Who Killed The Electric Car?

In the middle 90s state of California’s growing problem with air pollution pushed California Air Resources Board to make radical steps. Despite of the car companies’ protests, the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate was passed in order to eliminate the major cause of the pollution. Any company that wanted to sell vehicles in California had to obey the mandate and make their cars entirely emission free. In response, GM introduced the electric car EV1 that would change the view on electric vehicles. Through the period of two years, GM continued the EV1 program with great success. Although EV1 was never put out to public sale and it was only available to consumers at a lease option, the demand for it was rising. Unfortunately, in late 2003 GM cancelled the EV1 program and despite of unfulfilled waiting list and customer frustration started to take away EV1s from leasers.
Electric cars and clean energy enthusiasts in California started to inspect who really killed the EV1 project. One of the main suspects was GM itself that claimed they can’t sell enough electric vehicles to make a profit. GM sabotage behavior toward its own product had its purposes. The electric cars were threat to the conventional gas powered car industry. Lack of engine saved customers all services associated with oil, filters, and spark plugs replacements. The electronic regenerating breaking system of EV1 prevented the mechanical systems form excessive wear down, extending cars life. These savings cost GM millions of dollars on unsold parts and services which cut their profit for near a half. The EV1s stoning efficiency was a winner for customers, but a big time looser for the company.
Powered entirely by electricity, EV1 faced its most powerful opponent, oil industry. Using no single drop of oil, EV1 was a perfect solution for raising gas prices. Threatened oil companies, influencing both the public and government, fought with great fury to stop founding for public charging stations for EV1s. Using national newspapers ads, critiquing materials of electric cars, oil companies successfully eliminated its competitor.
The battery was often the scapegoat used by GM for justifying the failure of EV1. Lack of breakout in weak battery technology was often brought up by EVs critics. However a standard battery pack used in EV1 had range between 55 to 95 miles on a single charge, and according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Americans drive an average of 29 miles a day. Still many drivers saw it impractical. In response EV1 was equipped with new nickel-metal hydride battery, developed Stanford R. Ovshinsky’s Ovonics battery company, suitable for up to 120 miles per single charge. However the NiMH batteries were expensive and GM never mass produced them which would have reduced their cost, therefore they were an optional equipment for additional charge.
Before EV1s were pulled back, GM associated with several other EV companies and Federal Government sued California. Their leading argument was that throughout the zero emission mandate California government attempted to regulate fuel economy, which only federal government has authority to do. Shortly Bush administration, which was known for its links with oil industries, joined the lawsuit. As a result government of California and the CARB had to give up the fight for better fuel economy and were forced to change the mandate. Although CARB awakened the rise of electric vehicle, it failed to lead the zero emission mandate to success, and by eliminating EVs production from the mandate let the auto and oil industries of the hook.
Instead of supporting cheaper, much easier and significantly better electric cars, government and leading officials focused on yet totally different kind of substitute, hydrogen fuel cell. One of the reasons why the alternative for which both the mandate and EV1 were abandoned, was more attractive to oil industries because most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, and by promoting hydrogen fuel cell as a great hope and future, political leaders linked with oil companies appear to innovation and conservation, while at the same time promoting oil companies interests. Although it was so promoted and sponsored, hydrogen fuel cells failed to fulfill their goals as an alternative. Even when the hydrogen would be made entirely form renewable energy, it would not be as efficient as electric utility.
One of the main trends that affect and steer automotive industry is customer demand. The reason for killing EV1s as GM cited was a lack of customer demand for electric two-seater because of its limited range and suitability in warmer states only. Limited availability, questionable advertising, and simple lack of awareness gave consumers little incentive to think of EV1s as a practical, pollution free vehicle. Regardless of air quality, consumers tend to considered EVs as a commute car and had another conventional gas car for longer trips.Electric vehicle EV1 that had brought so many conventional solutions to unconventional problems was officially killed by General Motors, oil companies, California Air Resources Board, federal government, hydrogen fuel cell, and the consumers on July 24, 2003. Of all listed suspects only battery technology didn’t contribute to EV1 failure. GM, federal government, CARB and oil industry worked together to blindfold potential buyers. Misinformed and careless customers officially hammered in the last nail into the EV1 coffin, bearing electric vehicle that could change the world.