Washington Policy on the Electric Car

In 1976, spurred by the recent Oil crises, Congress passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976. This act was meant to encourage the production of more competitive electric vehicles through funding of research as well as the purchase by the federal government of 7,500 electric vehicles. The act was initially vetoed by President Ford in his words because “It is simply premature and wasteful for the Federal Government to engage in a massive demonstration program--such as that intended by the bill--before the required improvements in batteries for such vehicles are developed.” Despite strong lobbying by automakers, the President’s veto was overridden by the Senate and became law. [1] While the law was successful in increasing electric vehicle (EV) technology culminating in a fleet of EV’s driving 100 miles on a single charge, overall, consumer use fell short of implementation.32 A year later the Carter Administration passed a tax rebate for electric vehicles and electric hybrids.[2] While automakers were unsuccessful in keeping these bills from being passed they succeeded in railroading the success of the EV by keeping any government mandate on the use of electric vehicles from being passed. This allowed automakers to, by and large, avoid implementation of EV technology.
As the nation entered the 1980’s, and as the price of gas dropped, interest in the electric vehicle died away and progress on the electric car remained stagnant until 1990 when state governments stepped in and took the action that Washington would not. Over the next few years from 1990 to 1994 automakers innovated and made more progress on electric vehicles than they had since the creation of the EV by Thomas Edison in the early 1900’s.[3] The process began with the passage of a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandated by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). The mandate required that 2% of car sales by major manufactures should be ZEV’s by 1998 with that number rising to 10% by 2003. By 1991, nine other states had instituted similar mandates. A year later Volvo displayed a plug in hybrid concept car and only a year after that, in 1993, Chrysler was the first to deliver an EV for use. By 1996, General Motors began to market its EV1 with all the reluctance it could muster. It hired only 13 people for the release of the vehicle, but none the less, the innovation had come and it came rapidly when it was pressed for. The car and utility companies did not just comply with the ZEV mandate. During this period the total funds automakers spent on lobbying efforts increased by over 30%. In addition, California utilities hired a PR firm to fight the mandate. Faced with this pressure, CARB backed down from the mandate and reduced the number of cars required from 60,000 to 1,800. In 2001, the Bush Administration went from just being unsupportive of electric vehicles to being overtly opposed by filing a “friend of the court brief” in support of General Motors in a suit against the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate claiming that only the federal government could regulate emissions. Finally, by 2003, the ZEV mandate was totally changed to support the creation of hydrogen fuel cells.[4] In 2008, an energy bill, in response to high gas prices, gave a $7,500 dollar tax break for purchasing electric vehicles, but with no government mandate to put them on the road, the effort like the one from the 70’s can’t seem to take flight.[5]
A. Interests

1. Grassroots movement
While many organizations have pushed for the electric car over the years, as a potential alternative to fossil fuel use in this country, it was not until after the elimination of the ZEV mandate that a real grassroots movement emerged expressly for this purpose. The emergence of this movement is understandable as the systematic destruction of EV’s following the ZEV mandates modification was quite dramatic and disturbing. During this period all leases on EV1’s (GMs electric vehicle) were not allowed to be renewed, and were shipped away and crushed. This dramatic action by car manufactures created a dramatic reaction among former owners and a coalition of environmental advocates. The documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car chronicles the grassroots actions of several members of this coalition as they held symbolic protests like a mock funeral for the lost electric vehicle, and real direct action like a 24 hour a day watch of a GM parking lot filled with EV1s to try and prevent the cars destruction. The film Who Killed the Electric Car itself has had an important and positive effect itself of coalescing support for the electric car[6]. As a result of grassroots actions like those mentioned organizations have started to develop as direct advocates for this issue most prominent is the 501 (c) 3 Plug in America. They describe themselves in this way

“ Plug in America drives change. We accelerate the shift to plug-in vehicles powered by clean, affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment.”

Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles Times says "Plug In America has been the clearest and loudest voice demanding electric vehicle technology, and the most effective grassroots advocacy organization for EVs." However, with no major legislation in favor of EV’s since the organizations inception we can’t say they have had much success[7].

2. Environmental Agencies
Environmental agencies like the sierra club strongly endorse the idea of Electric vehicles an article published by the organization displays an SUV with the letters EV emblazoned on the side and makes the bold claim that “we can do it” alongside a poster of Rosie the Riveter who has had her traditionally red bandana turned green to express her new environmental mission.[8] Despite the enthusiasm of these “green” organizations there have been times when Environmental advocates have not always stood with EV supporters like when the California Air Resource Board (CARB) adjusted there ZEV mandate to push for hydrogen many environmental agencies jumped on board abandoning the EV.[9] In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency which may be considered an environmental organization has consistently blocked attempts by states to cap CO2 emissions, an action which would encourage the production of EV’s. This blockage eventually resulted in the Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs. EPA in which several states sued EPA for its lack of enforcement of emissions limits which was required under the Clean Air Act. [10]
3. Auto makers
Since the creation of the electric car in the early 1900’s technology for electric cars has hardly changed. It is fair to assume that this is a result of automakers investment in the internal combustion engine as a more profitable option with all the maintenance and replacement parts required each of which produces revenue for car companies[11]. These automakers have historically decried the lack of battery technology for their lack of EV production, but as Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles times found a prius reformatted to be a plug in hybrid had a three times higher efficiency than the off the line version which used a traditional engine[12]. From the very beginning with the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 automakers lobbied heavily against electric vehicles. There opposition reached its zenith with the institution of the ZEV mandate. During the 1990’s when the mandate was in effect automakers increased the capital they assigned to lobbying by 12 million dollars. They couldn’t just depend on Washington however so they also sued California as mentioned above in the discussion of the electric cars legislative history. The automakers have consistently fought change throughout history from the seat belt to airbags and now with the electric car automakers in Detroit thought they had a working and profitable model, and they didn’t want to lose it.
4. Oil companies

Oil companies may have the most to lose with the electric vehicle. The life blood of the Oil industry is millions of American cars consuming gasoline day in and day out. It is no surprise then that they have stood in opposition to the electric vehicle time and time again. In 1994 the Western States Petroleum Association spent the most money of any lobby in Washington.[13] Much of this money was spent to protect the gas additive MTBE, but they also employed a great deal in the state of California masquerading as a private citizens group trying to influence the California Air Resource Board. In fact, Chevron even went so far as to purchase a high performance NiMH battery and prevent Toyota from using the technology for their NiMH EV-95 battery which has been proven to last the life of a vehicle.[14] Oil companies are a powerful Washington lobby with strong allies in the Bush Administration making it an uphill climb to combat them
5. Electric Utilities
As described in the legislative history Electric utilities have been active in fighting Electric cars. In particular they were a strong force in bringing to an end California’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate. They spent significant capital staging a PR campaign against the mandate. In the last few years with the success of the Toyota Prius Automakers have cooled in their opposition to electric vehicles however begrudgingly. Utility companies however remain insistent that “The utility sector isn't ready for every American to start pulling power off the grid to recharge their cars”[15].
B. Politicians
Just like with the discussion of ethanol our historical analysis of the Electric Vehicles legislative history and varying interests give us part of a picture, but to see the rest we must look at what factors drove politicians.
1. Votes
Votes are always a large factor in what decisions political actors make, and the case of the electric car is no different. In the history of electric cars as it has been recounted we can point to two major points of federal support the 1976 and 2008. What was unique about these two years is that both of them coincide with a period of unusually high gas prices. When gas prices reach a certain height voters become upset, and Washington starts to listen to angry voters more than those who line their pockets come election time. This is logical considering that if you don’t get any votes it doesn’t matter how much money you have. Outside of these two situations no significant motivation exists for Washington to react in favor of electric vehicles as the Interests lined up against them like the Western States Petroleum Association produce massive amounts of money in campaign contributions, and the grassroots movements for EV’s are still in their infancy. In fact Plug in America only received tax exempt status from the IRS in 2008.
2. Money
Perhaps it is redundant to restate, but the lack of large capital rich organizations pushing on behalf of electric vehicles is another factor in how politicians were driven. Imagine you are a Senator from Iowa, and you have a reelection campaign in a year. In the past you have received strong founding from the Auto Industry as well as Ethanol producers. You also have a large constituency of farmers who see an opportunity for profit with corn based ethanol. So now you have an energy bill to vote on. It is a solid assumption that you will not be strongly inclined to make any gestures toward electric vehicles when you run the risk of losing money for reelection, alienating your base, and you can foresee no real personal benefit from supporting them. Instead you can simply support corn based ethanol maintain an appearance of being “green”, and not putting yourself in any kind of political risk.
C. Electric Car Wrap-up The analysis of the electric car from its legislative history to an analysis of interested parties including politicians shows a story almost wholly opposite to that of Corn Based Ethanol. The Electric car represents a viable alternative which as a result of the dynamics of money and votes in Washington has failed to gain traction in its entire hundred year existence. The fundamental need for politicians to garner money for the next election, and the lack of broad public demand for the electric car, has doomed a potential alternative
[1] Ford
[2] Porter, pg 5
[3] Boschert
[4]ibit
[5] Cholie
[6] Who Killed the Electric Car
[7] Plug in America
[8] Running on Empty
[9] Who Killed the Electric Car
[10] Mass vs. EPA, pg 1-2
[11] Who Killed the Electric Car
[12] Neil
[13] Insurers, Utilities Top 94’ List of Lobbyist Spending
[14] Korthof
[15] Cohen