I referenced the U.S. IRS for a property credit. I'd say that's the key thing that's been cited as the reason for the success in the U.S. over the last 10 years. They have over 20,000 alternative fuel stations as a result of it. The really critical benefits of the way that program is structured is that it's a credit provided to any retailer or fuel or producer of infrastructure and it does not select the technology. It is applicable to ethanol, biodiesel, electricity, hydrogen, CNG, LPG and provides a level of support to allow the marketplace to decide if it's commercially viable.
An infrastructure program of that nature could be very useful. As an example they have over 2,500 E85 stations dispensing ethanol. In Canada we probably have two retail stations. General Motors alone has produced and sold over half a million E85 ethanol flex fuel vehicles in Canada. The reality is that it's no longer a chicken and egg situation. We've put the vehicles out there; there's no fuelling infrastructure.
So it's a combination of broad infrastructure support and letting the marketplace find the economies to do it. Fuel price support is also important, because you can't expect some of these new fuels at very low volumes to compete against a fuel that's been in the marketplace for a hundred years and has been mass commercialized to the nth degree. In that transition period we feel that some support on both the fuel costs to get consumers attracted to the fuel as an alternative, as well as to offset some of the infrastructure costs. That has been well demonstrated in the U.S. to be successful.