I recently saw the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Even though I have some problems with about 5% of its content, it is clearly worth seeing -- and I would urge all interested in clean air and electric vehicles to see it. And then call your auto dealer and tell him that if he had some for sale, you would be a buyer.

I have some personal history with the GM Impact car so let me take a moment and recount it here. As I recall, sometime in the early 90's when I was Chairman of the South Coast AQMD, I drove an Impact for aweek. I enjoyed driving it but was always concerned about running out of power due to the short range of the vehicle. Unfortunately, I did run out on the 57 Freeway in Brea one day. Also, to prove to myself and others that they were a fast moving vehicle and not slow moving as
detractors were claiming, I used to take it out on the 60 Freeway and deliberately speed by other vehicles in an attempt to get the first speeding ticket in a modern electric vehicle. No such luck. Where was the Highway Patrol when you needed them? So I do have personal knowledge of the Impact and while I do not consider it a great electric vehicle, it was a very good beginning. And GM made a mistake in not going on to a great success story by not continuing development.

The 5% of the film which I believe was not presented in a fair andunbiased manner, and which demonstrates a lack of understanding of how government operates, was what I consider the personal attack on Dr.Alan Lloyd who was Chairman of the California Air Resources Board(CARB) during part of the period the GM Impact electric vehicle was being operated by its many fans in Southern California. The entire story of Alan's involvement in this area was not told. Only snippets of information were provided and they appear to have been deliberately selected to make him come across poorly. My comments are an attempt to set the record straight.

By way of background, in 1990, the California Air Resources Board, an 11 member rule making body believed, based on the information available to it at that time, that the auto industry was capable of producing zero emission vehicles by 1998. Those Board members voted to institute a regulation that required that 2% of all new vehicles sold in the State of California in 1998 be emission free, and further that the number should be increased to 10% by 2003. This regulation has since been known as the ZEV mandate. In 1990, I was Vice-Chairman of the South Coast AQMD Governing Board and supported that position. In 1991, after I became Chairman of that Board, I continued to be a strong supporter based on my personal experience as described earlier.At every public opportunity, I verbally supported that position. Byway of full disclosure, Dr. Lloyd was Chief Scientist at the South Coast AQMD during my tenure there -- 1987 to 1994. I know him well as aperson of great integrity as well as one who is worthy of being called Chief Scientist or Leader.

Now there is an interesting word -- Leader. Let me digress a moment. In the Sunday Morning Los Angeles Times (7-2-06), there was an article about our Supreme Court which pointed out that even though it had a new leader, the majority of the members did not always "follow the leader" in their voting patterns as evidenced in their recent vote in opposition to President Bush's specially created military tribunal. One of the many reasons we have multiple members of Governing bodies such as Supreme Courts, Air Resources Board's, AQMD Board's, City Council's and a host of other similar organizations is to bring to the decision making process a wide breadth of experience and opinions. Even so, for a wide variety of reasons, Board members often do not vote the same way on substantive issues. When trying to look ahead to the future, it is often difficult to separate reality from hope. When the CARB Board voted in 2003 to modify the rule by an 8 to 3 vote -- with Alan being one of the 8 yes votes -- I and many others were disappointed. This is an example of how, even on significant issues and with much data available, all the members do not agree. However, many of us in leadership roles have learned that at times even a majority of votes cast can be wrong. We are all fallible. This is not to say that those who voted in the majority in this case were wrong or that those who voted in the minority were right. They each voted the way they did because the weight of information available tothem at that moment in history indicated that that was a reasonable way to vote.

There were also comments made in the film, with implications of corruption with no factual basis, to the effect that when the California Fuel Cell Partnership was established in Sacramento in 1999 by Governor Gray Davis that it was a deciding factor in Alan's willingness to change the 2% regulation in 2003 based on his understanding and support of fuel cells. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 2001 while a member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, he supported the strong mandate for battery electric vehicles. The facts are that both Alan and I along with Dr. Larry Berg, another AQMD Board member, had been working and funding fuel cell programs through Ballard Power Systems since 1987 in the belief that their fuel cell engine could lead to operating engines -- both stationary and mobile -- capable of reducing the level of air pollution in California. The record will clearly show that he had been involved in fuel cell/hydrogen activity since at least 1987. Unfortunately, the fuel cell development process has been a long, costly one and it is taking much longer to achieve success than we envisioned when we began the process.

The first modern day incarnation of the electric vehicle, the GM Impact, has ended, unfairly in the eyes of many, but it was a beginning. As the film points out, there were many reasons for GM to end the program but to attribute its end to "corporate greed and governmental corruption" as one reviewer did is to simply ignore the facts. If individuals who serve on various government Boards, who often sacrifice much while serving on these Boards, are constantly accused of corruption by those who disagree with their positions and who do not have all the facts, how will we ever continue to obtain the quality of Board members we need to serve us all in these important roles? Those of us who know Dr. Lloyd well, know of the high level of honesty and integrity he has always brought to any Board he has ever been a member of. A little fair play goes a long way. The Impact is dead, long live the Impact! Go see the Movie and enjoy it -- with a grain of salt.

It is my understanding that the ZEV mandate will be back on the CARB Agenda for review in about the Spring/Summer of 2007. Now is the timefor all electric vehicle enthusiasts (whether battery electric or fuelcell electric) to plan how they will make their wishes known to the CARB Board members who will be voting. Good luck!!!

Comment -- If you have seen the film and disagree with my position, I would like to hear your objective, factual rebuttal or if you agree with my comments and wish to amplify on them, I look forward to your comments.