Oe UUW(JCXJ CHALMERS , ., !,’i The Electric Car Controversy .,,., ‘, A social-constructivist interpretation of the ,1 California zero-emission vehicle mandate 1 HANS FOGELBERG ;, Department of History of Technology and Industry CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Goteborg, Sweden 1998 1 i’ [. ,/ ,!, ;, . ,., ,, , ,, , ,, ,!; ,, ,! ,! DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. ,, ,’ ,,’, , ., .’ ,,-1 /“; t ,.., ., ‘, ,j ,’, ,,, ,/,‘, Hans Fogelberg ,, . , ,,’ ,.’, The Electric Car Controversy ,, . ,; ,. ,; ,,, A social-constructivist interpretation of the I ,, California zero-emission mandate ,‘-.’ ,’$! , Department of History of Technology and Industry Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, 1998 . ., Copyright @ Hans Fogelberg, 1998 All rights reserved Report 1998-2 Chalmers University of Technology Department of History of Technology and Industry SE-412 96 Goteborg, Sweden Printed by Chalmers ReproService, Goteborg ISSN 1400-8939 ‘ ~ +:,:,:, .f; ,. ,,. ! ~ ~.l ,:, ,, ,4, ,.’ .,- :, .,, .,,,, ,, ,,., ,, “.+, , ,, ..7,,!, -.r g k VI-. ● ,.,,, ,,-, ,:, , . ‘. .. .“”,’.. ,,, .; ., :,, .’ .- ,,,, i.,(:,:;.’ . .“..,..<. ,,, t, ,..,.,..,,. \ ‘,,..,. .! ‘,,. !: .-.,,. ,“,j .:.,: ;, ?, ! .:. ,,’‘!’.>,, ?,!.,..;..,, ,‘.- ,..L, ..-.., , !!” :, ,,, ,., i; ,,,, . “, , .,,..,,,.,, .-,. ,,J’+ ,’,,,. , ~ ,,,-.,, , .,.,,,, $ ., .~, . ,,, ,, ... ‘ ‘~ .“...,,,;! ‘, \ .7 $,, ~ * ,., ?. .,, ,, .,, ,. +,., !,,’,; to’, “,,;.:.,,:, .- <9, N’” .- .. .< > .,. ..- ‘. ,. Abstract This study focuses the socio-technical dynamics of the attempted re- introduction of electric cars in California. The underlying question is whether or not it is possible to open up an entrenched technological area as car technology, and achieve a radical change. With the perspectives of ,. ,,, social constructivist approaches to technological change, this study ,,; ‘, , ! ,,., ,, , ,, ,, examines how a large technological controversy was initiated by ,, ‘,.~ ,,,,/1 ,, regulatory action of the air agency in California, the California Air ., !,-t; ‘. ,;, Resources Board, how this controversy developed and stabilized, and how ; ,! ,’, . it was ended by the air agency and the auto industry. :, ,,. Based on mainly secondary sources, the definitions that were established on electric cars and gasoline cars at the turn of the 20’th century are highlighted, thus showing the existence of two types of ,i. ;, .,’ automobiles: the city car and the endurance car. The city car did not : ,. ,,” survive, and was not defined as being real car. Based on mainly primary ,:,, sources, the recent electric car controversy is examined, suggesting that the air agency could not force the car industry to re-introduce the city car, and consequently the efforts were directed towards the development of more advanced batteries that could give the electric car a performance close to that of the gasoline car. It also display that electric car technology was enhanced due to the mandate. In ending the controversy, the agency, due to political forces, changed from ‘command-and-control’ to a ‘partnership’ strategy. The California Air Resources Board postponed the ‘,! mandate (from 1998 to 2003), due to the fact that large volume ,,. , ,,1 ,,. ,. :’J production of advanced batteries was not expected to be in place by 1998. This regulatory relief removed the principal obstacle on behalf of auto manufacturers of not to accept mandated markets, and led General Motors to start to market their purpose built electric sports car by late 1996, and Toyota to promote electric- and electric hybrid car technologies. Thus car l-,,,, .! technology was re-opened. ,, ., , i Contents I. STUDY AND PERSPECTIVES Introduction 1 Theoretical framework 19 II. SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The artefact 27 Social preferences 32 Commercial vehicles as a niche market 39 Renewed interest in electric propulsion 42 III. THE ELECTRIC CAR CONTROVERSY Social actors 46 Origin 48 Stabilization 56 Ending 85 IV. DISCUSSION The social construction of the electric car 91 Postscript to licentiate thesis 97 References 98 ‘ Acknowledgements This report is a reprint of a licentiate thesis with the same title, dated November 19, 1996. The work on the licentiate could not have been completed without the assistance from many people, to whom I am grateful. I have retrieved valuable comments from colleagues in my twofold institutional setting: the Department of History of Technology and ,> ,,, Industry at Chahners University of Technology, Goteborg, and the . Section for Science and Technology Studies at the University of Goteborg. The work has been financed by the electric and hybrid car programme at the Swedish Transport & Communications Research Board. Kind and patient advisors have been Jan Hult and Kanehira Maruo. Kanehira have shared with me valuable theoretical and empirical insights in this field. Goran Sundqvist helped me with structuring and sharpening the text. Deborah Hopkins helped to arrange my stay in Berkeley, and has .,, been an important discussion partner on car related issues. The Swedish attach6 of technology in Los Angeles hosted me during my stay in L.A. Many people spent their time with me in interviews. Everett Thiele did the proof-reading, and is not to blame for the new errors I have introduced. Finally I like to thank my wife Karin Fogelberg for reminding me that there is more to life than electric cars. .. Goteborg, January, 1998 ,. I Hans Fogelberg ,’. :i ,, .: ,,, , ,, .,>,~ z ,; ,,,, ,, ,> . ‘$ ,’ , ,;, 1 ... m I. STUDY AND PERSPECTIVES Introduction In September 1990 California adopted a regulation that would force car manufacturers to sell zero-emission vehicles in the state by the year of 1998, and in subsequent years to follow, thus initiating a paradigmatic change in car technology by an attempt to revive the battery-only electric car. The impulse behind this rather radical move came from an awareness of the problems created by the use of cars, and of the important historical role of cars in American society, in combination with the projected increase of cars and miles driven in CalifornirG or in the words of automotive historian, James Flink A lifestylebased on masspersonalautomobilityfirst developedin Southern California, and nowhere in the world has mass motorizationbeen more pervasivein its impacts.1 Problems with automotive air pollution were not expected by air agencies , ,,, to be solvable in the long run within the realm of main-stream car technology. Something radical had to be done, or at least had to be started, and a, zero-emission vehicle regulation was adopted. The regulation would have an impact on car technology, car use, and even on the very notion of what a “car” is — aspects and areas that have become entrenched due to the long history of integration of cars with society. The regulation started a large technological controversy over electric cars involving both public and private interests, and can thus be seen as a social experiment, with society as a full scale laboratory, for attempts to open up and achieve changes in areas which have been closed for a long time. At the conclusion of the controversy, the automotive industry was given ,. additional lead time (until 2003) for the required introduction, whereas ,,: ,,,, ,. several manufacturers were to enter the market with electric cars even before 1998. Using an historical account of the electric car, car-society relationships, and the technological controversy over the zero-emission vehicle mandate, this study attempts to address the following three issues: (1) how “open/closed” is car technology for societally induced changes lFlink 1990,p. 140. ,. ,,, 1 and the implementation of technology that is radically new, and (2) what role do our notions and definitions of technology play? These aspects will be addressed through studying the zero-emission vehicle regulation in California as (3) a controversy of technology, approached through the perspectives of the history and the sociology of technology. Below, the theoretical basis of this study and the three areas of focus will be briefly discussed. The key concept of interpretative flexibility With the perspectives of relationships of society and technology, we can explain changes in society with reference to technological factors and we can explain changes in technology with reference to social factors, or both at the same time as a process. But we cannot explain changes in technology with reference to technological factors only, i.e. the object under study does not explain itself, or expressed somewhat more abstractly; we should view the “working” or “non-working” of artefacts as explanandum and not as explanans.z That is a point of departure of this study, and it is one cornerstone of the social-constructivist approach to technological change. This means that the explanation of the success of the gasoline car and the failures of the steam and electric car, respectively, at the beginning of the 20’th century should be sought in the socio-historical circumstances that created (or did not create) these technologies, rather than within some internal logic of technology.s Interpretative flexibility refers to the variety of views and claims actors articulate about a certain technology. For the artefacts of our daily life, we will usually find a very low degree of interpretative flexibility. We just use them without having to think much about what we are doing. And certainly this stability is needed