See the above chart? An energy crisis looms over us in the near future. This is known as Hubbert's curve. Essentially, we have about 10 years of oil left at current consumption levels before we start to experience a reduction in crude oil production; this is from the optimists’ perspective. The pessimists believe oil production has already peaked a few years ago, while those in the middle of the issue claim the world will peak in late 2005, this year [1]! Meanwhile, worldwide oil demand keeps increasing by 1.8% per year [2]. Also, if the United States would have to fully rely on their own oil reserves for any reason, at 22.4 gigabarrels [3], at the US consumption rate of 19.9 megabarrels per day [4], we'd have less than 3 years before the oil ran out. Of that 19.9 megabarrels per day consumed, 45% of it is used for automobiles [4].

We have a problem. Not only are we running out of cheap oil, but America is not self sufficient for its energy needs. We, as a nation, are reliant on politically volatile nations such as Saudi Arabia for our energy needs, willing to risk everything to fuel our cars. Meanwhile, air pollution, according to the American Lung Association, is responsible for causing an estimated 50,000-100,000 deaths per year [5] and transportation is responsible for at least 25% of that total air pollution and perhaps as much as 77% [6]. This is more deaths in America than homicide at 18,000 deaths [7], AIDS at 17,000 deaths [8], terrorism at 3,512 deaths in 2001 [9], and drunk-driving related car accidents at 16,000 deaths, per year [10], COMBINED. This is no small problem.

Imagine never having to fork over your hard-earned dollar at the gas pump for the privilege of transportation. Imagine cities, free from smog and the air within them odorless. Imagine never having to take your car to get serviced; no oil changes, no tune-ups, no belts, no hoses, no radiators. Imagine riding without hearing the loud clatter of your engine and having to put up with the vibration it makes, replacing it with a smooth, quite ride. Imagine a motor that lasts over 500,000 miles, without ever needing a single repair. Imagine no gas tank that could explode in a crash. Imagine getting into a car on a hot day to find it is already pre-cooled, or already heated on a cold day. Imagine jaw-dropping torque to embarrass any high-end sports car, for the cost of a compact while maintaining energy efficiency that the hybrids of today cannot hope to match.

The battery electric vehicle provided all of these possibilities. Far from a dream, the technology for such a car has become viable and many working examples exist. But the EV(Electric Vehicle) failed. You, as a consumer, cannot go into a dealership lot and buy one. Why?

One might say that electric cars cannot go far enough on one charge to meet the needs of consumers, nor are they suitable for interstate travel. This is a load of bullshit. Electric cars using Nickel Metal Hydride or Lithium Ion batteries are achieving routine cruising ranges comparable to internal combustion engine vehicles. In fact, the Solectria Force EV has achieved 250 miles on one charge using NiMH(Nickel Metal Hydride) batteries [11]. The TZero electric sports car has driven from San Dimas to Las Vegas on a single charge at 70 MPH speeds(near 300 miles) with a pack of Lithium Ion batteries [12]. The KAZ Limousine can achieve over 180 miles on a charge with Li Ion(Lithium Ion) batteries [13]. An electric Mitsubishi Eclipse prototype has claimed 240 miles on a single charge, also with Li Ion batteries [14]. A GM EV1 sports car with NiMH batteries has achieved 225 miles on one charge [15]. An SUV known as an Electrovaya Maya100 is claimed by the manufacturer of being able to go 230 miles on a single charge on Li Ion batteries [16]. Even a Solectria Sunrise has achieved more than 350 miles on a single charge using NiMH batteries [17]. Home built conversions can also achieve competitive ranges. Gary Graunke’s Honda Insight conversion, after completion, is expected to achieve a 230 mile range per charge using ThunderSky Li Ion batteries [18]. An electric Mitsubishi FTO EV has in fact traveled 1,250 miles in a single 24 hour period, for an average speed of over 50 MPH, and that includes stopping to charge [19]! All of these range numbers are competitive with internal combustion engine vehicles, which typically have cruising ranges of around 300 miles per tank of fuel. Meaning, battery electric vehicles using recent technology are easily capable of interstate travel and excel as a viable replacement for the internal combustion engine automobile should the proper charging infrastructure be constructed.

One might say they cannot go very fast. But electric cars have a performance advantage in acceleration over gasoline cars due to the high torque outputs of electric motors at low RPMs (Revolutions per Minute). Electric motors don’t need to wind up to a few hundred RPM until they are usable like an internal combustion engine(ICE) does. With no need to keep angular momentum going at a stop to prevent the engine from stalling, an electric motor thus doesn’t even need a flywheel attached to it, cutting down on inertia and improving acceleration some more. Many examples of fast BEVs(Battery Electric Vehicles) exist. The TZero electric roadster when equipped with Li Ion batteries can accelerate from 0-60 MPH in 3.6 seconds [20] and is claimed to be able to tie or defeat a Porsche Carrera GT, Ferrari 575M, and Lamborghini Murceilago in the ¼ mile drag race [21]. Even home built electric conversions such as Roderick Wilde’s Mazda RX7 and John Wayland’s Datsun 1200 can hold their own in drag races. Wilde’s RX7, called the “Maniac Mazda”, popped wheelies, potentially tops 140 MPH [22], and completes the ¼ mile drag in around 11 seconds [23], on par with a Dodge Viper, which completes the ¼ mile drag in 12 seconds [24]! Wayland’s Datsun 1200, affectionately known as “White Zombie”, can achieve 0-60 acceleration of about 4 seconds [25] and a ¼ mile drag time in the high 12 second range [23]. A street-legal electric limousine called the Eliica can top 250 MPH [26]! Countless other EVs that can hold their own on the race track exist.

But don’t they simply move pollution to the power plant? This is only half true. Yes, they do move pollution to the power plant. However, not only is this pollution reduced, it is displaced from populations within our cities, alleviating smog and the problems associated with it. In fact, electric vehicles with power plant emissions factored in would produce 98% fewer toxic emissions than an average 2002 model year car [27]. Another study shows that BEVs, in contrast to a typical ICE vehicle, will produce 96% fewer hydrocarbons, 99% less carbon monoxide, and 67% less nitrogen oxides, while increasing production of sulfur oxides and particulates, using America’s total power generation mix, while still displacing the pollution away from population centers [28]. In 1993, the Green Car journal reported that from a strictly coal-fired plant, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter were reduced by a combined 71% [29]. The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment reached the conclusion that an electric vehicle getting all of its electricity from a coal fired power plant, over the course of its lifetime, would produce less CO2 than a gasoline-powered car [30]. The results worked even more in an EV’s favor when other sources of power like natural gas were used. Also, as power plants become cleaner, so do electric cars. It is much easier to upgrade emissions controls on a few thousand power plants than on over 250 million petroleum-fueled automobiles. Not only that, but when fueled with electricity from renewable sources such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar power, the emissions of the car are literally zero, aside from the emissions associated with initially producing those power sources, but that’s marginal at best, if not outright insignificant.

Then of course, the cars must be expensive to make if they are so good! The reason most EVs and their components can be pricey is because they aren’t mass produced. In fact, an electric vehicle can be far cheaper to manufacture than an ICE vehicle. Electric motors have anywhere from zero to one moving motor part vs. thousands in an ICE. EVs need no multi-speed gearbox due to their high levels of motor torque, unlike ICE vehicles.

Hand-assembled electric sports cars like the Mendo Motive electric Spyder are already cost competitive with mass produced name brand cars of similar performance. The racing model of the Spyder has been reported to have accelerated from 0-60 MPH in 8 seconds and capable of topping 120 MPH [31] while having a base price of $30,000 [32]. Compare with the mass produced Mazdaspeed MX5 Miata with 0-60 in 7.8 [33] and base price of $25,500 [33].

Although the maximum cruising range of the Spyder is only 100 miles [31], it is still useful for most travel a person may make. AC Propulsion claims that they could make in low volume a 140 mile range per charge all-electric conversion of the Toyota Prius for the same cost as a standard Prius, plus or minus about $2,000 [34]. In Britain, a company called Greener Energy claims they can build in small volume an electric commuter car called the Jester EV, for about $25,000 [35], which will achieve 200 miles per charge and top out at 70 MPH [36]. All of this is done, without any economies of scale even! Think of what the price of EVs would be at the moment be if they were mass produced! Even a decade ago, AC Propulsion claimed that if they could produce 10,000 electric cars per year, they could sell them for under $20,000. These converted Honda Civics would have rocketed from 0-60 miles per hour in about 6 seconds, quite a bargain for performance enthusiasts. In prototype form, they are over $70,000 [37].

Click HERE for pictures and statistics of EV's.

“If electric cars are so great, why aren’t we, as consumers, seeing them on our streets and why can’t I walk into a car dealership and drive home in one?” is probably what you may be asking right now. In general, there are three main interests keeping electric vehicles from American consumers. They are the United States Government, the petrochemical industries, and the major auto industries, in increasing importance of influence towards holding the cars back. What actions and measures are they taking to hold the vehicles back? How is it that these groups keep the vehicles from consumer hands? For what reasons do they do this? These issues will be covered in brief.

Before the critiscisms begin, in the past, the U.S. government has done many things to encourage EV development. The Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research and Development Act was passed in 1976, despite a veto from Gerald Ford and auto industry whining, providing provisions to gauge the feasibility of electric vehicles and providing funding towards their research and construction. Unlike the recent money for “fool’s cells”, it actually went somewhere besides auto industry pockets! Who’d-a-thunkit?

In 1990, the U.S. Clean air Act was amended to provide provisions for reducing air pollution in individual states around the U.S. This resulted in the state of California establishing a zero-emission vehicle mandate through the California Air Resources Board [38]. This is perhaps the most influential factor in the development of electric vehicle technology, forcing the automakers to develop some form of zero-emission vehicle and place them for sale at a given date. However, earlier auto industry lobbying resulted in the government restricting individual states from passing their own emissions standards, clearly infringing on their 10th amendment right. States were free to adopt California’s standards, or the federal standards, but weren’t allowed to make their own.

The technology progressed in the 1990s and the cars were repeatedly shown to have worked. They flew off the dealership lots when available and lessees loved them, whenever they were lucky enough to get one. Best of all, the cars needed no oil changes, tune ups, servicing, fill ups at the gas station, or any maintenance aside from brake and tire maintenance. The auto industries became scared, noticing that these cars would not be as profitable as gasoline cars should they have widely been adopted, and did what they could to stall the ZEV mandate. The auto industry lobbied successfully to overturn the CARB ruling in 2003.

The federal government catered to the auto industry when the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM, DaimlerChrysler and others in their federal lawsuit against California’s ZEV mandate [39], infringing upon the state’s rights guaranteed within the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Bush Administration also was in support of the auto industry’s lawsuit, with Chief of Staff and former chief General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card acting as a plaintiff in the case [40]. It is no coincidence that this occurred, considering that George W. Bush received over $1.3 million from the Auto Industry in campaign funds for the 2000 election [41]. Vice President Dick Cheney made his intentions for energy policy quite clear when he stated, “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. [42]”

Not only that, but the federal government has further muddied the waters in an effort to improve its image by passing the FreedomCAR initiative, granting $1.2 billion for hydrogen fuel cell research when a working product doesn’t even have to be offered to consumers [43], not to mention the fact that BEVs are already a viable, working technology ready for mass consumption viable and the less-efficient fuel cell cars are currently not. Meanwhile, the auto industry is allowed by the Feds to continue selling nothing but its gas-guzzling vehicles to consumers. This is in fact corporate welfare at its finest [44].

Most effective of all at stalling EV development are the government’s stringent automotive regulations as they apply to small businesses. Unlike the large corporations that sell nearly all the cars in the U.S., these small companies cannot afford these regulations. Companies like Commuter Cars have working EVs ready to be sold, with the exception that they need enough startup capital to cover collision testing, which costs tens of millions of dollars [45]. At best, this drives up the price of the vehicle, and at worst, prevents the vehicles from being marketed at all. On a positive side note, U.S. based Commuter Cars did get a contract to produce its vehicles in conjunction with another small business known as Pro-Drive, from Britain. George Clooney was one of the first in line to order, awaiting his delivery as we speak [46]. The implications of regulations also prevent foreign electric vehicles from being sold to America. Dave Davidson from the EV list summed things up best when he mentioned “Think our government doesn't ban things? Try importing a production EV from Europe, such as a Pugeot 101 Electric, or Citreon Saxo Electric or a Renault electric pickup (pardon my spelling). Can't be done. The US Government bans these vehicles in this country [47].”

Due to America’s Marshall Plan from WWII, the Japanese auto industry is restricted in its market permeability, which would it not be restricted it is alleged millions of EVs would be on the roads in America today [48]. Another startling fact is that the United States and other G7 nations make more money off of oil than does OPEC [49]. Coincidence? I’m sure you can be the judge on that. I am of the opinion it’s time to wean this oversized piece of shit government off of the oil tit, even if it requires dragging it down kicking and screaming, just to subdue it and drown it and all of its oily friends in a bathtub. To quote Tom Gage of AC Propulsion fame, “An energy policy that favors FCVs almost to the exclusion of BEVs, when BEVs use 75% less energy, is an energy policy intended to avoid incremental progress that could threaten the status quo [50].”

Battery electric vehicles threaten the status quo. Within their ranks are the executives and top investors of the oil and auto companies, some of the wealthiest individuals on the planet. Our government has made it its sworn duty to serve the interests of the status quo, as opposed to the American people.

Next up were the actions of the petrochemical industry, made to stall, delay, or even outright stop the development or adoption of battery electric vehicles competitive to the internal combustion auto. It was obvious they were going to face shrinking profit margins from this, given that automobiles account for 45% of America’s crude oil consumption [51].

They made blatantly false advertisements and statements about EVs and their technology, spent millions lobbying politicians in an effort to press their agenda, began setting up organizations intended to stall or prevent the adoption of battery electric vehicles in California and elsewhere, conspired to prevent utility companies from setting up EV charging infrastructure, and have even bought out battery patents in an effort to keep them from being used in motor vehicles.

When New York was considering adopting California’s ZEV mandate in 1991, it was William Cummings of the Texaco Corporation that stated, “Is the motoring public going to be willing to turn the clock back 70 years and drive without the comfort of heaters, air conditioners, and defrosters [52]?” Contrary to his statement, electric cars were well-capable of having air conditioning and heating with no noticeable negative impacts on the driving range. The overall power consumed for heating or cooling and other auxiliary functions would be less than 3% of the required power the car would need to maintain a highway speed. In a November of 1995 New York Times ad, Mobil Oil charged that the California Air Resources Board battery panel found that EV batteries were not ready, and that EV technology was less advanced than claimed. This outraged the California Air Resources Board battery panel so much that they personally wrote to Mobil’s chairman stating, “We, the members of the impartial advisory panel on battery technology quoted in the ad, strenuously object to Mobil’s distortion of our findings. Widely publicized, distorting, and one-sided opinion pieces such as yours do a disservice to objective reporting and the informed decision of electric vehicles; they even could hinder the collaborative efforts and investments needed to realize them [53].” Mobil didn’t stop there, but also ran anti-EV ads in Time, USA Today, and Newsweek, among others, where false charges were made such as the claim adoption of EVs would drive up electricity costs due to cost of infrastructure, that the oil would never run out in a person’s lifetime despite a severely limited number of oil reserves, or that EVs would cause the price of ICE-powered automobiles to go up due to needed subsidies [54]. A group of firemen given support by the petrochemical industry began raising questions about EV safety such as how the batteries would fare in a crash and whether they would release explosive gasses such as hydrogen or whether they would electrocute the occupants. They were urged to make statements in front of CARB by the oil companies [55]. The concerns they raised were legitimate but the questions they asked were bogus and were intended by the oil lobbyists to scare potential EV consumers. Battery boxes in EVs are designed to face minimal damage in collisions and are required to meet basic safety standards as prescribed by the Underwriters Laboratory [56]. The risk of a hydrogen explosion from a battery pack, of course, is wholly insignificant when compared to the amount of gasoline that is stored onboard in an ICE car.

Not only did the oil industry spend millions on a campaign against EVs, but they virtually own the politicians in the United States. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the petrochemical industry spent over $440 million from 1998 through 2004 lobbying and campaign contributions to congressmen, parties, and presidential candidates [57].

Notable still is the creation of “grassroots” opposition to the electric vehicle, funded by none other than the petrochemical and automobile industries. The Californians Against Hidden Taxes group was run by Anita Mangels of the Western States Petroleum Association, with the intent to get the California ZEV mandate repealed. In fact, CAHT was perhaps funded exclusively by WSPA as admitted by Mangels herself [58].

Southern California Edison and other utility companies attempted to raise over $600 million to construct electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The oil industries swiftly lead a smear campaign with the goal of getting the utility industry to raise no funds at all at a hearing before the Public Utilities Commission. They successfully managed to get the utilities’ request down to $425 million [59]. One should note the intentions of the utility companies were not pure, as that was money of the California taxpayers they were trying to raise, and they wanted to make a profit off of building and owning EV charging infrastructure. This example was chosen to show the legnth the oil companies will go to to surpress this technology.

After the Ovonic NiMH battery was shown to be capable of allowing battery electric vehicles ranges comparable to gasoline cars with its repeated demonstration of allowing a converted Geo Metro to obtain a highway range in excess of 200 miles per charge in less than ideal conditions [60], and at a total pack cost competitive with an internal combustion engine in high volume [61], its patent was bought out by Chevron-Texaco, who refuses to mass market the battery at a price affordable to hobbyists and small manufacturers to this day. They are so protective of the patent, that they have sued Toyota for using an allegedly copied version of the battery in its Prius hybrid [62]. There is no reason pertaining to technological limitations why these batteries cannot be placed into conversions by hobbyists and into commercially-manufactured EVs by small businesses for an affordable price. I personally suggest that those reasons are political in nature. To quote Victor Tikhonov of Metric Mind Engineering on the NiMH battery, “Not available for non-technical reasons and may never be to you and to me [63].” The Oilies can be thanked for that. Here’s what I have to say about the Oilies: fuck them.

The major auto industries were perhaps the most influential in keeping affordable and practical EVs out of consumer hands. As it stands, they may have had the most to lose from it. Widespread adoption of BEVs would mean decreased profits over ICE vehicles due to the simplicity of one or zero moving parts in an electric motor versus thousands in an ICE. EVs need no tune-ups, no oil changes, no servicing, and very little maintenance in contrast to their IC brethren, nor do they even require most of the parts gasoline cars require. The average ICE vehicle and its engine stays in use for approximately 150,000 miles [64], while an electric vehicle’s motor can easily last up to 1,000,000 miles [65] and will routinely last over 500,000 miles. Not to say that EVs aren’t profitable, as they can easily be such, as has been demonstrated in history when there were about as many battery electric cars on the roads as IC ones in the early 1900s [66]. They are just *less* profitable than IC cars due to the fact that they are less wasteful and consumers get more out of them for less. The auto industry and their greed simply cannot have that. They want YOUR money, and they have made sure they will continue to sucker you and others out of your hard-earned dollar for the foreseeable future.

To their credit, the auto industry has developed EVs and batteries on their own in the past to demonstrate what could be done. As early as the 1960s, Ford was developing the Sodium-Sulfur battery [67] and GM the Silver-Zinc-battery powered Electrovair and Electrovair II [68]. But these were for show and never intended to be offered to the motoring public.
What spurred the auto industry to develop electric vehicles was arguably California’s ZEV mandate in the early 1990s. It required that by 1998 for 2% of all vehicles sold in the state of California to emit zero tailpipe emissions, moving up to 10% of all cars sold by 2003 [69]. The easiest if not the only way to meet that goal was through developing and eventually selling battery electric cars.

The auto industry, however, had other ideas. Gas-guzzling SUVs were and are still their cash cow, netting in profit margins of up to $15,000 per vehicle [70]. Why put all of that money into retooling the assembly lines to accommodate energy efficient vehicles that would make them far less profit at the point of sale and certainly over the life of the vehicle? Why compromise an already successful market with another that was certain to spur interest? The answer is greed. The auto industry did everything they could to stifle the threat of reduction to their high profit margins, that threat being the battery electric vehicle. They spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs, attempted to suppress information on battery technology, made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs along with refusing to lease or sell them to customers, spent millions of dollars lobbying politicians in an effort to press their agenda, their lobbyists printed ads in opposition to EVs, and after eventual success in lobbying to repeal the ZEV mandate the auto industry confiscated and crushed perfectly functioning vehicles, rejecting any offers by consumers to buy them no matter how much money the prospective buyer offered.

A favorite tactic by the auto industry was to inflate the cost an EV would go for at market. Companies based the cost of their electric vehicle on immediate recovery of prototype development costs, while under any normal circumstances those costs would be spread over hundreds of thousands of those cars to be built and sold. At the time, small companies without any economies of scale were producing and selling EVs for $15,000 to $45,000 [71]. Ford in fact was caught inflating the price of its Ford Ranger, a conversion of the original gasoline version, wanting to charge $30,000 for each truck, of which was earlier priced at $21,000[72], while one small company without any economies of scale could have produced the trucks for up to $8,000 less [73], and hobbyists have converted the vehicle themselves and have gotten similar performance for far less than that, although to be fair they provided their own labor on the vehicle and used lower-quality components. In fact, Ford was ready to sabotage its own program in an effort to make the ZEV mandate fail. The auto industry’s choice of components was also a dead giveaway. They made use of expensive AC drive systems whose price was high due to their requirement for complicated inverters, as opposed to the use of a simpler DC drive system. The AC drives had small advantages over their DC counterparts, being 5% more overall efficiency and no moving parts as opposed to one moving part. But overall, no one will want to pay for an expensive drive system for such a small benefit. To quote Bill Dube, builder of the world’s fastest electric motorcycle [74], “If the automobile companies gave their customers the choice of either buying a car with a range of around 60 miles at the current price of gasoline cars or paying an additional $53K for sophisticated versions, it would be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt where the real market is [75].” The auto industry also supported the creation of studies that used false figures, often off by a factor of hundreds. One such example is a study that claimed that the lead used in lead acid batteries for EVs would account for 60 times more lead pollution per mile driven than a car burning leaded gasoline. This study was performed at Carnegie-Mellon University and supported by Ford Motor Company. The International Center for Technology Assessment reported that the study used data that was up to 1,000 times greater than the actual numbers and neglected to account for gains made in the environmental impact characteristics of EV battery technology [76].

The big three were caught trying to use the United States Advanced Battery Consortium to keep Stan Ovshinsky from revealing the capabilities of his NiMH battery to the public at a CARB hearing. Ovshinsky remarked, “They tried to stop us from going to California. They threatened us! I said to them, ‘Look, the Communist Party no longer runs the world. A party line cannot be imposed upon people who don’t believe in it. The consortium is set up to make sure the American public has an electric car. It was not set up to fight the mandate. We are a battery company, and we’re not going to lie to the public [77]!’” Further, battery companies were bound by GM not to reveal to the public the advances in battery electric vehicle technology they had made [78]. Ovshinsky also remarked about the viability of his NiMH battery, “The people who are saying that battery technology isn’t ready are absolutely wrong. It’s part of the party line. It’s self-perpetuating. It’s very sad. You tell a lie big enough and long enough, and people start to believe it. The fact of the matter is volume. That’s the only reason batteries are the cost that they are. [79]” Indeed, as mentioned, in volume, the price for an automotive-sized Ovonic NiMH battery pack was competitive with an internal combustion engine, assuming units for 20,000 cars were produced each year [61].

The auto industry has also tried to claim a market for EVs did not exist, despite polls showing the contrary. More than 30% of new car consumers polled in California wanted to buy an electric vehicle as their next vehicle if one could be purchased and if one was affordable [80]. The Wall Street Journal reported a poll that found in the state of California alone, there was a market for at least 150,000 vehicles per year. This was 12% of the entire market for cars and light trucks, assuming they were offered at affordable prices [81]. Ford originally listed the price of its Rangers at under $20,000, and a few months later after deciding to charge more than $30,000 for them [82], the auto industry paid the California Manufacturer’s Association to conduct a survey that had the vehicles listed at inflated prices, and tried to peddle the conclusion that consumers didn’t want them [73]. There was also a list of people that clearly wanted GMs EV1. So many people wanted the car that there was a six-week waiting period and GM refused to let anyone drive an EV1 off the lot [83]. It was not uncommon for an auto dealership to refuse to lease or sell an EV to an individual that clearly wanted one. When Doug Korthof attempted to lease a Honda EV+, the dealership refused, even telling him he didn’t want the car when he clearly did [84]. He was finally successful after repeated efforts.

Another interesting fact is that the auto industry, from 1997 to 2000, spent over $100 million lobbying Congress and then president Bill Clinton [85]. Their strength continued to reach into the highest levels of the government years later, with Bush’s choice of Chief of Staff being none other than auto industry lobbyist Andrew Card. Card fought against California’s ZEV mandate acting as a plaintiff against CARB [86]. Again, it must be mentioned that Bush received $1.3 million in auto industry funding for his 2000 election bid [87]. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are swayed by auto industry campaign money, and it has paid off with the end of California’s ZEV mandate. Also working against the EV was an auto-lobby funded anti-EV ad campaign. Overall, both the auto and oil industries spent over $10 million in the 1990s airing ads against EVs [88]. One such anti-EV campaign called “Short Circuit” was funded by the auto lobby known as the California Manufacturer’s Association. This campaign ran a series of anti-EV ads and said ads were sent to politicians in an effort to stall the mandate [89].

In 2003, California’s ZEV mandate was repealed. GM quickly confiscated EV1s leased by customers and crushed them [90].

Some attempted, in vain, to extend leases of the cars, even when liability for maintenance and repairs on behalf of GM would have been eliminated, but GM refused their offer [91]. It is said that GM faced a liability since their chargers posed a fire hazard [92], but one could argue it would have not been difficult to fix this problem. Just ask Alan Cocconi, who designed the inverter of GMs’ predecessor to the EV1, the Impact. The inverter was also meant to be an onboard charger for the vehicle, capable of making use of a standard 110V or 220V outlet [93], but GM refused this and wanted to peddle their own expensive charger in an effort to siphon more money from potential consumers and inflate their vehicle cost even more. GM also crushed their S10 EVs, with only a select few surviving to this day. Honda extended the lease of their EV+, but those were also eventually crushed. Toyota offered for sale a small number of RAV4 EVs at inflated prices, those of which weren’t offered for sale have also been crushed. Ford attempted to crush the Ranger pickups it has leased to customers, even going so far as to attempt to deny their contract with their lessees to offer the vehicles for sale should they have wanted them [94]. Ford even lied, saying the Federal Government didn’t renew a safety waiver that they needed for the trucks to remain on the road, when in fact no such waiver existed. Ford later retracted its statement [95]. Fortunately, two customers were allowed to buy the trucks, only after holding a week-long protest and vigil [96]. Most of the Rangers have already been crushed.

The auto industry’s abuses do not stop there, but the above were provided as an example to the lengths they have gone to keep EVs out of consumer hands, and possible motivations for doing so.

And thus you, as an American motorist, cannot buy or lease an EV from the major automakers at present. It is because of the actions of the U.S. Federal Government, the oil industry, and ultimately, the auto industry. Greed at work, keeping you paying gas taxes, tied to the gas pump to the benefit of a certain few oil men, and tied to aftermarket services. All that mid-east oil has to be used for something! In this case, it’s getting your hard-earned money and tax dollars from your pockets to those of wealthy business execs.

To find out more, or if you have any questions, email me at westlujr@slu.edu.

Sources:

For the author's extensive footnotes, please click HERE