No comments? Actually I'm not surprised. The APS report is too long and somewhat rambling (like this post ) plus the report is surprisingly timid for most of it's recommendations. 20 pages for an excutive summary! Shouldn't an executive summary only be a page or two?

Gripes. The first recommendation in the report is a 50mpg fuel efficiency standard by 2030. How about instead recommending 50mpg by 2015 (or sooner) and then lay out the specific steps (technology as well as the policy) required to make it happen? Of course, a 50mpg standard in just a few years would have created quite a bit of controversy. But isn't that the point? A 50mpg standard would get people talking - as opposed to proposing something uninspiring (boring) that the press then simply ignores.

I also think that combining the transportation initiative (fuel efficiency) with improving building-related energy efficiency in the same report was another mistake since it 'diluted' the message. Reducing oil imports from those evil Arab countries is clearly a topic that will resonate (today) with the American public (and the politicians) - while talking at length about insulating attics probably won't.

Making energy efficiency the central theme may have also been a mistake. Even though it would effectively be the same policy, shouldn't the paper have emphasized reducing oil imports from those evil Arabs instead? Subtle difference, but possibly important to many potential readers.

Another gripe, the paper talks about plug-in hybrids and makes an indirect mention that the cost to drive a plug-in hybrid will be cheaper (than gas) if you can recharge overnight using a household electrical outlet. Why not emphasize that point (over and over) that the cost to drive a plug-in hybrid is equivalent to gas costing less than $1 a gallon? Americans desperately want cheap gas (again) and telling them that gas for less than $1 a gallon is possible if we only had cheap battery technology. Wouldn't that inspire the public to support US Government funded battery research - as opposed to the rambling indirect messages littered throughout the report?

Although I did not read the report, I read both of your posts.
From the first post, my initial thought was "Why does the government need to pay for it? Isn't private industry already producing hybrids, experimenting with PHEV, and isn't Chevy already developing a Volt? (let's assume Chevy is serious)

From the second post, my thoughts: "The government always tries to confuse facts from different subjects. Bush tried to make Americans think we invaded Iraq due to 911. Pundits were quick to remind the public of the truth. (911->Afghanistan. WMDs->Iraq). With this report, same thing; they tried to confuse energy with economics (sure, they are related, but they are separate subjects). Building energy deals with the environment. Dependence on foreign oil (in non-war times) deals with the trade deficit. Again, two separate subjects that the government tries to confuse the public with, to the government's advantage.

I'm interested to hear your reply on why the government needs to pay for electric car development.