continue on an upward trend through 2035.  The congestion situation faced by cities is thus expected to deteriorate further from today’s levels in the absence of substantial and effective policy intervention.

Action is urgently needed.

Reforms are required to introduce a more market-oriented model that promotes more stable road speed conditions and lowers oil consumption.  Smarter capital investments that encourage higher operating efficiency are also needed.  Successful measures can empower users by giving clear signals of the cost of travel decisions and expand the menu of travel options, while helping to address performance and funding challenges.

We can be reactive and adaptive, but we must also be proactive.  We must restore the mobility upon which this nation depends to strengthen U.S. energy security and promote long-term economic growth.

a

a

In February 2011, the Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) released Transportation Policies for America’s Future.  This report examined the challenges facing the U.S. transportation system in the 21^st century, and provided a vision and accompanying recommendations for a more efficient, analytically-rigorous, and market-driven approach to national transportation policy.  Most importantly, it emphasized the crucial interaction between transportation policy decisions and the energy security challenge posed by U.S. oil consumption.