GM, Bush & CARB Killed the Electric Car

Man I am pissed off. I just sent an email to General Motors which helped but only a little. Why am I so angry? I saw the documentary ‘Who Killed the Electric Car‘ at the Hi-Point Friday night.

Basically, GM F’d up big time. They started their electric vehicle program in 1988 with a concept car shown in 1990 and entering limited production in 1996 (the EV1). GM was actually out front and ahead of the curve on this one. Toyota & Honda, today’s leaders in hybrid technology, were following GM! In 2000 GM dropped the EV1 in favor of the Hummer and other large gas guzzling SUVs (Ford did the same thing). Today GM and Ford both are struggling to be profitable as free market consumers continue to purchase fewer and fewer of their products. They are scrambling to close plants and fire workers to remain solvent. Meanwhile, other manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda are opening new plants in the U.S. to meet increased demand for their products.

But the stupidity didn’t stop at the GM & Ford Board of Directors. No, the stupidity continued at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and finally stopping at the Oval office with Dubbya. Before all the free market people start bitching about how we cannot force people to drive tiny cars please read carefully — government policy has been and continues to encourage the use of large vehicles and the burning of fossil fuels. From tax incentives offered for corporate vehicles to not improving requirements for average fuel economy to dropping the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate government policy has encouraged the proliferation of large vehicles and the stagnation of the U.S. auto industry.

Pollution and dependence upon foreign oil continue to be major issues. Had CARB stuck to their requirement for ZEVs (2% in 1998, 5% by 2001 and 10% by 2003) we may be well on our road to cleaner air and not be fighting a war over oil. Instead the Bush administration and others are pushing hydrogen fuel cells as the wave of the future. However, like electric cars, R&D takes time and money. Many experts say affordable fuel cell vehicles are a good 15-20 years away.

In the meantime we are supposed to continue burning fuel in internal combustion engines using alternate fuels. The 85% ethanol blend E85 is being promoted as a green product for flex-fuel vehicles and Biodiesel has similar claims. Here is the problem, it takes a lot of energy to grow corn or other products and process them into the so-called green fuels. With the exception of biodiesel made from waste, both are at best a break-even in terms of overall energy consumption and offer little difference from gasoline with respect to emissions.

We were so close and GM was leading the way. Yes, GM a leader! The movie assigns blame to GM, big oil and others for killing the electric car. I pretty much agree with their conclusions.

Of course, electric vehicles are not dead. What is dead is the mandate for a percentage of a manufacturer’s vehicles to be zero emissions. With that GM and Ford can talk about their hybrid vehicles that don’t get as good of milage as my ’06 Scion or even a 10-year old Saturn. Good job guys!

Zap (Zero Air Pollution):

First I want to disclose that I have a miniscule amount of stock in this company. They’ve got some interesting products, including a cute new 2-seater. Alas, some of these are way above average in cost. ZAP is also an importer of the Mercedes-built smart that I am quite fond of.

GEM (Global Electric Motors, LLC):

This company makes the electric vehicles you may have seen around downtown of late. A couple of developers have these and I know at least one loft owner that does. These are considered a Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) which has less requirements for being driven on the road. They are electronically limited to 25mph. This class of vehicle are often referred to as the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) as use is often limited to the immediate neighborhood. This company is a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler.

A number of vehicles exist on the market, some costing well over $100,000 but offering performance that you’d expect from a car costing that much.

GM is responding to the film with their own take on the situation (click here). Here is what GM says are the facts:

GM invested more than $1 billion in the EV1 program, which included money for installing a charging infrastructure and for marketing the product.

Even with extensive publicity, award-winning advertising and customer incentives the Electric Vehicle program was not a commercially viable business.

GM leveraged advanced technology to create the Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid. It will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporating a new, more affordable gas-electric technology.

Nobody is disputing GM’s investment. However, the film disputes claims about demand, basically saying the advertising campaign was botched and that GM discouraged anyone from leasing an EV1. GM is not making a very good case in my view for disputing this claim. And finally we have a hybrid version of an existing Saturn Vue SUV that GM says will get 27 city and 32 highway (read review). Wow, those are horrible numbers. GM’s advantage is the Vue’s pricetag being about $7,000 or so less than the nearest competition, the Ford Escape Hybrid. However, the Saturn is considered a “mild” hybrid as it uses a regular gasoline engine for acceleration from stop rather than electric motors as on more traditional hybrids. It is the use of the electric motors to accelerate that enable cars like the Toyota Prius to get their outstanding milage.

I have to wonder what if CARB hadn’t lessoned the requirements and the various manufacturers had met the 10% rule by 2003. Would 10%+ of us in present day 2006 be driving electric cars? If so, things would certainly have come to a halt after our recent power outages caused by storms. How sad would that be to not be able to leave your hot house because your electric car needs charging?

The big downside to full electrics over hybrids like the Prius is battery life. With hybrids it is thought the batteries will actually last the life of the car as they are never fully charged or drained. When it comes to disposal of the vehicle that is a good thing. With full electrics I have to wonder what the environmental impact would be with all those batteries being manufactured and then disposed of every 2-3 years.

Ultimately the most sustainable car will combine a number of technologies, we’ll have the flex-fuel (or biodiesel) plug-in hybrid. What’s that you say? Imagine a future generation hybrid that uses E85 for the internal combustion engine (or a biodiesel) but needs very little because you plugged the car into the grid allowing it to act as a full electric until the batteries are nearly dead. That, combined with a solar roof, will be the car of the future. It will not be hydrogen powered. For a list of manufacturers that make electric vehicles, including scooters, see the Electric Auto Association.

Simply replacing our existing vehicles with some new technology isn’t going to solve many other problems and it may in fact create others. Reducing auto trips and distances traveled must be part of a bigger picture.

– Steve

Preservation Board to Review Proposed Changes to Forest Park’s Government Hill

The St. Louis Preservation Board reviewed a radical proposal at their June 2006 meeting (see post). The board at the time deferred any recommendation to Forest Park Forever and instead asked them to reconsider the concept. And it worked.

Last week I heard about a special meeting of the Preservation Board being called to consider the revisions. On Saturday morning I ran into Board Chair Timothy Mulligan at Soulard Market and he wanted to make sure the public was aware of the meeting.

The prior concept can be seen in the June 2006 report and the latest design can be seen here.

It is hard to make out the new design from the images in the PDF agenda but the description from the staff is helpful. One key part is making the area ADA compliant without regrading the entire hillside:

The revised design incorporates accessibility features in a manner that blends these features into overall design of the space rather than designing the space around the accessibility features. The accessibility features are now made a part of the landscaping and have gentle slopes that do not require ramp treatment—an accessible route with a slope of less than 5% will be integrated into the design of the rooms. The accessible paths will not be visible from Government Drive because the revised plan no longer involves extensively regrading the hill.

The meeting starts at 4:30pm this afternoon at 1015 Washington, 12th floor.

– Steve

Gambaro Gets Ugly in State Senate Race

Derio Gambaro’s conservative campaign for Missouri’s 4th Senate District has gotten ugly with a mailing that allegedly calls into question the sexuality of opponent Jeff Smith. The piece asks voters if Smith has been “straight” with them on all the issues [paraphrasing, my quotes].

I’ve personally asked Jeff Smith about his sexual orientation and he happens to be one of those not so masculine straight men. As there a good many hyper-masculine gay men out there it makes sense some of the straight men aren’t quite so straight in appearance. How this is relevant to the State Senate race is what I am curious about.

Clearly Gambaro is looking to get undecided voters in his camp. Will this tactic work or backfire?

More to follow as I obtain a copy of the mailer…

Update 7/31/2006 @ 8am:

See Travis Reems’ commentary on a push poll being conducted:

Gambaro Caller:
Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate if you knew he was paying somebody to pretend to be his girlfriend to cover up the fact that he is gay?

The implication that someone is gay simply because they have a certain appearance, mannerisms or a higher voice is offensive. Gambaro is trying to fit Jeff Smith into a roll of a stereotype that by many accounts doesn’t fit. If he can produce a boyfriend then I’ll believe him.

In this day and age it is often the person you least expect to be gay (or bisexual) that actually is. Examples include several Republican Congressmen; Jim Kolbe from Arizona, and in the 1990s you had millionaire Michael Huffington and Steve Gunderson. In the last 20 years we’ve also seen numerous anti-gay religious leaders caught with their pants down. Let’s not forget leading men such as Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter and Montgomery Clift or former major league baseball player Billy Bean.

If you want to let the Gambaro camp know just what you think of this tactic you can call their campaign at 314-773-6008.

– Steve

Mr. Smith the Movie, A Must See!

Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore? offers so much for the moviegoer: interesting characters, great story, humor, and emotion. The creative team behind this documentary have managed to highlight the workings of a congressional campaign without focusing on the political issues. This documentary is about people.

The story involves two different families. One is the Carnahan family with a long political history in Missouri with Russ Carnahan seeking to fill the congressional seat held by Dick Gephardt for 28 years. The other family is that of Jeff Smith, a young guy seeking to challenge the political establishment and the Carnahan family name.

Director Frank Popper followed Jeff Smith during the latter part of his bid to become a U.S. Congressman in 2004. With this we get to see the colorful side of a campaign, usually hidden to all but the insiders. More importantly we get to see real people working hard to make a real difference.

As a former candidate, albeit in a exponentially smaller race, I could completely relate to the issues faced by Smith and his team: honing message, persuading voters, making calls, going door-to-door, raising money, coordinating volunteers, and seeking endorsements. Working closely on my March 2005 aldermanic campaign was the film’s co-producer Mike Kime and another of Jeff Smith’s opponents, Corey Mohn. During my race I was having talks with Jeff Smith while he was teaching at Dartmouth, late at night we’d be instant messaging back and forth and he’d be pushing me on how many calls I made or how many doors I knocked on.

One of the hardest things I had to accept in my race was coming from nowhere, making a good challenge and yet not winning. It is very emotional. In the film we see this emotion from the candidate, staff and volunteers. This is the human side to this multi-layered story that is so compelling. During the film you are taken along for the emotional ride — you feel anger, excitement and disappointment along with the characters.

The pace of the 82-minute film is excellent with never a dull moment. Those who aren’t into politics, or even documentaries, should give this film serious consideration. And while I happen to know many of the people in the film it will be compelling to those that have never even set foot in Missouri.

Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore? is showing now through Thursday August 3, 2006 at the Tivoli on Delmar in University City. Click here to buy tickets online.

For those in other states you can see too:

• Los Angeles; August 18-24; Nuart Theatre
• Washington D.C.;September 22-28; E Street Cinema
• Boston; November 3-9; Kendall Square Cinema

For a few photos from the premier click here.

– Steve

A Detailed Look at Aldermanic Campaign Finance Reports

Last week I started looking at the latest round of campaign finance reports from the city’s 28 aldermen. Today I got around to finishing up my review of their contents and what it all means. Before I get into each I want to explain some background info.

Quarterly reports are due to the Missouri Ethics commission on the 15th of the month following the quarter. For example, the current quarter from July 1 – September 30 (aka 3rd Quarter) is due on October 15th. Since October 15, 2006 falls on a Sunday the report can be received up until 5pm on Monday the 16th. However, the report is supposed to be postmarked “before” the deadline. Thus, a report mailed on October 16, 2006 is technically late. However, a report postmarked on October 14, 2006 is timely.

On July 15, 2006 reports from the 2nd quarter (April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006) were due by all elected officials, anyone out campaigning to become an elected official, “continuing committees” such as ward committees and political action committees. You might think I’m talking down to everyone by explaining the dates for the 2nd quarter but when you see the mistakes being made by these aldermanic committees then you’ll understand why I’m being as detailed as possible, even on some very common sense things.

The aldermen also seem to be very confused when it comes to reporting for elections. The theory behind “campaign finance” reporting is that if you are receiving and spending money you are campaigning not for the prior election but for the upcoming election. This is a very basic concept that seems to stump many. Also, even if you are not taking in or sending out any campaign funds you are still campaigning for the next election simply by virtue of having a campaign committee.

I called the Election Commission to get some clarification around reporting and what is allowed and what is not allowed. For all you aldermen out there, treasurers and future candidates consider this a basic course in reporting.

First, as indicated above, the report is always for an upcoming election. The exception is the “30 Days Following a General Election” report which covers the 12 days prior to the general election as well as the 25 days after the general election (it is due 30 days after the general, hence the name). Let me run through some examples to explain how these should work.

Here is a list of all 28 aldermen, in numerical order by ward, and notes on their reports:

1 – Charles Quincy Troupe

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006

2 – Dionne Flowers

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Also, quarterly report due April 15 not yet filed. Flowers is up for re-election in March 2007.

3 – Freeman M. Bosley, Sr.

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not received until 7/20/2006; Report was not signed by candidate. Indicates “N/A” next to election date but that should be 3/2009 for this cycle. Shows zero activity which is hard to believe due to the recall effort but maybe he didn’t find it necessary to raise money or spend money campaigning.

4 – O.L. Shelton

Only current alderman with no active campaign committee! No reports to file at all, perhaps O.L. is the smartest of the bunch? Shelton is up for re-election in March 2007.

5 – April Ford-Griffin

Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees.

6 – Lewis E. Reed

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Reed is up for re-election in March 2007.

7 – Phyllis Young

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Shows $600 raised this election (since April 2005); over $26K spent this election cycle; just under $25K on hand.

8 – Stephen Conway

Quarterly report received early on Friday 7/14/06. Shows no receipts for this election, spent $475 this election, under $4K on hand. Properly shows election date for this campaign as March 2007. Conway is an accountant by trade so naturally I’d expect his reports to be accurate. Conway is up for re-election in March 2007.

9 – Kenneth Ortmann

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. For this election cycle (4/2005 – 3/2009) shows -$15K+ raised, $17K+ spent; still has over $45k on-hand. That is some serious cash!

10 – Joseph Vollmer

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. Report shows committee paid $30 late fee to state, presumably for the prior quarter report that was filed late. Report shows committee received $441.23 in in-kind contributions from A-B Products during the quarter (date of contribution is not reported). This appears to be a violation as campaign limits for aldermen are $325 per election. Shows under just $14K raised, spent $2,400; on hand $13K . Vollmer is up for re-election in March 2007.

11 – Matt Villa

Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17 but shows the period as 4/12/06 through 7/11/06, rather than the accepted 2nd quarter of 4/1/06 through 6/30/2006. $7,169 on hand.

12 – Fred Heitert

A limited activity report was received early on 7/3/2006. In fact, all of his reports are “limited activity” going back to 2001! This means through the 2003 election he really had no activity in his campaign. I went through all the reports available online and all are limited activity so I haven’t a clue how much, if anything, he has is his campaign warchest. I’m guessing not much. Heitert has been on the Board of Aldermen since the late 1970s, being first elected in April 1979. As the lone [admitted] Republican he has the least seniority. Heitert is up for re-election in March (primary) and likely hasn’t run a campaign in decades, perhaps someone in the 12th should start getting their ducks in a row to challenge him.

13 – Alfred Wessels, Jr.

Report received early on 7/13/2006. However, date of election missing (should be 3/2009 in this case); show $14K on hand, little activity otherwise.

14 – Stephen Gregali

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. As of 2nd quarter ’03 reported in July 2003 had $12,500 on hand; limited reporting since. Gregali is up for re-election in March 2007.

15 – Jennifer Florida

First, I need to apologize to Ald. Florida for an error on my part from last week. I had mistakenly indicated she did not report a $25 contribution from Ald. Kirner. However, in re-reading Kirner’s report I see they were using a single line to indicate contributions they made to two different campaigns. The $25 contribution in this quarter was made to another committee, not Florida’s.

Ok, on with the look at the current report: The quarterly report due 7/17/2006 was received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. The report shows the correct upcoming election and has it correctly marked as a primary.

I had previously reported a discrepancy in Florida’s reports from 2004. I just reviewed all reports from 2004 forward to do a basic audit to confirm my earlier report. All are OK except for two, as previously indicated. In the July 2004 report for the 2nd quarter it indicates receipts of $9,670 of which $9,370 was monetary and $300 was in-kind. Here is what I wrote then and it remains unchanged:

I calculated $5,680 in itemized contributions for the three month period. Yet, on page 3 of the above report, it says $6,355 were received (Contributions and Loans Received, Line #8). This difference is $675.

The prior page, a “report summary”, shows total receipts for the period of $9,670. Again, the itemized detail only totals $5,680 by my calculations.

Their own report from the period indicates on one page that $6,355 was received while on the summary page $9,670 was received, both including $300 of in-kind contribution. The total difference between the detail provided and the highest number reported is $3,990. So does it exist? If so, who was it from? If not received, we need to see the “cash on hand” balance drop by this amount (less $300 in-kind) because cash was adjusted based on the highest number.

The next quarter, reported in October 2004, was as if that $9,670 never existed — the beginning balance for receipts was the same as the prior quarter. From this report through the 2005 election this actually make her total receipts look lower than they actually were. On the positive side the reports correctly switched to zero for receipts and contributions following the 2005 general election.

16 – Donna Baringer

Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. One of the few reports to get everything right including the next election date marked as a primary. As of 12/31/05: 18K+ raised; $4,800 spent; $14K on-hand. Baringer is up for re-election in March 2007.

17 – Joseph D. Roddy

Report received on 7/14/2006. The report correct lists next election as 2009 but incorrectly marks it as a general election rather than primary. Roddy was just re-elected in April 2005 yet his reports do not reflect the change from the previous election cycle (2001 – 2005) to the current election cycle (2005 – 2009). As a result his reports erroneously indicate just $36K raised and $65K spent on this election. I reviewed a few reports from the last year and confirmed he has not raised or spent this kind of money since the general election in April last year. The $11K on-hand is presumably correct.

18 – Terry Kennedy

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. The 1st Quarter report due April 15 was not received by the Missouri Ethics Commission until May 22, 2006 — over a month late! No report is shown for the 3rd quarter of 2004 which was due October 15, 2004. I had to go back to the 30 days after General Election report from 2003 to find something other than missing reports or limited activity reports. At that time the report show $500 was raised and $1,266 was spent (I assume for the 2003 race) with only $385 on-hand. Kennedy is up for re-election in March 2007.

19 – Michael McMillan

N/A, now running for License Collector. I will cover McMillan when I look at other city-wide offices.

20 – Craig Schmid

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. Incorrectly lists election as the prior election in 4/2003, not the upcoming election in 3/2007. I had to go back to March 2003 to see that Schmid’s committee had $4,700 on hand. Schmid is up for re-election in March 2007.

21 – Bennice Jones King

Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. In looking through prior reports to find how much cash the committee had on hand I found some interesting stuff. This is by far the most suspect of all the committees.

The 2nd quarter report submitted in July 2005 indicates a negative $722.94 cash on hand and $6,237.14. First, the way the reports are set up you cannot possibly have negative cash on hand — at worst you can have zero. Unless of course you wrote checks and your account is overdrawn. I’m not clear in this case. For sake of argument lets just say they are in debt to the tune of $6,960.08. Ouch. But, things look up throughout the next few reports! The next quarterly report in October 2005 is a “limited activity” report, as is the following in January 2006. But, magically in the 1st quarter report from April 2006 they have received donations totaling $650 which is what they show as their cash on hand. Debt? Zero! Can someone with Ms. Jones-King please explain to me how you get from nearly $7,000 in debt to having $650 in the positive with “limited activity” in between time? I need to know the secret because I’ve got this pesky mortgage debt I’d like to get rid of…

22 – Jeffrey Boyd

The only alderman to file reports electronically rather than manually, bonus points! However, they didn’t file the report until the morning of 7/19 — two days late. All is in order including the correct next election date. Report shows $27,920 raised this election cycle with only $599 spent so far. Cash on hand is $28,146.27. Boyd is up for re-election in March 2007.

23 – Kathleen Hanrahan

Report received on time on 7/17/2006. Report mistakenly lists date of election as April 5, 2005 rather than upcoming election. Report shows $3,915 raised (all in this quarter), $2,584 spent with $5,859 cash on-hand; and debt of $9,366. Maybe Hanrahan should have a conversation with Jones-King about how to erase that debt?

24 – William Waterhouse

Report received well in advance of the 7/17/2006 due date by arriving on 7/10/2006. However the report is missing some key information including next election date and the candidate’s signature. Shows $2,566 on-hand; zero raised. Looks like they used the editable PDF forms which allow you to type in them, much neater than most of the handwritten forms. Waterhouse is up for re-election in March 2007.

25 – Dorothy Kirner

The report was received early on 7/14/2006 and includes the correct next election date. However, the cash on hand section is left blank! The report also lists activity from July even though the quarter is April-June.

26 – Frank Williamson

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. It appears no report was filed at all for the first quarter. Report indicates the election date as “N/A”, the wrong answer. One contribution is listed in the amount of $650 but I can’t make out the name. The legal limit is $325. This may have been two people giving the maximum allowed but they should have written two checks, not combined onto one. Shows $7,300 received this quarter; $2,205 in expenses and ending cash on hand of $13,294. However, they also had $150 in contributions to other campaigns which they did not subtract from their cash on hand. Reporting period is random dates and not the exact quarter. Williamson is up for re-election in March 2007.

27 – Gregory Carter

Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Report is missing election date. Raised zero since last election (April 2005), spent $540 leaving $1,184 on hand.

28 – Lyda Krewson

Quarterly report received early on 7/14/2006. Shows correct upcoming primary election and unlike most, is neatly typed. To my surprise Krewson has raised a mere $250 this election cycle! In the same nearly four years spent nearly $12K plus another $6500 in contributions to other campaigns. Despite the lack of fundraising, Krewson’s committee still has $18,675 on-hand. Krewson is up for re-election in March 2007.

I looked at many reports and don’t know that I caught all the errors. A common mistake that I didn’t cite often enough was the reporting period. Rather than indicate say April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006 you’ll see things like April 9, 2006 – July 12, 2006. The fact some cannot grasp the dates for the quarter is scary considering they are running the city’s business.

The campaign reports are all public record but I didn’t link to each and every report simply due to lack of time. You are free to look up the same reports on your own time, click here for the Missouri Ethics search page.

– Steve