Green “Gimps” in (Cyber) Space

On the historic 50 year anniversary of the famed Freedom Rides (from which the company takes its name if not inspiration), we thought we would weigh in on a few ideas behind our mission statement.

It’s a rather interesting spring to be doing what we aim to achieve on several fronts. Not the least of which, we suspect, will be our focus on creating new benchmarks and opportunities for every PWD so inclined.

We think on what we believe to be the beginning of the end of the actively prosecuted “War on Terror” with the death of Bin Laden last week, that this will also mark a turning point on how this war has been perceived at home. Namely, to date there has been almost no realization of the true cost of the war in lives spent and damaged during its prosecution.

We heard one unbelievable number last week that just in Iraq alone, the U.S. now faces about 33,000 younger adults with disabilities public policy hasn’t caught up with. While we aim to break new ground and look to the future with optimism, there are some realities that we, for one, have never averted our eyes from. Vets with disabilities are clearly one of the larger “new” demographics to enter the existing fold of “PWDs.” How this country meets that challenge both for vets and civilians with disabilities is clearly front and center on our radar and we hope to spark a national debate on the same.

While we don’t mean any disrespect to those who put their lives and bodies on the line for a greater purpose, we also maintain that nobody “earns” a disability. Civilians and vets who are PWDs (for whatever reason) deserve opportunities (for one) that have largely been poorly provided since the birth of this country.

Opening opportunity in the face of new technology and laws were what the original “Freedom Riders” had as their goal. They were, after all, a bunch of unorganized students who wanted to make a point about changing policies and court decisions if not statutes by doing no more than getting on buses as everyday riders. We aim, in our first mission, to be no more than a taxi company…however clearly our larger goals are a bit more lofty (if not leafy).

But in beginning successful operations, we hope to do the same in our own way. Those original riders, now in their late sixties and early seventies, may have made their original point about race.

In the era of the first African American president, we hope that the rights and abilities of our “Green Gimp” crew makes the same arguments valid for the next great group of Americans seeking “Freedom.”

We hope that it doesn’t take another fifty years for the PWD community to finally come into its own much as the African American community has finally proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that racism is an “old-fashioned” crime against humanity. Not to mention, particularly in the shadow of the most successful if not daring military and intelligence missions in our country strategically directed by Obama, that ideas about “ability” will move that much further in America beyond stereotypes about race, gender, sexual orientation and of course “able-bodiedness.”

The Green Taxi Act: Green Power to the People

In the past month, there has been renewed interest in moving forward on another piece of green and transportation driven legislation that also, wonderfully for us in particular, also focuses on fleets and taxis in particular.

Driven by perhaps the largest existing taxi market in the country as well as another regressive environmental Supreme Court Decision against New York, New York legislators Senator Gillibrand and Representative Nadler have reintroduced a bill in both houses of the U.S. Congress to address the issue. H.R. 1283 and S. 670 are the current incarnation of a bill that has failed to pass for the past several years. We hope this year, particularly with the already record-breaking rise in gas prices if not a foreseeable future of (at minimum) $5-6 per gallon gas at the pump that this is the year this piece of legislation is finally fueled for passage if not signature into law.

The Act amends both the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) – both of which currently block localities from setting fuel economy and emissions standards – including for taxis.

This Act will allow local municipalities to set clean air standards on their own – presumably to set higher standards than currently exist. The one caveat we would instantly have is that we realize this would also open the door for cities which might think that this would negatively impact their economies and go for lower fuel emissions standards (which would affect not just their own municipalities but everyone downwind). We would want to see mandates that federal standards would be the default, non-negotiable “floor” of standards.

Overall, however, this legislation makes sense. We anticipate that there may be significant push back from people who wish the EPA would be defunded out of existence. Further, we are not sure how this would work in practice in cities (like Charlotte) which currently have no home rule and whose budgets are dictated by the state (in this case Raleigh). In fact, outside of the North East, most Southern cities (in particular) have no ability to affect their operating budgets. We would want to see this piece of legislation address this so that cities starting with D.C. (for whom Home Rule is a perennial hot button political issue) if not Charlotte, would actually have some real teeth to positively effect their air quality (if nothing else). Federal incentives and grants (even more of them) would be a very good “sweetener” that we feel might make otherwise less than green municipalities see the light.

Under the Green Taxis Act, local governments can only set standards to require local operators to purchase or convert existing vehicles if the vehicles they want to see on local streets are commercially available or are manufactured under a contract with a State or County. Manufacturers could not be required to produce vehicles simply to meet local emissions specifications and taxi operators could not be required to use vehicles that can’t be purchased via mainstream means. In addition, specifications cannot mandate standards that exceed current federal laws for fuel economy (although we suggest that progressive, green municipalities think of ways to set new and higher standards and we have a few ideas in that regard). As a result, we do see that the current language is a bit conservative, but we think this is a very good start.

As a result, we think this is a fabulous move on the legislative front. It will give communities as well as local administrators (such as Mayors and city councils) the ability to respond to constituents’ needs and wishes, create incentives for the greening of taxi fleets across the country and for those who want to invest in green infrastructure. It will ultimately give more local power to affect and positively impact their environments, economy and health of their citizens.

Charlotte, which historically has had very poor air quality (including heavy industrial pollution it inherits from Tennessee), would benefit in dramatic ways from passage of this legislation.

As a result, we are an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation. We think however that it shouldn’t just be driven by the needs and realities of a city like New York, but contain language and contingencies to allow other cities and states (including North Carolina) to move into a cleaner, greener, future.

Obviously taxi fleets, no matter where they are, have the potential to drive the greening of other passenger vehicles of all kinds – including passenger vehicles for every day citizens.

Getting “Hip” With HIPAA

Since we are on a bit of a statutory roll here, we thought we would continue to knock out a few more primers on some of the most important statutes that impact our business. Starting with this “strange animal.” Word to the wise, it has nothing to do with African semi-aquatic mammals of a similar sounding name.

This statute (known formally as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) was passed in 1996 during the Clinton era discussions about healthcare reform. It covers many areas important to everyone who needs healthcare, but there are some particular aspects of this law that we wanted to highlight, specifically as they interact with both Privacy Act requirements (a topic for a blog post coming soon), and of course our favorite two civil rights bills, the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Title I of HIPAA was the first real attempt to limit the ability of health insurers to exclude individuals for coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It is nowhere near as declarative in this regard as Obama’s current law, which is why we support this critical aspect of healthcare reform. This however, we anticipate will become less of an important piece of this statute as some form of Obamacare comes into practice.

Title II of HIPAA however, still has a lot of teeth, and we anticipate that this segment of the legislation will only grow in importance. Specifically, this section deals with the creation of standards for the dissemination of healthcare related information. Again this is tied into Privacy Act issues we’ll discuss another day, but these provisions are critical in maintaining not only medical privacy for individuals but their basic Constitutional Rights under both the ADA and The Privacy Act which include not only privacy but the right of due process. In the former, for one, it directly addresses the right of a PWD, for example, to better control who knows what about their disability. As the ADA is very clear on the rights of individuals who are “perceived” to have disabilities (whether they have them or not), this statute compliments that legislation for this demographic in very positive ways.

The so-called “Security Rule” deals with electronically transmitted medical information specifically. In other words, one has to be very careful where and how medical records are transmitted and stored on what databases and who should have access to them. This is the part of HIPAA that has proved to be particularly problematic for some of the larger IT players (and indeed some state actors, starting with North Carolina) to comply with.

Our service provision model we believe not only creates an answer for some of those ongoing issues and problems, we also plan to give access to advertisers to a very valuable demographic while protecting our customers’ medical privacy. We believe our model is unique among IT players who are entering this space or have wanted to for some time (such as Google and Facebook). What the specifics are we will decline to elaborate upon further at this time, but we have provided one model we intend to use on this site. Click on the taxi to the left of the blog post and we hope readers will see what we mean.

We as a company will be operating in some very highly regulated waters. We actually think its a very good thing. One of what we believe to be the value adds we bring to the table is a profitable operating model that actually makes its business case BECAUSE of regulation rather than in spite of it. While this may not be the case for every private enterprise out there, we think that some of the ideas and models we have created set new benchmarks and open new doors to profitability and innovation.

A Primer on The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Along with the passage of the ADA, another piece of legislation passed about the same time (The Civil Rights Act of 1991) guarantees PWDs the same Constitutional protections as minorities – specifically that they are worth the full “value” of a white man.

The Act was originally passed in the Reconstruction Era and until 1991 only applied to minorities. Ever afterwards, it also applied to the PWD community, even though legal challenges if not a broad understanding of the statute remains oblique and largely untested.

What the statute also essentially does is address not only the “contractual worth” of PWDs, it also ostensibly creates economic “rights” or an economic “floor” for PWDs. This means that, for example, a PWD may not be hired at less than the minimum wage (for example).

What it also does, however, is create mandates for the government where goods and services vital to maintaining that “contractual” worth are provided to this community.

Starting with, of course, healthcare.

While a great many of the failings of the ADA remain to be addressed thanks to aggressive federal push back in the courts (for example), one of the most instructive things to come out of the last twenty years of litigation under the Act was attempts to “define” a covered disability.

The ADA Restoration Act will address many of these issues, we hope, but taking from that line of reasoning, we contend that in fact, since so many people with disabilities require medication to manage their disabilities so as to not meet the federal standards of being “disabled” that this is actually a very interesting legal space right now. Specifically, using that logic, a person with a disability who can manage their disability with medication (starting with diabetes) is therefore guaranteed a certain “floor” of medical service. Without such service (including access to medication, regardless of the ability to pay), such a person very well may be “disabled.” With it, they will be a PWD, able to take their rightful place in society in every place the “able-bodied” now participate. As such, the state has a vested interest if not obligation (starting with a fiscal one if not a civil rights based one) to insure, if not is forced to require, unimpeded access for every PWD to state provided medication to preserve their “contractual value.”

We realize that for the non legal eagles reading this, this may all sound like complicated legal mumbo jumbo.

However in the middle of budget battles, from the federal to the state level, we think this is an important point to raise.

Particularly as we have a service provision model which not only addresses it but creates a very powerful “fix” that will reverberate both directly on the bottom line and in indirect costs that we anticipate will become increasingly obvious as we begin service provision.

A Brief Primer on the ADA (The Americans With Disabilities Act)

There are several laws that protect people with disabilities (PWDs) that are not widely understood.

The ADA is perhaps the most widely cited. This is the landmark civil rights bill passed in 1990.

Today’s blog will discuss the basic premise of the ADA and provide a very (brief) description of its major tenets.

The statute was essentially designed to be “Title VII for PWDs.” Unlike Title VII, the law does not however just cover discriminatory attitudes as they occur between two individuals – the law targets other things too – like infrastructural barriers. Unlike Title VII however, PWDs under the ADA do not get any kind of affirmative action protection.

Despite its relative weakness in comparison with Title VII, however, the ADA goes much further than its immediate predecessor. Unlike The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA also requires the states to comply with federal standards. In this, it very much takes its language from the broader civil rights movement protections. It also expands the coverage of its protection beyond government to the private sector. That said, this is the least successfully implemented or litigated civil rights law to date enacted. Twenty one years after the first President Bush signed it into law, the approximately 20% of the American population that has a disability remains largely marginalized. Most PWDs subsist in abject poverty on a government stipend called SSDI or SSI and “Medicaid.” According to both advocacy groups (such as Easter Seals) and indeed unofficial estimates from the Department of Labor, more than 90% of this population also remains unemployed due to no fault of their own. Because the law is both so poorly understood if not enforced, the overwhelming majority of ADA litigation never sees the light of day. Fewer than 1% of ADA cases are ever won in federal court.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed The ADA Restoration Act, a bill designed to restore much of the protections of the original bill after almost twenty years of litigation and decisions by the courts that rendered the protections supposedly offered by the Act almost impossible to litigate if not null and void when it came to employment. Chief among those issues was the federal definition of what a disability was – which had become so narrow that it didn’t cover the population it was designed to protect.

We think that the combination of the ADA Restoration Act and two huge populations of people with potentially new disabilities will begin to change that. The first population is of course vets from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The second of course are Boomers, who are starting to show signs of age-related disabilities. Combined with the twin forces of a larger demographic (along with planned budget cuts to “Medicare”) we believe that this statute may finally come into its own. What is being left out of the conversation in Washington these days is that there are civil rights implications (both under Title VII and even more specifically under the ADA) that prohibit certain services from being eliminated. This is why we believe that our service provides a much needed solution to many of these problems – and for both stake-holders and the government. Medical services (for one) can not just not be eliminated in the face of budget cuts, they are required under civil rights protections as part of the “contractual” right of being a citizen per the Constitution. Therefore, the task ahead for those like us is to figure out ways to make such service provision the most efficient and cheapest it can be while still providing a required floor of service. We intend to set our standards, for one, very high. The same, in fact, as we provide for the “able-bodied” we also plan to serve.

This is the real idea behind the ADA, which we intend to uphold if not set new benchmarks for in terms of not just cost and efficiency, but service provision and civil rights protection.

There are three basic parts to the ADA. These are described below.

Title I refers to employment. Specifically it prohibits discrimination in all aspects of retention, working or indeed termination. It also covers an issue which is rarely understood much less well implemented in most workplaces – specifically “reasonable accommodations.” Reasonable accommodations refer to the required steps that an employer must, by federal law, implement for an employee with a disability if they do not pose “an undue business burden.” Most accommodations are cheap to implement (costing less than $100). We think that the “greening” of both transport and real estate will actually create huge opportunities for many people (starting with small business) to actually start to be able to implement a much more structurally compliant world. The public sector, which remains the largest employer for PWDs, still only has less than 100,000 employees with disabilities at the federal level. Or to put this another way, about 1% of the federal workforce has a disability. According to statistics, most federally employed PWDs toil at jobs two pay grades below their able-bodied peers.

We intend to give PWDs first hiring preference. We also intend to be the first company to be owned and operated, if not largely staffed by PWDs to ever go public. We think we are the only private sector company in America of this mindset today.

Title III of the ADA refers to access to public space. This is where most of the most contentious ADA litigation has to date been successfully litigated, particularly in states like Florida and California. This is the part of the law that brought us “curb-cuts” (slanted access to sidewalks) as well as wheelchair accessible public transportation (for example).

Section 508 is another interesting section of the statute that will also become far more relevant to most people – specifically that all websites must create access. Online programming and websites can be made “accessible” usually with the addition of tags to programming text. This insures that people who are visually impaired (for example) will be able to use software programs to browse through sites. It also refers to things like subtitling of video – including online video – obviously an area of the world where there is limited closed captioning.

While this would seem to be ostensibly the easiest place to implement such measures, unfortunately cyberspace remains as largely inaccessible as the rest of the world. The UN concluded in a 2008 global study that less than 4% of websites were compliant with the U.N.’s version of the law. There is not a single smartphone that is technically ADA compliant although the software on them could make traveling through cyberspace much easier for many people. To test how “compliant” the major IT players are these days, imagine being blind and trying to figure out Twitter. Neither Facebook or Google are compliant either (and there are other issues and laws that these two IT giants also routinely violate). To see how well “closed captioning” actually works on You Tube (or doesn’t) click on the red “CC” button at the bottom of your favorite video.

The most significant development in this arena happened in the middle part of the last decade with a landmark, national class action suit against the retailer Target, which firmly applied this rule to private sector websites (in the past it had only been applied to government sites). There have been some other interesting cases where technology and telco (telephones) have also been the subject of successful settlements if not litigation, which include a class action settlement brought by the National Association of the Deaf against a major international Wall Street bank to allow the deaf to trade via phone (the company did not provide any accessible technology on its end.)

Perhaps the most powerful section of the ADA, however, is Title II, a still little-understood measure of the law.

Unlike the Rehab Act, and like Title VII, the ADA also applies to state governments. This means that, for example, a state is allowed to create “separate” facilities to serve people with disabilities, but they cannot be demonstrably “unequal.”

And this is where we expect to start a debate about both the state of the disability community and the services that so many of them are forced to rely on.

There is no question that Medicaid/Disability needs reform. Starting with service delivery. We argue that transportation is also a huge area where this reform should happen, and not just with the use of “green ADA compliant” taxis. That’s just the starting point.

Since most people on “Medicaid” are in fact people with disabilities (on Disability Benefits), this of course profoundly if not disproportionately affects PWDs.

We believe that the ADA if not other associated legislation (the Civil Rights Act of 1991) requires the kinds of changes we have in mind.

What those are we will gradually elaborate on in future blogs.

The ADA is actually a very simple law. It requires that PWDs have the same access to life as the majority of the population.

We hope, not only in our service provision model but also in the car we use (the first ADA compliant taxi ever factory assembled) to continue to open doors for this community, as much as intend to provide top-quality “green” travel for the “able-bodied.”

The Costs of Conversion

While there are many reasons, we believe, to switch to “alt” fuel of all kinds, H.R. 1380 now pending in the House of Representatives would create a massive incentive for the “alt” industry if not our economy in ways that have yet to be publicly dissected. We assume that much of this discussion will come up in hearings, but we thought we would take the first stab at some of the economics behind the bill.

While in theory, just the rebates and incentives sound large, we thought we would put this into an actual bottom line analysis that will, we think, show how significant this bill really is not to mention the bottom line benefit for the middle class. We are not always a fan of tax breaks and subsidies, and right now think, of all times in American history, it is a patriotic duty to sign up for a revised tax code if not a more equitable system of “taxation.” H.R.1380 does that in a very interesting way. Remember that government subsidies of the oil business do not flow to consumer’s pockets, but to date have created a situation where they drain them. In a period of massive global speculation on petroleum, even price subsidies cannot adequately protect the consumer. Therefore, these subsidies, we would argue are a waste of money. Right now, the petroleum industry gets a whopping annual $4 Billion federal subsidy.

The one thing we don’t see in this bill is regulation and any sort of environmental analysis. There is a cost to the environment for natural gas extraction that also affects us all as well as the continued reliance on a fossil fuel. While CNG is dramatically lower in carbon pollution than petroleum, it is not an entirely carbon free source of fuel. We hope that these are the kinds of debates that come up during hearings. We for one want to see the country begin to address the mistakes of the past (specifically what we think are far too loose regulations if not financial support of the petroleum oil business). That said, this is our standard take on any kind of energy business. As we have noted here before and probably will do so again, even wind and solar farms have serious environmental impacts if not correctly installed, or as California (in particular) are installed in environmentally fragile areas (starting with deserts).

We will, no doubt discuss all of these issues in future blogs, but as a company that also has a focus on health and managing disabilities, we can never walk away from the fact that our energy has a price and that policy must address that.

This said, H.R. 1380 poses significant possibilities for creating a “space” for government (for one) to do that. Starting with finding ways to both cut the budget and strengthen consumer protection.

In this vein, we thought we would include a few facts and figures here to demonstrate what a potential boost this bill will give to the average business or even consumer (and not just at the pump).

H.R.1380 gives large incentives both for the fuel and for conversions (not to mention brand new car sales). While we of course intend to buy new cars (the MV-1 comes with a factory installed option to go CNG) we also know that not everyone is in our position. The idea of buying a whole new fleet to replace an existing one asap just to convert to CNG is probably not an option for most, not to mention the average consumer just running out and buying a new vehicle in the current state of the economy. And that’s where the conversion numbers start to make a lot of sense.

But where, do many ask, do you get the money to convert these vehicles? The typical conversion of a NGV (natural gas powered vehicle) runs between $12,000-$20,000. At the high end, in fact, as much as buying a new car. However when dissected and put into another context, this giveback is extremely significant when you figure in the added savings on fuel.

For simplicity’s sake, we have taken the average fuel cost of a taxi, which uses about 5,000 gallons of fuel a year. In a world of $4.00/gallon petroleum and approximately $1.50/gallon for CNG (also taking into consideration the $0.50 at the pump federal tax incentive for CNG fuel included in the bill) and the numbers not only add up, they begin to create imperatives rather than just “incentives.”

For example, in this world, the average cost to a taxi operator per year for petroleum in this model is now about $20,000. Per vehicle. Yup. Pretty shocking, right? The same taxi driven on CNG would only cost $7,500 per year to fuel.

This creates an immediate, year 1 incentive to convert. If the average cost of conversion runs $12,000-$20,000 per car (minus the bill’s proposed floor of $7,500 per conversion) this means that potentially a converted vehicle driver could see cost savings even in the first year. Even at the high end for conversion, a driver in this scenario could save up to $1,000 their FIRST YEAR after conversion. Every year thereafter, they would save an extra $13,500.

Our one thought here is that the government should probably also create some kind of financing option, allowing the cash-strapped to convert (for one) or some other way to insure that people have the opportunity to take advantage of “tax breaks” even if they can’t front the dinero. This is a very, very important part of the equation and insures that those this bill could help the most get a chance to benefit. Particularly now.

We also note that this provision will create another impact on the economy – the increase in “clean” conversion shops and green mechanics. Those are jobs that will impact every community who takes the CNG plunge.

We welcome the day, and applaud these provisions. For a cash-strapped America right now, this is the kind of tax break we can support. It will also pay government back in dividends. Every single government fleet, from cars to buses to trash trucks, costs the consumer the same kind of premium.

Taking the “gas” out of government is just as important as draining it from the private sector. If nothing else, it will reduce the cost of government itself in some rather dramatic ways.

We don’t think there will be many on Capital Hill who can argue with that equation, even if passage of the bill will do absolutely nothing to “convert” other kinds of “gas” which always seems to float out across the country from Washington D.C.

Fracking: The Economy Vs. The Environment

We would be totally remiss if we did not present all sides to the debate we are now engaging – starting with a discussion of the most recent parry on the natural gas front.

It seems, as of an April 11 story in the New York Times, that natural gas, after about a decade of being hyped as a “clean” energy source (by both the industry and the treehuggers) is not as environmentally squeaky as it seems.

According to a study done by a couple of (wouldn’t you know it) professors, including ones who work at places like Cornell, natural gas production can produce a great many environmental problems – ones that could seriously challenge the effects of natural gas use (which in terms of usage, has about half the carbon footprint of coal and 30% less than petroleum).

The issue, it appears, is one that could in effect splinter a budding coalition of enviros and industry (for once). The controversy stems from the amount (and kind) of gases that are also released into the atmosphere during the drilling process. Staring with Methane, a heat-trapping gas far more “efficient” than CO2.

Here’s the rub. Uncontained Methane release on the industrial level, apparently then creates an impact as dirty as coal. We assume that the beancounters had no way of estimating the amount of “natural” Methane produced by the other large “polluter” in this area (cows) however the first results sound pretty daunting

The issue in particular starts with a fairly controversial practice to remove the gas, particularly from shale, called “fracking.” We are not familiar enough with the practice environmentally to have much say. However, we would suggest, given our experience with something that Americans outside of Gulf States and maybe Alaska have but few other Americans seem to be aware of, that there is a considerable “off-shore” gas drilling industry in this country as well as the North Atlantic. And there is no such thing as an entirely “safe” or “green” method of energy production and use – even today – from even “clean” sources. After all, hydro-electric power (for one) is known to be very environmentally destructive too even if there is no release of greenhouse gasses. There are also major problems right now we would argue, in the middle of a solar thermal plant in the desert. The cleantech movement has many environmental problems. We also note that Clean Energy Fuels, for one, the natural gas refueling company started by Pickens, does specialize in Methane collection too. Given this dual opportunity, we highly doubt that the modern gas wells at least, particularly the ones run by this company, would throw something away that represents a potential profit center.

There have been some dark hints by certain enviros that in fact the gas produced by “fracking” is actually a plot to extract cheap fuel for export and that indeed might very well be the dark “hidden” motives behind the cabal that is pushing this legislation. We see things a little differently. The reality is that in places like India (for example) where pollution is as much of an economic issue as it is here if not an environmental one (see the fascinating study of Delhi taxis and other vehicles we have attached to the site), there is no city today globally where environmental pollution of any kind is off the radar. While CNG has its place, we also know that just about everyone, even in CNG fuel using countries (like India) there will always be another (potentially cheaper) option. Starting with electric vehicles, which we are also a huge fan of, but having lived in England for quite some years, we also know that electric vehicles can’t be too heavy. The beloved milk carts still in use daily by the Brits (for one) have been electric since the 1960’s. They also have top speeds about about 15 mph.

We are going to take the position at this time that frankly any alternative to petroleum is something to be heralded. Given CNG’s obvious similarity and transferability to heavy vehicles (in particular) at a time when the jump in petroleum prices will most certainly doom the “Great Recession” to linger, not to mention gas’ reputation as one solution to America’s energy if not economic crisis (not the only one), we will keep an eye on future studies and developments. This study was the first of its kind, however it did address an issue of some concern in professional circles. Like any kind of energy, we suggest that high safety standards if not (we know, groans are in the audience) regulation to help contain the negative outputs of natural gas drilling. This of course includes significant regulation on water supplies and aquifer levels as well. We won’t engage in a policy discussion here about the privatization of water, but as we are fond of reminding people, Goldman Sachs (for one) thinks “water is the next oil.” It is no surprise then that Pickens, along with other (corporate) supporters of this bill, including apparently one of the largest landholders in the United States (Ted Turner) would also be looking to profit from water sales. We are not entirely uninvolved in that issue either and our stance at this time is that regulation works, it should be followed and that the growing global awareness about water rights as an issue will be, we think a very good moderating influence on those whose sole interest is in privatization rather than economic justice and quality issues.

As a childhood resident of Great Britain, where natural gas has always been a much higher profile energy source than the U.S. (and petroleum has always been far more expensive relative to incomes), the switch to natural gas for certainly heavier transportation as a “transition” fuel, if not heating and most certainly cooking, is one that is natural as breathing. Hopefully the effects of drilling, particularly in places like shale grounds, will not prove to be so environmentally damaging that natural gas cannot serve as a vital “intermediary” energy source if not serve as one of a patchwork of the alt fuel portfolio.

We think at this point at least that with the right inspection and regulation standards if not a push for new technological development to capture all the attendant gasses released during gas drilling and the proper treatment of “extraction water” will help improve if not standardize the production industry. Given this, we think at this time, that CNG in particular still remains a very viable and exciting “alt”.

Just the cost differential alone will make a huge dent in both economic stimulation as well as holding down the costs of other things that are heavily petroleum and transportation dependent, from the cost of food to the cost of government. In the space we hope opens up here with all those cost savings (and we’ll do an economic breakdown in another blog) that leaves lots of disposable income to invest in new technology.

Including, we presuppose, the redesign of the combustion engine to a far more sustainable if not efficient driver of transportation across the entire range of options now coming online.

H.R. 1380 Refuels the Pace of Change for CNG Powered Vehicles

Once upon a time, when dinosaurs ruled the earth (circa the 1980’s) the nation reveled in its superiority over the Russians, if not theoretically conquering the recessionary (energy strapped) 1970’s. During such wacky times, the nation if not our policy makers also did a couple of very stupid things.

What’s new, right?

Well, in terms of energy specifically, it’s nice to say that in a time when we seem to be celebrating fifty year centennials of “rolling back” policy initiatives of all kinds, we appear to be on the brink of a supposedly “progressive” if not “green” watershed that would undo a great deal of the damage done to alt energy during the (sorry to tag this in such a way) Reagan era. Conceived of and supported this time, by the way, by a bunch of ostensible “conservative” if not “Texan” Republicans. Among many others. We won’t tell the former that it’s also the fifty year anniversary of the Freedom Rides this May (only kidding) but maybe the ghosts of civil rights past have come back to steer this bill’s passage (this time) uneventfully to the President’s desk for signature.

The 1980’s, you may recall, was a time when the removal of solar panels from the White House was considered the coup-de-grâce or the nail in the coffin for the “treehuggers” if not “progressives” and Lord help us, “environmentalists.” (There were no “sustainability specialists” in those days – they just worked for the EPA). This bill amends the tax code of 1986 to rev up the pace of adoption of CNG powered “alt” if not “green” transportation.

H.R. 1380, introduced last week with north of 70 original co-sponsors (and way, way over the centennial mark now) and referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, undoes a great deal of that damage.

Specifically the bill focuses on heavy duty and fleet vehicles, some of the worst guzzlers on the planet and also the most efficient users of CNG (which in studies to date has been shown to be the best alt fuel for heavier vehicles).

The act essentially creates incentives at all points of the chain to spread the use and refueling infrastructure for CNG – starting with vehicle manufacture and going to tax credits for property to build the pumps.

It also has some very nice give-backs for everyone who buys a CNG fueled vehicle. The heavier the better. But for our purposes, it’s still nice to know that Uncle Sam has a $7,500 tax credit in store just for vehicle purchase on the low end.

What appears to be an even greater incentive for heavy duty fleet operators however, is that apparently, the tax credit can be applied to “converted vehicles,” thus going an even longer way to off-setting if not essentially covering the cost of a retrofit. We see this business alone creating jobs for days at least in the first decade or so of our energy conversion away from petroleum APY (after peak year).

There are a lot of other goodies involved for everyone gung-ho about this particular market niche right now. We encourage those so curious to research the text of the bill online and we of course will be keeping an eye on its journey through the House and Senate this time. This would be apparently the third time the forces behind this bill, starting with T. Boone Pickens, have tried to get this past Congress. It has been repeatedly bundled in the past with larger omnibus environmental and clean energy bills that went south. Hopefully on its own, this time, it will finally pass into law. With this amount of original (bi-partisan) co-sponsors, potentially the Hill may have a very green spring if not year.

This passage of this bill alone, we anticipate, will do unbelievable wonders to spur the overall economy. Nationally. We think it will also have a huge impact on this area in particular.

We hope to be a long and steady passenger on that wave as much as we hope to be a driver of innovation and change ourselves.

For more information about the bill as it travels through the legislative process, along with some articles that savvy readers may recognize, go to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1380/show

Disingenuous “Budget Cuts” For “Medicare”

We, like just about anyone alive with access to media (old, new or somewhere in between) know that the hunt is now on for savings. And as usual, everyone is looking to “Medicare.”

We do feel we need to weigh in on this issue at the moment from what we hope is a strictly non-partisan “green” stance, however it is apparent to us that despite all the rhetoric, as usual, to date, there is more hot air than substance on all sides. We would say gas, but, well, we think savvy readers get the point and we wouldn’t want to get into any confusion about “good” gas and “bad.” We run into that problem enough as it is.

However, the reality is, beyond Beltway Contortions, is that “Medicare” actually refers to all government-sponsored health insurance. While the VA (this time) is apparently being saved from all consideration, in general, VA covered medical care is the same thing as HHS covered “Medicare” – as are “Disability benefits” and of course “Medicaid.” When it comes to healthcare, the benefits are all the same. We won’t confuse the uninitiated with a further discussion of the “dually eligible.” So many monikers, all the same deal.

This means, however, for example, that doctors are compensated under the same rate, and, to get to a point, so are drivers. Even more to the point, according to some interesting figures we have seen, historically, “the disabled” or as we refer to them, “PWDs” have actually been a higher driver of care costs than the “elderly.” (We refer to those folks these days as, um, “Boomers” however much we know they really hate that. No matter how cute Robert Redford looked on the cover of AARP’s national mag not too long ago.)

Snarking aside, that’s an awfully big segment of the population that is being rather systematically ignored. Annually, not just cumulatively.

Oops.

What this also means of course is that the current calculations of “getting rid” of Medicare if not “voucherizing” it essentially means that people who have had “Medicare” all of their lives or after a disabling situation or illness, will be essentially cut off after they reach 62. Sort of like a “Logan’s Run” on the far, far, side of 30.

We won’t even begin to think of weighing in on that score, however we did think it was appropriate to bring up a topic that is directly at our core mission and one which is directly related to that problem we just mentioned. Specifically, added to this very grim situation already is that there is a great deal of transportation now (supposedly) reimbursed by HHS.

We say “supposedly” because that is really what it means. And while we don’t want to get into any Title II discussions (for one) we believe that many areas are actually in danger of (unintentionally) violating Title II of the ADA with “budget” but not civil rights law compliant service cutbacks that affect the (unfortunately still too high) 90% of the 20% of the country with a disability who is also forced, for whatever reason, to also receive government benefits (known broadly as “disability”).

That’s where we hope we can really make our first impact. We also hope that we begin to make enough “noise” on the policy level (and we don’t care where, how, or with whom, as long as we can make our point) that draining the petroleum out of Medicaid (the blanket default medical insurance program we should probably all get used to referring to) is one of the best ways to immediately figure out ways to “cut it” while planning longer term service models (like ours we not so modestly suggest) to actually make the service itself if not the transportation that serves this community, the most efficient, best and cost-effective it can be.

After all, Title II of the ADA was designed as the “no separate but unequal” clause of the statute. In “Title VII” terms (which also apply here we hasten to remind any legislators reading this), this is essentially the “no white drinking fountain” clause of the ADA.

We think this makes the point without, say, sitting in any cafeterias marked “able-bodied only” and most certainly without posting a cartoon somewhere effective with two (non ADA compliant) drinking fountains – one for the “able-bodied” and the other for “gimps.”