I think that it is important to develop the concept of range-extending electric drive vehicle as something that market can understand immediately. I haven't found any survey data showing the prevalence about understanding of the difference of mild and full hybrids. Auto-stop hybrid and plug-in hybrids. But I doubt that most drivers really know the difference. I don't believe, however, that it would be at all difficult for people to understand the difference. I think it would be helpful for people to have short-hands for the difference of plug-in hybrids, like the 2009 VUE PHEV and Toyota's plans for an off-the-lot PHEV Prius in 20XX. Personally I like, and if you've seen my postings before, use the shorthand RxEV. Make it easy on people, and keep it simple. Say that the standard electric range of a PHEV is 10 miles or so, which is good for the low speed, low efficiency driving, and 40 miles for an RxEV for most driving.
I totally support GM's position on CAFE standards and its push for electrification and its move against changing of CAFE standards. I also support the production and use of biofuels, which will in fact come from a variety of sources as soon as the market is developed. Cellulosic ethanol is on the way, and eventually, and there is no way of knowing exactly when, food-crop based ethanol is on the way out. This is great for America, and a true solution to our fossil fuel problems. But I think that V2G needs to be fully integrated into the product concept for all EDVs. That means that the car can cost more, but since there will be revenue from the utilities, as well as reduced cost for certain ways of using electricity, the economics does change. Elsewise you're just buying into the advanced technology, gas-optional aspect of the product. And for those who don't like biofuels, the only other options are gasoline, liquefied coal, compressed natural gas (which can come as biogas), or hydrogen. But that's cool with me any way it goes.