- GM CEO Daniel F. Akerson told Congress on Wednesday that "we did not engineer the Volt to become a political punching bag and that's what it has become."
- Akerson gave sworn testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing entitled "Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?"
- Members of Congress wanted to know whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration treated GM with "kid gloves" given the Obama administration's interest in the success of the Volt and its stated commitment to getting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
WASHINGTON — GM CEO Daniel F. Akerson told Congress on Wednesday that "we did not engineer the Volt to become a political punching bag and that's what it has become."
Akerson gave sworn testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing entitled "Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?" Speaking in measured tones, Akerson said there has been "collateral damage" to the Volt in the wake of a now-closed federal safety investigation into post-crash fire risk in the Volt.
But Akerson said he viewed his appearance before the committee "as a positive."
"It's our chance to get this in front of the American people," he said. "I do think there has been collateral damage. We're going to work to get it back. Today is a good start."
Akerson added: "I don't think there was ever an imminent threat to any (Volt) customers."
In a positive public-relations stroke, Akerson told the committee that he drove a Volt to the hearing and also purchased a Volt that had been returned to the company after GM offered by buy back the cars after the safety probe was announced on November 25, 2011. He also said that GM will export the Volt to Europe and China and that "there has been interest on the part of our competitors to license the technology."
Congressional investigators wanted to know whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration treated GM with "kid gloves" given the Obama administration's interest in the success of the Volt and its stated commitment to getting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. President Obama even took a brief test drive of the Volt in Detroit in July 2010 in the run-up to its national launch.
Obama mentioned GM during his State of the Union address on Tuesday, saying "today General Motors is back on top as the world's number-one automaker." GM went through a federally led bailout in 2009.
A key question posed during the hearing is why did it take six months from the time a Volt caught fire after a crash test to the start of the federal safety probe in late November?
The greatest fireworks during the hearing came during the testimony of NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.
"The question is whether NHTSA treated GM with kid gloves," said U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the hearing. "Did you pull any punches with GM because they're taxpayer subsidized?"
"We pulled no punches," replied Strickland.
"GM's not going to get a pass?" said Kucinich.
"Absolutely not," said Strickland.
Strickland added: "It took us six months in order to figure out whether the Volt was involved, what caused the fire, whether there was an imminent risk. At no time was there any notion of any other part of government coming to me saying we should do nothing."
Strickland said it took awhile to develop "protocols" for dealing with the Volt.
But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) took issue with that response.
"How dare you tell us you're still developing protocols when the president is sitting in an electric car," Issa said. "Your administration is not up to speed to maintain safety in an electric age."
The Volt itself came under fire during the hearing.
U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.), a car dealer who is pushing for an end to electric-vehicle subsidies, displayed a slide of President Obama behind the wheel of the Volt during a visit to the GM plant that makes the car.
"This is a halo car, not so much for General Motors, but for this administration," Kelly said. "If General Motors thought this was a good investment, they would have launched it themselves."
Kelly is a second-generation auto dealer and the owner of Mike Kelly Chevrolet Cadillac in Butler, Pennsylvania.
He added: "I sell a lot of Chevy Cruzes. No taxpayer dollars subsidize that car because the public loves it."
The committee adjourned the hearing and gave no indication where the Volt investigation is headed from this point.
Inside Line says: Volt concerns aside, does the hearing itself plant doubts about electric and alt-fuel vehicles in the minds of American consumers?
Add A Comment »
vmorrisonfan says:
02:53 PM, 02/07/2012
What really is sad is that all the foreign auto makers based in this country all received subsidies from U.S. taxpayers and their own countries. They are all standing back, watching and laughing as Americans tear down Americans. Mercedes, BMW & Jaguar are all going to follow suit with the Volt technology, which was the first of it's kind in the world. I am old enough to remember when Americans were proud of anything that led the pack. This is just pure un-American. Dwight Eisenhower is rolling in his grave! His party no longer exists.
tbone85 says:
08:21 PM, 01/27/2012
"This administration is at the evolutionary peak of cronyism, taking it to new highs. I'm sure past administrations are all shaking their heads in wonderment and saying "Why didn't we do that? These guys are goooooddd."
Really? It seems like the right highlights cronyism in GM (at least the part that occurred during the current administration) and the banks less so (with the same previous exception). The left highlights the Cronyism at Goldman Sachs (at least the part that occurred prior to the current generation) and the revolving door between Haliburton and others with administration personnel influencing the assignment of defense contracts.
Either side claiming higher moral ground merely sounds absurd. Neither Emperor has had clothes for a VERY long time.
ianzoe1 says:
07:06 AM, 01/27/2012
These Wahington yahoos just irritate me to no end. The Volt was well under way in its development long before the government got involved in bailing out GM. Cars are not developed in a year or less. These idiots need to do some research before they open their ignorant mouths. It's all political, one lashing out out at the other....I wonder if this has anyhting to do with the upcoming election....hmmmmmm. Morons are running this country.
ralphhightower says:
10:55 AM, 01/26/2012
Congress should reopen hearings on the Ford Pinto.
This is just political grandstanding by Congress.
ctpaul says:
09:44 AM, 01/26/2012
As far as the political background goes, Bush started the bailouts while he was still Presient (remember the economy started down the shi**er when he was still in charge) and it was Obama who put alot more money in but did it with specific requirements so that the money spent went to companies that would survive, and have thrived. You can guarantee that if Obama had not interceded the money Bush spent already would have been wasted and we would have no GM, no Chrysler and who knows what at Ford. Call it socialism, call it what you want, it worked, it took leadership, and there is NO evidence that the continuing treasury ownership of GM has influenced anything at NHTSA over the Volt safety concerns.
church123 says:
08:24 AM, 01/26/2012
Really mfennel? Just like they wouldn't attempt to exert any influence over Solyandra waiting to announce layoffs till after the mid-term elections in 2010 after they'd been hyping that company as an example of a successful green investment by the government? It's early too, things tend to leak out.
This administration is at the evolutionary peak of cronyism, taking it to new highs. I'm sure past administrations are all shaking their heads in wonderment and saying "Why didn't we do that? These guys are goooooddd."
duck87 - the President did more than just sit in the car. The administration chose to feature the Volt and GM in numerous press releases, speeches, PR opps, etc. to try and spin the stimulus and bailout as being a good thing. They politicized this company and product very heavily in an attempt to politically benefit. Now they're suffering for it. It's the price you pay. And yes, the unions were definitely a primary beneficiary of the GM bailout. They were given a substantial ownership stake in the company while bondholders, who were legally entitled to first crack at compensation, got screwed after being strong armed by the administration.
You guys can be all dismayed at the political circus surrounding this, but the point is, the politicization occurred a long time ago and now the opposition sees a point of weakness at the NHTSA to score some points. This isn't about GM, it's about taking a government agency (a pretty f***ed up one that is highly politicized itself) down a few pegs at the expense of the administration. It's a sign of the times, but I don't expect the conservatives to play tiddlywinks when the progressives are throwing brickbats in other arenas. It'll keep escalating like this until someone changes the game.
lmbvette says:
06:31 AM, 01/26/2012
@duck87 - Members of Congress will make a clown show out of anything if given the chance. Heck, they'll even bring the elephants and a dancing bear.
duck87 says:
06:06 AM, 01/26/2012
@church123: As a humble servant in the automotive industry, I will only say that yes, it is unfortunate that Obama sat in that Volt (creating this whole mess), and no, I don't think saving GM/Chrysler was strictly for the benefit of the unions (who now hold less power and fewer members than ever before- it is expected that spending on white collar positions for these companies will exceed union costs for the first time).
But what people seem to be upset with in this whole situation actually seems to have little to do with political idealogy, and more to do with the fact that members of congress have made a clown show out of the whole ordeal in a bid to further their own positions and undermine others... and as GM's CEO is saying, it's turned the Volt (which is otherwise a fairly great piece of engineering) into a political punching bag. You can say that Obama started this whole mess because of the bailout, and I won't disagree since there's obvious involvement. However, the posturing that we're seeing now is unacceptable whether you're left or right wing.
Frankly I don't feel like GM is being treated with kid gloves. Toyota got ostracized by the same group of clowns, and what otherwise should have been a none-issue in the Volt case has now been made one.
mfennell says:
04:47 AM, 01/26/2012
Sorry, church, but what doesn't pass the "smell test" is the notion that the administration could have exerted some influence over NHSTA without anyone finding out. Seriously, there's not one loose-lipped, Obama-hating employee in that organization? They're all in it together? Noone coming forward to the media? No way. Any breech of procedure (and I can only imagine the piles of red tape in that organization) would have had gleeful whistle blowers dialing Rush.
The Toyota comparison falls flat. They were railroaded, sure, but PEOPLE WERE DYING, the media picked up on it, and Congress is always ready with their Jump To Conclusions mat. Further, Toyota really did reveal design issues IMHO - the cars permit full gas and brake application, which other drive-by-wire car do not (a constant source of irritation to left foot brakers) and the Stop button interface was poorly thought out.
OTOH, a totaled Volt, um, burned up in a parking lot three weeks after a test. I perceive a difference there. Until NHSTA replicated the situation (by beating the sh*t out of a battery out of the car), noone could even say for certain what even happened.
I guess he's just trying to keep his job but I don't know why Strickland took crap from Issa, master of the sixth grader's argument. Accusing him of lying? Berating him about the President being in the car? Seriously?
I have to assume he's playing to his base (in Southern California?), hoping to get re-elected.
church123 says:
11:00 PM, 01/25/2012
Oh please, if you can't even refute the original argument that you so emotionally disagreed with, you don't get to move the goalposts to something else. The bailout was in the context of the automakers, and the political use of said automakers to further the interests of the administration. I have a hard time believing that you would be so obtuse as to miss that, so I'll just put it down to willful avoidance of admitting you don't have leg to stand on (the way of the internet - 98% of people never admit they're wrong, they either change the subject or disappear).
Trying to play rhetorical games without at least having a elementary command of logic just makes you look foolish. Now, go ahead and tell me where I trashed GM in this thread and what specifically I said that was incorrect and maybe we can move forward. Then you can justify your claims of a Toyota defect in the DBW system with some actual evidence.....