ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1967 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION OF THE Washington, D.C. The joint committee met at 9:30 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable John O. Pastore presiding. Senator PASTORE. The hour of 9:30 having been reached, this hearing will come to order. This morning the Committee on Commerce and the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee continue hearings on S. 451 and S. 453, bills to promote the development of electric vehicles and other nonpolluting alternatives to the internal combustion engine. This is the third day of hearings. Tuesday, the committees received testimony from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of Commerce, and yesterday, from various private witnesses. This morning, the committees will hear additional testimony from the private sector. Is Michael Ference, Jr., vice president, scientific research, Ford Motor Co., here? All right, sir, we will hear you. You may proceed. STATEMENT BY MICHAEL FERENCE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, FORD MOTOR CO. Mr. FERENCE. I am Michael Ference, Jr., vice president in charge of scientific research of Ford Motor Co. The company's work on electric vehicles is under my direction. I appreciate your invitation to present our views on Senate bills 451 and 453 to promote the development of electric cars and other new types of vehicles. My oral statement today is condensed from a more comprehensive statement and I request your permission to file the longer statement for the record of these hearings. We believe that, within the next decade, research and development now being conducted by Ford and others will make it possible to produce marketable electric vehicles much superior to any that can be built today. The electric vehicles we now envision will not be suitable replacements for gasoline-powered cars and trucks for most transportation purposes. We wish to emphasize, however, that they will have significant advantages for important local uses in urban areas. These advantages are of two kinds: 1. Electric vehicles will provide better transportation values in circumstances appropriate for their use. Advantages for owners and users include simplicity of operation, ease of maintenance, quietness, economy, maneuverability and easier parking. 2. Electric vehicles can help to alleviate problems such as air pollution, congestion, and noise. Ford Motor Co. is vitally interested in the achievement of both of these sets of advantages. As a competitive business, we must be in the forefront of efforts to offer customers better transportation values. As a corporate citizen, we recognize a heavy responsibility to help solve the problems accompanying the growing use of our products. Moreover, we are well aware of the fact that these problems if not solved, will eventually limit the growth of our business. For these reasons, we are making the maximum effort to find scientific and engineering answers to the difficulties that stand in the way of practical electric vehicles, and we are confident we will find those answers. For the same reasons, we welcome congressional interest in electric vehicles as evidenced by S. 451 and S. 453. We support the broad concepts of these two bills and we agree with the position expressed by Senators Magnuson and Muskie, that "what is needed is a program of total research." In good conscience, however, we cannot support those parts of both bills that would put the Federal Government into the design and construction of vehicles. We believe these hearings will make it clear that the desire to take advantage of competitive opportunities is motivating varied and aggressive work by automobile companies, battery and electric equipment manufacturers, and public utilities. Later in my presentation I shall discuss the scope of our company's efforts. But even more important, we hope these hearings will underscore the need for the Federal Government to play a much broader role. In our judgment, there is an urgent need for a broad systems analysis to determine (1) how electric vehicles can best fit into the total vehiclehighway system; and (2) the interrelationships between a vehiclehighway system which includes electric vehicles and the social and economic structure of our cities and the Nation. Answers to questions of this scope can be obtained only with the support and participation of the Federal Government. Senator PASTORE. May I interrupt you for a question at this point? The matter of air pollution and the avoidance of it is of national concern. I recognize the competitive spirit of the big automobile manufacturers. But when you come down to the national interest and how you promote it, and what emphasis you give it, why do you say that you are resentful of Government involvement? Mr. FERENCE. Senator Senator PASTORE. How can the public expect the concerns that are owned by stockholders under our system of enterprise, through the system of competitiveness, to undertake an objective that has a public interest, that is of concern to all the people, apart from the profit motive. Do I make myself clear? Mr. FERENCE. Yes, you do, Senator. A partial answer to your question is that as a corporate citizen, we feel that it is a part of our responsibility to be cognizant of the question you have raised. As you will see from the comments I shall make, we do recognize that there are these problems. Senator PASTORE. Lest I be misunderstood, if this responsibility is going to be assumed by private industry, I would defer. I mean, if the job could be as well done. Philosophically, I believe the Government ought to be engaged in nothing that private industry can do. But I think there are some times when you get into the overall element of the national interest because the Government has to become involved because of the shortcomings and the limitations that are involved. That is the only reason I interrupted you. This is no criticism at all as to the effort that the Ford Motor Co. is putting into this. They are to be congratulated for it. The only question is, how far can you go and be responsive to your stockholders, and yet do the job that needs to be done in the public interest? Mr. FERENCE. We think, in this instance, that meeting the interests of our stockholders will also meet the needs of the public. Senator GRIFFIN. May I inquire where the witness is in his statement? Senator PASTORE. Do you have a copy of your summary? Mr. FERENCE. No, sir. Senator PASTORE. This is the long statement. He is recapitulating for the sake of brevity. Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you. Mr. FERENCE. Let me illustrate the scope of the questions that need answers. The electric vehicles we think will be practical in the foreseeable future will have relatively short range and modest performance. Electric vehicles for personal travel will be quite small. Widespread use of such vehicles in urban areas could have marked effects on shopping, commuting, residential, and employment patterns. It would bring new requirements in planning streets and highways for efficient traffic flow. Widespread use of electric vehicles would also change the balance of our natural resources. It would require a major expansion of electric generation and transmission facilities. This, in turn, would change the economics of the electric-power industry, would intensify the need for reducing pollutants from powerplants, and would affect the use of national water resources. The petroleum and motor vehicle service industries would also be profoundly affected. These are but a few of the potential changes that must be understood, planned for and smoothly achieved if electric vehicles come into widespread use. As a vehicle manufacturer, we accept our responsibility to help achieve these changes in a manner that serves the public interest. To do so, however, requires the kind of knowledge that can be obtained only through analysis of the whole fabric of social and economic implications of electric vehicles. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that such an approach should have first priority in the Government's efforts. One way to gather some of the data essential for this analysis would be to use the Government's extensive fleet operations for tests with prototype vehicles as soon as they are available. We have already had preliminary talks with the Post Office toward this end. In the balance of my statement, I plan to discuss briefly the following points: 1. Why the inherent advantages of electric vehicles cannot be achieved with present technology. 2. Ford Motor Co. programs to overcome the present limitations of electric vehicles. 3. What we think the potential markets for electric vehicles will be. 4. What contributions we believe electric vehicles may make to the solution of such problems as air pollution and urban congestion. Precisely the point you raised, Senator Pastore. In this connection, I must emphasize that we fully expect to reduce emissions from internal-combustion engines to a very low level within 10 years. May I next summarize the limits of present electric-vehicle technology. In spite of widespread opinion to the contrary, the advantages of electric vehicles are still potential advantages which cannot be realized to any significant extent with today's technology. Today's electric cars have three major deficiencies: (1) short range, (2) poor performance in terms of speed, acceleration, and hill climbing, and (3) long recharge time compared with quick refueling of gasoline cars. Much confusion has been caused by discussions of present-day electric cars which cite their maximum range and their maximum performance without recognizing that the batteries can deliver one or the other but not both. The low-energy storage capacity of present batteries is responsible for the limited range of today's electric cars. Chart 1 illustrates the range and performance limitations of presently available batteries. The first column shows that, pound for pound, gasoline stores from 60 to 150 times more usable energy-and therefore offers from 60 to 150 times more range-than the conventional lead-acid battery. The best of today's batteries, the silver-zinc battery, offers five times more range than the lead-acid battery, but still only a small fraction of the range possible with an equal weight of gasoline. Column two shows that today's batteries come closer to equaling gasoline in terms of the ability to deliver high power, and therefore |