Eighteen years ago, fresh from completing my two-year master’s degree in public administration from the Kennedy School at Harvard and bursting with student loans, I began my private sector career as an entry level grunt at McCaw Cellular Communications. I wanted inside the industry more than anything and was willing to do whatever it took to get a toe-hold. It’s been an exciting journey of meaning for me personally and professionally.

McCaw Cellular operated a marketing deal with other modest providers under the brand name “Cellular One” who were the “A” side of the degregulated duopoly authorized by the original 1984 breakup of AT&T. It was a time before the Internet, smart phones and even the deployment of wide spread commercial digital transmission itself. It was the era of the analogue Brick. Most of our time was spent frantically patching holes in our analogue coverage maps–dropped calls being the major issue–and marketing to regular folks that cell phones were not just toys for the rich.

My passion for wireless was sealed the first time I made a call in the late 1980s–something inside of me clicked that this was one of the greatest inventions in history. I knew I had to be a part of it and began exploring how to jump into the industry.

More than anything, I held on to a insightful vision articulated by Craig McCaw, John Stanton, Steve Hooper and other pioneers that this tool would transform the developing world and connect people across the globe who were then limited by communications isolation. I remember being transformed by a speech by Craig when he said simply, “communication has always been meant to take place between people, not places.” The era of waiting by a phone for a call was over and I was a part of it.

A few short years after I joined McCaw Cellular, then the nation’s largest mobile operator despite not possessing anything close to a national footprint, the Seattle-area company was acquired by New Jersey headquartered grandfather of telecommunications: AT&T. It was a time of rapid and aggressive technical and business transition. While I could feel the entrepreneurial energy quickly leave the room, I could also tell on a serious level that it was an important time in the history of the industry, consumer choice, lower prices and better services. It was an evolution that I knew was valuable and inevitable and important to the market transition from an exciting and interesting grown up toy to a radically productive tool of communications that would revolutionize the world.

I left the company soon thereafter to join the start up world of wireless entrepreneurial endeavors. Today, seven startup companies later, I find myself as passionate about the power of mobile communications as I was in those early days. I remain a unapologetic advocate for the industry not only because it’s clean technology for the environment, provides well paying jobs and offers value to society, but because it offers the added if gloriously tangible benefit of enabling citizens across the planet to break free of oppression. I never felt like I was in the business of selling soap.

And, in fact, as many in the early days predicted, it’s proven to be one of the greatest tools ever invented for the radical march to Democracy.

From a broader systems level there are those who see the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile–a partnership that has been almost inevitable for the past decade or more due to their respective sizes and mutual adoption of the GSM standard–as an assault upon freedom of expression, limitations on bandwidth, net neutrality and other such positions. I very much understand their fears, and I share a certain anxiety from a front line entrepreneurial perspective (selling a product or service to the mega carrier will become an even greater nightmare). It’s hard not to assume that competitors Sprint and Verizon, who have similar dynamics of size and technical standards may likely combine at some point leaving only two mega carriers in the U.S. market. Once again a lightly regulated duopoly dynamic. The market takes giant steps forward, retreats and reorganizes and grows again because it breathes with the innovation from consumer needs and desires.

Still, there is another side that goes almost to the core of the radical evolution of technology that warrants a look.

In my view, the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile should be allowed by regulators to move forward less because of short term jobs, investment considerations or the logistical improvement in wireless coverage and more because of the role wireless plays in society. It is something intangible but even more radical in the evolution of technology: An inevitable need to innovate from small to large, oddity to commodity, infrastructure to application and the inevitable lower prices that underlay it all.

The consolidation of the wireless industry is an inevitable march forward because creating the innovation and infrastructure of our connected, web-based world requires capital, risk, investment and ideas. Government simply cannot pick winners and losers with such reckless abandon as to predict how tomorrow’s technology foundation will serve the public. Wireless technology has thrived because the government has not aggressively regulated the industry. Despite the issues and ideas underlying consolidation that strike fear in some advocates hearts, not illegitimately, to halt the larger march forward would be a mistake.

Simply, in order for true mobile broadband to be deployed nationally and internationally–a service that will itself continue to transform access to applications of tomorrow–we need to recognize and fully acknowledge that expanding the infrastructure requires capital, investment, applications and constantly changing value for consumers. The radical evolution toward the next generation of mobile broadband, 4G LTE, also has implications for public safety (users who are trapped by non competitive, closed, expensive, proprietary networks dominated by monopoly players paid for by taxpayers) as well as others: The public safety radio market is the opposite of commercial wireless in its efficiency as it is a government created monopoly instead of a consumer-driven market forced to respond to real users rather than deep-pocketed taxpayers.

Another example is rural broadband deployment. It is unrealistic to assume that rural areas will receive meaningful mobile broadband without lower cost infrastructure and coordinated approaches from companies like AT&T and T-Mobile. It is simply fantasy to assume that smaller or independent underfunded providers will have the resources to compete with this next massive wave of wireless technology at the spectrum and bandwidth requirements of tomorrow’s applications.

It is impossible and unwise to pretend that we should halt the inevitable tide of technology in the short term because we fear the general idea of consolidation even though that fear is justified on some level. It requires diligence, oversight and courageous consumer protection to ensure the fears do not turn into an ugly reality. It requires disclosure. It requires a higher standard of ensuring the combined entity does not abuse its powerful public policy role on critical issues like net neutrality. It is part of the monopoly era that requires a fierce commitment to protect against the excesses of monopolies. The wireless industry has shown that, despite normal challenges, it has been following a responsible tide of access, quality, low cost and technological innovation that has brought value across all elements of global society and it cannot and should not be artificially constrained by our national government.

Ryan Blethen of the Seattle Times makes the most salient and thoughtful argument against the merger that I’ve seen–driven by the legitimate policy position of net neutrality. I oppose AT&T’s position on the issue and feel as strongly as Ryan–who has been a courageous voice on this issue–about the importance of keeping the open, affordable, non discriminatory utility of broadband access to the web just that. I would, for example, support a clear set of guidelines around net neutrality in wireless as part of the core consumer protection conditions of this or any other mega merger. The marketplace can be a frightening and dangerous place, and aggressive consumer protections are always in order. But the tide of wireless technology evolution is a strength not a weakness.

Consolidation in wireless has been inevitable since the first spectrum licenses were quickly purchased by Craig McCaw’s team and so many other mom and pop providers across the country. It’s been the most consistent trend in the industry from day one and, as a result, its been driven by lower prices and higher quality consumer choice.

We all know that innovation in wireless will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of AT&T and T-Mobile’s condition, but it will inevitably lead more boldly toward exciting new generations of wireless broadband by allowing the natural course of technology to evolve without artificial government interference based upon the notion that it can somehow be stopped. If this particular merger does not go through, you can bet your cell phone that Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T will reformulate other associations that have the same essential effect. The reason has nothing to do with regulators in Washington, D.C. and everything to do with normal market forces and the cost efficiencies that come from multi billion infrastructure investment requirements.

I am not, it should be noted, arguing for unrestrained mega mergers and consolidation without soul or purpose or regulatory analysis. But I’ve seen the glint in the eye of women entrepreneurs selling 5 minute mobile phone calls from their village in the developing world and I know the march of history is on the side of innovation and consumer choice. And we’ve all witnessed revolutions carried over tiny, blurry, two-inch screens in some of the most oppressive nations on earth.

If we one day have a national and international mobile broadband infrastructure–made possible only by robust capital markets and economies of scale that governments cannot provide–we will ourselves enable the next radical generation of applications that will allow entrepreneurs and consumers to continue to change the world.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

(Disclosure: I have received substantial financial support for my legislative campaigns from all of the companies mentioned in this post)

I’m a huge believer in the market, policy and clean energy potential of electric vehicles. Prior to my time in the Legislature I served on the board of advisors for V2Green, Inc., a Seattle-based startup that designs the software to enable real-time, smart grid management of electrical power in vehicles. The company was purchased by GridPoint soon after its founding. (Disclosure: I currently have no financial interest in the companies mentioned)

In 2009 the legislature adopted a watered-down bill that became more of a hodge podge of policies, but at least it set the tone for moving forward from a policy perspective.

Today’s announcement that Tesla will move into mass production of low cost electric vehicles in partnership with Toyota is a reflection that the long term prospects are tremendous. It shows the value as part of the long term transportation policies of the future.

And a reminder that the danger surfaces in a political sense when government tries to pick and choose winners and losers.

The legislation in 2009 was originally drafted and lobbied by Better Place, an Israeli-based company that is taking the global market by storm. Fortunately for the public, state Rep. Deb Eddy (D-48) was the prime sponsor and she ensured that the integrity of public policy was protected and strengthened by her fierce independence and policy wisdom. So while the bill started out as a sweetheart deal for Better Place, it ended up as an objective, technology-neutral policy for electric vehicle development in Washington. The bill accomplishes little at this point but it does provide the framework for a bolder approach in the years to come.

Today’s Tesla announcement is a “giant leap” forward in progress not because of public policy or politics at the city, state or federal level but because of the value driven to consumers in the marketplace of ideas. It shows that it’s the marketplace that innovates new technologies.

Yes we all feel tension and rage at BP for the oil spill, yes we all feel deeply justified anger at Wall Street for obnoxious abuse of power and unleashed greed, but let’s remember too that the private marketplace of ideas is the driver of innovation that fuels our nation’s long term economic growth. Much of the tremendous R&D produced by our nation is publicly funded, and much is not. But innovation in all corners is the key to our future.

Through innovation like electric vehicles, we as a nation will continue to change the world.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

As the prime House sponsor of legislation making texting and talking on a cell phone without a headset a primary offense, I am pleased with the successful work of our citizen’s coalition. It’s good public policy and the right thing for public safety, especially given the inability of young people to put down the darn phone and focus on driving.

As a technology entrepreneur in the wireless, software and clean energy sectors, however, I had a nagging sense that our efforts in Olympia would quickly be outdated by the marketplace of ideas.

Indeed.

Check out www.otterapp.com, a tiny Seattle-based startup with an awesome application that shuts off texting functionality once the device is moving rapidly (and thus in a vehicle). You can download the Droid application here: http://www.appstorehq.com/otter-android-193982/app, and hopefully an iPhone app will go live as soon as the GPS functionality is opened to developers by Apple.

A constituent and entrepreneur, Erik Wood of Queen Anne, shared his story with me over coffee recently. I’m shamelessly sharing his commercial material because I think it’s a compelling, purposeful and meaningful application that makes good business and policy sense.

Here’s his pitch:

” OTTER was conceived after the owner’s three year old daughter was nearly run down on a quiet residential street by a driver who was texting. It was built to compliment your busy life and to help you focus on the task at hand whether that be at home, in the office or, most importantly, on our nation’s highways.

OTTER’s easy-to-use auto reply feature immediately responds to incoming texts with your customized response without the OTTER user seeing or hearing cues that a text exchange has occurred. A timer auto-reply function manages incoming texts during specific times such as a daily commute or an important meeting.

OTTER’s Break the Habit Campaign (http://BTHnow.org) is supported by the application’s first of its kind GPS / Parental Control Feature. Parents can enter a password, hit the GPS button and know that while their teen’s phone is in a moving vehicle, OTTER will silence all primary text notifications and auto-reply with an anti texting and driving message. All of this happens without the OTTER user hearing or seeing primary cues from the cell phone that a text exchange has occurred. OTTER’s Parental Control does not replace the parent, but it does empower them. It can be disabled with four numbers that make up the session specific pass code. This promotes discussions among family members about safety with regard to the deadly combo of texting and driving

For adult drivers who want to self govern that almost Pavlovian need to respond to that text chime, we included a simple GPS Mode feature (tap one button) that you can leave on all the time if you like. When your car is moving, you won’t be tempted by that seductive text chime. When you are done focusing solely on safe driving, all of your texts will be available for you to answer on your terms.

This unique cell phone application is valuable tool to anyone concerned about their personal safety, and the safety of those around them, and those who wish to improve their daily productivity. OTTER also sets itself apart from more personally invasive text and drive safety software by putting control in the hands of the user, and its the first smart phone software of its kind to be sold for a modest download fee and no recurring charges.”
(ref: http://www.OTTERapp.com )

(End of Otter promotional materials)

As a state legislator I believe in strengthening our laws against driving while texting. As an entrepreneur I see a huge market and business opportunity. As a father of four children who is especially worried about the safety of young people on our roads, I see a critical role for both.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

The 36th District Democrats held a post legislative session debriefing last night with party activists. After the formal discussion, I had a thoughtful chat with one of our state’s most influential labor lobbyists about the 2010 legislative session.

One of the things she graciously asked me to do was outline my thinking in a more systematic fashion about outsourcing. The central tenet of her question was this: Is there a philosophical and policy foundation to my views in this area? Given my open discussion of the issues, do I support outsourcing or privatization in all cases or limited? Why?

It’s more than a fair question, it’s imperative to discuss openly. I’ve written about this topic before on myballard.com and elsewhere but wanted to address her question here as well.

This year I actively supported legislation to outsource the state printing office. I supported additional legislation with a bit less vigor but still openly to contract an additional 20 underperforming (ie losing money) state liquor stores. This is a practice actively utilized today but this bill would expand it further.

First and most importantly, I deeply appreciate the frustration that many fellow progressives feel privatization or outsourcing is really a cover for an anti-state employee strategy. It implies state employees are somehow unable or unwilling to efficiently deliver services. That is not inherently the case, of course, just as it is not automatic that private sector folks are more efficient or effective. As a businessman and a legislator, I know that there is no monopoly on efficiency in either the public or private sector. To pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous.

I’ve argued for a progressive approach to government reform. As a part of that deeper dialogue, we need a progressive approach to the privatization of public services, not an automatic reaction for or against in all cases. The subtly is important.

The very idea of privatization of services should not be viewed as anti-government, anti-state employee, anti-public service. The very idea of spending valuable tax dollars on real people living real lives is pro-government, pro-state employee, pro-public service. I want to spend money on real people not back-end systems where we pay value-add prices for commodity services.

The idea of privatizing social security, public access to water rights, key military functions, foster youth oversight and other high value programs is truly a violation of our nation’s fiduciary public obligations to taxpayers and citizens. The ugliest example of all? Blackwater.

But some of the deeper, more holistic and thoughtful questions at the state level follow these lines: What is the highest value role for state employees regarding service delivery? When is the profit motive (ie outsourcing or privatizing a service) a violation of the state’s fiduciary moral obligation to citizens? When can harm come from letting oversight of service delivery take second place to cost? Can we stop paying such a high price for low cost services? Do state employee-based services that may still be commodities add intangible value that should be captured? (such as jobs!)

The philosophical and policy foundation of my policy position is that as a general statement state government should not be in the business of delivering most commodity services. For example, the state purchases billions of dollars worth of concrete, steel, wood and other commodities for construction. Yet it would make absolutely no sense for the state to be in the concrete, steel or wood business. It’s just not a core competency. Cruise ships purchase more steaks than anyone else in the world, but they don’t go into the slaughter and meatpacking businesses.

We need to use our bulk purchasing power to get a smoking hot deal for taxpayers on commodities so we can redirect those dollars for value-add services. But none of it can be done in the dark.

The state printing office is another good example. We have thousands of small printing businesses statewide. What would the price and quality level be for state printing jobs if there was constant, aggressive competition for that extraordinary amount of business? We would pay less for taxpayers and yet receive higher quality products. This is not an insult to the people of the printing office, it is a reflection of the passion and energy of the marketplace that is constantly evolving if a customer as large as the state made its business more available to small companies statewide.

And it impacts how we look at systems change. Under our current model, the truth is we have very little incentive to go entirely paperless as a state–requiring almost all services to be delivered on line. The reason? The state printing office relies upon more and more printing. And yet I’d argue we want to lead the innovation of non-paper based printing. We want to make printing obsolete and when we are in this business we are less likely to do so.

In terms of liquor stores the story is much more complex due to the massive externalities of alcohol-related costs to society. Like others, we as a state are hypocritical in that we do not want to encourage drinking yet we rely upon the revenues generated and seek to increase tax collections in this area. We have had a policy since prohibition ended of a state monopoly to keep management of alcohol under control. Does that work? I don’t know for sure, but I do feel that having state employees manage the operations is by its nature a commodity service. I question the unique, incremental value even though I truly accept the strength of the argument that state employees deliver high quality service in this area providing more than $300 million to the state coffers. It’s a tough one and I’m continuing to learn more.

In technology the private sector is unquestionably more effective, efficient and cost-sensitive. The public sector’s slow embrace of cloud computing service at a time when we are seeing a march from the private sector worldwide to reduce storage costs and improve quality is just one example. There are many more. The $300 million state data center’s construction without so much as a legitimate financial plan behind it further shows the lack of market pressure to make truly independent, objective technology decisions.

Can state employees perform a service for less cost since they don’t have the profit motive and don’t need to constantly deliver marginal savings? Yes. But can the marketplace improve quality and lower costs due to the insatiable need for innovation? Yes.

The larger systems challenge, of course, is to get the lower price along with the quality innovation. Never easy to do. But the bottom line is that when it comes to back-end, commodity services where efficiency really matters to reduce marginal costs the marketplace of the private sector is–in my view–going to be more successful than government.

In many ways my philosophical grounding in using the private sector more forcefully for back-end commodity services is driven by a belief that I want state employees overseeing the safety of foster youth and other fiduciary obligations where a profit motive is of no meaningful value to society. I want to use those tax dollars not to pay for back-end, commodity services like hosting servers but to send students to colleges, support foster youth, improve our schools and much more.

The great challenge of leading our state is to find ways to get the best of both worlds: The fiduciary oversight of dedicated public employees doing high value people-oriented work along with the innovation and cost controls of the marketplace.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Young, small businesses are the heart of entrepreneurialism

By now everyone is done grumbling over Boeing’s decision to move part of the 787 assembly to South Carolina. Former Gov. Gary Locke’s organized effort to keep Boeing in Washington called for a systemic approach in workforce development and public infrastructure. But that seems life a lifetime ago now and the $3.2 billion package for the company (much of which they didn’t actually get I hear) looks different today. Large companies are important to jobs, of course, and we all recognize their value. We make speeches, write articles, attend seminars and talk constantly about what state government can do to ‘save jobs.’ We almost always mean manufacturing jobs.

Still, we all know intellectually that small businesses create jobs. Every conference says so and every article talks about their vital role. But is this actually true?

And, if so, in the end what does state government actually do to support job creation among small businesses?

It’s a serious question because I don’t think we do much at all for the largest generator of jobs.

One of the problems, it seems to me, is that we’re under the mistaken idea that small businesses generate the most jobs (I’ve said it myself) when in fact it’s YOUNG companies that create jobs. There’s an important nuance and subtly to this issue that can’t get lost.

Here’s the real deal according to popular economist Robert Samuelson in today’s Washington Post (please read this entire article, it’s very insightful):

“Consider this: All net job creation from 1980 to 2005 came from firms that were five years old or less, according to a study by economists John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda of the Census Bureau. In any one year, that may not be true; but over time, mature firms lose more jobs than they create. “It’s not small firms but young firms that count,” says economist Robert Litan of the Kauffman Foundation, which sponsored the study.

If Americans don’t continue to create firms — not just high-tech start-ups such as Facebook but construction companies, florists, restaurants, dry cleaners, engineering firms — the economy may languish. Beginning a business is a risky, exhausting, chaotic process. Every year, there are roughly 500,000 to 600,000 company “births” and almost as many “deaths.” Half of new firms don’t make it to year five, says Litan.

Some harbingers of growth look unpromising. In 2009, disbursements by “venture capital” firms — investors in start-ups — to first-time recipients hit an all-time low since statistics were begun in 1995. True, VCs support only a tiny fraction of new firms, mostly high-tech start-ups. But “angel investors” — friends and family of entrepreneurs who support many more — have also suffered huge losses in stocks and homes. They, too, have less to invest.

There’s a warning here for the Obama administration: Complex regulations or high taxes may discourage start-ups and job creation. As for broader questions, the answers may remain murky for years. Has the mix of economic trauma and aging made us prudent — or merely fearful? Has economic resilience survived — or given way to a stand-pat society?”

(End of Washington Post article)

Washington State has a high rate of new company creations, and a high failure rate, which touches on our entrepreneurial spirit.

Running a business is really, really, really hard.

Everyday when I’m wearing my legislative hat I think about how hard it is to run a small business. I do it myself as a business development consultant, and in my career I’ve seen the ceiling at 3 a.m. worrying about making payroll. Until you have felt that anxiety, you don’t know real humility.

Those who make blanket statements that “business” has excess money for taxes and shouldn’t mind regulatory controls fail to understand that jobs come from small, young companies struggling to get off the ground. When we equate “business” with Boeing, Microsoft, Weyerhauser, Amazon, Paccar and other large firms we fail to understand the richness of the entrepreneurial spirit that is innovation and job growth. This is one of the biggest problems with having a legislature where so few people have backgrounds in small business.

The disconnect between the rhetoric of government supporting small business and the reality of many of our public policies is stark.

This year we will most likely raise some business taxes, close some loopholes, reform some regulations and take other steps that impact business. The challenge is to understand the true ripple effect on young, small businesses so we–and they–don’t get crushed by the the law of unintended consequences.

In Olympia during the legislative session, I will meet with lobbyists representing almost every large company, union and interest group in the state. But my small business friends who struggle day and night to stay afloat at the Queen Anne Dispatch or Cafe Fiore or Ballard Brothers Seafood and Burgers or Mercer Street Books or Synapse don’t have well paid lobbyists to follow bills and make appointments to advocate for their interests.

In my office they didn’t need one.

Buy local.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

too much fun

Ever since my buddy David Kaplan founded V2Green, Inc., recently purchased by Gridpoint, and got me on board with the idea of EV, I’ve been a true believer. This post today by CleanTech is compelling on many fronts. Washington’s first step forward with legislation was modest at best but a first step indeed, all thanks to Rep. Deb Eddy.

(DISCLOSURE: I HAD A PREVIOUS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH V2GREEN.,INC.)

Of course in Washington and the PNW where energy is cheap and underappreciated, the issue of how you produce electricity is secondary. In most other parts of the country it’s still primary. All that is changing under a cap and trade system that doesn’t recognize hydro or other sunk systems, but the real issue is this is a strong region to build out EV infrastructure.

We’re on our way:

Here’s the cleantech post:

If you are working at Ford (F), it looks like the downturn in auto sales is ending. In June, sales fell only 11 percent over a year ago. Optimism does not permeate all of Detroit; General Motors (GM) sales feel 33 percent for the month; Chrysler, 48 percent. Even Toyota (TM) U.S. sales were down 32 percent June over June last year.

Ford is the only one of the Big Three Detroit auto makers that avoided bankruptcy and a federal bailout.

Ford ended June with a 60-day supply of vehicles on hand, down 38 percent from a year ago. Fewer inventories could lead to improved profit margins. Those inventories will shrink with a new “cash for clunkers” program that provides added government discounts of up to $4,500 for trade-in vehicles getting less than 19 mpg. It’s not all rosy, however, with many potential buyers being unable to get an auto loan.

Fuel Economy

Oil prices have doubled – fuel economy is back in. Ford helps at the pump with new EcoBoost technology and hybrid technology. Ford is the only Detroit maker that was on Clean Fleet Report’s Vehicles with the Lowest Carbon Emissions.

June sales of the company’s hybrid vehicles totaled 3,649, up 91 percent versus a year ago. Ford will extend its current hybrid success with added models. During my recent test-drive of several vehicles that already meet the 2016 CAFE requirements, the midsized Ford Fusion Hybrid demonstrated that you can enjoy fuel economy in a larger car with comfort and safety. The Ford Fusion Hybrid has an EPA certified rating of 41 mpg in the city and 36 mpg on the highway. The car can be driven up to 47 mph in electric mode with no gasoline being consumed. Ford will start selling pure battery electric vehicles next year that will lower its fleet mileage average. CAFÉ

As gas prices increase, the Ford Ranger pickup sales also increased. The model with a 2.3L engine and stick shift gets the best gas mileage of any U.S. pickup at 23 mpg. Ford has the mileage champions in both pickups and SUVs.

The best mileage SUV on the market is the Ford Escape Hybrid with 32 mpg. In 2012, Ford will also offer a plug-in version of the Escape Hybrid that will blow-away the 35.5 mile standard.

Electric Future

The expansion of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery-electric offerings will be helped by Ford recently securing $5.9 billion in federal loans with a lower 5 percent interest rate.

Ford’s first EV will be the new battery-electric Transit Connect vans. These city vans will appeal to green retailers and service companies that make deliveries and follow routes that match the 100 mile range of the electric vans. The vans are made in collaboration with Tanfield’s (TAN.L) Smith Electric are now selling in Europe and will start U.S. sales next year.

In 2011 Ford will offer a new battery-electric Focus sedan made in collaboration with Magna International (MGA). Now that most U.S. citizens live in urban settings, the idea of a primary or secondary car that never needs gasoline will have growing appeal.
In 2011 Ford will offer a new battery-electric Focus sedan made in collaboration with Magna International. Now that most U.S. citizens live in urban settings, the idea of a primary or secondary car that never needs gasoline will have growing appeal. Although Nissan will have a head start with thousands of freeway-speed electric vehicles already in use by U.S. customers, Ford could catch-up if it offers the Focus EV for less than $30,000.

The competition will boost revenues for Ford battery supplier Johnson Controls-SAFT; Nissan is in a li-ion JV with NEC.

In 2012, the Ford Escape Hybrid, already the most fuel efficient SUV, will get a lot more efficient by also being available as a plug-in hybrid. The PHEV Escape Hybrid is already being tested in a number of fleets.

“In 10 years, 12 years, you are going to see a major portion of our portfolio move to electric vehicles,” Ford CEO Alan Mulally stated earlier this year. Now Ford is executing its electrification strategy.

By John Addison. John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report and speaks at conferences. He is the author of the new book about the future of transportation – Save Gas, Save the Planet – now selling at Amazon and other booksellers.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

I’m going to begin blogging about my ‘other’ life and not just legislative issues. Hope you don’t mind but it goes to the core of who I am and I’d like to fill out that part of this blog to make it the real deal of who I am and what I’m about.