ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1967 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND THE OF THE SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. The joint committee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. William B. Spong, Jr., presiding. Senator SPONG. Mr. Radin, we are very pleased to have you with us this morning. If you would proceed, we would appreciate it. STATEMENT OF ALEX RADIN, GENERAL MANAGER; ACCOMPANIED BY LAWRENCE HOBART, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. RADIN. My name is Alex Radin, and I am accompanied by Lawrence Hobart, assistant general manager, and I am general manager of the American Public Power Association, a national trade association representing more than 1,400 municipal and other local publicly owned electric utilities in 45 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. APPA vigorously supports the enactment of S. 451, which amends the Clean Air Act in order to authorize an investigation of nonpolluting means of vehicle propulsion, and S. 453, which authorizes a program of research, development, and demonstration projects for electrically powered vehicles. On behalf of the members of ÄPPA, I urge that these two bills be reported favorably by the Senate Public Works Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee. A resolution approved in May 1966 affirms the support of APPA members for electric vehicle research, and a resolution approved in January 1967 by APPA's legislative and resolutions committee endorses S. 451 and S. 453, and commends Senator Magnuson and Senator Muskie for their efforts in developing electric vehicles. APPA's electric vehicles committee, of which Claud R. Erickson, general manager, Board of Water and Light, Lansing, Mich., is chairman, has been active in the promotion of electric vehicle development. Meetings of the committee have included presentations from industry, government, and other interested groups. Mr. Erickson also is nearing completion of an extensive book on the technology of electric vehicles, which will be published by APPA in the near future. 135 The members of APPA believe that the rapid development of electrically powered vehicles presents a unique opportunity for the electric utilities of this Nation to help solve problems of air pollution, traffic congestion, noise, and other environmental dangers which affect our urban areas. The single most important factor which has given impetus recently to development of electric vehicles is the problem of air pollution resulting from gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. The problem of air pollution resulting from automobiles has already been documented thoroughly before your committees. It is abundantly clear that this problem has already reached such alarming proportions that steps must be taken without delay to reduce or eliminate air pollution resulting from present-day automobiles. As a nonpolluting means of transportation, electric vehicles have attracted increasing attention in recent months. Because electric utilities, such as those represented by our association, would provide the electric power for recharging batteries used in electric vehicles, we have had a special interest in the impact which electric vehicle development would have on the electric utility industry. AUTOMOTIVE AIR POLLUTION DANGERS It has been estimated that about half the air pollution in the United States is directly related to emissions from internal combustion engines, and that three-quarters of the air pollution in large metropolitan areas is caused by the internal combustion powered automobile. Every year, motor vehicles emit 66 million tons of carbon monoxide, 1 million tons of sulfur oxides, 6 million tons of nitrogen oxides, 12 million tons of hydrocarbons, and 1 million tons of particulate matter. In addition to constituting a major health hazard, automotive air pollution causes an estimated $7.5 million annual economic loss in the United States. Adverse health effects which have been attributed to the automobile include respiratory diseases, fatigue, nausea, lung cancer, dizziness, and headaches. A report by the Public Health Service also indicated that carbon monoxide levels in the New York-New Jersey area were high enough to cause impairment of mental facilities, particularly on taxi drivers, bus drivers, and people working within 50 to 100 feet of the source of pollution. The seriousness of automotive air pollution was illustrated last November when residents of New York City were asked to use automobiles only when necessary. As Senator Muskie said when introducing S. 451, this "first alert" sounded by State officials shows "what our cities may be facing in the future if an alternative to the combustion engine is not developed." Further accentuating the seriousness of the problem, Mr. Vincent J. Schaefer, a scientist at the State University of New York in Albany, reported in an article in Science magazine that automotive exhaust could have an effect on our climate by influencing supercooled cloud systems. To combat this immense problem, the Federal Government has been taking the first steps toward a solution. Emission control devices are now required on new automobiles. Research funds have been authorized, and the Public Health Service is continuing to study the effect of automotive air pollution. But, efforts so far have been primarily directed toward the alteration of existing power sources, and even with emission controls, the increase in the number of automobiles will largely eliminate any gains made by requiring installation of control devices. Some experts are saying this will occur as soon as 1980. The seriousness of automotive air pollution was highlighted in a 1965 report of the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee which declared: We recommend that the Federal Government exert every effort to stimulate industry to develop and demonstrate means of powering automobiles and trucks that will not produce noxious effluents. Less complete steps to reduce pollution from automobile exhausts will certainly play an important role. We must strive for more acceptable mass transportation. We must follow carefully the results of California's imposition of special regulations, and be prepared to extend those that prove effective to other smog-ridden localities. But, we must also be prepared, as soon as reasonably may be, to take more drastic action, if, as, and when necessary. The development of alternative means of mobile energy conversion, suitable for powering automotive transport of all kinds, is not a matter of one year or a few years. Thus, if fuel cells, or rechargeable batteries, or other devices are to be developed in time to meet the increased threat, we need to begin now. In an editorial, the Journal of the American Medical Association, on December 12, 1966, stated: Reviving interest in the electric automobile raises the hope that we may indeed achieve the end of exhaust emanations before they destroy us. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner has said that he sees "some kind of collision in the future of the internal combustion engine and the interests of the American people." Passage of measures such as S. 451 and S. 453 can help avert such a collision, and, by implementing the recommendation of the President's Science Advisory Committee, provide the Federal Government with a program that seeks new alternatives, not halfway measures of incomplete correction. In his message to Congress on air pollution, the President, on January 30, 1967, said: "Ten years from now, when *** the number of automobiles on our streets and highways exceeds 110 million, we shall have lost the battle for clean air-unless we strengthen our regulatory and research efforts now." He went on to say that the development of "alternative means of motor vehicle propulsion" must be an "immediate research target," and called for support of private efforts being made in the development of alternatives. I fully agree with the President, and APPA will support all private efforts being made to develop a practical electrically powered vehicle. The fact is, however, we have the technology now to produce vehicles of a limited range and speed which could serve many of the transportation needs of urban citizens; but no appreciable effort has been made to apply this technology in a program of total research involving battery design, chassis design, and research in control devices, in order to bring a feasible vehicle to market in the near future. The dangers of automotive air pollution demand immediate attention from private industry, universities, local, State and the Federal Government, if the technology now available and new concepts which have not been proved out are to result in placing a vehicle on the pavement. Such a program would result, we believe, from enactment of the bills you are considering today. ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND AIR POLLUTION One of the frequent criticisms voiced over electric vehicle development as a solution for automotive air pollution is that any reduction made in exhaust emission will be offset by increased emissions from coal-fired electric-generating plants. The Public Health Service estimates that some 15 million tons of pollutants are released annually, including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates, from power-generating plants. This is not a good situation, but I believe that there are encouraging developments in the control of this air pollution. In any event, it should be kept in mind that steam electricgenerating plants do not emit pollutants at ground level, as is the case with automobiles, and in most instances electric-generating plants are not built in the heart of heavily populated areas. Current developments indicate that nuclear-powered generating plants, which offer great promise from the standpoint of reducing air pollution, will provide a greatly increasing share of the Nation's electric power. Conversely, coal- and oil-fired electric-generating plants are likely to provide a proportionately smaller share of the Nation's total electric requirements. In 1966, plans were announced for the building of 23 new nuclear plants having a total capacity of 18 to 19 million kilowatts, or about half of the new generating capacity announced that year. The percentage of power expected to be produced by nuclear powerplants is expected to increase dramatically as older and less efficient coal-fired plants are retired from service and as the economies of nuclear plants improve. Thus, the Atomic Energy Commission estimates that by 1980 nuclear plants will be generating as much as 30 percent of the Nation's power, and 50 percent by the year 2000. There is also a trend toward the building of large extra-high-voltage transmission systems capable of carrying large blocks of power over great distances. It is possible now to build coal-fired plants at a safe distance from urban centers and deliver the power to distant load centers. An example of this is the generation and transmission plant of Western Energy Supply & Transmission Associates (WEST), which calls for the building of generating units, including emission control equipment, in Nevada and New Mexico, with delivery of power to the Los Angeles area, more than 800 miles distant. Figures in a 1964 report by the Federal Power Commission show that only 26 percent of the total hydroelectric capacity in the United States has been developed, and that there is an untapped potential of 115,733,891 kilowatts. Development of these hydroelectric sites and enlargement of existing hydro facilities also offer a large source of nonpolluting power. The Tennessee Valley Authority recently announced plans to install electrostatic precipitators in certain coal-burning plants which are now equipped with mechanical dust collectors. This is part of the first 5-year phase of a program to control air pollution, costing $15 million, according to TVA Chairman Aubrey J. Wagner. I am hopeful that these developments and other air pollution control measures find broad acceptance in all segments of the electric industry. Speaking for APPA, we realize that publicly owned systems have an obligation to the citizens of the areas they serve to make all possible efforts at air pollution control. ELECTRIC UTILITY OPPORTUNITY Electric vehicle development will have a significant impact on the electric utility industry. Battery powered vehicles of a limited range would be used primarily for commuting, shopping or commercial transportation tasks, all of which occur during daylight hours. Charging of the battery would take place at night, which is normally an offpeak period of electricity consumption. This would mean that generating units usually operating at less than full capacity during offpeak hours would be utilized to meet the charging load of battery powered vehicles. In this way, generating units would be more efficiently used, leading to a lower unit cost for electricity. The Federal Power Commission report to the Senate Commerce Committee of February 1967, on development of electrically powered vehicles indicates the kind of load electric utilities may expect with the development of electric vehicles. Assuming an average of 2 miles per kilowatt-hour, and that the average second or third family car would travel, 6,000 to 6,500 miles per year, the FPC estimated that the "total energy requirements per vehicle would be between 3,000 and 3,250 kilowatt-hours." This level of consumption, FPC pointed out, would be "equivalent to about two-thirds of the average 1965 electric power consumption per residential customer." Further projecting the number of electric vehicles in operation to be "between 3.5 and 5 million by 1980 (about 15 percent of the potential inarket) and between 14 and 17 million by 1985 (about one-half of the potential market)," the "annual electric power requirements for electric vehicle battery charging may be between 10 and 16 billion kilowatt-hours in 1980 and between 42 and 56 billion by 1985," the FPC reported. FIRST GENERATION VEHICLES Senator Magnuson, when introducing S. 453, properly characterized the first generation of electric vehicles as being a specialized use vehicle, not a replacement for large, high-speed internal combustion vehicles. Present technology indicates that a practical electric vehicle will operate at limited speeds and range. R. M. Eichner, of the General Electric Co., recently said that "it is possible today to design a vehicle which would have a cruising speed of 30 miles per hour and would have a 50 mile range," and which could be marketed for less than $2,000. A vehicle of this sort could be used for many ordinary driving tasks, particulrly commuting and delivery purposes such as the 40,000 electric trucks operating in England today. An even more optimistic prediction has been made by Dr. Manfred Altman, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Direct Energy Conversion, who says that electric vehicles capable of carrying two or three passengers at 40 miles per hour at a range of 20 |