Not only can electric vehicles change the game and strengthen our national security, but they represent the only technology with the ability to do so. And the game we are currently playing – one where our country depends on vast amounts of oil that is produced in highly volatile regions of the world – must be changed sooner rather than later.

No one seriously disagrees anymore that oil dependence represents a real and growing threat to our economic and national security. The United States is the world’s largest oil consumer, accounting for more than 20 percent of global demand. Americans consume approximately 19 million barrels of oil each day. Since 2005, annual retail petroleum expenditures by U.S. families and businesses have averaged more than $700 billion—or about 5 percent of GDP. America now imports more than half of the oil it consumes.

America’s armed forces have been forced to shoulder the burden of protecting vulnerable global oil supply lines and infrastructure. American dependence on other oil-producing nations distorts foreign policy, limits options and constrains action. Whether dealing with uranium enrichment in Iran or a hostile regime in Venezuela, American diplomacy is distorted by the need to minimize disruptions to the flow of oil. Too often, oil dependence requires us to accommodate hostile governments that share neither our values nor our goals, putting both the United States and its allies at risk.

Here at home, Department of Energy researchers have estimated that the economic costs of U.S. oil dependence were $500 billion in 2008 alone—and more than $5 trillion since 1970. In 2008, when oil prices peaked, the U.S. sent $388 billion—56 percent of the total trade deficit—overseas to pay to import crude oil and petroleum products. In 2010, oil prices averaged almost $80 per barrel and the U.S. trade deficit in crude oil and refined products returned to its pre-crisis level of more than $300 billion. Every American recession over the past 35 years has been preceded by—or occurred concurrently with—an oil price spike.

At the crux of American dependence is our transportation sector, which accounts for 70 percent of the total oil consumed. American cars, trucks, planes and ships rely on oil for 94 percent of their fuel, with no readily available substitutes.

Recent advances in battery technology for the first time truly make possible an electrified transportation sector that is powered by a wide variety of domestic sources: natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. The electrical generation system in the United States uses virtually no oil. Moreover, because an electrified transportation system is one that has the benefits of relying on a diverse set of fuels, no one fuel source—or producer—would be able to hold our transportation system and our economy hostage the way a single nation can disrupt the flow of petroleum today.

In addition, electrified transportation is cleaner than today’s gas-powered cars, the price of electricity is far more stable than that of oil, the backbone of the infrastructure of an electrified transport system already exists, and there is substantial spare generation capacity. No other alternative to petroleum can claim these widespread advantages.

As Tom mentions in his question, there is genuine bipartisan support for electric vehicles. What is needed now is action. The upheaval in the Middle East—and the continuing jump in oil prices—is just one more sign that we cannot wait much longer.

As you know, much of the discussion about PEVs has focused not on the cars themselves, but on what happens after a consumer drives one off the dealer’s lot. Most of the questions are pretty basic: Where can you plug it in, and will you have enough juice to get where you need to go? This is where the nation’s electric power companies come in.

Studies have indicated that 80-90 percent of charging is likely to occur at home, where a standard electrical outlet will allow drivers to fully recharge their vehicles overnight. And most neighborhood pole-top transformers can handle the load of multiple PEVs easily, before being upgraded, a task that is fairly routine and was undertaken on a wide scale when central air conditioning was rapidly adopted by a large number of U.S. households.

In addition, electric utilities preemptively are working to assess and address potential impacts PEVs may have on the electric grid. For example, we’re identifying and targeting likely early adoption areas using hybrid electric vehicle purchasing data, customer surveys and demographics. We’re also working with charging station installers, car dealers, permitting officials and customers to develop advanced notification programs to report when and where PEVs are being purchased or charging stations are being installed.

Utilities and automakers from around the world believe the future is bright for electric vehicles. With benefits that range from energy security to consumer savings, PEVs truly are game-changers. Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this week’s discussion.

As crude oil prices rise in the face of turmoil in the Middle East, America needs to begin the shift to an alternative that is not only scalable but proven around the world. This alternative is natural gas. More widespread use of natural gas vehicles is an essential component of any effective strategy to promote greater U.S. energy security.

Right now, change is being led outside of Washington. Companies get it. UPS recently announced plans to employ 245 new compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks, adding to their fleet of 900 CNG vehicles already in use. Ryder, AT&T, Verizon, Waste Management, and Coca-Cola also are making significant commitments to this home-grown energy source. It’s smart business. Currently, NGV drivers save more than 85 cents per gallon <http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_oct_10.pdf> when they fill up.

NGVs also are helping cities across the country clear the air. Los Angeles, a city known for its smog concerns, recently converted nearly its entire public bus fleet to run on natural gas. Both Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa <http://mayor.lacity.org/index.htm> and the American Lung Association expressed their support for this green initiative.

Compared with gasoline or diesel, NGVs emit significantly less carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. And, natural gas can power heavier trucks and buses—among the busiest vehicles on the road today. Can it make a difference? Converting just one heavy-duty waste truck from diesel to natural gas offers the emissions reduction equivalent of taking 325 cars off the road.

Consumers have an attractive choice, too. The Honda Civic GX recently topped the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s list of greenest cars and there are more NGVs on the way from automakers. With existing fueling station corridors growing across the country and the potential for home-based fueling gaining steam, there is another appealing option to help drive change and the time is now. We have a solution, but we must work together and the natural gas industry stands ready to lead.

Where does the rising cost of oil affect your spending the most? At the grocery store? When shipping a package? When buying new clothes? The impact on U.S. consumers of potential oil supply disruption in the Middle East extends well beyond what drivers pay at the pump.

Critics of spending taxpayer dollars on the advancement of electric drive transportation and infrastructure should consider the immediate and far-reaching consequences of continuing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in economic growth annually. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that by some estimates every penny increase at the pump removes $1.5 billion from household spending nationwide. With limited alternatives, consumers and the nation have no choice but to pay whatever it costs for oil.

Federal incentives for emerging plug-in technologies will increase our options. The federal tax credit for drivers who purchase electric vehicles will help more consumers drive with electric power and will help manufacturers reach the economies of scale that will bring the costs of new technology down. Support for alternative fuel infrastructure and for accelerating research, development and deployment of electric drive alternatives will insulate consumers and the U.S. economy from the volatility of the global oil market. It will also enhance U.S. competitiveness in a global market racing toward alternatives.

Aside from the enormous distortion it creates in our foreign policy, oil dependence is detrimental to the recovery and growth of our economy. Billions of dollars pour out of consumers’ pockets, pour out of the U.S. Treasury and pour out of the country to buy oil. Ignoring these costs is not sound economics and not a sustainable national security policy.

Support for private investment in technology development, manufacturing and deployment is the right use of federal dollars because the need for oil alternatives is urgent. The benefits of speeding the prevalence of electric drive transportation are a stronger economy, a more secure nation and a cleaner environment.

Where does the rising cost of oil affect your spending the most? At the grocery store? When shipping a package? When buying new clothes? The impact on U.S. consumers of potential oil supply disruption in the Middle East extends well beyond what drivers pay at the pump.

Critics of spending taxpayer dollars on the advancement of electric drive transportation and infrastructure should consider the immediate and far-reaching consequences of continuing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in economic growth annually. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that by some estimates every penny increase at the pump removes $1.5 billion from household spending nationwide. With limited alternatives, consumers and the nation have no choice but to pay whatever it costs for oil.

Federal incentives for emerging plug-in technologies will increase our options. The federal tax credit for drivers who purchase electric vehicles will help more consumers drive with electric power and will help manufacturers reach the economies of scale that will bring the costs of new technology down. Support for alternative fuel infrastructure and for accelerating research, development and deployment of electric drive alternatives will insulate consumers and the U.S. economy from the volatility of the global oil market. It will also enhance U.S. competitiveness in a global market racing toward alternatives.

Aside from the enormous distortion it creates in our foreign policy, oil dependence is detrimental to the recovery and growth of our economy. Billions of dollars pour out of consumers’ pockets, pour out of the U.S. Treasury and pour out of the country to buy oil. Ignoring these costs is not sound economics and not a sustainable national security policy.

Support for private investment in technology development, manufacturing and deployment is the right use of federal dollars because the need for oil alternatives is urgent. The benefits of speeding the prevalence of electric drive transportation are a stronger economy, a more secure nation and a cleaner environment.

(These comments were written by Michael Bissonette, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Efficient Energy Systems; AeroVironment, Inc.)

One of the hurdles to broad-scale adoption of EVs is the infrastructure that will power these new vehicles. By supporting ongoing research and development of electric vehicle (EV) technology and the requisite charging infrastructure, the United States could lead the world in re-stimulating venture investments; reenergizing the automotive and automotive accessories industries; creating opportunities for scientific education and breakthrough technologies; and setting the bar on mainstreaming sustainability.

The time is now: AeroVironment, a leading developer of battery charging systems, has developed, deployed, and proven “fast-charge” stations that are comparable to gasoline pumps in terms of refueling time and usability. Deployment of charging stations that are publicly available and convenient will be critical in the effort to convert EV drivers with long-range commutes or planned vacation travel.

The most pragmatic approach to rolling out fast-charge units and proving the public’s willingness to embrace EV technology will be the establishment of charging infrastructure along transportation corridors. More specifically, a number of metropolitan areas are home to individuals who are in the EV early adopter demographic – educated professionals who already own two or more cars and who commute to work. Several states have emission-reduction mandates in place, giving their residents added incentives to embrace battery-powered transportation. EV corridor pilot programs will likely flourish in regions with residents in the target demographic, and which are characterized by distinct transportation corridors. Just two of the many prime targets in the United States include the eastern seaboard and the California coast.

Moving EV technology beyond the enthusiast and to the general populace should be a priority of both the government and private sector – especially given the criticality of energy independence, emission reduction, American R&D excellence, and sustainable job creation. By investing in the infrastructure to make EVs a practical choice for drivers, the Obama administration and technology leaders in the private sector will ensure that future generations enjoy better air quality, greater energy efficiency, energy independence, and new employment opportunities, as they harvest the crop grown from the seeds that Americans are sowing today.

Remember the methanol craze in the 1980’s? PNGV in the 1990’s? Electric vehicles and Who Killed the Electric Car in the late 1990’s? Hydrogen fuel cells in the early 2000’s? Cellulosic ethanol after that? The Pickens Plan in the late 2000’s? And now electric vehicles again? So, is this latest policy push and large government financial support for electric vehicles just another in a long series of recycled ideas, or is it finally the beginning of the end of the transportation energy policy pendulum in the U.S.?

To be clear, you will see electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles in the market in the next few years for several reasons. First, battery technology has improved and we’ve made huge leaps forward in hydrogen fuel cell technology. Second, some early adopter consumers are expressing interest in moving beyond petroleum. And third, automakers are mandated to produce these vehicles by California and a dozen other states. Nonetheless, the true mass-market appeal for these technologies remains uncertain. We can’t will success, even if our intentions are as laudable as national security or climate change. We need to make advanced technology vehicles economically attractive for everyday consumers.

Government can help, but needs to avoid the temptation to hang too many fiscal ornaments on the Christmas tree. Investments need to be surgical in order to get the biggest bang for our limited bucks. For electrification, policies should focus on the early adopter market through limited and temporary consumer incentives and support for 110V and 220V home and workplace charging infrastructure – that’s it. All the myriad other ideas (quick charge public access stations, government-backed battery warranties, additional grants for manufacturing capacity, etc.), while politically attractive, will simply take limited funding away from what’s really needed to jump start the market. We can never reach a mass-market goal like 1M plug-in vehicle sales until we reach 100,000 first…and then 500,000…and so on.

And speaking of mass market, government simply cannot spend enough money to make these technologies attractive to everyday, mass-market consumers in the absence of market signals that support their adoption. The reason is simple - today’s vehicles are relatively low-cost and cheap-to-operate. Over the past 40 years, many thoughtful people have expounded on the need to reduce oil consumption, while doing everything possible to keep gasoline prices low. The current crisis in the North Africa and the Middle East might be provide the sustained market signals ultimately needed, but then again, if history is any indication, it might not…and we will be back to the future once again.

President Obama set an ambitious goal – but one that I believe is achievable. We are seeing great interest from our customers in the early models being offered by Nissan and Chevrolet. For example, almost 3,000 people took the opportunity to drive the all-electric Nissan LEAF at two February events in our Florida service territory.

I am excited about the potential for electric vehicles to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment and save our customers money. We have joined the Edison Electric Institute utility electric vehicle pledge and are actively developing infrastructure and customer support programs, educating our customers about this technology, working to add electric vehicles to our fleet and partnering with governments to develop the necessary incentives. We’re also looking forward to hosting the Plug-In 2011 conference this July in Raleigh – the first time this national conference has left California.

One big challenge lies in transforming our fueling mentality from one that fills up at the corner gas station to one that charges at a home or business. We need to have enough visible public charging stations to instill confidence that drivers will not get stranded, but not set expectations that a network of corner stations is needed before electric vehicles are viable. After all, there may be a gas station on virtually every corner but there’s already a plug in every home and business.

To overcome this obstacle and more, we must all work together. A great example of this collaboration is the Project Get Ready efforts around the country. In Raleigh, we worked with the city to reduce the time and paperwork needed to receive an electrical inspection and approval to install a home charging station. It’s these types of behind-the-scenes improvements, made bit by bit in local communities across the country, that pave the way for adoption of electric vehicles. President Obama’s goal is achievable, but only if policymakers, industry, utilities and governments work together.

This week, Libyan unrest caused oil to spike above $100 a barrel in the U.S., the highest since 2008. And, weekly retail gasoline prices skyrocketed to $3.19 a gallon, according to the Department of Energy. The highest they’ve ever been in the month of February.

Increased use of electric vehicles is the single most promising way to lower our oil consumption and dependence on unstable world oil markets. Thanks to regulations adopted in California, electric and super-efficient gasoline vehicles are poised to fulfill that promise.

Years ago, when California adopted its first Zero-Emission Vehicle Program, the automakers said it could never be done and threatened to leave the state. But the California Air Resources Board (CARB) stood its ground, and today we are seeing all-electric cars and hybrids coming to market thanks to California’s foresight. We can also thank California for its Clean Cars Program, which brings us super-clean and efficient gasoline cars. More than a dozen states have adopted California’s Clean Cars program, forcing the automakers to take a hard look at producing efficient gasoline and electric powered vehicles. Today, the leading mass-market automakers (Ford, Chevy, Nissan Toyota, Honda) are offering ultra low emission vehicles or zero emission vehicles in every major vehicle category (compact, midsize, large, SUV and trucks), with four different approaches to power (hybrid, plug in, plug in-hybrid, and extended range).

In the meantime, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, EPA CARB and US DOT agreed to work together on future rules that would cut greenhouse gas emissions and raise the fuel economy of cars and trucks to over 60 miles per gallon by 2025.

Today, the biggest obstacle to bringing more fuel-efficient vehicles, including clean gasoline, hybrid and electric vehicles to driveways across the United States may be the U.S. Congress. Right now, Congress is trying to prevent the EPA from moving forward with new standards and may prevent California from getting a waiver to set better standards in the future. The industry needs the certainty of standards to throw its full resources into much more fuel-efficient vehicles and shutting down the EPA would send exactly the wrong message.

Our consumer polling data over the past decade shows that programs for increasing mileage are wildly popular, consistently supported by over three quarters of the respondents. Similarly high percentages of respondents express concerns about gasoline prices and mid-East oil. Our economic analysis shows that a 60-mile per gallon standard is good for consumers because the reduction in gasoline expenditures exceeds the increase in the cost of the vehicle resulting in consumer savings of several thousand dollars per vehicle sold.

Five years after President Bush declared that the U.S. should end it addiction to oil, the only way to describe Congressional efforts to stop higher fuel economy standards is suicidal, bad for consumers, bad energy policy and bad for national security.

The last seven presidents, starting with Gerald Ford, have decried our dependence on foreign oil. Americans clearly recognize the danger of being dependent on petroleum that comes from areas of the world that are unstable and/or hostile to American interests. But, the dependence of our transportation sector on foreign oil is now more than a national security concern; it provides a robust economic opportunity and has created a fierce global race that we could lose if we don’t innovate.

Ninety-four percent of all our cars, trucks, ships and planes are dependent on oil. America spends $1 billion each and every day from our economy to pay for foreign petroleum—some of it to regimes hostile to American interests.

Furthermore, the U.S. military secures access to energy resources around the globe at a cost of between $67.5 billion and $83 billion annually, according to a 2009 report from the Rand Corporation. If we are to kick our oil habit, then there is no doubt that we must tackle the transportation sector.

Luckily, this area is poised for major transformation, with huge potential benefits for American manufacturing. Chevrolet and Nissan have introduced plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles with great success. Chevrolet has announced it will double production of the Volt, and the first production of Nissan’s Leaf is sold out. Several other car companies have also announced plans to introduce electric or plug-in hybrids in 2011 or 2012.

Globally, countries are investing in cleaner transportation and infrastructure that are highly efficient, use domestic forms of energy and are mostly immune to the rising cost of oil. China has identified electric automobiles as one of its seven “strategic emerging industries” for the coming years. China and the United States, along with France, Germany, Japan, South Africa, Spain and Sweden have joined with the International Energy Agency to launch the Electric Vehicles Initiative that serves as a platform for global cooperation on the development and deployment of electric automobiles.

But it isn’t just the vehicle. Companies are fiercely competing to advance battery technology. Experts predict the advanced battery industry could grow to $100 billion a year by 2030—approximating the size of the current global pharmaceutical sector. The race to innovate, manufacture and deploy advanced batteries will generate a half-trillion-dollar global industry.

President Obama has set a goal of having one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Congress should follow the President’s lead and put policies in place that sustain or expand market incentives to buy plug-in hybrids and electric cars in the U.S. and support the necessary charging infrastructure to service a whole new generation of electric automobiles on a larger scale than is happening now. Bi-partisan endorsement is evident in the U.S. Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that electric vehicle deployment and nuclear power represent two issues of common ground for Senate Republicans and the administration. In the last Congress, six bills proposing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids were authored by Democrats and Republicans. In the current Congress, already two proposals have been suggested—turning the present tax credit into a rebate at the time of purchase for electric cars and plug-in hybrids and expanding the cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer that can receive the $7,500 credit to 500,000 vehicles, up from 200,000.

Policymakers can create a win-win for American consumers and businesses. Consumers will have the option to buy highly efficient, domestically fueled cars that are better for the environment and aren’t subject to oil price swings. And businesses—from automakers to battery suppliers—will contribute to the U.S. economy, create jobs and enhance American competitiveness in the emerging trillion dollar global market for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. And the U.S. will be a cleaner, safer and more prosperous nation. Too good to be true? We don’t think so.

(These comments were submitted by Daniel Gatti, policy analyst at Environment America.)

The future of electric vehicles lies in the convergence of three critical global trends:

· First, planet is getting hotter. 2010 tied global temperature records and produced new calamities, including floods in Pakistan and devastating forest fires in Russia. Oil consumption remains our largest single source of global warming pollution, producing over 40% of our carbon emissions. Moreover, burning oil produces local air toxins that cause millions of asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, both here and in developing nations.

· Second, the number of cars in the world is rapidly rising. In 1990, there were 400 million cars on the road. Today, there are over 900 million. By 2030, the IEA projects that the world will have over two billion cars. China alone, already the largest market for automobiles, is anticipated to increase its vehicle fleet tenfold by 2030.

· Third, global oil production is stagnating. Much of the world’s remaining oil is either in the hands of hostile and unstable regimes, or comes from sources such as deepwater drilling or tar sands mining that have devastating environmental costs.

Putting these trends together, it is no surprise that our auto manufacturers and our international competitors are racing to get ahead of the electric vehicle market. No other technology has as much potential to radically transform our automobile fleet and reduce our dependence on oil. The nation that makes the best investments in electric vehicles will not only solve critical environmental and energy challenges; they will also create the auto manufacturing jobs of the 21^st century.

Like many new technologies, electric vehicles face significant near-term challenges. The initial price of electric vehicles needs to come down, and the range of electric vehicles needs to increase. Moreover, we need to create an infrastructure to support electric vehicles that can match the convenience of today’s massive petroleum distribution network.

The best way to deal with these challenges is to enact policies that will drive investment towards electric vehicles and related technologies:

· A national fuel economy standard of 60 mpg by 2025 would send a clear signal to our auto companies to develop vehicles that use less oil.

· A clean fuel standard would stimulate billions in private sector investment in the clean energy technologies that have the best potential to transform our oil dependence.

· A national race to the top program to build an electric vehicle infrastructure would inspire creative and innovative local policy solutions.

· Government support for initial EV purchasers will offset the initial costs and help create the economies of scale necessary to reduce prices. These tax credits represent a far more worthy investment than the billions in corporate graft that our political leaders hand out to oil companies, or the tens of billions our government currently spends protecting global oil supplies.

Electric vehicles and other advanced clean cars can help solve several of our nation's challenges at once. They will dramatically cut down the dirty tailpipe emissions that endanger our health and fuel climate change. They will reduce our oil dependence and the national security risks that accompany it. And they will put Americans back to work in a time of economic stagnation.

President Obama's goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 is critical if America is going to realize these benefits. But the president's plan alone is not sufficient. We also need to strengthen pollution and fuel efficiency standards. This will give automakers the regulatory certainty they need to make the longer-term investments in advanced vehicles technologies. But some in Congress are attacking the EPA's authority to set these stronger standards under the Clean Air Act.

Fortunately, by creating an ambitious goal for electric vehicles, President Obama is getting America moving in the right direction. And make no mistake: we can meet this goal.

Nearly every major automaker and a number of startups will launch one or more plug-in electric vehicle model. NRDC worked with an automotive markets expert to analyze <http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/ene_10070701.asp> the potential of

45 plug-in electric vehicle models that will be commercialized or developed over the next five years. We found that if the president's plan drives down battery costs, helps reduce consumer barriers to adoption, and ensures the U.S. becomes a major EV market, we can achieve the goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road.

The President focused on "winning the future" and has clearly made clean-tech R&D a priority. The President's Budget "significantly broadens R&D investments in technologies like batteries and electric drives." Battery companies like the Massachusetts-based A123 Systems <http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=20570&ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&pg=> got their start from these investments. Today A123 employs over 2,200 and has a market value of about $1 billion. In September last year, they opened the largest lithium ion automotive battery manufacturing plant in Livonia, Michigan with the assistance from the Recovery Act.

While not all investments will be winners, there's no doubt that targeted R&D investment can reap large rewards for the U.S., especially for American workers. The construction and expansion <http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=368> of nearly 30 battery and electric-vehicle-component manufacturing plants across the U.S. in the last two years alone is one of the economic bright spots in an environment where automaker plant closings had become the norm.

Once workers build the cars, drivers need to keep them charged. But making sure the country is "plug-in" ready will be no small task. Each state and local government has its hands in electrical codes, standards, and permitting for installing charging infrastructure. Streamlining the process will require coordination and standardization, and the president's plan offers a powerful incentive to do that. Communities can compete for grants of up to $10 million by demonstrating concrete reforms that will streamline and deploy EVs.

One of the best ways to continue building an EV and battery industry in the U.S. is by ensuring we become a major market for clean vehicles. This means doing what Europe and Asia have already done: adopt aggressive fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and truck fleets that will drive clean technologies. Analysis conducted by the EPA, DOT, and California Air Resources Board shows <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/epanhsta_proposal_shows_62_mpg.html> that adopting standards equivalent to about 60 miles per gallon would likely result in significant deployment plug-in electric vehicles. Weaker standards, by contrast, result in virtually no production of plug-in electric vehicles.

If we're serious about having a mainstream market in the U.S. for electric vehicles, we need to get serious about setting strong standards.

We’re just two days into this discussion and there has been a wide range of responses. Thanks to all of you who have weighed in; I hope others will, too. In the meantime, we’ve all noticed that the headlines regarding the flow of oil overseas have worsened.

Wire services are reporting that crude oil is hovering around $100 a barrel—the highest price since October 2008. Bloomberg is citing concerns by an overseas bank that prices could top $220 if Algeria and Libya were to halt production. Increasing domestic oil supply certainly makes sense, but it is not the sole option.

Which brings us back to our original topic: energy security and the extent to which electric vehicles can change the game. A number of you believe that PEVs truly can be game-changers, while also pointing out that electricity is an important ingredient—but not the sole component—in meeting our future transportation and energy security needs. I agree.

Of course, PEVs aren’t just an element of our national energy policy goals—they’re also about meeting consumer needs. If the turmoil overseas—or some combination of factors—continues to affect price at the pump, consumers are sure to take notice and look for alternatives. Recall that when gasoline prices last hit $4 per gallon, we saw a surge in demand for the Toyota Prius gasoline-electric hybrid.

PEVs rolling out today boast fuel economy ratings of more than 90 MPG-equivalent and can fuel up for less than $1 per gallon-equivalent. I drove the Chevy Volt for three months at a cost of only two to three cents a mile, compared to 10 to 12 cents for a traditional gasoline-powered vehicle, and I never visited a gas station once. Plugging in is less expensive than filling up, and it can be done with domestically-produced electricity.

One million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 is certainly a laudable goal. It appears reasonable in scale—a small fraction of the 250 million cars and light trucks currently on the road in the U.S. Yet reaching this scale will be a daunting task. The major barrier to scaling up adoption of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) is the initial cost hurdle consumers face. Despite all the benefits consumers can accrue in purchasing a PEV—state tax credits, corporate employee incentives, and auto insurance discounts, in addition to the federal tax credit—the final consumer price tag just does not compare to hybrids or similar non-electric vehicles.

So, who would pay more—possibly $15,000, more—for an PEV? A Washington Post editorial entitled Low Voltage speculated that it is primarily households making over $200,000 who can afford a green experiment…Will there be one million of these individuals that will purchase PEVs, by 2015? Likely not. But reaching one million may not be the be all and end all. If enough of the over $200,000 crew purchase PEVs, it may allow Detroit to experiment with production and reach some economies of scale that reduces the price tag. That would be big for Detroit, the consumer and the environment. On the other hand, if there are not enough purchasers or Detroit cannot innovate, PEVs will remain the same curiosity they have been since there initial introduction back in the 1970s. Detroit has already made a substantial investment in PEVs, so I’m hoping this is an experiment that works.

EV's like the Chevy Volt have already changed the game-- as being another choice for saving energy with consumers, but we should not expect everyone to go out and buy one just yet,. The technology buffet for energy efficient cars is just more crowded now with a greater array of choices than ever before -- hybrids, clean diesels and now electric. And yes, that's a good thing.

But many consumers will find the longer range, proven long-term performance and higher resale value of clean diesels more attractive than the benefits of either hybrid or electric, and that's why diesels (the most energy efficient internal combustion engine) are still in the game. Manufacturers see value in introducing fuel efficient new clean diesel models, like Mazda's new model coming this year.

What's not a good thing is taking this debate in absolutes for any one technology. Even if 70 percent of vehicle trips to work are less than the 40 mile electric range of most EVs, that doesn't mean that everyone will want or need one, or that the government should put all its focus on electricity. I agree with Tom Pyle's comments about not trading one dependency (oil) for another (lithium), and we need to know the wells to wheels of where the electrons are coming from-- because not all electrons are created equal. A clean diesel running on renewable biodiesel would be an interesting comparison with the electrics. And EV's like the Chevy Volt have energized the conversation about fuel efficiency again-- and that alone is a good thing.

President Obama assures us that he has the answer to one hundred years of electric vehicles failing in the market—hand out billions in taxpayer dollars to special interest groups.

Electric vehicles have an important place in the market, but they do not merit billions in handouts from cash-strapped taxpayers. The administration is spending over $5 billion to promote EVs, including $2.4 billion dollars of the stimulus and billions of dollars given to companies making lithium batteries. The administration has handed out tens of millions of dollars to individual companies to produce test fleets, open factories, and make cars for the public sector. On top of that, buyers are given a $7,500 tax credit when they purchase qualifying vehicles.

Even with the American taxpayers footing the bill, EVs are dramatically more expensive than similarly sized cars. The Chevy Volt starts around $41,000 and the Nissan Leaf at almost $33,000. Even
with these hefty prices, the vehicles have very limited range. Compare these prices to the similarly sized Honda Civic which can travel for hundreds of miles without refueling and starts under $16,000. It is no wonder that consumers continue to snub electric vehicles in favor of the increasingly efficient, affordable gasoline and diesel powered cars.

Large scale use of electric vehicles will only increase our dependence on foreign governments who might not have our best interest at heart. Electric car promoters talk about how twenty-five percent of our oil comes from OPEC countries while conveniently forgetting the fact that China has a near monopoly on the rare earth elements necessary for today’s batteries. Proponents of these wealth transfers for “green energy” sources will have us trade our dependency on imported oil for a dependency on imported rare earth minerals. This is a false choice, considering we have plenty of both right here at home.

The supply of rare earths is much more tightly controlled than oil production. Today, China produces 97 percent of the world’s supply. Until we start mining rare earths in America again, increased numbers of EVs on the road will make us more dependent on China’s rare earth mining.

In 1896, Henry Ford asked Thomas Edison about using electricity to power the horseless carriage instead of the internal combustion engine. Edison explained to Ford that electricity was not a good fit for powering automobiles since they “must keep near to power stations” and “the storage battery is too heavy.” In regard to Ford’s innovative engine, Edison claimed, “Young man, that’s the thing; you have it. Keep at it.”

Over one hundred years later, the challenges for electric cars remain the same. Electric cars might really compete someday, but that day hasn’t come and no amount of support from the government is going to change that. Instead of throwing away tax dollars, President Obama should let the market work and allow consumers to choose what vehicles work best for them.

Electric vehicles (EVs) may offer part of the solution to our energy and environmental challenges. But the U.S. is also facing economic and national security challenges that cannot be fully addressed by EVs. Because electric vehicles cannot meet all types of transportation needs, such as aircraft and marine applications, technology developed in the United States that revitalizes domestic manufacturing and significantly reduces reliance on imported oil is what is called for.

Renewable electricity to power electric vehicles would displace use of coal more so than imported oil. But electricity can’t effectively power certain vehicles, such as commercial and military jets. And while it can reduce the need for oil used for transportation, electricity can’t replace the entire barrel of oil, including the chemicals and plastics generated by petroleum refineries.

Renewable biomass can be used to directly replace all the products made from crude oil as well as to generate electricity. Biotechnology for converting biomass to chemicals, biofuels and biobased products can revitalize U.S. industry and renew economic growth. Further, the lifecycle impact of utilizing renewable biomass and biotechnology have been explored in depth, while the lifecycle impact of electric vehicles and batteries are only now beginning to be explored. There is a tremendous need to understand the full lifecycle environmental impact of new electric vehicle technologies and of fossil fuels.

Electric vehicles – particularly hybrid gas-electric vehicles – should be seen as part of a portfolio of U.S. technologies that are needed to simultaneously address our challenges. Manufacturers of electric vehicles and policy makers should take a lesson from the recent history of biofuels and work with other renewable energy industries as a key part of the solution, rather than as a competing solution.

(These comments were submitted by Robbie Diamond, president and CEO of the Securing America’s Future Energy [SAFE] and the Electrification Coalition.)

Not only can electric vehicles change the game and strengthen our national security, but they represent the only technology with the ability to do so. And the game we are currently playing – one where our country depends on vast amounts of oil that is produced in highly volatile regions of the world – must be changed sooner rather than later.

No one seriously disagrees anymore that oil dependence represents a real and growing threat to our economic and national security. The United States is the world’s largest oil consumer, accounting for more than 20 percent of global demand. Americans consume approximately 19 million barrels of oil each day. Since 2005, annual retail petroleum expenditures by U.S. families and businesses have averaged more than $700 billion—or about 5 percent of GDP. America now imports more than half of the oil it consumes.

America’s armed forces have been forced to shoulder the burden of protecting vulnerable global oil supply lines and infrastructure. American dependence on other oil-producing nations distorts foreign policy, limits options and constrains action. Whether dealing with uranium enrichment in Iran or a hostile regime in Venezuela, American diplomacy is distorted by the need to minimize disruptions to the flow of oil. Too often, oil dependence requires us to accommodate hostile governments that share neither our values nor our goals, putting both the United States and its allies at risk.

Here at home, Department of Energy researchers have estimated that the economic costs of U.S. oil dependence were $500 billion in 2008 alone—and more than $5 trillion since 1970. In 2008, when oil prices peaked, the U.S. sent $388 billion—56 percent of the total trade deficit—overseas to pay to import crude oil and petroleum products. In 2010, oil prices averaged almost $80 per barrel and the U.S. trade deficit in crude oil and refined products returned to its pre-crisis level of more than $300 billion. Every American recession over the past 35 years has been preceded by—or occurred concurrently with—an oil price spike.

At the crux of American dependence is our transportation sector, which accounts for 70 percent of the total oil consumed. American cars, trucks, planes and ships rely on oil for 94 percent of their fuel, with no readily available substitutes.

Recent advances in battery technology for the first time truly make possible an electrified transportation sector that is powered by a wide variety of domestic sources: natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. The electrical generation system in the United States uses virtually no oil. Moreover, because an electrified transportation system is one that has the benefits of relying on a diverse set of fuels, no one fuel source—or producer—would be able to hold our transportation system and our economy hostage the way a single nation can disrupt the flow of petroleum today.

In addition, electrified transportation is cleaner than today’s gas-powered cars, the price of electricity is far more stable than that of oil, the backbone of the infrastructure of an electrified transport system already exists, and there is substantial spare generation capacity. No other alternative to petroleum can claim these widespread advantages.

As Tom mentions in his question, there is genuine bipartisan support for electric vehicles. What is needed now is action. The upheaval in the Middle East—and the continuing jump in oil prices—is just one more sign that we cannot wait much longer.

From the wind energy industry's perspective, greater electrification of the transportation sector to allow clean, affordable, homegrown wind power to directly power our vehicles would be an excellent long-term strategy to reduce America's dependence on imported oil. While wind energy is already significantly reducing air pollution and the fossil fuel dependence of our economy, those savings would be expanded even further if wind energy could directly reduce the use of oil in the transportation sector.

Wind works to produce manufacturing and construction jobs, so using our nation's abundant, homegrown wind energy to power vehicles would be a win-win for our economy and the environment, while at the same time reducing our current dependence on fossil fuels. Growth in the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles would bring thousands of new manufacturing jobs both in wind and in the hard-pressed automobile industry. Additional oil savings could be realized by using natural gas that is produced in an environmentally responsible manner for long-haul trucking, a transportation application for which electric vehicles are not well suited. Upgrading our aging electric transmission system will be critical in many scenarios, including one with high renewable and high auto electrification. This upgrade would make the entire electric utility system more reliable while also allowing lower-cost wind energy to flow from rural areas around the nation. Wind has already proven itself as a potent rural economic development tool. In short, the combination of more and better transmission, more wind power, and plug-in electric vehicles will bolster our national security, improve electric reliability, create new manufacturing jobs, save consumers money, and revitalize rural communities. It's hard to think of a policy prescription with a greater range of favorable outcomes. [1] Assumptions: - Mid-size sedan PHEV uses 0.30 kWh per mile (versus 0.26 kWh per mile for small sedan) - Average distance driven: 32 miles per day - Current Vehicle Fleet: 234,500,000: Cars & Light Duty Vehicles (2-axel/4-wheel) 251,000,000: All vehicles - Wind assumptions: 35% average capacity factor of new fleet - Gasoline Consumption: Average MPG of 22.5 miles per gallon (blending car efficiency with other vehicle MPG) - 20 gallons of gasoline are produced from 1 barrel of oil.

Addiction is often dangerous and costly, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil is no exception. The U.S. spends hundreds of billions of dollars on imported oil annually. In fact, oil expenditures represent 40 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. This is not only a national economic vulnerability, but also a real burden to consumers who have no choice but to pay whatever the going rate per gallon is.

The oil addiction also threatens our national security. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world’s annual oil production, yet has just three percent of the known reserves. We currently import nearly 60 percent of our oil annually to meet domestic energy needs. Our lack of energy alternatives is dictating our foreign policy.

As a matter of national security and economic security, this dependence on oil is not sustainable. And we cannot move away from oil dependence unless we break its monopolistic dominance in the transportation sector, which is 97 percent fueled by oil.

Electricity is cleaner, more efficient and abundantly available from diverse domestic energy sources. In addition to keeping energy dollars within the U.S. economy, using electricity as a transportation fuel will also help build a 21^st century economy. Investing in an electrically-driven transportation sector will grow jobs in advanced vehicles and components, as well as in charging infrastructure and smart grid integration. By leading in the development of electric drive technology and the deployment of electric drive vehicles, the U.S. can compete in the global marketplace, which is growing at an explosive pace.

Is there enough electricity to meet U.S. transportation needs? Yes. The U.S. electric grid has enough excess capacity to power 73 percent of the nation’s light vehicles. Energy providers are already putting plans and smart meters in place to manage demand from plug-in vehicles and use grid resources more efficiently.

Breaking the U.S. addiction to foreign oil won’t happen overnight, but the costs are too great and the national security risks are too high to maintain the status quo. Reducing U.S. reliance on oil and building our economy on secure and domestic energy resources are the critical challenges of our day.

As I mentioned in last week’s post, the 2011 EDTA Action Plan, Driving Forward: an Action Plan for the Electric Drive Era, details what Congress and the Administration need to do to meet those challenges. The federal government needs to support public/private partnerships that help the U.S. lead in electric drive technology development and manufacturing. Further, public investments that reinforce state and regional deployment of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure will speed the commercial scale adoption of these vehicles.

In addition to advancing state and local efforts, the federal government can also make it easier for consumers and businesses to buy electric drive vehicles and install charging infrastructure. Allowing more consumers to realize the benefit of the tax credit at the time of purchase will speed these vehicles onto the roads. It is also important to ensure that the current credit for recharging infrastructure is extended beyond the end of this year.

Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle agree that electric drive transportation is a key to meeting those challenges. Now they need to work together to implement the policies that will speed the adoption of electric drive and, finally, end our dependence on imported oil.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”

It was déjà vu all over again. President G.W. Bush, in his 2006 State of the Union Address, prophesied that cellulosic biofuel (motor fuel derived from wood chips, prairie grasses, and other fibrous plant material) would be “practical and competitive within six years.” Well, it’s now six years later. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects cellulosic biofuel production in 2011 to max out at 3.94 million gallons – about 1.6% of the 250 million gallons Congress mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

Obama’s speech was also reminiscent of Bush’s 2003 SOTU, which announced the Freedom Car and Hydrogen Fuel initiatives. Those programs too were supposed to begin transforming the U.S. transport sector by 2015. Who talks about “hydrogen highways” today?

Pundits have been proclaiming the imminent triumph of electric vehicles since 1901. As energy journalist Robert Bryce puts it, “Electric cars are the next big thing. And they always will be.” Well, “always” is a long time. Let’s just say that electric vehicles (EVs) won’t be economical for at least another decade.

Boston Consulting Group compared the total consumer cost of owning EVs, gasoline-powered cars, diesel-powered cars, and hybrids in Germany, a country with high gasoline taxes. The biggest obstacle to commercializing EVs is the cost of the batteries that propel them. Even if the batteries drop from their current cost of about $2,000 per kilowatt hour (kWh) to $700 per kWh in 2020, as many experts expect, “a 20 kWh battery, which is needed for a driving range of 80 miles (about 130 kilometers) would still cost $14,000.” The bottom line for consumers: Even if the batteries cost 65% less than they do today, the five-year fuel savings would not offset the additional up-front cost unless crude oil prices hit $280 per barrel — twice as high as their record peak in 2008.

An additional roadblock to commercialization is the EV’s limited range. A motorist who wants to drive, say, another 80 miles after the battery runs down must plug in and recharge for several hours. Pain at the pump is unpleasant but at least it’s quick. To be fully competitive, EVs must not only be cheaper than they are today, they must also go farther.

Of course, as columnist George Will observes, politicians can always “bribe” Peter to buy an EV with Paul’s money. Buyers currently qualify for a tax credit of up to $7,500 covering the first 200,000 EVs sold. Two Michigan representatives, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin and Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, propose to expand the credit to cover 500,000 EVs. Are they tone deaf? Levin and Rogers are asking Congress to approve a $3.75 billion hit to the Treasury in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Their proposal is also regressive, transferring wealth from poorer to richer households, since most EV buyers are affluent early adopters.

A million EVs on the road may sound like a lot, but it is actually just 1/240th of total registered passenger cars, SUVs, pickups, and vans in the United States. Thus, Obama’s initiative would not make us safer even if energy security is the number one policy challenge facing America. Obama’s program has even less value if energy security concerns are overblown, as Cato Institute analysts Jerry Taylor and Peter van Doren argue.

What about saving the planet? That once was a big selling point for EVs. Then came Climategate, the death of cap-and-trade, and some very able critiques of Al Gore’s “planetary emergency.”

But even if climate change is your top priority, EVs are only as “green” as the power source they plug into. China, which has the fastest-growing automobile market in the world, generates about 80% of its electricity from coal. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and Tsinghua University, using a life-cycle (wells-to-wheels) analysis, found that, depending on the region, replacing a gasoline-powered car with an electric car in China could increase emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 7.3%, sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 300%-1000%, and nitrogen oxides (NOX) by 100%.

Electric cars may someday become practical and economical for most U.S. households. However, that day is still a long way off. The EV’s triumph is not in our foreseeable future.

It's difficult to imagine that we are still having a conversation about whether we can continue our present game – ever higher dependence on ever more expensive imported oil. Outside the United States the business pages are full of anxiety about commodity prices, with oil leading the charge. The rest of the world sees that the game is up. Europe and the US, the two largest economic sectors in the world, are still in recession -- yet oil has again hit $100 barrel, food prices are at an all time high, inflation is destabiliziing regimes and governments from Tunisia to India. the game is up.

How good an alternative are electric cars? Hmmm, let's see. Right now, with today's battery technology, only 70% of our current passenger miles can be easily run off the grid. Yes, 70% of passenger travel is less than 40 miles from home over a day, which means that a pure battery vehicle can handle that driving range. For longer trips, a family still does still need a plug-in hybrid. So if every two car family had one pure electric, and one plug -- America would no longer need imported oil to meets its gasoline needs. We'd be saving about $200 billion a year on oil imports -- that's the economic equivalent of three of Barack Obama's stimulus packages firing up our economy every year -- only this stimulus isn't paid for by the taxpayers, but by the Saudis.

Since reducing demand would cause oil prices to fall, the drag on the world economy currently posed by Peak Oil would vanish -- and if we led the way to vehicle electrification, we can now see with our own eyes that China and India will give us stiff competition, because they have to import even more of their oil than we do. It's still a challenge to replace oil in planes, so advanced biofuels still need to be on our agenda. But there simply can't be any doubt -- getting our cars off the pump and onto the grid is probably the single biggest solution to America's problems anyone has devised.

Got an extra $1.9 trillion to spare?

That’s nearly what it would cost American taxpayers if the owners of all the approximately 250 million passenger vehicles in our nation received the $7,500 per vehicle federal income tax credit that now goes to buyers of electric cars.

Then let’s say the owners of half those 250 million vehicles got the existing $2,000 tax credit for installing a home charging station for their vehicles – add another $250 billion to the national tax bill to pay for that.

At this time of crippling national deficits, a growing national debt, and big cuts in the federal budget, no one can seriously consider providing federal funds in such astronomical amounts to fund massive electric vehicle subsidies.

But we’ve only just begun to figure out the costs of converting our cars, SUVs and pickup trucks to an all-electric fleet.

Charging stations – no doubt requiring additional federal taxpayer subsidies – would gobble up uncounted more billions out of your pocket.

Rare-earth minerals – an essential ingredient for electric vehicle batteries and motors – would inevitably rise in price in response to soaring demand. Since China produces more than 90 percent of these minerals, auto companies would need to spend billions of American dollars buying all the rare-earth minerals they could get if the majority of U.S. passenger vehicles ran on electricity.

The demand for rare-earth minerals for electric vehicles would certainly create shortages and price rises for the makers of other products that require rare-earth minerals – including wind-power turbines, solar panels, mobile phones, digital cameras, energy-efficient light bulbs, fiber optics, and products used by our military for our national defense.

All this would no doubt prompt commentators to bemoan our “addiction” and “dependence” on foreign-produced rare earths. And environmentalists would complain about the environmental damage caused by the mining of rare-earth minerals.

“The late paramount leader of China, Deng Xiaoping, once said that rare earths would be to China what oil was to the Middle East,” Michael Richardson wrote last year in a report for the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. “Now policymakers and corporate leaders in the United States, Japan, Europe and other advanced economies watch with mounting concern as China exerts market dominance by restricting exports and driving prices higher.”

And as they say on late-night commercials: But wait, there’s more…

About half of the electricity in the United States is generated by coal. Coal produces more greenhouse gases and other emissions than petroleum – meaning that cars powered by coal-generated electricity would worsen greenhouse gas emissions if they replaced cars powered by gasoline.

Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases and generates about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. But many environmentalists and others complain about the environmental impact of nuclear plants, worry about finding disposal sites for radioactive waste, and raise concerns about terrorist attacks.

And our nation is a very, very long way off from generating large quantities of electricity from the sun, the wind and the waves.

Another problem facing electric vehicles is range. They simply can’t go far enough, and charging isn’t fast enough or available enough, to make long trips feasible.

For all of the above reasons, gasoline-powered vehicles – getting better and better mileage and having less and less of an impact on our environment as the years go by – will be with us for many decades to come.

The sensible course for the U.S. government to reduce our reliance on oil from areas of the world that are unstable or unfriendly is to allow more exploration and more production of oil in our nation and off our shores. And at the same time, the State Department should approve the Keystone XL pipeline project to bring more oil to the United States from our friend and neighbor Canada.

No one can say what the future will bring for electric vehicles. If technological advances allow automakers to produce such vehicles with lower prices, faster charging times, and greater ranges – and if a charging infrastructure is built – electric vehicles may have a bright future. But those are a lot of “ifs” and many obstacles remain.

One thing is for certain: American taxpayers can’t be expected to pay trillions of dollars more in taxes over the years to subsidize the electric vehicle industry.

Electric vehicles should compete for the dollars of the car-buying public on a level playing field, without being supported by taxpayer subsidies and mandates.

This kind of free-market competition is what made America a prosperous economic powerhouse of innovation and a world leader. Let’s use it to determine which vehicles Americans will be driving in the years ahead.

Electric vehicles -- all electric and plug-ins -- can play a role (perhaps an increasingly important one) in meeting our future transportation needs. They are not, however, a silver bullet. And pushing too hard, too fast could result in a setback for the technology needed for them to be commercially competitive. Isn’t that what happened with GM’s EV-1?

Today, Americans drive over 250 million light duty vehicles -- including a large number of SUVs and full-size vehicles. With sales of new vehicles now running about 11 million units per year, replacing all or a large fraction of today’s fleet is going to take a very long time. Even if new vehicle sales get back to 15 million units, the replacement time is still a long way off.

Vehicles are generally designed to meet the mobility needs of a mobile society. In the case of the electric vehicles, they are designed to meet another need first: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil use. So the first question is what segment of the population is going to be attracted to small, high priced vehicles? A recent study by DOE concludes that President Obama’s 2015 goal of 1 million electric vehicles is technically possible but incredibly challenging. Reading between the lines, it is a very big challenge.

The Leaf and Volt are expensive small cars that are not suited for most suburban and rural drivers or families. The Volt costs almost twice as much as its gasoline equivalent the Chevy Cruze. It’s battery pack alone costs $18,000, and the National Academy of Sciences does not see any near term prospects for significant reductions in battery costs. Given that reality, electric vehicles survive through the benevolence of federal subsidies and purchasing decisions of the Federal Government.

That does not strike me as sound public policy, especially when we are confronted with a debt and deficit challenge that will hamper our economy for years to come. We need to scale back subsidies; not maintain them.

The George C. Marshall Institute recently published a paper titled “Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time<http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf>” that goes into more detail about the challenges that have to be over come before electric vehicles can be cost-effective alternatives to gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.

In its most recent energy outlook, the Energy Information Administration projects dependence on imports will decline over the next two decades and the consumption of oil will essentially remain flat. We can make further reductions in imports from unreliable sources by producing more of our own oil.

If we had adopted a sound and economically rational energy policy a decade or two ago, we could probably be producing 2 million or more barrels of oil than we do today. That would take a big bite out of the import reliance that some find so troubling. Ideology has stood in the way of what is in the best economic interests of our nation. Emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles have been declining for years and with the new CAFE standard will decline even more.

Concern over greenhouse gases is just the latest objection to gasoline-powered vehicles and personal mobility. And it is a concern that rests on a weak foundation. Since the primary concern is carbon dioxide emissions, there are more cost-effective ways to achieve greater reductions than pushing a technology that is not yet commercially viable. Further and in spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the evidence that human activities are causing climate change is not compelling. As climatologist Roy Spencer has recently documented the key variable is feedback and there is no compelling evidence that it is positive.