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.

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.”

The Petroleum Market Watch Equation

It is a truism that understanding the basic elements to any subject is the key to understanding it. We decided to do a brief primer in today’s blog about the math behind our “inevitability calculations” of the increased speed now at which the country will convert to “alt” (whether CNG or not). Since we have done the calculations with CNG however, we will stick with that for today’s blog.

The first standard to set is to rethink your energy calculations in “scientific geek speak.” In that world, a gallon of petroleum equals 124,000 BTUs (or British Thermal Units) of energy.

The cost, in other words of 124,000 petroleum-fueled BTUs is now hovering around, well, let’s just bite the bullet for the sake of a few week’s relativity, $4.00. We know what we are about to tell you is shocking so in the interests of apples-to-apples comparisons, remember that this is “retail” price. The next one is “wholesale” price, which is usually about ½ to 1/3 of what consumers pay at point of purchase. It’s a bit harder (for us at least) to give readers a better benchmark for petroleum but let’s just assume for appreciably equal comparisons, we are actually talking about $1.00 a gallon “wholesale” petroleum costs.

Now, to this end, consider an entry in a recent MarketWatch report that came out a day after the Natural Gas Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives last week (H.R. 1380).

That story, which appeared on April 7, 2011, discussed that the price for natural gas fell $0.07 for supplies to be delivered in May to a number that should sound quite familiar to most motorists these days of $4.07. Of this year we hasten to add. We also must note here that this price decrease for natural gas (amidst a month of a $0.25 cent retail price at the pump at least – increase per (approximately) $1.00+ a-gallon of petroleum or 124K of petroleum BTUs) is for a whopping 1 million BTUs of natural gas powered energy.

To think of it this way, there are approximately 8 “gallons” of petroleum-fueled energy in a million gas powered BTUs. Now, if you compared the approximate price of “BTUs” fueled by different kinds of energy, the price of a BTU fueled by natural gas is approximately half that of petroleum.

And that is where the first real analysis should, we think be made. It is for that reason we hope that our cars at least open the doors to new innovation in the continued alteration of the combustion engine to another “hybrid dot one” version if not a whole other “dot oh” upgrade.

We do want to note with some humor that apparently the market had bet against natural gas, specifically that there was a smaller than expected decline in weekly supplies. We note this merely because we know the market, along with apparently many policymakers, does not understand what the every-person at the pump does.

As the perfect segue to end today’s blog, we were out for our morning dog walk this morning and happened upon a neighbor fixing his car. It turns out he is an employee at one of the largest cab companies in Charlotte. He does not look or sound like he was born in this country, in one of the long, proud, traditions of many immigrants to establish a (legal) foothold on these shores by working as a taxi driver (in many cities across this country). When we told him what we are doing, he looked at us for a minute, translating semi-unfamiliar words.

“Green taxis?” he said. “No gas?” We didn’t have the heart to say, well, sort of, but the point, we think should speak volumes.

He gave us the thumbs up at our affirmative, and may in fact be one of our earliest “poach” hires to the extent that we do much of that (and we don’t intend to do much). However having someone in the neighborhood who can walk to work and is enthusiastic about the core premise of our company in any language is something that is clean, green music to our ears.

Green Tipping Points

There is an inevitability to the direction we are headed, even if for example “we” as Freedom Riders do not succeed in our current venture. The realities if not greenbacks of “real-politik” if not directly in consumer’s (and government’s) wallets are dictating the lockstep of our strategic guidance.

This is no-where more true right now than in the “green” action that is going on in Washington D.C. at the moment, ostensibly even with cutbacks at such agencies as the EPA. In another classic “behind the scenes,” not to mention “I’m not an insider but I play the game” hall and vote jockeying move by Obama, there are some political realities lining up that are decidedly bipartisan and seem to meet everybody’s goals at the moment. This starts with all the careful posturing of the President yesterday about the cuts he has “allowed” in the budget to date along with the “invest in the future” rhetoric. It also happened about a week ago with far less drama on the (mostly) Republican side of the House with the introduction of H.R. 1380, the so-called “Natural Gas Act.” We will examine that piece of nascent legislation in another post no doubt. The White House has already praised the vehicle we plan to use (the MV-1) in a press statement we link to elsewhere on this site. It boggles the mind in the spider-web sensitivity of the White House to the Hill, particularly in this administration, that this legislation didn’t at least make a mention at some White House briefing in the last week. Nor, we surmise, was it entirely unrelated to Obama’s subsequent remarks and actions on the federal budget negotiations.

On the local level, we see these federal developments as a boon (not the one in Watauga County) for North Carolina and even more specifically Charlotte. The region is staggering right now under a very high 11% unemployment rate (the fourth highest of any city in the country), that will prove to be stubborn to combat unless some kind of investment and retraining of a large segment of the population occurs quickly. It will also be inevitably helped by creating opportunities for this cash-strapped (and very petroleum dependent) region to cut their transportation energy costs dramatically. Charlotte is also, for those without the regional knowledge, one of the major North-South transportation hubs for long-haul truckers on the East Coast. This legislation and Charlotte’s early mover advantage in converting to CNG city-wide, could directly (and positively) impact the price of many different commodities (starting with food) on a regional (as in East Coast) basis if not nationally.

If there was ever a “ground zero” for the “green tipping point” to make an (excuse the mixed metaphors) economic “atomic blast” the size of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki domestically with the least amount of other kinds of investment (both public and private), we believe that Charlotte would be it.

We continue to push forwards on all fronts to help make our company one of the ones that is in the forefront of the coming “green” revolution that we hope begins to bloom right along with the azaleas this year.

Pain At The Pump

As MS-NBC reported yesterday, the average price of gasoline has risen to almost $3.75 a gallon nationwide, hitting a new high in San Francisco (of anywhere between $4.25 and $4.50). In North Carolina, the prices are about the national average, but it is obvious to all and sundry that (at least) a $0.25 cent per gallon increase (in a month no less) is not the direction we need to go to keep the fragile economic recovery going.

It’s also something which is going to cause an existential crises at most government agencies, particularly those which have line items for petroleum expenditure that is required under federal civil rights law. We understand the impetus to “suck it up and take the bus,” but the reality is that for many people that just isn’t possible. Starting, by the way, with everyone who lives in a rural community and going all the way to the state’s busiest cities (Charlotte and Raleigh).

We don’t mean to brag, but we think we have the silver bullet to put the ever-lurking zombies and werewolves of rising gas prices firmly back where they belong. We are hard pressed in fact, to figure out how government services (at least) can resist the siren song of instant and easy savings without any additional service model adaptations (although ours is highly efficient in that regard too).

We take a moment here to pause in reflection about how much things have really changed in America over the last decade. Despite all the bad news that seems to still surround us about the economy if not energy independently, the reality is when both are looked at together, we see silver, if not green linings to all those dark, seemingly everpresent clouds.

We encourage visitors to our site to take a look around at some of our “wonkier” offerings, including of course our tabs on “Green Business Math.” We actually hope that what we are doing is going to provide a cheaper alternative in transportation if not efficiencies of scale in other areas of non-negotiable transportation and energy expenditure costs. That goes for both the public and private sectors.

Tune in on a regular basis to find out what our plans might be as we continue to build up to company launch.

As a final note, we were tempted yesterday to update our price of petroleum as we have denoted it on a tab herein, but we then paused and thought perhaps we should just leave it there to establish a benchmark (if not to allow people to realize yet again what sticker shock at the gas pump means for the long term). This is not your parent’s (1970’s) petroleum shortage. This one is here for good. Perhaps it’s a tad gauche and may seem like gloating for us to constantly bring this up but that is not the intent. The real motive here is to finally wean America off it’s petroleum dependence. We think we have a few (but by far from all) of the answers in helping us get there or at least in beginning to take some of the earliest, easiest baby steps.

“Alt” Fuel & Energy Conservation Here to Stay

Those of us old enough to remember ill-fated early “green” sprouts and initiatives at the national policy level (such as solar panels installed and then torn down from the White House) are probably doing a very green jig this spring as much as we wince at certain throwbacks.

We’ll skip out on the controversy here by summarizing we are just glad nobody is considering any off-shore drilling in the immediate vicinity (or just as bad, upstream).  Those who are snarking at our supposed faulty sense of nautical proximity should brush off their Civil War history books (Charlotte served as the Confederate Navy Yard).  As the founder has North Carolina roots that go back to the Revolutionary War not to mention had a great-great die as a Johnny Reb with his boots on, this situation is not one that can be commented on except to remember who lost that fracus and wonder if such logic and similar strategic derring do had anything to do with it.

The reality is in a post-Tolkyo world, everyone lives downstream (or downwind) from the “oops” of somebody else’s energy source.

We here at Freedom Riders are focusing our attention on the pillars of sustainability.  The reality is that cars pollute as much as houses (and often for the same kinds of reasons).  We aim to take shot at both of those, as much as we are ostensibly a “green transport” company.

What those plans are we hope should keep you on your toes as much as it should (we hope) make you breath a little easier.  In the short term, it is gratifying to know that we are certainly on the right side of history as recent events rather clearly validate.

The President has also embarked on a mission to help shield Americans from the rising cost of petroleum.  We would like to sign up now as a small but energetic helper in that fight, as much as we encourage him to set higher goals and benchmarks.