Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car
Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Etc., EV/Plug-in, GM, Toyota, AutoblogGreen Q & A

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 2 of 3)
7-05-2006 @ 2:18PM
Kenneth Muir said...
Hello Everyone:
This dialog fascinates me as I have watched the EV fiasco develop over the years. My interest was in the Rav4EV. When I tried to buy one I was told it was not for sale, only for lease. When I tried to lease one, I was told I could only lease as a fleet in lots of 10. When I tried to lease 10 I was told I had to be a municipality. Imagine the frustration when I saw the city of Milpitas lease several of these awesome multipurpose vehicles and drive them around me in my area, (North San Jose) for 2 years.
In reading the interview with Chelsea and the subsequent debate one thing keeps gnawing at me, where are all the original engineers? The EV1 seems to be every bit as wonderful as the Rav4EV, in spite of it’s small non mainstream look. You guys had it nailed! Regenerative breaking, aerodynamics, power, the works! And yet when GM killed the program and crushed the cars you seemed to just give up on building an even better product on your own. To the uninformed observer, you seemed to fade away.
Thank goodness for this blog. I have wanted to connect with like minded people for years. Every time I talk about the tremendous potential of all Electric Vehicles, people’s eyes either roll or glaze over. Please understand, my comments are not in any way an indictment of you and your obvious talents. It is a 30,000 foot view of what happened and what could have happened as a result of the GM and Federal Government efforts to make the EV go away.
It seems that with all the interest in the EV1, substantial amounts of venture capitol could have been raised in an awareness campaign that would have included moving the entire EV1 team from GM to a new VC group that was ready to pick up where GM left off. We raise billions in the Silicon Valley every year for much less viable technologies. What happened? Are GM’s lawyers that good? Were the patents over whelming? Was it impossible to improve the technologies enough to avoid patent infringement issues? Was it not possible to move the development and manufacturing in a partnership offshore? What about Hollywood? Would Ed Bagley Jr. and the rest not back a venture like this with capitol and even more publicity than they have already provided?
Forgive me for the Monday morning quarterbacking. Who am I to second guess? Nobody, that is for sure. That said, let’s move on this. There are VC groups I am sure would be interested in this obvious money making opportunity. You have the engineering knowledge to make this happen in an environment that would cultivate and grow this technology, (i.e. Chelsea’s reference to current lithium technology taking the EV1 to the all important 250-300 mile range). Once the 300-350 range is achieved the only other thing challenging EV’s is charge time. I see a possible solution to that. Common changeable battery packs. Am I a complete dreamer or would it be possible for EV drivers to pull into a charging station, mechanically drop a complete battery pack and reload a charged one in a few minutes time? If that is possible, we will have resolved every issue keeping us from the parallel convenience of the ancient gasoline internal combustion engine.
The Rav4EV was a great concept too. It was a mainstream vehicle that offered versatility and looks. It could carry 4 adults and all their stuff down the freeway at 75 miles an hour for a 100 miles! Chelsea mentioned a range of several other EV platforms that were actually built that I believe with all my heart has a huge market!
One more thing. EV enthusiast are always painted as environmental nut cases living on the fringe who are willing to drive some goofy little tin can looking thing down the road. You are perceived in your efforts to advance as people who want to make the rest of us comply to your little “unrealistic world” thus forcing us out of our cars and SUV’s for your “silly cause”. Well, from my perspective here is what this movement needs. Average schumcks, (I know, schumck is not really a word), like me. I voted for “W” twice, (regrettably at times). I work as a Quality Engineer for a high tech company, have 2 kids and 2 grandkids and look as normal as the next guy. I just happen to believe in the EV solution passionately, and I know there must be a lot of “crazy Republicans” like me who would love to stick it to foreign oil once and for all. What I am suggesting is compiling a cross section of people to present to the public. Put a group of like minded conservatives and liberals together to show the real face of this movement. Show that a housewife or a tradesman is as ticked off about us having the internal combustion engine forced down our throats as those of you who are really informed about the seriousness and viability of this issue. We hate that gas pump and the resulting pollution as much as you do!
Thank you for listening to my rant. I hope I am able in some small way to help. I am really looking forward to seeing the movie and will be dragging my entire family to see it when it comes to the Phoenix area.
Kenneth Muir
Reply
7-11-2006 @ 12:35AM
Andrew Payne said...
Perhaps, feeling threatened, one or more oil companies bought the patents for these and other electric vehicles. It seems to boil down essentially to profit and corporate greed. Electric cars could be viewed as a threat to high gasoline consumption by the public. When is the Fed going to step in and side with the public good?
Reply
7-11-2006 @ 3:21PM
Synergy said...
Cherly,
The EV1 was an electric car, not a utopian need no fixing car. It still has brakes, cooling systems, and more that will need repair. In fact a car company would love this since they can sell repair certifications for such vehicles. As well these cars are not going to replace hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines overnight so the regular mechanic is not out of a job.
And as for the prius being on back order and they will not improve them you couldn't be further from the truth. Irrelevant that they are on back order, you can buy a Honda hybrid if you so desire. Honda will improve their hybrids if Toyota does not. Then toyota loses sales. Competition will improve them and so will economies of scale.
Reply
7-17-2006 @ 8:16PM
Gsquared said...
My wife and I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" this weekend, and we walked out of the theater outraged. I found the fact that one of the oil companies bought the battery company started by that charming older scientist particularly nefarious.
We've been considering buying a new car, and I've been very skeptical of the Prius. I wasn't aware of the kits to make the Priuses (Prii?) into plug ins, but that sounds like good option.
Chelsea (who came across in the film as honest and smart, and is unquestionably an expert on this subject) commented, however, that she'd never buy a hybrid. I was wondering why not, if one can rig it as a plug-in.
Reply
7-18-2006 @ 7:08AM
Cecil Royce said...
2ne of the interesting thing about getting old is memories The diesel electric locomotive has a 300,000 mile guarentee. The diesels run at a constant speed (Most effiecent) The "gear box" is done by electrical switching.(Smooth) Why no car?
Back about 1920, there was an all electric car built and sold. What killed it? Cheep gasoline and the model T.
It looked like 1/2 a model A (single seat)and had a range of about 58 miles. Until the limitations of the electric car are overcome, the electric car will remain burried
There was one in operating condition in 1940 that I saw. Had a 50 mile range between charges. Looked like 1/2 model A. Until the limitations are overcome, the electric cars will remain burried
2
Reply
7-22-2006 @ 5:01AM
Davo said...
Cheryl wrote:
...No carb, no fuel injection, there was nothing to fix. What happens to "Mister Goodwrench"?...
Mr Goodwrench will become extinct in a majority of cases. Just as the Blacksmith did when the automobile supplanted the horse and cart. This is the cost of progress and I sure as hell can't wait for it either. After being ripped off badly to the tune of 1000’s on my last car repair bill with a dodgy reconditioned motor and a “Mr Badwrench” who wouldn’t honour his warranty such that I now have a potentially unsafe and un-roadworthy vehicle I will be only to glad to see the end of this monopoly as well as the snake-oil peddlers who sold me the “magic brew” that ruined the engine in the first place L
Not all is bad news for the “Mr Goodwrenches”. EV’s still need tyres and brakes although brake wear is considerably reduced due to regenerative braking schemes that can only be employed on EV’s. I don’t see why the existing tyre and brake technology could not be used on an EV thus saving lots of existing jobs. As for the rest of the opportunists who have had it so good for years profiting from the oil industries and it's spin-offs, well you may have to look at relaunching your own careers !!
Also those who claim that EV’s just transfer pollution from one point or another then should think in terms of the cost of fuel they are currently using per year versus the one off cost of a photovoltaic or wind generation installation which would offset the increase in greenhouse gas generation and would provide virtually free energy needed to run the EV (see example http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ and http://www.ev1.org/pvevfact.htm ) The EV platform then becomes a low cost self-sustaining personal transportation system devoid of pollution, fuel supply problems as well as issues with National Security and the Middle East.
Some further reading http://www.ev1.org/ei.htm
Reply
7-23-2006 @ 12:02AM
Geoff Shepherd said...
As the former owner of a Ford Ranger EV pickup, I can tell you one of the most appealing things was never having to stop for gas. It recharged every night in my garage while I myself recharged. Every morning it had a full "tank" as if the "fuel fairy" visited in the night. I didn't even notice a bump on my electric bill.
My typical day's drive would only require 3 or 4 hours to fully recharge (about half that to get up to 80% charged). Somedays I would come home for lunch and plug the truck in while I cooked and ate. It would recover 1/8th to 1/4 on the "fuel gauge" just during lunch. And this was with "antiquated" lead-acid battery technology, providing me a 50-70 mile daily range. Yet, even without public charging, it was my daily driver. My hybrid Honda Insight just sat there a lot of the time.
On the electricity front, at one time I tried to calculate my net electricity use vs. driving a gasoline Ranger. Don't forget that refining, distribution, and retailing of gasoline is a huge consumer of electricity in and of itself (along with environmental and land costs - what we have a gas station on every few blocks or so?).
I drove the Ranger EV year-round. When it was hot out, I enjoyed the electric A/C. When cold, I had instant electric heat (and the battery pack was heated since lead-acid batteries have less capacity when cold). Winter driving reduced my range by 20% or so, but it still wasn't a hindrance.
A gasoline powered car makes use of less than 20% of the energy in each gallon to actually move the vehicle. Where does the rest go? A majority goes out the radiator and tailpipe as heat, noise, and poisonous gasses. Today's cars are really furnaces that happen to move as a "side effect." Much like Edison's tungsten electric light bulb, which produces mostly invisible heat. Imagine if a company tried to introduce gasoline powered vehicles today as a "new" technology. Highly inefficient, explosive, carcinogenic, environmentally damaging... it would never fly.
It seems we have the technology, but can we overcome the inertia?
Reply
9-17-2006 @ 6:36AM
John van der Horst said...
Hi!
I am aware that there was a development in 1998 which acheived reccharging batteries for EVs in as little as 10 minutes. It still has to be commercialised.
This should help the cause.
Good luck
John
Reply
9-18-2006 @ 8:36PM
Charles Bassett said...
If GM cares so much about our potential repair costs, why dont they make these cars available again for sail and NOT for LEASE. Then we might see just how truly popular this move to electric vehicles might be. To hell with the oil companies and the terrorists we fund in buying it to pollute and destroy our cradle of life.
No lies, No BS from the corporate deceivers. Somebody PLEASE, form a group, manufacture EVs independent of GM, if they are so careless of our real needs and desires.
Wonderful news item. Full support to all EV activists.
Reply
11-03-2006 @ 1:35PM
Steve Savage said...
This is a golden opportunity for an enterprising car company to take the risk and sell an electric car. GM never has been accused of being innovative nor having long term vision.
Electric cars are inevitable. Fuel cell cars will never be viable unless you don't mind paying $1,000,000 for a car.
Reply
11-12-2006 @ 10:56PM
Paul McLachlan said...
I have found the discussion on the electric car very interesting as we have been developing a high power density ICE that has advantages for some alternative fuels and hydrogen in particular. Our prime advantage is in power density so our engine is ideal for a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Power density is a key factor in vehicle efficiency and particularly for the electric vehicle. It naturally follows that if you are to add a prime power unit to an electric vehicle that it needs to be as compact and light as possible to minimize the energy used to carry it around until needed. Therefore it will be essential that a hydrogen PHEV has a very high power density ICE/generator unit to be a viable vehicle. Our Pivotal Engine tech nology is the key to developing such a vehicle. We are keen to make contact with people who have an interest in developing an ideal PHEV. Our web site is www.pivotalengine.com
I would like to make contact with Chelsea Sexton.
Reply
11-15-2006 @ 5:54PM
u2r2h said...
Note:
Hydrogen Fuel Cells are
- dangerous (only big companies are safe)
- high-tech (only big companies are cheap)
- depend on a huge infrastructure (only big companies....)
Battery Cars are:
- safe (even Third World countries could make them)
- low tech (even Third World countries ...)
- adapt to any infrastructure (even Third World countries ...)
BIG BUSINESS HATES THE BATTERY CAR.
more: http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/
Corporations are set up for a purpose.
This purpose is not to enrich some shareholders.
This purpose is not to set up a maze of companies to avoid being unaccountable.
The purpose is to BUILD a big project for our society. When this project is finished the corporations should be disolved and a new one founded.
Corporations are not persons. They cannot suffer.
Watch the film THE CORPORATION
http://chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=2411
and get a grip of reality. The USA is a gigantic dream-land. A big part of the non-dream reality is killing brown people, and getting more weapons in order to kill more in future.
Reply
11-15-2006 @ 5:54PM
u2r2h said...
Hello?
The Vanadium Redox Cell Battery
can be recharged by refilling its liquid electrolyte
Vanadium Gas Station.
Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
Reply
11-15-2006 @ 6:07PM
u2r2h said...
Who killed the electric car?
Download link here:
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2006/11/electric-cars-california-experience.html
A MUST SEE.
Reply
11-21-2006 @ 3:26PM
Christine said...
I recently saw this film, and I enjoyed reading Chelsea's views on the eletric revolution. However, I take issue with one very hypocritical point she makes: she refuses to drive a hybrid, so she insists on driving a car with no electrical components whatsoever. I'm having a hard time reconciling her logic there.
I agree with the notion that consumers should insist on the best electric technology available, and not passively accept what is currently available. But that is exactly what she is doing! Current compact hybrid models (Prius, Civic) get between 45 and 50 mpg in the city, while Saturn compacts get somewhere in the 30s. She lambasts the "diluted products" available to consumers but insists on driving one herself.
She also says she approves of plug-in hybrids, which is equally hypocritical, since a plug-in hybrid is ITSELF a hybrid OF a hybrid and a pure electric vehicle. Why is a plug-in hybrid an acceptable "compromise," while a current hybrid model is not? Why is buying a non-plug-in hybrid a passive gesture, while buying a plug-in hybrid is not? Some more explanation is needed to reconcile that point.
I currently, and proudly, drive a hybrid (my previous car, oddly enough, was a Saturn), and I am not "settling" for anything. As soon as a plug-in hybrid or an affordable biodiesel model becomes available, I'm buying one. I resent Chelsea's insinuation that I'm a passive/bad/sheep-like consumer simply because I drive what's currently available.
Chelsea's loyalty to Saturn is probably playing a part in why she still drives one, but if that is the case, just admit it! Don’t insult hybrid drivers, and if you want to boost consumer confidence in electric or partial-electric vehicles, try practicing what you preach.
Reply
11-22-2006 @ 11:21AM
Glenn said...
I would be interested in knowing why Chelsea would not drive a hybrid. I own a Prius and it the best, most fun and economical vehicle I have ever know AND it's a zero emissions vehicle. If she drives a Saturn she's polluting....just curious.
Reply
11-28-2006 @ 11:22PM
David L Stone said...
We presently own an 03 and an 05 Prius. Having just viewed "Who killed the electric car", I want to congradulate all those who had the courage to stand by their convictions and assisted in the production of this documentry.
Please let me know what I can do to spread the word to promote the electric car.
Reply
11-30-2006 @ 1:36AM
Sebastian said...
David,
Well, of course, you can promote AutoblogGreen to your friends (we're covering the Electric Drive Transportation Association show this week, and do a lot about EVs on the site) and you can send us tips of EV news that you think we should cover.
Other than that, educate yourself on EVs and, when the time is right and if it's feasible, buy one.
Reply
2-03-2007 @ 6:28PM
Auth said...
Electric cars only displace pollution, not eliminate it, unless we use a non-polluting method of generating the electricity they use. Until the government gets serious about FUSION nuclear power generation, we only substitute one form of pollution for another.
Reply
2-03-2007 @ 8:02PM
Chris M said...
Fusion nuclear power generation? Why not one that is ultra-reliable, will operate for billions of years automatically, and is a safe 93 million miles away? Yeah, the sun!
While some fusion has been achieved here on earth, it has always been at a huge loss - much more power put in than could be extracted. We have never achieved breakeven, never produced usable power, though expensive goverment resarch reactors keep getting bigger and bigger. If they ever reach "breakeven", the reactor will be so huge and expensive tha it will make photovoltaics look really cheap in comparison!
Reply