THE UNIVER

Let us assume that we are comparing a $4,000 car, complete with air-conditioning, power steering, etc. Since there are savings in the internal combustion engine system (smaller engine, no clutch, no gears) in large volume production, we could estimate an initial cost of about 1.5 times $4,000 or $6,000.

In accordance with the proposed Bill, the vehicle could be purchased by Federal Government Agencies if the initial cost were 125% that of the equivalent internal combustion vehicle, in this case 1.25 x $4,000.00 or $5,000.00.

The question then remains: "Can the $1,000 difference between the proposed allowed initial cost of $5,000 and the actual initial cost of $6,000 be saved in fuel and maintenance over the life of the car? The answer is a very strong "YES"! Fuel costs for the average car are about $200 per year. Repair costs for the average car are about $200 per year.

According to Hoffman (2), the fuel savings of a hybrid should be about 50%, which is $100 per year, or $500 for 5 years.

According to (5), the maintenance of an electric vehicle is % that of an internal combustion engine. In the hybrid, since there IS an internal combustion engine, the savings will not be as dramatic as a pure electric. However, because of the much greater simplicity of design (no gears, no clutch, no overloading problems, no "racing" during idling, no idling wear, etc., the maintenance can be conservatively estimated as 1⁄2 that of the normal car. The savings are thus $100 per year in maintenance, or $500 in 5 years.

The savings of $500 per item for the two above items, fuel and maintenance, is $1000 over the life of the vehicle, exactly what is necessary to meet ALL the requirements of the Bill.

The hybrid-electric is therefore acceptable from a total cost point of view, over the life of the vehicle.

What about the future?

THE FUTURE OUTLOOK

If what is proposed herein is the best that is ever to be hoped for, then there might be questions about proceeding too far with the program, because eventually, the increase in the motor vehicle population would "catch up with the present automobile pollution levels". However, the hybrid-electric is an IDEAL transition vehicle for the next decades, until the all-electric is made viable first with a battery energy density of 100 watt-hours per pound, then 200 and then 500. A level of 1000 watt-hours per pound will eliminate even the requirement of rapid charge capability for any application except the occasional long distance trip of over 200 miles, since 1000 watt-hours per pound will take a car over 300 miles between recharges.

Hoffman (2) has indicated how the reliance on the fuel tank will decrease, and how the "no emission" electric drive will take over more and more of the hybrid function. Fig. 7, an updating of Fig. 5 of (2) shows how, by the year 2000, as battery technology improves, we can eventually move into the realm of all-electric, and zero emissions from the urban vehicles.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It has now been shown that with TODAY's technology, we can build low emission vehicles that will meet the requirements of the Bill, i.e., (1) a pollution level less than 25% of average emission levels of current design vehicles, and (2) a total cost over the life of the vehicle, including initial cost, maintenance and fuel, no more than 125% that of conventional emission level vehicles. These would be hybrid electric, employing nickel-cadmium batteries and electronic speed control. In the future, as batteries are improved by advanced technologies, the average emission levels will be reduced to the vanishing point.

No sacrifice of size, comfort or vehicle performance would be necessary with the hybrid-electric. Routine maintenance will be less frequent than with conventional vehicles.

The hybrid electric can be the ideal low-emission vehicle.

ABSTRACT

This testimony presents information concerning a practical low emission vehicle, the hybrid electric. The data are the results of extensive experience during the past 4 years, with high power electronics for controls of an electric car, and the actual construction and operation of a full-sized electric station wagon.

Included are technical references, and examples of practical applications of theoretical considerations.

Costs of the hybrid electric are discussed, along with performance characteristics, and these are compared with present day high-emission internal combustion engine vehicles.

Timetables are presented as to how we can anticipate continuous reductions in emissions as improvements in electric storage batteries occur over the next decades.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Lear, please.

Mr. Lear, would you proceed to identify yourself, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. LEAR, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, LEAR MOTORS CORP.

Mr. LEAR. As probably most of you know, I am chairman of the board of Lear Motors Corp. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment Subcommittee, being Bill Lear, the chairman of the board of Lear Motors Corp., I appreciate this opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on behalf and in support of the Federal Low-Emission Vehicles Procurement Act, S. 3072, proposed by Senators Magnuson, Jackson, and Muskie, and compliment them and other cosponsors of this bill for their initiative, foresight, and dedication toward solving the problem of air pollution coming from automobiles.

I have read the proposed bill and agree with its intent to encourage the development of low-emission vehicles. But will the bill as drafted accomplish this purpose on which we all agree? Let me discuss this question with you and speak, first of all, of the detailed provisions of the bill before discussing the wider problems.

Let me outline for this subcommittee the problems which an innovative developer faces-problems which show the need to waive the statutory price limitation:

1. Propulsion units developed or manufactured by independents would have to be sold to one or more major automobile manufacturers for installation in their vehicles. This is quite unlikely as large production organizations naturally prefer to use their own engines, et cetera. Also they would be concerned with split liability and warranty problems.

2. To compete, the independent powerplant producer would necessarily have to procure vehicles from automobile manufacturers which also poses problems such as the difficulty of being able to buy such vehicles at wholesale prices. Automobile companies dislike incomplete vehicles (without engines, transmissions, et cetera) because of the obvious unbalanced production, procurement, and inventory problems plus, again, the split warranty and liability problems.

3. There is little possibility of smaller, independent manufacturers being able to produce vehicles at statutory price costs plus 25 percent in the relatively small quantities procured by the General Services Administration. Obviously, it is a lot easier to take them out of the production lines than it is to make these relatively small quantities.

For the above reasons, this bill should not limit procurement costs to statutory costs plus 25 percent. A much more flexible pricing structure should be adopted. Otherwise the legislation would assist and encourage only the existing automotive industry; it would not help. the independent developer. And I know that this is not the subcommittee's intent.

In the past, brilliant innovations and breakthroughs in an industry have come from outside that industry-Xerox and Polaroid are such examples.

Because it is the intent of this bill to seek basic solutions to lowemission powerplants from all and any source, we urge you to clarify the bill so that the participation of independents is assured. The bill must not merely provide financial assistance and encouragement to large automobile manufacturers.

Support of the existing industry might lead only to a more patchedup internal combustion engine. But society needs more than that. By 1975 this country must have on the road and available to consumers a new, innovative powerplant that is inherently low polluting and does not require periodic maintenance.

Because of this need, we must have 1975 standards of California. imposed now. There is an urgency in our work-there must be if we are to protect our most valuable resource; the very air we breathe. In this connection, I would direct several other questions to the proposed bill:

1. Is 2 years too long a time between vehicle certification renewal? 2. Who maintains the vehicles after they leave the inventory of the General Services Administration if the vehicles purchased are not inherently low polluting?

3. Does the bill take proper account of increased cost to the vehicle purchaser for maintaining low-emission control devices? Lear Motors estimates the recurring costs for maintaining existing control devices

and those proposed to be about $6 billion annually throughout the Nation. These estimates were made in a proprietary study based on published_reports by acknowledged experts in Government testing agencies. We would be pleased to make these reports available to this subcommittee.

Now, $6 billion a year is a tremendous cost for the Nation to bear, particularly when we know that there are technological alternatives available alternatives which will provide an engine which is inherently low polluting.

Since there is no real guarantee that the internal combustion engine can meet required emission standards, I question the real benefit of low-emission, "patch-on-patch" control devices that will cost the general public $6 billion per vear. Incidentally, the total national cost for medical care comes to just over $6 billion per year-and that includes everything: hospitals, doctors, medicines, research. Are we, as a nation, prepared to waste the same amount which protects and maintains our health?

I recognize that existing legislation allows for the funding of innovative propulsion systems development. I also realize that members of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee were instrumental in allocating $45 million to such research and development. Such support of the innovative, independent developer is absolutely necessary.

Such important civil developments as rail and air transportation, the supersonic transport, nuclear powerplants, communications satellites, irrigation and hydroelectric projects; all of these would never have been possible without Federal initiative in support of private enterprise. These projects are now contributing substantially to the economy of our country.

As you are all aware, I have been involved in the development of low-emission powerplants for some 18 months now and, after an expenditure of my own funds to the extent of $6 million, Lear Motors has now produced a low-emission powerplant which we believe to be a logical and feasible solution to the problem. We will have prototype vehicles in operation this spring and, with the aid of development support, we could be in a position to seek certification under this bill by the end of the year.

A study by Lear Motors indicates that to do the real job it will take: 1. A $25 million investment is required to develop prototype gas turbine vehicles;

2. An additional $75 million investment is required for facilities and tooling to put the gas turbine vehicles into production; and

3. Working capital in the amount of $200 million is required to get into production.

In closing, I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present my views on this most important matter of air pollution. You and your Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment are to be complimented on your quick attention to the urgency of this matter and your adroit grasp of the problem.

We must all realize that this is only the beginning of the fight against pollution, but it is a beginning. Thank you.