A Well-Fueled Drive Against Electric Cars : Californians shouldn’t swallow Detroit’s PR campaign
Faced with a California state mandate to start selling electric vehicles by the 1998 model year, the automobile industry is doing what it usually does when asked to make a safer or cleaner product: fight it tooth and nail. It was the same with seat belts, air bags, catalytic converters and computerized emission control systems. Detroit, along with major oil companies, has mounted a costly public relations and lobbying campaign to kill the mandate by persuading Californians that they don’t really want or need electric cars--or at least that forced marketing of the vehicles is premature.
There are legitimate technical and economic doubts. But this campaign is deceptive. Few of the elderly who responded to a “taxpayer alert” to gather behind Ruby’s Diner in Fullerton on June 28 to board a “free luxury bus” for “free breakfast, lunch and refreshments” realized they were shills for the Western States Petroleum Assn. at a hearing of the state Air Resources Board in El Monte.
THE LONG VIEW: In 1990 the board--whose pioneering rules to reduce air pollution have affected car design and gasoline formulation worldwide--imposed a landmark mandate. It ruled that 2% of vehicles sold by the seven largest auto makers would have to emit no exhaust by the 1998 model year, gradually rising to 10% of vehicles, as the cornerstone of plans to meet the demands of the federal Clean Air Act by 2010. For now, such zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) mean electric ones, about 30,000 by 1998.
The ZEV rule is up for modification soon. The action to be taken by the board could have enormous implications, not only for air quality in Southern California--at once the nation’s largest and most polluted car market--but also for the futures of the U.S. and Japanese auto industries.
The American Automobile Manufacturers Assn. and Japanese makers all say they are committed to electric cars, but they argue that forcing them to market now would be a disaster. Consumers would reject the models, they say, because their range is limited to only 80 miles, they are too costly and they require a new battery every two years or so at a cost of $2,000 to $6,000. A study by the libertarian Reason Foundation argued that the cars would depress the local economy and require massive subsidies and higher utility bills.
The industry has given mixed signals, both touting their prototypes and bad-mouthing their performance.
Proponents argue that the public welcomes the cars, given enthusiasm among the thousands who have test-driven General Motors’ Impact, a sporty two-seater that reaches 60 m.p.h. in eight seconds. They insist an electric car is fine for short commutes or for delivery fleets.
KEY ROLE FOR WILSON: Many key questions remain: Will emission reductions be largely offset by additional smokestack pollution from electric power plants? Will large-scale production of lead acid batteries mean more lead pollution of the environment? Should ratepayers subsidize electric car owners?
Gov. Pete Wilson has wisely rejected a proposal by four Midwestern governors to kill the ZEV mandate. But his recent call for an audit of battery technology suggests he may be wavering, raising questions about whether he is concerned about oil industry support for his presidential campaign.
It may well be that the ZEV rules should be amended, perhaps allowing hybrid vehicles that can switch between electricity and natural gas or other fuels. The Air Resources Board has proven effective in stimulating the market to respond to community needs. The goal should be not just to preserve consumer sovereignty but to achieve cleaner air. If the mandate needs retooling, the change should be based on hard technical and economic facts, not industry PR or presidential politics.
