The movie Who Killed The Electric Car", follows the rise and fall of General Motor's electric car, the EV1. The car was introduced in response to California's Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) legislation of 1990, which demanded that a percentage of all vehicles sold in California be zero emissions: 2% of all vehicles sold in 1998, and 10% of those sold in 2003. GM responded to the challenge by producing the EV1, which it leased to customers from 1996-1999.
The movie recounts how the EV1 was a sporty, efficient, clean, and cheap car to drive; no oil changes, no mufflers, little maintenance, and no gas. The car won over its drivers. Who Killed the Electric Car features an eclectic group of enthusiastic celebrities, Phillis Diller, Tom Hanks, and Mel Gibson, as well as a plethora of charming "ordinary" people-- all dedicated EV1 drivers who spoke passionately about the EV1. Yet the car no longer exists. Why?
At the same time that GM was producing the popular car, it was also working to quash interest in its product and undermine the ZEV mandate. As one critic of GM's tepid EV1 marketing campaign noted, 'anyone knows how to sell a car, you just drape a beautiful woman over it.' However the EV1 TV ads ran counter-intuitive to this observation, and to all other bright, shiny, slick, vroom-vroom car advertisements. The ads were eerie looking in black and white, like public service ads run by anti-drug or recent anti-smoking campaigns, likely scare the bejezus out of anyone thinking of kicking back and lighting up a smoke, or driving an electric car. It's no surprise that they didn't entice buyers.
Of course some people, like GM itself, and an author in the Wall Street Journal today, say that "the movie looks for conspiracies" (WSJ: "The Electric Car Gets Some Muscle"). But really, the movie proves its point and there is a surprising amount of documentation on the web that supports the movie's conspiracy theory. The underwhelming marketing campaign was only one part of the company's effort to erode the vehicle's success. GM was slow to deliver vehicles to the waiting customers, never produced enough cars to meet demand, and was deceptive as it stopped producing the car. The company ultimately sued California over the ZEV mandate, in order to gut the legal incentive to produce the cars.
However the demise of the car wasn't only the fault of GM. The movie systematically lays out the role of the oil companies, auto dealers, government and consumers in the denouement of EV1. The movie producers films events during the end leasing period in the early 2000's to document their assertion. Cars were recalled despite a healthy demand. Aggressive offers by the leaseholders to buy the cars were rejected, and petitions that lobbied the company to continue the EV1 program were denied. The movie shows the cars covertly trucked to a remote Arizona proving ground, crushed, and shredded. In one memorable clip, a helicopter flying over the inaccessible Arizona locale, films the methodically crushed cars, as a GM spokesperson talks about how all the cars will be usefully repurposed. The death of the product by the collaborating parties was successful.
The movie makes a strong case that corporations and government rid the marketplace of a car that threatened the oil, auto parts and car industries. It also takes proponents of the hydrogen fuel cell like Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources Board to task for promoting technology that is widely considered an impractical alternative to gas powered vehicles. Although the movie doesn't delve into other alternative energy sources like biofuels, it emphasizes that electric vehicles are solution that is available today. Yet, since we haven't run out of oil quite yet, there are trillions of dollars at stake in the push to continue selling the gasoline powered cars that fuel many powerful and entrenched industries. Following this logic, if hydrogen technology were impractical, which is most likely the case, it doesn't threaten future oil profits -- therefore it's the perfect "alternative".
GM's product has met its unfortunate fate, and it seems that the effort to suppress the story is ongoing. The EV1 was on view at the Smithsonian, in a GM sponsored hall, but has been replaced with "a high tech SUV". The timing of the replacement coincided oddly with the release of the movie.
Despite the demise of the EV1, there is a lot of interest in electric vehicles. Of course, there's the $75,000-$100,000 Tesla, which is out of reach for many people, but in addition to that and other upcoming products, a number of businesses are converting existing products to electrical powered vehicles. One of many lists of resources on the internet is here. "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a captivating story, and although it reinforces any cynicism one might have about how capitalism can trample beneficial innovative technology, it has also reinvigorated public interest and understanding of the electric car. The one small aberration in the movie was a quote at the very end, by an inventor, that in the end technology prevails. Coming in the final part of the movie, the quote seemed to be the antithesis of the conclusion the movie had so carefully constructed. Wasn't it so clear that politics (and profits) often trump technology?
