Was There a Conspiracy to Drive Out EV1? GM Says No.
Actor/writer Peter Horton brought up many interesting issues in his article “Peter Buys an Electric Car” (June 8). While it was well-written and provocative, I feel the need for some clarification. There has never been any kind of conspiracy by General Motors Corp. to do away with our EV1 electric vehicle program. The fundamental reason we discontinued the program is because the full-function electric vehicle business is not viable. Bottom line: GM simply could not afford to lose any more money on it.
GM kicked in more than $1 billion to, among other things, subsidize and lower EV1 lease payments, develop award-winning advertising, maintain a dedicated EV1 sales and service organization, and help establish a statewide inductive recharging infrastructure. Furthermore, we’re unsure how much longer taxpayers--through federal, state and local government-funded electric vehicle purchase incentive programs--really want to underwrite the automotive lifestyles of the few folks who want to drive a wonderful but costly electric car such as the EV1.
We believe that advanced technologies must be sold in extremely large numbers to really make a difference--or a business. The 800 or so EV1s that GM leased over a four-year period in California did little to reduce petroleum use significantly, lower overall emissions or promote cleaner air.
GM is transferring many of the EV1’s electronic technologies into an aggressive hybrid production program that will provide an important bridge to the hydrogen economy, one in which fuel cells power our vehicles and the sources of electricity needed for our homes and businesses. We are firmly on a path that we believe can make affordable and compelling fuel-cell vehicles ready for production by the beginning of the next decade.
Dave Barthmuss
Manager, California Environment & Energy Communications
General Motors Corp.
*
At the dawn of the automobile age, there were more electric- and steam-powered cars than internal combustion vehicles. Obviously no one could make any real money on electric- and steam-powered vehicles. Hence the use of gasoline to power an engine, the perfect disposable product that everyone has to buy and replace on a regular basis. Pure genius from a business standpoint, right down to a total disregard for the long-term consequences, environmental and otherwise. Flash-forward to the 21st century, and the $1 billion-plus J. Paul Getty Museum, built with profits from oil money, looms over one of the busiest freeways in the world. Is it really any wonder that GM and the rest of the automotive industry don’t mass produce electric vehicles?
Fred Schnakenberg
Culver City
*
The story of the thousands of Californians who have attempted unsuccessfully to purchase electric cars has been smothered by years of negative industry propaganda. If the industry has its way, some electric cars will be placed under glass in museums and others will meet the crusher. That needn’t be their fate. Drivers of electric cars know that they work. The experiment was successful. We could seriously lower urban pollution and lessen oil dependence.
Marc Geller
San Francisco
*
The EV1 deserved termination. The system efficiency of a battery-powered vehicle is less than that of a gasoline-powered one. No matter how good batteries may become, the limiting factor on range is the power available to the charger. The range can only be extended by charging for a longer time. Peaking plants would need to be used, and they are even less efficient than standard power plants, and some burn coal! What would that do for clean air?
A. Trujillo Escareno
Tustin
