In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush declared that America was addicted to oil. He was not alone in this view, because presidents, national security experts, economists, and others have asserted the same. Dependence on foreign oil requires our military to protect oil shipping routes, forces us to deal with regimes that may not share our national security interests, and has cost the U.S. economy more than $5 trillion on expenditures for foreign oil and related GDP reductions since the 1970s, according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. One way to reduce this dependence is to deploy vehicles that are powered in other ways. Developing and producing advanced-technology vehicles will help the United States maintain leadership in the global clean energy race and enhance its national security.

The transportation sector accounts for 70 percent of petroleum consumed in the United States and provides significant opportunities to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Close attention has been paid to the progress of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), including hybrid electric vehicles, in the United States, and we believe the future remains bright despite some challenges endemic with any emerging technology. More than 1,270 electric drive vehicles are sold daily in the United States, according to the Electric Drive Transportation Association. Worldwide, the number of vehicles is expected to increase from 700 million to more than 2 billion by 2050, and the annual global market for advanced batteries could reach $100 billion by 2030, according to Pike Research, a leading market research firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean energy technology markets.

Currently, the United States leads in PEV manufacture and deployment: The Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf are produced and sold domestically, and the United States has higher sales of electric drive vehicles than other nations, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. But if America wants to seize the opportunity presented by this growing market, it must do more.

Pew’s research indicates that for the United States to compete effectively in the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and reduce dependence on foreign oil, we must adopt national policies that will spur private investment in technologies such as PEVs. In the growing domestic PEV sector, cities, states, utilities, and manufacturers are working together to develop local policies to spur greater adoption of plug-in vehicles and charging infrastructure. But national policies are needed to support the development of local markets and provide incentives for consumers to purchase these vehicles. As with airplanes and semiconductors, federal policy should also lead by example through expanded procurement activities such as adding electric vehicles to the fleet of government cars.

Public investment in clean energy research and development, especially advanced batteries and related components, is necessary to ensure that American entrepreneurs continue to turn out the best technologies in this growing sector. Countries such as China, Japan, France, and Korea are dedicating billions to advances in battery technologies in order to lower PEV costs over the long term and take the lead in manufacturing. They are also using incentives to spur private-sector innovation and create consumer demand.

Under President Bush, temporary purchase incentives were adopted, and the current administration continued to expand opportunities for PEV deployment at the federal, state and local levels. Both administrations saw promise and invested in developing advanced battery technologies. These targeted public investments in battery technology development helped secure additional private sector investment in the projects as well.

Policy matters. With fierce competition from abroad now is not the time for America to relinquish its lead in advanced battery innovation and the manufacture of electric vehicles. Simply put, the United States should continue to support electric vehicle and technology innovation, because the economic and national security benefits of cleaner vehicles powered by affordable domestic electricity – rather than foreign oil – are too significant to ignore.

(These comments were submitted by Joe Barrett, senior director of marketing at Qualcomm's Halo, a wireless EV charging technology.)

How we generate, distribute, control and consume energy over the next 25 years will fundamentally change; that change should lead to a healthier and less polluted environment as the electrification of transportation systems and infrastructure accelerates.

The future is about smart energy, smart energy control and smart energy distribution and consumption. Electric vehicles (EV) are one cornerstone of the energy revolution as the urbanization of the global population approaches 5 billion people.[1]

The strain on transport infrastructure and increase in energy consumption is already leading to high PM2.5 levels in cities and with potential fines of up to €10m per year,[2] governments and local municipalities are seeking ways to comply with mandated airborne pollution limits.

The good news is that there are now multiple automotive companies investing heavily in electric vehicles and an increasing stable of vehicles, many with revolutionary designs. We have EVs available now, some coming to market, planned for release or in concept.

The motorsports industry has also woken up to the EV drive train potential with the realization that even a basic electric motor can outperform a comparable internal combustion engine. The visionary development of the Lola-Drayson B12/69EV by Drayson Racing Technologies, led by Lord Paul Drayson, is testament to the direction that racing is moving. High performance motorsport EV designs and technologies will filter down into production models and spur the adoption of EVs with the general public.

Qualcomm has been working with DRT to wirelessly charge the B12, (there is no plug-in cable on the car), and the 20kW Qualcomm Halo^TM technology worked flawlessly during timed trials at the recent Goodwood Festival of Speed. DRT are promoting Qualcomm Halo Wireless EV Charging (WEVC) into motorsports and share Qualcomm’s vision of EV racing where racetracks have wireless charging embedded in the circuit so racecars can be charged ‘dynamically’ while racing. This is likely to produce interesting race tactics and make racing strategy more interesting for spectators.

Dynamic charging in our roads is some time into the future but in the next few years, wireless charging has the potential to make EV charging effortless for drivers and could even reduce the size of the EV battery needed as drivers would charge little and often, negating the need for a large, heavy and costly battery pack.

While EVs are not new, the “re-birth” of EVs has so far been slow to gain traction. This should be expected. New technologies take time to mature and satisfy consumer demand. Consider how mobile phones and networks have developed from the bulky cumbersome devices with the limited service coverage of the 1980’s.

Qualcomm is proving the technology and commercialization of WEVC with companies like DRT and also via trials. London will be the location of a wireless charging trial commencing before the end of 2012 with up to 50 vehicles participating and wireless charging bays installed around the city.

This is all part of a long term commitment by Qualcomm to work with visionary partners like DRT who have the foresight to recognize action is needed now to start the transition to alternative forms of transportation and energy consumption. Our children will look back in years to come and thank us for this vision.

[1] World Health Organization - http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/4/10-010410/en/

[2] European Environment Agency

(These comments were submitted by Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resource Defense Council.)

In life, perspective is everything.

Consider auto sales. Instead of looking at the sales of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as a percentage of the total auto sales, the focus should be on the incredible growth in sales this year in this sector.

In the first nine months of 2012, electric vehicle sales increased an astounding 178 percent in the United States over the first nine months of 2011 and conventional hybrid sales increased almost 70 percent for the same period.

The number of electric and plug-in hybrid electric models available on the market increased in 2012 by 10 and about 15 more models are expected in 2013. The increase in sales, available models and the innovative technological achievements in the U.S. auto industry, which not only advance hybrid and electric vehicles but are also being applied widely to advance fuel economy of traditional combustion engine passenger vehicles, were made possible with the support of the United States government.

Thought the focus of the A123 Systems bankruptcy has been largely negative, there is a positive side of the story. The same day the bankruptcy was announced, A123 also announced it was selling its automotive business to Johnson Controls, another U.S. company. Therefore, all of the A123 automotive technology, products, customer contracts and its two Michigan factories will stay in the U.S.

So while A123 Systems’ bankruptcy is a setback to the American advanced battery industry, it is a small setback in the long run, as workers’ jobs will be preserved for the near term, and A123’s technologies will be further developed by Johnson Controls to power current and future vehicles. Clean energy manufacturing has bipartisan support because the American public intuitively understands that government support is necessary to building a competitive clean energy economy.

The advantages inherent to driving an electric vehicle will attract drivers who are tired of high gas prices due to increase in global demand, which can spike every time there is violence in the Middle East, a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or a fire at a refinery in California. They'll turn to electricity, a cleaner fuel made from a diverse supply of domestic resources, the price of which has been equivalent to dollar-a-gallon gasoline for the last forty years, and is predicted to stay that way for the next three decades.

With regards to expansion of charging stations as it relates to sales of electric vehicles, a combination of public and private investment has and will continue to be key. However, the chicken-and-egg characterization is a misnomer. The U.S. does not need to replicate the existing gas station network - we already have a much more extensive infrastructure network, the electrical grid. The electric grid brings fuel into everyone’s home, enabling consumers the convenience of refueling at home. And since the average commute is about 15 miles each way, the vast majority of driving needs can be met with home refueling.

The government should continue to offer incentives to consumers who choose to purchase clean, green electric vehicles and to companies who install charging stations in an effort to support expansion of EV sales. But, as with any new technology, it takes time to reach critical mass. When first introduced, cell phones were more rare than California Condors, but now they're more like pigeons -- everywhere.

As consumers become more familiar with the technology, see more models enter the market and see prices continue to go down, they will move to electric vehicles. Survey after survey shows fuel efficiency is key to auto purchases and electrics are the best out there for fuel efficiency. With the power of the pocketbook and the fact that electric vehicles can cut carbon pollution in half, we expect to see the growth continue.

We shouldn’t be discouraged about the future of electric vehicles because some early movers are not meeting expectations.

The recent decision by advanced battery maker A123 Systems to seek bankruptcy protection is evidence the company made missteps and perhaps grew faster than it could handle, which is not unusual in high tech. But having a veteran auto industry supplier like Johnson Controls move to acquire A123’s auto battery business sends a strong signal to the market that the technology has long-term viability.

We also shouldn’t lose sight of the transformative opportunity these vehicles present by focusing on the early bumps in the road. The development and introduction of these vehicles will benefit both the economy and the environment by using energy more efficiently. Electric cars also hold great potential to wean us off oil and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

A car is the second most expensive purchase many of us will ever make, so we won’t move to entirely new propulsion systems such as electric drive powered by fuel cells or batteries overnight.

We must allow more time for the public and private investments we’ve already made to bear fruit. Early investments by Toyota and others in hybrid-electric drivetrains have paid dividends as automakers distribute this technology across their product line. The same will happen with plug-in electric cars.

Ultimately, market forces must drive sales of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). But for now, public policy plays a critical role.

Washington has already done a lot to support the electric vehicle industry, including tax incentives, loans, and extensive use of the bully pulpit. The new 2025 fuel economy standards are also driving investment in vehicle efficiency technology. But it’s not practical to expect much additional public investment given competing priorities.

To help define the respective roles of government, business and consumers, we convened the PEV Dialogue Group, a group of public and private experts whose recent Action Plan lays out a number of ways to facilitate a real national electric car market. We’re now working with officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia to implement the group’s recommendations.

At the federal level, the group recommends keeping the existing vehicle tax credit, which is essential despite what others have been saying. A vehicle tax credit helped grow sales of hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, by nearly 70 percent from 2005 to 2007, and has helped electric cars sell at twice the rate as hybrids when they were at this stage in their history. Policymakers should consider making the credit a direct rebate to encourage government- or nonprofit-operated fleets to switch to electric cars.

As laid out in our Action Plan, electric utilities, other businesses, all levels of government, and NGOs need to work together to make this happen. Most of the steps recommended by the group can be taken outside Washington, at the state and local level. These include:

· Facilitate regulatory reform, such as rules that encourage drivers to charge when power is cheapest to produce. The existing electrical grid can support millions of electric cars so long as drivers charge when demand is low, which is also when electricity is cheapest to produce.

· Establish and share best practices. Across the country, groups of all kinds have been facilitating the introduction of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure in new markets by establishing codes and standards and educating consumers. We should collect and share what is being learned to create a consistent and compatible market for these vehicles in all 50 states.

· Optimize deployment of charging infrastructure. The PEV Action Plan addresses the “chicken-and-egg problem” of coordinating the expansion of vehicles and charging infrastructure. But this is much less challenging for electric vehicles than, for example, for hydrogen vehicles since charging at home is relatively straightforward. Existing research and experience indicates a dense, publicly funded infrastructure is not needed to spur vehicle sales. However, home charging, including for those who rely on street parking, is essential. The PEV Action plan includes simple measures, such as having dealers notify electric utilities when new electric vehicles are purchased in their service territories.

Electric cars have suffered from hype from all sides. Automakers, government, and the media touted these cars as a panacea for a struggling domestic auto industry. The true role for electric vehicles is to help us move down the road toward a sustainable transportation system.

Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been, and continue to be, held back by a myriad of forces which oppose expending resources, at this time, to further research and develop the technological innovations needed to expand the appeal and utility of EVs to the average consumer. Greater realization of America’s oil dependency crisis – and the key role that EVs can play in solving it – can help generate the consumer and political support needed to quicken our pace towards widespread deployment of EVs.

When viewed through the prism of energy security, the electric vehicle debate shifts. While there are many different reasons for supporting EVs, protecting America’s security is a goal which demands a national solution and national action. As is the case with every matter of national security, there is an expectation for action to secure our nation and our interests. Stepping aside and hoping that the problem will solve itself or evolve on its own would be irresponsible.

Over the past week, some of the criticism of individual companies and specific government policies has missed the larger point at stake when it comes to electric vehicles. Simply put, America’s near-exclusive reliance on oil to fuel our transportation sector – which accounts for 70% of total oil use – harms our nation. Our reliance on other oil producing nations – many of which do not share our values or interests – and our need to ensure supply flow distorts foreign policy and military priorities. Moreover, our economy is placed at the mercy of price volatility. Every American recession for almost forty years has been preceded by, or occurred concurrently with, an oil price spike.

Electric vehicles can help America achieve energy security by diversifying our fuel supply and drastically reducing the amount of oil consumed each day by our transportation sector. That is the overarching national security imperative which can break the EV impasse.

As we move forward, and as support coalesces around the need to achieve energy security, we need to realize that widespread EV use simply cannot occur overnight, and set goals and expectations accordingly. While EV sales have been better than commonly charged – and far stronger than those of other alternative fuel vehicles this soon after their introduction into the market – we will only see these numbers jump once a seamless system is developed. This takes time. Simultaneous education efforts are also important. A recent IBM study showed that 60% of consumers who self-identified as relatively knowledgeable about EVs still thought that operating costs for EVs would be equal to or greater than the operating cost of a gasoline vehicle. Better consumer awareness and understanding, combined with system improvements, will be necessary in building sustainable momentum towards EVs.

Sales of electric cars tripled during their second year on the market. They are far outperforming the sales of hybrids during their own second year on the market, back in 2001. The most popular electric-drive vehicle, the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, is outselling half of all cars on the market today. Meanwhile, 28 of the 30 electric-drive firms that received stimulus funding continue to deliver in their original incarnations, while the other two—including A123—will still have a chance to thrive under new management.

In other words, electric cars are charging forward. Impressions otherwise are a symptom of unrealistic expectations that the technology was somehow going to save the world overnight or are attempts to use the challenges of bringing electric cars to the market as a political cudgel.

A tripling in electric vehicle sales in one year is very encouraging. It means a lot more batteries are being made, which will help drive down costs. It means more people are saving money on gas while becoming familiar with the new technology. It also means we’re getting the chance to find and work out the kinks.

It was never going to be easy for electric vehicles. They face real barriers trying to enter into a market that has been dominated by the internal combustion engine for 100 years. Right or wrong, a stigma has been created about range anxiety, there’s not enough workplace charging infrastructure out there yet, some manufacturers aren’t doing the best job marketing their electric vehicles, consumers in key markets are having a hard time getting access to low electricity rates for nighttime charging, and costs still need to come down further. And if that were not enough, there has been negative publicity driven by politics, limited vehicle availability from some automakers, and a tough economy.

This was always going to be a marathon, not a sprint. It was always going to take serious investment and commitment from automakers, government, and enthusiastic consumers. And there was always going to be a mix of progress and challenges along the way.

If there is a fundamental problem here, it is a hyper-polarized approach to America’s energy and climate future. Under that approach, hype ends up outweighing realistic expectations in the chase for monetary and political support, while detractors declare failure if the new technology is not running away with the race by mile-marker number one.

Instead, we need to keep our eyes on the prize. We’re talking about a technology that doesn’t have to use oil and can save consumers $10,000 to $20,000 on fuel over its life, depending on electricity and gas prices. We’re talking about evolving to a vehicle that can dramatically cut global warming emissions , help us cut oil use in half in 20 years, and establish the United States as a global leader in transportation technology.

Realistically, it is going to take at least a decade (and possibly more) for the electric vehicle market to shake out, especially with the upcoming entry of fuel cell electric vehicles. I’d consider a national electric vehicle sales share of 3-5 percent in 10 years to be a huge success. We need to play the long game here and invest in our future, despite what the critics may say.

If we fail to make a serious and sustained investment in electric cars, China is more than happy to take yet another energy-saving U.S. technology and sell it back to us for a profit. Given the challenges our nation faces, our greatest investment risk comes not from taking chances on promising new technologies and companies, but from not investing boldly enough.

The new electric vehicle technology is intriguing and many people are interested in how it can be applied in our transportation network. However,an obsession with any technology - particularly EVs over virtually all other light duty fuel sources -- is flawed and will cost taxpayer billions of dollars with no guarantees for return on that investment.

If the goal is to promote high mileage, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles then EVs are certainly part of the solution. But EVs are not the only solution. The answer will be a unique mix of diesel hybrids, clean diesels, gasoline hybrids, natural gas, hydrogen and electric vehicles. All of these advanced technologies are the result of the best American and international research and development and all will play a key role in achieving America’s 54.5 mpg efficiency standards.

While EVs are receiving a significant amount of attention, it’s important to note that clean diesel technology is actually quite new too. The new cleaner more efficient engines, the turbocharged engines, the diesel-electric hybrids, and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel have significantly improved the efficiency of new diesel cars while reducing emissions by over 90 percent. Remember, diesel cars are already 20 to 40 more efficient than gasoline cars so the turbocharging and hydrid additions to diesel technology are revolutionizing the diesel market.

We all know that some policymakers in California and Washington think that EVs are the future of energy efficient vehicles; the panacea. But what do energy officials, automakers and the public think?

In August, the National Petroleum Council issued its report to the U.S. Department of Energy on the future of alternative fuel vehicles in the U.S. The Council highlighted the difficult and long road ahead for alternatives like natural gas and EVS stating: “Deployment of a new fuel infrastructure is a significant hurdle to the adoption of new fuel-vehicle systems. It could cost tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to provide similar alternative fuel availability as the current gasoline infrastructure and will take decades to fully deploy. Some fuels also require advances in supply-chain infrastructure technology to aid deployment. Specifically, advanced biofuels must overcome technology hurdles related to fuel manufacturing, and hydrogen must overcome technology hurdles related to dispensing infrastructure.”

In Europe, more than half of all new cars are clean diesels. In some countries like Ireland and France, it’s 60 to 70 percent. Virtually every automaker, from Toyota to GM, has diesel models for sale around the world - in Europe, India, China and Australia. In the U.S. the number of diesels is around three percent if you combine diesel cars with light duty trucks. But today’s clean diesels are not the same as those Americans saw in the 1970s and 1980s. Today’s diesels are fast, efficient, and clean. Europe has experienced this evolution and the U.S. is just beginning a renewal of diesel growth.

Today, there are about 20 clean diesel autos and light duty trucks available in the U.S. but the number of clean diesels will almost double in the next 18 months. Clean diesel cars are at the beginning of a diesel renaissance in America. A recent Pike Research study projects that growth of diesel light duty vehicles will be especially strong in North America, with annual sales expected to increase from 282,000 vehicles in 2012 to 928,000 by 2018.

The current generation of EVs is relatively new so it has to resolve many of the same issues other technologies faced in their early years. EV’s cost significantly more than clean diesel cars. There is an extremely limited infrastructure for EVs to recharge away from home. You can refuel a diesel car in a few minutes while many EVs need several hours to recharge. And because of the limited battery charge and infrastructure, EVs often have a limited range. You can drive a 2013 Volkswagen Passat TDI clean diesel from Washington, D.C. to Chicago (700 miles) on a single tank of diesel.

However, I do believe EVs have a positive future in the U.S. In order to reach the new fuel efficiency standards I think most automakers will offer a wide variety of autos – clean diesels, diesel hybrids, EVs, gasoline hybrids, natural gas and hydrogen. There is no one magic technology.

With DUGGAN FLANAKIN

Why is the market now dead for the award-winning Chevy Volt and its cousin, the Nissan Leaf? The answer is simple: battery life and battery cost.

As one observer put it, the 1902 Studebaker got 40 miles to a charge, and today's Chevy Volt can go maybe 50 miles before its much more expensive batteries run out of juice. Who wants a car that dies on the freeway in rush-hour traffic in the dead of winter or a hot summer day? Who wants to have to stop every 50 miles on a 600-mile road trip and wait around for a recharge?

Back in January 2011, President Obama announced a multi-billion-dollar campaign to put a million electric vehicles on U.S. highways by 2015. And why not? He had the backing of the government-owned General Motors that signed on board with promises to build half a million Chevy Volts, at least according to Energy Department projections.

Less than 2 years later, however, the great green hope has turned bankruptcy red. Six of the 11 plug-in electric cars have either gone out of business, stopped production or had not made their first delivery as of June 2012. Even the heralded Chevy Volt factory has had two major production stoppages already. As of last week, plug-in electric cars accounted for just 0.1 percent of U.S. sales (and an even more miniscule segment of vehicles on the road) -- almost all of them either Volts or Nissan Leafs, both of which are heavily subsidized and still far too pricey for most consumers.

The real story is that the American motorist expects a vehicle that will "go" on demand, perhaps with a 10-minute stop at a filling station that might include a bathroom break and the purchase of sodas and snacks. Hybrid vehicles like the Honda Prius meet those demands, and as a result hybrids -- admittedly thanks in part to subsidies and in part to a widespread desire to be "environmentally conscious" -- have sold fairly well in comparison.

The big push for all-electric cars sadly came long before the emergence of batteries and fast-charge stations that meet those standards, and without even a thought as to how to make such vehicles affordable for the working class. Industry analyst Tom Libby told CNN Money that, before plug-in car sales take off either the price of gasoline will have to "skyrocket" or the cost of electric car batteries -- the vehicle's most expensive component -- will have to fall dramatically.

Therein lies the rub. The Obama Administration thought it could create demand through massive subsidies on both the production and consumption ends -- even when selling an inferior product. The President might have done better by offering a prize to private companies for creating a usable auto battery that can take a fully loaded five-passenger vehicle 250 miles and recharge in 10 to 15 minutes.

Instead, taxpayers have forked over billions to failing companies like ENER1, A123 Systems and LG Chem to pump out expensive batteries that are effectively little better than those that powered the 1902 Studebaker electric vehicle. Without massive subsidies, of course, these plants would have never started up. It is subsidies and tax credits that have kept companies like LG on life support. Not only did LG get a $151 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department, the state of Michigan kicked in a $25.2 million job creation tax credit over 15 years and a battery cell tax credit worth $100 million over 4 years -- both tied to job creation. And the host city of Holland chipped in another $48.5 million property tax exemption over 15 years provided LG reaches 300 employees within 5 years. Despite these hefty hand outs, though, things are not working out. As always, the market is the final determiner of success. It is reported that LG employees, instead of making batteries, now "have so little work to do that they spend hours playing cards and board games, reading magazines or watching movies."

What should be obvious is that the government needs to limit its role in the free market and refrain from picking “winners and losers.” Policies and laws designed to manipulate market forces are likely to be no more successful than President Nixon's wage and price controls. President George W. Bush's observation that sometimes you have to "abandon free-market principles to save the free-market system" has also proven to be fatally flawed. When the government imposes demands on an industry to require a sophisticated technology that does not even exist, we shouldn’t be surprised at failure. Time will tell if when in Washington learns this lesson.

Electric cars are proving that the most difficult step when introducing any new technology—and electric cars certainly qualify as a new technology—is moving from the early-adopter stage to the mass-market stage. However, the transition to electric cars and trucks will pick up speed as consumers realize the benefits of electricity as a transportation fuel from firsthand experience. Electric vehicles also offer great performance and handling, providing plenty of appeal to all consumers, from the average driver to the automobile enthusiast.

As a fuel source for cars and trucks, electricity offers benefits for both drivers and our nation. Electric cars are far cheaper to operate. The cost of fueling your car with electricity is roughly the equivalent of paying just $1 per gallon of gasoline.

Nearly 90 percent of electric car drivers report that they’re charging at home. While increasing public charging infrastructure is important, it’s not quite the chicken-and-egg situation posed in the question. Of course, those driving plug-in hybrid electric vehicles may not need public charging at all. Similarly, most consumers drive relatively short distances each day, so charging at home can meet many drivers’ daily needs.

When evaluated as a fuel source for greater transportation use, electricity has many advantages over gasoline. It strengthens our national security because electricity is generated by a diverse mix of local fuel sources. While 70 percent of the petroleum used in the United States goes to the transportation sector, less than one percent goes toward generating electricity.

Electric cars and trucks reduce auto carbon emissions by one-third to one-half as well—even when powered by coal or natural gas power plants. No tailpipe emissions mean better air quality wherever these vehicles travel.
The reality is that electric cars are selling. In fact, they’re doing as well or even better than other first-generation vehicle technology. For example, Chevy Volt sales numbers are similar to those of the Toyota Prius when it first came out. The Volt also has sold more than 16,000 cars this year, a 320-percent increase over the same period last year. With more time, the incremental cost of EVs will come down, as with any new technology.

The nation’s electric utilities have a pivotal role to play in supporting this new electric technology, and we’re ready for it. We’re collaborating with state and local governments and others to make sure that infrastructure is in place to support them. We’re identifying and targeting 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 so that we know when and where electric cars are being purchased to inform charging stations installation. Most neighborhood pole-top transformers easily can handle the load of multiple electric cars before needing upgrading, a task that is fairly routine and was undertaken on a wide scale when central air conditioning was adopted.

Electric utilities also are transitioning their fleets to electric drive vehicles, and working with standards development organizations on electrical and building codes that will facilitate the safe and effective use of charging infrastructure. Our efforts to modernize the country’s power grid with two-way technologies and digital ‘smart’ meters will help drive the new technology as well, by making possible smart electric rates that offer discounts for charging when grid demand is at its lowest.

Electric utilities believe the future is bright for electric cars. With benefits that range from energy security to consumer savings, they’re truly a game-changing new technology.

Simply put, what’s holding back electric cars is a lack of demand. The Chevy Volt has been a marketing bomb, despite the $7500 Federal income tax credit, and the Nissan Leaf has racked up fewer than 12,000 sales worldwide this year—suggesting it’s not just Americans who are generally uninterested in electric vehicles.

Here again, we have another example of government policymakers betting taxpayer dollars on an unproven technology without doing any meaningful market or cost analysis. For example, in 2010 Nissan received a $1.4 billion loan from the Department of Energy to help it install enough capacity to produce 150,000 electric cars and 200,000 batteries at its Smyrna, Tennessee plant. Even with miniscule sales, Nissan—a huge global corporation—should be able to repay the loan. But that won’t be the case with A123 Systems, a battery manufacturer with a $249 million Federal grant, who filed for bankruptcy last week.

It’s true the average American drives only 29 miles per day. But the average doesn’t matter. Even if I’m taking only one road trip a year, I’m going to drive a vehicle that can cover the distance without subjecting me to “range anxiety.” A high purchase price, even with the tax credit, and concerns about reliability also make the prospects for electric passenger vehicles problematic.

Rather than spending billions on electric cars, the public interest would be better served by investing in the infrastructure to support natural gas powered vehicles. America is awash with natural gas as a result of the shale revolution. Production has become so prolific that prices have dropped 75 percent from their highs a few years ago. Indeed, prices are so low that gas is being flared at well sites and rigs are moving to more productive oil plays.

An energy policy focused on natural gas as a vehicle fuel would represent a sounder investment of taxpayer dollars than electric cars while at the same time reducing America’s oil import bill. Coupled with a push to export liquefied natural gas, prices would then recover to levels that can sustain the shale gas revolution. What’s more, building natural gas vehicles and the requisite fueling infrastructure would create tens of thousands of new domestic jobs, far in excess of the numbers currently supported by electric vehicles.

What role should Washington play to boost the number of electric cars on the road? None.

In this week’s National Journal Energy Experts Blog, former Sierra Club chairman Carl Pope suggests that poor marketing is the biggest obstacle to expanding the electric vehicle (EV) market and that EV companies should take a page out of Apple’s playbook and sell EVs differently than they would gas cars. While new selling-strategies may have marginal short-term benefits, Pope is missing the forest for the trees. Instead of pushing for creative ways to sell a few more expensive EVs, advocates and policymakers should focus on ways to innovate new technologies that make next-generation EVs truly less expensive.

Specifically, Pope argues that the number one barrier to adoption is that auto companies don’t know how to sell EVs. According to his analysis, they shouldn’t try to sell EVs like the gasoline cars they’ve been selling for over half a century, but figure out new, creative ways to sell more expensive and performance limited cars. He uses Apple and the mobile device industry as a model – cell phones often cost over $600 to purchase by themselves, so instead of selling them as is, mobile service companies subsidize the price of cell phones and charge higher monthly service packages on 2-year contracts. Over time, mobile companies recoup their losses (and consumers pay more for cell phone service on net). Auto companies, Pope says, should do the same – sell EVs at a loss (equal to the cost of an equivalent gasoline vehicle) and lock customers into a 5-year contract where they pay a set fuel charge that is priced less than the cost gasoline today.

He also alludes to the real policy change necessary to do this: he wants to re-direct the $7,500 federal EV tax incentive consumers receive for purchasing an EV as a subsidy to auto companies to off-set the upfront loss of selling EVs for a lower price.

It's an interesting proposal, but no matter how creative the purchase agreement, the same problems exist: EVs are not cost and performance competitive with gasoline cars. All Pope’s model does is shift around subsidies and cost premiums. In fact, if the $7,500 subsidy to auto manufacturers was enough to sell more EVs, then why aren’t more consumers buying EVs with the $7,500 tax incentive? Consumers aren’t because the $7,500 incentive isn’t enough to overcome the cost and performance barriers. And doing the same, but through the auto companies, isn’t going to suddenly unlock the EV market. Like ITIF argued recently, “Consumers want vehicles that performance (and cost) like the gas cars they’ve grown accustomed to over the last century.” Until EVs meet these expectations, like better range, durability, and fast refueling options, EVs won’t flourish.

And Pope essentially agrees with this statement. He argues that the second barrier to EV adoption is the “slow development of a critical primary technology – batteries,” or the source of the limited performance and higher costs. Yet Pope doesn’t argue for any particular support for battery development and instead states that propping up higher existing EV sales by subsidizing the auto companies, is the single most important way to speed up battery development.

Unfortunately, this approach won’t produce the types of innovation EVs need. We need significant breakthroughs in battery chemistries and technologies to lower costs to $100/kWh and increase performance. Advanced battery companies are simply not there yet, though they’re making innovative gains. A123 produced an innovative battery that simply wasn’t innovative enough, but was a step in the right direction. Yet developing better batteries requires significant investments in innovation, not producing economies of scale by selling a few more EVs and current-gen batteries. The only way Pope’s assumption holds is if batteries were close to competitiveness and all that was left was lowering production costs. This just isn't the case today.

Ultimately, Pope’s assessment of EV adoption barriers gets some of the pieces right, but he fails to put it all together correctly. Widespread EV adoption is a technology and innovation problem, not a problem with how car salesmen sell EVs. It’s promising that Pope recognizes EV battery technology issues, but it’s going to take more than just supporting today’s technologies to remove cost and performance barriers. His Barrier #2 should actually be Barrier #1 followed by all other technology barriers, like fast charging stations. It’s more useful to get to the heart of the problem and argue for policies that directly impact and accelerate the development of breakthrough batteries and other EV technologies. It’s those breakthroughs that will spark widespread EV adoption.

Washington seems incapable of learning that industrial policy doesn’t work, and the fate of the electric car is tied to the President and Congress attempting to mandate a technology that simply is nowhere near being commercially viable.

In 2009, the President declared that the government would create an “infrastructure of innovation” from its investment of over $2 billion in grants to develop the next generation of cars and trucks and the advanced batteries to power them. Michigan’s Senator Carl Levin in supporting high tech pork went so far as to claim, “Industrial policy was the kiss of death for any proposal. That’s an ideological hang-up we’ve now overcome.” Well, they were both wrong and both simply ignored history.

There has been an abundance of research demonstrating the flaws in the industrial policy model. Over 20 years ago, the Brookings Institution published The Technology Pork Barrel by Roger Noll and Linda Cohen that documented why mandating technology and trying to pick winners in the market place is a fool’s errand. The government is best suited for developing the technology that it needs to carry out its missions. DARPA is often used, and misused, as an example of how to develop commercial technologies. But, DARPA is developing technologies for its principle client, the Department of Defense. It works closely with the armed services in assessing needs and conducting the research to meet them. The commercial market place is too complex to use the DARPA model and the government doesn’t possess the skills to take research from the lab to the market place. Those realities are why the electric car is a flop and why A123 has gone into bankruptcy.

Over the past decade, various groups such as MIT and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have studied the state of battery technology and concluded that it was a long way from being commercially viable. At the time, battery costs were in the range of $1000/Kwh which translated into $12,000-$14,000 or more for a battery to power an electric vehicle. NAS estimated that the Kwh cost would have to drop to about $300 for batteries to be cost competitive. Here is what MIT’s Technology Review had to say about the outlook for batteries.

“The problem, however, is that despite several decades of optimization, lithium-ion batteries are still expensive and limited in performance, and they will probably not get much better. Assembled battery packs for a vehicle like the Volt cost roughly $10,000 and deliver about 40 miles before an internal-combustion engine kicks in to extend the charge. The battery for the Leaf costs about $15,000 (according to estimates from the Department of Energy) and delivers about 70 miles of driving, depending on various conditions. According to an analysis by the National Academy of Sciences, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a 40-mile electric range are ‘unlikely’ to be cost competitive with conventional cars before 2040, assuming gasoline prices of $4 per gallon.”

In spite of assessments like this, the Obama Administration has used pork and politics to get manufacturers to make cars that few want. Whether it is the Volt, Leaf, or Fisker Karma, the average buyer doesn’t want to pay the premium for a vehicle that is not cost effective. Wealthy environmentalists are the market so they can feel good about driving a very low emission vehicle.

It is telling that companies like A123 and Fisker are pursuing the President’s dream with taxpayer dollars, not their own. It is easy to be a venture capitalist with someone else’s money.

There are a couple of problems with the current state of battery technology in addition to cost. The first is that lithium batteries represent the state of the art. The best are limited to a 20-70 mile range under ideal conditions. Driving in Michigan in the winter or Florida most of the year would reduce the range considerably. Second, rare earth elements are required for lithium batteries and presently China controls about 95% of rare earth production.

Instead of mandating a technology and using tax dollars to push that mandate, the government should invest in basic research that will create the new knowledge needed to lower battery costs and increase the operating time between recharging. When that takes place, the infrastructure will be put in place without direction by government’s heavy hand.

Three big barriers are slowing electric vehicles. One can be fixed by the auto industry tomorrow – and if it is, the other two will melt away as the electric vehicle expands.

Start with a simple but surprising fact: right now, leasing a GM Volt for only two years costs you less than its gasoline counterpart, the Cruze. The Volt leases for $69 a month more than the Cruze, but saves $200 a month in fuel by operating most of the time on electricity. The $1800 higher down payment for leasing the Volt is paid off in 14 months – you make money for the the last 10 months of you lease!

Almost no one knows this – GM hasn’t been shouting about it from the roof-tops. Clearly the company loses money leasing Volts at this price. Because most drivers don’t lease, GM knows it won’t, if it keeps the secret, sell more Volts at a loss than it wants too.

But the choice of a below-cost lease as a way to build the market for the Volt – along with the necessity of doing so stealthily – shows that the auto industry hasn’t figured out that electric cars need to be sold differently than internal combustion engines – just as Apple had to develop new business models to sell smart phones. Imagine – and just as feasible as GM’s current lease offer – that you could buy a VOLT, or a Nissan LEAF, for the same price as its gasoline equivalent – the Cruze or the Versa. The same price! There would be a catch – to quality, you would sign a five year fuel contract requiring you to buy all of the electricity you needed for your car for the equivalent of $3.00 gallon. You would get a better car, and guaranteed protection against future increases in the price of gas, for no additional purchase price. Your risk? Gas averages below $3.00.

This is how smart phones are sold. The upfront cost of the phone is recovered through a service contract – and in my model above, over five years the owner of the new electric would pay the current sticker price of a Volt or Leaf – because they would pay a premium for the electric fuel they use.

But the car would cost less upfront than a gasoline model, and fuelling the car would also cost less (unless gas averaged below $3.00/gallon over the five year period.)

So Barrier One is that the auto industry doesn’t know how to sell electric cars. Electrics are smart phones, and car companies are like the old clunky AT&T monopoly– after all, they still haven’t figured out how to sell their for a fixed price!

Barrier One is critical, because if GM offered a version of my fuel contract for the VOLT, sales would leap, and volume would follow, and GM would make money. In turn, the auto industry would quickly solve Barriers Two and Three.

Barrier Two is the slow development of a critical primary technology – batteries. The Volt and Leaf have a high sticker price – about $15,000 higher than their gas equivalents – mainly because of battery cost and performance. Full electrics don’t get the range American drivers need for the same reason. (Even my fuel contract sales model for electrics requires the $7500 federal rebate to pay off the auto companies – that $7500 is about the actual economic cost premium for an electric car with gas at current US prices.)

Advanced battery companies have been suffering in the market – 1,2,3 just went into bankruptcy -- because the early electric cars that were there market haven’t been selling fast enough. So getting sales of the Volt, Leaf and other early electrics up fast is key to solving the battery problem.

The final barrier is that the necessary enabling technologies for electric cars are not in place – because there has been a lack of certainty that electrification was the future. In 1910 about 1/3 of the cars on the road were electric – and steam engines were widely viewed as the future. The internal combustion engine’s lock on the auto market arrived only in 1915 when Charles Kettering invented the self-starter, which neither electrics nor steam cars needed. Electric vehicles are a fundamental shift from the internal combustion drive train, and enabling technologies keyed to them have not yet been perfected. Weight is key, because energy density with electrics is lower than with gasoline – so approaches like those embodied in the X Prize Winner Edison 2’s Very Light Car are incredibly important – and perhaps 4-5 years from maturity. Right now companies like Edison 2 have a hard time raising capital – because the market for weight reduction technologies like in-wheel suspension grows much faster in an electric car world than in one still dominated by internal combustion engines.

So there are three barriers – two of them technological – blocking the electric vehicles from dominating the auto market. But the important barrier is not technical at all – it is adopting the appropriate business model – and selling innovative cars like innovative smart phones – with a low up front cost recovered with a fuel service contract.

(These comments were jointly written by Stepp and Clifton Yin, a policy analyst at ITIF.)

What’s holding back electric vehicles (EVs) isn’t so much that it’s “caught in the chicken-and-the-egg cycle,” rather it’s that U.S. EV policy is putting the cart before the horse. As ITIF discusses in Shifting Gears: Transcending Conventional Economic Doctrines to Develop Better Electric Vehicle Batteries, the best (and only) way EVs become cost and performance competitiveness is by developing better EV technologies, especially batteries.

In comparison, today’s policies offer a mixed bag: some public dollars go to developing better EV technologies, but most has gone to ginning up the auto market for current-gen EVs. For instance, the federal government offers a $7,500 tax incentive to consumers to off-set some of the higher sticker price of EVs and has provided grants to manufacturers to help them expand into the auto market. Yet the tax incentive is not large enough to make up for the cost difference between EVs and comparable gas cars and both subsidies don’t make up for EVs performance gaps, like limited range and issues driving in more extreme temperatures. No matter how you slice it, consumers simply don’t want current-gen EVs even with subsidies.

Yet supporters of these policies like to point out that the Prius received similar subsidies and is now the world’s third best-selling car line. EVs simply need early subsidy support to mature in the market, expand production, and drive down costs. But comparing EVs to the Prius is apples-to-oranges. The Prius can run on gasoline which ameliorates many of the performance issues plaguing EVs. Most "all-electric" EVs in the market today have a range of significantly less than 100 miles per charge and their charging process typically takes at least 8 hours. Most models don’t have a gas tank to fall back on, making the market barrier more than just higher costs. And if addressing climate change is the top reason for electrifying the transportation system, gas-battery hybrids are little more than a half-measure. All battery electrics are what’s needed most.

If making current-gen EVs a little cheaper isn’t working, many climate and energy advocates argue that we should also make gasoline cars a little more expensive by implementing a modest price on carbon. Advocates assume that by raising the price of gasoline - and thus the cost of using a gas car - EVs will become a more viable alternative. But just like partially subsidizing the purchase a few more expensive, performance limited EVs won’t transform the auto market, neither will making gasoline marginally more expensive.

Europe is a natural experiment on the futility of carbon pricing helping EVs. 17 of the 27 European Union countries employed a carbon-related tax on gasoline cars as of 2011 and the price of gas in Western Europe has hovered between $8-$9 per gallon, more than double the cost in the United States. Nevertheless, Nissan sold 11,000 EV Leafs in the United States, but only 3,000 in Europe since 2011. Price signals like a carbon price are only effective at the margin. If EVs were cost and performance competitive with gas cars it might be enough to push more EVs into the market, but the competitiveness gap is too large for any price signal to overcome.

If today’s EV policies aren’t working and the alternative policy advocates are selling is ineffective, what will it take? First, advocates actually need to recognize that today’s approach isn’t working. Past policy support for the Prius is a poor proxy for what support EVs need. Better and cheaper EV technologies, like batteries, are the lynchpin to making EVs the highest selling vehicle-type in America. Second, policymakers should double-down and strengthen the EV innovation ecosystem. High-impact programs like ARPA-E’s Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation (BEEST) are already making smart investments in battery innovation and more is needed to accelerate development. One way of doing this is by shifting investments from EV deployment to EV innovation. Another is through creating a BatteryShot initiative, modeled after SunShot, to coordinate the government's myriad of battery innovation programs towards developing battery technologies that cost less than $100/kWh and can power a car for at least 300 miles.

Climate change may be absent on the presidential campaign trail and at the debates, but it nonetheless continues to unfold in the real world and drastically reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions is critical to stopping it. Electrifying the transportation system is a promising way of accomplishing this and significant innovations in EVs have already been made, but more is needed less EVs will remain a niche good. Doing this requires getting serious about implementing the right policies and making smart investments to advance EVs instead of hoping today’s policies will suddenly start working.

We need to recognize that change doesn't come overnight, especially because many people keep their cars for a decade or longer. It has taken some time to develop the cars and get them to market, and it is going to take some time for consumers to be ready to replace their current cars and begin buying electric cars in greater numbers. Remember, it took about 20 years for gasoline powered automobiles to supplant animal powered transportation.

There are some things the government is already doing to help that should be continued, and additional efforts that we can undertake to help spur adoption of electric cars. We should continue to provide tax incentives to consumers who purchase electric vehicles, and continue to provide support for the installation of charging stations.

By partnering with innovative companies like Silicon Valley’s Coulomb Technologies and Better Place that are leading efforts to install the necessary fueling infrastructure, we can help make consumers feel confident that they will be able to recharge their electric car on long journeys, a concern that studies have shown is a barrier to alternative fuel adoption. We also need to step up efforts to purchase electric vehicles for the federal fleet, which will make the public more familiar with electric vehicles and help manufacturers bring down costs through economies of scale.

Putting in place a real policy to address climate change would also help drive the adoption of electric vehicles. One of the reasons the automobile surpassed horse drawn vehicles in the early 20th century was that manure pollution had grown to the point that it was considered a public health hazard. As incidences of extreme weather grow ever more frequent, the American public is coming to realize that climate change, too, is a public health hazard, and if the United States would adopt policies to recognize the very real impact of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas pollution, we would see far more electric cars on the road .

As a nation we need leaders who will be champions, not presidential candidates who mock efforts to address climate change and take cheap political shots at thriving American companies like Tesla, which has developed an entirely new car from the ground up, has established a new advanced manufacturing facility in Silicon Valley, and is paying back past Department of Energy loans ahead of schedule because it has cash available to do so. Encouraging the growth of cutting edge electric car manufacturers in the United States who embody the American Dream is the patriotic thing to do.

When electric vehicles (EVs) were introduced in the U.S. market two years ago, they arrived with great promise – and even greater expectations -- into a market struggling to recover from a massive economic downturn. Although the pace of adoption has not met some eager projections, 2012 has seen a 180 percent jump in EV sales over the first year’s sales. Innovative technologies always confront challenges on the path to mainstream adoption, and this industry is no exception. An electrified U.S. fleet won’t happen in one year, or two. But it is happening. Industry leaders are committed to electrification and business forecasters see significant near and long-term growth in the EV, infrastructure and component markets. And perhaps most telling is that surveys show that the more than 50,000 current EV drivers are extremely satisfied with their purchases.

Looking at the number of new plug-in models entering the U.S. market over the next few years (nearly 40 expected by 2015) – along with the rapid expansion of charging options – and consistent improvement in energy storage, it is not hard to anticipate accelerated adoption. With these expanded vehicle choices providing multiple models at multiple price points, plug-in vehicles will become an even more accessible option for a wider range of car buyers. Economies of scale and increased battery capacity will reduce manufacturers’ cost and increase electric range.

For consumers, there is also a learning curve. The industry is working hard to get the word out, but the most effective education is seeing more EVs on the road, experiencing them first hand and understanding their tremendous benefits. The more consumers know about their EV options, the faster they will take advantage of them.

Finally, public-private collaborations to advance technology and deployment are helping to advance the market while advancing national interests. Electric drive technology provides our nation an opportunity to reduce a dependence on foreign oil by using domestically-produced energy in the transportation sector. Economic security gets a boost through a growing manufacturing supply chain when energy dollars are spent at home. EVs also leave a smaller carbon footprint than their conventional counterparts, even with a national grid that is powered by coal. As the grid gets cleaner, the environmental benefits will only increase over time.

So, in addition to zooming in on daily snapshots of the market, a clear assessment of the state of the industry needs to incorporate a larger view. By looking at the broader picture, which shows upward sales trends, robust industry commitment in the form of increased vehicle options, high owner satisfaction and growing consumer awareness, it is easier to see the electric drive industry and the market moving forward.

The failure of one of the earliest leading lithium Ion battery manufacturers has less to do with the future of electric vehicles and more tied to the limits in its management and its technology. Just like Solyndra, it's technology was just surpassed by other leading manufacturers such as Dow-Kokam and Johnston Controls. That aside, the newly mandated vehicle mileage standards to over 54 mpg by 2025 will not only create better internal combustion engines and hybrid vehicles, but push electric vehicle market penetration. Just like solar photovoltaics, new and powerful battery technologies is being drawn into the market like Axion Power's carbon battery hybrids with supercapacitors. And other lithium ion manufacturers are scaling production such as Dow-Kokam's new Michigan manufacturing facility. This will drive costs down and battery storage and lifetime up. Federal and state governments should procure electric vehicles in their fleets where they make sense so electric vehicle manufacturers can scale-up production just as was done to drive hybrid vehicles into the market. Electric vehicles will have a solid place in the market as a second car (most Americans drive 80% of their time within 20 miles of their home) and electric transportation is just more cost effective than petrolum-based vehicles. And for those of us, like myself, that have solar homes and office buildings - the fuel source is free, convenient, and uninterruptible.