Subsidies for Electric Cars

* Re “The Electric Car: Its Time Is Here--and So Is Its Opposition,” editorial, April 24:

Your editorial implies that anyone who speaks out against utilities receiving subsidies to develop electric vehicles is simply an instrument of the petroleum industry. In fact, we support the development of electric vehicles for all the same reasons you do. What we oppose is utilities getting into the car business at ratepayers’ expense.

The electric and gas companies that want a handout from the PUC in the form of rate increases to fund electric car development are investor-owned companies, not public agencies. In every other industry, it is investors who are expected to fund R&D; programs. That should be the case here, as well.

If the utilities and their investors are so confident that electric cars are the wave of the future, then let them put their own money on the line. The small businesses represented by our organization already have enough expenses. They don’t need to be the funders of multimillion-dollar experiments that stand to benefit only those who can afford to buy blue-chip utility stocks.

RAY DURAZO, Co-Chair

Government Relations Committee

Latin Business Assn., Los Angeles

* Kudos to The Times for pointing out that the time is here for electric cars and that many of the arguments against these zero-emission vehicles--which can dramatically help improve air quality and California’s economic competitiveness--are not valid.

Consumers also should be aware that mass penetration of electric vehicles into the Southern California market offers the potential to stabilize their electric rates. With charging of hundreds of thousands of vehicles overnight (off-peak), when energy use is lowest, utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) can operate more efficiently. The DWP already offers a discount demonstration nighttime charging rate to eligible electric vehicle owners (a long-term discount rate is under development), and thus electric vehicles make sense not only environmentally but also from many economic perspectives.

With the support of the state’s utilities, and other private agencies, California will be ready for the introduction of electric vehicles. If the public interest is there, the infrastructure will be there--now all we need are the commercially produced vehicles.

KENNETH S. MIYOSHI

General Manager and Chief Engineer

L.A. Department of Water and Power

* I never thought that I would be considered “opposition” to either progress or an environmental cause, but your editorial supporting the electric car on the basis of being “97% cleaner than today’s autos” gives me no alternative.

Your calculation includes atomic fission power plants as a contributing source of electricity for electric cars. It is certainly true that they do not pollute the air with nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, or unburned hydrocarbons. But they do pollute with radiation, and with toxic waste. And their potential for detrimentally affecting the environment is enormous. So if you want to be intellectually honest, remove them from your list, and redo your calculations. Better yet, support a law that says that for every electric car produced, a truly clean power source must be built and a polluting one must be discontinued. Nobody could argue with that.

JOSEPH BLAND

Solvang