I think the story of the EV1 and the Volt should be left out of this discussion. I'm a Volt owner but I still strongly disagree with GM's stance on legislation to stifle competition.
The issue here is not the entire history of automotive electrification, just GM's support of regulation to prevent Tesla (or any other automaker) from selling direct.
I understand what you are saying, however, it was the Baltimore "Superlawyer" that GM hired to lobby the Maryland Legislature that brought up GM's history with electric vehicles in his testimony before the House Environment and Transportation Committee last February.
While it may not be apparent in the video below, not all of the committee members were falling for the spin from GM's lawyers. If you go to the very end of the video at around 58:20, a Delegate asks about the change of ownership structure after the GM bailout. The GM lawyer claims not to have the answer and the Delegate abruptly says, " I have no more questions for this witness." What you don't see because the camera switches off him is the Delegate is shaking his head and mouthing, "wow, wow, wow." The Delegate clearly was upset and in my opinion, he felt that the GM lawyer was not being forthcoming, and hence he considered it futile to try and get an honest answer from him on any other questions.
I never had much of an opinion about GM one way or the other before this. But after seeing what happened in the hearing room and out in the hall that day in Annapolis, it is clear to me that this is about winning at any cost for GM. And they are willing to play hardball to get what they want.
Lanny
Last edited by a moderator: