Make way for the electric car.

WITH CLEANER AIR AS A GOAL. THE FIGHT IS ON TO FIND ALTERNATIVES TO TODAY'S GASOLINE POWERED CARS AND TRUCKS.

America's love affair with the car began early, and it stated with vehicles powered by electricity.

A hundred years ago, the horseless carriage was an oddity, seen on only a few streets in the United States, Canada and Europe. This new, mechanized way to travel drew curious and skeptical looks from people who questioned its ability to compete with the horse-drawn carriage. Would it be as reliable as horses? Could the average person ever afford it?

This new means of transportation quickly grew more reliable and popular. By the turn of the century, 38 percent of all horseless vehicles were powered by electricity, slightly more ran on steam and only 22 percent used gasoline. In 1912, the peak year for electric vehicles (EVs), 34,000 electric automobiles were on the road.

EVs were stars in the early automobile market. Their competition was gasoline powered vehicles, an awkward technology at first that required operators to turn a heavy crank every time they started the engine. Gasoline dispensers were few and far between, making it difficult to travel any great distance. But after the turn of the century, these gasoline cars became increasingly reliable, lighter and able to travel farther on a tank of gas. Early in the century, manufacturers developed an electric starter, obviating the need for the hand crank. By 1930, only a few electric cars remained on the roads in this country, and the promising future for EVs seemed to have vanished.

Today, the same barriers that drove EVs out of the early automobile markets. They can't travel more than 150 miles on a charge, even under the most ideal driving conditions. Recharging times are lengthy, and costs remain prohibitive. EVs are making a comeback because states are concerned about the environment. Interest in the electric car revived in 1990 - nearly 60 years after being relegated to research laboratories and the dreams of environmental utopians. EV technology has improved dramatically in recent years. While the cars available today don't match the performance of their gasoline powered brethren, they are markedly better machines than they were even a few years ago. It is with this improvement in mind that proponents of today's EVs suggest that they offer a potent opportunity to reduce automobile pollution.

THE CHALLENGE

A few hundred, or even a few hundred thousand, EVs will make no difference to air quality in a country with 180 million cars, trucks and buses on the road. Americans will need to buy millions of EVs to make a dent in the air pollution problem. Persuading Americans to use an alternative to gasoline powered vehicles will not be easy. People - including repair shop operators, safety regulators and the driving public - know, like and understand gasoline and the internal combustion engine. Gasoline is, without doubt, a convenient and relatively efficient fuel. EVs, a new and much less advanced technology, cannot stray far from the performance characteristics of gasoline cars. Herein lies the immediate challenge for the EV industry: to design and produce a car that can compete with the performance, cost, safety and durability of gasoline vehicles. EVs face a formidable hurdle in winning over even a fraction of new car buyers.

STATES PUSH THE MARKET

With air quality benefits in mind, a few states - notably California, New York and Massachusetts - began to seek ways to encourage auto manufacturers, electric utilities and other companies to focus on improving the technology needed for viable electric cars. The states assembling the most ambitious programs have been, in general, those with the worst air pollution. These states found that focusing solely on stationary sources of air pollution like major factories or electric utility power plants had begun to yield diminishing returns. The biggest source of air pollution remained mobile sources - cars, trucks and buses.

Looking toward a future where EV technology would be perfected, California adopted a sweeping plan in 1990 to cut emissions from the cars sold in the state. This plan - dubbed the "low emission vehicle" (LEV) plan - mandated stricter standards for tailpipe emissions than were required by federal law and encouraged the development and sale of "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) - a distinction met by the electric car. Under the low emission vehicle policy, 2 percent of all vehicles offered for sale in California in 1998 must be EVs, increasing to 10 percent by 2004. Automakers failing to meet these mandates will face a penalty of $5,000 per car. Thus an automaker that sold only 2,000 of a required 22,000 cars in a given year would pay a fine of $100 million. In addition to changing auto technology, California also requires gasoline sold in the state to be composed of cleaner burning ingredients. These changes were designed to spread the responsibility for cleaning up the air between industry and the state's increasing numbers of cars, trucks and buses.

Detroit set to work evaluating battery technology and researching options to meet the 2 percent sales mandate. By early 1994, however, the auto industry insisted that the ZEV was not ready for sale to a public accustomed to the cost, range and flexibility of gasoline powered automobiles. After hearing the automakers' protests, the California Legislature decided that the auto industry was crying wolf, harking back to a time when the California Air Resources Board mandated catalytic converters, and Detroit insisted that the technology - now commonplace - was not feasible. The board has a history of imposing these "technology-forcing" mandates on the auto industry, and this time California is betting that an EV sales mandate will pay off in new high-tech auto manufacturing jobs in the state.

Much to Detroit's chagrin, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 granted the 49 other states the option to adopt the California low emission vehicle program rather than the less stringent federal standard. California's strict tailpipe standards were specifically written into the act, and policymakers are allowed to choose whether they want vehicles sold in their states to meet the federal emission limits or the cleaner California limits. However, the law forbids states to adopt any requirement that would force automakers to produce a "third vehicle" or a vehicle with emission standards different from the federal or California limits. When New York adopted the California standards, the automakers challenged the 2 percent ZEV sales requirement, claiming that the colder Northeast climate would require them to install a small interior heater. This, they claimed, constituted a requirement that they build a "third car." In 1994, the 2nd Circuit Court in New York ruled for the state and allowed New York to continue with the LEV program including the 2 percent ZEV sales mandate.

In the meantime, Massachusetts plunged forward, passing a bill to establish the California LEV program with an EV sales mandate. Other states in the Northeast passed resolutions to move toward the California LEV program if surrounding states also adopted the program.

The Clean Air Act Amendments require northeastern states from northern Virginia to Maine to work together to combat regional air quality problems. If they disagree, the states must petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to come up with a solution for the entire region. In February 1994, the states voted 9-4 that EPA require the LEV program for the entire Northeast region. Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Virginia protested. In a compromise, an EV sales mandate was not specifically included in the recommendation to EPA. Rather, each state would be able to choose whether to include EVs as part of its program.

With the Northeast leaning toward the California LEV program, auto manufacturers came up with a compromise "Fed LEV" - now known as the 49-state LEV program. This proposal ensures that cars sold across the country squeeze traditional automobile emissions to a fraction of what they are today. In return, auto manufacturers want to ensure that electric cars are not part of the mix.

Although EPA has now mandated the LEV program for the entire Northeast, the agency continues to push for a compromise between the states and the auto industry and still hopes for a 49-state solution that would override the Northeastern LEV program. Players in the Northeast are divided. Jamie Steve of the Union of Concerned Scientists believes that electric vehicles are essential to meeting air quality standards in the Northeast and said that EPA's acceptance of the Northeast program is "a hollow move" in light of the agency's interest in a 49-state gasoline powered solution.

Others point out that electric vehicles may not be the answer to air pollution. If these cars get their electricity from, for instance, a high-sulfur coal-burning utility, emissions of some pollutants may actually increase. If the EVs get their power from a utility that relies on some cleaner burning fuels, pollution will decrease.

"Electric vehicles do not have tailpipe emissions polluting highly populated areas," says Ed Rissing of the Edison Electric Institute, an electric industry trade organization. "It is far easier to create one state-of-the-art power plant for EVs than it is to attempt to manage millions of traditional automobile emission systems through emissions inspection programs."

The leadership in the Northeast turned more conservative in the November elections, and a 49-state gasoline powered compromise now seems imminent. Auto manufacturers insist that the technology for electric cars is not ready. If they put an EV on the market, they say, it will be a vehicle with a short range, will cost as much as a luxury vehicle and will be one of the smallest cars on the market. In short, automakers insist they cannot manufacture a salable vehicle. EV advocates assert that a sales mandate creates a strong incentive to encourage auto manufacturers and others to develop increasingly powerful battery and vehicle technology.

Whether auto manufacturers admit it or not, EV technology has advanced rapidly, even over the past four years. While fighting the California, New York and Massachusetts mandates in the courts, the auto industry has hedged its bets by devoting significant sums of money to improving EV technology. Other industries have joined the effort. Utilities see a big opportunity to sell more electricity to EV owners and have devoted millions of dollars to the technology. One way to improve it is to improve batteries to increase the distance that vehicles can travel between charges. Other technological problems are how to improve acceleration, durability of batteries and other components. The battery has, however, remained the major focus.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERIES

Gasoline powered cars can drive at least 200 miles before refueling, a process that takes five minutes. The newest generation of electric cars is approaching that level under ideal conditions. Real-world conditions are never ideal, though, and the technology to accomplish this is not ready for the mass market. The biggest barrier to bringing electric cars to the market is the inability to produce a battery that stores energy well, releases it quickly, does not cost much, is lightweight, recharges efficiently and can be disposed of safely and easily.

Batteries essentially are combinations of chemicals that store energy. Many types are being tested, all of which have some benefits and some problems. Types of batteries currently available in the EV market are:

Lead-acid batteries, now found under the hoods of gasoline powered cars, are a common example of a method of storing energy. Most EVs on the road today use chains of lead-acid batteries because they are the best developed technology to date. These batteries are too heavy, however, and do not store enough energy to power a car for long.

Nickel-iron batteries are one step above lead-acid batteries; they perform well at low temperatures and can hold slightly more energy. Unfortunately, nickel-iron batteries are expensive and require extensive maintenance. They must, for instance, be hooked up to a source of clean water while being recharged. Nickel-iron batteries are, for the additional cost, not a significant improvement over lead-acid batteries.

Sodium-sulfur batteries store more energy than most others. They allow cars to travel much farther before recharging and are made of inexpensive materials. The battery is a new technology, however, and is not ready for full scale commercial use.

Sodium-sulfur batteries must maintain a constant temperature of between 300 and 500 degrees Celsius and need to be replaced every three to five years - more often than many other types. Sodium and sulfur are both reactive chemicals, so the battery container must be strong to prevent a fire or explosion. Finally, there are few places to dispose of them.

Nickel-cadmium batteries are common now in cellular phones, laptop computers and other home electronics. They represent a mature technology that carries a great deal of potential for EVs. They store energy well and operate in cold and warm temperatures.

Unfortunately, they are expensive, and disposal is a significant problem. Cadmium is a toxic chemical that can't be put in a landfill and must be handled carefully. Recycling facilities for nickel-cadmium batteries exist in the United States, but none have the capacity to regularly handle batteries as large as those needed for electric vehicles. Rather than pay prohibitive fees to discard a nickel-cadmium battery in the United States, one EV owner paid thousands of dollars to send the batteries to Europe for disposal.

Some scientists advocate a "hybrid" electric vehicle that combines a small combustion engine and battery power. Generally, hybrid engines mn at a constant speed to continually charge the battery. These vehicles can travel for 200 to 300 miles before needing to recharge. However, hybrids still emit a small amount of pollution, so they do not meet California's zero emission requirement.

MANUFACTURERS

The California 2 percent mandate forced every major automaker to accelerate its EV development programs. It also encouraged a few small entrepreneurial companies to enter the market.

Ford Motor Company adapted a small track model that is sold in Europe as the chassis for its "Ecostar," which exhibited the best performance of any EV on the market. It has traveled as far as 158 miles on a single charge and accelerates at a rate comparable to many gasoline powered vehicles in its class. Ford produced 87 of these vehicles on an experimental basis for its large fleet customers, especially the electric utilities.

The car's battery uses a combination of sodium and sulfur, and shows a great deal of promise.

In a program similar to Ford's, Chrysler adapted one of its minivan models to mn on electricity. Using either a nickel-iron or nickel-cadmium battery, Chrysler's vehicle travels less than 100 miles on a charge and accelerates respectably, going from zero to 50 in about 12 seconds. Chrysler sold 50 of these minivans to electric utilities in a test program.

With great fanfare, General Motors announced that a new vehicle, the IMPACT, would outperform many gasoline powered vehicles. The prototype IMPACT accelerated faster than many muscle cars, going from zero to 60 mph in 8.5 seconds. GM also announced that the production model IMPACT would travel up to 90 miles on a charge - enough to satisfy most American drivers - and would recharge in two to three hours. This vehicle, GM announced, would be in production for the 1996 model year.

Between budget cutbacks and continual demands for improved technology from California and the Northeast, full production of the IMPACT has been an on-again, off-again project. GM has been sending a limited number of electric vehicles out to consumers to test in its PrEView Drive program. However, BusinessWeek reported speculation in its Jan. 23 issue that the consumer response to this program has been so positive that GM will produce up to 7,500 of the cars in the near term. The IMPACT is the only EV designed for personal use, a commuter car as opposed to a delivery vehicle.

Bart Chezar, director of electric transportation for the New York Power Authority, points out that his company has been successful in identifying niches that fit EVs. "While EVs may not be the ideal everyday car for going to Grandma's house, they make a lot of sense for urban delivery vehicles and some service vehicles right now." As the technology continues to increase the range of EVs, the number of niches will expand. Research is aimed at developing cars that can drive 150 to 200 miles and be recharged in a short amount of time.

Already, recharging stations are being built in California and New York. And in Boston, many people are already commuting to work in electric cars under the Massachusetts Electric Vehicle Demonstration project. Sheila Lynch, board member of this Boston-based program, reports that commuters - who drive up to 30 miles round trip in leased EVs - have been extremely satisfied with their electric cars and that the vehicles work well for short commutes.

The states have the ball in this game of high-tech automobiles and pollution reduction. In California, EVs will be on the market in 1998, regardless of advances in battery technology. Detractors say that the inconvenience will overwhelm anyone's desire to drive a 'clean car,' and the electric vehicle will die a quick death. Believers admit that it could lead to a few years of inconvenience and confusion for the first owners. But in time, EVs might seem as commonplace as they did at the turn of the century.

RELATED ARTICLE: STATES TAKE TO AFVS

When it comes to "alternative fuel" vehicles (AFVs), many states are requiring their use in state fleets.

Fourteen states require that a certain percentage of state vehicles be powered by alternative fuels such as natural gas or electricity. Six states and the District of Columbia require private fleet owners or local governments to run a percentage of AFVs as well. Ten states have allocated money to local governments for fleet conversion.

Another popular move is to offer tax credits, rebates, deductions or exemptions for people and businesses that convert gasoline powered vehicles or purchase AFVs. Eleven states have allocated money or set up tax credits or loan funds to encourage the introduction of AFVs or to develop fueling stations. Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Louisiana, Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are among the states that offer tax credits, reductions, exemptions and rebates to individuals and businesses that purchase AFVs or convert gasoline powered vehicles to alternate fuels.

AFV owners are charged lower license fees in Arizona; Virginia charges them none at all. And California gives them special plates that ensure public parking privileges. But Minnesota and Nebraska passed legislation requiring AFV owners to obtain annual permits.

With an eye on a possibly burgeoning industry, California also has sunk state funds into training programs for AFV manufacturing, maintenance and repair as well as for jobs in the alternative fuel industry. With the state mandate that 2 percent of vehicles for sate in 1998 be alternatively fueled, 35,000 new vehicles must be manufactured, and the Golden State is hoping to capture a portion of that industry. Meanwhile, Colorado has set up a certification program for mechanics who will work on converting gasoline vehicles to alternative fuels. Oklahoma has developed a training curriculum for the people who install alternative fuel stations.

Fourteen states have either set up special organizations or required state agencies to study or report on clean air programs involving alternative fuel vehicles.

Dianna Gordon

Matthew H. Brown specializes in energy issues for NCSL, and Jackie Cummins is NCSL's expert on the Clean Air Act.