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.

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.