All batteries, including those in electric vehicles, have a positive and negative terminal. The words we use to talk about electric vehicles are similar, since they have both positive and negative ends. People who have never set foot in an electric vehicle nor driven one form opinions towards the technology based on positive and negative reporting. In this post we highlight some messaging about EVS: A Plus and Mind End (and 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. In 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 filled that claim.There were two principal attacks. The first attack was that it’s a dirty process to mine for cobalt and then manufacture a battery. The second challenge was that power plants operate with carbon burning fuels to produce electricity for cars. 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 into the air wherever vehicles travel.
The end game is that labelling 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 leads to analysis that casts doubt on the legitimacy too.
Part Two: Naming the ELITE
A more contemporary example of 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 also 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. Electric vehicles are not egalitarian. Furthermore, the government is providing ‘loopholes,’ or extras for the privileged. Is the ELITE a viable message?
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 requoted. 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 the public cross-hairs these days because of controversy over the $7500 rebate and pressure on both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to roll back mandatory EV requirements. Again, there is a frame in which the reporting takes place.
As the House of Representatives in Washington votes on this issue, a recent Associated Press (AP) new story that covers the story appears to present both sides. The 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 a muddled way of opposing the EPA and CEC mandates. Increased reliance on Chinese vehicles isn’t a plus yet it would lower the price of all vehicles. Adding concern about the strain on the power grid introduces and frames yet a new problem for electric vehicles, not the traditional environmental one 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 might have towards electric vehicles. Importantly, as the AP article hints, the messaging changes over time. The Washington senator keyed in on elitism. The AP reporting covers a broader spectrum- the power grid, Chinese competition, and the threat of higher vehicle cost. Representatives in Washington are using a mixed bag of words- throwing word darts at a board, in this case the public, and waiting to see which ones stick. Meanwhile, that requires drumming up a continued arsenal of positive, but more negative verbiage.