GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

To examine new ways to compensate for federal highway budget shortfalls, along with other consequences of roadway traffic, alternative ways of taxing vehicles have recently been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

If the study prompted legislation taxing motorists for miles they drive, instead of fuel they consume, drivers of electric cars would have to pay in ways for which they are not now required.

The CBO’s study was reportedly a quick turnaround released last week. It was done following an early March request by the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

In that same hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood had said the Obama administration hopes to spend $556 billion over the next six years – with the bulk of it going toward federal transportation improvement projects.

Before any new taxes affecting efficient internal-combustion, hybrid, or plug-in cars like this Volt happened, more would have to be done in the building shown in the background.

In response, Conrad broached upon the possibility of levying road use taxes based upon Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of fuel taxes as a way to collect more revenues as people move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

“Do we do gas tax?” Conrad asked. “Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren’t going to be paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?”

Currently, roadway building and improvements are partially paid by fuel taxes, and where applicable, tolls. Since rules were set in 1993, the Highway Trust Fund is financed by federal gasoline taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon, and diesel taxes of 24.4 cents per gallon.

“About 25 percent of the nation’s highways, which carry about 85 percent of all road traffic, are paid for in part by the federal government,” CBO said. State and local funding also go into the funding mix.

In its introduction, the study says nothing about electric cars and hybrids, however. It merely states that its primary concern is to make up for the highway fund’s budget deficit, and pay future expenditures. Since 2008, $30 billion has been withdrawn from the general fund to help fund highway maintenance and improvements.

To close the gap, and provide the nearly 19-times more ($566 billion) that policymakers would like to spend in the next six years, the CBO explored proposals, giving actionable information that could be used to support a variety of taxation scenarios based on VMT.

If VMT-based taxation were to be implemented, it would have to be monitored in some way. This could be by vehicle-installed devices, or by cameras tracking registration plates, like they use in London, or something as simple as odometer readings, or even a scanner at way points.

Some regions in the U.S. and around the world have already experimented with different approaches, and the technology is there to do it, the study says. The question – which the study examines pretty thoroughly – is how best to implement a system restructuring to make roadway users pay.

“Having the devices installed as original equipment under a mandate to vehicle manufacturers would be relatively inexpensive but could lead to a long transition,” CBO said, “requiring vehicles to be retrofitted with the devices could be faster but much more costly, and the equipment could be more susceptible to tampering than factory-installed equipment might be.”

The study does not use the term “discrimination,” but it does give measures of relative “equity.”

As shown in the charts above and below, the study’s concerns for “equity” focus on unequal share of the tax burden under the present system. Those people in the middle two-fifths (quintiles) of socio-economic tiers pay a disproportionate share, the study says. These include rural and urban dwellers.

Other concerns are for the myriad consequences of traffic density.

“Any given driver’s highway use also imposes costs on other users, on nearby nonusers, on the environment, and on the economy in the form of congestion, risk of accidents, noise, emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants that affect local air quality, and dependence on foreign oil,” CBO said.

As can be ascertained from the above quote, many additional consequences of traffic density were looked at. Concerns exist also for how to reduce traffic by levying charges to encourage desired behaviors. Another study on that topic can be found here.

It was also observed that passenger vehicle traffic accounts for 90-percent of the vehicles, thus the bulk of the congestion. Tractor trailers, while accounting for about 10 percent of vehicles, accounts for more roadway damage. It is presumed that VMT-based taxation would need to tackle the question of equity for drivers of lightweight cars and small trucks, compared to those in heavy trucks.

Concerns about privacy were also foreseen, as VMT monitoring technology could be similar to OnStar, with the federal government having data.

CBO did say that some have proposed restricting information that would be transmitted to the government. This too would need to be hashed out.

Of course any legislation would change taxation not just for plug-ins, but all cars. And clearly, potential legislation has many possible avenues it could take. Fuel taxes could be eliminated, with VMT taking over. Fuel taxes could be reduced, with VMT taking up the slack, and then some. Fuel taxes could be raised, and no move to impose VMT could be chosen.

At this juncture, no definite legislative steps are known to have been taken to enact a new mix in highway funding. It is believed that some state and federal legislators are looking at proposals to include VMT-based taxation, now that the CBO information is in.

The 38-page full study pdf goes into far greater detail than this article could cover. To read a summary, click here. To download the entire study, click here. If you download the full study, read it, scan it, or put the term “electric” in the pdf’s search bar to see references to “electric” cars on pages 10, 19, and 20.

Source:
The Hill
CBO

Most people believe oil will some day run out. It’s less a question of “if,” and more one of “when” it will be before western society and its cultures will be made to fully adopt to its realities.

According to a televised report from the UK last week, a senior global economist for HSBC bank has pinned a round number on it: 49 years remaining, assuming no increased demand – which given that is not happening, could mean a shorter time frame than that.

“Energy resources are scarce,” said Karen Ward. “Even if demand doesn’t increase, there could be as little as 49 years of oil left.”

Ward’s comments came on behalf of an international, London-based, multi-billion dollar financial institution with a dedicated Web page describing its expertise on the topics of which she spoke.

“As a leading international and emerging markets bank,” says its Web site, “sustainability for HSBC means managing our business across the world for the long term.”

The Chevrolet Volt is not yet available in the UK where the interview took place. The world energy situation described nonetheless make it look smarter by the minute.

But the predictions HSBC’s representative gave in congenial and benign terms spoke of a relatively short term before the upheaval of life as we know it – as Ward has done before.

While in the video (not above url, but see below) she alternated to the round number “50” years, she also conceded estimates allow for more time or less.

A “confident” estimate, she said, is right around that number, assuming the world stays busy looking for ways to curtail consumption.

The picture for natural gas availability is not as severe, she said, “but transporting it and using it to meet transport demand is a major issue.”

Time left for coal could be a rather-lengthy 176 years, she said, but it is the “worst carbon culprit.”

Thus, worldwide energy security “will be an increasing concern,” she said. “Diversifying to natural gas to ease the pressure on the oil market won’t overcome it since its supply is as geographically dense as oil.”

As things are, some individuals, corporations and government bodies are adapting in various regions, but in others too little is being done, as demand for more oil still surges.

Over the next 40 years, she said, if supplies are not restricted, demand in emerging markets could surge to 190 million barrels per day.

China alone could account for the majority of new fuel-requiring vehicles by 2050.

“We’ve got another one billion cars coming on the road from 700 million today,” she said, “half of which are going to be in China.”

The present demand for fuel, in that and other economically growing nations, will be impossible to fill in the absence of major new oil reserve discoveries, Ward said.

Ward said the more energy insecure regions are Europe, Latin America and India, with Europe looking the most dire.

“Europe is the big loser with many countries falling down or out of the league table of economic size,” she said. “They could be losing their influence on the world stage just at the time when they are most vulnerable.”

Actually, the scenario Ward portrayed falls neatly into justifying a recent EU initiative attempting to make all gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles illegal in city centers by 2050.

Those proposed “draconian” measures, as opponents have described them, quickly caught criticism from some in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere, however, with the UK being particularly outspoken.

This not being the first time it has stood up to the EU, British Transport Minister Norman Baker said these kinds of decisions should not over-ride local autonomy, nor be thrust upon a whole society as a collective mandate.

“We will not be banning cars from city centers anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas,” Baker said.

As for Ward’s predictions about the world’s energy future, her outlook also falls generally in line with some here at GM-Volt.com. Of the transportation sector, she said it is actually the “lowest hanging fruit” to find solutions for.

From where she sits, the answer for the escalating pressure to find energy solutions requires increased energy efficiency from a mixture of sources.

Natural candidates that can now supplement oil include the usual assortment of wind, solar, hydro-electric, new-generation biofuels from waste oil, and other perceptibly less harmful and sustainable alternatives.

Ward spoke for a bank concerned with “sustainability,” and has warned before of chaos in the developed world, but did not discuss this “alternative” energy source.

In the “interim” period where oil is getting painfully expensive, but not costly enough to fully justify wider-spread use of alternatives, she said it will be awkward and difficult. As oil prices rise higher still, she predicted the alternatives will start to look more cost effective.

And whether it is potentially “safe” or not, the court of public opinion says the jury is out on nuclear power at the moment in the aftermath of Japan’s Fukushima plant crisis.

Ward also touched on Global Warming, and said “carbon capture” technology should be used for damage control on the world’s still-dominant energy source: fossil fuels.

Assuming fossil fuels used for transportation needs, Ward advocated “smaller, more efficient cars will get you from A to B, just not as quickly.”

Aside from one brief joke by the male moderator about the tiny G-Wiz cars in London, electric-powered cars and trucks were not even mentioned in the UK news interview.

Source:
CNBC

The Chevrolet Volt has been generally well received, and the idea of a range-extending gasoline engine paired with electric power is not a difficult one for many people to comprehend.

It has been said, however, that not all people “get” the car’s full value.

So, in the face of less-than-stellar reviews from the likes of Consumer Reports, Edmunds Inside Line blog, and some local publications around the U.S., Chevrolet recently issued statements sticking to its guns that the Volt delivers unprecedented economy.

And widely variable mileage as well.

Unlike strictly internal-combustion-powered cars that perform within a fairly limited economy range, GM is citing individual owners recording from 62 to 93 to 231 MPG.

With somewhere around $1 billion invested in the Volt, Chevrolet is doing all it can to line up customers for its first-generation Volt.

“I haven’t filled up my Volt since I took delivery,” said Mike DiPisa of Lyndhhurst, N.J.

DiPisa bought his Volt home in December, and at the time of his statement, 1,391 of his 1,485 miles traveled had been achieved by using electricity, thus Chevrolet calculated his economy at 231 MPG.

Similar stories are given for other Volt drivers, and Chevrolet says the Volt is what you make of it.

“Three Volts. Three distinct fuel economy stories,” say Chevrolet’s marketing department.

“The Volt is great for any lifestyle and can handle the driving demands of daily life,” said Volt Marketing Director Cristi Landy, “The majority of Volt customers are finding that by recharging their cars daily they are seeing exceptional real-world fuel economy.”

Federal baseline

Despite what Chevrolet’s marketing team is saying, the average figures the EPA put on the Volt are 93 MPG equivalent (MPGe) in the city/highway for the first 35 miles, when the battery is fully charged, and the car is driven in all-electric mode, and 37 MPG for the city/highway estimate (during gas-only driving).

It allows for potentially higher MPGe assuming lower mileage, and a charged battery, but does not go so high as 231 or several hundred miles as some have said they have seen. The EPA bases its comparatively conservative numbers on its simulated driving cycle from last year.

Chevrolet say the Volt can get hundred of miles per gallon. The federal government says the above are the facts. What is the truth?

The Volt’s official EPA figures reflect another unusual turn of events: Estimated MGPe in the spot where the “city” average usually goes (calculated for the Volt in all-electric mode) is 60-percent better than the spot where the “highway” average usually goes. This is because the latter figure accounts for the car using gas only during the driving cycle test the EPA used.

Bogus Figures?

But some people – and professional car reviewers alike – are less generous in sizing up the Volt, and are grappling with what to make of it.

In a recent blog write-up testing its efficiency and costs, Dan Edmunds said he would cater to readers’ desire to see MPG figures such as Chevrolet is touting, but he pooh-poohed the idea other than to say it satisfied a political-social sentiment.

“Some of you expressed an interest in seeing the ‘apparent’ mpg, looking at gasoline used over all miles driven and ignoring electricity,” Edmunds wrote, “It’s a bogus figure from an overall cost and consumption perspective, but it has a use if all you care about is reducing our dependence on gasoline that’s derived from oil.”

Frankly, Edmunds is not the only person who says things like this.

Electricity – and installing stations across the country – all cost money. MPG figures in the hundreds of miles per gallon, critics say, are therefore a false metric.

In discussing the Volt with several other “car people” we’ve heard criticism leveled at GM for pushing to see the highest possible EPA MPG rating on the Monroney sticker.

Balance needed

At GM-Volt, we know the Volt is a revolutionary car. It meets multiple needs, and is an excellent “bridge” technology as we attempt to transfer away from dependence on oil.

To those of who have a Volt, what has been your experience? What are your views on this topic?

We have already noted some citing high MPG ratings. Are ultra-high MPG estimates truly even-handed assessments of the Volt’s operational cost?

If you do think Chevrolet’s media department has it right, do you think it is only a matter of time before more people agree?

Sources:
GM
InsideLine

The word coming from General Motors’ highest-volume market is that the Chevrolet Volt will be made available for sale by the end of this year.

This was first reported last Thursday following a 154-mile Volt “unplugged” promotional drive from Shanghai to Hangzhou, in the eastern part of China.

Kevin Wale, GM of China’s president and managing director, was vaguely quoted but specifically attributed as stating the year-end time frame by an English-language Chinese publication.

“The Volt showed that GM leads the world in electric car technologies,” Wale said, “and that the company is committed to introducing advanced technologies and products to China.”

The article offered no further details such as number of projected units, where Volts would first be sold, etc.

A request for further commentary from a GM spokesperson was not returned over the weekend.

Last Thursday Chevrolet did an “unplugged” tour in eastern China from Shanghai to Hangzhou, which is the capital of the Zhenjiang Province.

Whether the Volt is indeed selling by the end of the year, or not long after, what is more certain is that GM has been testing interest and taking promo photos of the Volt in Chinese settings for some time.

As the technological forerunner for “the new General Motors,” this is in line with the company’s commitment to China, which is rapidly becoming a substantial source of revenue for the increasingly global company.

Last year’s Chinese deliveries marked the first time in GM’s 102-year history that its U.S. sales were exceeded by a foreign market.

“GM and its joint ventures sold a record 2.35 million vehicles in the domestic market,” says a GM of China press release about Chinese sales.

More specifically, its 2010 Chinese sales increased 29 percent, which was enough to top U.S. sales totaling 2.2 million units – a 6-percent increase for the U.S. market in the aftermath of financial restructuring, and cessation of sales from Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab.

And while last year’s China sales were enough to set a company record, the growth actually represented a substantial slowing from its previous pace. In 2009, GM deliveries of 1.83 million vehicles in China represented 67 percent growth, more than double the 2010 rate.

Despite challenges causing the company to apparently slacken its pace in some respects, GM maintains there is massive potential in China. In a February press conference in China, GM’s CEO Dan Akerson set the tone.

“GM will continue to make China one of our priorities,” Akerson said. “We plan to introduce more than 20 new and upgraded models over the next two years, strengthen our local product development capability, expand our cooperation and sharing of technology with local partners, and lead in the introduction of new energy vehicles including the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle. All of this is part of GM’s long-term commitment to the sustainable development of China’s automotive industry.”

GM CEO Dan Akerson speaks in China about GM’s commitment earlier in 2011 – prior to fourth-quarter 2010 earnings reporting. It is now known to have been a record year.

GM’s Chinese market share is presently around 13 percent, and Akerson said the company continues to be quite dependent on its several Chinese subsidiaries, most notably SAIC-GM-Wuling which accounted for about 55 percent of its February 2011 sales.

“We regard our 11 domestic joint ventures as 11 keys to our success in China,” Akerson said, “To remain a global industry leader, GM must remain an industry leader in China.”

As previously reported a few of the challenges GM faces in China include a Jan. 1 small vehicle sales tax increase to 10 percent from 7.5 percent, and the ending of rural subsidies that had only been introduced in March 2009.

What is more, traffic in Beijing is beyond crowded. Vehicle registrations increased from 2.8 million to 4.8 million since 2005, with 700,000 registered just last year.

In an effort to curtail overloaded Beijing roadways, new license plates are being limited to 240,000 per year through a lottery system.

There is little doubt, however, that GM’s strategic planners will continue to find opportunities.

Its entry-level Baojun brand is priced for outlying regions, and the end of growth is anywhere but in sight.

In the words of GM China’s media relations, GM will “continue investing aggressively” for the “long-term success of the company.”

We will report again when we learn more specifics about the Volt’s roll out in China.

Sources:

xinhuanet
Los Angeles Times

Editor’s note: This is a guest piece that was submitted today.

A confluence of events precipitated this article, and the timing of an EPA proposal made it opportune to present right now. At its heart, the Volt is about one thing: swapping the burning of gasoline for the production of electricity. Many pundits bemoan that we are replacing one evil for another. The closer you examine it, the harder it is to make a case against them if nothing were to change. The point is, where do we go from here?

Those who know my commentaries know that I have a total of 18 kilowatts of emission-free solar power installed at our home and business. If you have not made a similar commitment, I urge you to do so. Recent actions across the globe put the future of nuclear power in jeopardy and cheap, fossil fuel-oriented electricity is about to meet another challenge – and deservedly so. Those who say solar PV (photovoltaic) will not pay are ignoring the environmental costs that are (finally) about to have more impact on pricing.

Over the past year, we have rewritten our business in a green image. I am finally doing some of the research necessary to reflect this in our web page. The “confluence” I previously mentioned is summarized in one word, “mercury.” Recently, the American Dental Association “sold its soul to the devil” as discussed here.

Chevrolet’s electric-powered Volt cruises through the electric landscape of New York’s Times Square.

We abandoned installing mercury based amalgam fillings over 16 years ago. Various tooth-colored resins have been available and used for quite some time with exceptional results. The outright lie of the American Dental Association’s position with respect to the State Department, the United Nations and the rest of the world is, “At present, no such alternative [to mercury based Amalgam] exists for all clinical or economic situations.”

The ADA not only stands behind Amalgam, it wants to ensure that the world doesn’t impose restrictions on this toxic material. Immediately after this, they state that policy should endorse decay prevention as an alternative (so that less of the toxic material is needed). Sounds a bit like using the abstinence policy to prevent AIDS transmission (yeah, right). Reasons for the intransigence are up for debate, but regardless, my wife has rescinded her membership as a result.

One of our “green” actions was to install an Amalgam Separator which ensures that defunct amalgam material which is removed does not find its way into the environment. These devices are not compulsory – but they should be. According to the EPA, half of mercury in sewage (for a total of 3.7 tons) is discharged from dental offices.

How does my dental research get me to talk about the Volt? Because you can’t get far into an investigation of mercury before you find that half of environmental mercury pollution arises from the burning of coal.

And why is this so timely? Because, just within the last several days, after two decades of fighting with utilities, the EPA has proposed the first ever limits on mercury (and other heavy metal toxin) emissions from power plants.

Here is the announcement on YouTube.

Listen with a pragmatic ear and you may conclude what I have -
- Electricity will become more expensive
- Coal will still be dirty; the compromise of the current set of regulations is “technology limited.” These regulations only ensure that the dirtiest polluters are brought up to spec. Wherever the government is concerned, you can ensure somebody caved – and I could just hear the rebuttal, “Well, it’s a start … ”

The net result of this is the removal of the power industry’s exemption from the Clean Air Act. Well, don’t go off thinking that because coal’s piece of the electrical pie is shrinking (in deference to natural gas), that this doesn’t matter. Cheap natural gas is only cheap because of hydraulic fracturing, a disgusting process that injects tons of water and toxic chemicals underground. Hydro fracking for natural gas is exempt from the Clean Water Act. Connect the dots and you will see that the forces that have done battle to get compliance with Clean Air will do the same for Clean Water.

Personally, I would endorse private solar (if doable for you) for many reasons. I won’t get into all of that right now. The conclusion from all this discussion is that if your reasoning for not considering it is because you think you will have cheap fossil fuel electricity ad nauseum, well, the writing is on the wall. And with the plethora of articles out there on nuclear reconsiderations, cheap nuclear is not a good expectation either. In fact, Germany states that it is leaving the nuclear world for good.

Note that the article puts a price tag of 3.5cents/kwh on everyone to fund the conversion to renewable (no conclusion there; just an observation).

So, if you go get some solar (PV, hot water, air conditioning, …), a few years from now, with your Volt and your solar, your friends and family will think you a sage.

Looking toward a proliferation of plug-in cars on the horizon, utility company researchers and General Motors have been collaborating on a broad-based, three-year project begun last year intended to facilitate next-generation smart charging capabilities.

How smart?

Smart enough that one day soon, it may be possible to sell the power in your electric car back to your local utility company. Or, during an electrical black-out, it may be possible to channel current from your plugged-in car into your home system as though it were a backup generator.

These are a couple of the more Jetson-age applications being researched, but not nearly all of the potential that has already begun to come forth.

Recently rolled-out GM OnStar telemetric applications for smart phones you may have heard about were directly spun off from the ongoing research, as GM is not waiting to act on usable data if it doesn’t have to.

Shown here being recharged by a solar-powered charger, many more innovations are in store for smart charging the Chevrolet Volt. (Photo courtesy of GM.)

Yesterday, we had opportunity to talk to the man in charge of it all, Sunil Chhaya. As a senior project manager for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), he is overseeing the three-year, $6 million project researching ways for “smart grids” to more intelligently interact with the Chevrolet Volt.

About 50-60 researchers are involved in the international collaboration, including about 10-12 from GM, five or six from EPRI, and many more from cooperating subcontractors, Chhaya said.

“EPRI [pronounced: "epree"] created a collaborative of about 50-plus utilities, across the U.S., Canada, some from Europe, as well, to talk about what are the issues that will influence the decisions on the car side,” Chhaya said, “and what are the issues that we need to be aware of on the smart grid side. Now the fortuitous circumstance here is utilities are also in the middle of doing large scale smart grid deployment, which means there are smart meters being deployed in large numbers.”

Smart grid roll out and pilot projects are being conducted in many regions. Chhaya said utility companies across the U.S. are doing things in a variety of ways, coming at technical challenges from many angles.

Generally, smart grids attempt to control electrical energy flow at a more granular level by digitally monitoring usage and distribution from the user side, and the utility side.

The GM/EPRI smart grid project began in January 2010, and will run through December 2012, Chhaya said.

It is collecting data from a pool of Volt test vehicles, and being paid for by matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in conjunction with money from participating utility company members of EPRI.

As a non-profit research organization, EPRI’s members comprise 90 percent of all U.S. electricity providers, and it has additional participation from 40 countries.

The Volt already has a sophisticated battery management system. GM is working on upping the wow factor in conjunction with smart grid capabilities.

The idea for the GM study first gained momentum in 2007, Chhaya said, when EPRI and automakers were discussing standardization for charging equipment. Those talks led to the Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J1772 conductive-style 5-pin plug used by the Volt and other plug-in cars.

During those meetings, he said, more brainstorming ensued, and up percolated a recognized need for power companies to get more deeply involved, with cross-flow of data back and forth

“Utilities felt that there was a need for them to communicate with the vehicles in a way that’s never been done before,” Chhaya said, “Your plug doesn’t talk to your toaster you know, or vice versa, you know. You don’t have any need for it … “

Until now, he said, with reference to plug-in cars.

Part of the work with GM, and a similar project begun in 2008 with Ford – which is using plug-in-converted Escape Hybrids – is to incorporate standards for its innovations within the emerging electric auto industry.

“The technology that we are developing is something that is production capable so that it could go into any of the future products,” Chhaya said, “It’s also standards based, so we won’t be creating anything special for any purposes.”

In other words, they are trying to avoid different competing standards, thus the SAE is involved, has developed more standards for data transference and more, and automakers are cooperating.

While many gee-wiz ancillary benefits could be spun off from the discoveries GM and EPRI make, Chhaya said the project’s highest priority is to make sure widespread plug-in car rollout does not crash the grid.

According to Plug In America’s Legislative Director, Jay Friedland, U.S. electric company capacity during overnight hours is enough to power somewhere around 140 million electric vehicles.

During the daytime it is far less.

Acknowledging this statistic, Chhaya said one aspect of the GM/EPRI project is to foresee all possible ramifications from hundreds of thousands, to potentially a million or more plug-in cars that could conceivably plug in day or night.

The Volt’s battery may soon talk to the utility companies. One day, it may be able to give 4-5 hours of back-up power to a house during a power outage, or feed utilities power gained during peak hours at a profit during off-peak hours, if this is deemed a good idea.

One goal, he said, is to enhance interactivity between cars and home energy management systems, as well as to facilitate public connectivity.

An EV charger can take about 3 to 3.3 kilowatts, at a 12-amp load at 240 volts – about the energy requirement of an electric clothes dryer.

It is foreseen that a smart home system would allow communication between the grid, and all appliances – which an electric car would be considered from an energy budget standpoint.

Revised varying rate packages may be devised in the not-too-distant future, and the car may be the one to tell the driver what is what.

Through on-board intelligence, an electric car may inform the driver when is a good time to charge. While charging, it may recognize a sudden surge in the grid, and know to shut off, then know when to turn on later when demand decreases. Or, more likely, it may just be set to charge at certain hours overnight.

Electric car owners may be able to purchase an incentivized package for such intelligent recharging.

Chhaya said the price structure would be set up to encourage more logical energy usage based on a network-monitored grid that knows where available power is, and when.

If users wanted to charge in the daytime, they could, but they would pay accordingly.

“For example, say, you know, you can charge anytime you want but there’s a charge for doing that [during high demand hours], but because it costs us more to produce electricity, we will pass that on to you in some form,” Chhaya said speaking on behalf of a hypothetical utility company, “Or if you charge over night when there’s extra wind, we’ll make it real inexpensive.”

It is not unlike a carrot and stick scenario, but seen as necessary due to limits on local electrical grid systems.

The concepts promise manifold benefits for all involved, but the goal is to make future purchasable energy consumption programs as user-friendly as possible.

“What we are trying to do with GM is to create a direct path with the smart meters; between the smart meters and the car based on the standards,” Chhaya said, “The idea, you know, is in general, is these communications should be in silent mode. They should not be repeatedly requiring constant intervention because people will get bored, forget, do the wrong things, misinterpret. So, you basically set it and forget it. Once you sign up for the program, the car takes care of all your charging needs according to what ever incentive that you signed up for, and it’s all just automatic.”

Yesterday EPRI sent us the link to this video it put together to demonstrate a smart grid.

The system would make the driver the center of the decision process, and manual over-ride would be possible, Chhaya said.

At present, Chhaya said, electric cars are still rather elementary electricity receivers. Their charging systems take energy until their batteries are full, then they monitor the battery.

“We would call that passive or dumb charging. You plug it in. It’s by no means dumb, the car has a lot of logic that decides, that controls this process. But from the utilities’ standpoint it’s fairly passive,” Chhaya said, “It was felt that in the long term that was not a good idea.”

Already, data gathered from congregated EVs have shown weak points in local grids, and utilities are in process of updating local systems.

Several links in at the electrical transference chain exist from the plant including substations and local transformers, Chhaya said.

Transformers can “die a natural death” in maybe 20-30 years anyway, but if several electric cars were plugged in all at once in one neighborhood, they could overheat the local transformer and cause its early demise.

In essence, utility companies are trying not to be caught unaware, and researching to anticipate all eventualities.

One big picture view of all this is that if electric companies can accommodate EV rollouts, they will facilitate the proposed paradigm shift being worked for by alternative energy advocates.

Naturally, utilities also have plenty to gain in selling unused output, and eventually becoming able to handle more consumers both day and night. In the process, they stand to shift the balance of transportation energy profits away from oil companies one car at a time.

For the GM/EPRI smart grid project, individual utilities were offered a buy-in for access to three hierarchical levels of gathered data.

Data and interaction with the three year project was offered at $60,000 for level one, $270,000 for level two, or $390,000 for level three.

Apart from some salaried personnel being involved, GM’s financial input has been virtually nil, except for one detail, Chhaya said.

“What GM is contributing, of course is the Volt. The development of the Volt vehicle itself, you know that is roughly a billion-dollar investment that has gone into making the car,” Chhaya said, “I mean without the car, this would be kind of a moot point. We would just be sitting, staring at a computer screen.”