COLUMN ONE : Drivers, Plug In Your Engines : The race is on. The world’s auto makers, jolted by state pollution mandates, are rushing to produce electric cars the average Californian will want to drive--before 1998.
In Northern California, a power company is spending tens of millions of dollars to develop an electric car smaller than any subcompact--along with the facilities needed to recharge it.
In Tokyo, a natural food co-op is using electric trucks to deliver fresh produce to congested residential communities. Customers praise the vehicles for curbing noise and pollution.
In Germany, on a wind-swept Baltic island, villagers are putting thousands of test miles on a fleet of electric vehicles, cruising at speeds up to 74 m.p.h. between chargings.
Around the globe, electric vehicles are hitting the road in meaningful numbers for the first time in 75 years--the result of a revolutionary dictate from California bureaucrats who have ordered the world’s auto makers to produce pollution-free cars before the turn of the century.
Undeterred by the skepticism of major car companies--which will have to spend billions in pursuit of California’s dream--the state is sticking by rules it hopes will clean up the Southland’s unhealthy air. The regulations also could help secure the nation’s energy independence and spur economic growth by creating jobs.
Adopted three years ago by the state Air Resources Board, the standards require that by 1998, 2% of cars and trucks produced for sale here--as many as 40,000 vehicles--have zero emissions.
The requirement climbs to 5% of vehicles sold in 2001 and 10% in 2003. And the only way to meet it, given existing technology, is with battery-powered cars and trucks.
These “technology forcing” regulations are historic--and controversial. Never before has a government agency mandated production of a vehicle using a specific technology and set a strict deadline to accomplish the task.
As other states adopt California’s rules--and as Europe and Japan move to develop electric cars to alleviate congestion and smog--the standards may remake the auto industry and alter our driving habits.
But the transformation won’t come easily.
It pits strong forces against each other--the auto industry and oil companies on one hand; electric utilities, environmentalists and government regulators on the other. Notably, major auto makers in Detroit, Tokyo and Munich say California’s deadline cannot be met--at least not with a viable car that anyone but a well-heeled environmentalist would be willing to buy.
The push for electric vehicles is complicated by the economic forces roiling the auto industry. U.S. auto makers are just recovering from a deep slump; foreign manufacturers are facing severe financial pressures because of recessions in their home markets.
The battle is being waged on several fronts--and often behind the scenes. The industry publicly touts each EV advance, while quietly lobbying to kill or delay the zero-emission regulations.
Beyond the political machinations, there are significant technological and economic obstacles. Current battery technology is deficient. EVs will cost more but be less functional than conventional cars.
“For the electric vehicle, the keys are technology, economics and politics,” says David E. Cole, director of the University of Michigan’s Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation. “There will be watershed battles in California over these issues.”
The Background
From the 1890s--when they were common at exhibitions and fairs--through the first decade of the 20th Century, the word automobile meant electric cars to many people.
In 1900, the wealthy in New York were driven to the theater in their plush “electrics” at a time when the internal combustion engine was a sputtering, smoky, unreliable experiment. Women particularly favored electric cars because they were quiet and were not started with a hand crank. Clara Ford preferred her electric to her husband Henry’s Model T.
But EVs soon gave way to their gasoline cousins, which were faster, cheaper and had greater range. Substantial interest in EVs did not revive until 40 years later, when smog concerns arose.
With the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, industry and government geared up EV research. But when energy prices subsided, so did public interest.
In the mid-1980s, the curiosity of a few California officials was piqued by the sheer persistence of the car makers’ EV research.
The most enduringly attractive quality of the electric car is that, for the life of the vehicle, it has no tailpipe emissions (although there are slight emissions at the power plant). Even the cleanest gas-fueled vehicles become dirtier as they age. Over a 100,000-mile life cycle, the ARB says an electric car is 200 times cleaner than the least-polluting conventional car.
Clearly, EVs could go far to clean up the state’s air--particularly in Southern California, where more than half the pollution stems from vehicle exhaust. As part of a plan to reduce those emissions, the ARB in 1987 proposed requiring zero-emission vehicles.
Doubts about the plan largely were quieted during Earth Week in 1990. General Motors Corp.--whose sporty, two-seat, Impact prototype was the hit of that year’s Los Angeles Auto Show--announced it would mass produce the lightweight electric car by the mid-1990s. Five months later, the ARB took GM at its word, formally adopting the zero-emissions rule.
The race was on to produce an EV by 1998.
Entrepreneurs began converting gasoline-fueled cars to electrics. Calstart, a consortium of 60 companies, was formed to speed development of an EV-components industry in the state. Electric utilities began developing charging stations and other infrastructure. The auto makers dusted off EV plans and geared up research and development.
But Detroit’s efforts slowed drastically last December, when GM said it would not pursue the Impact’s development by 1995 after all. Facing financial difficulties--it lost $12 billion last year on its North American operations--GM said it could not take the risk alone and instead would explore joint research and possible development with Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Corp.
Still, the ARB has stuck to its guns. Without a mandate, officials argue, car makers would procrastinate indefinitely.
“I don’t think there’s any evidence that says that 1998 is an undoable scenario,” says Jananne Sharpless, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board.
Such stubbornness has prompted criticism of the state’s regulatory approach--especially the technology-forcing mandates that are pushing EV development.
The ARB long has been a leader in setting tough emissions rules and pushing technology to meet the standards. California is the only state allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set its own emissions standards.
“Literally every piece of clean-air technology has been developed as a result of ARB standards,” says agency spokesman Bill Sessa, pointing to catalytic converters as an example. The result: Cars are 90% cleaner than they were 20 years ago, and reformulated gasolines are steadily improving that performance.
An EV, however, is more complicated than a single component. It is virtually a new car, with nearly 80% new parts--including an advanced battery, motorized drive-train and electronic controller.
In the past, moreover, auto makers were given emissions goals, not technology mandates. With zero emissions as the objective, EVs are the only option.
“And that’s why it may not work,” says Francois J. Castaing, vice president of vehicle engineering for Chrysler.
Some suggest that California’s approach denies car makers the flexibility to explore other technologies, such as hybrid vehicles, which are capable of running on both gas and electric power, or those fueled by compressed natural gas. Proponents say these vehicles could be nearly as effective as EVs in reducing emissions.
The state’s most outspoken critics say California has taken the politically expedient path to emissions control. The state imposes Draconian mandates on industry, they say, but tacitly encourages dependence on autos by allowing sprawling development and building more highways.
“If the goal is clean air, then regulation of a new vehicle ought to be part of a much bigger plan,” says Maryann Keller, an analyst for Furman Selz Inc., a New York brokerage. “We have lived for 20 years with regulation that improved fuel economy but didn’t improve air quality. What has California done to itself? Taken advantage of the fuel economy and created a society that takes twice as long to go the same distance.”
At the same time, the state has been reluctant to crack down on high-polluting older vehicles--many driven by poor people who cannot afford to replace or tune up their clunkers--and has a weak smog-check system.
“For the life of me, I cannot make economic sense of a zero-emission vehicle when they are allowing old cars to run around on the road,” says Cole of the University of Michigan. “It tells me they are not serious about solving the problem.”
State officials argue that removing older cars would not necessarily lead to big reductions in pollution. Spot checks, in fact, have found some newer models pollute more than older cars.
They also note that auto manufacturers that have prospered here--California made up 10% of the U.S. market in 1992--contribute not just to the state’s pollution problem but to resulting higher health-care costs and reduced quality of life.
“We have a right to expect from the auto industry contributions to solutions to our environmental problem,” says Charles Imbrecht, chairman of the California Energy Commission.
Electric Economics
California’s mandate that auto makers produce EVs has been likened to a “Field of Dreams” regulatory scheme: If you build it, they will come.
The industry, however, challenges that assumption, arguing that in tough economic times it is foolhardy to spend hundreds of millions to develop vehicles of questionable marketability.
Ford Chairman Harold (Red) Poling says his company can produce an EV by 1998. But, he adds, “I am concerned about the cost of it and the demand for it.”
The best estimates are that early EVs will cost $5,000 to $10,000 more than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles. Their range between rechargings? About 100 miles.
“The equation does not add up,” says John Wallace, Ford’s director of technology development for electric vehicles.
The ARB is certain there will be plenty of customers, but admits it conducted no market studies before setting its production quotas in 1990. The regulators say public reaction to EV prototypes shows great consumer interest.
“Electric vehicles have really caught the heart of consumers,” says Sharpless, pointing out that GM received thousands of enthusiastic letters after the Impact was unveiled.
Still, several market studies by private consultants question whether consumers will open their checkbooks for EVs, concluding that consumers are unwilling to pay a premium to be environmentally correct.
“The bottom line on EV is you can’t fool the consumer,” says J. Ferron, senior partner for J.D. Power and Associates, an Agoura-based consulting firm that has studied the EV market.
Enthusiasts maintain these problems can be overcome by offering financial incentives to early buyers and by slowly educating the public about EVs and their own driving habits.
The average daily commute in Southern California is less than 30 miles round trip--well within most EVs’ range. Most consumers only perceive that they drive farther.
As for cost, proponents say savings on daily operation balance out the higher initial outlays for EVs. But the auto makers say this analysis does not take into account the high cost of battery replacement--as much as $5,000 every two or three years.
According to Roberta Nichols, Ford’s manager of EV external strategy and planning, the operating cost of an EV equals paying $3.52 per gallon of gasoline when battery replacement costs are considered. But that comparison is less of a problem in Japan and Europe, where gas costs three to five times what U.S. drivers pay.
“In Japan, the operating cost of an EV is cheaper than a gasoline car,” says Hirokayu Hirano, manager of vehicle technology research for Nissan. “In the States, the operating costs are about the same.”
Car makers also are concerned about the expense of development and production. Estimates range from $100 million to close to $1 billion for an auto maker to start building electric cars. Nissan estimates the production cost for a low-sales-volume EV will be three times that of a comparable conventional model.
To narrow the gap, auto makers are seeking production subsidies. They also want the government to provide rebates to purchasers or adopt use incentives, such as free parking or access to car pool lanes. Utilities want financial help to build charging stations and residential charging units.
Already, federal law provides a 10% tax credit--up to a maximum of $4,000--for EV purchasers. The Legislature is considering a variety of EV incentives--including sales tax and income tax exemptions--for both consumers and businesses.
The bottom line: Most auto company officials say they probably can meet the 2% mandate for 1998 with sales to utility fleets and highly motivated consumers.
But they become concerned when looking beyond that first year. Can they find buyers for as many as 40,000 more electric vehicles in 1999 and 2000? For 100,000 in 2001 and 2002? For 200,000 in 2003 and every year after?
Ken Baker, GM’s vice president for North American research and development, says GM will have to sell about 5,500 EVs in 1998--nearly twice the number of Corvettes sold each year and enough to make EVs one of GM’s biggest sellers in California.
To meet the mandate, GM may have to offer more than one EV model, further pushing up development costs. But what kind of car? GM’s market research finds limited consumer interest in two-seat commuter cars. And interest falls off rapidly for cars priced above $25,000.
“It will be a third vehicle for families that can afford it,” says Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Mich.
EV proponents say the auto makers are setting too high a standard.
“They expect cars to serve all purposes for all people,” says Dennis Sperling, director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “That is flawed.”
Consumers are willing to accept limitations, he says--especially if provided financial and other incentives. Sperling’s studies have found strong interest in a small urban commuter vehicle with a range of 30 to 40 miles.
That niche already is being pursued by small, entrepreneurial firms. But the major auto makers are likely to stick with full-utility vehicles that provide consumers the range, convenience and comfort--air conditioning, heat and air bags, for instance--to which they are accustomed.
“This is the beginning of an uncertain market that can have significant upside potential,” says Baker. “The absolute worst thing you can do is come out with less than a credible product.”
Battery Breakthrough
The need for a better battery is the biggest obstacle to building a viable EV. State-of-the-art batteries hold the energy of just 1 1/2 gallons of gas, severely limiting range.
“We need one that holds the energy of 10 gallons of gas,” says John F. Williams, program manager for the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.
The task is seen as so difficult and so crucial that USABC--an unprecedented alliance among the Big Three, the U.S. Department of Energy, electric utilities and America’s national laboratories--was formed in 1991 to conduct advanced battery research.
The consortium is spending $260 million over the next decade to figure out how to increase the battery’s energy content and life while reducing its size, cost and recharging time.
It’s a tall order, considering that battery technology has advanced slowly in the last century.
Current batteries all have limitations. Lead-acid? Low energy content. Nickel-cadmium? Expensive. Nickel-iron? High cost, low power, requires lots of maintenance.
The hope is that advanced batteries using nickel-metal hydride or sodium-sulfur technology will prove feasible in the next year or two. That would provide sufficient time to achieve volume production by the 1998 deadline.
Nickel-metal hydride batteries have average energy content but a high cost. Sodium-sulfur batteries--which were developed by Ford--also have average energy content, but they provide low power and work at a high temperature. Both are seen as interim solutions.
The heavy betting for a battery breakthrough is on lithium technology--large-scale versions of the batteries that power watches and cameras. USABC is exploring lithium-iron disulfide and lithium polymer batteries. Both provide high energy and power.
“There is no question that the lithium batteries are the ones we want,” says Williams. Lithium will be to energy storage what the transistor was to electronics.”
But lithium batteries may not be available before the turn of the century--if then.
With the state of battery development in such flux, how can auto makers design their initial electric cars? And how can battery producers attract financing to build a battery that could be obsolete in two or three years?
“There are a lot of risks involved,” says Don Walkowitz, executive director of the United States Council on Automotive Research, which oversees USABC. “There are no guarantees there will be an affordable, producible battery that’s going to be the magic elixir for electric vehicles.”
Team U.S.A.
Nearly all the major auto makers--in Japan, Europe and the United States--have produced demonstration EVs for testing, but it is unclear whether any of the prototypes will be mass marketed in 1998.
The Big Three have pursued negotiations on joint research and development of EV component systems and, possibly, vehicles. They also are talking with the Clinton Administration about government backing of “clean car” technology in negotiations expected to conclude soon.
Many insiders doubt whether the Big Three can mesh their differing cultures and set aside the fierce competition of nearly a century to jointly produce EVs.
But the common fear of Japan could change that. Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry is promoting joint EV research, including advanced battery development. It has adopted a goal of putting 200,000 EVs on Japan’s roads by 2000.
“It’s Team U.S.A. against Team Japan,” says GM’s Baker.
In some ways, auto makers in Detroit, Tokyo and Europe have presented a surprisingly united front on the EV issue. Consider what went on at a March hearing of the state’s Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee in Sacramento.
First up was Ford, followed by GM, Nissan, Mazda and Honda. The litany echoed: With current technology, the auto makers testified, we are doubtful an EV that is affordable and attractive to consumers can be built anytime soon.
State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a strong proponent of electric cars, clearly was perturbed by the unanimous pessimism of what he derisively called “the behemoths of the gas age.”
Said Hayden, an EV owner: “It does not surprise me that the world auto industry, with its investment of billions of dollars in the internal combustion engine, finds the transition almost impossible to contemplate. At the rate we are going, these standards may not hold.”
Times staff writer Michael Parrish contributed to this article.
NEXT: The electric future will be apparent on California streets and highways sooner than most people think.
An Electric Vehicle Primer
General Motors Corp. is the only automaker that has publicly introduced an electric vehicle built new from the ground up. Its latest pre-production model, the Impact 3, offers several advances in motor design, electronics, structural materials, tires and batteries. It has a range of about 100 miles and an acceleration of 0-60 mph in eight seconds. However, like all EVs under development, it also has some disadvantages. Here is a look at the pluses and minuses of the Impact 3:
1) BATTERY PACK:
Specifications:
* 27 12-volt, lead-acid batteries in a T-shaped tunnel between and behind the vehicle seats
Advantages:
*Uses current technology
* Cost is relatively low, at $1,500 to $2,000
Disadvantages:
* Low energy capacity limits range to about 100 miles between recharges
* Short battery life, requiring replacement after 20,000-30,000 miles
* Very heavy, adding weight to car
2) DIMENSIONS
Specifications:
* Wheelbase--98.9 inches
* Length--169.8 inches
* Height--50.5 inches
* Weight--2,910 pounds
* Two doors, two seats.
Advantages:
* Larger than original Impact
Disadvantages:
* Small size and two-seat design may limit market
3) BRAKES
Specifications:
* Hydraulic in front, electrically-activated in rear
* Electric regeneration.
Advantages:
* Regenerative braking converts energy to electricity and sends it back to the battery pack, improving range in stop-and-go driving.
Disadvantages:
* Supplies initially may be limited
4) BODY
Specifications:
* Welded and bonded aluminum-alloy frame
* Injection-molded and molded-composite body panels
* Polyethylene plastic totally encloses underbody, increasing aerodynamics
Advantages:
* Light weight
* Lower fabricating costs
* Aerodynamic design means low drag coefficient
Disadvantage
* Higher materials cost
* Materials hard to recycle
5) CHARGING PORT
Specifications:
* Coupling device built into front end
* Full charge takes 3 1/2 hours
Advantages:
* Allows recharging in any weather conditions without concern about shock
Disadvantages:
* Availability of recharging facilities uncertain
* Recharging process unfamiliar to motorists
6) CONTROLLER
Specifications:
* Water-cooled electronics brain mounted on top of drive unit
Advantages:
* Efficient way to convert battery’s DC power into AC power for motor.
Disadvantages:
* Adds electronic complexity.
7) TIRES AND WHEELS
Specifications:
* Low-rolling-resistance tires designed for inflation to 50 pounds per square inch
* Ultra-lightweight 14-inch aluminum wheels
Advantages:
* Less energy consumption
* Longer range
Disadvantages:
* Shorter life than normal tires
8) DRIVE UNIT
Specifications:
* 137-horsepower, water-cooled, alternating-current motor
Advantages:
* Replaces two motors--one for each front wheel--in original Impact. The AC induction motor provides high quick acceleration and wide, constant power range
Disadvantages:
* AC motor operates at higher revolutions than direct-current motors, potentially affecting energy efficiency and durability
Sources: General Motors, Ward’s Communications
Researched by DONALD W. NAUSS / Los Angeles Times
Fighting Pollution
Southern California air pollution regulators are counting on electric vehicles to help lower emissions of three major pollutants--nitrogen oxides, reactive organic compounds and carbon monoxide. Other controls that will be imposed between now and 2010 will do more to reduce pollution. But regulators say zero-emission vehicles are critical, in part because they provide permanent emission reductions.
NITROGEN OXIDES Without controls: 997 (Daily pollution, in tons, in 2010) Projected reductions achieved by controls (in tons): On-road mobile*: 249 Off-road mobile**: 206 Stationary***: 132 Electric vehicles: 36 Remaining pollutants in 2010: 374 +
REACTIVE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Benzene, toluene, xylene, butane and others) Without controls: 1,065 Projected reductions achieved by controls (in tons): On-road mobile: 190 Off-road mobile: 66 Stationary: 598 Electric vehicles: 32 Remaining pollutants in 2010: 179 +
CARBON MONOXIDE Without controls: 2,718 Projected reductions achieved by controls (in tons): On-road mobile: 900 Off-road mobile: 276 Stationary: 37 Electric vehicles: 186 Remaining pollutants in 2010: 1,319 * Includes cars, trucks, buses ** Includes farm equipment, dirt bikes, construction equipment, airplanes, ships, trains *** Includes electric utilities, refineries, dry cleaners, manufacturers, restaurants, auto body shops, service stations, solvent users Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Zero-Emission Vehicle Timetable
Under California Air Resources Board rules, 2% of 1998 model-year cars and light trucks offered for sale in California by the biggest car makers must be zero-emission vehicles--most likely electric. The rules would:
1998
* Apply to companies that project sales of 35,000 or more new vehicles a year in the state. (Currently, General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi fit that category.)
* Require car makers to build 20,000 to 40,000 zero-emission vehicles.
2001
* Climb to 5% for the biggest manufacturers’ cars and light trucks.
2003
* Climb to 10% of cars and light trucks offered for sale by all manufacturers.
* Require car makers to build 100,000 to 200,000 zero-emission vehicles.
ALL YEARS
* Allow auto makers who do not build their own zero-emissions vehicles to buy them from other manufacturers.
* Require vehicles to meet standard U.S. Department of Transportation and special Air Resources Board requirements for drivability and safety.
The Electric Lineup
The prototype electric vehicles now under development share common weaknesses in comparison to gasoline-powered cars. The most critical shortcoming is range. Today’s batteries just don’t let electric vehicles travel as far between refuelings as conventional cars. Here are the performance characteristics of some leading prototypes, compared to a popular gasoline-powered car, the Saturn SL:
Top 0-60 Range speed acceler- Battery -ation Model (miles) (m.p.h.) (seconds) type GM Impact 120 @55 m.p.h 75 8 Lead-acid Nissan FEV 160 @25 m.p.h 81 8 Nickel-cadmium Tokyo R&D; / 340 @25 m.p.h 110 NA Nickel-cadmium Tokyo Electric IZA BMW E1 96 @50 m.p.h 75 18* Sodium-sulfur AC Propulsion ELX 132 @55 m.p.h 75 7.8 Lead-acid Solectria Force 60-80 60 21 Nickel-cadmium Ford Ecostar minivan 100 70 12* Sodium-sulfur Chrysler TEVan 100 65 25 Nickel-iron Saturn SL 450 104 10.3
Curb weight Model (lbs.) GM Impact 2,200 Nissan FEV 1,980 Tokyo R&D; / 3,465 Tokyo Electric IZA BMW E1 1,938 AC Propulsion ELX 2,740 Solectria Force 2,142 Ford Ecostar minivan 3,100 Chrysler TEVan 5,000 Saturn SL 2,366
NA=Not available
* 0-50 m.p.h acceleration
Sources: Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, UCLA; Ward’s Communications; Times reports
