Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Etc., EV/Plug-in, GM, Toyota, AutoblogGreen Q & A
Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car
You don't have to spend much time talking with Chelsea Sexton to realize she is passionate about electric vehicles. Sexton has been part of the EV debate that started in the 1990s with the debut of General Motor's first mass-production all-electric vehicle, the EV1. Sexton worked for GM, leasing the EV1 to customers and working on marketing strategies, until late 2001, when she was laid off and GM stopped the EV1 program. The EV1's story is told in the new film "Who Killed The Electric Car?", which features Sexton and others talking about the strange fate of the cars that were once hyped by Hollywood stars, then found a fanatic consumer base, and are now out rusting in the desert. Sexton found time for an exclusive Q&A with AutoblogGreen.
ABG: Do you think "Who Killed The Electric Car?" accurately portrays the EV1 story?
Sexton: I do, actually. I've been really proud of Chris [Paine, director] and Dean [Devlin, executive producer]. That is part of what has enabled all of us to have a good level of trust going into it because it is their story, too. The director and the executive producer were both drivers of these cars [EV1s]. We knew they'd do right by the story. I've been really impressed with how well Chris told that complex story in a precise and compelling way.
ABG: How did you get involved in the film?
Sexton: (laughs) I leased them their cars. I've known Chris for about nine years and I actually leased Dean his car but also his father Don Devlin was one of my very first drivers, the guy to whom the film is dedicated. In some ways, Don is responsible for our ability to tell the story with such accuracy because he was, from the very beginning, saying the auto companies do not want to do this and he made us pay attention all along. It was very rewarding to get to tell the story for Don in the end.
ABG: There is a scene in the film where you go see an EV1 in an underground parking garage, I think in a car museum. Is this the last EV1 in existence?
Sexton: No. There are about 40 that GM gutted and donated to museums and universities, basically in an effort to get some brownie points in the end, I guess. The Peterson [Automotive Museum] got one of them. Another one that is kind of making a lot of waves right now is the one in the Smithsonian because they got the only intact car, but they just removed it from display. The Washington Post wrote a big article on it a few days ago. The other interesting component is the wing that the EV1 sits in was paid for by General Motors. GM donated $10 million to the museum and now, on the eve of the film coming out, they remove the car. There's no conspiracy theory involved, but it certainly is a big coincidence.
ABG: The films shows there was quite an activist movement to save the EV1, and you were part of this group. How should activists approach such battles in the future?
Sexton: I think, more and more, it's imperative that consumers ask for what they want and not settle for the status quo. Part of that comes from having worked within the industry and I know how it works. The typical industry model for automotive is, "We're gonna build something and convince the customer that they want it" not, "Let's ask them what they want and build it." This is one of those cases where this was absolutely been proven. Just last year, as a good little example, Life and Times [Los Angeles-area PBS show] did a story on auto enthusiasts and they went to Hummer and to Prius and they came to us last at the vigil. While they're setting up we were just chatting, and they said, "We just went to Toyota and we asked them about all this grassroots demand for plug-in hybrids and the Prius seems like the obvious first car to start with and people are making them in their garages. Why don't you build a plug-in Prius?" and they said, "Because we don't have to. So many people are buying the gas-burning version we don't need to build anything else." That's sort of the perfect distillation. As long as we buy what they're making, they won't make anything else. It is necessary that consumers get involved, whether that's protesting or grassroots pressure or simply voting, not just politically but with your wallet and not buying something that isn't truly what you want. We have to get involved if we're going to end up seeing in the showrooms the cars that we really want to drive. Because that's what it's about in the end. It's not about, Oh my gosh, this one little car. It's about the choice that consumers have been denied. I'd never tell a Hummer driver that, "You can't have the choice to drive a Hummer." Choice is one of the cornerstones that we hold up as an American value. Similarly, we want the same choice, to drive something cleaner, especially something that has been proven to be viable in the market.
ABG: And people were interested in driving the EV1. Was this because it was a zero-emission vehicle?
Sexton: People buy cars for different reasons, many of them emotional. A lot of reasons people buy products in general are not necessarily the most logical on paper arguments. But there is absolutely a segment of folks who want a car that is clean or a car that is smooth and quiet, or a car that doesn't pollute or a car that doesn't rely on the Middle East. I mean, if you as Jim Woolsey [former head of the CIA, currently a partner in Booz Allen and works with Set America Free and Plug-In America, where Sexton is director] why he wants one of these cars, it has nothing to do with the environment. He's an environmentalist, but that's not his primary motivation. It's all about domestic energy. There are more and more, as time goes on, all kinds of varying reasons why people like these cars, which is what makes it such a common ground, technologically.
ABG: The movie ends by showing the plug-in hybrid as the next best car. What do you think the future of electric cars will be in America?
Sexton: I think for pure electrics, the next stage is going to come out of the smaller companies, the Teslas of the world. That car is wicked fun to drive; it's a very cool little car. In terms of the major automakers, I see them first going to plug-in hybrids, partially because there is a very broad market for it and partially simply because it's not a purely electric car and there is such an emotional fight right now. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them and it's almost come down to that particular fight over principle. So they are more likely to make plug-in hybrids, and that's fine. In our experience, the best way to get people to use less oil is to give them the option to use none, even if that's just for twenty or forty miles a day. That still gets most people through their daily commute and when you need to go further you have that back-up tank that you can put gasoline in, and eventually we'll be putting ethanol in or biodiesel or something else. I'm fine with the plug-in hybrid. I don't see it some sort of compromise in a bad way.
ABG: What kind of car do you drive?
Sexton: I drive a Saturn. I've had about eight of them. I won't buy a hybrid, so I drive a good little economical gas car, as little as possible and I won't buy another car until I can buy one with a plug on it. Mostly, it's just what working in the industry and watching what we were showing and then watching the sort of diluted products that we came out with. I use the analogy of accepting Cs from your kids when you know they can get As. In the case of the Prius, paying thirty grand for that C? I'll wait until there's a plug-in hybrid available or an electric car.
ABG: Finally, who do you think killed the electric car?
Sexton: No single snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible. I certainly think that some foes played a bigger role than others, but I don't think that any one of those suspects could have done it alone. It's a matter of a confluence of events and people, industries and companies acting in their own best interests and people not asking enough questions. Also there was a certain amount of complacency. I don't have just one suspect. I know some folks do, but having been in the middle of it, I know it took more than one.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
John H. 3:01PM (6/22/2006)
"The typical industry model for automotive is, 'We're gonna build something and convince the customer that they want it' not, 'Let's ask them what they want and build it.'"
BINGO! Precisely what I've been saying for years! That's why I continue to hang on to my old car, even though I can afford to buy any one of the new/flashy models being paraded around. When someone actually does come out with a car that has all the features I want, I'm snapping up a dozen of them.
Reply
Eveline Souza 8:06PM (6/22/2006)
Hi, this interview was really nice. I would like to have her contacts. She says in ther interview that she would buy another car only if she could buy one that she could plug in. Now she can! People are talking about the polemical story about GM project to manufacture a electric car, but they don't realize that the electric car is not dead at all. It's alive and available in the USA. ZAP (Zero Air Pollution), based in California, launched the XEBRA all-electric City car, this year. You just have to plug it into a conventional outlet. Easy and economical. Please, tell Chelsea about that and everyone you know that is interested in electric cars. They are not dead!!!
Reply
Ed H 1:05AM (6/23/2006)
Not only are there small-manufacturer EVs, but you can now get modified Priuses that are plug-in hybrids that can get 100 miles on a charge (then you get 50+ MPG on gas until you plug in again!) They're only just now hitting the market, but have been available in Canada for a few months, and are just hitting California now.
Reply
Lithous 8:50AM (6/23/2006)
"Don is responsible for our ability to tell the story with such accuracy"
I thought she was the insider and expect about it all.
"I see them first going to plug-in hybrids, partially because there is a very broad market for it and partially simply because it's not a purely electric car and there is such an emotional fight right now. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them..."
This is absolutely ridiculous. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them? The Camry sells over 400K cars a year. Electrics were selling just hundreds a year. Yeah, people want them but they don't want them as is. In the end, people can SAY all they want but they need to buy or it dies. The auto companies have been around long enough to know the difference between want eventually and want now. They can see that people aren't going to pay $40K for a car that can go 100 miles and then sits for 6 hours.
"I know it took more than one."
Having not seen the move yet, why do I think that in the movie it will appear to be that "one": GM?
Reply
Lithous 8:53AM (6/23/2006)
"expect about it all" = "expert about it all"
Reply
MikeinNC 10:17AM (6/23/2006)
Lithous, I expect that most people going to see this movie want the culprit to be the Bush administration. If you watch the trailer, they ask the question who killed it and show pictures of Bush (twice) Cheney, C. Rice and then say Big Oil is one possible culprit in an obvious attempt to tie to to them. Pretty lame but, it is what it is. Any day now I expect a documentary to come out claiming that "W" actually designed the Edsel and the Pinto. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the current administration but I think in their zeal to bring them down opponents have attempted to heap every ill in history on the guy. It would almost be comedic if it wasn't so frantic and sad.
Reply
the chad 10:48AM (6/23/2006)
If anything, the electric car really committed suicide.
Think about it-it was completely illogical:
-Unless you're single, you have to have an extra car solely for the purpose of your commute (specifically b/c the EV1 was so small)
-Recharge every hundred miles??? Who has time for that-I drive that in a day
-That energy comes from somewhere. Unless we begin to use nuclear (one of the SAFEST forms of power), many plants are still powered by oil from the Middle East.
-It doesn't help the environment any. See above. We have:
a)Huge dams to make hydro electric power (boy, THOSE don't hurt the environtment!)
b)Coal (now that pollutes plenty)
c)Solar (effectively the most inefficient and costly form of energy)
d)Wind (aren't those fields of windmills just beautiful?)
just to name a few. Gasoline cars really don't pollute enough to make electric cars any better for the environment, since the sources of the electricity pollute very heavily.
Common sense and financial responsibility dictates gasoline powered cars in most situations.
If you want an electric car for kicks, be my guest, though.
Reply
MikeinNC 11:11AM (6/23/2006)
chad, the me it's about national secutity. I'm all for clean air (we all are) but it's about energy independence and bringing America back to the forefront in the world without having to rely on fuel from terrorist states. There are many reasons for us to get off of fossil fuels. Take your pick.
Most people drive less that 30 miles a day. I drive about 55. The EV1 would easily fit my commute. 95% of the time I'm with my family we drive my wife's Volvo V50 (small wagon). Instead of $40 a week in fuel I'd spend about $7 in electricity. Considering a savings of $132/month and $50 less for the car lease than my current lease that would add up to $182/month it would put in my pocket. It would prove inconvenient about 2% of the time (have to swap cars with my wife for the day if I was going more than 100 miles). Yes, that electricity is probably derived from fossil fuel but I'd use much less of it and the opportunity to charge your car via solar roof panels would further reduce that load as well as power plants having the ability to get that energy outside of standard fossil fuel.
Whether it makes sense for you personally doesn't mean it wouldn't fit a lot of people's lifestyles. Certainly enough to justify the cost of a vehicle that's already engineered and in production.
Don't discount wind and solar. They are getting more efficient by the day and certainly begining to stack up to fossil fuel as prices increase. Why wouldn't anyone want cheap clean energy?? It's not a political issue. It's just plain common sense.
Reply
Eugene Chang 11:52AM (6/23/2006)
I really want to see this movie since I saw the preview for it when I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth".
I really do like the electric car as there are quite a few people who commute less than a hundred miles a day and would be perfectly viable. In addition, couldn't a company provide outlets to recharge a car while we work. A commute of a hundred miles one direction is pretty long but then a recharge during the day could do it for some people on a commute like that.
I actually came here to post about the concern of energy and where it comes from. We have these clean/cleaner energy sources. I think of Biodiesel as a viable short-term solution. The downfall here is that to make biodiesel, you need either ethanol or methanol. Currently, the ways we produce either of the alchohols is not viable as a longterm solution. Ethanol we get here in the U.S. from mostly corn I believe (and very inefficiently at that) and Methanol is from natural gas. It just doesn't work...
Back to the electric car though, as we continue to improve clean energy standards and such, the electric car becomes a better solution. Until then though, it is a very tough situation to be in as either way, we're going to be relying on oil and coal, one way or another. Either at the power plant, or the gas station.
Reply
Paul 12:36PM (6/23/2006)
Sure you could buy an electric car. Or you could move closer to your job. Or telecommute. My commute is a 20 minute walk in the park. Literally. I walk in through the park to get to work. It takes 20 minutes. There are more alternatives than just buying a different car.
In the next few weeks I'll be selling my car that I rarely drive and buying a motor scooter for those trips that are a little too long to bike or walk. And there aren't many. Granted, it will be a gasoline scooter, but it will get 90+ mpg. And it will be a hoot to drive.
Reply
Brian Burke 12:46PM (6/23/2006)
Keep in mind, electric cars are not zero-emission. They simply move the place of fuel consumption and emission from onboard the vehicle to a power plant. This results in an extremely inefficient way to move and store energy, the net emissions are actually much higher due to losses during transmission and storage of electricity.
Locally, in densely polluted cities, they may make some sense. But if global greenhouse emissions are your concern, you should either favor plain old gasolene engines or nuclear power plants.
Reply
Chumley 3:56PM (6/23/2006)
It's interesting to see people continue to dodge the cultural issue, even here in the posts (chad, lithous).
Supposedly, we Americans are capitalists, and regardless of the reasons the EV1 was built, the fact remains that GM refused to allow people who wanted to buy their product to buy it, at any cost.
GM was offered total legal and fiscal absolution for any consequences of putting the existing cars into private hands, and yet they refused to do so - turning down PROFIT while making up specious claims of LOSS.
I don't know why they did it, but that's the issue here for anyone who believes in the virtue of a fair marketplace. It doesn't matter whether you like electric cars or not, what matters is that a supposedly for-profit corporation did something that sure looks like racketeering to me... GM screwing their own stockholders for the benefit of oil producers.
Reply
Lithous 9:28PM (6/23/2006)
"It's interesting to see people continue to dodge the cultural issue, even here in the posts (chad, lithous)."
Cultural issue? I'd say the Japanese not allowing any foreigners into executive positions (here to some extent and) in Japan is a cultural (or possibly racist) issue. I don't see "killing the electric car" as a cultural issue.
"Supposedly, we Americans are capitalists,"
We really aren't (OK, maybe a 7 on a scale of 10) but that is the myth. Farmers, hybrids, and a ton of other things get subsidized. Oh, yeah, foreign companies who happened to not be here as long as American companies (i.e. GM and Ford basically get punished for being here longer and having already established factories while doing things like supplying machinery necessary during the biggest war in the history of the world) get subsidies for their factories. Anyway, I'll play along that we are these uber capitalists like people state all the time.
"and regardless of the reasons the EV1 was built, the fact remains that GM refused to allow people who wanted to buy their product to buy it, at any cost."
Yes, that was their prerogative. As the creator who spent the money.
"GM was offered total legal and fiscal absolution for any consequences of putting the existing cars into private hands,"
LMAO. By who? God? All it takes is 12 people to decide that, yeah, there is a document signed but really the company was so neglagent by making XYZ part that caught fire or something and there goes another billion of their money. So, if you sign a document when your child goes to camp such that the camp isn't liable if they get injured and then they go there and the counselors pull out machine guns and mow them down, um, do you think they could point to the document and get away with it? Those cars were high voltage machines that were virtually experimental. Believe me, people like Nader and Moore and their wannabes have burned GM enough (to make GM look like bad guys) so that it is a risk. And I'll get further into the "risk" involved...
"I don't know why they did it, but that's the issue here for anyone who believes in the virtue of a fair marketplace."
What? How about all the people who walk to work who DO NOT GET A DIME FROM THE GOV'T and yet HYBRID OWNERS DO? What happened to the virtue of the marketplace there? Or how about an E85 machine that can use less foreign based fuel than a Prius (where a Prius might use half the gas if it gets double the gas mileage and E85 uses 15% instead of 50%) and doesn't get the tax break from the gov't?
"It doesn't matter whether you like electric cars or not, what matters is that a supposedly for-profit corporation did something that sure looks like racketeering to me..."
Racketeering? I had to go look that up to make sure there wasn't some specific definition I didn't know about. But no. They probably spent a billion dollars to sell (OK, lease) 800 cars. So let's see, after spending a billion GM had 800 cars with a cost of what $25K - $30K lease payoffs (they were $40K plus sticker price, right?). That means, they stood to "profit" $24 million-ish off of selling them. Oh, wait, no, that's more like $24M - $1B for a negative "profit' of... Whatever.
Here is the "risk" I mentioned before... You either go out like a rock star like the EV-1 did OR like a co-worker of mine, who has 90K miles on a Civic hybrid and it is falling apart, you risk having the IT vehicle to having a POS.
"GM screwing their own stockholders for the benefit of oil producers."
Believe me, no stock holder missed out on anything they didn't get more than they should of through years of GM's fast accumulating debt. No, GM owes nothing more to any of it's stock holders. They gave dividends while losing money from what I understand.
Rick Wagoner stated in one of the car mags for the month of July of this year that killing the EV-1 was his biggest mistake. I agree it is one of the major if not major mistakes but I don't see anything GM did as being anything close to racketeering.
Anyway, if 5 years down the road a part wore out and electricuted all 800 owners that bought them then Nader would have an s-eating grin the size of Vermont writing another book.
But, before you think it is a cultural thing please do me a favor and read the first sentence of this description on how to get one (of the Honda electric vehicles): http://www.hondaev.org/acarx.html. Please go spreading rumors that Honda is a racketeering corporation now.
Reply
Chelsea 4:09PM (6/25/2006)
Hi all,
I love that this topic has inspired this much discussion! Let me see if I can address some of the points raised...
The largest automakers produced and leased or sold vehicles because they were required to do so by a law in California, the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate. The ZEV classification was derived by the state, not the automakers or anyone else, and refers to tailpipe emissions, not well to wheels pollution. In theory, any zero-emissions car could have been built to meet the mandate, but the only ZEV technology that is currently viable is electric technology- in theory, hydrogen fuel cells would also qualify, but their viability is a whole other discussion.
While it's no surprise that an industry might not embrace it's regulations (who among us likes to be told what to do?), it's also important to note that as cynical as we may have become about the role of government, it took government intervention and laws to bring us some of our most important automotive safety and environmental advances- among them, seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters. Had the CA mandate not been eviscerated after a lawsuit brought by the auto industry and the federal government, we'd have as many as a million electric vehicles on the road in California today- not to mention the other states that follow CA's air quality policy lead.
Several types of full performance EVs were produced- the two seater EV1 and Chevy S-10 pick-up from GM, a RAV4 EV conversion from Toyota, the Honda EV+ (which, similar to the RAV4, was a small SUV), the Ford Ranger pick-up, and the Nissan Altra station wagon. None of these vehicles were represented as "the car for everyone", just as there is no single gasoline vehicle on the road today that's the car for everyone. Yes, many people had a second car, though most didn't use their gas car nearly as much as they'd expected once they tried the EVs and found that they were not only efficient and convenient, but fun. These were, by and large, represented as commuter vehicles, with a range of between 60-140 miles, depending on the vehicle model and battery type. Battery technology continues to improve, however, and current lithium technology would make the EV1 a 250-300 mile range car. Alternatively, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are an excellent choice for single car households, or those that regularly need to drive further than a full battery electric car would allow. Yes, there are small companies developing kits to create PHEVs now (mostly for the Prius, though others are in the works), namely Energy CS(E Drive)and Hymotion. We applaud those companies as well as the smaller EV companies on their vision and willingness to take on the Goliath auto industry. Still, we would like to see the larger automakers make these cars because at their economies of scale, the incremental cost is much lower. We're getting encouraging news in that direction- just the day before "Who Killed the Electric Car?" premiered in Los Angeles, General Motors announced that they would display a PHEV in the next Detroit Auto Show, Toyota is doing R&D on a PHEV, and Chrysler is testing a few dozen PHEVs on the roads as we speak. We're excited to hear this- but the primary factor in getting these cars from concept to market is still consumers asking for it. Otherwise, we stand a good chance of repeating EV history.
Regarding electricity generation, only 2% of the electricity generated nationally comes from oil. Nationally, just over half of our electricity comes from coal. While it's true that coal generates pollution, several studies have shown that even given the consideration of coal-fired plants, electric vehicle are approximately 45% less polluting than gasoline cars when it comes to global warming gases (mainly CO2). Additionally, it is estimated by several utility companies that, because most electric vehicles charge at night with off-peak power, the national grid could accomodate tens of millions of vehicles on our current generating capacity. In the time it would take to get that many electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids on the road, more renewables will be added to the grid, and cleaner coal technologies will either prove themselves or not- but either way, the grid will become cleaner with time, making electric cars the only kind of cars that will get cleaner with time. But even today, electricity is a viable choice- it is cleaner, cheaper and domestic.
(As an aside, I find it interesting that people tend to compare the overall pollution of EVs taking into consideration the generation of electricity, with the tailpipe emissions of gasoline vehicles- without holding them accountable for the generation and refining of gasoline...)
Electricity is not, however, mutually exclusive from other alternative fuels. Between the national security issues and the potential for natural disasters, we have learned that relying on any single fuel for transportation has the potential to leave us vulnerable. Using electricity does not preclude anyone from using ethanol, bio- or renewable diesel, gasoline or even hydrogen; in fact, many people see the ultimate vehicle as a plug-in/flex fuel hybrid, whereby one would have enough electric range for a standard commute, and also have an integrated fuel tank that would accomodate two or more different liquid fuels. It's not an either/or debate at all.
Similarly, yes, there are many people who are able to travel primarily through walking, biking, or public transportation- and we're all for that too. But those that want or need a car should have a choice of fuels to power it with. The case for electric vehicles is not about the people who didn't want them; it's about the folks that do.
Regarding the business decsions to continue to make these cars, in this case, it actually wasn't up to the companies themselves. The California mandate (which was also adopted by several other states) dictated that zero-emission vehicles be offered on the order of 2% of all vehicles offered in 1998, 5% in 2001 and 10% in 2003. More importantly, after the automakers and oil companies successfully lobbied the state to give them a pass on the 1998 requirement, the State decided that the automakers had to "build and market electric vehicles in accordnace with market demand". Both industries had a stake in making that demand appear as low as possible. The cars were, hands down, their own best advertisement, and the more they were on the road, the more people wanted them. But for those that truly believe that the programs were killed simply due to lack of demand, how would that have been helped by spending additional time and money, not to mention squandering owner loyalty and goodwill, to literally round up all of the leased cars and destroy them? And yet, each automaker did. This was not an issue of liability- there is inherent liability in every car built, if you're going to use the argument of "what if it crashes into someone and that person sues the company", etc. The full performance electric vehicles were all crash tested and NHTSA certified- not to mention UL rated. The fuel we're using today is a lot more volatile than batteries.
In the end, the biggest factor of consideration was not whether or not they could make money on the EV programs, it was what impact those programs would have on the rest of their businesses. Suffice it to say that it's more complicated than it appears, and became the reason that the film needed to be made- no one else was telling the story. In that story, however, everyone was allowed to speak for themselves, including politicians (from several administrations on both sides of the spectrum), auto companies, oil companies, etc.
Regarding the automakers investment (i.e., GM's "billion dollars")... there is some debate as to the validity of those numbers- as in, how much was spent on the program vs the lobbying to kill the CA mandate, but even if... the largest initial costs- r&d, building a production line, etc., had already been spent when the program was killed. Continuing to make the vehicles would have only helped to recoup that cost- especially as, when the program ended, there are 4,000-5,000 people on a waiting list to get an EV1- which had been poorly advertised and was only available in two states and built in batches of roughly 500. It's not hard to imagine the potential if it had been widely available and sincerely marketed on a corporate level- even moreso now that gasoline is nearly double the cost of what it was back then. There are roughly 100,000 auto workers losing their jobs in the country- I'd much rather see them builing the cars we're working so hard to get to buy, and their companies becoming healthy again in the process.
To put the billion dollar number in some perspective, GM spent $3 billion dollars last year in advertising last year alone- three times the amount spent over the fourteen total years of the program. There were numerous technologies invented or refined and patents documented that are now being used in hybrids, fuel cells and gasoline cars today- various regenerative braking, drive-by wire, tire pressure monitoring systems, etc., were all created or advanced during the EV programs, and the auto companies are indeed making money off of those programs by implementing those technologies into other cars. The automakers did not "lose" billions of dollars on the EV programs- not to mention a significant amount of public funds were spent developing these technologies and infrastructure- and yes, they were incentivized in the market, although, at a maximum federal incentive of $4,000 per car, nowhere near the all time high of $100,000 made available to those who purchased a 6,000lb+ vehicle in 2003. Nevertheless, the case can be made that since we collectively helped fund the EV programs, we should at least still be collectively enjoying their environmental benefits, and that the automakers didn't have the right to crush the cars.
The reason that there is so much discussion around these issues is because there is no one simple answer. But, people make better decisions when they have more information available- which is the whole point of telling stories like these. Sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
Reply
Cheryl Ziemann 4:41PM (6/25/2006)
Most of the comments posted are valid in the eyes of the typist. I viewed a documentary on the PBS Channel about "Who KIlled the Electric Car" and I found it to be quite interesting. Point 1: the cars were only leased and not allowed to be purchased. Point 2: When the lease was up, you could not "buy" there was no residual, no price, it was taken from the leasee Point 3: No carb, no fuel injection, there was nothing to fix. What happens to "Mister Goodwrench"? I am anxious to see the whole documentary, I want to know more. Over the years rumors have surfaced that big automobile companies buy up technology and shelve it because it will hurt their idea of capaitalistic gain in the free world. But this just my opinion, you are entitled to your own. But until they come out with a car that is meant for the "people" and not for big business, I will hold on to my vehicle for as long as possible. As for the Prius, that car is on back order, and as long as we want them "they" will not improve upon the design. Not until we say enough is enough and we quit buying. We are Americans, we want the best, we want to lead and not follow. We want to quit giving our hard earned money to the middle east for oil and gasoline.
Reply
Joseph Lado 10:46AM (6/26/2006)
Feb. 26, 2005 EV vigil participants offer a symbolic check representing 100 who offered to pay the $24,000 for each of the remaining 77 EV1 cars. See how many people you can recognize from the movie. I see you Chels and Chris Paine. Man I wish I could have been there with you all.Click here to see the web postings by the activists and others who participated in the vigil to save the EV1. You have to scroll quite a ways down the page before seeing the postings.
It is hard for me to believe that the people that I followed over the Internet protesting the crushing of the EV1 by holding vigil out side a GM facility in Burbank, California are now in a major motion picture documentary being distributed across the country by Sony Pictures Classics, titled Who Killed the Electric Car. The person most prominent in my mind is Doug Korthof who appears several times in the film. He not only participated in the vigil but set up a website that I believe was mainly a way to chronicle each day’s events, provide a place for those involved in the vigil to get information about vigil activities and a way for vigelers to communicate with each other. I don’t think he ever thought that the vigil site would touch the life of someone as far away as a guy in Virginia, but it had. I could not physically participate in the vigil in Burbank, but I was there every day, reading what was happening at the vigil. Your heroic efforts awakened in me an activist that I didn’t know existed.
Reply
Steve Haas 1:12PM (6/26/2006)
Chelsea, long time no see. I'm glad to hear about your passion for the EV cause. Many of us who worked on the program for GM and Saturn shared that passion. I enjoyed every minute of the time I spent driving the EV1, including one amazing trip from Sacramento to North Lake Tahoe and back (it was amazing watching the battery charge grow as we coasted down I-80).
I haven't yet seen the movie but I look forward to it.
Since I was involved in the program for more than a year prior to the car's launch in California, I have a ton of stories of meetings with the CARB and CA Energy Commission related to incentives and charging infrastructure. I remember spending a lot of time at the State Capital lobbying for a simple (and very cheap to the state) incentive of opening the HOV lanes to EVs with one driver. It was twice vetoed by then Gov. Pete Wilson. It seems to be a popular incentive for the sale of hybrid-electric vehicles these days, though. In fact, many drivers here in Northern California are lining up for hybrids solely for the HOV lane access during their commute.
I recall a staffer from the Energy Commission stating "since GM will be making all the profit from the sale of EVs, they should pay for all of the public chargers." We eventually got about 500 publicly accessible 240v chargers around the state, primarily through partnerships with private companies like Frye's Electronics and Costco. Yeah, most of them were often blocked by other drivers, but this was because the State and local municipalities refused to give EV charging spaces status equivalent to handicapped parking spots to help keep them clear. It was no fun pulling up to a public charger when you needed the juice to see it blocked by an SUV. Then again, as many of us who drove them know, charging at night in one's own garage was incredibly convenient.
Since I worked for the them I understand the difficult financial position that GM has been in for so long. One of the biggest blunders that they made with the EV1, in my opinion, was to shy away from positioning the company as a leader in advanced technology and environmentally friendly vehicles. Toyota and Honda have clearly taken that position away from them forever with their leadership in hybrids. Even if GM starts building plug-in hybrids tomorrow they will appear to be slow-followers rather than courageous leaders in the field. The fine engineers who developed and built the EV1 deserved more. There was incredible passion for this program inside (some parts of) the company and it's a shame that its legacy has come to this.
Reply
Chelsea 4:15PM (6/26/2006)
Hey Steve!
I agree, there are many talented and passionate
folks who worked on the EV1 program for General Motors (and who had counterparts in the other auto companies) who did and do deserve better than to have their own company portray the best car they
ever built as antiquated technology. Luckily, however, many of those folks are still there- and while it's unfortunate that GM gave away their
lead and are definitely followers in the hybrid world, it's important to keep in mind that no one, even Toyota, has made a plug-in hybrid available to consumers. It's still a door that's wide open to
any carmaker that produces a credible product, and more importantly, sincerely gets behind it. We've been through enough to know not to believe anything until we see it, but I think it's a mistake to give
up on our own.
As to CARB, the ZEV mandate will be revisited this year through a technology review, and new decisions will be made next year as to what vehicle technologies the automakers can use to comply. If the mandate hadn't been eroded through the 90s and
ultimately gutted in 2003, there would be up to a million EVs on the road today- not including the states that follow CA's model. We are the constituents of the State of California, and it's up to us to make sure history doesn't repeat itself.
Reply
Renegade 8:01AM (6/27/2006)
MikeinNC...the EV doesn't fit your lifestyle, because I assume you live in North Carolina, where it does get cold. Cold weather limits battery range (or in some extreme cases, inhibits battery activity). So, now you have a commuter vehicle that is a 8-9 month a year proposition for you. All for the cost of a high-end luxury car.
The automakers can't look at it as "the huge amount we lose on one vehicle, we'll make up for in volume!"
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" ignores one simple part of the equation that decides if any product lives or dies...economics.
Reply
Razib Ahmed 10:16AM (7/03/2006)
I really enjoyed this interview. I applaud for Chelsea. WISH YOU ALL THE BEST! We need more these type of cars. I also want them badly because these cars saves money and they are environment friendly
Reply