Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976
Background: The first electric car was demonstrated in Boston in 1888, and an electric car built by William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa, appeared in the streets of Chicago in 1892. In 1900 nearly 1,600 electric automobiles were manufactured. There were over 100 manufacturers of electric vehicles in existence between 1900 and 1915 (Did you Know? Panel 6: Reconstruction and Growth, available at [http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/exhibits/food/panl6ukno.html]; and Thomas Eakins Scenes from Modern Life: World Events: 1887-1889 [PBS], available at http://www.pbs.org/eakins/we_1887.htm). These cars were a novelty until the 1930s when internal combustion engines (including self starters) were perfected. However, by the mid-1960s, there was global interest in conserving fuel and reducing pollution. A report from the Department of Commerce in 1967 stated that automobiles were the largest single contributor by weight to national air pollution. The Clean Air Act, P.L. 88-206 provided research on pollution by motor vehicles. Books such as Future Shock were making record-breaking sales, and classes in ecology were introduced in the public school systems as people became aware of the growth and harms of pollution. Articles appeared in popular magazines introducing the American public to electric car manufacturing, particularly that in other countries (see bibliography). The technology was already used in the United States for golf carts, fork lift trucks, and postal vehicles.
Companies producing electric vehicles at the time of the writing of this bill were as follows:
A.M. General Corporation, South Bend, Indiana
Battronic Truck Corpotation, Boyertown, Pennsylvania
Elcar Corporation, Elkhart, Indiana
Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation, Troy, Michicagn
Electric Vehicle Associates, Inc., Brook Park, Ohio
Jet Industries, Austin, Texas
Sebring Vanguard, Inc., Sebring, Florida
B&Z Electric Car, Long Beach, California
Otis Elevator Company, Special Vehicle Division, Stockton, California
Electric or hybrid cars were suggested as a means for saving fuel, eliminating tailpipe exhaust, and reducing noise pollution. Since studies showed that over 50% of driving trips were for less than five miles and at speeds of less than 50 miles per hour, the electric car would be an effective alternative to the gas-powered vehicle. Tests showed that electric cars could go between 30 and 70 miles per hour and did not need to be recharged for 50 miles.
Legislature related to electric cars and problems with pollutants was not new to the House. Previous legislative reports include the following:
1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Panel on Electrically Powered Vehicles. The Automobile and Air Pollution. Task Force Reports. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967, 2 volumes.
2. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National center for Air Pollution Control, Power Systems for Electric Vehicles. A Symposium sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Columbia University; and Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967, 323 p.
3. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Astronautics. Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development, Energy Research and Development, Report of the Task Force on Energy. 92d Congress, 2d session, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., December 1972, pp. 63, 167, 222.
4. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Motor Vehicle Emission. An Evaluation of Alternative Power Sources for Low-Emission Automobiles. Report of the Panel on Alternate Power Sources. Washington, April 1973, 151 p.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Alternative Automobile Power Systems Division. Impact of Future Use of Electric Cars in the Los Angeles Region. Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 1974. 3 volumes EPA-460/3-74-020.
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Role for Federal R and D on Alternative Automotive Power Systems, by John B. Heywood, Henry D. Jacoby, and Lawrence H. Linden. Cambridge, November 1974, 98 pages, plus appendices. Rept. No. MIT_EL 74-013. Prepared for the National Science Foundation under Contract No. EN-44166. PB-238771.
Tracing of Public Law 94-413
July 22, 1975 - The bill (H.R. 8800) was introduced in the House of Representatives on July 22, 1975, by Rep. Mike McCormack (chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration). McCormack had previously introduced other bills related to the topic - H.R. 5470 (March 25, 1975); H.R. 6031 (April 16, 1975); H.R. 6198 (April 21, 1975); H.R. 6315 (April 23, 1975); and H.R. 6531 (April 30, 1975) (THOMAS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery). The title introduced was Electric Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act and was submitted under clause 4 of rule XXII. The wording was as follow: A bill to authorize in the Energy Research and Development administration a Federal program of research, development, and demonstration designed to promote electric vehicle technologies and to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of electric vehicles. Co-sponsors included Representatives Brown (California), Teague, Mosher, Goldwater, Hechler (West Virginia), Bell, Fuqua, Winn, Symington, Frey, Thornton, Esch, Ottinger, Conlan, Waxman, Hayes (Indiana), Harkin, Ambro, Dodd, Krueger, Lloyd (Tennessee), and Wirth (Journal of the House of Representatives, July 22, 1975, pp. 1223-1224; Congressional Record, Vol. 121, Part 19, July 22, 1975, p. 24024).
July 28, 1975 - The bill was approved unanimously on July 28 and was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology for consideration. (The Committee on Science and Technology was a new committee, having been introduced to the House in 1958 as the Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration in response to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957. Chiefly related to astronautics in its early years, the committee was renamed Committee on Science and Technology in 1974 as a result of H.Res. 988, giving it jurisdiction over energy, environmental, atmospheric, civil aviation research and development, and other issues related to scientific research and development.) (House Committee on Science, available at http://www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm).
July 31, 1975 - A report (H. Rept. 94-439) was submitted to the House from the Committee on Science and Technology with an amendment on July 31, 1975 (Journal of the House of Representatives, July 31, 1975, p. 1327; Congressional Record, Vol. 121, Part 19, July 31, 1975, p. 26276; CIS-NO: 75-H703-12).
September 4, 1975 A report from the Committee on Rules (House Resolution 693) was brought by Mr. Young of Texas in order to further consider the bill. Listed as Rept. No. 94-455, it was referred to the House Calendar on September 4 (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 4, 1975, p. 1371).
September 5, 1975 - On September 5, the measure was called up by special rule in the House. Reported by Mr. Young of Texas as H. Res. 694, the problem with the bill was its non-compliance in section 13(b) with clause 5 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House related to appropriation language in a legislative bill. ( . . . clause 5(a) prohibits appropriations in measures not reported by the Appropriations Committee [CRS Report for Congress, Special Rules and Waivers of House Rules, James V. Saturno, Specialist on the Congress, Government Division, May 5, 1998, available at http://www.house.gov/rules/98-433.htm]). The resolution read as follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize in the Energy Research and Development Administration a Federal program of research, development, and demonstration designed to promote electric vehicle technologies and to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of electric vehicles, and all points of order against section 13(b) of said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI, are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to change the language was laid on the table at this time. The bill establishes the program under the Energy, Research, and Development Administration (ERDA), stating that the electric vehicles would be for private and business use, with 7,500 vehicles being developed and distributed to various geographical regions. It calls for the expenditure of $160 million over a 5-year period ($10 million in 1976, $40 million in 1977, $30 million in 1978, $60 million in 1979, and $20 million in 1980) for loan guarantees to determine the commercial feasibility of producing the vehicles. The Speaker also mentioned that the President already had some reservations about the bill with regard to its timeliness (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 5, 1975, p. 1373; Congressional Record, Vol. 121, Part 21, September 5, 1975, p. 27682-27683).
September 5, 1975 - On the same day, the matter was considered by the House under the chairmanship of Mr. Murphy of Illinois. The motion was discussed by Mr. Teague of Texas and Mr. Barry Goldwater of California who stated that the bill had been drawn up before ERDA was created. The two major aspects of the bill are research and development and demonstration. Demonstration will involve three phrases (1) several hundred vehicles using lead-acid batteries and an optimized drive train will be produced and evaluated during the first year; (2) approximately 2,500 vehicles will be contracted within 15 months and will be leased or sold to individuals and businesses to test nickel-zinc or nickel-iron batteries with a driving range of 100 miles; (3) 5,000 vehicles with new design advances based on the first phase will be contracted within 42 months. Mr. McCormack then explained the details of the bill. He emphasized that electric cars will be an alternative to importing petroleum (50% of which is used for transportation, with 30% of that being used being imported), and these cars would be particularly good as second vehicles or specialized delivery vehicles (saving approximately 20 million gallons of gasoline per day). His details on the use of electric cars was taken from EPA report Impact of Future Use of Electric Cars in the Los Angeles Region. It was the belief of the report that one-half of gas-powered vehicles could be replaced by electric automobiles by 1990. Mr. McCormack yielded the floor to co-sponsor Ottinger, who added more remarks in favor of the bill, including the wish to reduce our dependence on imported Arab oil. Ottinger had introduced a bill in 1967 to start electric car research, and that bill was adopted as an amendment to the Air Pollution Control Act. Mr. Matsunaga of Hawaii then spoke and stated that the operational cost of electric cars would be 1-1/2 cents a mile using nuclear energy and coal. Mr. Gilman stated that the bill would lead the way to producing attractive electric vehicles with modern streamlined design, highly efficient electric controls, and more efficient batteries in the near future. Mr. Myers of Indiana was against the bill (not the concept), because he did not see why $160 million needed to be spent on technology that had already been developed. McCormack explained that the money was to enlighten the American people to the idea by creating more modern and attractive vehicles. In answer to a question from Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. McCormack stated that the country could provide for 10 million electrical vehicles, with overnight charging, and have no significant impact on the electric utilities during the day. Mr. Hillis of Indiana asked about the lack of technology in electric battery production and asked if the bill would help in this area. McCormack stated that batteries were to be improved through the research and development provided for in the bill over the next 2-5 years. Mr. Bauman of Maryland brought up the fact that the President, EPA, and ERDA are opposed to this bill and asked for an explanation. Mr. Kemp of New York expressed concern that the rhetoric of the bill touted free enterprise, but the use of the money would be by private enterprise. An amendment was added by the Committee as follows: Page 15, line 25, after vehicles insert or any components thereof. A second amendment was suggested by Mr. Wampler of Virginia and passed as follows: Page 2, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph: (2) travel patterns of motor vehicles used on farms for agricultural production and rural travel, including automobiles, tractors and trucks, in many applications are within the capability of electric vehicles; And renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly. Mr. Wampler then added 6 more paragraphs related to agricultural uses of the bill. Mr. Dingell of Michigan then added two more amendments to insure that loan guarantees would be to U.S. citizens only. The question was called for and a vote was about to be taken when Mr. Bell stated that a quorum was not present. The vote was taken electronically (Roll No. 496) and there were 308 yeas and 60 nays, with 65 not voting. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Members of the House were given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill. (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 5, 1975, p. 1374; Congressional Record, Volume 121, Part 21, September 5, 1975, pp. 27685-27710).
September 8, 1975 - On September 8, the bill was referred to the Senate (Congressional Record, Volume 121, Part 21, September 8, 1975, p. 27821) and referred to the Committee on Commerce (p. 27822). (The Committee on Commerce began in 1816 as the Committee on commerce and Manufactures. Created as a standing committee, it was particularly active during the building of the railroads after the Civil War. The name was changed in 1976 to the present-day Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.) (U.S. Senater Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, available at http://commerce.senate.gov/about/history.html).
May 5, 1976 The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, introduced by Mr. Moss for himself and Mr. Humphrey (Journal of the Senate, May 5, 1976, p. 410).
May 13, 1976 The Committee on Commerce, under Mr. Moss, returned the report (No. 94-836) to the Senate with amendments (Journal of the Senate, May 13, 1976, p. 567; CIS-NO: 76-S263-22).
June 16, 1976 Additional co-authors were added Abourezk, Bundick, Hathaway, Javits, McCovern, Schwecker, and Sparkman on request of Mr. Moss (Journal of the Senate, June 16, 1976, p. 634).
June 10, 1976 Mr. Byrd of West Virginia set the limitations of the discussion of bill S. 1632 to one hour on the question, equally divided between the majority and minority leaders, 30 minutes on amendments, and 20 minutes on debatable motions or appeals. A recess was then called until the following morning (Journal of the Senate, June 10, 1976, p. 699).
June 11, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Byrd of West Virginia that the bill be voted on the following Monday (Journal of the Senate, June 11, 1976, p. 704).
June 14, 1976 By unanimous consent, the bill was temporarily laid aside (Journal of the Senate, June 14, 1976, p. 706).
June 14, 1976 The Senates version of the bill was as follows: A bill (S. 1632) to authorize in the Energy Research and Development Administration a Federal Program of research, development, and demonstration designed to promote electric vehicle technologies and to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of electric vehicles. An amendment had been suggested by the Committee on Commerce to strike out all wordage after the enacting clause and insert new wordage. The time for debate was set at one hour, equally divided between majority and minority leaders, with an additional 30 minutes on the amendment, and 20 minutes on other debatable motions, appeals, or points of order (Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 15, June 14, 1976, pp. 17981-17985). Basically, the house program was for a shorter period of development but with more rigid deadlines. The Senate had a 5-year production schedule with an extension of up to 2 years and allowed for more flexibility.
June 14, 1976 the discussion proceeded on whether to approve the bill as amended. The roll was called and a list was given of senators who were absent. The vote was then taken (Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.) and the bill was passed as amended, with 72 yeas and 16 nays. The bill was temporarily tabled and sent back to the House (Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 15, June 14, 1976, 18025-18029; Journal of the Senate, June 14, 1976, p. 707-708).
June 15, 1976 The House received word that the Senate passed the bill with amendments and asked for concurrence by the House (Journal of the House of Representatives, June 15, 1976, p. 1027).
June 16, 1976 Mr. McCormack asked to take the bill from the House floor and request a conference with the Senate to discuss the Senates amendments. With no objection, Representatives Olin E. Teague, Don Fuqua, Mike McCormack, George E. Brown, Jr., Ray Thornton, Charles A. Mosher, and Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., were appointed to the conference (Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 15, June 16, 1976, p. 18685).
June 16, 1976 The Senate received word that the House disagreed with the amendments and had appointed Representatives Teague, Fuqua, McCormack, Brown, Thornton, Mosher, and Goldwater to serve on a conference from the House with the Senate (Journal of the Senate, June 16, 1976, pp. 750-751).
June 23, 1976 The Senate insisted on the amendments to the bill. Mr. Magnuson requested a conference with the House. The presiding officer, Mr. Morgan, appointed Senators Magnuson, Moss, Tunney, Baker, and Stevens on the part of the Senate (Congressional Record, 122, Part 16, June 23, 1976, p. 19870; Journal of the Senate, June 23, 1976, p. 798).
June 24, 1976 Notice was received by the House that the Senate insisted on its amendments to which the House had disagreed and had appointed Senators Warren G. Magnuson, Frank E. Moss, John V. Tunney, Howard H. Baker, Jr., and Ted Stevens to serve on the conference with the House representatives (Journal of the House of Representatives, June 24, 1976, p. 1127).
July 22, 1976 The conference report was filed by Mr. Teague as H. Rept. No. 94-1363 and ordered to be printed (Journal of the House of Representatives, July 22, 1976, p. 1341).
July 23, 1976 The conference report was filed by Mr. Moss as S. Rept. No. 94-1048 (Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 19, July 23, 1976, p. 23606).
August 26, 1976 - The Senate agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses as presented by Mr. Moss and reported back to the House (Journal of the House of Representatives, August 26, 1976, p. 1599; Journal of the Senate, August 26, 1976, pp. 1309-1314).
August 31, 1976 The House and Senate amendments were presented under H. Rept. No. 94-1363. Mr. Goldwater questioned the mention of the cars being used for fleet applications, since the primary goal had been to use the vehicles for private second cars. McCormack conceded that Goldwater was correct. It was mentioned by Mr. Ottinger that a market study had been commissioned by the Electric Vehicle Council in 1972, showing that 42% of the people in the U.S. would be interested in buying a short-range, limited-speed electric car. The House agreed to recede from its disagreement to the amendment by the Senate, and a mutually agreed upon wording was drawn up. The House was asked to vote on the report. It was determined that a quorum was not present, and an electronic vote was taken. There were 344 yeas and 39 nays in Roll No. 678. With the acceptance of the report, the bill was again laid on the table and the Senate was notified (Journal of the House of Representatives, August 31, 1976, pp. 1628-1656, 1628-1636; Journal of the Senate, August 31, 1976, p. 1345; Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 22, August 31, 1976, pp. 28475-28481).
September 2, 1976 the bill was presented to the President (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 2, 1976, p. 1668; Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 23, September 2, 1976, p. 29021).
September 13, 1976 The Presidents veto was read to the House by Speaker pro tempore Mr. McFall. It read as follows:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 8800, the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1976.
This bill would establish a five-year, $160 million research, development and demonstration project within the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to promote the development of an electric vehicle that could function as a practical alternative to the gasoline-powered automobile. One of the major objectives of the project would be the development and purchase by the Federal government of some 7,500 demonstration electric vehicles. Such development would cover some of the areas private industry stands ready to pursue.
It is well documented that technological breakthroughs in battery research are necessary before the electric vehicle can become a viable option. It is simply premature and wasteful for the Federal government to engage in a massive demonstration programsuch as that intended by the billbefore the required improvements in batteries for such vehicles are developed.
ERDA already has adequate authority under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Federal Non-nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 to conduct an appropriate electric vehicle development program. Under my fiscal year 1977 budget, ERDA will focus on the research areas that inhibit the development of practical electrical vehicles, for wide-spread use by the motoring public. Included is an emphasis on advanced battery technology.
Even assuming proper technological advances, the development of a completely new automobile for large-scale production is a monumental task requiring extensive investment of money and years of development. While the Government can play an important role in exploring particular phases of electric vehicle feasibilityespecially in the critical areas of battery researchit must be recognized that private industry already has substantial experience and interest in the development of practical electric vehicle transportation. I am not prepared to commit the Federal government to this type of a massive spending program which I believe private industry is best able to undertake.
Gerald R. Ford
The bill and report were ordered to be printed (H.Doc. 94-606). Mr. Teague asked that consideration of the veto be postponed until Thursday, September 16, 1976 (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 13, 1976, p. 1719; Congressional Records, Vol. 122, Part 23, September 13, 1976, p. 30186).
September 16, 1976 Listed under Unfinished business, Mr. Teague requested that the bill again be voted on regardless of the Presidents veto. Mr. Teague was surprised at the Presidents veto, because the bill was nonpartisan and noncontroversial. Representatives Anderson, Wydler, and Michel spoke in favor of the President. Under Roll No. 738, the bill was passed by electronic vote (307 yeas, 101 nays, and 23 not voting), receiving at least a two-thirds positive vote, and the Senate was notified (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 16, 1976, pp. 1779-1780; Journal of the Senate, September 16, 1976, p. 1580; Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 24, September 16, 1976, pp. 30800-30807).
September 17, 1976 The Presidents veto was read in the Senate by presiding officer Mr. Stone. The Act was read again as signed by Carl Albert (Speaker of the House) and Patrick J. Leahy (Acting President of the Senate), with a debate pending. There was much discussion, particularly over the issue of the battery. The Energy Resources Council had been established under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Executive Order 11814) and had written a document entitled Motor Vehicle Goals Beyond 1980, showing that the success of electric cars would be slim and that ERDA and DOT had been against the bill along with the President. Mr. Allen from Alabama requested that this document be printed in the Record. Mr. Mathias requested that an article (Overriding the 56th Veto) from the September 16, 1976 edition of the Washington Star be included in the Record. At 1:00 p.m., the Senate voted to override the Presidents veto, passing the bill with 53 yeas and 20 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 606 Leg.). The House was then notified (Journal of the Senate, September 17, 1976, pp. 1589-1593; Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 24, September 17, 1976, pp. 30979-30980, 30982-30987).
September 17, 1976 H.R. 8800 became Public Law 94-413 (94th Congress). The law included U.S. Codes 15 USC 2501-2514 (United States Statutes at Large, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976, vol. 90, Part 1, pp. 1-1519 Public Laws [Washington: GPO, 1978]; United States Code 1988 Edition: Containing the General and Permanent Laws of the United States, In Force on January 3, 1989, Vol. 5 [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989], 1220-1255). These U.S. Codes are as follows:
2501 Congressional findings and policy
2503 Duties of Secretary of Energy
2504 Coordination between secretary of Energy and other agencies
2505 Research and development
2508 Encouragement and protection of small business
2509 Loan guarantees
2510 Use of electric and hybrid vehicles by Federal agencies
2513 annual report
2514 Authorization for appropriations
Companion legislation (H.R. 13655) was related to the development of the advanced automobile engine, was also vetoed by the President and was later overridden by the House but sustained by the Senate (Congress and the Nation, Vol. IV 1973-1976: A Review of Government and Politics [Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1977], 282; CIS-No: 76-PL94-413).
September 20, 1976 In a message from the Senate, it was stated that the Senate had receive a two-thirds affirmative vote to override the Presidents veto (Journal of the House of Representatives, September 20, 1976, p. 1992; Congregational Record, Vol. 122, Part 24, September 20, 1976, p. 31275).
It was difficult to end the tracing of this bill, because its ramifications and arguments continue today. These men and women discussed the savings of resources, protection of the environment, removal of dependence on foreign oil, and goals for the American public in saving the environment. They felt so strongly about the issue that they overrode the Presidents veto. However, it appears the President was right, for the battery was never perfected, and the American public never bought into the concept. People just did not want to have to plug their cars in at night to recharge. The electric car, when built, is still dependent on private industry. In checking current resources, I found that the major vendor of hybrid cars (not electric) is Honda. The 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid sells for approximately $19,000, about the same as other cars its size. There is, however, a possible tax incentive of $2000 if bought this year. The car averages 48 miles to the gallon (46 in town and 51 on the highway). When compared to the Honda Accord and the BMW 330ci, it gets twice the gas mileage, saving one-half to two-thirds annual fuel costs (Side-by-Side Vehicle Characteristics, available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001car3tablef.jsp).
Resources used (cited in text):
Congress and the Nation
Congressional Quarterly Almanac
Journal of the House of Representatives
Journal of the Senate
United States Code
U.S. Statutes at Large
Various Internet sites including THOMAS, GPO-Access, etc.
From Readers Guide to Periodical Literature (March 1974-February 1975)
Davis, P. Australians Pioneer New Electric Car Ideas. Popular Science 205 (November 1974), 83.
Norbye, J.P. Clever Engineering Brings the Electric Car Closer to Your Driveway. Popular Science 204 (June 1974), 40+.
Fuchs, J. Electric Cars: The Switch is On. Motor Trend 26 (April 1974), 94+.
Electric Rebirth. Time 103 (April 15, 1974), 88.
Wennerstrom, B. Gas from Garbage, Burning Water, the Super Oils, Etc. Mechanics Illustrated 70 (August 1974), 26-27.
Liston, J. Horseless Carriage ReturnsQuietly. Popular Mechanics 142 (July 1974), 90-93+.
Behme, B. Riding with the Current. Field and Stream 79 (June 1974), 112-114.
Senger, W.M. Silent Cars in Amsterdam. Environment 16 (October 1974), 14-17.
Chelminski, R. Tiny Remedy for Dutch Traffic: Witkar Electric Two Seater Car. Smithsonian 5 (June 1974), 70-72.
Witkars of Amsterdam. Time 103 (June 17, 1974), 69.
Remarkable King of Electric Cars . . . 70 Years Ago. Mechanics Illustrated 70 (December 1974), 78-79.