Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006) User Reviews

Let's suck some serious amps

[DennisLittrell · 9/10 · 6 December 2007]

Probably the most alarming thing about this story of how the electric car was literally destroyed is what it reveals about the power of corporations to control our lives. Film maker Chris Paine, himself an EV1 owner, makes it clear that it was big corporations, especially big oil, and most especially General Motors itself, that woke up one day and asked themselves the multi-billion dollar question: Is an economical and efficient electric vehicle really good for business? In the case of the oil companies, obviously not since such a vehicle would not be burning any gas or needing any motor oil. In the case of the car manufacturers themselves, especially GM, which actually spent some very serious bucks on developing the EV1, the answer came as a bit of a surprise. First of all, they asked themselves, in the long run are you going to make more money building small efficient vehicles or behemoths like the Hummer? It didn't take long for them to figure out that the profit margins would be higher with the bigger vehicles. And then they realized that with the EV1 they wouldn't be able to sell many of their combustion-engine parts like oil filters and such. Furthermore, the EV1 was built to comply with California law. Doing some more thinking, GM realized that it would never do to allow some state government to tell them what to manufacture. If things worked out in California, before you know it, the whole nation might very well go plug-in.

So, as shown so vividly in this documentary, the car manufactures and the oil companies bought up or scared enough politicians so that the law requiring zero emissions in California went the way of the dodo. Meanwhile GM, which had been leasing the EV1, recalled them all and literally destroyed them. Paine has some nice footage showing the brand new and near brand new cars being crushed while EV1 lovers protested in vain. Nationally of course we know about the bills congress passed allowing truck-sized vehicles to continue to guzzle gas (mostly SUVs) and how 6,000-pound vehicles were given massive tax breaks for small business owners (mostly anybody but a wage earner).

There is of course plenty of controversy about whether the story presented by Paine (narration by Martin Sheen, by the way) is fair and accurate. I did a little research--there is a ton of information on the Web--and what became obvious after not too long was that the electric car not only is a viable alternative to the combustion engine car but really is the wave of the future whether General Motors and the other car manufacturers know it or not. For now, however, they are not about to change their ways. They have too much of a vested interest in business as it is.

The hydrogen fuel cell red herring is addressed, and, with help from Joseph J. Romm, who wrote The Hype about Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate (2004), which I highly recommend, got fed to the dogs. Naturally there is a clip of George W. Bush pretending to support the hydrogen fuel cell car, even though I am sure he knows that economically it's not even close to a match for the electric car. Getting the Great Prevaricator to advance the propaganda put out by the oil and vehicle companies surely is something close to proof positive that it's BS.

Especially watchable is the clip from Huell Howser's PBS show in which we get to see the EV1s not only being crushed but pulverized into little bits for recycling.

So, what's it all about, Alfie? It's just as Eisenhower warned: beware not just of the industrial-military complex taking over our lives, but beware of corporations in general buying up all the politicians and writing all the laws. In fact, with the way the mass electorate is influenced by advertising, only politicians pre-approved through campaign donations from big corporations have a chance of even getting the nomination of either of the two main political parties. And without that nomination, effectively speaking, they can't win.

Regardless of all the machinations by GM, et al., I think our grandchildren will be driving mostly electric vehicles with nary a gas station in sight. And they will be inundated with "green" ads in the media with lots of flowers and little girls paid for by General Motors and Toyota, telling us how they are responsible for the shiny, new clean world.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Interesting look at a hidden topic

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 9/10 · 12 February 2007]

A look into the anticipated introduction of electric cars in the mid '90s to their mysterious recall a few years later. The documentary talks to former electric car owners, government personnel and others while examining the automobile industry and the laws that around it. All trying to draw a conclusion about why this clean, efficient, sleek yet affordable vehicle was pushed from the market in the midst of global warming and rising gasoline prices.

The film presents an interesting and largely hidden topic. Giving a brief history of the electric car, which interestingly used to be more popular than gasoline based cars (!!!!), it will leave most viewers scratching their head and wanting to know more. The resulting investigation is surprisingly large in scope and encompasses many things from the highest echelons of government right down to average Joe. All in a brisk 91 minutes.

However, the film is not just interesting, it addresses many concerns that have been rising faster and faster for a while now, which makes it also an important documentary. --- 9/10

Rated PG: "brief mild language." That's funny, Jaws, with all of it's terror, gore and death is rated PG too.

Amazing. >.>

[morgancrockett · 9/10 · 12 June 2007]

This movie was amazingly done. Some people may find that the movie didn't go into enough details. As in when they said that the electric car went fast they dint say how fast, but if you watch the movie closely enough you will realise that they did answer that pretty well. They answered how fast it was by showing the electric car racing against other cars and it beat the other ones quite significantly.

It was really amazing how they didn't just choose one person to be at fault for getting rid of the electric car. They put everyone that could have had anything to do with getting rid of the car on trial and said which ones were at fault and went deeper into it.

Overall this movie was not a movie for some that doesn't care or believe in Global warming, or for people that are not very...intellectual. Its a movie for listening not watching.

Thank you for the public death notice.

[view_and_review · 10/10 · 25 June 2007]

I don't have many documentaries to my credit as far as how many I've watched, but I thought this was great. Part of its appeal was its bringing to light an issue that was either completely unknown to most Americans, or otherwise forgotten. If you consider the parameters surrounding the short lived electric car, then it is easy to see how many of us wouldn't even have known there was a killer of the electric car. Consider that there were few made by GM, Ford, and Honda. Consider that they were only released in California and Arizona. Consider that in those markets not many were sold. And finally, consider that none of the car companies spent much money or effort into advertising these vehicles, then you can see how so many of us were largely ignorant of the plight of the electric car.

This documentary was very informative and fact driven which I appreciate. Sure, politics played some role in it all, but when doesn't politics play a role in major issues? This documentary really be-smudged GM, but since I'm not a GM enthusiast, it didn't bother me one bit. I'd even go so far as to say that this documentary was the only thing that actually made me feel guilty about owning a Hummer. SUV's are my only environmental vice. I recycle, I don't litter, I try to stay away from aerosols, and I generally do what I can... except when it comes to SUV's.

It was interesting to see the active annihilation of the electric car. One can only wonder what the advances in electric vehicles would be if they were to have remain in production. Everyone knows how resourceful and inventive humans can be. Given the right incentive (money), there would probably have been about a dozen upgrades to the electric car and the infrastructure from '96 til now. And to think my home state of California had the chance to be the thorn in the side of the auto industry to effect change but then blinked, only goes to show just how mighty the oil and auto industries are. But I still believe that the electric car will make a second coming. Because if the environment is not enough of an incentive for people to make a change, gas prices certainly will be.

Thorough and interesting review of an important, hidden issue!

[veganskater · 10/10 · 7 June 2006]

I think this movie is wonderful. Can't understand the low rating on this site so far--I really wouldn't be surprised if those individuals and industries who stand to lose profits from the revelations of the movie, have voted negatively to artificially reduce its average rating on this well-known site. I mean, jeez, the movie hasn't even debuted yet (I saw an advanced screening)! And already it's only at a four-something? C'mon! Since I leased and drove an EV daily for three years(until it was rear-ended), I feel I'm in a good position to realistically evaluate the movie. Let's face it, it's a story that needs to be told. These issues impact everyone, since everyone is affected by air quality, unstable foreign politics, gas prices, transportation, and (lack of) consumer choice. EV technology is here, now. Unlike the fuel cell, which is perpetually 10 years in the future. Why was it taken away from the consumers who wanted it? Why does our society not promote the mentality that multiple solutions (EVs, fuel cells, hybrids, bicycles, mass transit, increased fuel economy, etc. etc.) all need to be employed to attack our problems with pollution and dependence on foreign oil? Why are there all these myths that the electric car is undesirable and not viable? Consumers and policy makers need to know this story.

As a driver who lived and followed the story, I think the movie does a bang-up job of revealing it. The movie begins with a historical look at the development of the electric car, what factors discouraged it back then, what brought it back to life in the 1990's, its amazing features, and why it is no longer available to consumers as a production vehicle. (conversion kits only, folks!) The movie is filled with history, politics, technology, innovation, and some very interesting personalities. It's woven together well and is smooth and fascinating. Even though it's a documentary, it will not put you to sleep! Go on--go see it. Even if you don't agree with it, you won't regret it. We all have a responsibility to be more active with these issues, and in the meantime it's a fascinating story.

I gave this movie a 10 for thought.

[bruce-129 · 16 July 2006]

I really enjoyed "Who Killed The Electric Car". I was a bit skeptical when I went in to see it because my belief is that it is hard to beat the gasoline economy in this era of oil. It is cheap (relatively) transportable, easy to design and use, and well understood.

When I saw what the political madhouse was behind how business and government works and how people's votes are more concerned with what their next job is going to be or how much money they are being paid than what is best for the country ... this was the meaning of this movie for me.

What many people have claimed was a ignorant and groundless and even dangerous move that California took politically in raising the mileage standards in our state, and lowering emission standards turned out to be a brilliant leadership move in the nation.

Too bad that as soon as something like that happens the war begins by the people who want to maintain the status quo. Capitalism that our country is based on does not quite work how we explain and point to and cheer about.

One of the things this movie points out is the split that GM made with the Electric car right as it started producing the Hummer, and got the government to subsidize these dinosaurs.

One the one hand we are fighting a war to stabilize our oil supply and if you add that into the price of oil gasoline cars suddenly do not seem so inexpensive, especially in terms of today's reality.

This movie shows the vertex of many problems and opportunities we have in America to fix problems and take a leadership role in the future ... and we are not so great at doing that.

There were so many dedicated electric car users, loyal and who wanted to pay for their cars when GM said there was no demand ... and GM just ground the cars up into metal flake for spite. And as GM is strutting about beating down CARB and California, it is losing money man market share to the Toyota Prius ... even as the government gives a $4000 tax break to Prius owners and a $100,000 tax break to Hummer owners.

Whether electric cars are a panacea for everything wrong with the country or not is not the question, the question is that big corporations are making bad decisions for questionable motives that hurt everyone except their stockholders, and ultimately even them, because our politically corrupt way of doing things in this country is dragging us down.

The one criticism I have of this movie is that it is biased, of course. I would have liked to have heard the real story from the owners who did not like the electric car and more from GM about what their real criteria for some of their decisions were.

With new updated batteries a GM EV1 could be getting about a 300 mile range and a "stated" equivalent gas economy of $0.60 cents per gallon. I would like to know how they arrived at that number seriously.

America and the western world must be aware of what has been the downfall of other cultures and take special care to avoid them. It seems to me that one of the downfalls of Moslems was that they developed a arrogance, and after their brilliant invention of zero and algebra went backwards into the sickening mess they are in today .. the pattern I see is American industry doing the same thing and American government enabling it in a sickening dance of codependent pathology.

See this movie, it is an important one.

Good Documentary -Can Anyone Say "Tucker"?

[alfiefamily · 7/10 · 1 July 2007]

Anyone who has seen this movie ought to instantly think of the Francis Ford Coppola movie "Tucker:The Man and His Dream". It is another example of a wonderful automotive idea that is crushed and killed by those forces who have the most to lose.

The difference with this film, is that while it examines and accuses many people and groups for the failure of this great idea, it does not come down hard on any one group. The people that are to blame range from the obvious: Automobile companies, Energy/Fuel companies, the government, to local politicians and the ever frequent selfish thinking of the American public.

Chris Paine tells an interesting story that couldn't be more timely. The rise and fall of the electric car in the California market. How these people that control our government (read: lobbyists), and our markets get away with some of the stuff that they do is beyond me. It is quite disheartening, to say the least.

7 out of 10

See it and believe it

[lise-36 · 10/10 · 2 June 2006]

Director Chris Paine is no dummy. As a onetime owner of an electric car (the EV1) and a savvy filmmaker, he has quadruple checked his facts—and they are alarming. Although the electric car obviously depends upon coal or oil for its power, electricity is far cleaner than gasoline in the long run with less carbon output. Additionally, the batteries are recyclable, and electric cars make fewer demands in other environmental ways: There are no oil changes, oil filters, spark plugs and other parts and services that conventional autos require. Each of these parts carries its own environmental cost.

See this film. It has nothing to do with the current price of gas and everything to do with corruption on many levels.

Documentary about public policy that caused the demise of the electric car; well done though bit repetitive

[Dilip · 7/10 · 20 September 2006]

In millions of barrels per day, total U.S. oil imports (crude and refined) in 1977: 8.8. In 2005: 13.5 . Maximum federal tax credit for electric vehicle (2002): $4000. For vehicles weighing 6000 pounds and greater (2003): $100,000.

I remember living through the oil crisis in the 1970s and having lines for rationed gas. President Carter in 1979 put measures in place to gradually improve fuel efficiency of vehicles, vowing to set the country on a course to reduce oil imports. Unfortunately, some later politicians seemed to forget that crisis and nullified many of the conservation measures, even removing solar panels that had been installed on the White House.

Jumping forward to 1990, California adopted a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, requiring auto makers to sell 10% of its cars having no emissions from fueling or operation. Cars could be recharged at home or at public recharging stations. In 1996, the mandate was made more flexible in the face of auto industry pressure and in 2003 California further weakened it, no longer requiring car manufacturers to produce any ZEVs.

General Motors (GM), which had developed the EV1 electric car for lease but not sale, almost immediately discontinued and recalled the leased vehicles. Contrary to company claims of recycling the car parts, GM was found trucking the clean functioning cars to Arizona and crushing them. Owners who have loved the experience and low cost of driving their cars protested and even Gandhian non-violent vigils and actions, as well as offers to buy the cars, are unable to stop the destruction.

Why such a history especially with rising gas prices and the backdrop of conflicts at least partially over access to oil? The documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" attempts to give insight.

A variety of "suspects" are examined. Are car companies guilty? The filmmakers think so and imply that they only half-heartedly worked to develop and market the cars. The EV1 had no internal combustion engine, oil, filters, or spark plugs, and a brake system requiring minimal repair. That was good news for the people fortunate enough to have been able to lease the cars, but provided very little after-market profit. How about oil companies? Their lobbies strongly opposed the adoption of electric cars which, after all, would reduce their sales. Batteries? Surprisingly not guilty; GM purchased a majority interest in nickel-metal hydride battery technology but chose to deliver an under-performing product that provided half the driving range.

How about the U.S. government? Guilty as well, according to the film. Not only were earlier conservation measures stripped of their power, but in 2002 the current administration joined automakers and car dealers in a lawsuit against California's ZEV mandate. Instead of encouraging a proved and existing technology, it helped sign its death certificate and instead is gambling on hydrogen fuel cell technology. The film includes an interview with Joseph J. Romm, author of The Hype about Hydrogen, to make the point that hydrogen may be a long-term solution, but many impediments, including price (a vehicle currently costs $1 million and the fuel is very expensive and from non-renewable sources), creation of fueling infrastructure, and range (normal sized cars currently can't carry enough hydrogen to provide sufficient range) make it unlikely to be a solution for decades to come.

The Clinton administration as well did little to increase corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards If anything, the filmmakers imply, government has stifled cleaner electric technology; there were more electric cars on the road 100 years ago than gas cars.

The film features interviews with people such as Chelsea Sexton, who was an EV1 sales specialist married to an EV1 technician; consumer advocate Ralph Nader; S. David Freeman, former energy adviser to President Carter; R. James Woolsey, ex-CIA director; Phyllis Diller, a comedian who remembers early electric cars before 1920; and Iris and Stanford Ovshinsky, whose battery technology powered the EV1 and is used in many current hybrid vehicles. I found that the human interest was a welcome respite to a film that at times was too focused on pressing its case against the demise of the electric car.

Anybody interested in efficient and renewable energy, as well as public policy, should see this film. "Who Killed the Electric Car?" informs well, though I wish it presented a little more history of the electric car. Documentaries can and should be interesting and not just educational; by and large this is, though at times it is a little repetitive. That said, overall the film is thought-provoking, and the frustrating story of the electric car's demise ends with some optimism for the future.

--Dilip Barman, Durham, NC (seen in August 2006)

You MUST see this Film

[joeytino · 10/10 · 11 June 2006]

This film WILL frustrate you greatly. It's that simple. All of this talk about cars of the future with hydrogen fuel cells in 15 or 20 years from now is ridiculous. The car of the future was here, and they killed it. I won't say the first cars were perfect, but remember that NASA blew up a lot of rockets before getting it right, same with electric cars. The first ones could only do approx 80-100 miles on a charge. Most of us only commute that far to work, and these cars would have served us perfectly. Without one drop of gas. Battery technology has improved tremendously since then, and even while the EV was in production there were improvements. Mr. Paine presents a surprisingly balanced film that time and again exhibits mans' greed, stupidity, shortsightedness and another excellent example of American corporate stupidity. I firmly believe that General Motors would not be in the financial hole it is currently in if it continued exploring the electric car program. You have to start somewhere and GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda were the trailblazers and they all did it. Electric cars were built that not only worked, but worked well, and only would get better as battery technology improved. They did it because the State of California forced them to. The automakers pushed back and California blinked. It's no wonder that shortly thereafter all of the electric car programs were killed and the quiet destruction of most of the cars began. Some survived and are still in use. (An electric Toyota RAV4 sold on eBay in April 2006 for $60,000.) This film is successful not because of a political leaning one way or the other, but because of the flagrant lack of common sense on display by most parties, and on that level it's extremely frustrating because we have the technology to start reducing our dependence on oil now.

Effective, Informative and Sometimes Glib Documentary Structured Like a Murder Mystery

[EUyeshima · 7/10 · 24 January 2007]

Dovetailing nicely with Al Gore's cautionary "An Inconvenient Truth", this is another solid documentary, this one playing out a bit like a detective story. Writer/director Chris Paine focuses on the birth and mysterious death of General Motors' pollution-free EV1 battery-electric car. What spurred its 1996 introduction was the 1990 Zero Emissions Vehicle Act (ZEV), which mandated that ten-percent of all new vehicles sold by 2003 must be completely emissions-free. The bulk of the 2006 film deals with GM's ambivalence and subsequent loss of interest in making the EV1 and concurrently, how the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state's "clean air" agency, reversed their position on the ZEV legislation after receiving pressure from the major auto manufacturers, the oil industry and the Bush administration. Once the mandate was lifted, GM and its competitors like Ford wasted little time in recalling the electric cars on the market, all leased since outright ownership was not an option.

Paine paces the film well and regales in showing us the conspiratorial elements of the electric car's demise, wherein figure heads such as CARB chairman Alan Lloyd and GM's Dave Barthmuss come across as terse and self-protective. There are also extensive interviews with the engineers and technicians behind the car's invention, the most passionate spokesperson being Chelsea Sexton, who led the initial marketing effort for the EV1 and subsequently became a Norma Rae-like figure in the cause. Where the film gets a bit too glib is in the inclusion of a number of green-friendly celebrities who supported the cause, some even getting arrested for their participation in a Mexican stand-off with GM on the pending demolition of the last 78 EV1's.

Like a good Agatha Christie mystery, Paine itemizes the suspected murderers- consumers who were ambivalent and resistant about the new technology, the oil and car companies, the government, the CARB - and all are deemed guilty except the batteries themselves. The film also includes strong criticism leveled against hydrogen as a possible alternative energy source, epitomized by an amusing clip of Bush being shown how to fill up a hydrogen-fueled vehicle, but there is also a guarded note of optimism with the plug-in hybrid, seen as a more viable path of development. As one of the most valuable extras in the DVD, there is a fifteen-minute short, "Jump-Starting the Future", which goes deeper into these alternatives. Also on the DVD are fifteen minutes of deleted scenes, all understandably excised, and a rather disposable music video by the band Meeky Rose, who performed the main theme for the film.

"I can't believe I cried over a car"

[maguffinator · 10/10 · 2 May 2006]

I just saw this at the festival. Wow. What an awesome film (and soundtrack)!! This isn't just a film about a car, it's film about us, but more than that, it's an uplifting film about us. Most documentaries make me want to jump off a bridge after I leave the theater, but this one gave me hope. In the pre-hybrid days, the EV1 fully electric car was released by GM in the 1990s with great fanfare and hubris from Roger Smith (yes, the same Roger Smith as "Roger & Me".) It caught on quickly with consumers and gave GM a 3 year technological head start over the other manufactures. GM, however, had inadvertently built a car that required no gas, no oil, and no replacement parts. If they'd stayed the course, GM would be where Toyota is today with the Prius, but with no gas required. But they, and a host of others, chose a different course. This films chronicles the struggle of the dedicated EV drivers (men and women, everyday folks) who decided to take a stand. A stand against who? A stand against auto manufacturers, big oil, the federal government, the state of California, and ultimately their fellow consumers. If one person can make a difference, wait until you see what a growing coalition of one-persons can do (and are doing)! Be afraid, Goliath, be very afraid. As one girl in the audience put it, "I can't believe I cried over a car...twice."

Not an electrified movie, but a very substantial and timely one

[oneloveall · 7/10 · 16 November 2006]

Lamenting, analyzing, then symbolizing a death of the little seen car wonder underlines many subtle and more overt tragedies that befell us simpletons in so many departments when it came to the short lived, controversial life of the electric car. As in any admirable expose documentary, the bittersweet tone of objectified ignorance swells near the end where Chris Paine convincingly details the multiple avenues of injustice dealt to the painfully short lived prototype environment friendly vehicle. Unfortunately, this pretty potent piece will likely remain most gripping where it's short fueled controversy took place, California. It was there, the ex-electric drivers explained, the notorious trial run for this beautiful piece of machinery played out it's subverted bureaucracy, and turns out it is quite a juicy little piece of automotive industry history, though played out in a small pocket of the country. What helps keep the crisp pace, aside from the well rounded criticism afforded to any and all parties involved with this botched fiasco, is the gentle insinuation into our relentless and inherent need to be stupid creatures of habit at the planets continuing expense. Without hitting viewers over the head with grandstanding elitism, Who Killed the Electric Car also shows us who killed our need to care.

Hybrid vehicles or electric cars?

[ccc41290 · 5/10 · 14 June 2006]

An electric motor, added to gasoline cars, is much better: 1. You could still drive electric, if a charger is build into the hybrid vehicles. 2. The gasoline engine, are more fuel economical, when added an electric motor. Even used on gasoline, only. 3. The electric motor, improves power of engine, and makes the car better to accelerate.

If you charge the car each day, then the first kilometers, are free of gasoline. And up to about 25km are easy to reach with normal batteries - more, as technology improves and gets cheaper. Most people could use it, without using much gasoline, if they remember to charge each day - but even, if they forgot to charge it, they run on gasoline.

It is more reliable, since it have two engines, and if one is dead, the other, could drive it for some distance.

Hydbrid cars, are going to be very popular, and they are going to be as cheap as normal gasoline cars in few years. I will not say, the electric car is killed. But it is now a hybrid vehicle. You may need to pay extra, for the electric charger. But, compared to the gasoline, it seem very cheap. Next year, more hybrids comes up, with a cost, lower than you do expect.

If we compare an electric car, with hybrid cars, the electric only have one advance. But hybrid cars, have all advances. Also, the batteries could be much smaller, and only chosen to the normal use. The car, is more reliable because of two motors. It could use gasoline, and drive longer. And if using gasoline, and electric, at same time, you get higher acceleration, and ability to reach higher speed, in short time. The gasoline motor, could be smaller, batteries could be smaller, total cost, lower.

Warning : Watching this may lead you to buy an electric car.

[mandeep2632 · 10/10 · 28 January 2007]

Highly recommended to anyone and everyone. I have given a 10/10 rating to this documentary because to me the whole electric car concept looks quite feasible and in fact more reliable than the gasoline cars. Some people may say that the documentary is biased in favor of the electric car but what about the biasing that has been done by Unlce Sam, Oil Companies, CARB and a whole lot of agencies we don't even know that were involved towards saving the gasoline cars. And I would also like to tell that I am not an environmentalist, not a member of any save the electric car group. All I want to say is that watch this documentary and you be the judge in the end.

A very good documentary that put its biases up front

[salorkent · 8/10 · 15 June 2007]

I'm neither a liberal or a conservative (yes, there are other options!)and while I expected to read the usual 'party lines' concerning the politics of this movie ... I was AMAZED at how many people missed the point of the movie. This wasn't, at its heart, a movie about the politics of energy. Rather, it was a human story about people who found, and even fell in love, with a preferred form of transportation, only to have it taken away from them against their will. ***CAUTION --- POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*** I don't think what I'm about to say will spoil the movie experience, but I decided to play it safe. The most amazing part of the story, to me, concerns the quiet battle between General Motors and the EV1 lessees who wanted desperately to keep their vehicles. Why did GM take such a hard core approach? It seemed to me a more conciliatory approach would have done the embattled auto-maker a world of good. To me, that was the question that drove the story. Yes, most of the people who apparently leased one of GM's electric cars were celebrities and/or people of some measure of wealth. So what? Anyone who likes electronic gadgetry has heard the expression "early adopter," referring to those with money who purchase state-of-the-art equipment at high prices, thereby fueling the development and investment that pushes products to consumer-level pricing. GM's inability to realize this is what makes the whole story fascinating. I encourage anyone who would, to watch the movie closely, and see If this doesn't ring true. Now, having said my piece about the movie, let me throw some comments about energy policy into the fray. 1) We absolutely, positively need gas to reach a price of $5 a gallon or more. Why? Supply and demand. Only when it HURTS to drive a gas guzzler, will most of us finally get off that doomed bandwagon. 2) We had a solution to coal produced electricity in our laps twenty years ago, and a piece of Hollywood drivel ("The China Syndrome")turned us into weenies. Yes, folks, I mean nuclear power. It CAN and IS producing power safely, and environmentally soundly. Just not here in the U.S., by and large. Finally, 3) Supporting the development of electric-only cars is a viable choice. With the improvements being made in solar panel technology, I suspect a working battery-solar hybrid may be a very real option in the NEAR future. If we avoid the stupidity this movie helps us to understand.

EV1 PASSED the Federal Safety Tests

[seldon-7 · 10 May 2006]

A prior comment is dead wrong in attempting to explain GM's crushing of the EV1. The EV1 never failed to pass Federal safety tests. (see below) I had an EV1 for 5 years! I lived the movie! Don't believe the anti-EV hype.

From: http://www.autonews.com

>> NHTSA GIVES EV1 3 STARS IN CRASH TEST

WASHINGTON - Federal safety officials for the first time have crash-tested an electric car, General Motors' EV1, and found that it performed satisfactorily...The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave the EV1 three stars out of a possible five for both driver and passenger. But NHTSA officials, commenting beyond the rating announcement, said the EV1 also met industry guidelines for isolating electrical equipment and limiting spillage of electrolyte, or battery acid....

document this

[PIST-OFF · 7/10 · 30 August 2006]

the term documentary has been hijacked. what national geographic does is documentary, sitting back letting the camera roll, taking as little active part in the goings on being filmed as possible. this modern Micheal Moore influenced brand of documentary film-making complete with political view and all should be called what it is: propaganda. Of course this would require us to back off the notion that all propaganda is bad and we'd lose an easy little way in which to make easy assumptions. But if one can get over one's fear of propaganda we might be able to view any propaganda and measure it of it's own worth.

Here we have a wonderful little bit of it. A piece about the electric car and it's demise. The propaganda is effective, though at times truly lame, such as the "funeral and eulogy" part of the movie early on. Stuff like that should not have gotten past the concept phase before someone realized that actually filming it would look lame, and give away the movie's political bent. Other than that as a piece of propaganda, it worked. Leaving the theater i was all charged up to do nothing about anything. Chalk it up to one more disappointment courtesy of the short sighted federal government, which granted little political muscle or capital to what from a geopolitical angle would constitute a bold movie. General motors can't escape blame for this either having possibly not anticipated how much production costs would have dropped when adjusted for mass production. Also their handling of the situation is about as bumbling as one can imagine.

A few points of contention however. 1) blaming consumers for not buying a vehicle based on it's social good smacks of elitism. 2) no mention of the fact that recharging the battery took 13 hours! who has time for that? 3) for all of it's drawbacks how can a person who can afford only one vehicle (usually used) be expected to pay full price for a vehicle with numerous operating limitations. i may not live in California an be able to bounce around in a fancy new vehicle, but i certainly don't have the time to wait for charging between work shifts, and even when i limit my driving down to bare essentials i still have days when i put more than 200 miles on my car. as a secondary car the EV1 would be great. as a primary car it has flaws. not everyone can afford a second car for tootling. this by it's very nature limits the market. since the movie only barely covers this territory it loses a chance to explore it's topic free of political slant. this is a shame because i'm convinced after seeing this movie that an electric car could in time be the best solution to the current problem of oil dependence. and you can't hate a movie that features part of Naked Gun 2 1/2.

the movie is good, but not great.

7 out of 10

Great movie everyone should see it

[ecc23 · 9/10 · 3 May 2006]

This movie really highlights problems with American business. It seems that even after killing the electric car, there is actually a concerted effort afoot to kill the electric car movie. I can see that someone might not give it a 10 but a 2? Come on, its a great movie. Someone appears to be lowballing the vote. How anyone can build a love story and turn it into a tragedy -- about a car is amazing but unfortunately believable. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I guess here it is just a strongly for or strongly against issue so it really isn't a conspiracy. However, I see the misinformation brigade that the movie caught in its own lies is at it even here at IMDb. Can you imagine a car company recalling all its cars, crushing them and killing the entire line just because a safety standard changed? Come on, whoever wrote that, please tell us what wavers were made? That explanation just doesn't make sense. A little more engineering and any problems (if there are any) can be solved. I highly recommend that anyone who drives, breathes, or hates to buy gas should see this movie.

You know who killed the electric car. (But still see it.)

[airish-3 · 7/10 · 16 July 2008]

I just watched Who Killed the Electric Car? Although the film didn't grab my attention a couple years back when it was in theaters, the growing oil crisis we're mired in brought me to watch it. The movie is the straight informational documentary I expected, but the story is unsettling and relevant.

From 1996 to 1999, General Motors marketed an electric car, the EV1. You've never heard of this car? That's no mistake. Although the EV1 was much sought after and completely practical, GM not only stopped production, but seized and destroyed all EV1s besides a token few.

Why?

You know why. And who did it, too.

The results were effective. In a country where millions of Americans are struggling with ever- rising gas prices, and our president and politicians announce "America's addiction to oil" and the need for "energy independence," the lost electric car is entirely absent from popular debate. Drilling is the favored panacea of the day.

If in fact America's oil-ailment is classified as an "addiction," as diagnosed by Dr. Bush himself, why is our physician prescribing more oil as the solution? It's a rare moment of frankness for the Bush administration, actually. America is the junkie and Bush is the dealer. What doctor would prescribe even more heroin for the addict? Of course, Bush is not a doctor--Dr. is an abbreviation for "Decider." And the Bush administration's energy policy decisions have been made for Chevron (Condoleeza was a board member) and GM (Chief of Staff Andrew Card, VP GM) rather than the American people.

The EV1 offered a solution towards reducing GHG and achieving oil independence. What's more disturbing are the possible other solutions the United States of Corporate America has taken to the junkyard and shredded like the doomed electric car.

See the movie and be furious.

In response to "Likely Explanations.....

[joe5472 · 8/10 · 30 April 2006]

As a former engineer with both GM and Ford, I have to thoroughly refute what a previous commenter has stated about likely explanations. With the technology of the powertrain/fuel source development that far along, that far advanced within a viable vehicle, crash-safety and equipment regulations would not have removed this from the marketplace. The "skin" and tub/framework of the vehicle would have been either reworked to comply or the powertrain/fuel source would have been adapted to fit existing car lines that meet crash-safety and equipment regulations. There are plenty of examples of "hurry up" retro-fits in Detroit/Dearborn's history. Unfortunately there is much documented history of technology being quashed, patents being bought and buried, innovations left by the wayside to discourage change, discourage having to retool, reinvent, reinvest...and if you don't think that auto/oil/gov are all complicit in this, how naive can one be? GM and the railroads, the Tucker, fuel injection, Wankel engine, anti-lock brakes...all quashed by powerful companies and people not wanting change no matter what the benefit would be in safety, society, or the environment.

Thought provoking but a bit biased. View it w/both an open mind and skepticism.

[phryguy · 7/10 · 27 May 2007]

The movie turned out to be pretty decent and informative. However, it was somewhat lacking on details and a bit biased. I wouldn't call myself a tree hugger but one of my cars is a Prius.

It was neat to see the protest and watch that EV enthusiasts kept on the 70 Saturn EV1s in a Burbank lot. I'd only read about it online before.

I'd watch the movie w/both and open mind and a bit of skepticism. Even before I'd seen the movie, I'd read that GM was pretty half-hearted in their support of the vehicle. I didn't realize until seeing it that they were so apathetic about it. The movie does also make you wonder about how much big oil had to do w/the death of the electric car.

I'm just blown away about people's commentary and misinformation about hybrids and EVs in general and in the comments here. The comment on 12 July 2006 is so full of inaccuracies it's laughable. He says that Toyota claims the Prius gets 60/70 mpg. They never have. It was EPA rated 60/51 (for 2004-2007 model years) per EPA test procedures and schedule (http://tinyurl.com/eetqt and http://tinyurl.com/2nw57t) and it's the only amount they can legally claim. It is the most efficient car that runs on petroleum today per http://tinyurl.com/2mhozf.

He claims the English hate it yet, somehow it tied for the MOST satisfying car in the UK per www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2007069.

I average ~45.6 mpg in my Prius and there are plenty of folks who get in the high 40s to low 50s.

For those that have skepticism about pollution due to electric cars, they should compare 2003 Toyota RAV4 EV to a 2007 Prius at http://tinyurl.com/cxa7v.

Fascinating and Important Film

[emm1010 · 10/10 · 4 June 2006]

I saw the film yesterday in a special screening in LA and I found it to be not only engrossing but deeply moving.

When I was in fourth grade (1974) I remember my teacher telling me that one day we would all be driving electric cars that wouldn't pollute the environment. I had long forgotten about that until I went to see "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The film isn't just about the death of the EV-1 it's about the death of an idea and about the future of this planet. For the last 100 years we have depended on fossil fuels for our energy. Scientists have warned us of the catastrophic effects of global warming for years and now we are experiencing them. (If you don't believe me see an "Inconvient Truth," the Al Gore movie.) The EV-1 was a viable alternative to the gasoline driven car and was a technological marvel. More importantly, it showed that new technology could be used to solve the problems created by outdated technology. Unfortunately EV-1 and other electric vehicles like it were and are a threat to the powers that be.

Even though the EV-1 was killed the idea of the electric car hasn't been. I encourage you to see the film and have your friends see it. This film, if seen by enough people could truly be a catalyst for change.

Let us hope that when our children's teachers tell them about the electric car and what it promises, that when they grow up they really will be driving them.

I gave it a 10. Go see it!

Electric cars are better for the environment

[denisdennehy · 7/10 · 8 November 2006]

There have been some uneducated comments about electric cars here which I would just like to quickly address.

Electric cars are far better for the environment then petrol cars for three main reasons: 1. Oil is a non-renewable resource of our planet. Once it is gone - that is it - we will have no more.

2. Electric cars reduce localised polution - the kind that is turning all our children into astmatics.

3. When we are using power stations instead of Petrol to drive our cars government policy can control how we produce that energy. I.e. more environmentaly friendly sources such as wave/wind/solor power or even 'green coal' can be used instead.

Bald Lies and Half Truths

[brianbush · 1/10 · 27 May 2006]

You are being taken folks. The only rational explanation I can see for this movie is exploitation of people's passions over gas prices. The EV1 was a large car with modest actual cargo capacity; it's range was poor, and the electric technology did not eliminate fossil fuel consumption at all—it merely offload the burn from the internal combustion engine to the power plant. Yes folks, most of our electricity comes from coal or oil, and most of our power distribution systems are terribly inefficient, so there's little chance that electric cars would even match carbon output of gasoline cars, much less reduce it. As an added bonus the heavy (and toxic) lead acid batteries meant that more power was required to propel the same amount of people/cargo as a IC auto.

Electric vehicles were never a viable nor desirable alternative; and without nationwide clean, efficient power plants give little environmental value if any. The legislation which forced American automakers to devote R&D efforts into developing solely electric vehicles, in fact, set the American Automakers a good 5 years behind the Japanese in the much more viable and beneficial hybrid vehicles, a market Toyota effectively dominates at this point. Where is the outcry over clean burning diesel that Europe and other areas have had for long enough that most European automakers had to stop importing their new diesel engines? Our diesel has so much sulfur in it that the direct inject engines corrode.

This is a shell game folks, and this movie is the misdirection to keep people angry over red herrings, and make a buck at it while they're at it. Don't let them make money off of ignorance, make the effort, learn about these technologies on your own.