In reference to Mike's post http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Re-EVLN-EV-newswire-posts-for-20161119-tp4684540.html
Below is all that is left (the internet has been white-washed) of the hoopla that happened back in 2002 when GM announced they were killing their EV efforts. I find it sad that if you were not there to experience that insanity, today's public not only has no clue of what went on, but questions the statements of those that were. Like, 'we could never have that happen today'. Let us not forget the past (history) less it will repeat itself (happen) again. [EV-History: Way back in 5/31-6/1/2000, I was attending the CARB workshop #2, this time held down in the Los Angeles, CA area (Rosemead) http://brucedp00.0catch.com/carb0005/ There were plenty of EV advocates there, all with positive attitudes still trying to sway the powers that be http://brucedp00.0catch.com/carb0005/carb0005-126.jpg It all seemed to be going well, despite the LA attitudes (all the SCAQMD clean air employees were driving SUV ice ... go figure). At the beginning of the auto/oil presentations, two clean air celebrities showed up, almost together: Ed Begley Jr. and Bill Nye (the Science Guy). The proceedings stopped for a moment, as the two individually apologized for their interruptions, and each stated that they were just there to show their support for EVs and clean-air, etc. (that was kind of fun to have them show up - benefits of having Hollywood nearby). When, at about half way through the presentations gauntlet and at the end of the automaker's portion: ... a GM manager came up to the podium, looking like he had been drinking all-night (a short red-faced, purulent/pus-filled boil of a man) stated ... 'GM will not continue making EVs if we can not sell them (for a profit)' ... 'We will sell (give-away, cheap) golf-carts to meet the mandate' ... Whoa! ... that (like this recent pr item fro GM saying they are only going to sell Bolt in CA & OR) took the breath out of sails. After that I left the presentations as I had lost interest. As you can read (below) it wasn't until a couple of years later that GM made that official, by recalling all EV leases (for crushing). Other automakers followed suit. Chrysler snapped up GEM nEVs to earn CARB credits, Ford offered the Think neighbor nEV, and GM was actively selling-cheap (giving away) Club Car nEVs, see http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/gms-pathway-neighborhood-electric-vehicle-earns-dubious-distinction GM's Pathway neighborhood electric vehicle earns dubious distinction SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 WASHINGTON -- They resemble golf carts on steroids, but they are enough like cars to earn clean-air credits for automakers ... It was many years of EVangel hardship while we waited for an administration change ... ] Well, with today's new administration we are in for more than just a bumpy ride (evdl member Rush's prognostic posts may not even show future EV-horrors). Bottom line: its is going to be very rough, and EVangels are going to have to do what we did way back when: -keep the EV facts straight, telling the public what EVs can and can not do (to offset all the hate, mis-information that will be spewed) -keep our attitudes positive (as a source of facts, not emotions) -know who the EV opponents and protagonists are (as we have seen, what is said by automakers is not always the truth). We will need to keep a close eye on their deeds to know the truth (watch what they do, not believe what they say). On that point, in reference to: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/2020-TMC-to-Wake-up-smell-the-cat-food-in-their-bank-account-Toyota-planning-long-range-tp4684357.html take a look at the last item I listed (below). TMC only has 4 EV R&D employees= it is tough to believe TMC is EV-serious, and much easier to believe TMC's pr-talk is far cheaper for them. For EVLN EV-newswire posts use: http://evdl.org/evln/ {brucedp.0catch.com} - http://www.westhillscollision.com/upperv.php?article=ev1 ... Program Cancellation By 2002, 1,117 EV1s had been produced, though production had ended in 1999, when GM shut down the EV1 assembly line ... On February 7, 2002, GM Advanced Technology Vehicles brand manager Ken Stewart notified lessees that GM would be removing the cars from the road, contradicting an earlier statement that GM would in fact not be "taking cars off the road from customers." Drivers feared that their working cars would be destroyed after repossession. In late 2003, General Motors, then led by CEO Rick Wagoner, officially canceled the EV1 program. GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable. In addition, the cost of maintaining a parts supply and service infrastructure for the 15-year minimum required by the state of California meant that existing leases would not be renewed, and all the cars would have to be returned to GM's possession. At least 58 EV1 drivers sent letters and deposit checks to GM, requesting lease extensions at no risk or cost to the automaker. The drivers reportedly agreed to be responsible for the maintenance and repair costs of the EV1, and would allow GM the right to terminate the lease if expensive repairs were needed. On June 28, GM famously refused the offer and returned the checks, which totaled $22,000; By contrast, Honda, which had taken similar actions with its EV+ program, agreed to extend its customers' leases. In November 2003, GM began reclaiming the cars; several were donated to museums and educational institutions (e.g. Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan), albeit with deactivated powertrains meant to keep the cars from ever running again, but the majority were sent to car crushers to be destroyed, allegedly with government permission to do so. The documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" presents evidence that GM stuck with plans to cancel and scrap the car, despite apparent public interest. The film includes footage of GM employees on the EV1 team discussing a waiting list of people interested in leasing or purchasing EV1s. In 2003, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times attempted to lease an EV1 from GM, but was told that he "was welcome to join their waiting list, along with undisclosed others, for an indefinite period of time, but (his) chances of getting a car were slim." Critics of GM and proponents of electric vehicles claim that GM feared the emergence of electrical vehicle technology because the cars might cut into their profitable spare parts market, as electric cars have far fewer moving parts than combustion vehicles. Critics further charged that when CARB, in response to the EV1, mandated that electric vehicles makeup a certain percentage of all automakers' sales, GM came to fear that the EV1 might encourage unwanted regulation in other states. GM battled against CARB regulations, going as far as to sue CARB in federal court. At the 2000 hearings, GM claimed that consumers were simply not showing sufficient interest in the EV1 to meet the sales requirements called for by CARB mandates. The American automaker, along with Toyota, cited a study they had commissioned, which showed that customers would only choose an electric car over a gasoline car if it cost a full $28,000 less than a comparable gasoline car. Dr. Kenneth E. Train of UC Berkeley, who conducted the study, stated that given a typical retail price of $21,000 for a RAV4 SUV, "Toyota would have to give the average consumer a free RAV4-EV plus a check for approximately $7,000." An independent study commissioned by the California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) and conducted by the Green Car Institute and the Dohring Company automotive market research firm found very different results. The study "used the same research methodologies employed by the auto industry to identify markets for its gasoline vehicles". It found the annual consumer market for EVs to be 12-18% of the new light-duty vehicle market in California, amounting to annual sales of between 151,200 and 226,800 electric vehicles, approximately ten times the quantity specified by CARB's mandate. The results of the Toyota-GM study were questioned in light of the success of Toyota's electric RAV4-EV, which retailed at $30,000 yet had a waiting list of its own. At the hearings, the automakers also presented the hydrogen vehicle as a higher alternative to the gasoline car, bolstered by a recent federal earmark for hydrogen research. Many, including members of the CARB hearing committee, were concerned that this was a bait-and-switch on the automakers' part, in order to make CARB eliminate the EV mandate, and that hydrogen was not as viable of an alternative as it was made to seem. CARB had already rolled back deadlines several times, in light of car companies not being ready to meet the ZEV requirement. In 2001, it proposed amendments that would grant automakers credit for producing advanced-technology, partial-zero emission vehicles, such as hybrid cars, in place of battery EVs. However, the industry used the relaxation of the rules to challenge the regulation as a whole. General Motors and DaimlerChrysler, backed by the Bush Administration, filed suit against CARB in the US District Court in the Eastern District of California, successfully arguing that CARB's method of determining whether or not a vehicle qualified as an Advanced Technology Partial ZEV (AT PZEV) used the vehicle's fuel economy as one of the standards, in addition to reduced emissions; according to federal law, states are barred from regulating fuel economy in any way. Judge Robert E. Coyle issued a preliminary injunction on June 11 against the CARB, ruling the provision unconstitutional and preventing the implementation of CARB's 2001 amendments. The mandate was modified, with the zero-emission requirement reduced to at least 250 fuel cell or battery-powered vehicles by 2008. The GM training center in Burbank, California, served as a storage location for many EV1s prior to being crushed, and saw protests and vigils by EV1 drivers and fans ... Resurrection Some of the deactivated EV1s given to universities and engineering schools were reactivated, and driven on public roads. The institutions came under fire from General Motors for violating the agreements of the donation, which indicated that the cars not be "titled, licensed, nor driven on public highways" and could only be restored and showcased. GM has potential legal obligations under laws that require automakers to maintain parts and service infrastructure for consumer vehicles for a period of no less than 15 years ... ... the EV1 was designed from the ground up to be an electric vehicle. It was not a conversion of an existing vehicle, nor did it share a drivetrain with another GM model ... http://electrifyingtimes.com/ev1crush.html ... Now the final bombshell has hit the EV community as word began to leak out that GM had laid-of a number of EV specialists in both Northern and Southern California and is planning to crushing both EV1s and S10 trucks ... GM was the only manufacturer that continued to openly oppose the ZEV mandate. On February 23, 2001 they filed a lawsuit in Contra Costa County Superior Court. In a forty-four-page complaint, GM alleges that the ZEV mandate violates the California Environmental Quality Act and other State Laws as well as the Federal Clean Air Act ... http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-limits-launch/ General Motors limits 2017 Chevy Bolt EV sales to California and ... November 19, 2016 The Chevy Bolt won’t be available nationwide this year after all. According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), only California and Oregon buyers will have a chance to get Bolted this year, other states will have to wait for 2017 for only “limited quantities,” reports Electrek. The limited, two-state launch is a big switch. General Motors Environment and Energy Policy and Communications Manager Chad Balch told AutoBlog in late 2015 that after positive response to the Bolt EV concept “GM leadership has essentially fast-tracked this car into production.” “We’ve also committed that it’s going to be a 50-state vehicle at launch. That’s to show our commitment to the technology,” Balch said. “Our hope is that it becomes a high-volume-selling car and that it’s not just for the coasts. It’s not just for a certain income level, but it is a long-range EV that anybody can get themselves into.” More: The highly anticipated Chevy Bolt ought to be here before year’s end When GM spokesperson Michelle Malcho told the Wall Street Journal this past week that deliveries were still on for California and Oregon in 2016 and that other states will have to wait for a slow rollout of limited inventory during 2017, it became clear that the General’s launch plans had changed ... As Electrek posited, perhaps the change is due to production issues. But it might be ZEV-related. The deliveries first to California and Oregon, both with Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandates, raise questions about the Bolt EV being a “compliance car,” not really a mass market vehicle. In the 10 states with ZEV mandates — California was the first and nine others adopted the same levels — automobile manufacturers are required to produce within the state a fleet minimum of 15-percent zero emissions vehicles by 2025. The number of vehicles required by manufacturers increases incrementally until 2025. Carmakers that don’t meet the annual mandate levels through ZEV sales must purchase ZEV credits from other manufacturers who have more credits than they need. Buying credits can be expensive. A compliance car, even if sold at a loss, can still be better for the bottom line, and perhaps for corporate ego, than buying credits from other manufacturers. Credits are based on vehicles sold and driving range. So Tesla earns 4 credits for each Model S sold, according to Watchdog, with each credit worth $4,000. If GM is producing the Bolt EV only to meet mandates in ZEV states, the highly touted “mass market EV coming-soon-to-50-states” blush comes off that rose quickly. If the numbers still hold and, with a highly publicized 200-mile plus range, each Bolt EV represents $16,000 GM wouldn’t have to spend buying ZEV credits from other manufacturers. That possibility could make it worthwhile to take a loss on each car sold in ZEV states but make it up in credits. The ZEV states in addition to California and Oregon are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. If only those states end up with Bolt EVs for sale 2017, the ‘compliance car’ concern may turn out to be real. Consumers in ZEV states won’t lose out by buying a compliance car, but people in the other 40 states won’t even get a chance. [*] There’s another possible explanation for the recent shift in GM’s Chevy Bolt EV rollout plans. Two days after the November 8 election the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sent a letter to President-elect Trump’s transition team, asking them to put all federal policies, actions, regulations, and rules from the DOT and DOE regarding electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles since September 1 on hold until after the transition in January so the policies could be studied for alignment with administration policy directions ... Hopefully, the Bolt EV launch shift isn’t the first impact of many resulting from the new administration ... http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/19/13687680/chevy-s-bolt-ev-limited-availability-2016-wider-rollout-next-spring Chevy's Bolt EV to have limited availability in 2016, with wider rollout ... Nov 19, 2016 The $30,000 electric vehicle has an EPA-estimated range of 238 miles on a full charge, is significantly cheaper than the only other 200-plus-mile electric ... https://www.yahoo.com/music/general-motors-limits-2017-chevy-191405649.html General Motors limits 2017 Chevy Bolt EV sales to California and ... November 19, 2016 If GM is producing the Bolt EV only to meet mandates in ZEV states, the highly ... Significant electric vehicle and charging infrastructure deployment actions and ... http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/19/13687680/chevy-s-bolt-ev-limited-availability-2016-wider-rollout-next-spring Chevy's Bolt EV to have limited availability in 2016, with wider rollout ... Nov 19, 2016 General Motors had long been planning to release its all-electric Chevy Bolt before the end of 2016 — and it will, but only in California and Oregon. http://gas2.org/2016/11/19/toyota-electric-car-division-four-employees/ Toyota Electric Car Division Has Only Four Employees November 19th, 2016 After announcing recently that it is open to the idea of making electric cars, Toyota is putting its money where its mouth is ... will it be too little too late for Toyota ... - -- View this message in context: http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/GM-Killed-The-Bolt-Electric-Car-GM-only-selling-Bolt-in-CA-OR-tp4684542.html Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
