What you can do for your country

Do you know your cost of Health Care? A reality test for congress

I have often thought that a basic problem with health care is insurance.  That insurance, promising full coverage for those with the right employer, motivates bad behavior from customers and doctors.  Why be a savvy shopper when all health care is free?  This is often referred to as moral hazard, one abuses a resource if there are no repercussions.  Conversely, the need to mitigate health care cost (counter moral hazard) has been regulating price, not paying more than $X for a given procedure.

Now in most other markets this combination of moral hazard and cost constraint, constrains innovation.  Why innovate if I can't sell more product and make more money?  If the customer can't decided on procedure, why offer any options?  If there are no options, there is not concept of early adopters willing to pay a bit more for a more innovative product, that might not be perfect but none the less appealing to savvy shoppers (like the folks that bought an iPhone before it was a cool idea, in my case it was testing for CRP before it became a routine blood test).

I am a student of innovation.   A true believer in the concepts of Creative Destruction (Schumpeter et. al.)  What that all means is that if a buyer and seller can negotiate different options of what might be bought, then over a period of time better products will emerge and people will learn what is the best product, in terms of the needs of the customer (not some actuary in a tower).  And, as early adopters consume products, costs will come down and quality will go up.  For example, a $1,000 Dell computer today can do more than a $1M cray computer could do in 1980.

So, I have been testing the health care industry.  I have my own insurance and use a Health Savings Account.  Essentially this lets me put $2,500 into an account pretax and increases my deductible to $2,500.  My overall insurance cost is much lower, but I am at risk in a sense for the first $2,500.  So, I am now a consumer.  I want to know how much everything costs, what its value will be, and wish to know more about my options. 

So, here is my story.  I go to a specialist today.  He looks at my problem and says "I can do either A or B.  A may work.  B definitely will work.  What do you want to do?"

So, I say "Choice B, but what does it cost?".  The doctor says "What does it cost?  Hmm.... I don't know?  Maybe my Administrator knows". 

I go to the administrator, "What does it cost?".  The administrator says "Well, the doctors cost or the other costs for the procedure?  I am not sure?  You need to call the place the procedure will be done?".  I am thinking, "My cost.  Why do I care what the doctor gets paid.  And why do I need to call the surgery center where the doctor plans to do the procedure."

Would you buy a car without knowing what it costs?  A house?  A cell phone?  When doctors don't even know what the cost is, how can some remote bureaucrat figure it out accurately?   And by cost I mean A vs. B.  I am making the A vs. B decision.  The Insurance company might set a rate for A or B, but they really have a hard time forcing my hand if the difference is marginal.  They are just not that good at understanding my "Reservation Price" and other related costs.

The way you control cost and quality is to establish a relationship between buyer and seller.  Period!  Some will say "But this is not a normal transaction, if you get ripped off its your health and you die".  Well maybe you do, but you also die by having piss poor doctors that are not motivate to make more money, do better for themselves and the patients.  I want people who work for me to make money, because then they work harder for me.  People judge their self worth and learn to do better by the interaction they have with those around them.  If you are a smart person thinking about a great profession, do you want to get a job where your hard work pays off or where you just follow a routine and have a defined revenue stream (Defined by Congress).

I personally think we would all be better with an HSA.  The $2,500 deductible can be managed in almost all cases, low income can have a subsidized spending out and the rich can self fund.  We would become more aggressive about our health care, limit our use to when we really need care, and in so doing become a more active participants in the health process.  The ensuing competition would continue to motivate good people to enter the profession.  And, most importantly of all, through innovation, what amounts to $1M Cray computer in health care (i.e. liver transplant or such) will over time come down in price (quickly with innovation) because smart doctors will figure out better tricks and tools for driving better care, because their patients reward them for it monetarily and through the customer/supplier relationship of commerce.

So, your homework assignment - when ever you go to the doctor (if you are paying or not), ask what it costs.  See what you find out.

The Man that brought us Supply Side Economics (Great Book)

With the recent passing of Jack Kemp, I was reminded of his exceptional effort in leading the charge to supply side economics in the early 80's. The man behind the thinking was Arthur Laffer, a truly gifted economist.

Laffer's newest Book, The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen chronicles the power of less government and less taxes.  Many argued that the deficits of the 80's was a function of supply side economics - that low taxes drove debt.  But the reality is, as well told in the book, revenues increased under Laffer plan.  Congress however did not spend less.  Part of the spending issue was good, investing in defense to weaken Russia.  Other parts were bad.  Is was not until the Republican congress in the late 90's that spending was brought under control and in conjunction with lower taxes, much of the reason for the boom in that time frame.

Some parts of the Laffer story are well, laughable.  In the simplest form, the Laffer curve says as taxes reach 100%, revenue drops off to zero - meaning, why would someone work if they were paying 75%, 85%, or 100% of their wages to the government?  They wouldn't.  But when Laffer and team asked the congressional budget office for revenue estimates for various increased taxes, the CBO increased total revenue forecast, a mathmatically correct but economically improbable outcome.

Right and Left, people don't understand economics.  Much of the fight in the 80's was Kemp trying to persuade Republicans to lower taxes.  But Laffer points out, the reality is, when things like capital gains taxes are reduced, people invest more, generate more wealth, and net revenues increase at a faster rate than taxing people to death.  California, New York and New Jersey represent the folks that don't get this.  Emerging economies are the ones that do get it.

If you are seriously concerned about our economy and want to understand how to make the economy work, this is a great book to read, and you don't need to be an economist to get it.

PS: Please follow 4yourcountry on Twitter

When it comes to Green ignore Gore, listen to the real inventor of the Internet

There is a popular myth that Al Gore invented the Internet.  Never to be out done, he went on to be the father of Green, won a noble prize, Emmy etc.  The man is a genius, so he thinks.

The Reality is the Internet was developed over many years by many great entrepreneurs who toiled in the lab and the market place to develop real innovation.  They did this with a passion for the technology they were developing, but great uncertainty with regard to how their technologies in the end would effect society.  The true entrepreneurs of the bunch evolved with the market place, discovering new angles and views on how to be successful.  They were beat up in the market place, and survived stronger for it.

First amongst these Entrepreneurs is Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet (as in he has the patent, not a noble prize) which is a critical foundational technology for the Internet.  His classmates at MIT were key players in Email, FTP, TCP/IP, etc.  And no, Al gore was not in their graduating class at MIT.

Metcalfe went on to found 3Com corporation, a leader in the Internet.  He has been around all the key innovations in information technology over the last 40 years.  He is now a major investor in all forms of new start-ups, with a particular concentration on Energy.

Metcalfe's perspective on how to solve the energy problem is radically different than Gore.  Metcalfe, based on his real and successful experience actually doing something that has changed our lives, believes that the pathway to climate salvation will be the development of Clean and Cheap energy.  This notion of Cheap is critical to his perspective.  Where Gore wants to limit and conserve, Metcalfe wants to expand and make efficient.  Now think about this, computers use to be expensive, over time they became cheaper, new applications were developed, society shifted, the world operates in a different manner.  I would argue in a better manner.  Metcalfe suggests (again based on real practical experience) that the dire climate predictions will be swept away by entrepreneurs who blow our mind with market derived innovation.  For a great summary of Metcalfe's views, you need to see this YouTube video:

If you listen to Metcalfe, you are compelled to think differently about how to solve the climate problem in a way that meets all our needs.  Who but the most goofball extremist could be against clean cheap abundant energy?  I guess Gore could.  Or maybe Waxman.  The Juxtaposition of Metcalfe (A guy who has "Done It") to Waxman, Gore, Pelosi, etc who know nothing about technology, entrepreneurship, business, innovation, etc is amazing. 

We should put the Climate Bill in the trash and let Metcalfe lead us out of our despair.  Give up on congress and lets here from the Metcalfe's of the world.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act - Delay in Game

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is critical to our nation, saving the environment, and curtailing global warming!  At least that is what the nation voted for, in part, in the last election.  And, moving with change in the air, the Congress has produced a sweeping important piece of legislation that will effectively address the climate issue and drive the necessary change, right?

Not so sure?  1,500 pages of legislation suggests a lot of deep thoughtful thinking.  I am reminded by a Mark Twain quote, “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”.

After my last posting from Sunday summarized key elements of the legislation, I got a lot of interesting Emails.  The short summary is ACESA is a bill with way to many very detailed (Nanny) solutions mixed together in one big piece of legislation, which as observed by Mark Twain may represent a lack of time.  But what is the rush?  Are the polar caps melting?  Is a hurricane coming?

I am told that the bill was rushed through for purely marketing reasons.  Pelosi et. al., apparently in anticipation of upcoming world wide climate discussion in Copenhagen, wanted to get the bill passed in the house so that the US can demonstrate moral leadership on the climate issue.  But, I am told by DC insiders, she and Waxman know the bill as it stands will never get through the Senate!  Furthermore, she apparently let several democrats with marginal re-election changes to vote No on the bill (you mean the american people may not be For higher utility bills in a recession).  Its all politics.

So, the American people vote for change.  They appear to want action on the climate.  Congress musters the effort for climate, and they deliver a bill that is tuned to please Copenhagen instead of the American people.  If your life depended on it, who would you bet on first, Europe or the US.

I am further told that Senator Reid has no plan to address the Clean Energy bill in the Senate until after health care.  This suggests 4th quarter 2009 or early 2010.  The polar bears are waiting.  More over, the bill will be dramatically revamped to address impact on the economy amongst other things.  If the economy keeps going into the ditch, failing to save or create more jobs, the votes "For" will vaporize as we approach an election season.  Perhaps Reid is Mark Twain in disgust, using time to write a shorter bill.  We have had a Democrat lead Senate and House since 2006, and the furthest we have gotten in a comprehensive energy bill is the changes in lighting standards passed under Bush's presidency.

Though we have learned to expect little from congress, there is a broader issue of our country's move to a more secure and energy efficient place.  My sense is, based on the election, that a majority of us would like to import less energy and emit less CO2. We would like to do this even more if was cost effective, created jobs and improved the United States competitiveness in the world.  Interestingly enough the United States knows a thing or two about competing.  Our companies do it quite well time and time again, always beating the odds.

Indecision however is the cholesterol in our arteries.  GE, Emerson, etc are bringing more efficient things to market.  They are ready to do more.  Solar, wind, nuclear, lighting are all evolving.  In the last 30 years energy consumption as a function of GDP has declined almost 50% (From ~10% in 70's to 5% today).  We know how to work these things out.  Good legislation, like EPA Energy Star, have created a gentle nudge to help drive more efficiency.  But, uncertainty slows the innovation process.  Is the Government going to implement Cap Trade?  What will it look like?  How will money be distributed?  Is DOE going to provide their promised "Bonus Incentives" to vendors of super performing appliances?  Will congress be planting more trees or should those selling Renewable Energy Credits do it?  After 1,501 pages of legislation you can imagine there are all sorts of winners, losers, and new incentives.

So imagine you are CEO of Emerson, Boeing, Duke, or some other industrial concern deciding how to invest $5B in R&D to be competitive in the emerging landscape.  You need to build a new power plant.  With Cap Trade and Government incentives you would go with solar.  Without Cap Trade, you will build coal.  Oh, and you need to make the decision today so its on-line and producing in 2015 when its needed.  You have 10M homes to light up, day in, day out.  The answer is, as CEO, you would try not to do anything.  They would look for any small increment of investment that would let them delay a decision on investment until the Congress, Senate, and President make a decision.  Of course after their trip to Copenhagen to show off their newly formed Moral Authority.

It must be fun to be in charge in Washington getting to make all the big decisions, talking about how the creation of a Bill might change the world.  But the world is changed by companies and people implementing new innovations.  It is changed by people adopting solutions that work for their lifestyle, family and location.  Washington might be a great place to feel good about oneself, while everywhere else we live in a reality that has to make real decision about how to invest, employ resources, hire/fire people, grow, divest, etc. 

A 1,501 page bill, designed to persuade the world we mean business even though the bill will be slashed by the senate some time in the future is a hypocrisy.  It will take several years for the DOE and executive branch to translate this bill into rules and procedures and a couple more years after that for industry to understand how to operate under these new regulations.  This bill is a giant distraction, just like the department of home land security was.  Its moving a bunch of deck chairs around in a way that appeals to Washington.  Maybe instead they should enact legislation that tells us which way to generally head, and let industry figure out the best deck chairs to deliver and how to set the view.

Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, Obama, etc have succeeded in delaying progress.  Their antics will just delay the decision companies need to make.  Capital will be held at bay until clarity emerges.  Other countries will continue to innovate in their local markets while we wait for our gang to return from Copenhagen, maybe with an Emmy, Oscar or Nobel Prize.

What a disappointment!

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454)

The American Clean Energy Act was approved in the House of Representatives on Friday, June 26, 2009.  The bill is some 1,201 pages.  At the last minute (Technically 3 am in the morning of the 26 th) a 300 page amendment to the bill was added.  At the time of the vote, it is unclear what was the actual version of the bill being voted on.  The bill is headed to the Senate.  Reid says he will wait until the fall to take action.  The Senate will likely dramatically reduce the scope of the bill.

I believe the issue of climate change is serious.  I can't profess to know if it is man made, natural, or both (more likely).  But, having read this bill (Yes I read the entire thing and the amendments), I don't think congress is taking this thing seriously.  We may have "Passed legislation, but not gotten anything done", a congressman once said.  As Bob Metcalfe(Founder of Ethernet, 3com etc) says, "When you go to Washington to get stuff, you often get the wrong stuff".

So, the basis of the bill is probably OK.  Energy is important.  The country voted for change.  Using less oil seems like a good idea.  The democrats won.  We need to do something about the climate.  OK.  The notion of Cap Trade, and this bill, is in line with the elections.  It may impose a tax of sorts.  Industry will be disrupted.  Someone is moving our  "Cheese".

But the 1,201 pages are not about Cap Trade.  The bill has numerous provisions like:

• Limiting wattage of outdoor Luminaries (that means lights) and making them so they have different levels of output to deal with demand response
• Limiting wattage on candelabra lights in your home (making them so dim that you will just get lights with more sockets)
• Providing grants for home owners and small business to plant trees to shade their home "Reducing winter time demand for energy from residences and small office buildings by blocking cold winds from reaching such structures, which lowers interior temperatures and drives heating demand."
• Establishing regional councils to educate people on the value and proper care of trees.
• Subsidy for 150% of poverty home owners whose "Purchasing Power" is diminished by the new costs imposed by this bill (Despite the claim that the bill will impose no more than $150 or so of cost on each family)
• Bonuses for retailers, distributors, and manufactures that sell a lot of "Best in class appliances" (To be determined by the feds.  So that the feds will be picking whether GE or Sony are the best most efficient appliances, and them bribing Best Buy to sell more of one or the other's goods
• Smoot Hawley for Green, imposing trade restrictions on countries that do not have similar climate policies as the United States

I could go on and on with all the unnecessary addons for this bill.  On a more significant subject, there is a whole section of the bill focused on demand response.  Demand response is a process of limiting load during the energy demand peak of a hot summer, essentially to make the grid more stable.  This really has little to do with CO2 emissions.  Perhaps they are advocating demand response in anticipation of a need for a responsive load for inclusion of more variable capacity generation like solar and wind.  But this is cart before the horse.  I wired my home for Ethernet in 2001, dropping Ethernet lines into every room at a cost of about $600/room.  But now I use wireless throughout the house at a cost of a couple of wireless routers ($100/each). 

Solar and Wind represent something like 1 or 2% of the energy source in the United States.  It is unclear how best these resources will be deployed as they move to larger scale.  Betting now on demand response is sort of like mandating everyone wire for Ethernet in 1990 in anticipation of the Internet economy.  The bill dictates an approach to solving the energy problem before our engineers and innovators have found the best way to provide better and cheaper energy.

At a macro level, this bill is yet another slap in the face of the Green movement.  The extra crap in the bill will just generate animosity to the objective.  As everyday people are effected by limitations in what lights they can buy, subsidies to certain citizens, higher costs, etc they will wonder why they voted for the president and this congress.  The mass of the bill and its over reach may stir up a backlash against the objectives of the movement.  Where will we be then? 

Its time for folks to be serious about how they act.  There was virtually no legitimate conversation in DC on this bill.  It was rushed through to show concern for the planet.  But, it ignores the practical lessons of how technology and innovation occur.  Innovation occurs in the market place, with various competing pressures.  The best green answer will come from innovators seeking to provide competitive cheep and abundant clean energy, that competes cost effectively against existing technology.  We have 10 years ahead of us to turn those innovations into scale.

Those who wrote this bill will say, "But we can't wait, we need this technology now".  You can't legislate innovation and you can't buy your way into it.  If we taxed the nation to death to implement immediate solutions, those solutions will be overtaken by drastically cheaper next generation choices.  This happened in the Cell phone market.  The US implemented TDMA well before everyone else. The better solution came along, GSM, and took the world by storm while the US dragged its feed on TDMA.  Ultimately we switched over to get better service.  There was a delay however because we had a 1st generation installed base, and 2nd generation was better and cheaper.

Instead if we fund our innovators well and bring some coherence to market objectives (1,200 pages is not coherent) so they can place their bets, then we can build a next generation architecture, let the market drive down cost, and then drive adoption because the market will have low cost, affordable, clean and abundant solutions. 

Congress needs to trust the American innovation engine. 

Reducing the Debt

I have seen/heard several rich people suggest a willingness to pay higher taxes, suggesting that all rich people should pay more.  Its unclear that more taxes will stop excessive spending.  So, if folks like Buffet fill compelled to pay more taxes, perhaps they should just contribute to reducing the national debt.  Apparently this is easy to do by sending a check to the Treasury.  If you are interested, Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

More information can be found at the Treasury

Earmarks and the Stimulus: American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009

The president has stated that there are no earmarks in the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (the "stimulus").  Technically he is correct, but practically his point is irrelevant because this bill contains the same problems as those with earmarks, lack of debate.

Earmarks are an effective means to balance power.  They let weaker states bring forward issues that need to be addressed federally but never seem to have time to be addressed given all the issues that face congress.  Though effective, earmarks weaken democracy because they are rarely discussed.  Earmarks remove the opportunity to use debate to improve the quality of the "ask" because earmarks are often done in secret or at the last minute, but they hep build agreement for a bills overall objectives.

The stimulus is just one big behind the scenes earmark.  A congresswomen told me that the bill was essentially assembled by asking each department to put together their "Wish List".  These items were categorized under major headings (Health, Energy, Defense, etc), added up, and inserted into the bill.  Then there was no review with committee staff, Democrat or Republican.  Normally, a committee reviews these types of requests, holds hearings, and morphs the requests to align with overall objectives. 

Though spending is stimulative, some things are more stimulative than others.  Funding automated health records employees software engineers but lays-offs clerks.  Spending more for US only steel, helps mills, but increases effective debt - putting off a time where the economy will be drained to repay for the higher costs.

One may not call these earmarks, but effectively they possess the same problem as earmarks, no review.  There has been no time to review and perfect the stimulus bill so that it truly meets the president's objectives.

The president won in part because the Republicans exhibited no fiscal discipline.  The American people appear to want more fiscal discipline.  Rushing a bill forward appears to be good from a stimulus perspective, but that win will be short lived.  Over time, the errors in the bill will become very apparent and the president will suffer a backlash. 

The president did say it was important to act now to save the economy from dire outcomes (then he took a 4 day weekend without signing the stimulus, and blocked Ohare air traffic for 1 hour on a busy Friday evening).  Essentially there was no time for hearings.  But really, a large portion of the stimulus will not be spent until 2010.  So, which is better A) rush a bill and get hit with the errors later or B) review the bill in committee and get it better up front.  Or C) break the bill into $300B upfront for the shovel ready and tax breaks, and work out the balance over the next 2 months. 

The truth in the end is all the errors will appear, and they will land at the president's feet.  Cramming things through congress earmarks or otherwise, without debate weakens us all.

Carbon Facts

Just as there are interesting energy facts, there are interesting Carbon facts.  Efforts to reduce ones carbon footprint can at times actually increase carbon footprint.  The term "Life Cycle Assessment" is used to characterize the process of looking at all the inputs (and their CO2 emissions) for the design, manufacture, delivery and operation of a product.  The Life Cycle story on Green products exposes some unintended consequences.

• It takes 18 years of use to make up for the carbon output of producing, delivering and installing a solar cell (Source: An industry conference - so is this an urban myth)  (This also depends on location)

Energy Facts

In the debate on energy, I keep hearing bigger and bigger numbers of what is wrong, how bad it will get, how much money goes over seas, etc.  It feels like after Katrina - "10K People are dead".  I think we may all be better served with facts to help measure our progress and focus our attention with respect to energy security and CO2 emissions.  (If I get any of this wrong, please comment with a source an I will correct it)  So, here we go.....

• The United States Consumes 20.7MMbd (Million Barrels per day) of Oil  EIA 2006
• The United States Imports 13.7 MMbd of Oil  EIA 2006

• The United States Exports 1.3 MMbd of Oil EIA 2006
• The Middle East represents 16% of US imports, which makes it about 10% (60% * 16%) of our domestic oil usage.  Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the majority of those supply the United states in from the Middle East  EIA 2006

• Growth in demand for oil in the US has been essentially consistent since the 80's, with no apparent change in growth regardless of political party in power.  There was a major decline during the tail end of the Carter administration and first half of the Reagan administration (coincident with economic down turn).  Reduction during the first gulf war.  Some reduction at the beginning of the recent bush administration.  EIA 2006   

 

Import oil growth during last 5 presidents (EIA 2006)
	President	Overall Growth	Average Growth/Year
	Carter	-34.2%	-8.5%
	Reagan	+18.2%	2.3%
	Bush 1	-3.5%	-0.9%
	Clinton	+27.1%	+3.5%
	Bush 2	+9.5%	+1.4%

CO2 Emissions growth during last 5 presidents (EIA 2006)
	President	Overall Growth	Average Growth/Year
	Carter	-0.5%	-0.1%
	Reagan	+6.9%	0.9%
	Bush 1	-0.16%	-0.04%
	Clinton	+11.6%	+1.5%
	Bush 2	+2.4%	+0.4%

$300M for a battery and Friedman is flat

McCain is offering $300M for a next generation battery.  Tom Friedman has blames Bush for a bad energy policy.  Is government the fix?

McCain offered an X-Prize form of award to an entity that could develop a battery that can, I presume, make hybrids and electric vehicles, a viable economic solution.  As if enough people are not already focused on battery development.  Millions, if not Billions, is currently being invested to develop such a battery.  There really are not a lot of battery experts, scientists, or engineers sitting on the bench say, "You know I can solve the battery problem, but my reservation price for doing it is $300M".  My guess is the venture capitalists investing in battery technology are looking to make billions, not millions.

I think a great deal of Tom Friedman, but I think he jumped the shark in his commentary on Bush and Oil in the last day (Lead or Leave).  The technology theme in Friedman's article is that if Bush had pushed oil prices up post 9/11, that technology innovation in Solar and Wind would have closed the performance gap in the intermediate period and we would not be so dependent on oil.  He is talking apples and oranges when he equates Oil to Wind/Solar.

Some thoughts.....

• Investment in clean tech in the first quarter of 2008 alone has been $1.25B in the United States.  There is a lot of money going into clean-tech.  $300M won't even be seen.
• Solar and Wind have little to do with Oil.  Oil is primarily a automotive commodity.  Solar and wind produce electricity.  Solar and wind can displace a small fraction of Oil usage for things like heating. For solar and wind to have an impact in automotive, it requires low cost product, efficient distribution, and a replacement of vehicles (that will take years).  There are so many elements that need to be aligned it is best for the market to manage rather than government.
• The Grid is maxed out.  If we build a real electric car, the Grid needs to also be re-built to support new demand.
• Natural gas is the next risk.  Buildings run on electricity and natural gas.  Solar and wind will help buildings, but so would running buildings more efficiently.  Some estimates say that 20% of the energy used in buildings is a result of poorly configured building control systems.

Opinion....

• Government should focus on eliminating barriers to adopting clean technology
• Friedman should observe not opine.  He should ask "Why would Bush not act", rather than simply criticize
• Innovation is about dealing with markets, not inventing a technology (See Schumpeter).  The best battery, best solar cell, best wind farm, etc probably won't work unless we understand how it is deployed and adopted by markets.  Test that.....
• The Government should probably focus more on using the technology instead of betting on it.  For examples, they have a lot of buildings that waste energy, but are doing little to optimize what they have.  Have a competition for who can reduce the cost of optimizing buildings, that could save us 8-10% of our energy usage per year, relieve the pressure on the grid, and make space for plug in hybrids.