Jeff Siegel - Angel Publishing

Plug-In Hybrids

Have you seen any of those car commercials recently on television?

Nearly every single one of them touts the fuel efficiency of the car they're trying to sell you. A clear indication that this is a top priority for consumers.

The only problem is, those fuel efficiency ratings are pathetic.

17 miles per gallon, 28 miles per gallon, 32 miles per gallon.

Who cares?!!

If you're looking for fuel efficiency, chances are you're looking at a Toyota Prius, as this hybrid powerhouse delivers about 45 miles per gallon.

And it is for this reason that Toyota has been extremely successful at building a reputation for being the "go to" eco-friendly car maker.

For the sake of fuel efficiency, no U.S. automaker comes close.

Since it's debut in 1997, Toyota has sold more than 1 million of its hybrid superstar, and even moved into the number one spot for global auto sales - overtaking GM's long-standing reign.

But last week, Toyota finally felt the same sting U.S. automakers have been feeling over the past few years, after it was announced that the company would be cutting its 2009 vehicle sales forecast by nearly 7 percent due to a slowdown in demand for its larger cars and pickup trucks.

Once again, poor fuel efficiency resulted in failure.

Bottom line: Vehicle purchasing decisions are now being dictated by recessionary realities and higher gas prices. And Toyota - the very company that was smart enough to go full speed ahead with the Prius, while GM and Ford continued to try and force the market, instead of properly preparing for it - is now being forced to make some quick changes. Because you see, this time the suits at GM aren't sitting in big board rooms playing Ego Fetch like they were a decade ago.

And Toyota may soon find itself facing a competitor it hasn't seen in a very long time.

Plug-In Hybrids and The Shape of Electric to Come

Some have questioned how serious GM is about its new Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), the Chevy Volt. After all, they did kill a potential electric vehicle powerhouse with the EV1 back in 1999.

But times have changed.

Gas is no longer $1.00 a gallon. Most folks now realize the very dangerous implications of maintaining our strong reliance on foreign oil. And climate change is no longer a debatable issue controlled by mocking naysayers.

No, this isn't 1999. And with so much market share at stake, and so much time, energy and capital already committed to the Volt, I don't believe GM will make the same mistake twice.

As it stands, GM says the Volt will be launched in 2010 - less than two years from now. And they've really been laying the groundwork for what looks to be like a potential marketing monsoon.

In fact, I just recently read that the Volt may actually be featured in the next Transformers movie. My friend, if you want to sell a car - put it in the movies. From the Bandit's Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit to the fleet of Mini Coopers in The Italian Job - that's the kind of smart marketing that can really pop demand numbers.

Point is, GM has a real chance here to lead the way with the next major transformation of auto manufacturing.

Will they pull it off?

I sure hope so. But you can bet the other automakers aren't sitting around, waiting to find out.

Now that Toyota's sitting on massive inventories of pickups and SUVs, it's launching its third-generation Prius and a new hybrid model under the Lexus marquee. Both will debut at the Detroit auto show in January.

Toyota also recently announced that it's speeding up the development of its plug-in hybrid making it available to fleet customers in 2009 - a full year ahead of its earlier plans.

Of course, if it's the PHEV they were telling us about a few months ago, they might as well go back to the drawing board. That PHEV delivers 8 miles in all-electric range before the regular hybrid engine kicks in.

No one's shelling out extra cash for a measly 8 miles in all-electric range.

And the sad thing is, there are conversion companies that can add a 30-mile all-electric range to the Prius right now. Not two years from now. So why they're screwing around with 8 miles is beyond me.

Reps from Toyota also said that they would now be speeding up the development of all-electric vehicles with hopes of mass-producing them in the early part of the next decade. The company did end road tests for the all-electric E-Com in 2006. So it will be interesting to see if those eventually find a home on showroom floors

These are basically mini-cars that wouldn't be worth much on our highways, primarily due to maximum speeds of less than 70 mph. But they could gain real traction in urban areas if the price is right.

Don't sleep on Nissan either.

Nissan says it will have an electric vehicle on the market by 2010. The current prototype boasts a range of 62 to 75 miles. For most folks in the U.S. who drive 29 miles per day or less to get to and from work (according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics), an all-electric, NO-GAS-REUIRED vehicle could also provide a catalyst for a real transition in personal transportation.

Mitsubishi's also trying to get a piece of this action with its i-MiEV.

Mitsubishi claims the i-MiEV can travel 100 miles on one charge.

The first 2,000 will be produced next year. And Mitsubishi is currently working with Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison to test the i-MiEV.

PHEVs: Back to the Batteries

There's no doubt that plug-in hybrid development is getting into full swing.

These guys finally figured out that most people don't get paid millions of dollars to make bad decisions in corporate offices in Detroit or Japan. Most people work hard for a lot less, and can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars a week to fill the tank. And that's why we're not only going to see pretty much every single vehicle on the market be a hybrid vehicle within the next 10 years - but a good portion of them will be either all-electric vehicles or PHEVs.

It may be GM that nails it with the Volt, or it maybe another automaker altogether. Perhaps even one of those smaller firms, like Tesla or Phoenix Motorcars. Two companies that have already developed and sold all-electric vehicles.

But one thing's for sure.

The company that can provide the cheapest, lightest and most efficient high-performance batteries to fuel these vehicles will be the companies that make investors an absolute fortune.

We've discussed a number of these companies in these pages before. From those that are small, thinly-traded stocks, like Electrovaya (TSX:EFL) and Electro Energy (NASDAQ:EEEI) to new IPOs, like A123 Systems.

But it's still too early to pick a clear winner in this space.

The fact is, there will probably be more than one, as I find it highly unlikely that only one high-performance battery manufacturer will be able to deliver the quantities that will be needed to keep up with demand.

In any event, we will continue to monitor this sector closely, and report on any new developments along the way.

If you'd like to read more about these vehicles, and the companies we're watching now, check out our free report, Plugged-In Profits.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

U.S. Investment in Renewable Energy

Over the past few months, the renewable energy industry has struggled to maintain investor confidence as Congress continued to drop the ball on the renewable energy production and investment tax credits.

They're set to expire at the end of the year. And if that happens, renewable energy stocks are sure to fall.

Now before you draft your hostile e-mails about how renewables should be able to compete without subsidies, I call your attention to the billions in subsidies the oil industry receives every single year.

I can assure you, NO form of energy generation exists without some form of subsidies.

And if you don't believe it, take a look at this 2007 article written by my colleague, Chris Nelder. It spells out the whole dirty secret that no one in Washington wants to admit about fossil fuel subsidies.

U.S. Renewable Energy Tax Credits...by way of Stupidity!

Last Saturday, Nancy Pelosi signaled her willingness to consider opening more coastal areas to oil exploration. If this happens, it could certainly enable a bipartisan effort to get those tax credits extended through a long-awaited compromise.

Now don't get me wrong. Opening up offshore drilling is a bad joke with an even worse punch line.

If we started drilling today, we'd have a very small flow of new oil coming online in about a decade. This would be well after the global peak of production, and provide little relief to the average Joe trying to get a tank full of gas.

Of course, some have suggested that had we just done this ten years ago, we'd have all that lovely oil flowing right now. And that's true.

Though, in another few years, we'd be right back where we started — sitting here with our thumbs in our mouths, trying to figure out how to fill up our SUVs with rhetoric and fairy dust.

Meanwhile, the dolts in Washington continue to blatantly lie in an effort to placate the voters just a little longer.

Take a look at what House Minority Leader John Boehner said in response to Pelosi's announcement about the Democrats' willingness to consider offshore oil exploration:

"Our message to Speaker Pelosi is very simple: We are ready to vote on more energy production and lower gas prices right now, and we should not wait one more day to begin giving the American people the relief they expect and deserve. If you meant what you said last night, we welcome you and your Democratic colleagues to join us in our historic call to action on American energy."

Historic call to action? Really?

Well, I guess history is filled with "historic calls to action" that ultimately led to disaster. So they won't be the first.

Either way, this latest news does lend a bit more confidence to the possibility that the production and investment tax credits will be extended. At this point, it's really a matter of whether or not these bureaucratic parasites decide to actually get some work done when they come back, or spend their time campaigning... slinging mud on our dime.

It'll probably be a little of both.

Though, as we saw over the past couple of weeks, with or without those tax credits, renewable energy momentum is not slowing down.

Renewable Energy Investment, without Hesitation

Last Thursday, Pacific Gas & Electric (PGE) announced that it had signed contracts to buy 800 megawatts from two solar power plants that will be built near the Central California coast. Combined, these plants will produce enough power for about 240,000 homes.

The companies that landed these deals?

SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ:SPWR) and Optisolar.

This project is the largest single photovoltaic commitment from an electric utility in the world, according to the Solar Electric Power Association.

The SunPower project will begin power delivery in 2010, and the Optisolar project, which is twice as big in terms of megawatts, is expected to begin power delivery in 2011.

Not surprisingly, SunPower soared on the news, picking up as much as 22% by the next day.

Google's Impact on Renewable Energy

This past Tuesday, Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) announced that it was investing $10.25 million in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). The funding is going to...

· Seattle-based AltaRock Energy Inc. to develop technologies that will enable cost reductions and improved performance in EGS projects.

· Redwood City-based Potter Drilling, Inc. to develop new approaches to lower the cost and expand the range of deep hard rock drilling, which is critical to large-scale deployment of EGS.

· Southern Methodist University Geothermal Lab to update geothermal mapping in North America.

No publicly-traded companies involved here. Though if you're looking for a geothermal play, your safest bet would be with Ormat Technologies (NYSE:ORA). Or, if you're looking for more bang for your buck, check out U.S. Geothermal (AMEX:HTM). It's an up and comer that's actually generating megawatts and money right now.

Also on Tuesday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg outlined his proposal for more renewable energy in New York City. The Mayor wants to build offshore wind farms, small-scale wind installations and tidal power systems to supply no less than 10 percent of the city's electricity needs.

According to aides, the mayor has recently met with T. Boone Pickens to discuss how wind power could be used in New York City. And certainly you've seen what T. Boone's done for the wind industry in just the past month. Not to mention the money investors are making off of his transitional energy stocks.

On Wednesday, Suntech Power (NYSE:STP) announced that its sales and profit climbed significantly in the second quarter.

Sales rose more than 50 percent from a year ago, and profit rose to $64.9 million for the quarter, compared to $41.7 million a year prior. The company also raised its 2008 revenue forecast to a range of $2.05 billion to $2.15 billion from a range of $1.9 billion to $2.1 billion.

The stock ended the day with a 12.4% gain.

Still, STP wasn't the biggest solar winner that day.

No, the biggest winner was Solarfun Power Holdings (NASDAQ:SOLF).

Incidentally, this is a stock that Alternative Energy Speculator editor Nick Hodge recommended about five months ago when it was trading around $9.40. By Thursday, the stock hit $21.26 a share

That's a gain of more than a 126% - in just five months!

If you'd like to see Nick's latest pick, which is actually a company that's making money hand over fist thanks to T. Boone Pickens and his Pickens Plan, click here now.

To a new way of life, my friends. And a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Renewable Energy IPOs

A couple of years ago, it seemed like there was a conga line of alternative energy IPOs in the pipeline.

But a lot has changed in just two years!

Today, with the market struggling from an out-of-control housing crisis, failing banks, and eight years of failed economic policies fueled by fiscal irresponsibility - few want to risk going public.

And the ones that have gone public this year aren't making shareholders do cartwheels. (Though in all fairness, it's not unexpected to see a stock dip in share price after it goes public.)

Real Goods Solar (NASDAQ:RSOL), the solar subsidiary of Gaiam, Inc. (NASDAQ:GAIA), went public on May 8. It was priced at $10 a share. Today, the stock trades under $7.00 a share.

GT Solar (NASADAQ:SOLR) went public on July, 25. It was priced at $16.50 a share. Today the stock trades around $13.00 a share.

Still, the appetite for quality alternative energy stocks is quite healthy. Because no matter how bad the market gets - our increasing demand for energy and our dwindling supplies of fossil fuel resources is pretty much guaranteeing that the renewable energy industry has a long and profitable road ahead.

And that's why, despite adverse market conditions, there will continue to be a fairly strong showing in alternative energy IPOs.

Developing Wind

Back in May, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that wind power is capable of becoming a major contributor to the United States' electricity supply - offering up 20 percent of our overall energy mix.

And of course you're familiar with T. Boone Pickens' Pickens Plan. This is the scenario that would allow 20 percent of our utility-scale generation from natural gas to be replaced by wind. The natural gas would then be transitioned to be used as a transportation fuel for fleets throughout the U.S.

Not surprisingly, T. Boone's now building one of the largest wind farms in the world. When completed, it'll produce up to 4 Gigawatts, or enough to power about 1 million homes.

Point is, wind is absolutely huge. In fact, when it comes to sustainable, renewable energy generation - wind really is king. And very soon, we're going to see a new wind IPO that's hoping to benefit from wind's reign. The company, which is a wind developer, is called First Wind Holdings, Inc.

First Wind is currently developing or operating wind farms in Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, New York, Vermont, Maine, and New Brunswick. The company now has about 100 megawatts in production.

As far as investing in wind, we're actually just as bullish on the wind developers as we are on the turbine manufacturers. Sure, there's plenty of money to be made in turbines. But it's a tough sector to play domestically, as GE pretty much runs the show. And that's not a pure play.

If you're looking for an established pure play turbine manufacturer, you'll have to look overseas. Fortunately, those stocks are not as difficult to invest in as you might expect. In fact, our international editor, Sam Hopkins has a service dedicated solely to international renewable energy stocks. You can read more about that here.

But if you're looking for a wind developer to play, your choices are limited. In fact, the only one we like right now is Western Wind Energy Corporation (TSX-V:WND). The company is generating power right now for the California energy market. This is the energy market that IS tied to the price of oil.

So needless to say, when oil prices skyrocketed a couple of months ago, this stock was flying high. And when oil prices head back up after this brief respite (and you better believe they will), this is a stock that will benefit nicely.

The company also just had a nice second quarter - announcing record revenues of $2.1 million and net earnings of $2.9 million. And losses were down significantly, from $2.1 million from the previous quarter, to just $24,433.

Plugged-In IPO

Another company going public this year will be A123 Systems.

As a high-performance battery manufacturer, A123 is trying to get a piece of the lucrative Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) market. And as far as we're concerned, this will truly be one of the hottest transportation opportunities in the next five to ten years.

You see, today's PHEVs are very efficient. Most are quite sturdy and attractive, and of course deliver real fuel efficiency. In fact, there are few PHEVs today that deliver anything less than 30 miles on just one charge.

Since the average U.S. driver drives 29 miles per day (according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics), a 30-mile, all-electric range is perfect. It means most folks could get to and from work everyday, without using a single drop of gas.

And now the race is on to develop the strongest, most efficient high-performance battery for this next generation of super efficient PHEVs.

A123 definitely has a shot at being a leader here.

Mostly because this company has aligned itself with some pretty major players, including GE, Black & Decker, North Bridge Venture Partners, Qualcomm, Ford, and GM.

In fact, last year, the company announced that it was co-developing lithium-ion battery cells with GM for the auto-maker's new PHEV, the Chevy Volt.

Of course, there are other companies in the running here. But there are plenty of opportunities as our transportation infrastructure continues to transition to one that is more sustainable, and of course, less reliant on foreign oil.

Either way, we win.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

www.greenchipstocks.com

Investing in Green Building

You've read it many times before in these pages...

Despite the environmental benefits of green building, it is primarily the proven economic benefits that are moving the industry from niche to mainstream.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

The California EPA Headquarters Building in Sacramento—with systems calibration, monitoring, and maintenance for energy performance—delivers annual savings of nearly $200,000. And after-hours heating and lighting controls as well as the building's exterior lighting systems add another $110,000 of yearly savings.

Just these few efficiency and conservation upgrades have resulted in a savings of more than a quarter of a million dollars per year for that one building!

And those don't even include the annual savings from:

Grounds management
Water-efficient landscaping
Elimination of garbage can liners
Collection of recyclables
Occupant recycling

Overall, $500,000 was invested in efficiency upgrades, operations, and employee practices. A total of $610,000 is now generated in annual savings.

The initial investment was recovered in less than one year!

Granted, this is just one example. But no matter how you slice it, whether it's $610,000 in annual savings or $6,100 in annual savings, investing in green building pays off.

In fact, just in energy costs alone, green buildings average a 33 percent energy savings compared to conventional buildings.

So while our bloated bureaucrats in Washington argue over how to deal with high energy prices (while trying to preserve their jobs and those huge campaign contributions), we're focusing much of our attention these days on one of the most obvious solutions — green building.

Green Gets Aggressive

Commercial and residential buildings in the United States used 40 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energy in 2005, at a cost of $300 billion. That number is now expected to increase to 50 quads at a cost of $430 billion by 2025.

So it's no surprise that California—a state with a desperate need to beef up its energy infrastructure without crippling its economy—is once again taking the appropriate steps to ensure the state's energy security.

To date, California has adopted the most aggressive energy conservation and efficiency policies in the U.S. Combined with robust investment, the Golden state now saves enough electricity every year to avoid building 24 large power plants (i.e. - 500 MW or more).

In fact, according to a report issued by the California Public Utilities Commission, the average cost of energy efficiency programs is roughly half the cost of baseload power generation.

Back in 2004, California also instituted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Green Building Initiative, which mandates a 20 percent reduction in electricity consumption in state buildings by 2015.

And now, California's at it again.

A few weeks ago, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a green building standards code for all new construction statewide.

The new code takes effect in 180 days. It will be voluntary until 2010, when the code is expected to become mandatory. Essentially they allowed the voluntary period so builders and local governments have time to adapt to the new rules.

The new standards code covers residential and commercial construction. It also includes schools, hospitals and other public institutions.

Some of the code's targets include:

· Energy efficiency

· Water consumption

· Dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water

· Diversion of construction waste from landfills

· Use of environmentally sensitive materials, including eco-friendly flooring, paint, and insulation.

Three Green Building Stocks to Watch

Certainly consumers benefit from the implementation of aggressive green building standards because they eventually help stabilize energy costs.

But investors can also benefit, as these standards will provide a flood of contracts for those publicly-traded companies operating in the green building sector.

Just a few include:

· Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:IFSIA) - Green carpet products for both residential and commercial markets.

· Energy Focus Inc. (NASDAQ:EFOI) - Ultra-efficient fiber optic lighting systems that reduce energy consumption

· Comverge, Inc. (NASDAQ:COMV) - Smart Thermostats that cut heating and cooling bills by 15%

There are also solar installation companies that are going to benefit from all of this.

After all, solar will play a major role in power generation for many of these new buildings. And somebody has to install these systems.

All in all, California continues to set the standard for the nation when it comes to transitioning our energy economy. But will the rest of the country catch on?

Absolutely!

The economic benefits of green building are too appealing to ignore. And the next President, regardless of who takes the election, is likely going to institute some kind of federal incentive program that will almost certainly give the green building industry a serious shot of steroids.

It's never been a better time to be a renewable energy investor!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Ted Stevens: Busted!

So it looks like Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted on seven charges in association with a corruption probe.

Really, you say?

Apparently "Slippery" Ted faces seven counts of false statements involving VECO, an oil services company in Alaska, and some renovations done on the Senator's home.

Could it be possible that all of the Senator's pro-oil stances had less to do with energy security and more to do with a personal housing upgrade?

Of course when it comes to energy, Stevens isn't the only bureaucrat getting paid off.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, over the past 18 years, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have received more than $190 million in oil-soaked money.

Just in 2008 alone, more than $13 million in oil & gas money has been "contributed" to Congress. It's certainly been a profitable year for our elected officials, hasn't it?

Here are the top 20 recipients so far this year...

Recipient

John McCain - $1,010,868

John Cornyn - $480,100

Hillary Clinton - $403,019

Barack Obama - $345,410

James Inhofe - $220,350

Steve Pearce - $204,234

Mitch McConnell - $197,150

Mary Landrieu - $184,850

Pete Domenici - $137,800

Pat Roberts - $130,350

Joe Barton - $127,541

Dan Boren - $127,400

Ron Paul - $115,532

Mike Conway - $113,500

Kay Bailey Hutchison - $103,000

Lamar Alexander - $100,750

Roy Blunt - $98,900

John Barrasso - $97,400

Ted Stevens - $95,600

Elizabeth Dole - $91,577

With this kind of money changing hands, how could anyone expect to take Congress seriously when they talk about energy solutions?

It's a scam. And the whole dog and pony show they put on is nothing more than empty rhetoric to keep voters sedated.

Whether it's the obligatory interrogation of oil execs, a new mandated corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard that's actually less than what was mandated in Japan back in 2002, or the inability to pass a one-year production tax credit extension for alternatives that can help break our addiction to fossil fuels - the lies and deceit never stop. And we don't expect they ever will.

So Ted Stevens got busted.

Big Deal!

He's been representing the state of Alaska for 40 years. That's 40 years of big oil politics, 40 years of unethical behavior, and 40 years of fleecing tax payers.

You really think he'll be held accountable for all of this?

Not a chance.

And even after he is booted out of office, there will be another "Slippery" Ted waiting to take his place.

So the next time you hear a speech or read a press release about how we should be drilling in Alaska because there's so much oil up there that it'll help secure our energy infrastructure and bring gas prices down, ask yourself one simple question - which asshole in Congress is getting work done on his house that week?

Jeff

Mass Transit Investing

Last month, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) announced that U.S. commuters took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation in the first three months of 2008.

That's nearly 85 million more trips than the first quarter of 2007.

APTA also announced that:

· Last year, 10.3 billion trips were taken on U.S. public transportation. This represents the highest number of trips taken in 50 years.

· In the first quarter of 2008, use of public transportation increased by 3.3 percent, while vehicle miles traveled on our nation's roads declined by 2.3 percent.

· Light rail systems had the highest increase in ridership, boasting a 10.3 percent increase in the first quarter. Baltimore's light rail system alone increased its ridership by 16.8 percent.

Still, while these are all impressive numbers, how realistic is it that these ridership numbers will continue to increase?

Even with $4.00 gas, there are many that still have absolutely no interest in public transportation.

Whether it's because of misconceptions about dirty or unsafe buses and trains, the comfort and familiarity of our own cars, or the inability of local mass transit administrations to provide convenient, efficient, and inexpensive alternatives - not everyone is jumping on the public transportation bandwagon.

In fact, in a recent Baltimore Sun article, commuters recounted their experiences with Maryland's public transportation system. Here's one that I found extremely poignant...

"The real disappointment is that I'm spending about $8 on gasoline to get to work and home. It takes me about 20 to 25 minutes one way, and I can drink my coffee while I drive.

The MTA solution takes two hours, costs about $4.30 round trip (I have to pay express fees for the #15 bus) and I can't have coffee while in the coach. The real issue here is that it costs me over 3 hours a day to save two gallons of gasoline, but only saves me $4. This, to me, is not a wise tradeoff."

Where's the tipping point?

Public transportation is a great idea. It can help relieve rush hour congestion, displace foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But if it can't operate in a way that meets the demands of the consumer (especially when it comes to cost and convenience), it'll never be much more than the niche it is in most cities today.

And this is unfortunate, when you consider just how successful public transportation systems in other parts of the world are. If you've ever spent anytime in Europe, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course, there's still the belief that we haven't yet hit that tipping point that'll ultimately force some commuters to finally make the transition to mass transit.

Is it $5 a gallon, $6, $8?

No one really knows.

But one thing is for sure, individual states and cities aren't waiting around to find out.

No time to wait

Across the nation, cities and states are betting big on the future of public transportation.

Some aren't even waiting around for federal funds to make new projects happen.

Thanks to legislation in 21 states that enables transit agencies to form public-private partnerships to design, build and maintain local transit networks, some cities are moving ahead without federal resources. In fact, just last year the city of Houston announced that its transit authority would be using a private partner to take four different transit corridors from concept to operation as quickly as possible.

Bottom line: Construction on some of these transit projects needs to begin now...not three years from now. So waiting around for Washington is simply not an option.

Of course, in all fairness, the House did authorize an extra $1.7 billion in funding for public transportation last month. Under the plan, $750 million would be distributed throughout urban areas, and $100 million would be distributed through rural areas.

Not surprisingly, urban areas would get the lion's share of this funding. This is primarily because traffic congestion in many urban areas is actually getting worse.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report, congestion in 2007 caused urban commuters to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $78 billion.

That's billion - with a "B"

Still, whether or not this funding ever gets passed is anybody's guess.

So in the meantime, we're focusing on the individual states and cities that are moving now...without handouts from the Hill. Because this is where new public transportation projects are leading us to opportunities stemming from bus contracts, infrastructure development and train/light rail deals.

In fact, there's one mass transit company that's been building a massive backlog of regional contracts over the past year. And once market conditions ease up a bit, Nick Hodge, managing editor of the Alternative Energy Speculator, will be recommending this company to his readers.

There's not much more I can say about this particular company right now, as Nick has not revealed it to his readers yet. But if you'd like to learn more about Nick's most recent recommendation - one that's up 23% in just the past week (while the rest of the market got hammered), click here now.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Progress Or Complacency?

So the G8's global warming discussions are officially over. What did they decide? Well, they made a statement that calls for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

It took these guys a full year to go from "seriously considering cutting carbon emissions in half by 2050" to agreeing to call for halving emissions by 2050.

Wow!

Can you imagine if you told your boss that you were "seriously considering making the company more money," then one year later, told him that you have decided that you will make the company more money.

You'd be fired on the spot. Hell, you probably would've been fired a year prior for making such a ridiculous statement.

Yet, here we are now, and some are actually hailing the G8's decision as "major progress."

In fact, and not even the least bit surprising, President Bush told reporters that "significant progress" has now been made on global warming. What that progress is, I have no idea.

Of course, this is the same guy who only recently decided that it was in his best interest to finally admit that global warming is an issue that must be addressed. Though, by this administration's actions, it's clear that the addressing of this issue will have to come from his replacement in 2009.

Hell, just yesterday, a former EPA official revealed that last October, Dick Cheney's office—in an attempt to avoid regulating greenhouse gas emissions—cut six pages from testimony on climate change and public health by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And according to Jason Burnett, the former senior adviser on climate change to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, the office of the vice president sought deletions to the CDC's testimony regarding discussions of the human health consequences of climate change.

But I guess we shouldn't get too upset about this now. After all, the G-8 has called for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

Maybe next year they'll tell make a statement in regards to when they'll start discussing a base year. That'll give them at least two more years to solidify their next diversionary tactic.

Jeff

No Reason To Cheer The Loss Of 12,000 U.S. Jobs

According to a recent Reuters article, some coffee drinkers are now celebrating the latest economic hardships facing Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX).

Here's a quote from the article:

"I'm so happy. I'm so not a Starbucks person," said Melinda Vigliotti, sipping iced coffee at the Irving Farm Coffee House in New York. "I believe in supporting small businesses. Starbucks, bye-bye."

And there are quite a few folks who share this woman's opinion too.

Unfortunately, while bashing the brewer for being "too big" or "putting the smaller coffee shops out of business," few take the time to come down off of their moral high ground to realize that if wasn't for Starbucks creating a new coffee culture to begin with, half of those little independent coffee shops wouldn't even exist!

I'd also like to know if folks like Vigliottii realize that with Starbucks closing 600 stores, up to 12,000 jobs could be lost. Talk about hurting local economies!

There are also the local economies outside the U.S. that rely on Starbucks for their livelihoods. These will be affected too. Especially when it comes to all of those fair trade operations.

Starbucks is one of the largest purchasers of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the world. The company's global purchases of Fair Trade Certified coffee totaled 20 million pounds in 2007.

Let's also not forget the fact that Starbucks recently stopped serving core diary products that contain rBGH.

rBGH is a hormone typically given to cows on conventional dairy farms to increase production. Unfortunately, it's also known to cause udder infections, lameness, and reproductive problems. rBGH has also been criticized for increasing a growth hormone in cows and humans known as IGF-1. It has been suggested that elevated levels of IGF-1 have been associated with increased cancer rates.

I wonder how many of those local coffee shops use rBGH-free dairy products.

I wonder how many brew Fair Trade Certified coffee.

I wonder how many can provide employment for 12,000 U.S. workers.

Jeff

Innovation Or Exploitation: Which Do You Prefer?

With gas prices flying past $4.00 a gallon, we shouldn't be surprised to find the Bush administration practically demanding that Congress lift the ban on offshore drilling.

Saying that the U.S. needs to increase its energy production, the President declared that there was no excuse for delay.

We agree with part of that statement.

There is no excuse!

There's no excuse for delaying the large-scale integration of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) that could ultimately reduce our oil imports by as much as 80 percent.

There's no excuse for allowing the auto industry to dictate a pathetic CAFE standard of just 35 miles per gallon by 2020, while the fleet fuel economy averages in other countries are already much higher.

In Japan alone, the fleet fuel economy averages for new vehicles is 46.3 miles per gallon. And that standard was initiated in 2002! By 2010, the standard will be 48 miles per gallon.

There's no excuse for not bolstering our mass transit infrastructure, thereby enabling millions of U.S. workers to leave their cars at home.

If Washington really wants to get serious about helping the country "ease the pain at the pump," they'd bend over backwards to make this happen.

After all, our current public transportation system already saves 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Imagine if we could just double that to 2.8 billion gallons per year by adding and upgrading new systems.

Based on $4 a gallon, U.S. commuters would save $11.2 billion per year on gasoline costs!

It would also amount to...

· 68 fewer supertankers leaving the Middle East - one every 11 days

· Over 280,000 fewer tanker truck deliveries to service stations per year

· 216 million fewer cars filling up every year.

But no, Bush and company continue to spew the oil-sponsored rhetoric of more drilling.

This is no longer about finding more oil.

This is about a very necessary energy transition from finite resources to renewable resources.

After all, no matter how much you drill, it's only going to last so long.

Sure, in about 8 years that offshore oil would come online. And Bush claims we'll be able to get up to 18 billion barrels "over time." Whatever the hell "over time" means.

Either way, even if we did get 18 billion barrels, how long do you think that's going to last?

At our current rate of consumption we'll go through that in less than 3 years.

Why do we continue to entertain this ridiculous idea that drilling for more oil is a good idea, when the only real long-term solution to our oil/energy crisis is clearly alternatives?

Other than fat donations for our elected officials, I can't think of one.

Jeff

Renewable Energy Investing

I received an e-mail the other day from a reader who wanted to know if he should invest in more speculative renewable energy stocks, now that there are so many to choose from.

Obviously I cannot answer such a question on an individual basis, but I'm happy to share his question with you, since it is pretty relevant and timely.

You see, when we first started Green Chip, nearly every renewable energy investment was speculative. There were maybe 2 or 3 stocks that were considered "safe" when it came to this sector.

But today, many of those "speculative" stocks back in 2004 and 2005 are now some of the strongest and safest in the overall renewable energy mix.

Look at Ormat Technologies (NYSE:ORA), for instance.

Here's a stock that we recommended back in January, 2005.

When we first put out the recommendation, we had quite a few members who saw this stock as too risky.

But the potential was there, so we stuck to our guns.

This is how Ormat has performed since we added it to our portfolio...

Of course, even with the success of Ormat, there were also some that didn't work out quite as well. It's just the chance you take when you decide to invest in a stock that's so small.

That being said, a lot of this has to do with market conditions too.

In 2007, it seemed like we were adding new stocks to our portfolio almost every month.

But this year, the market's been too volatile for that. In fact, we've only been able to recommended 4 new stocks this year.

Here's how they've performed so far...

Stock #1 - up 83.59%

Stock #2 - up 23.04%

Stock #3 - up 6.13%

Stock #4 - up 13.57%

As you can see, being patient, and sticking with the "safer" plays has certainly done quite well for us.

Investing in Renewable Energy Stocks

But the question still remains - "Is it a good idea to start investing in some of the more speculative renewable energy stocks?"

This is really a personal decision based on how much risk you're willing to take. Though I have to be honest, market conditions this year have been pretty ripe for picking up (and profiting from) some of these more speculative plays.

Just ask Nick Hodge, managing editor of the Alternative Energy Speculator.

Nick got his readers into a certain speculative solar stock back in March. Today, that stock is up 143.3%.

Picking up a triple-digit gainer in 3 months is nothing to ignore.

And Nick's most recent speculative recommendation (one he made just 3 trading days ago) is up 18.41% already.

Of the 17 stocks in Nick's portfolio, 12 are winners.

And of those twelve, 7 are double-digit winners, and 2 are triple-digit winners.

So as you can see, there's certainly a real advantage to some of these speculative plays.

Fortunately Nick is an expert when it comes to analyzing risk vs. reward in these scenarios. That's why he's able to boast such an impressive portfolio.

It's also why we hired him to begin with!

In any event, the bottom line is: If you're willing to take on a bit more risk—with the right guidance—investing in some of these more speculative renewable energy stocks can definitely pay off big.

If you'd like to learn more about the Alternative Energy Speculator, or better yet—Nick's next pick, click here.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Nuclear Is Not A Renewable Resource

I received a press release from U.S. Senator Domenici's office this afternoon.

Here's an excerpt I'd like to share with you...

While some biofuels technology, like corn ethanol, is available now to help build that bridge, we must also move forward with advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, if we're going to get to the other side of the bridge where biofuels, nuclear energy, wind, solar, and other renewables will secure our energy future, free of foreign sources.

Notice anything odd?

Looks like the good folks at Domenici's office slipped "nuclear energy" into the list of "renewables that will secure our energy future."

You know, it's one thing to champion nuclear energy. If that's your angle...fine. We don't agree nuclear holds much promise as a clean, domestic energy source for the future as uranium is a finite resource. Not to mention, they still don't know what the hell to do with all the waste. Well, other than tell us they can "safely" store and transport it.

But to slip it into a press release as a component of the renewable energy framework? Well, that's just dishonest. And he knows it!

But I guess when your campaign donors include at least three dozen members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, you have to find ways to make them happy.

I just wonder if Vichi read the story today about how a reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant had to be shut down after radio frequencies from a camera interfered with a boiler pump that provides water to four steam generators.

Yeah, that sounds real safe and clean!

Jeff

They're At It Again

So it looks like the Saudis want to hold a summit to discuss how to handle the rising cost of oil, declaring that they will guarantee the availability of oil supplies now, and in the future.

Of course they neglect to state how much oil they're guaranteeing. But I can tell you one thing - it'll be less than the global demand.

Still, I suspect this is more about catering to the customer - placating him, if you will.

After all, if the world finds and embraces alternatives too soon, they may lose market share.

Personally, I don't see that happening for decades. Even if oil hits $200 or $300 a barrel. But you can't blame them for initiating a "just in case" plan - which is clearly something our elected officials are not too concerned with these days. At least not until it's too late.

No, they'd rather continue with their empty rhetoric, like this recent announcement that both the Democratic and Republican national conventions will be powered by wind and solar energy.

Talk about trying to pull a fast one!

Instead of bragging about how they're using renewables to power their dog and pony shows, perhaps they should get off their asses and extend the production tax credit for renewables.

If they don't, you're going to see many investors jump ship, a potential short-term slow down in the construction of safe, domestic, renewable energy projects, and many clean energy jobs possibly lost.

Utility rates continue to climb, oil prices continue to push the price of nearly everything up, loads of carbon emissions continue to be spewed all over the country without any accountability (except that which is passed on to the taxpayer) - but we're supposed to jump for joy because these guys found a PR firm to offset some electricity with renewables?

I tell ya, these guys really do prefer to play politics than do what's right for this country.

Our founding fathers would be disgusted!

Jeff

Renewable Energy Resources

The International Energy Agency (IEA) just released a new report which has stated that the world will need to invest $45 trillion to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

$45 Trillion!!!

Last month, environment ministers from the G8 backed this 50 percent target, and they'll call for it to be officially endorsed next month.

Now listen, I'm all for cutting greenhouse gases. Especially since any major cuts will require heavy investment in renewable energy resources.

Unfortunately, the IEA's report came off as a bit questionable when it analyzed what needs to be done to make this happen.

Let's go nuclear!!!

The IEA study has stated that the world will need to build roughly 1,400 nuclear power plants in order to meet its 50 percent reduction target.

The only problem is, they don't make any recommendations on how to pull this off.

How do they expect to build 1,400 new nuclear power plants when we barely have enough uranium for what we have in operation now?

During a June, 2007 press conference, the CEO of Cameco Corporation, the largest uranium producer in the United States, indicated that he expects demand to grow at 3 percent annually (this was before the IEA's announcement today), for the next decade, but doesn't see uranium mining being able to keep pace with demand. As it stands today, he believes the demand for uranium will exceed supply for the next eight or nine years.

Additionally, a 2006 study by the Energy Watch Group indicated that even under the best-case estimates of uranium resources, production will peak before 2050, assuming today's rate of use. And now they suggest we drastically increase our nuclear infrastructure?

And how quickly do they expect this to happen?

These things don't go up like shopping malls!

The last reactor built in the U.S. took 30 years to approve and build.

You think folks don't want a wind turbine in their backyard? Try to convince them that a nuclear power plant, complete with a mandatory evacuation plan, is a good idea.

Let's go clean coal!!!

The IEA's second scenario calls for an acceleration of carbon capture and storage technology for coal-fired power plants.

This begs the question, "Do these guys even consider the fundamentals of supply and demand?"

You've heard me go on and on in these pages before about how our so-called 250-year supply of coal is vastly overstated because the numbers don't take into account the energy content of our reserves.

Bottom line: when you look at the energy content of our coal, instead of just the numbers (because there are different types of coal, each with different energy contents), you'll find that we may have already passed the peak of the good stuff.

And globally, we could be looking at a peak of coal production by around 2020.

For the specifics on this analysis, I strongly recommend you read Chris Nelder's piece: The Dirt on Coal. It will truly open your eyes!

Perhaps if the folks making our energy decisions these days were to look at these numbers, we'd be spending less time talking about coal, and more time talking about renewables.

The IEA was quick to push nuclear and coal in the report, while only giving a slight mention to wind. Which, by the way, is only one part of the overall renewable energy mix.

I'm not saying we can transition to 100% renewable in the near term. But focusing so much attention on just our last few bits of non-renewable energy resources is doing nothing but wasting precious time.

And while the IEA's study will certainly get posted in every pro-nuclear and pro-coal website, we maintain that no matter how you slice it, nothing will change the fact that fossil fuel depletion will ALWAYS be the issue that enables the long-term success of a strong, renewable energy market.

With some decisive leadership, and some much-needed infrastructure upgrades and transmission development (which is necessary with or without renewables), this can be done safely, economically and sustainably.

According to the DoE...

· Enough electric power for the entire United States could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada with parabolic trough systems. This is a plot of land roughly 100 miles on each side.

· There are about 14 million quads of recoverable geothermal energy beneath U.S. soil. That's about 140,000 times our current energy consumption.

· There's enough potential offshore wind energy off the coast of the United States to cover nearly all the current installed U.S. electrical capacity.

Yes, it's true that all of these solutions require large upfront capital costs. But wind, solar and geothermal resources, no matter what part of the world you're in, will always remain infinite and carbon-free.

And that's why, despite how much they continue to push the pipe dreams of nuclear and clean coal, renewable energy maintains a level of long-term value that no conventional energy source can touch.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Biofuel Energy

I'll be the first to admit it.

I'm not a huge fan of corn-based ethanol.

There are just too many better solutions out there. Things like Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) or, dare I say it - mass transit systems like those which are operating successfully and profitably throughout Europe.

That being said, if biofuels can help replace just 5 to 10 percent of our oil imports - and do it in a safe and sustainable way - then we probably shouldn't be so quick to write them off.

But that's the key. Biofuel energy must be produced in a safe and sustainable way. Otherwise, we're just trading one problem for another.

Biofuel Energy: Food vs. Fuel

A couple of years ago, the food vs. fuel debate really started to pick up steam. After all, as ethanol momentum kicked into overdrive, so did the price of corn. Certainly there's a correlation there that cannot be denied.

But making biofuels the scapegoat for high food prices isn't completely justified either.

What about...

· The skyrocketing price of oil

· Surging global demand for grain and meat from China and India

· Hedge fund speculation on commodity markets

· Severe drought conditions like those we've recently seen in Australia

· A weak dollar

I'm not saying biofuels don't play a role. But how big of a role is questionable, as biofuel opponents have certainly been known to inflate the numbers in an effort to muddy the waters. These tend to be the same folks who blame biofuels for higher prices at the pump.

Is it true?

Depends who you ask, and who you want to believe.

While the Heritage Foundation (an organization that has received about a half million dollars from Exxon Mobil) has accused ethanol of contributing to the high cost of gas, Merrill Lynch (a U.S. securities firm that launched 2 biofuel indices in 2007) has stated that U.S. gas prices would be 15 percent higher without the effect of biofuels.

That would put today's average price close to $4.60 a gallon.

The Necessity of Sustainability

Even if biofuels do lower gas prices and can eventually help displace up to 10% of our oil imports... many of the environmental impacts of biofuel production must be accounted for.

After all, much of our agricultural system today is based on very dangerous, unsustainable practices. And don't brush this off as some kind of environmental propaganda either. There are many historical examples of how large civilizations have risen on the strength of their agriculture, but also crumbled because of unsustainable farming methods that destroyed the natural resource base.

The industrial agriculture system, for the most part, does not operate in a way that supports the long-term health of farmland. And this goes for both food crops and fuel crops.

In an effort to feed growing populations, the demand for chemical fertilizer production has grown dramatically. Unfortunately, most of the fertilizers used today are primarily derived from oil, natural gas and mined minerals. And not only do these fertilizers add to the fossil-fuel bill, they can also gradually increase the acidity of the soil until it begins to impede plant growth.

Chemically-fertilized land plots have also shown less biologic activity in the soil food web (the microscopic organisms that make up the soil ecosystem) than do plots that have been fertilized organically with manure or other biologic sources of fertility.

There's also the issue of water usage.

It's been estimated that it can take around 1,750 gallons of water to produce only one bushel of corn. That stings! Of course, we rarely blink an eye when we water our lawns. On average, a homeowner uses 21,600 gallons to water his lawn every year.

Still, while the production of one gallon of ethanol requires three gallons of water, it takes roughly 2.5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of gasoline.

Estimations for cellulosic ethanol do bring water consumption down to between one and 2.5 gallons.

Detour to Profitability

Now listen, I'm not writing this because I'm a huge believer in biofuels. As I've already indicated, their contribution to getting us off foreign oil is modest at best. And let's face it: we wouldn't even be discussing biofuels if it weren't for a lot of very convincing lobbyists and a handful of Midwestern Senators with dollar signs in their eyes.

But I do think it's important that we don't jump on the biofuel bashing bus without taking everything into consideration.

Is the biofuel industry operating in a sustainable manner, taking into consideration the long-term affects on agriculture and the environment? They're not there yet. But we believe they will get there. Simply because they have no other option.

The true test will be the next-generation technologies they deliver. More efficient production processes and the introduction of better feed stocks, like cellulosic materials, jatropha and algae.

These are the advances that will not only allow the biofuel industry to counter its critics, but they are also the advances that will enable investors like you to profit from a solution that is not only environmentally sustainable...but economically sustainable as well.

For more on alternative transportation technologies, click here.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Suing OPEC for High Oil Prices?

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would allow the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices.

Yes, they really did that.

Trying to sue OPEC for limiting oil supplies and setting crude prices is like a junkie trying to sue his dealer for not giving him enough heroin at a price HE thinks is reasonable.

If you ever needed any evidence that most of our elected officials have absolutely NO clue as to what's really going on here, this is it.

Of course, you and I both know that this is probably more of a dog and pony show than anything else. After all, their first priority really is sedating the voters with fairy dust legislation.

Then on Wednesday we had another "let's blame the oil execs for high prices" puppet show.

Senator Durbin asked the heads of Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Chevron and BP if it troubled them when they saw what they were doing to us. I'd like to ask the senator what it is exactly that the oil companies are doing, other than feeding our addiction.

Then again, it has been with great success that Big Oil has lobbied their accusers to keep this addiction strong. But those guys on the Hill don't have to get their pockets lined with oil money. They just choose to do so. And now they have the audacity to pin the blame on the very hand that feeds them.

Suing OPEC for High Oil Prices: But Wait, It Gets Better!

During the hearing, Senator Arlen Specter decided to ask Exxon Mobil why the company's annual earnings increased from $11.5 billion to $40.6 billion over five years.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd be little pissed off if some bureaucrat decided to question me on how I make my money. If they really believed something unethical was going on here, wouldn't you think they'd already have some kind of legitimate and quiet investigation going on? Well, assuming ethics was a priority...which it clearly isn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

That joke isn't funny anymore

This crisis grows bigger and bigger by the hour, and we need a solution yesterday.

And I'm not talking about some ridiculous band-aid publicity stunt either—like the recent bill that was just signed to restrict oil shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve.

Deliveries into the reserve have now been suspended for the rest of the year. That's a whopping 70,000 barrels per day. We consume about 21 million barrels per day.

What a joke!

What should really be putting a burn in our bellies is that some members of Congress are now pushing to release oil from the emergency stockpile.

Rep. Edward Markey from Massachusetts said he didn't understand why the President wasn't releasing oil from the reserve to force down prices.

Hmmm. I don't know. Maybe it's because those reserves are there in case we need to respond to a future supply emergency? They're not there so guys like him can cozy up to voters by temporarily influencing prices!

So let's look at where we are now...

We can supposedly sue OPEC. Suing them should either make them laugh or make them angry. Either way, not a very smart move on our part. Especially since we're no longer backing up our reserves.

But that's alright, because in Washington they're showing the voters how upset they are with the oil companies by making them explain their profits.

Though I should note that Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did bring up a good point. He said:

"Prices should not skyrocket like this in a properly functioning, competitive market."

And that's the key - a properly functioning, competitive market.

While Big Oil has been getting kick backs since day one (and for those of you who questioned me on this a couple of weeks ago, I urge you to take a look at this article which outlines the very proof you requested.), Congress and the President squabble over a few million dollars worth of tax breaks for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs.)

Perhaps you've read about the PHEVs in these pages before. These are the vehicles that could allow nearly every U.S. commuter to drive to and from work every day without using a single drop of gas.

Seems to me that this makes more sense than threatening OPEC with lawsuits.

What's next? Judge Judy will be appointed to conduct the legal proceedings?

My friends, as this energy crisis continues to threaten our entire way of life, I do hope you are maintaining a strong, long-term position in renewables. Because at the end of the day, nothing can change the fact that our reliance upon finite, non-renewable resources is quickly coming to an end.

And this isn't just because we're bullish on renewable energy. It's because there is simply no other choice in the matter.

We're backed into a corner, and no amount of political maneuvering or quick fixes can change that.

The time for debate is over.

The time for action is now!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

I'll be the first to admit it.

Over the past few years especially, I've had little sympathy for some of the major auto-makers that have been losing loads of cash. The way we see it, they brought it on themselves by trying to force the market, instead of supplying it properly.

Especially General Motors.

Back in 1997 GM had an opportunity to lead the world in fuel efficiency with their electric vehicle, the EV1.

The EV1 was an electric car (with an 80-mile range) that GM introduced before the California Air Resource Board's (CARB) original Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate went into effect.

The mandate required 2% of all new cars sold by the seven major auto-makers in California to meet "zero emission" standards by 1998, and 10% by 2003.

But GM, along with nearly every other major auto-maker, played both sides of the coin. While the EV1 was selling, and Toyota, Nissan and Honda were developing prototypes, the big auto-makers also aggressively tried to kill the ZEV mandate.

They were successful.

The lawyers got paid, the chairman of CARB got a cushy new job with the fuel cell institute (after manipulating the hearings on the ZEV to cater to the auto-makers while silencing ZEV advocates), and the EV1 was forced into extinction.

In 2006, this tragic story came to life in the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?" And those who saw the movie called bullsh%$ on the world's biggest auto-maker.

Now, fast-forward to today - 2008.

The Toyota Prius is one of the most popular vehicles on the road. Its exceptional fuel efficiency has helped the company sell more than 1 million units. And as gas prices continue to rise, so does the demand for fuel efficiency.

Every major auto-maker is now offering hybrid versions of their vehicles. And most industry insiders agree that over the next decade, nearly every vehicle on the road will be some version of a hybrid. That includes GM.

In fact, GM, despite years of mediocrity, complacency and bad ideas, may actually have a shot at jumping to the head of the line when it comes to fuel efficiency.

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles: They Finally Get It!

It's hard for a cynic like me to believe, but it's starting to look like GM may actually be the next major auto-maker to raise the bar in fuel efficiency.

Not counting the insanely efficient vehicles that some smaller companies and garage engineers have already built, of course.

The bottom line is that these guys have no choice.

The oil supply crunch is becoming more and more apparent every day. Gas prices are only going up from here, and consumers are freaking out.

But while some will continue to demand that the government step in and "fix" this problem - which you and I both know is not an option - it will have to be an increase in fuel efficiency to keep our personal transportation moving.

And GM knows this. They finally get it. They've finally decided to stop dictating consumer behavior, and start embracing it.

They're doing it with the Chevy Volt.

The Volt is a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) that can deliver 40 miles in all-electric mode.

To give you a frame of reference, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has indicated that U.S. commuters drive an average of 29 miles per day. For those who fall into this category, driving to work won't cost a single penny in gasoline costs. And if you go beyond the 40-mile range, the Volt's gas-powered engine kicks in, both propelling the vehicle and feeding an onboard generator that produces electricity while the car is operating.

Last week I attended the Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Conference in Las Vegas, where I had the opportunity to speak with a couple GM reps, and also see the Volt.

For a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, this sure as hell isn't some tinker toy car.

Take a look at these pictures:

It is our hope that GM will be successful with the Volt. It's a big game changer, and finally gives GM some much needed credibility with consumers seeking fuel efficiency.

Don't get me wrong. If they balk or continue to press Congress on inadequate fuel efficiency measures, I won't hesitate to call them out. We have to.

But I have to be honest. There was definitely a different attitude at this year's conference. There were no excuses about past decisions. In fact, there was much acknowledgement of GM's less-than-stellar past performance in the area of fuel efficiency.

These guys finally seem focused.

And we're eagerly awaiting 2011—when the vehicle should finally hit the market.

In the meantime, we remain bullish on the high-performance battery companies that continue to pick up momentum as GM and other major auto-makers begin to embrace PHEVs - the absolute best near-term solution to our oil crisis.

These batteries represent the next generation of fuel for personal transportation. They will enable a significant decrease in oil consumption, carbon emissions and infrastructure vulnerability.

The transitional energy economy is upon is, my friends.

Embrace it.

Profit from it!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Organic Photovoltaics

In the past, we've discussed potential moves in the field of organic photovoltaics.

This is what many researchers are looking to as the next evolution of solar.

But after attending the Organic Photovoltaics conference in Philadelphia last week, I suspect it might be some time before we see any solid plays in this area.

Organic photovoltaics (OPV) offers the promise of significant disruption in pricing and aesthetics, as well as impressive efficiencies in low light conditions. OPV materials are also flexible and form-fitting. This stuff can potentially be wrapped around or even painted onto various materials.

But in order for OPV companies to even consider competing, they have to at least measure up to the efficiency we see in current thin-film, where we've now seen levels at around 9% commercially, and 19.5% in the lab.

Today, based on assessments from the Department of Energy, and information both Nick Hodge and I have picked up while attending OPV conferences in 2007 and 2008, we're currently looking at OPV efficiencies at between 5% and 6.25%.

This stuff is not ready for prime-time power generation, as it simply cannot compete with other forms of solar power generation or even conventional forms of power generation.

That being said, we do see one angle that could really help propel OPV in the early stages. And that would be for applications which don't require significant efficiencies.

Organic Photovoltaic Applications

For example, imagine OPV applied to your cell phone.

Unlike conventional solar technologies, under low light conditions, like those in your office, home or conference room setting, OPV could continuously trickle-charge your phone. It could be possible that because of this OPV application, you'd never have to worry about your phone completely losing power.

Or perhaps OPV applied to the roof of a hybrid or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

While sitting out in a parking lot all day, or even while you're driving, the system could be charging your lithium-ion battery pack.

These are the kinds of applications that were being discussed at last week's OPV conference.

So at this point, we'll certainly continue to monitor the progress of OPV—but we expect the early investment opportunities to be found in applications like those just mentioned.

Because even though this is not the kind of power generation you can use to power your home...it still has the potential to offer disruptions in other markets.

And quite frankly, we really don't care where the profits come from.

As long as they keep on coming!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

P.S. One of our newer services, Alternative Energy Speculator, is a great conduit for taking profits from some of the more speculative angles alternative energy, like organic photovoltaics. Read this report to learn more about the service and one the recent lucrative profit opportunities.

www.greenchipstocks.com

Renewable Energy Standards

The gas price blame game was in full swing this week.

President Bush recycled the same old nonsense about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You know, the place that supposedly holds about 10 billion barrels.

According to the Energy Department, opening up the refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce our dependence on imports, and lower prices by less than $0.50 a barrel.

Heck, we'll get a bigger upward move than that if someone sneezes too loud near a refinery.

Incidentally, even if they did open up the refuge to oil development, the oil wouldn't even start flowing for at least 9 years. That'll put us around 2017!

Then Hilary Clinton and John McCain proposed a gas tax holiday that, according to economists would just push the price of gas even higher.

Since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, any lower prices would just boost demand - rewarding Big Oil, instead of the consumer.

Not surprisingly, we haven't heard a peep out of the oil companies on this one. But mention a repeal of all that free money we keep giving them, and they'll rally the million-dollar lobbying troops in a New York minute.

Fortunately, on a local level, some real progress is actually being made with renewable energy standards.

Thank Ohio's Renewable Energy Standards for the Next Round of Investor Profits

Last week, after a unanimous vote, the Ohio State Senate sent new legislation to the desk of Governor Ted Strickland. This legislation establishes a 12.5% renewable electricity standard (RES) by 2025.

And the Governor is expected to sign it.

Now what does this mean for investors?

Well, when it comes to renewables, this is a wind-heavy state.

And according to the American Wind Energy Association, if wind energy constitutes 75% to 95% of the standard, the bill would establish a market for as much as 7,000 megawatts.

This is huge.

And for companies like Gamesa (MCE:GAM.MC), Iberdrola (MCE:IBE.MC), and GE (NYSE:GE), this could provide an absolute avalanche of hefty turbine contracts.

We also expect to see a number of smaller wind developers stepping up to take advantage of this opportunity. Much like we've seen in the past with wind developers in California.

Renewable Energy Standards and Wind Development

In fact, Green Chip Stocks members are already profiting from one small wind developer with revenue-generating properties in Palm Springs and Tehachapi, California. These are the two hottest wind-generating spots, with transmission, in the country.

But beyond the money we've already been making here (and will continue to make in the near future), there's still something much bigger at play.

· Ohio is a huge industrial state that uses a lot of power. This enables the state to become a very important market for renewables.

· This legislation could help jumpstart the state's manufacturing sector, which is highly-skilled, and looking for work.

· With Ohio on board, there would now be 26 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have mandatory renewable energy standards. That's more than half the country!

If the federal government can't get its act together and do this, the individual states will.

Of course, once the new residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue move in, that could change as well.

But in the meantime, we'll continue to profit—with or without the government's support. Just like we've been doing since we started. And just like we'll do once Ohio's new legislation becomes law.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff