All batteries, including those in electric vehicles, have a positive and negative end. Those who have never set foot in an electric vehicle or driven one seem to have lots of opinions towards the technology. These opinions are based on positive and negative reporting so in this post we highlight the ‘plus and minus’ end game.
Part One: Naming the EV
During the first wave of the California Clean Act, electric vehicles were called Zero Emission Vehicles, or ZEVs. In the 1990’s this practical name applied to both electric vehicles and hydrogen fueled ones as neither had tailpipe emissions. But hydrogen cars fell behind, and electric vehicle technology went dormant from the public view. During the next wave of innovation, in the mid 2000s, ZEVs were rebranded as ‘Clean Fuel Vehicles.’
The renaming, as Clean Fuel Vehicles, opened up both positive and negative discourse. While Clean Air is an undisputed need, pundits in the media questioned whether the vehicle actually meets that claim. There are two principal attacks. The first is that it’s a dirty process making the battery. The second is that power plants operate with carbon burning fuels. The media seldom presented side-by-side comparison about emissions and pollution from the gasoline industry such as the environmental cost of extracting oil from the ground, refining and transporting it, and finally combusting it wherever vehicles travel.
The end game is that labeling electric vehicles as “Clean Air” is both positive and negative. On the one hand it frames the discussion around the public health benefits but also casts doubt on the claim.
Part Two: Naming the ELITE
A contemporary example of ‘plus and minus’ framing comes from Washington. A Republican Senator proposed new EV legislation, that he called the ELITE Act, “Eliminating Lavish Incentives to Electric Vehicles” (SB. 541). ELITE proposes to repeal the tax credits for vehicles and eliminate incentives for charging equipment. Senator John Barrasso, the sponsor, claims this bill closes a “leasing loophole.”
The framing is not so subtle here – ELITE gets your attention because it connotes that the government is providing a subsidy for the well-to-do. Furthermore, the government is providing ‘loopholes,’ or extras for the privileged.
This negative spin, that these vehicles are for the affluent, is unlikely to stick. That’s the positive. However, in this era of Artificial Intelligence searches, the ELITE message may be quoted and re-quoted. By some twist of words, ELITE may reinforce the view that electric vehicles are a toy for affluent buyers, not a cheaper, cleaner form of transportation for everyday drivers.
Part Three: Muddled Messages
Electric vehicles are in cross-hairs these days because of controversy over their $7500. rebate and pressure on both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to roll back mandates.
As the House of Representatives in Washington votes on this issue, a recent Associated Press (AP) new story appears to present both sides. It says that representatives from Kentucky and Virginia claim that mandates for EVs (1) lead to high prices for all vehicles, both gas and electric (2) increase reliance on China, and (3) strain our electric grid. This is muddled. Increased reliance on Chinese vehicles isn’t a plus yet it lowers the price of vehicles. A potential strain on the power grid frames yet a new problem for electric vehicles, not the traditional environmental issues about cobalt mining and battery production.
Return of the ZEV:
Interestingly, in this same news article there is a retort, from the Governor of California and an unnamed spokesperson for the California Air Resource Board (CARB). Both say, “EV mandates preserve the mission to protect the public health of Californians impacted by harmful air pollution.” In this time of doubt, the ‘Clean Air Vehicle’ the original virtue of the ZEV, surfaces again.
Oddly, the new story, in citing both positive and negative comments, does not mention at all the role of EVS in offsetting carbon emissions.
There are multiple ways to capture the fear and angst that the public may harbor towards electric vehicles. Importantly, as the AP article hints, messaging changes over time. A U.S. Senator keyed in on elitism. The AP new attempts a broader spectrum- the power grid, Chinese competition, and vehicle costs. It’s a mixed bag of words- throwing word darts forward, some positive, many negative and finding which ones will stick.