Exclusive Q&A with Chelsea Sexton about the EV1, why the Prius gets a 'C', and who really killed the electric car
You don't have to spend much time talking with Chelsea Sexton to realize she is passionate about electric vehicles. Sexton has been part of the EV debate that started in the 1990s with the debut of General Motor's first mass-production all-electric vehicle, the EV1. Sexton worked for GM, leasing the EV1 to customers and working on marketing strategies, until late 2001, when she was laid off and GM stopped the EV1 program. The EV1's story is told in the new film "Who Killed The Electric Car?", which features Sexton and others talking about the strange fate of the cars that were once hyped by Hollywood stars, then found a fanatic consumer base, and are now out rusting in the desert. Sexton found time for an exclusive Q&A with AutoblogGreen.
ABG: Do you think "Who Killed The Electric Car?" accurately portrays the EV1 story?
Sexton: I do, actually. I've been really proud of Chris [Paine, director] and Dean [Devlin, executive producer]. That is part of what has enabled all of us to have a good level of trust going into it because it is their story, too. The director and the executive producer were both drivers of these cars [EV1s]. We knew they'd do right by the story. I've been really impressed with how well Chris told that complex story in a precise and compelling way.
ABG: How did you get involved in the film?
Sexton: (laughs) I leased them their cars. I've known Chris for about nine years and I actually leased Dean his car but also his father Don Devlin was one of my very first drivers, the guy to whom the film is dedicated. In some ways, Don is responsible for our ability to tell the story with such accuracy because he was, from the very beginning, saying the auto companies do not want to do this and he made us pay attention all along. It was very rewarding to get to tell the story for Don in the end.
ABG: There is a scene in the film where you go see an EV1 in an underground parking garage, I think in a car museum. Is this the last EV1 in existence?
Sexton: No. There are about 40 that GM gutted and donated to museums and universities, basically in an effort to get some brownie points in the end, I guess. The Peterson [Automotive Museum] got one of them. Another one that is kind of making a lot of waves right now is the one in the Smithsonian because they got the only intact car, but they just removed it from display. The Washington Post wrote a big article on it a few days ago. The other interesting component is the wing that the EV1 sits in was paid for by General Motors. GM donated $10 million to the museum and now, on the eve of the film coming out, they remove the car. There's no conspiracy theory involved, but it certainly is a big coincidence.
ABG: The films shows there was quite an activist movement to save the EV1, and you were part of this group. How should activists approach such battles in the future?
Sexton: I think, more and more, it's imperative that consumers ask for what they want and not settle for the status quo. Part of that comes from having worked within the industry and I know how it works. The typical industry model for automotive is, "We're gonna build something and convince the customer that they want it" not, "Let's ask them what they want and build it." This is one of those cases where this was absolutely been proven. Just last year, as a good little example, Life and Times [Los Angeles-area PBS show] did a story on auto enthusiasts and they went to Hummer and to Prius and they came to us last at the vigil. While they're setting up we were just chatting, and they said, "We just went to Toyota and we asked them about all this grassroots demand for plug-in hybrids and the Prius seems like the obvious first car to start with and people are making them in their garages. Why don't you build a plug-in Prius?" and they said, "Because we don't have to. So many people are buying the gas-burning version we don't need to build anything else." That's sort of the perfect distillation. As long as we buy what they're making, they won't make anything else. It is necessary that consumers get involved, whether that's protesting or grassroots pressure or simply voting, not just politically but with your wallet and not buying something that isn't truly what you want. We have to get involved if we're going to end up seeing in the showrooms the cars that we really want to drive. Because that's what it's about in the end. It's not about, Oh my gosh, this one little car. It's about the choice that consumers have been denied. I'd never tell a Hummer driver that, "You can't have the choice to drive a Hummer." Choice is one of the cornerstones that we hold up as an American value. Similarly, we want the same choice, to drive something cleaner, especially something that has been proven to be viable in the market.
ABG: And people were interested in driving the EV1. Was this because it was a zero-emission vehicle?
Sexton: People buy cars for different reasons, many of them emotional. A lot of reasons people buy products in general are not necessarily the most logical on paper arguments. But there is absolutely a segment of folks who want a car that is clean or a car that is smooth and quiet, or a car that doesn't pollute or a car that doesn't rely on the Middle East. I mean, if you as Jim Woolsey [former head of the CIA, currently a partner in Booz Allen and works with Set America Free and Plug-In America, where Sexton is director] why he wants one of these cars, it has nothing to do with the environment. He's an environmentalist, but that's not his primary motivation. It's all about domestic energy. There are more and more, as time goes on, all kinds of varying reasons why people like these cars, which is what makes it such a common ground, technologically.
ABG: The movie ends by showing the plug-in hybrid as the next best car. What do you think the future of electric cars will be in America?
Sexton: I think for pure electrics, the next stage is going to come out of the smaller companies, the Teslas of the world. That car is wicked fun to drive; it's a very cool little car. In terms of the major automakers, I see them first going to plug-in hybrids, partially because there is a very broad market for it and partially simply because it's not a purely electric car and there is such an emotional fight right now. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them and it's almost come down to that particular fight over principle. So they are more likely to make plug-in hybrids, and that's fine. In our experience, the best way to get people to use less oil is to give them the option to use none, even if that's just for twenty or forty miles a day. That still gets most people through their daily commute and when you need to go further you have that back-up tank that you can put gasoline in, and eventually we'll be putting ethanol in or biodiesel or something else. I'm fine with the plug-in hybrid. I don't see it some sort of compromise in a bad way.
ABG: What kind of car do you drive?
Sexton: I drive a Saturn. I've had about eight of them. I won't buy a hybrid, so I drive a good little economical gas car, as little as possible and I won't buy another car until I can buy one with a plug on it. Mostly, it's just what working in the industry and watching what we were showing and then watching the sort of diluted products that we came out with. I use the analogy of accepting Cs from your kids when you know they can get As. In the case of the Prius, paying thirty grand for that C? I'll wait until there's a plug-in hybrid available or an electric car.
ABG: Finally, who do you think killed the electric car?
Sexton: No single snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible. I certainly think that some foes played a bigger role than others, but I don't think that any one of those suspects could have done it alone. It's a matter of a confluence of events and people, industries and companies acting in their own best interests and people not asking enough questions. Also there was a certain amount of complacency. I don't have just one suspect. I know some folks do, but having been in the middle of it, I know it took more than one.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Dave 8:14PM (1/27/2008)
If India can build a $2,500 car, http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp due out in 2008, it sure seems like US manufacturers could partner to build a $20,000 electric car with a 150-250 mile range. But looking at battery kits alone, it looks like the batteries themselves might cost $12-20K and might last only a few years.
Please, set me straight. Is anyone actually building a latest generation, functioning battery kit economical enough to compete with something like the Prius? Or even a kit as advanced as the system that was on the EV1?
Somehow, GM leased the EV1 at around $300/month. Today's Hybrid Prius leases at around $400/month while the few REAL (better than a golf cart style) all electric cars (if you can find one) cost $80-120K. Maybe Ms. Sexton can tell us what the projected, mass marketed sticker price for the EV1 was and if a there are any projected prices for a future mass produced all electric car.
Thanks much!
Reply
Gordon Foat 10:07PM (2/07/2008)
I want to see EV2 please. "Green MotorSport"
Reply
Annie Middleton 11:30AM (2/10/2008)
I saw the movie a while back, rented it from Netflix.
The fact is that Sexton is right: several "things" came together to kill the electric car. The reason automakers tried it in the first place had to do with a California agency's requirements. I don't remember the details. When the pressure from the state requirements was removed, the automakers had no incentive to continue production.
This is a precedent which reveals the full import of the EPA's recent undermining of California's attempt to pressure automaker's to improve their game.
It also reveals the role which governing bodies must play to produce the kind of cuts in carbon emissions and/or reduction in petroleum use.
One wonders about the auto industry's intransigence. Why do they continue to produce and advertise Hummers (the ultimate gas hogs of all time) and fight California and other states who taking responsible actions to ward off a climate crisis and/or peak oil collapse?
Reply
jimbob 1:19PM (2/19/2008)
how about building an elecric motorcycle.it would be more cost effective for the generel public,more would sell and it would only need about 3 batteries and about 50hp.250k watts.
Reply
jimbob 4:11PM (2/28/2008)
Hi Chelsea A couple of us have been considering building an elecrtic motorcycle. Do you know anyone who might volunteer to help us build the amp./controller? Also do you know where the best place is to purchase the batteries?
Reply
jimbob 1:03PM (2/21/2008)
hi chelsea,justed watched the movie,thought it was good.i am thinking about building an electric motorcycle.did you work on any of the elecrtonics?
or do you know some one that might volunteer their knowledge.i took eletrical in college so i know the effect of some electronics on the motors.also worked as a mechanic for about 20 years.just thought i would ask.
jimbob
Reply
KevIn 1:25PM (7/15/2008)
I finally saw the movie this weekend and while I am sure it has its bias I was left feeling like there were powerful elements in the auto and oil industries that did not want this to happen.
The EV1 had its flaws and perhaps would not of worked on a big scale as it was but it was a start. I think the zeal for the short term profits of SUVs(and the amount of gas they burn) was at least part of the reason it was shut down. Once again the Japanese are at the forefront of the next automobile trend while our auto companies are trying to unload SUVs and trucks.
I am also tired about hearing how impracticle these cars are. At $4 a gallon gas and with most commutes 20 miles or less each way I think many people would be thrilled to have something like an EV1 to commute it.
I hate to say it but I think one of the worse thing that could happen in the USA right now is a big drop in gas prices. For our environment and our national security we have to address this problem now!
Reply
John H. 3:01PM (6/22/2006)
"The typical industry model for automotive is, 'We're gonna build something and convince the customer that they want it' not, 'Let's ask them what they want and build it.'"
BINGO! Precisely what I've been saying for years! That's why I continue to hang on to my old car, even though I can afford to buy any one of the new/flashy models being paraded around. When someone actually does come out with a car that has all the features I want, I'm snapping up a dozen of them.
Reply
Eveline Souza 8:06PM (6/22/2006)
Hi, this interview was really nice. I would like to have her contacts. She says in ther interview that she would buy another car only if she could buy one that she could plug in. Now she can! People are talking about the polemical story about GM project to manufacture a electric car, but they don't realize that the electric car is not dead at all. It's alive and available in the USA. ZAP (Zero Air Pollution), based in California, launched the XEBRA all-electric City car, this year. You just have to plug it into a conventional outlet. Easy and economical. Please, tell Chelsea about that and everyone you know that is interested in electric cars. They are not dead!!!
Reply
Ed H 1:05AM (6/23/2006)
Not only are there small-manufacturer EVs, but you can now get modified Priuses that are plug-in hybrids that can get 100 miles on a charge (then you get 50+ MPG on gas until you plug in again!) They're only just now hitting the market, but have been available in Canada for a few months, and are just hitting California now.
Reply
Lithous 8:50AM (6/23/2006)
"Don is responsible for our ability to tell the story with such accuracy"
I thought she was the insider and expect about it all.
"I see them first going to plug-in hybrids, partially because there is a very broad market for it and partially simply because it's not a purely electric car and there is such an emotional fight right now. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them..."
This is absolutely ridiculous. The more we want them the more they're not going to make them? The Camry sells over 400K cars a year. Electrics were selling just hundreds a year. Yeah, people want them but they don't want them as is. In the end, people can SAY all they want but they need to buy or it dies. The auto companies have been around long enough to know the difference between want eventually and want now. They can see that people aren't going to pay $40K for a car that can go 100 miles and then sits for 6 hours.
"I know it took more than one."
Having not seen the move yet, why do I think that in the movie it will appear to be that "one": GM?
Reply
Lithous 8:53AM (6/23/2006)
"expect about it all" = "expert about it all"
Reply
MikeinNC 10:17AM (6/23/2006)
Lithous, I expect that most people going to see this movie want the culprit to be the Bush administration. If you watch the trailer, they ask the question who killed it and show pictures of Bush (twice) Cheney, C. Rice and then say Big Oil is one possible culprit in an obvious attempt to tie to to them. Pretty lame but, it is what it is. Any day now I expect a documentary to come out claiming that "W" actually designed the Edsel and the Pinto. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the current administration but I think in their zeal to bring them down opponents have attempted to heap every ill in history on the guy. It would almost be comedic if it wasn't so frantic and sad.
Reply
the chad 10:48AM (6/23/2006)
If anything, the electric car really committed suicide.
Think about it-it was completely illogical:
-Unless you're single, you have to have an extra car solely for the purpose of your commute (specifically b/c the EV1 was so small)
-Recharge every hundred miles??? Who has time for that-I drive that in a day
-That energy comes from somewhere. Unless we begin to use nuclear (one of the SAFEST forms of power), many plants are still powered by oil from the Middle East.
-It doesn't help the environment any. See above. We have:
a)Huge dams to make hydro electric power (boy, THOSE don't hurt the environtment!)
b)Coal (now that pollutes plenty)
c)Solar (effectively the most inefficient and costly form of energy)
d)Wind (aren't those fields of windmills just beautiful?)
just to name a few. Gasoline cars really don't pollute enough to make electric cars any better for the environment, since the sources of the electricity pollute very heavily.
Common sense and financial responsibility dictates gasoline powered cars in most situations.
If you want an electric car for kicks, be my guest, though.
Reply
MikeinNC 11:11AM (6/23/2006)
chad, the me it's about national secutity. I'm all for clean air (we all are) but it's about energy independence and bringing America back to the forefront in the world without having to rely on fuel from terrorist states. There are many reasons for us to get off of fossil fuels. Take your pick.
Most people drive less that 30 miles a day. I drive about 55. The EV1 would easily fit my commute. 95% of the time I'm with my family we drive my wife's Volvo V50 (small wagon). Instead of $40 a week in fuel I'd spend about $7 in electricity. Considering a savings of $132/month and $50 less for the car lease than my current lease that would add up to $182/month it would put in my pocket. It would prove inconvenient about 2% of the time (have to swap cars with my wife for the day if I was going more than 100 miles). Yes, that electricity is probably derived from fossil fuel but I'd use much less of it and the opportunity to charge your car via solar roof panels would further reduce that load as well as power plants having the ability to get that energy outside of standard fossil fuel.
Whether it makes sense for you personally doesn't mean it wouldn't fit a lot of people's lifestyles. Certainly enough to justify the cost of a vehicle that's already engineered and in production.
Don't discount wind and solar. They are getting more efficient by the day and certainly begining to stack up to fossil fuel as prices increase. Why wouldn't anyone want cheap clean energy?? It's not a political issue. It's just plain common sense.
Reply
Eugene Chang 11:52AM (6/23/2006)
I really want to see this movie since I saw the preview for it when I went to see "An Inconvenient Truth".
I really do like the electric car as there are quite a few people who commute less than a hundred miles a day and would be perfectly viable. In addition, couldn't a company provide outlets to recharge a car while we work. A commute of a hundred miles one direction is pretty long but then a recharge during the day could do it for some people on a commute like that.
I actually came here to post about the concern of energy and where it comes from. We have these clean/cleaner energy sources. I think of Biodiesel as a viable short-term solution. The downfall here is that to make biodiesel, you need either ethanol or methanol. Currently, the ways we produce either of the alchohols is not viable as a longterm solution. Ethanol we get here in the U.S. from mostly corn I believe (and very inefficiently at that) and Methanol is from natural gas. It just doesn't work...
Back to the electric car though, as we continue to improve clean energy standards and such, the electric car becomes a better solution. Until then though, it is a very tough situation to be in as either way, we're going to be relying on oil and coal, one way or another. Either at the power plant, or the gas station.
Reply
Paul 12:36PM (6/23/2006)
Sure you could buy an electric car. Or you could move closer to your job. Or telecommute. My commute is a 20 minute walk in the park. Literally. I walk in through the park to get to work. It takes 20 minutes. There are more alternatives than just buying a different car.
In the next few weeks I'll be selling my car that I rarely drive and buying a motor scooter for those trips that are a little too long to bike or walk. And there aren't many. Granted, it will be a gasoline scooter, but it will get 90+ mpg. And it will be a hoot to drive.
Reply
Brian Burke 12:46PM (6/23/2006)
Keep in mind, electric cars are not zero-emission. They simply move the place of fuel consumption and emission from onboard the vehicle to a power plant. This results in an extremely inefficient way to move and store energy, the net emissions are actually much higher due to losses during transmission and storage of electricity.
Locally, in densely polluted cities, they may make some sense. But if global greenhouse emissions are your concern, you should either favor plain old gasolene engines or nuclear power plants.
Reply
Chumley 3:56PM (6/23/2006)
It's interesting to see people continue to dodge the cultural issue, even here in the posts (chad, lithous).
Supposedly, we Americans are capitalists, and regardless of the reasons the EV1 was built, the fact remains that GM refused to allow people who wanted to buy their product to buy it, at any cost.
GM was offered total legal and fiscal absolution for any consequences of putting the existing cars into private hands, and yet they refused to do so - turning down PROFIT while making up specious claims of LOSS.
I don't know why they did it, but that's the issue here for anyone who believes in the virtue of a fair marketplace. It doesn't matter whether you like electric cars or not, what matters is that a supposedly for-profit corporation did something that sure looks like racketeering to me... GM screwing their own stockholders for the benefit of oil producers.
Reply
Lithous 9:28PM (6/23/2006)
"It's interesting to see people continue to dodge the cultural issue, even here in the posts (chad, lithous)."
Cultural issue? I'd say the Japanese not allowing any foreigners into executive positions (here to some extent and) in Japan is a cultural (or possibly racist) issue. I don't see "killing the electric car" as a cultural issue.
"Supposedly, we Americans are capitalists,"
We really aren't (OK, maybe a 7 on a scale of 10) but that is the myth. Farmers, hybrids, and a ton of other things get subsidized. Oh, yeah, foreign companies who happened to not be here as long as American companies (i.e. GM and Ford basically get punished for being here longer and having already established factories while doing things like supplying machinery necessary during the biggest war in the history of the world) get subsidies for their factories. Anyway, I'll play along that we are these uber capitalists like people state all the time.
"and regardless of the reasons the EV1 was built, the fact remains that GM refused to allow people who wanted to buy their product to buy it, at any cost."
Yes, that was their prerogative. As the creator who spent the money.
"GM was offered total legal and fiscal absolution for any consequences of putting the existing cars into private hands,"
LMAO. By who? God? All it takes is 12 people to decide that, yeah, there is a document signed but really the company was so neglagent by making XYZ part that caught fire or something and there goes another billion of their money. So, if you sign a document when your child goes to camp such that the camp isn't liable if they get injured and then they go there and the counselors pull out machine guns and mow them down, um, do you think they could point to the document and get away with it? Those cars were high voltage machines that were virtually experimental. Believe me, people like Nader and Moore and their wannabes have burned GM enough (to make GM look like bad guys) so that it is a risk. And I'll get further into the "risk" involved...
"I don't know why they did it, but that's the issue here for anyone who believes in the virtue of a fair marketplace."
What? How about all the people who walk to work who DO NOT GET A DIME FROM THE GOV'T and yet HYBRID OWNERS DO? What happened to the virtue of the marketplace there? Or how about an E85 machine that can use less foreign based fuel than a Prius (where a Prius might use half the gas if it gets double the gas mileage and E85 uses 15% instead of 50%) and doesn't get the tax break from the gov't?
"It doesn't matter whether you like electric cars or not, what matters is that a supposedly for-profit corporation did something that sure looks like racketeering to me..."
Racketeering? I had to go look that up to make sure there wasn't some specific definition I didn't know about. But no. They probably spent a billion dollars to sell (OK, lease) 800 cars. So let's see, after spending a billion GM had 800 cars with a cost of what $25K - $30K lease payoffs (they were $40K plus sticker price, right?). That means, they stood to "profit" $24 million-ish off of selling them. Oh, wait, no, that's more like $24M - $1B for a negative "profit' of... Whatever.
Here is the "risk" I mentioned before... You either go out like a rock star like the EV-1 did OR like a co-worker of mine, who has 90K miles on a Civic hybrid and it is falling apart, you risk having the IT vehicle to having a POS.
"GM screwing their own stockholders for the benefit of oil producers."
Believe me, no stock holder missed out on anything they didn't get more than they should of through years of GM's fast accumulating debt. No, GM owes nothing more to any of it's stock holders. They gave dividends while losing money from what I understand.
Rick Wagoner stated in one of the car mags for the month of July of this year that killing the EV-1 was his biggest mistake. I agree it is one of the major if not major mistakes but I don't see anything GM did as being anything close to racketeering.
Anyway, if 5 years down the road a part wore out and electricuted all 800 owners that bought them then Nader would have an s-eating grin the size of Vermont writing another book.
But, before you think it is a cultural thing please do me a favor and read the first sentence of this description on how to get one (of the Honda electric vehicles): http://www.hondaev.org/acarx.html. Please go spreading rumors that Honda is a racketeering corporation now.
Reply