U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–677CC 2002

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FREEDOMCAR: HURDLES, BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS, AND

ROLE IN ENERGY POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 6, 2002

Serial No. 107–111

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GREG GANSKE, Iowa 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

TOM SAWYER, Ohio 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JANE HARMAN, California 

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director 

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel 

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 

(Ex Officio) 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, 

(Ex Officio) 

3

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Testimony of: 

Culver, Robert N., Executive Director, United States Council for Automotive Research ............................................................................................ 40

Garman, Hon. David K., Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ............................................. 10

Miller, William T., President, UTC Fuel Cells ............................................... 82

Paul, Donald L., Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 

ChevronTexaco .............................................................................................. 86

Roan, Vernon P., Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Director, Fuel 

Cell Laboratory, University of Florida, on behalf of the PNGV Peer 

Review Committee, National Research Council ......................................... 56

Wells, Jim, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General 

Accounting Office .......................................................................................... 8 

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FREEDOMCAR: 

HURDLES, BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS, 

AND ROLE IN ENERGY POLICY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2002, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James C. Greenwood 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Greenwood, Stearns, Gillmor, 

Bass, Fletcher, Deutsch, and Dingell (ex officio). 

Staff present: Peter Spencer, majority professional staff member; 

Joe Greenman, legislative assistant; Yong Choe, legislative clerk; 

Jonathan J. Cordone, minority counsel; and Bruce Gwinn, minority 

professional staff member. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. 

Today we’ll be examining a far-reaching and quite bold automotive 

research initiative that has been launched by the Department of 

Energy and the big three automakers. 

The FreedomCAR program, a public-private research and development initiative, presents a vision of a day when automobiles will 

not be only pollution free, but no longer dependent on petroleum. 

This is a bold vision indeed. 

The focus of this initiative is for the long term, of course, which 

may have merit for setting priorities, but it also raises some basic 

issues I hope we can explore in depth today. Some of these issues 

involve assuring that we will be able to assess, as the program 

moves forward, whether taxpayer money is well spent. Some issues 

also involve placing this program in the broader context of our energy policy, an important area of the full committee’s jurisdiction, 

and fully appreciating the challenges the program will face. 

Some of you may remember the large ad campaign a couple of 

months ago for the new model lineup from Nissan’s Infiniti division. The flashy ads displayed futuristic vehicles, the kind we used 

to read about in Popular Science, with the catchy question, ‘‘where 

are the cars we were promised?’’ We know now those so-called future cars promised to be right 

around the corner were never delivered. The ads struck me, because they pointed to something I think can affect our thinking 

about future technology. We can get carried away with our imagination, only to be disappointed by reality. This is not to say that 

2

we shouldn’t have bold visions that go beyond what we are presently capable of achieving. Innovation would wither away otherwise. But it should serve to remind us as we go forward with 

spending from limited resources to seek policy goals that are important for our Nation that we must maintain some perspective 

and be willing to say no when a vision goes off track. 

The two panels from which we will hear this morning should 

help us make sure that we stay on track with this program so that 

we can be confident it is a beneficial pursuit for our Nation’s energy policy goals. The panelists should help us check whether we 

will be able to assess as time goes on that the program fits with 

policy goals, that it will make a positive impact on our efforts to 

reduce our oil dependence and cut pollution, or whether adjustments are necessary. 

At the outset, there are some key questions we need to consider 

about the respective roles in the program of the Department of Energy and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, which represents the auto makers. 

For example, there are some threshold questions about the structure of the program. What is the role of industry in this partnership? How is the money spent? Where does it go? There are questions about the balance of the technology portfolio currently being 

pursued by FreedomCAR. Has the shift in focus to a fuel cell, hydrogen future diminished the pressure to get the intermediate 

gains in automobile efficiency we’ve already been researching and 

spending more than a billion dollars on these past 8 years? 

As our General Accounting Office witness will point out in his 

testimony, reviews of past R&D efforts by the Federal Government 

reveal that, surprise, surprise, some of these efforts have come up 

short due to lack of focus, absence of measurable goals and benchmarks, or failure to consider actual marketplace potential of the research. Some efforts have produced positive results, so we have 

some experience here that offers up lessons we should consider as 

we examine FreedomCAR. 

It is essential that we examine this program in the context of our 

broader energy policy. We must consider how the pieces, the technology portfolio, the benchmarks and goals fit together to make an 

actual difference in how we use energy and in what we emit into 

the air. When all is said and spent, this initiative should enable 

the production of something that consumers and businesses will 

want to purchase and use. Is FreedomCAR structured to help 

launch products and innovation into the marketplace? 

Is the strategy contemplated by the Department of Energy sufficient to prevent advances from gathering dust on a lab shelf? Panelists today will help us put FreedomCAR’s goals and its connection 

to a hydrogen future in proper perspective. I look forward to discussion about the requirements for infrastructure, the demands on 

fuel supply, the cost barriers and challenges. I look forward to 

learning about what Congress may have to consider to help address 

these issues. I’m not sure that all that will be involved or how long 

this vision will take to be realized has been fully appreciated by the 

public. 

Moreover, I’m not sure the questions are settled about the current course of FreedomCAR. We will hear today about other asVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
3

pects of research and development concerning hydrogen infrastructure. For example, that might need more immediate attention if 

the hydrogen vision is to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem. 

Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, after all, you can’t really convince people to leap to fuel cell cars unless they can drive them far 

and wide without worry about filling up. 

Finally, as we step back to view the program in a broad context, 

we should also not lose sight of its potential for positive side effects. There is something to be said about long-range focus. Properly sighted, it can generate research outcomes we cannot even contemplate as it fosters innovation. 

So I’d like to kick off this hearing on that upbeat note, but without forgetting that we should not let our imaginations get too far 

ahead of us when we’re spending the taxpayers’ money. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. James C. Greenwood follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Good morning and welcome. Today we’ll be examining a far-reaching and quite 

bold automotive research initiative that has been launched by the Department of 

Energy and the Big Three automakers. 

The FreedomCAR program, a public-private research and development initiative, 

presents a vision of a day when automobiles will be not only pollution free, but no 

longer dependent on petroleum. This is a bold vision indeed. 

The focus of this initiative is for the long-term, of course, which may have merit 

for setting priorities, but it also raises some basic issues I hope we can explore in 

depth today. Some of these issues involve assuring that we will be able to assess, 

as the program moves forward, whether taxpayer money is well spent. Some issues 

also involve placing this program in the broader context of our energy policy—an 

important area of the full Committee’s jurisdiction—and fully appreciating the challenges the program will face. 

Some of you may remember the large ad campaign a couple of month’s ago for 

the new model line-up from Nissan’s Infiniti division. The flashy ads displayed all 

these futuristic vehicles—the kind we used to read about in Popular Science—with 

the catchy question: ‘‘Where are the cars we were promised?’’ We know now those 

so-called future cars, promised to be right around the corner, were never delivered. 

The ads struck me because they pointed to something I think can infect our thinking about future technology; we can get carried away with our imagination, only to 

be disappointed as reality sets in. 

Now, this is not to say that we shouldn’t have bold visions, visions that go beyond 

what we’re presently capable of achieving. Innovation would wither away otherwise. 

But it should serve to remind us, as we go forward with spending from limited resources to seek policy goals that are important for our Nation, that we must maintain some perspective, and be willing to say no when a vision goes off track. 

The two panels we will hear this morning should help us make sure we stay on 

track with this program so we can be confident it’s a beneficial pursuit for our nation’s energy policy goals. The panelists should help us check whether we will be 

able to assess, as time goes on, that the program fits with policy goals, that it will 

make a positive impact on our efforts to reduce our oil dependence and cut pollution, 

or whether adjustments are necessary. 

At the outset, there are some key questions we must consider about the respective 

roles in the program of the Department of Energy and U.S. Council for Automotive 

Research, or USCAR, which represents the automakers. 

For example, there are some threshold questions about the structure of the program. What is the role of industry in this partnership? How is the money spent? 

Where does it go? 

There are questions about the balance of the technology portfolio currently being 

pursued by FreedomCAR. Has the shift in focus to a fuel cell, hydrogen future diminished the pressure to get the intermediate gains in automobile efficiency we’ve 

already been researching—and spending more than a billion dollars on—these past 

eight years? 

As our General Accounting Office witness will point out in his testimony, reviews 

of past R&D efforts by the federal government reveal that some of these efforts have 

4

come up short—due to lack of focus, absence of measurable goals and benchmarks, 

or failure to consider actual marketplace potential of the research. Some efforts have 

produced positive results. So we have some experience here that offers up lessons 

we should consider as we examine FreedomCAR. 

It is essential that we examine this program in the context of our broader energy 

policy. We must consider how the pieces’ the technology portfolio, the benchmarks 

and goals—fit together to make an actual difference in how we use energy, in what 

we emit into the air. When all is said and spent, this initiative should enable the 

production of something that consumers, businesses will want to purchase and use. 

Is FreedomCAR structured to help launch products and innovation into the marketplace? Is the strategy contemplated by the Department of Energy sufficient to 

prevent advances from gathering dust on a lab shelf? 

Panelists today will help us put FreedomCAR’s goals and its connection to a hydrogen future in proper perspective. I look forward to discussion about the requirements for infrastructure, the demands on fuel supply, the cost barriers and challenges. I look forward to learning about what Congress may have to consider, to 

help address these issues. I am not sure that all that will be involved or how long 

this vision will take to be realized has been fully appreciated by the public. 

Moreover, I’m not so sure the questions are settled about the current course of 

FreedomCAR. We will hear today about other aspects of research and development—concerning hydrogen infrastructure, for example—that might need more immediate attention if the hydrogen vision is to overcome the chicken and egg problem. Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, after all, you can’t really convince people 

to leap to fuel cell cars unless they can drive them far and wide, without worry 

about filling up. 

Finally, as we step back to view this program in a broad context, we should also 

not lose sight of its potential for positive side effects. There’s something to be said 

about long-rang focus, properly sighted. It can generate research outcomes we cannot even contemplate as it fosters innovation. 

So I’d like to kick off this hearing on that upbeat note, but without forgetting that 

we should not let our imaginations get too far ahead of us when we’re spending 

other people’s money.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. 

Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate 

this hearing. I don’t think that there is a more important domestic 

policy issue than what this program is about. The potential in 

terms of fuel cells would have a dramatic effect on our national security, on our macroeconomy, and so it clearly is a very, very high 

priority in terms of the goals of this country, and I look forward 

to the testimony and working with the committee and the committee staff in trying to make this program as successful as possible. Thank you. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman—the other gentleman from Florida—Mr. 

Stearns, for an opening statement. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

having this hearing. Over the past year and a half, much of the energy policy debate has centered around CAFE standards. Obviously 

as summer approaches, more Americans are taking more vacations. 

The demand and subsequently the price of gasoline is increasing. 

Add to that the tensions in the Middle East, and we are again looking at possibly a higher set of gasoline prices this summer. 

As America searches for ways to become more self-sufficient in 

energy consumption, we’re also looking for ways to reduce consumption. So I believe today’s hearing shed light on the problem 

talking about perhaps not a new approach, but an improvement 

over an older approach to fuel efficiency. As many of you know, 

nearly 9 years ago, President Clinton announced a new government 

and industry program called the Partnership for New Generation 

5

of Vehicles. The goal was to eventually produce an environmentally 

friendly vehicle that would achieve greater fuel economy without 

sacrificing performance, affordability and safety. These are the 

same influential factors within the CAFE standards debate. As 

many are concerned that arbitrarily raising CAFE standards would 

hurt these same areas. 

The new program brought together the resources and expertise 

of both the private sector and the Federal Government. The research centered around reducing U.S. oil consumption by developing new technologies, such as hybrid electric fuel cells and lightweight materials. At the beginning of this year, the Bush administration decided to expand the research and development of fuel 

cells within a new initiative called FreedomCAR. This expands 

upon the old partnership initiative, while narrowing the focus. Fuel 

cells offer the most promising opportunity, especially in terms of 

domestic production. In addition, the new initiative focuses on expanding the use of new technologies across a wider spectrum of car 

manufacturing design so as to make such technologies more marketable. 

And this makes business sense. In light of President Bush’s energy policy and the desire for all of us to wean ourselves off the 

nearly 60 percent reliance on foreign fuel imports, the 

FreedomCAR initiative is a proper step in focusing these research 

efforts to a more and what we hope to be achievable goal. 

As a member representing a State that imports nearly 100 percent of its fuel needs in Florida, I support common sense approaches to fuel efficiency and the increased use of new technologies. So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing. 

Look forward to our witnesses. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, given the recent focus on formulating our nation’s energy policy, 

I am grateful for this opportunity to address the status of the DOE’s new 

FreedomCAR program. In particular, I am anxious to hear about the progress of 

fuel cell technology and FreedomCAR since its announcement last January. 

Like many of the Members here, I support conservation efforts, while at the same 

time, enhancing the use of renewable energy resources, improving energy efficiencies, and increasing domestic energy supplies to decrease America’s dependency 

on foreign oil. At the onset, I believe this program is a step in the right direction 

to achieve this goal. 

However, with a technology of chemically generating electricity from hydrogen, 

one that is not market-ready in our nation’s automotive industry, I feel it is important to continue to improve upon and give attention to current technologies such as 

hybrids. 

Furthermore, as we delve into this issue, I am hopeful that this program will 

produce long-term goals that motivate researchers, inspire the public, and provide 

the appropriate avenues to measure progress. 

Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Thank you Chairman Greenwood. And, let me also thank you for putting together 

what promises to be a very interesting hearing this morning on the Department of 

Energy’s FreedomCAR partnership. 

6

Several policies we pursue on this Committee aim, in one way or another, to encourage innovation and technological advancement and to assist efforts to deploy 

workable innovations into the marketplace. Whether it is pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, the Internet, or, of course, energy, the bulk of this innovation 

comes from private sector initiatives. 

Clearly, the federal government can and does aid in this process. It pursues its 

own research and development, which has spin offs into the market—think of the 

Intemet’s development, for example. And it can implement policies that encourage 

(or at least don’t stifle) the innovative and technological pursuits of those in the private sphere. The federal government also can serve as an incubator of sorts, or can 

assist through demonstration projects and the like, where there is promise but not 

enough incentive for individual companies to pursue. 

Or, in the case of the program at hand, federal R&D can work in partnership with 

the private sector—and appropriately so, if it is properly structured. 

However, I think there’s a delicate balancing act, which we in Congress must 

monitor very carefully. We have a responsibility, as you indicated Mr. Chairman, 

to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on initiatives that are in the public 

interest—and that hold some promise of producing results. And as Members of this 

Committee, with its broad jurisdiction, know quite well, we also have limited resources, but a seemingly unlimited number of vexing problems we’d like to address. 

I look forward to learning from the witnesses about the structure of this program, 

and the measures in place, or that will be put into place, that will assist Members 

as well as the agency and automaker planners themselves to track the progress of 

FreedomCAR, and to correct its course, if necessary. 

I also look forward to hearing about the prospects of this program in our dynamic 

marketplace, and the ongoing innovations and changes that occur in the transportation sector. 

It’s been encouraging to see advances such as hybrid vehicles coming into the 

market, and to see demonstrations of other advanced engine technology on the verge 

of market introduction. When we consider the goals of this program, it’s important 

to look at them against the backdrop of the marketplace, rather than just a blackboard. 

It’s also important to look at the goals in the context of our nation’s energy policy, 

which, as it happens, is one of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s front-burner 

issues at the moment. 

I look forward to learning about the broader, but related, goals of a leap to a hydrogen economy. I’d like to hear more about how this will effect our energy usage, 

how it will effect innovation and the future of transportation, and our economy. 

These are big questions. I’m pleased we’re taking a stab at them today. 

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come and discuss these important 

issues with us, and I yield back, the remainder of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today and I thank our witnesses for being here as well. FreedomCAR does have a nice ring to it. I hope that 

the program’s goals go deeper than that, though. I’d like to see substantial changes 

in the vehicles we drive. 

As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, it probably 

will not surprise anyone here that I am very interested in today’s discussion. I 

strongly believe that we have to think creatively to solve our current energy needs 

and look toward solving the energy needs of tomorrow. 

I have been in Congress for three terms. But I have a lot of friends and colleagues 

who have been here for much longer. I won’t name any names. When we get to talking about these projects to develop cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient, they 

tell me how they have been talking about how the fuel cell vehicle is just around 

the corner. Those conversations, I’m afraid to say, have taken place for the last 

three decades. And we are still having the same conversations. 

I don’t think I’m alone in realizing how important it is to develop new technologies that will help our country to be less reliant on oil. Of course our current 

oil dependence is largely driven by our car culture. Major assertions to the contrary, 

we have not made great strides in implementing technologies that substantially improve gas mileage. Instead, the recent trends toward larger and larger vehicles have 

only increased this dependence. 

I like the sound of Secretary Abraham’s assertions that this project aims to ‘‘leapfrog the status quo’’ and pursue ‘‘dramatic environmental benefits.’’ I look forward 

7

to hearing how the goals of this program differ from earlier federal efforts and how 

they are more achievable. We do not want to re-invent the wheel here. By that, I 

am saying that I think we need to continue to build on the research that has already taken place. 

I want to talk about how we aim to implement any new technologies we develop. 

How do we build on past research to develop the next generation of vehicles that 

will actually wean us from our dependence? How do we safely transport and store 

hydrogen? 

I think this is also an excellent opportunity to further explore some interim solutions. I am glad that the Department of Energy has decided that we are heading 

to a day when we all drive clean, fuel-efficient, hydrogen-powered vehicles—albeit 

in ten years. But I wouldn’t mind discussing improvements we could implement 

sooner in order to achieve cleaner air standards sooner. 

And I wouldn’t mind hearing why we have determined that hydrogen has become 

the fuel of choice to drive this mission. I am not saying it isn’t the way to go. I 

would just like to discuss why it is the best option. 

Further, I do not pretend to be a physicist or mechanical engineer. That is why 

I am glad we have the experts here to help us achieve a better understanding of 

these issues. I ask that we use this hearing to get a clearer map of where we are 

heading and why it is that that is the best direction in which to head. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing. The industry must search for long-term ways to boost fuel economy substantially. Among 

those methods—10 to 20 years or more from now—the President’s fuel cell program 

holds a lot of promise. The development of hydrogen fuel cell technologies is vital 

to the future competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry. Public-private partnerships, 

such as FreedomCAR and Michigan’s Next Energy initiatives, are necessary to 

apply these developing technologies to practical uses and to adequately prepare the 

Nation’s infrastructure to receive and support them. 

For the immediate future, however, the answer is either hybrids or advanced 

clean burn diesel technology. The problem with hybrid electric technology is that its 

reliability and performance are unproven. The reliability and performance of clean 

burn diesel technology, on the other hand, has been well demonstrated. 

Clean burn diesel technology is in wide use in the European Union (EU), the 

world’s second largest vehicle market. Clean burn diesel vehicles accounted for 48 

percent of all light-duty vehicles and 75 percent of all luxury vehicles sold in the 

EU last year. By 2010, diesels are expected to account for 75 percent of all lightduty vehicle sales in the EU. 

One of the primary reasons this technology is so popular in Europe is that diesels 

have outstanding fuel economy. Audi’s recently introduced A2 model has a fuel economy rating of 78 miles per gallon. The A2’s mileage rating is better than that of 

the Honda Insight with its hybrid electric engine, and the A2 seats four passengers 

rather than the Honda’s two passengers. 

If diesel accounted for only 30 percent of California’s fleet of motor vehicles, estimates are that fuel consumed by vehicles in California could be cut in half. If fuel 

consumed nationwide could be reduced by half, the Department of Energy says fuel 

consumption would be reduced to a level we haven’t seen since November 1964. 

Clean burn diesel engines are also very close to meeting U.S. emission standards. 

The motor vehicle companies have until 2007 to meet new nitrous oxide standards 

and the manufacturers believe they can do it. 

None of these clean burn diesel vehicles, however, can be sold in the U.S., now 

or in the future, unless the U.S. cleans up its diesel fuel as the EU is doing. The 

U.S. allows 15 parts per million sulfur in its diesel fuel—not the six parts per million fuel that EPA used in its testing of the European Toyota. 

Europe has been far more aggressive than the U.S. in banning sulfur from both 

gasoline and diesel fuels. Sweden has already adopted regulations allowing only 

‘‘zero sulfur’’ diesel to be sold in that country. By 2005, the sulfur content of diesel 

fuel sold throughout the EU must be effectively ‘‘zero.’’

With essentially sulfur-free diesel fuel, recent advances in catalyst emission control technology make it possible to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from clean burn 

diesel engines by as much as 90 percent. Particulate emissions would also be greatly 

reduced with particulate trap technology. With clean burn diesel, hydrocarbon emissions are also much less than with current state-of-the-art gasoline engines. 

8

Technology can be developed to make clean burn diesel engines meet U.S. standards, but it cannot happen without clean diesel fuel. U.S. refiners must take the 

sulfur out of diesel fuel just as the EU is doing. At the current U.S. standard of 

15 parts per million, both the efficiency and durability of diesel engines is compromised to the point that the fuel economy advantages diesels offer cannot be realized. 

All that blocks our path to high fuel economy here in the U.S., like the Audi A2’s 

78 miles per gallon, is dirty diesel fuel and the technology to overcome one test hurdle on nitrous oxide. Industry’s engineers can overcome the nitrous oxide problem. 

But the motor vehicle industry can do nothing about cleaning up diesel fuel. That 

is a task only the Congress can handle. 

I will be introducing legislation that requires refiners to produce lower sulfur diesel fuel. Because there will be investment and development costs associated with 

this requirement, my legislation will also provide for tax credits for the refining industry. 

Diesel is the way of the future, and I am hopeful that its short-term benefits will 

not be overlooked by the Administration or the Congress, even as we examine longer 

term strategies. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair recognizes and welcomes our first 

panel, consisting of Mr. Jim Wells, who is the director of Natural 

Resources and Environment for the U.S. General Accounting Office; 

the Honorable David Garman, who is assistant secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy; and Mr. Robert N. Culver, executive director of United States 

Council for Automotive Research. We welcome you all and thank 

you for helping us out this morning. 

I believe you all are aware that this committee is holding an investigative hearing and it has had the practice of taking testimony 

under oath. Do any of you object to giving your testimony under 

oath? The Chair then advises you that under the rules of the 

House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do any of you choose to be advised by counsel 

while you testify? 

In that case if you’d please rise and raise your right hand, I’ll 

swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. Thank you. You are under oath, and we 

will recognize you for your opening statements, and we will begin 

with Mr. Wells. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM WELLS, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; 

HON. DAVID K. GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY; AND ROBERT N. CULVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members. I too 

would like to begin my statement in an upbeat note, as you mentioned. We are pleased to be here to discuss the previous work on 

the Federal R&D initiatives that have provided some perhaps useful insight as the Congress considers the FreedomCAR initiative. 

As you know, gasoline consumption in the transportation sector is 

huge, 160 billion gallons a year. Given the reliance on petroleum, 

there’s a high vulnerability to the uncertainties related to a world 

oil market. As a result, the Federal Government is and has been 

9

spending billions of dollars attempting to reduce the consumption 

of petroleum in the transportation sector. A variety of means have 

been tried. Tax incentives, mandates to use vehicles that run on alternative fuels and laws designed to enhance fuel efficiency. 

More recently, the old last year’s $1.2 billion partnership between industry and government as referred to the Partnership New 

Generation Vehicle, is being replaced with the new FreedomCAR 

initiative. Clearly, today’s cars, Mr. Chairman, are more fuel efficient, and they are less polluting. The sad news is that any gains 

in fuel efficiency are being outpaced by the increase in the total 

miles that are being driven and the growing popularity of the sport 

utility vehicles and light trucks. We’re using approximately 10-plus 

million barrels of petroleum a day to fuel these vehicles, and we’re 

heading toward 15-plus million barrels in 2010. 

As a result, I’d like you to look at the chart to my left here. It 

is also there in my printed statement. I draw your attention to that 

slender line at the top. This is the result so far in reducing petroleum usage. The largest dark-shaded area will show you two 

things: The annual petroleum usage is going up, increasing 40 billion gallons just in the last 10 years. You’re looking at a 10-year 

period with billions of gallons to the left and 160 billion gallons at 

2001. 97 percent of our transportation usage is gasoline, not alternative fuels. 

That light-colored line that you see there at the top shows that 

we really haven’t made much of a dent. Consumers have not widely 

embraced vehicles that run on anything other than gasoline. The 

challenge is going to be whether you build a car, a new hydrogen 

car and or whether you reduce the dependence on oil. Clearly these 

goals are going to be formidable goals. As Congress considers the 

FreedomCAR initiative or any comparative Federal-sponsored research program, we’re here today to suggest, perhaps, four themes 

for Congressional oversight. These are based on some of the lessons 

we’ve learned as auditors in looking at these programs over 20 

years. 

The first one, make sure that the research being performed by 

private industry would not do on its own. Earlier, GAO had looked 

at work relating to the Department of Commerce’s Advanced Technology Program. Forty percent of the participants in that program 

responded to the auditors that they would have performed the research even without Federal funding. A second theme, make sure 

the programs specify a clear and measurable goal. 

Clearly, SEMATECH in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s, a Federal 

industry consortium, was successful because it clearly articulated 

both a goal that was improving the competitiveness of the U.S. 

manufacturer capability in semiconductors, and it did have a method to achieve this goal, and that was to build state-of-the-art semiconductors using only equipment manufactured in the United 

States. 

Although the recent PNGV program began with a clear goal, they 

tried to develop a highly fuel efficient family sedan. The partnership struggled a little bit in not later reassessing the goal as consumers’ tastes shifted away from the family sedans toward lighter 

trucks—light trucks and sport utility vehicles. The third theme 

10

that we bring to your attention is to ensure that all the new initiatives they devise a strategy to directly address the goal. 

Although it may sound surprising, the government-sponsored 

R&D research programs over the years sometimes have articulated 

a goal and then not devised a strategy that directly addressed that 

goal. The classic case was the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It had a 

goal of reducing petroleum fuel reduction, but it also allowed a 

strategy to be put in place instructing the Federal agencies to buy 

alternative fuel vehicles, which ended up being powered by gasoline, and as a result, achieved no fuel reductions. 

As you consider the FreedomCAR initiative, it’s important to recognize as was the case with alternative fuels and was mentioned 

by the chairman, that there is a lack of infrastructure for fuels 

other than gasoline. Look at these charts. The question will be 

asked, how far are you willing to drive to find fuel? The top chart 

represents gasoline infrastructure. The bottom chart represents filling stations related to alternative fuels. This lack of infrastructure 

could pose a very significant challenge to the implementation of 

any kind of FreedomCAR-type initiative when the vehicles it develops will run on anything other than gasoline. 

And my last theme would be to consider whether consumers will 

buy the product resulting from the R&D expenditure and efforts 

that you put forth. We’ve seen that Federal research sometimes 

producing compelling technical accomplishments but few marketable products. In 1995, we reported the U.S. advanced battery consortium could potentially achieve its immediate technical goals, 

and they did, but the resulting batteries would be too expensive, 

and would not enable the electric cars that were equipped with 

these batteries to be competitive with the traditional automobiles. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the FreedomCAR initiative plan to 

develop fuel cell technology clearly, in our opinion, represents an 

exciting area of research. The payoff could be large. As auditors 

based on our earlier reviews, it would be critical for the initiative 

to keep one eye on achieving technical goals, and also to keep one 

eye particularly on the marketplace. Moreover, if there’s one thing 

I want to leave you with, the ultimate success of how this new 

FreedomCAR initiative may be judged in the future, it may be 

judged not by the specific technical goals that it achieves along the 

way, but by its contribution toward enlarging that slim sliver of a 

line that I showed you earlier on the chart that represents future 

nonpetroleum usage. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary, remarks, and will be 

glad to answer questions at a later time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Jim Wells appears at the end of the 

hearing.] 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Wells. We appreciate your testimony and we’ll now turn to Mr. Garman. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN 

Mr. GARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss FreedomCAR, which is an initiative to reduce the 

Nation’s dependence on foreign oil by dramatically changing how 

we will 1 day power our cars and light trucks. This light illustrates 

the expanding gap between declining domestic oil production and 

11

our increasing demand, even if we open ANWR, a business-asusual approach, to research and development does not close the 

gap. Mindful of this fact, Secretary Abraham challenged us to take 

a bolder approach to our work. He challenged us to leapfrog the 

status quo and pursue dramatic environmental benefits. 

On January 9, Secretary Abraham, joined by top leadership of 

General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler and Ford announced 

FreedomCAR at the North American International Auto Show in 

Detroit. The ‘‘CAR’’ in FreedomCAR stands for ‘‘cooperative automotive research,’’ and the ‘‘Freedom’’ concept represents our fundamental long-term goals for this program: Freedom from petroleum 

dependence, freedom from pollutant emissions, freedom for Americans to choose the kind of car they want to drive and to drive 

where they want when they want. 

In short, we’re looking to eventually remove the automobile as a 

factor in the environmental equation and as a factor that drives 

our dependency on foreign petroleum. If we want all of these things 

as well as performance functionality and affordability in a wide 

range of vehicles, we see the most promising long-term approach is 

hydrogen-fueled fuel cells combined with electric drive. Therefore, 

the first element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies enabling mass production of affordable fuel cell vehicles 

and to assure the hydrogen infrastructure to support those vehicles. 

The partnership we’ve enjoyed in the past, the Partnership for a 

New Generation of Vehicles, had some successes, and we’re certainly not abandoning them. Indeed many of the research elements 

of the PNGV program are embodied in the second element of our 

approach to continue support for hybrid and other technologies that 

can dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the near term. 

The third element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies applicable across a wide range of passenger vehicles. One 

of the problems with the PNGV program was it focused on a production prototype of a family sedan. We’re not limiting our focus. 

In its most recent peer review of the PNGV program, the National Academy of Science has made a number of observations and 

recommendations. They suggested that PNGV goals be re-examined. They observed that the real opportunities for saving energies 

are in increasing the efficiencies of sport utility vehicles and 

pickups. They cautioned that it’s inappropriate for government to 

be involved in the development of production prototypes. And we 

took their advice to heart and made changes. 

With respect to key goals, FreedomCAR is focused on petroleumfree, emissions-free transportation with an emphasis on hydrogen 

fuel cells and also on systems and components applicable to many 

types of vehicles. PNGV was focused on a production prototype 80-

mile-per-gallon family sedan. With respect to timeframe, FreedomCAR has a long-term vision with component technology goals 

over the next 10 years to gauge our progress. PNGV was a 10-year 

program focused on 2004. 

With respect to government leadership and focus, FreedomCAR 

is a partnership solely between DOE and USCAR. PNGV was a collaboration between USCAR and seven government agencies led by 

12

the Department of Commerce. With respect to technology emphasis, FreedomCAR is focused on hydrogen and fuel cells with transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel processors. PNGV emphasized compression, ignition, direct injection 

hybrids. With respect to vehicle focus, FreedomCAR’s focus is R&D 

at the component level with equal emphasis on cars and light 

trucks. PNGV emphasized development and demonstration of 

preproduction, mid-sized family sedans. We’re not abandoning the 

good work that has emerged from PNGV. 

There are many shared components between an advanced hybrid 

electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle including light-weight materials, power electronics, electric motors and batteries. Advances we 

make in these components need not wait for fuel cells or hydrogen 

infrastructure to reach the market, as they can be introduced as 

soon as they’re ready. We’ll also be continuing our work in alternative fuel and advanced combustion engines needed to support the 

development of advanced hybrid electric vehicles. 

Of course, new areas of emphasis needed for fuel cell vehicles include hydrogen storage, on-board reformation and fuel cell stack 

development. This is our budget cross-cut for FreedomCAR. We’re 

proposing to spend $150.3 million on this initiative in fiscal year 

2003. And a lot has been said about specific technology goals. The 

transition to a hydrogen-based transportation system is a longrange vision. 

To assure progress, intermediate goals are necessary to ensure 

that these accomplishments can be measured and our progress can 

be measured along the way. We have goals to ensure reliable affordable fuel cell power trains. We have goals to promote energy efficient vehicles operating on hydrocarbon-based fuels to be powered 

either by internal combustion power trains or fuel cells. We have 

goals focused on improving hybrid durability and affordability. We 

have goals focused on the need for a widespread availability of hydrogen fuels. We have goals designed to assure vehicle 

functionality. We have goals designed to improve the manufacturing base, and we also have goals geared to performance-based 

management. 

In summary, our vision for FreedomCAR is a bold one in response to Secretary Abraham’s challenge that we act boldly. Although FreedomCAR is a long-term effort beyond any near-term 

political horizon, we’ve developed intermediate goals to ensure that 

we make measurable demonstrable progress toward our vision in 

the coming decade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of David K. Garman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID K. GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY

EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss FreedomCAR—our flagship research and development initiative to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil by dramatically changing how we power our cars and light trucks. 

By way of background, the most striking feature of our transportation system is 

its nearly complete dependence on petroleum as an energy source. Petroleum is used 

to satisfy 95% of America’s transportation energy needs, consuming two-thirds of all 

the petroleum we use. Since roughly 55% of our petroleum is imported from abroad, 

the implications of this dependency on our energy security are well understood by 

the members of this Committee, and I need not dwell on them here. 

13

THE ‘‘GAP’’ IS GROWING

This slide illustrates the expanding gap between declining domestic oil production 

and our increasing demand. As you can see, opening the Coastal Plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge to exploration would clearly help, but that alone would not 

close the gap. The R&D approach we were previously embarked on would have also 

helped... but would not have closed the gap either. Indeed, both taken together 

would not have closed the gap. 

Mindful of these realities, Secretary Abraham challenged the Department of Energy to take a bolder approach to our work. He directed us to focus our efforts on 

programs that ‘‘revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency.’’

He challenged us to ‘‘leapfrog the status quo’’ and to pursue ‘‘dramatic environmental benefits.’’

FREEDOMCAR IS A PARTNERSHIP

On January 9, 2002, Secretary Abraham, joined by top leadership from General 

Motors, Daimler Chrysler, and Ford, announced FreedomCAR at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. 

The CAR in FreedomCAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research. And the 

‘‘Freedom’’ concept represents our fundamental, long-term goals for this program:

• Freedom from petroleum dependence; 

• Freedom from pollutant emissions; 

• Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to 

drive where they want, when they want; and 

• Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently. 

We are seeking to develop cars and trucks that are free of foreign oil and harmful 

emissions, without sacrificing safety, freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle 

choice. We are looking to eventually remove the automobile as a factor in the environmental equation, and as a factor that drives our dependency on foreign petroleum. 

This is a dramatic, far reaching vision... one that requires new technology. We 

cannot break the bonds of oil dependency by continuing with the status quo. Given 

the low gasoline and diesel prices we enjoy today, we can reasonably expect consumers to continue demanding larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles, and vehicle 

manufacturers to continue using internal combustion engines to satisfy that demand. We clearly see this in the marketplace today. The majority of the new passenger vehicles sold in 2001 were, for the very first time in automotive history, light 

trucks in the form of sport utility vehicles, vans and pickups. 

STRATEGIC APPROACH

How is it possible to offer performance, convenience and functionality in a range 

of vehicles that can meet the needs of a diverse population without using petroleum? 

We believe the most promising long-term approach is to employ hydrogen fuel cells 

combined with electric drive. 

Therefore, the first element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies 

to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen infrastructure to support them. 

Fuel cells, of course, can be thought of as batteries that are continuously replenished by a constant supply of hydrogen. And hydrogen, the most plentiful element 

in the universe and the third most plentiful on earth, can be derived from a variety 

of sources including petroleum, natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water. 

But there are significant technical and infrastructure barriers that must be overcome, including fuel cell cost and durability; electric drive performance and cost; hydrogen production, storage, cost and distribution challenges; and many others. Neither industry nor government, working alone, is likely to overcome these barriers 

in any reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we must work in partnership. 

The partnership we have enjoyed in the past, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PGNV), has had some successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those successes or the collaborations it fostered. Indeed, many of the research elements of PNGV are embodied in the second element of our approach: 

Namely, to continue support for hybrid technologies and advanced materials that 

can dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the nearer 

term. 

But one of the problems of PNGV was its focus on a production prototype of a 

family sedan. Therefore, the third element of our strategic approach is to develop 

technologies applicable across a wide range of passenger vehicles. 

14

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In its most recent peer review of the PNGV program, the National Academy of 

Sciences made a number of observations and recommendations, a few of which I will 

list here:

• ‘‘[T]he priorities and specific goals of the PNGV program should be reexamined. 

There is a need to update the program goals and technical targets in the context of current and prospective markets... government and industry participants should refine the PNGV charter and goals.’’ • ‘‘[T]he demand for sport utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks in the United 

States has drastically increased...This has increased the importance of reducing the fuel consumption of these vehicles compared to the typical family 

sedan.’’ • ‘‘If the program goal (sic) were refocused on reducing total new light duty vehicle 

petroleum consumption, this would encourage the emphasis to be placed on 

those vehicles that offer the greatest potential for achieving this societal goal.’’ • ‘‘. . . it is inappropriate to include the process of building production prototypes in 

a precompetitive, cooperative industry-government program.’’

FREEDOMCAR DIFFERS FROM PNGV

We have accordingly made changes responsive to the observations and recommendations of the peer review panel. With respect to key goals: FreedomCAR is 

focused on petroleum free, emissions free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells. PNGV was focused on building a production prototype 80 mile-pergallon family sedan. 

With respect to timeframe: FreedomCAR has a long-term vision with 2010 component technology goals to gauge progress. PNGV was a 10-year program focused on 

2004. 

With respect to government leadership and focus: FreedomCAR is a partnership 

solely between DOE and USCAR. 

PNGV was a collaboration between USCAR and seven government agencies led 

by the Department of Commerce. 

With respect to technology emphasis: FreedomCAR is focused on hydrogen and 

fuel cells, with transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel processors. PNGV emphasized compression ignition direct injection (diesel) hybrids. 

With respect to vehicle focus: FreedomCAR’s focus is R&D at the component level 

with equal emphasis on light trucks and cars. PNGV emphasized development and 

demonstration of pre-production mid-sized family sedans. 

FREEDOMCAR AND HYBRIDS SHARE TECHNOLOGY

Let me again emphasize that we are not abandoning the good work that has 

emerged from PNGV. There are many shared components between an advanced hybrid electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle, including lightweight materials, power 

electronics, electric motors, and batteries. Breakthroughs we make in these components need not wait for fuel cells or hydrogen infrastructure to reach the market, 

as they can be employed as soon as they are ready. 

We will also be continuing our work in alternative fuels and advanced combustion 

engines (including emissions controls R&D) that are needed to support the development of advanced hybrid electric vehicles. 

FUEL CELL VEHICLE COMPONENTS

Of course, new areas of emphasis aboard the vehicle include hydrogen storage, onboard reformation, and fuel cell stack development. 

But we are also beginning to address the technologies necessary to make a transition to a hydrogen-based transportation economy. Principal among these efforts will 

be solving the problems associated with producing and making hydrogen fuel widely 

available. To that end, elements of the hydrogen program in the Office of Power 

Technologies (OPT) are being integrated into the FreedomCAR effort. Efforts by 

DOE’s Fossil Energy office on deriving hydrogen from coal (with sequestered carbon) 

are also being reviewed. In addition, a related effort in OPT on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines is under consideration for inclusion. 

In November of 2001 my office convened senior executives representing energy industries, environmental organizations and government officials to discuss the role 

for hydrogen systems in America’s energy future. This group addressed a common 

vision for the hydrogen economy, the time frame for the vision and the key milestones needed to get there. There was general agreement that hydrogen can be 

America’s clean energy choice, and that the transition to a hydrogen future has alVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
15

ready begun but could well take 40-50 years to fully unfold. We are working on a 

specific technology roadmap covering production, storage, conversion and infrastructure that leads us to that vision, and we are continuing that work as a part of the 

FreedomCAR program plan. 

FREEDOMCAR RESEARCH COMPONENTS AND SPENDING LEVELS

My next slide shows our budget crosscut for FreedomCAR. We are proposing to 

spend $150.3 million on this initiative in FY 2003. The most notable changes in the 

FY 2003 budget are: 1) increased funding for vehicle fuel cell R&D of $8.075 million, 

to a level of $50 million, and 2) increased funding for hydrogen generation, transport and fueling infrastructure by $9.659 million relative to FY 2002 appropriation 

levels. 

Whereas PNGV was a multi-agency partnership, the only Federal partner in 

FreedomCAR is the Department of Energy. Since the inception of PNGV, DOE has 

accounted for most of the government’s contributions. In FY 2001, we provided 86 

percent of the funding that was directly relevant to the PNGV goals, and that was 

linked with the plans developed by the PNGV government-industry technical teams. 

While other agencies are not formally involved as FreedomCAR partners, we intend 

to coordinate our work with the appropriate technology research, development and 

demonstration programs managed by other Federal agencies, and by State governments as well. The mechanisms by which coordination is accomplished will be 

worked out during the next few months. 

SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL GOALS AND TIMETABLES

The transition to a hydrogen-based transportation system is a long-range vision. 

To assure progress, nearer-term goals are necessary so that accomplishments can 

be measured and recognized. Therefore, the Partnership has identified the following 

2010 technology-specific goals.1

2010 TECHNOLOGY GOALS: FUEL CELL POWERTRAINS

• To ensure reliable systems for future fuel cell powertrains with costs comparable to conventional internal combustion engine/automatic transmission systems, 

the goals are:

• Electric Propulsion System with a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 55kW 

for 18 seconds, and 30kW continuous at a system cost of $12/kW peak. 

• 60% peak energy-efficient, durable fuel cell power system (including hydrogen 

storage) that achieves a 325 W/kg power density and 220 W/L operating on hydrogen. Cost targets are at $45/kW by 2010 ($30/kW by 2015).2

2010 TECHNOLOGY GOALS: HYDROCARBON FUEL PLATFORM

• To enable clean, energy-efficient vehicles operating on clean, hydrocarbon-based 

fuels powered by either internal combustion powertrains or fuel cells, the goals are:

• Internal combustion engine powertrain systems costing $30/kW, having a peak 

brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

• Fuel cell systems, including a fuel reformer, having a peak brake engine efficiency 

of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards with a cost target of $45/

kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015.2,3

2010 TECHNOLOGY GOAL: HYBRID SYSTEMS

• To enable reliable hybrid electric vehicles that are durable and affordable, the 

goal is:

• Electric drivetrain energy storage with 15-year life at 300 Wh with discharge 

power of 25 kW for 18 seconds and $20/kW. 

2010 TECHNOLOGY GOALS: HYDROGEN TRANSITION

• To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy, ensure widespread availability 

of hydrogen fuels, and retain the functional characteristics of current vehicles, the 

goals are:

• Demonstrated hydrogen refueling with developed commercial codes and standards 

and diverse renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Targets: 70% energy 

efficiency well-to-pump; cost of energy from hydrogen equivalent to gasoline at 

market price, assumed to be $1.25 per gallon (2001 dollars).4

16

• Hydrogen storage systems demonstrating an available capacity of 6 weight percent hydrogen, specific energy of 2000 W-h/kg, energy density of 1100 W-h/liter 

at a cost of $5/kWh.5

• Internal combustion engine powertrain systems operating on hydrogen with a cost 

target of $45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

2010 TECHNOLOGY GOALS: MANUFACTURING BASE

• To improve the manufacturing base, the goal is:

• Material and manufacturing technologies for high volume production vehicles 

which enable/support the simultaneous attainment of: 

• 50% reduction in the weight of vehicle structure & subsystems, 

• affordability, and 

• increased use of recyclable/renewable materials. 

PERFORMANCE BASED MANAGEMENT

• Key metrics to be tracked annually 

• 2010 goals supported by targets and milestones detailed in EERE’s Budget Request 

• All FreedomCAR work to be assessed annually against the R&D investment criteria developed as part of the President’s Management Agenda 

I understand that these goals are highly technical, and they all have a target year 

of 2010. I also understand that the NAS criticized PNGV for not developing interim 

milestones for its ten-year ‘‘stretch’’ goals. Therefore, we are developing a suite of 

easily understandable key metrics that can be presented graphically and will be 

tracked annually so that we can measure our progress. 

We have also developed numerous supporting objectives for the various sub-programs that will contribute to the FreedomCAR goals. We have identified an easily 

quantifiable performance indicator for each of these objectives to ensure that all of 

the sub-programs are making progress. 

In addition, as with all DOE applied R&D programs, FreedomCAR R&D will be 

assessed annually against the R&D investment criteria developed as part of the 

President’s Management Agenda to ensure that the R&D:

• Does not drift into areas that are inappropriate for Federal investment 

• Will maintain strong merit and is well planned 

• Is producing beneficial results 

Furthermore, FreedomCAR R&D will strictly follow the cost-sharing guidelines 

developed with the Administration’s R&D investment criteria. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, our vision for FreedomCAR is a bold one, in response to Secretary 

Abraham’s challenge that we act boldly to ‘‘revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency.’’

FreedomCAR is clearly a long-term effort beyond any near-term political horizon. 

But even as we pursue our ultimate vision of emissions-free, petroleum-free, safe 

and affordable transportation, we have developed near-term goals to ensure that we 

make measurable, demonstrable progress toward that vision in the coming decade. 

And again, while we do face significant technology and infrastructure risks, the 

exceptional rewards and national benefits we could achieve justifies the effort. 

I welcome your questions. 

References 

1 Cost references based on CY 2001 dollar values. Where power (kW) targets are specified, 

those targets are to ensure that technology challenges that would occur in a range of light-duty 

vehicle types would have to be addressed. 2Does not include vehicle traction electronics. 

3 Includes fuel cell stack subsystem, fuel processor subsystem and auxiliaries; does not include 

fuel tank. 4Targets are for hydrogen dispensed to a vehicle assuming a reforming, compressing and dispensing system capable of dispensing 150 kilograms per day (assuming 60,000 SCF per day of 

NG is fed for reforming at the retail dispensing station) and servicing a fleet of 300 vehicles 

per day (assuming 0.5 kgs used in each vehicle per day). Targets are also based on several thousand stations, and possibly demonstrated on several hundred stations. Technologies may also 

include chemical hydrides such as sodium boro-hydride. 5 Based on lower heating value of hydrogen; allows over 300-mile range.

17


g:\graphics\80677.001
18


g:\graphics\80677.002
19


g:\graphics\80677.003
20


g:\graphics\80677.004
21


g:\graphics\80677.005
22


g:\graphics\80677.006
23


g:\graphics\80677.007
24


g:\graphics\80677.008
25


g:\graphics\80677.009
26


g:\graphics\80677.010
27


g:\graphics\80677.011
28


g:\graphics\80677.012
29


g:\graphics\80677.013
30


g:\graphics\80677.014
31


g:\graphics\80677.015
32


g:\graphics\80677.016
33


g:\graphics\80677.017
34


g:\graphics\80677.018
35


g:\graphics\80677.019
36


g:\graphics\80677.020
37


g:\graphics\80677.021
38


g:\graphics\80677.022
39


g:\graphics\80677.023
40

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Garman. 

Mr. Culver. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. CULVER 

Mr. CULVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to address the committee today 

on the new government industry partnership called FreedomCAR. 

My name is Bob Culver and I’m the executive director of United 

States Council for Automotive Research, or USCAR. USCAR is the 

umbrella organization formed in 1992 by Daimler-Chrysler, Ford 

Motor Company and General Motors to conduct collaborative 

precompetitive research. 

USCAR partners fully support Department of Energy Secretary 

Spencer Abraham’s vision of a personal transportation system free 

from reliance on petroleum fuels. We are pleased to join Secretary 

Abraham at the auto show in Detroit on January 9th when he announced the FreedomCAR program to pursue this goal. 

While the vision of FreedomCAR partnership is long range, many 

aspects of the program will have near-term benefits. Light-weight 

material technologies can and will provide benefits for a variety of 

vehicles, regardless of the propulsion system. And power electronic 

technologies, which are critical for fuel cells are equally beneficial 

for near-term vehicles. 

The USCAR partners also support continuing FreedomCAR funding to address promising combustion and after-treatment technologies for internal combustion engines. Through decades of research, many industry and government and environmentalist experts have come to agree that hydrogen powered fuel cells are our 

best investment into the future of transportation. Nearly a decade 

ago, the possibility that a fuel cell could power a car or light truck 

appeared light years away. 

At that time, in order to achieve the power equivalent of an internal combustion engine, the fuel cell required would be larger 

than the vehicle it would power. However, today experimental passenger vehicles powered by fuel cells have been demonstrated by 

our companies in a variety of segments, from compact cars to SUVs 

and mini vans. 

While progress on this very promising technology is being made, 

much research and development work is still needed. Affordability 

remains a major challenge. The cost associated with putting fuel 

cell power trains into vehicles at the current technology level are 

literally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Significant 

progress on this affordability challenge must be made in order to 

make a business case for producing them and marketing them. 

Because this technology is high risk but offers significant societal 

benefits, it is appropriate and necessary for government. USCAR 

worked with the Department of Energy to streamline and refocus 

our partnership on longer term, higher reward technologies such as 

hydrogen powered fuel cells. As Secretary Abraham made clear, 

this is not a short-term vision. It will take many years of hard 

work by the auto industry, by energy providers and Federal research organizations to realize this bold vision. Industry and the 

DOE have agreed on detailed near-term technical goals for each reVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
41

search area. Mr. Garman just showed you those. And they are also 

attached to my testimony. 

Along with technical road maps, the goals will ensure that funds 

are being spent in the most promising areas and that research is 

progressing. While the vision of a hydrogen-based transportation 

system is decades away, it is extremely important to begin addressing the issues involved with shifting the balance from petroleum 

and toward hydrogen. It is also critical to demonstrate user-friendly hydrogen fueling stations and to develop a road map for the new 

infrastructure development. FreedomCAR can serve to jointly develop those demonstration plans and milestones to lead the transition to hydrogen-powered vehicles. 

FreedomCAR research is being focused at the component and 

subsystem level which will be applicable to a wide range of vehicle 

segments. This will facilitate the migration of technologies into the 

most appropriate vehicle platform as the technologies meet their 

goals. The auto industry pledges to bring these advanced technologies to market as soon as the business case can be made for 

them, while at the same time providing our customers with vehicles that are safe and give them the kinds of performance, function, 

utility and value they need and expect for their money. Past 

USCAR and government collaborative programs have provided, and 

will continue to provide, benefits to the American public. New material technologies have helped reduce weight and combustion and 

after treatment technologies are migrating to today’s vehicles. 

Clean fuels including low sulfur diesel are a must if these interim 

technologies are going to make it into the marketplace. 

All of the USCAR partners have announced hybrid electric vehicles in the 2003 and 2004 timeframe, and all in truck and light 

duty or SUV segments where this technology will yield the maximum fuel savings. 

In summary, the USCAR partners are in full support of 

FreedomCAR and are hard at work at advanced technologies including technologies that will help make hydrogen powered vehicles a reality. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Robert N. Culver follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. CULVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED SATES

COUNCIL FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to address the committee on the new industry/government cooperative research partnership called FreedomCAR. My name is Bob Culver and I am the Executive Director 

of the United Sates Council for Automotive Research, or USCAR. USCAR is the umbrella organization founded in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, and 

General Motors to conduct collaborative, pre-competitive research. 

The USCAR partners fully support Department of Energy Secretary Spencer 

Abraham’s vision of a personal transportation system free from reliance on petroleum fuels. We were pleased to join Secretary Abraham at the North American 

International Auto Show on January 9 when he announced the FreedomCAR program to pursue this goal. 

While the vision of the FreedomCAR partnership is long range, many aspects of 

the research will likely have nearer term benefits. Lightweight material technologies can and will provide benefits for a variety of vehicles regardless of propulsion system. And power electronic technologies, critical for fuel cell drivetrains, are 

equally beneficial for nearer-term vehicles. The USCAR partners also support continuing FreedomCAR funding to address promising combustion and aftertreatment 

technologies for internal combustion engines. 

42

Through decades of research, many industry, government and environmentalist 

experts have come to agree that hydrogen-powered fuel cells are our best investment 

into the future of transportation. Merely a decade ago, the possibility that a fuel 

cell could power a car or light truck appeared to be light years away. At that time, 

in order to achieve the power equivalent of an internal combustion engine, the fuel 

cell required would be larger than the vehicle it would power. However, today experimental passenger vehicles, powered by fuel cells, have been demonstrated by our 

companies in a variety segments, from compact cars to SUVs and minivans. 

While progress on this very promising technology is being made, much research 

and development works is still needed. Affordability remains a major challenge. The 

costs associated with putting fuel cell powertrains into vehicles at the current technology level are literally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Significant future 

progress on this affordability challenge must be made in order to make a business 

case for producing them. Because this technology is high risk but offers significant 

societal benefits, it is appropriate and necessary for Government involvement. 

USCAR has worked with DOE to streamline and refocus our Partnership on 

longer term, higher reward technologies such as hydrogen-powered fuel cells. As 

Secretary Abraham has made clear, this is not a short-term vision—it will take 

many years of hard work by the auto industry, energy providers, and federal research organizations to realize this bold vision. Industry and the DOE have agreed 

on detailed near term technical goals for each research area, which are attached to 

this testimony. Along with technical roadmaps, the goals will ensure that funds are 

being spent in the most promising areas and that research is progressing. 

While the vision of a hydrogen-based transportation system is decades away, it 

is extremely important to begin addressing the issues involved with shifting the balance from petroleum and toward hydrogen. It is also critical to demonstrate userfriendly hydrogen fueling stations and develop a roadmap for the new infrastructure 

development. FreedomCAR can serve to jointly develop demonstration plans and 

milestones to lead the transition to hydrogen powered vehicles. 

FreedomCAR research is being focused at the component and sub-system level 

which will be applicable to a wide range of vehicle segments. This will facilitate the 

migration of technologies into the most appropriate vehicle platforms as the technologies meet their goals. The auto industry pledges to bring advanced technologies 

to market as soon as a business case can be made for them while at the same time 

providing our customers with vehicles that are safe and give them the kind of performance, function, utility, and value they need and expect for their money. Past 

USCAR and government collaborative programs have provided, and will continue to 

provide benefits to the American public. New materials technologies have helped reduce weight, and combustion and aftertreatment technologies are migrating to today’s vehicles. Clean fuels including low sulfur diesel is a must if these interim technologies are going to make it into the market place. All of the USCAR partners have 

announced hybrid electric vehicles in 2003/2004 and all are in truck and SUV segments where this technology yields the maximum fuel savings. 

In summary, the USCAR partners are in full support of FreedomCAR and are 

hard at work on advanced technologies, including technologies that will help make 

hydrogen powered vehicles a reality. 

FREEDOMCAR: ENERGY SECURITY FOR AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION

[AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH]

Vision: Affordable full function cars and trucks are free of foreign oil and harmful 

emissions, without sacrificing safety, freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle 

choice. 

Message: America’s transportation freedoms:

• Freedom from petroleum dependence 

• Freedom from pollutant emissions 

• Freedom to choose the vehicle you want 

• Freedom to drive where you want, when you want 

• Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently 

National Benefits: Ensure the Nation’s transportation energy and environmental future, by preserving and sustaining America’s transportation freedoms. In 

other words, Freedom and Security made available through Technology. 

The government and industry research partners recognize that the steady 

growth of imported oil to meet our demand for petroleum products is problematic and not sustainable for the Nation in the long term. No single effort limited 

to one economic sector can successfully change this trend. Altering our petroVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
43

leum consumption patterns will require a multi-tiered approach, including policy and research programs, across every end use sector of our economy. The 

transportation sector has a significant role to play in addressing this challenge, 

and success resulting from the FreedomCAR research initiatives will help accomplish the broader National Goals and Objectives that are being pursued. 

Strategic Approach:

• Develop technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered 

fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen infrastructure to support them. 

• Continue support for other technologies to dramatically reduce oil consumption 

and environmental impacts. 

• Instead of single vehicle goals, develop technologies applicable across a wide range 

of passenger vehicles. 

Technology Specific 2010 Goals 1

• To ensure reliable systems for future fuel cell powertrains with costs comparable 

to conventional internal combustion engine/automatic transmission systems, the 

goals are:

• Electric Propulsion System with a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 

55kW for 18 seconds, and 30kW continuous at a system cost of $12/kW peak. 

• 60% peak energy-efficient, durable fuel cell power system (including hydrogen 

storage) that achieves a 325 W/kg power density and 220 W/L operating on 

hydrogen. Cost targets are at $45/kW by 2010 ($30/kW by 2015).2

• To enable clean, energy-efficient vehicles operating on clean, hydrocarbon-based 

fuels powered by either internal-combustion powertrains or fuel cells, the goals 

are: 

• Internal combustion engine powertrain systems costing $30/kW, having a 

peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

• Fuel cell systems, including a fuel reformer, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards with a cost target 

of $45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015.2,3

• To enable reliable hybrid electric vehicles that are durable and affordable, the 

goal is: 

• Electric drivetrain energy storage with 15-year life at 300 Wh with discharge 

power of 25 kW for 18 seconds and $20/kW. 

• To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy, ensure widespread availability 

of hydrogen fuels, and retain the functional characteristics of current vehicles, 

the goals are: 

• Demonstrated hydrogen refueling with developed commercial codes and 

standards and diverse renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Targets: 

70% energy efficiency well-to-pump; cost of energy from hydrogen equivalent 

to gasoline at market price, assumed to be $1.25 per gallon (2001 dollars).4

• Hydrogen storage systems demonstrating an available capacity of 6 weight 

percent hydrogen, specific energy of 2000 W-h/kg, energy density of 1100 Wh/liter at a cost of $5/kWh.5

• Internal combustion engine powertrain systems operating on hydrogen with 

a cost target of $45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015, having a peak brake 

engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

• To improve the manufacturing base, the goal is: 

• Material and manufacturing technologies for high volume production vehicles 

which enable/support the simultaneous attainment of: 

• 50% reduction in the weight of vehicle structure & subsystems, 

• affordability, and 

• increased use of recyclable/renewable materials. 

References 

1 Cost references based on CY 2001 dollar values. Where power (kW) targets are specified, 

those targets are to ensure that technology challenges that would occur in a range of light-duty 

vehicle types would have to be addressed. 2Does not include vehicle traction electronics. 

3 Includes fuel cell stack subsystem, fuel processor subsystem and auxiliaries; does not include 

fuel tank. 4Targets are for hydrogen dispensed to a vehicle assuming a reforming, compressing and dispensing system capable of dispensing 150 kilograms per day (assuming 60,000 SCF per day of 

NG is fed for reforming at the retail dispensing station) and servicing a fleet of 300 vehicles 

per day (assuming 0.5 kgs used in each vehicle per day). Targets are also based on several thousand stations, and possibly demonstrated on several hundred stations. Technologies may also 

include chemical hydrides such as sodium boro-hydride. 5 Based on lower heating value of hydrogen; allows over 300-mile range.

44

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Culver. The opening statement 

of the gentleman from Michigan will be placed in the record. And 

we appreciate his presence. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

To each of the members of the panel, I would ask this question. 

It is implicit in the fact that the Congress appropriates roughly 

$150 million annually for this program that we are investing in research that would otherwise not happen, not occur. I’m interested 

in understanding the premise for that assumption. The auto makers have spent a lot of money, I believe a billion dollars was spent 

on acquiring Ballard fuel systems—Ballard power systems—by 

Daimler-Chrysler and Ford collectively to acquire partial ownership 

in that company. So why do we think that without the investment 

of public dollars, this research would not go on at a pace in the private sector? We’ll start with you, Mr. Culver. 

Mr. CULVER. I’d like to try that one, Mr. Chairman. The investment in fuel cell manufacturers is a new investment for all the 

auto companies to ensure their place once the research goals of 

being able to make these affordably will be realized. I believe that 

there is still tremendous research needed to help reduce the cost, 

improve the durability, improve the efficiency of fuel cells before 

they can be ready for the marketplace. Combining the efforts of the 

auto industry, the supplier community, the national labs will help 

ensure that and accelerate that progress. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Wells, your views. 

Mr. WELLS. I can relate to the work we did a couple of years ago 

when we were actually looking at the accountability and trying to 

track the contributions during the PNGV program. Clearly when 

we talked to the industry, we were made aware of a large dollar 

value of their committed R&D effort. I believe in that particular 

year it was, like, $18 billion by the major car companies in all 

kinds of R&D efforts. Their contribution self-acknowledged to the 

Federal agencies that were involved in the PNGV effort were in the 

neighborhood of $980 million, if I remember the numbers right, approximately 5 percent of their research they self-disclosed to us 

was being contributed toward related technologies for the PNGV 

vehicle. 

Our point from a lessons-learned standpoint, as you design future efforts, to ensure that there are mechanisms available to ensure clear, crisp accountability and trackability for monitoring 

who’s spending what and what the money is being spent for. So we 

would come at it from an accountability and a documentation 

standpoint. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Garman. 

Mr. GARMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It’s difficult to expect auto 

makers to really invest their heart and soul and their dollars in 

technologies that aren’t going to be ready for the showroom floor 

for 10 or 20 years, and I’ll give you some examples. Hydrogen storage is a major problem to make the car have the kind of range it 

will need so that a consumer will want to buy it. One of the very 

long-term R&D efforts that the government is involved in that no 

auto maker is involved in are advanced storage technologies—such 

as carbon nanotubes—that have an affinity for the storage of hydrogen. 

45

This is the kind of work that goes on at a place such as the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, a government lab. But 

I wouldn’t expect the auto makers to engage in that kind of highrisk long-term technology, because its promise for the showroom is 

so far off, that it’s just not a good investment of their dollars. It’s 

a very iffy proposition. So it’s an appropriate role for the government to invest in long-term high-risk technologies, and that’s part 

of the focus and the thrust behind FreedomCAR. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, personally, I would invest zero or ten 

times what we’re investing if I thought it was going to—whatever 

approach would give us the results that you gentleman have referred to as quickly as possible. How do we know—how do we arrive at the appropriation figure that we have? We’ve got this assumption that the auto makers are interested in having and have 

a national interest in investing in future technology, that this may 

be sufficiently over the horizon, that this inducement or this additional public investment makes a difference, but how do we know—

who determines or how do we get to the answer of the question, 

what is the appropriate level of Federal funding that gets us where 

we want to go the quickest? 

Mr. GARMAN. The real purpose of the Federal funding is to leverage some of the public dollars into the private dollars and to attract auto makers into areas of R&D that they wouldn’t do by 

themselves. Ultimately, of course, Congress decides how much is 

appropriated, and our proposal is to appropriate roughly $150 million toward these activities, but there’s the leveraging effect. We 

bring to the table—the Federal Government brings to the table facilities at the national labs, talent at the national labs that the 

auto makers would not by themselves have access to, regardless of 

how much money they spent in some cases. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The time of the Chair has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes, and would say in advance that after the gentleman from 

Michigan’s inquiry, the committee will recess for this vote and then 

return. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy and I 

commend you for the hearing. I thank you for inserting my statement into the record. 

Mr. Culver, do you believe that in view of our interest in promoting clean-burn diesels for passenger use in the United States, 

that we should lower the sulfur content in the diesel sulfur rule 

now pending at EPA? 

Mr. CULVER. Mr. Dingell, thank you for the question. The alliance has recommended in the past the—that sulfur content of diesel fuel be reduced to 5 PPM or near-zero fuel. Such a reduction 

will increase the efficiency, help improve the durability of aftertreatment systems, and help reduce the cost of after-treatment systems. 

Mr. DINGELL. In other words, you’ll improve the reliability of 

your catalytic converter? 

Mr. CULVER. Yes, sir. Every so often you have to purge your catalytic treatment, your particulate trap. The lower the sulfur reduces 

the number of times you have to do that, improving the durability, 

46

lowering the cost, and you use diesel fuel to do that. So if you don’t 

have to do it as often, you actually improve—— Mr. DINGELL. Europeans are going to zero? 

Mr. CULVER. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. And that will especially enable them to bring on 

the Audi A-2 system, will it not? 

Mr. CULVER. I’m not familiar with the Audi A-2 system, but I 

know that—— Mr. DINGELL. They have a clean burn system in Europe, the 

Audi A-2, which will get them 78 miles a gallon for a four-passenger car. The hybrids and the fuel cell vehicles and so forth will 

get some 60 miles per gallon for a two-seater car, a much smaller 

vehicle. Is that not true? 

Mr. CULVER. I’m not sure of the Audi system, sir, but I do know 

that——

Mr. DINGELL. Would you—— Mr. CULVER. Zero PPM sulfur will enable the full potential of 

diesel technology to be realized without compromises of after-treatments. 

Mr. DINGELL. So is the feasibility of developing the technology to 

meet future sulfur emissions requirements greater with fuel that 

has a sulfur content of 5 to 10 parts per million rather than the 

15 parts per million required by EPA’s diesel sulfur fuel? I believe 

you said yes to that. 

Mr. CULVER. Absolutely. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it’s been reported that EPA has had Toyota 

run emissions tests on clean burn diesel vehicles for the European 

market. The tests were conducted using diesel fuel with a sulfur 

content of 6 parts per million. The vehicle passed all but one of the 

emissions tests the EPA performed. The test that failed was conducted by running the vehicle for long periods of time at highway 

speeds, fully loaded and with air-conditioning on. Is it feasible for 

the U.S. motor industry to develop technology to make clean-burn 

diesel engines that comply with the emissions tests that the Toyota 

vehicle recently failed, or should we be thinking in terms of lowering the sulfur content even below 6 parts per million? 

Mr. CULVER. Again, I’m not familiar with the technology that 

was on the Toyota vehicle, but I do agree that the durability and 

performance at 5 PPM or closer to zero PPM will improve the durability and enable us to meet the tests—meet all the tier 2 requirements much easier than with 15 PPM. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, the American auto industry currently makes 

clean burn diesel vehicles that are used throughout Europe. Is that 

not so? 

Mr. CULVER. Yes, sir, it is. In fact——

Mr. DINGELL. And what percentage of the new light duty vehicle 

sales and new luxury vehicle sales are attributable to clean burn 

diesel vehicles in the European market? 

Mr. CULVER. Currently, it’s about 30 percent. There are reports 

that it will go as high as 50 percent as Europe tries to meet their 

CO2 commitments. 

Mr. DINGELL. Europe is going to zero on diesel fuel sulfur content; is that right? 

Mr. CULVER. That is correct. 

47

Mr. DINGELL. Now Mr. Garman, do you agree that the lower sulfur fuel like they have in the European Union is necessary for 

emissions technology to work effectively and durably over the life 

of a clean burn diesel vehicle? 

Mr. GARMAN. Yes, sir, a lower sulfur standard in diesel is very 

desirable. I need to make one clarification, though. Currently the 

EU standard for on-road diesel is 350 parts per million. They’re 

moving to a cap of 50 parts per million in 2005 and considering a 

lower cap for later years. Some of the European countries have a 

diesel fuel tax incentive in place to reward the use of 10 parts per 

million fuel in later years. They generally refer to the 10 part per 

million number as zero sulfur fuel even though it doesn’t actually 

have zero, but it has very low amounts. The EPA standard—our 

current U.S. cap is 500 parts per million which is clearly not amenable to clean-burning diesel. We need to do a lot better than that, 

and the U.S. has established a cap of 15 parts per million for 2006. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up but I have 

just one more question if you’d bear with me. 

Do you believe, Mr. Culver, that clean-burn diesel vehicles would 

be attractive to consumers in the U.S. market? 

Mr. CULVER. Absolutely. We know that they would be very attractive. 

Mr. DINGELL. Given effectively zero sulfur diesel fuel, do you believe the U.S. motor vehicle industry can build clean burn diesel 

vehicles that will satisfy EPA emission requirements at a price customers will be willing to pay? 

Mr. CULVER. I do, and I believe that we’d also bring them in in 

markets where they provide the biggest benefit in vehicles like 

light trucks and SUVs and mini vans. 

Mr. DINGELL. And we can do this at huge fuel savings, can we 

not? 

Mr. CULVER. The projection of fuel savings range from 25 to 35 

percent improvement over existing fuel economy. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The committee will stand in recess until approximately 10:30. 

[Brief recess] 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The committee will return to order. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I’d like to welcome Dr. Vernon Roan, professor of mechanical engineering and director of the Fuel Cell Laboratory at 

the University of Florida. He was kind enough to come up here and 

say hello to me. 

On the new apportionment, Mr. Chairman, I might have, and the 

University of Florida returned to be within my Congressional district, and I look forward to that opportunity. 

The first question I have is for Mr. Culver. I just have sort of 

a threshold question to start out. Is government needed in this research? Clearly the auto makers are pursuing fuel cell technology 

and other advanced automotive technology on their own, spending 

sums far greater than the Department of Energy is spending. So 

can you sort of elaborate on your role in the FreedomCAR partnership. What does the USCAR bring to the partnership considering 

48

the amount of money that they’re doing and the amount that the 

private industry is doing, and perhaps, do we need government research on this when the private industry is doing it? 

Mr. CULVER. Let me—thank you. Let me start by saying that the 

numbers Mr. Wells quoted earlier are directionally correct for the 

year that the GAO talked to us, but the far great majority of that 

money we spent on R&D is heavily related to the D side in developing products for the next generation of vehicles going into production within the next few years, and quite—and the pressure is 

to put more and more toward the near term and less and less on 

the long term as we get into especially tight years like we’re in 

right now. 

I do believe government research is necessary for many reasons. 

One, government scientists have shown that they are free from 

some of the constraints that the auto industry is, and when we can 

combine their expertise with our sense of the business case, we can 

really push the technology forward collaboratively, the leverage opportunities of all of us working together really actually make the 

sum total much greater than would be any one of us working alone. 

So I think the collaborative aspect is really important in this whole 

aspect. 

And finally, I believe that the goals that we’re working on for the 

FreedomCAR program all have costs and durability kinds of efforts 

in them, which is a little new to this program before the prior program. And it’s important to do that, because if we have the costs 

and durability and customer into the equation now with the new 

program, we can help really ensure that these technologies will get 

to the marketplace faster. 

The auto company is spending a lot of money on these technologies. With the government we’re really accelerating the pace of 

bringing that to the marketplace. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think it has been brought out in some of the 

opening statements is to get to the ultimate goal of the 

FreedomCAR of the hydrogen as a fuel, it’s going to require a lot 

more expenditure for petroleum products, and can you talk a little 

bit about that tradeoff, we’re going to have to spend a lot more, go 

import a lot more to even get us to the point where we have the 

feasibility or release of a fuel cell of hydrogen? I mean, it seems 

like it’s a total impediment to get us to where we want to go, we’re 

going to have to expend more petroleum to get it out of the ground, 

to store it and all that. 

Mr. CULVER. I apologize. I’m not sure of the question. I know 

there are many—you’re talking about the production of hydrogen? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yeah. Just to get to the production of hydrogen, 

we’re going to have to spend a lot of gasoline petroleum products 

to get there. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. CULVER. Well, there are many different scenarios being investigated for the production of hydrogen. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let me ask Mr. Garman on that. Is that true? 

Mr. GARMAN. Sure. I mean, we don’t see market penetration of 

this technology for quite some time, so in the general course of 

events, we will be importing and using a lot of petroleum between 

now and then, and also——

49

Mr. STEARNS. But to get to the ultimate objective, we’re going to 

spend even more petroleum than we would in a normal—— Mr. GARMAN. Not necessarily, because hydrogen can be produced 

from a variety of sources. It can be produced from natural gas. It 

can be produced from renewable energy, from biomass, from nuclear. There are a lot of options available to us in the short and 

long term to produce hydrogen from a variety of different sources, 

and that’s one of its attractions. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Garman, what do you see as the greatest technological impediment to this program’s success? 

Mr. GARMAN. Fuel cell cost and durability. Right now fuel cells 

cost on the order—the designs we have today—of $400 to $450 per 

kilowatt. We’re going to an internal combustion engine costs rough- ly $30 to $35 per kilowatt. We’re going to have to decrease the cost 

of the fuel cell stack by an order of magnitude in order to make 

it competitive with internal combustion engines. 

Right now the models we have operate an average of 3,000 

hours. If you want to get something comparable to an automobile 

that will last 120 or 150,000 miles, we need a 5,000-hour fuel cell. 

So cost and durability of the fuel cell itself are fundamentally important technical challenges for us to overcome. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this is my last question. This is for 

Mr. Garman. Again, you say in your testimony that, quote, neither 

industry nor government working alone is likely to overcome these 

barriers in any reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we must work in 

partnership. And I ask Mr. Culver a little bit about the government’s need for research and so forth. So can you explain how this 

working together is—will speed up the process and perhaps elaborate on the government’s role and the industry’s role in this partnership and how that works. 

Mr. GARMAN. Sure, and I’ll probably do that the best way by giving you a real world example. The auto makers have been looking 

at fuel cells for many years and dismiss them as being just too expensive and saying it’s going to take us a long time to bring down 

that cost. And actually there’s work at Los Alamos National Laboratory by scientists there, working in partnership with the industry to actually say, how can we bring down the cost of fuel cells? 

There’s a membrane and a PEM fuel cell of the type we’re talking about that uses a lot of platinum in that membrane to actually 

help the reaction happen, and the scientists at Los Alamos were 

able to reduce the amount of platinum needed in that membrane 

by a factor of 10, and thus they brought down the costs significantly. 

I mentioned how expensive fuel cells were now in relation to 

where they needed to be to produce a commercial product, but I 

failed to mention the fact that—in the last 5 or 6 years—we’ve decreased the cost of fuel cells by an order of magnitude as well. So 

we’ve made great progress, and what we want to do is to continue 

that progress so that we get toward a commercial product. 

Mr. STEARNS. That magnitude has come down 10 percent, 20 percent—what would you say the percent that that costs. 

Mr. GARMAN. An order of magnitude of a 100 percent. I’m sorry, 

an order of magnitude of 1000 percent. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thousand percent? 

50

Mr. GARMAN. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. I thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you. If each of you can respond to this 

question. How long will it take to develop fuel cell-powered vehicles 

for mass production in the United States? Mr. Culver. 

Mr. CULVER. I believe mass production won’t occur for at least 

a decade. We will be seeing fleets appear on the market, small volume fleets in the numbers of hundreds of vehicles within the next 

2 to 3 years, but the cost—to get down to the costs that Mr. 

Garman just mentioned will take at least another decade in my 

opinion. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Wells. 

Mr. WELLS. One of the first questions we asked, about the 

FreedomCAR, we were told that this is not a car. We’ve also heard 

DOE talk to a horizon 40, 50 years in terms of building component 

pieces and putting it all together. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Garman. 

Mr. GARMAN. If we meet every one of the technology goals that 

we’ve specified over the next decade, the auto makers—we believe—will be in a position to make a decision about commercialization in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe, and that’s a commercialization 

decision on mass production vehicles. As Mr. Culver indicated, we 

have a few tens of fuel cell vehicles on the road today that will migrate up to hundreds, then thousands, then 10,000’s as we do demonstrations and start to work on aspects of infrastructure, but 

mass marketed hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road we 

don’t see until the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. And total fleet turnover 

would take much longer than that, and that’s assuming that we’re 

successful in addressing these first tranche of technological goals 

that we have for ourselves over the next decade. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. So in your opinion in a best-case scenario, are you 

talking 2015 for a mass production? 

Mr. GARMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. And that’s—— Mr. CULVER. In that case is with the—such that we have in place 

at that time an infrastructure that will support those vehicles, 

which is absolutely crucial. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Uh-huh. And what comes first? 

Mr. CULVER. That’s a great question. Constantly talking about 

the chicken and egg of whether you get fuel cells first or whether 

you get an infrastructure first and the way to really address that 

is to look at demonstrations and the Department of Energy’s plan 

includes demonstrations that will have limited fleets expanding to 

wider fleets and more wide fleets and as the track develops around 

those fleets, it will be critical to expand it in many areas before 

commercialization is possible. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. You were mentioning there how many fuel cell vehicles actually on the roads today in demonstrations? 

Mr. GARMAN. We’ve through the California fuel cell partnership, 

SunLine transportation, Ballard has some—in Vancouver, Canada. 

Mostly on bus and fleet vehicles, in the tens, I would say. 

Mr. CULVER. Probably not more than a hundred worldwide. 

51

Mr. DEUTSCH. Worldwide? 

Mr. CULVER. Right. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Okay. And outside of the United States, I mean, 

is anyone taking any kind of a role in any magnitude comparable 

to us? 

Mr. CULVER. Europe has some programs going on, especially in 

Germany with some buses that are out at Munich Airport, for example. Japan is doing some work as well in fuel cell vehicles. We’ve 

had a chance to see one of those at the Future Car Congress earlier 

this week. So there is worldwide effort going on. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Is there any kind of coordination between these 

pure research efforts? 

Mr. CULVER. Not on the fuel cell manufacturer level. There have 

been calls for development on how we approach infrastructure together. Secretary Abraham has talked about a conference to bring 

together the different markets to talk about these issues and—— Mr. DEUTSCH. Is there any reason why we shouldn’t be coordinating with basically all of the industrialized world on this issue? 

Mr. CULVER. Well, areas like the California fuel cell partnership 

also bring in the Japanese manufacturers and the European manufacturers as well. So some of that is happening at that level. It’s 

a little tougher to collaborate worldwide on a day-to-day basis like 

we do with the Department of Energy, but I think those efforts are 

increasing. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Why is it more difficult? 

Mr. CULVER. Just face-to-face collaboration, working together in 

the same laboratory side by side with researchers. And that’s what 

FreedomCAR really helps us do, get those people together. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. You know, one of the comments people were saying that the development of fuel cell-powered vehicles for mass production is around the corner over 30 years ago. What has changed 

to make this goal more realistic today? 

Mr. CULVER. I believe the progress in the last decade. As Mr. 

Garman pointed out, we’ve already reduced the fuel cell price a 

tenth by—down to a tenth of what it was a decade ago. Size of the 

fuel cells, as I mentioned, were so huge, you had to tow them in 

a trailer 15 years ago. Now they’re in A class vehicles. So I think 

that progress has really excited us about moving that much closer 

to marketplace than we were 20 years ago. 

Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 

ask Mr. Garman: You state in your testimony that you are beginning to address the technologies necessary to make a transition to 

a hydrogen-based transportation economy. Several of the witnesses 

highlight in their testimony the need to address infrastructure 

issues. What is the timeframe for addressing hydrogen infrastructure development, and what are FreedomCAR’s plans on this front? 

Mr. GARMAN. It is very important that we develop infrastructure 

in a timeframe that makes it possible, about the same time that 

the automakers are making that commercial ization decision in the 

2013 to 2015 timeframe. Before we start investing heavily in infrastructure, it is important that we continue to see over the next year 

or 2 or 3 that we are meeting these very difficult technical challenges, the cost and durability goals and fuel cells, so that we are 

52

assuring ourselves that we do have something that we would be 

building an infrastructure for ultimately. But I think we are in the 

process of putting together our 1904 budget and, planning in a 5-

year planning timeframe, for budgets in the 1904 to 1909 timeframe, are thinking very hard about this infrastructure problem 

and how government will work in this area. 

Some of the areas that we need to work on include codes and 

standards, how hydrogen would be handled, how it would be 

stored. This is a government role. We also want to employ the convening power of government to bring energy companies into the 

mix. Companies such as BP, Texaco, Shell, and others are thinking 

themselves not exclusively as oil companies anymore, but energy 

companies, and they as well have to think about how they might 

want to provide this service to consumers when the time is right. 

So, part of the technical milestones as outlined in the testimony 

are geared specifically and directly toward the cost of hydrogen and 

the ability to produce it in an affordable manner and distribute it 

appropriately. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Are you working with companies that may, in the 

future, be providing some of that infrastructure; for example, oil 

companies, pipeline companies? 

Mr. GARMAN. Yes, sir. We have involved them in some of our hydrogen technology road-mapping exercises, companies such as Air 

Products and Chemicals, Prax Air. There is—they have a substantial amount of hydrogen pipelines and production in play today, 

and it’s roughly a $2 billion industry, if memory serves. 

Mr. GILLMOR. When we are talking about energy security issues, 

you mentioned that hydrogen is very plentiful as a resource to 

produce for the fuel cell car. But given that the hydrogen must be 

produced, how is FreedomCAR and DOE addressing the fuel supply 

issues? 

Mr. GARMAN. We, in a variety of ways, through DOE’s fossil energy program, we are looking at ways, for instance, to use coal. 

Where coal would be gasified, the carbon dioxide and sulfur could 

be sequestered, and the pure hydrogen put into use. Through the 

nuclear energy program, we are also looking at the possibility of 

high-temperature gas reactors being used over the very long term 

to produce hydrogen. We are also looking at hydrogen conversion 

technologies, using biomass and, of course, renewable—other renewable technologies such as wind and solar. 

We have a variety of different ways to produce hydrogen. The 

one that’s used mostly today is natural gas, the steam reformation 

from natural gas. Natural gas is very rich in hydrogen, and that’s 

how it’s mainly done today. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Let me ask you to elaborate a little more on what’s 

being done and what the potential is in the coal area. And I have 

a somewhat parochial interest in asking that since Ohio is the 

Saudi Arabia of coal with a 600-year supply that we can’t use. So 

I would be interested in how far we are coming and what you realistically think the potential might be in that respect. 

Mr. GARMAN. Yes. Absolutely. I mean, the United States is 

blessed with a bountiful and abundant coal resource, and coal is 

chemically nothing more than long strings of hydrogens and carbons with some sulfurs and a few other elements mixed in. If we 

53

can use coal gasification technology, which we have been working 

on at DOE for some years, and marry that up with sequestration, 

that that could separate the rich hydrogen gas from the coal gas, 

capture the other elements, and sequester them in perhaps the 

mine from which the coal came through a chemical or other type 

of process, then we would have coal, the use of coal that would be 

consistent with a carbon-free future. And this is something that is 

very important to us. 

Again, this is a long-term technology. We don’t see this happening in an economic fashion any time soon, but in the next 15-

, 20-year timeframe, we hope that we can have some demonstrations of this technology well in hand. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The next gentleman, and recognizes himself, 

for 5 minutes for this next round of questions. 

There has been some concern as to whether the FreedomCAR 

program, with its bold vision of leaping forward into fuel cells, is 

going to in any way diminish our efforts with regard to the intermediate steps, trying to get the hybrid vehicles on line and available to the public. 

Mr. Culver, what are your views on that? Are we, in fact, in any 

way, by focusing some of these resources on the fuel cells, diminishing our progress in the other hybrid vehicles? 

Mr. CULVER. Well, I trust not, sir, Because about 50 percent of 

the budget that was proposed, the FreedomCAR budget, goes toward—directly toward hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The 

other 50 percent goes to nearer-term technologies, like lightweight 

materials, advanced combustion, batteries, those types of technologies, which, for the most part, will be required and are very 

supportive of the longer-range fuel cell goals. 

I think it’s very important, and the U.S. Car Partners have provided input to the Appropriations Committee that those technologies be preserved in the budget and still get the adequate funding. There are promising technologies under way investigating on 

reducing after-treatment—or reducing emissions through advanced 

after-treatment technologies. New materials like magnesium and 

advanced composite materials are slowly coming into the realm of 

being available for nearer-term vehicles. 

So these types of technologies, we believe, are crucial and critical 

and should be retained in the FreedomCAR program. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me ask you, on that question, and I would 

like Mr. Garman to respond and perhaps Mr. Wells as well, what 

are the incentives to get, to make, to reach milestones by particular 

timeframes? In other words, if a group of scientists in a research 

lab in the private sector—clearly there are corporate goals, and 

they, I imagine, devote a certain amount of attention trying to figure out how to reach those milestones in a timely fashion. I mean, 

there is a sense that—particularly because of our concern with the 

war on terrorism and our desire to be free of foreign oil, freer of 

foreign oil—that we have an almost Manhattan Project approach to 

getting these vehicles on line. Is that—is there a sense of urgency? 

And what determines the pace, what drives the pace of our getting 

to these hybrid cars, and how do we in Congress judge whether we 

are making the progress in a timely enough fashion? 

54

Mr. CULVER. I believe there are many parts to the answer to that 

question. Let me begin by saying the ultimate answer is that they 

get into the marketplace. In the next 2 years, you will see hybrid 

offerings from all the Big Three in trucks, SUVs. Customers are 

starting to show greater appreciation for fuel economy as a discriminator amongst various models, and the companies recognize 

that being able to offer higher-fuel-economy vehicles are certainly 

going to be in the marketplace and be more attractive. So I think 

the customer side, the pull of these technologies is starting to come 

into play much more than it was even a few years ago. So I think 

that will help bring it to marketplace a lot faster. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. I’m not sure that that’s responsive to my question. My question, if we were simply relying on the pull of the marketplace, we wouldn’t need Federal dollars, because the car—automakers would accelerate their efforts to beat—to get marketable 

vehicles on the market faster than the other companies. So if we 

are going to infuse $75 million a year into accelerating this advancement, my question is, what makes the guys in the laboratories scurry across the room faster and, you know, work their 

brains quicker and collaborate more efficiently using these Federal 

dollars? 

Mr. CULVER. I do believe the new goals, with timing and cost in 

all of the new goals, will help accelerate that progress and help get 

that sense of urgency across to everyone involved in this program. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me ask Mr. Wells and Mr. Garman to also 

respond to that question. 

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, as they design this program, the Congress should insist that measurable points in time be identified so 

that you can measure success. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. And is it your view that those milestones are 

now absent? 

Mr. WELLS. I believe those milestones are not—I’m not able to 

interpret those milestones yet because they are fairly technical, 

and it’s difficult at this moment to really measure the concreteness 

of those measurements. But clearly we have moved into a society 

where performance and results will get future funding in terms of 

the scarce dollars we have. So the program is going to have to be 

held accountable to demonstrate results quickly to get continued 

funding. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Garman. 

Mr. GARMAN. I would agree. And one of the reasons that we had 

technical milestones is that our own Office of Management and 

Budget insisted that we did and will be measuring our budget requests and our performance against those technical milestones on 

a year-by-year basis. This is a very, very important thing. 

I also—I think there is a certain excitement in this partnership 

between the government project managers, and the private sector 

scientists and the government scientists in the lab who are working 

on this process, because we developed these milestones together. In 

the past there have been some so-called partnerships where the 

government said this is our goal, this is our milestone, and, frankly, the private sector participants weren’t full participants in the 

process of setting these milestones. But they are invested in these 

milestones. They would come up with—they came up with them in 

55

partnership with us, and they are excited but challenged by the 

milestones, and, like any engineer or any lab, you know, you get 

excited by a good challenge. These are tough challenges. 

I would also, with respect to your question about hybrids, which 

are very important, I think it’s very important to recognize what 

the Congress has done in response to the President’s energy plan 

in putting forth tax credit opportunities for hybrid vehicles. We 

think this is very important and commend the Congress for doing 

that. We think this is going to be an important incentive for customers who are teetering on the edge of buying a hybrid to be able 

to do it. I have one hybrid vehicle, and I am looking forward to the 

time when I get to purchase another one from a U.S. auto manufacturer, and, frankly, the tax credit is helpful in that regard. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. A final question. What are the proprietary 

issues? How are they managed in terms of U.S. automakers, foreign automakers? Is it—how are we balancing out the normal commercial interests or proprietary knowledge against the societal urgency of getting where we want to go here? Who wants to take a 

stab at that? Mr. Garman? 

Mr. GARMAN. I see this first-hand when you go to, for instance, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We have a power electronics lab 

where lab scientists and industry scientists will work side by side 

on a workbench on a technology. But we also have space in that 

lab for proprietary technology in which the private sector worker 

will go behind the curtain, if you will, and try to carry it further 

or make it distinctive in some way for their own commercial interest. 

We think this is kind of a healthy dichotomy of approaching 

these kinds of R&D challenges. They work together on one hand, 

but they have an opportunity to take the technology and take it a 

step further and commercialize it perhaps sooner than their competitors can. And we try to maintain that balance. 

Mr. CULVER. I would agree. 

Another good example is the California fuel cell partnership, 

where all the companies are collaborating together to demonstrate 

refueling, demonstrate the safety, demonstrate the drivability of 

these vehicles. Yet, at night, those vehicles go into very secure individual garages, and we don’t share any of that kind of information, 

so there is room for proprietariness and collaboration to coexist at 

the same time. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony, and 

we appreciate your help here this morning, and you are excused. 

And the Chair would call forward the second panel, consisting of 

Dr. Vernon Roan, professor of mechanical engineering, and director 

of the Fuel Cell Laboratory at the University of Florida; Mr. William Miller, president of UTC Fuel Cells; and Dr. Donald Paul, vice 

president and chief technology officer of Chevron-Texaco. 

Doctor, I think we would like you to sit at that chair. 

Welcome, gentlemen. We thank you for your assistance this 

morning. You heard me notify the first panel that this is an investigative hearing, and it is our practice to take testimony under 

oath. Do any of you object to giving your testimony under oath? 

Seeing no such objection, I would advise you that, pursuant to 

the rules of the House and this committee, that you are entitled to 

56

be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do any of you wish 

to be advised by counsel? 

Okay. In that case, if you would rise and raise your right hand, 

I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you. You are under oath. And I understand I should stand corrected; it’s Dr. Vernon P. Roan, not Run. 

We thank you, and you are recognized to give your testimony, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF VERNON P. ROAN, PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, DIRECTOR, FUEL CELL LABORATORY, 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE PNGV PEER 

REVIEW COMMITTEE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL; WILLIAM T. MILLER, PRESIDENT, UTC FUEL CELLS, SOUTH 

WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT; AND DONALD L. PAUL, VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, CHEVRONTEXACO 

Mr. ROAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

I would like to start by just giving a few comments from the summary of the Peer Review Committee, who oversaw the PNGV program, and I will just go right into that. Since I have issued a written copy of all this, I’m only going to hit just a few of the points 

because I have a few additional comments I would like to make. 

Of the goals, goal 3 is the one that has received the most attention, and that’s to try to develop the fuel-efficient car, family sedan, 

up to 80 miles per gallon. In terms of the—some of the comments 

and recommendations from the Peer Review Committee, the first 

bullet, the Committee believes that the PNGV program has established a unique and valuable framework for directing closely coordinated industry and government research efforts toward the development of technologies capable of solving societal problems. 

That’s probably the most important bullet from the recommendations of the committee and the comments, because basically we see 

this government industry framework as having worked. 

The fourth bullet down: Fuel cells continue to show promise of 

high efficiency and very low emissions, with continuous progress 

toward targets that are very difficult to meet for any general-purpose, high-volume automotive application. 

And, as such, the next to the last bullet, from the inception of 

PNGV, practical automotive fuel cell power plants have been considered to be well beyond the 2004 time limit of the program. 

And the next one, basically we said that we should extend those 

targets. 

If I go to the next sheet, a couple of recommendations. Essentially the first bullet says that the PNGV program should be refined and redefined to better reflect current societal needs, and the 

ability of the cooperative program, so forth, to meet these needs. 

The second bullet: Because of the potential for near zero tailpipe 

emissions and high-energy efficiency of the fuel cell, the PNGV 

should continue the research and development efforts on fuel cells 

even though achievement of performance and cost targets simultaneously will have to be extended substantially beyond the original 

expectations. 

57

So what these issues say is that the Peer Review Committee felt 

that the PNGV approach worked. We felt that the fuel cell was one 

of the most attractive technologies, and that should be considered 

on a longer-term basis, and, essentially, that’s what the 

FreedomCAR program does. 

I would like to skip the next slide, if I may, and go to the next 

one. 

Hydrogen production issues. And this comes to a little of what 

Congressman Stearns was asking about a moment ago. Right now 

almost all of our hydrogen is produced from natural gas. We get 

about a 70 or 75 percent energy efficiency in doing that, and actually a little lower when we take into account compressing and 

transferring the hydrogen to where it’s used. So it takes about 4 

pounds of natural gas to produce a pound of hydrogen, roughly. 

When we use renewable energy sources, you have to consider the 

question: Do you do better making hydrogen, or do you do better 

by using that renewable energy to retire some of the fossil-burning 

coal plants which are still operating at 25 or 30 percent efficiency? 

The next slide, please. 

As Mr. Garman mentioned, there are other ways than steam reforming hydrocarbons or the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, but none of these have really been shown to be successful yet. 

It is also possible to sequester the CO2. That’s still an unknown. 

The electricity can be produced in a lot of ways, but if we use fossil 

fuel to make electricity, and if we use fossil fuel—namely, natural 

gas—to make hydrogen, we wind up actually putting more CO2 into 

the air than we are doing right now. 

In terms of the magnitude of this—the next slide, please, the effect of electrolysis. To produce hydrogen for an 80-mile-per-gallon 

fuel cell car would take about 600 kilowatt hours per month of electricity from using electrolysis of water. For a two-car family, assuming they drive a little less than the average combined, this 

would be about 1,000 kilowatt hours per month, and that’s about 

what the average home actually uses right now. 

So, regardless of where we get this electricity, including from renewable, we are essentially going to have to duplicate the entire 

grid insofar as electrical energy is concerned if we are going to 

produce enough hydrogen for all of the cars. 

I won’t go into the next ones, I’m out of time——

Mr. GREENWOOD. Dr. Roan, don’t worry about the time. 

Mr. ROAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Don’t worry about the time. 

Mr. ROAN. Continue? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Please do. 

Mr. ROAN. Okay. The next slide on the transportation issues is 

basically the fuel for hydrogen transportation. 

The next one, please. No, the previous one. 

This shows what we can do with basically 1 pound of natural 

gas. Right now, if we use this in a conventional car, which we can 

and we do, this would take us about 4.3 miles. If we put this in 

a 60-mile-per-gallon hybrid, which we can, this would take us 

about 9.6 miles. If we put it into a fossil-fuel fuel cell car, which 

hasn’t really been demonstrated, but we projected about 70 miles 

58

per gallon, this pound of natural gas would take you about 11 

miles. 

If we use natural gas to make hydrogen, that same pound of natural gas now would take us about 2.6 miles in a present car, about 

5.8 in a hybrid, and about 7.5 in a hydrogen fuel cell car, which 

is going to be more efficient than the hydrocarbon fuel cell car. 

I don’t think that we would have any problem with 80-mile-pergallon on that. 

The next slide basically shows what we are doing from the standpoint of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, And these are very approximate numbers, because, obviously, they depend on the assumptions that you make. 

But if we use our petroleum fuel directly, on the left side I have 

the amount of energy, of petroleum-based energy, that’s required. 

This is to travel 300 miles. Using a present car would take about 

1.4 million BTUs of petroleum energy. That produces around 240 

pounds of carbon dioxide. If we go to a 60-mile-per gallon hybrid, 

that brings that down to about 630,000 and about 107 pounds of 

carbon dioxide. If we go to a hydrocarbon fuel cell—and, again, the 

70-miles-per-hour—70-miles-per-gallon would still have to be demonstrated—we are down to about 540,000 BTUs and 95. It actually, 

in terms of the best utilization, probably right now would be a diesel compression ignition, CIDI, hybrid, which would give probably 

about 80 miles per gallon. So this gives us the lowest consumption 

of petroleum and the least amount of CO2 produced. 

If we go to hydrogen produced from steam-reformed natural gas, 

the amount of energy now, because we are losing energy in producing hydrogen, is up to about 2.1 million BTUs; and, if we use 

it in a conventional car—which we can—and that produces about 

270 pounds of CO2. In a spark ignition hybrid, that would bring it 

down to 950,000, and 125; and the hydrogen fuel cell down to about 

710,000 and about 95 pounds of CO2. 

And, finally, if we use hydrogen from electrolysis, older fossil 

plants—now, this is not from renewable, this is using our current 

electricity supply to produce hydrogen—then we have the worst in 

terms of the CO2 and the BTUs. Even if we use hydrogen fuel cell, 

it’s a lot of energy, and it’s a lot of CO2. In other words, using current electricity is not the way to produce hydrogen. 

The bottom line on that—the next slide—as we move toward this 

hydrogen economy, we will probably use more fossil fuel and 

produce more greenhouse emissions per capita than we do right 

now; and this is likely to continue until there is a big reduction in 

fossil fuel power plants. We either have to go to renewable or nuclear. And even after we transition, the total energy—not fossil energy, but total energy consumption is probably going to increase 

unless we change our energy use patterns, because it takes more 

energy to make the hydrogen that we are using for our transportation systems. 

And, finally, I support the concept of the FreedomCAR program. 

I think this is a long-term thing, and I think we really need to be 

working on it. And I think that what the government can do, especially with the support of the national labs, that’s going to be of 

great benefit in eventually getting there. 

59

So the production and distribution of hydrogen, the storage of hydrogen onboard vehicles. Just, very quickly, right now, if you took 

the size of a gasoline tank and used it to store compressed hydrogen, it would hold about 2 pounds of hydrogen, roughly, and that 

would take you less than 100 miles. So we have to have some way 

to store the hydrogen onboard the vehicles. 

And, of course, the fuel cells themselves, they have to be made, 

the price right, durable, safe, and so forth. 

Thank you, sir. 

[Material submitted by Vernon P. Roan follows:]


g:\graphics\80677.024
60


g:\graphics\80677.025
61


g:\graphics\80677.026
62


g:\graphics\80677.027
63


g:\graphics\80677.028
64


g:\graphics\80677.029
65

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY VERNON P. ROAN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

These comments are presented as an addendum to the brief summary of relevant 

issues from the NRC 7th PNGV Peer Review Report that I have submitted to the 

Committee. I also refer the Committee to the complete report for additional information. This addendum is not based on any type of consensus from the PNGV Peer 

Review Committee but represents my own observations and opinions. 

Since no specific questions have been presented to me by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I will offer opinions which I think relate to the probable areas 

of consideration by the Committee, namely:

1. The appropriateness of emphasis on hydrogen and fuel cells for transportationrelated energy visions of the future. 

2. The viability of the proposed FreedomCAR program as an approach for directing 

government-sponsored research and development in support of long-range 

transportation energy goals. 

With respect to the first area of consideration, the ultimate transition from fossil 

fuels to hydrogen as the primary chemical fuel is essentially inevitable. Fossil fuels 

represent a finite resource which will become increasingly more difficult and expensive to utilize. Further, it seems likely that other technologies competing for limited 

fossil fuel supplies (especially petroleum) such as for textiles, plastics, medicines, 

etc., might achieve a higher priority than simply burning the fuel to produce heat. 

Hydrogen, on the other hand, can be produced without consuming fossil fuels 

through the electrolysis of water by using non-fossil primary energy to produce the 

electricity. The non-fossil primary energy sources include hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. 

The downside of producing hydrogen through the electrolysis of water is that more 

electrical energy goes into producing the hydrogen than will be available from the 

hydrogen fuel. This fact emphasizes the importance of utilizing the hydrogen in the 

most efficient manner as a transportation fuel. The most efficient manner currently 

known is to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell-powered vehicle. It should be noted, however, that while electricity is still being produced for the national power grid using 

some fossil fuel power plants, it might conserve more fossil fuel and produce fewer 

greenhouse gases to put the renewable energy-produced power into the grid and 

take older power plants off-line. Another potentially more efficient alternative could 

be to use the renewable-energy-produced power to recharge batteries in electric vehicles. 

An interesting and troubling likely outcome of the transition period where a significant portion of the electricity to produce hydrogen might come from fossil-fuel 

plants and/or where hydrogen is partially produced from steam-reforming natural 

gas (as almost all hydrogen is produced today) is that the consumption of fossil fuel 

per unit of fuel energy available for transportation will likely increase. In other


g:\graphics\80677.030
66

words, there will probably be a period of time when we actually use more fossil fuel 

in our efforts to transition from fossil fuels to hydrogen in transportation systems. 

In addition, since hydrogen must be produced in an energy loss process, the total 

electrical energy consumption as we move towards a hydrogen economy is sure to 

increase dramatically. For example, an average American home uses around 1000 

kWh of electricity per month. If this home has two fuel cell cars operating on hydrogen, it will take about an additional 1000 kWh of electricity to produce the hydrogen 

fuel for the cars. The implication is that a complete transition to electrolysis-produced hydrogen for transportation fuel will roughly require doubling the residential 

electrical generation capacity. 

Thus, the DOE vision of proceeding towards a hydrogen economy with fuel cells 

becoming the preferred way to utilize the hydrogen for transportation certainly 

seems appropriate but there will be troubling events along the way. 

The second area of consideration involves the path and some of the related priorities en route to the long-range vision. The path and priorities are extremely important since, even under the best of circumstances, there will likely be some very difficult issues. Fossil fuels, which have been essentially free except for the costs of 

extracting and processing them, will be replaced with hydrogen which must be ‘‘produced.’’’ Millions of megawatts of new, non-fossil, power generation plants will be 

needed to replace older fossil fuel plants and to provide electrical power to produce 

the hydrogen. This transition will take decades and will involve huge amounts of 

capital expenditures. During this lengthy transition period, it will become increasingly important to have an orderly evolution of technologies which can contribute 

to more fuel-efficient vehicles. It will also be important to use the available fossil 

fuels in the most appropriate manner. As an example of the appropriate use of fuels, 

consider natural gas. 

Natural gas is the cleanest burning and has the highest mass heating value of 

any fossil fuel currently being consumed. It is the primary heat source for many 

electrical power plants including virtually all now under construction or in the planning stages. It is also used as a motor fuel in spark ignition, compression ignition 

(diesel), and gas turbine engines. In addition, it is the feedstock for many chemical 

processes including virtually all of the hydrogen currently being produced. Each of 

these uses of natural gas is related to transportation energy options. Specifically, 

some of the ways that natural gas could be utilized for transportation, are:

1. Directly as a motor fuel for conventional cars. 

2. Directly as a motor fuel for spark ignition (SI) or compression ignition (CI) hybrid 

vehicles. 

3. Directly as a fuel for hydrocarbon fuel cell-powered vehicles (utilizing onboard 

fuel processors). 

4. Directly as a power plant fuel to produce electricity for recharging electric vehicle 

batteries. 

5. Indirectly as a feedstock to produce transportation hydrogen fuel through steam 

reforming. 

6. Indirectly as an electricity generation power plant fuel to produce electricity 

which would then be used to produce transportation hydrogen fuel through electrolysis of water. 

Adding to the complexity is the fact that the hydrogen produced by methods 5 or 

6 could also be used in many ways for transportation purposes, including as a fuel 

for conventional vehicles, hybrid vehicles, or fuel cell vehicles. Interestingly, for the 

relatively near term, probably the most energy-efficient way to utilize the natural 

gas for transportation is directly as a fuel in CI hybrid vehicles. The least energyefficient option is to use it to produce hydrogen by electrolysis and then to use the 

hydrogen in conventional vehicles. The successful development of enabling hydrocarbon fuel, fuel cell technologies could provide not only another energy-efficient alternative but also an alternative with extremely low emissions. However, once the 

hydrogen is produced (by any means), the most energy-efficient way to utilize it will 

be in hydrogen fuel cells. 

Similar options obviously exist also for the most effective ways to utilize petroleum or any other form of fossil fuel. The options which are actually feasible will 

depend on many factors but certainly including the successes in developing many 

enabling technologies. Clearly, of high importance in technology development must 

be included the following: 

1. Exhaust emission reduction at the source or through after-treatment for fuel-efficient compression ignition (diesel) engines. 

2. The fuel processing and other issues associated with hydrocarbon fuel cell systems that would have costs, performance, physical characteristics, durability, 

etc., compatible with consumer cars and other transportation systems. 

67

3. Clean and energy-efficient ways of producing hydrogen. 

4. A plan for developing a hydrogen infrastructure that would be compatible with 

widespread distribution and use of hydrogen-powered vehicles. 

5. Development of vehicle onboard hydrogen storage that will allow safe and inexpensive onboard storage of sufficient hydrogen to provide an adequate vehicle 

range. 

6. The resolution of costs, performance, and other issues to make the hydrogen fuel 

cell truly a technology compatible with mass-produced, low cost automotive applications. 

As a final note, it should be emphasized that even with a good plan for achieving 

large-scale hydrogen production and infrastructure, it will be exceedingly difficult 

and expensive to implement. As an example, an Argonne National Laboratory study 

(ANL/ESD/TM-140) concluded that capital costs for production facilities capable of 

producing 1.6 millions of barrels of gasoline-equivalent hydrogen fuel per day, could 

be $400 billion for production and $175 billion for distribution. Their study was 

based on a ‘‘high’’ market penetration of hydrogen-fueled vehicles by the year 2030. 

Another study by Directed Technologies, Inc. (DE-ACO2-94CE50389, July 1997) was 

more optimistic but was partially based on assumptions of unlimited availability of 

very inexpensive natural gas and unlimited availability of off-peak electricity at 1.5 

cents per kWh. There are also the inevitable problems with siting and licensing of 

facilities, as well as the obvious safety concerns of distributing massive quantities 

of liquid (-423(F.) or high pressure (3000 to 5000 psi) hydrogen. 

There are, of course, many other issues to be considered including many that 

should be fostered by the government en route to the long-term vision of a hydrogen 

economy and an efficient transportation utilization of the hydrogen. However, it is 

felt that the ones mentioned above are among the more important. 

In summary, with respect to the proposed FreedomCAR plan, it appears that it 

is reasonably well considered and includes the necessary elements to guide and support the more critical technology developments in a fashion appropriate for the government. Since the duration will involve many years of activities and many potential pitfalls, progress should be reviewed regularly and programs and plans changed 

as deemed appropriate.

68


g:\graphics\80677.031
69


g:\graphics\80677.032
70


g:\graphics\80677.033
71


g:\graphics\80677.034
72


g:\graphics\80677.035
73


g:\graphics\80677.036
74


g:\graphics\80677.037
75


g:\graphics\80677.038
76


g:\graphics\80677.054
77


g:\graphics\80677.039
78


g:\graphics\80677.040
79


g:\graphics\80677.041
80


g:\graphics\80677.042
81


g:\graphics\80677.043
82

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Dr. Roan. 

Mr. Miller? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill Miller of UTC 

Fuel Cells, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding DOE’s FreedomCAR 

program and the role it plays in our national energy policy. 

UTC Fuel Cells has been developing and producing fuel cells for 

more than four decades. With NASA, we have supplied the fuel 

cells for every U.S. manned space mission since the 1960’s, including Apollo and today’s space shuttle orbiter. Since 1991, we have 

produced a 200-kilowatt fuel cell for buildings called the PC25, and 

we have delivered 250 of these—is that better? Delivered more 

than 250 of these to customers in 19 countries on 5 continents. 

Building on this extensive experience, we are now developing 

new fuel cell technology, the PEM technology, for transportation, 

commercial buildings, and residential. 

UTC Fuel Cells is working with DOE and a number of car and 

bus manufacturers. These include BMW, Hyundai, Nissan, and Renault for auto applications, and ThoranAirs Bus for bus applications. 

My written testimony is more detailed, but I would like to highlight several key points today. 

UTC Fuel Cells participated in the PNGV program. As a leading 

developer of fuel cells, I can tell you that PNGV was a success because it served as a catalyst for fuel cell technology. Let me give 

you an example. 

In our case, this public-private partnership led to the development of on a PEM fuel cell system that operates at ambient pressure and, consequently, is 20 percent more fuel-efficient than other 

PEM fuel cell technology, which relies on a compressor. 

In addition, we developed the first gasoline-powered fuel cell system powerful enough to operate an automobile. This technology 

would allow us to use the existing gasoline infrastructure if it takes 

longer to develop the hydrogen infrastructure than we were expecting. 

Today’s FreedomCAR initiative builds on PNGV successes, but it 

faces hurdles. On the technical side, we must still reduce the system’s cost, size, and weight while improving its durability and performance. We also need to address manufacturing processes and 

materials issues. Continued investment in core fuel cell power 

plant technology from both the private and public sources is needed 

to reach these goals, and the same joint effort is needed in the 

areas of hydrogen production, storage, and distribution that are 

key to establishing the hydrogen infrastructure that we are talking 

about. 

PNGV drew on expertise from 19 national labs and 400 organizations in 38 States, and we urge that FreedomCAR continue the successful approach by incorporating and promoting significant involvement from fuel cell power plant makers and the entire supplier base to fuel cells. Every State represented on this committee 

has a fuel-cell-related supplier or natural gas interest that can benefit from fuel cell commercialization. But let me be clear. Although 

83

petroleum-free, emission-free transportation is a revolutionary concept, like most technologies, it will require an evolutionary process. 

The introduction of stationary fuel cell power plants using PEM 

is the key starting point. UTC Fuel Cells plans to introduce new 

stationary fuel cells by the end of next year that will cost $1,500 

to $2,000 per kilowatt in volumes of a few hundred, but they will 

be competitive in producing electricity in high-electricity areas like 

California and New York. This will be followed by the introduction 

of fuel cells for buses, starting with inner-city buses, and demonstrations in the 2004-2005 timeframe, with commercial availability in 2006 or 2007. 

Automotive applications are the most demanding in terms of 

cost, weight, and size. Hence, it is understandable to take longer 

for fuel cells to successfully compete in this market. We are targeting $50 per kilowatt for the personal vehicle application by the 

end of the decade, as volume gets into the hundreds of thousands 

and millions of vehicles. In fact, we think the introduction will happen by 2010. As we gain experience and build volume by deploying 

fuel cells for stationary markets and then buses and then trucks 

and fleet vehicles, these successes can pave the way for the zero 

emission personal vehicle. 

In summary, UTC Fuel Cells believes the FreedomCAR initiative 

is appropriately focused on hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles as a 

key element of a comprehensive long-term national strategy that 

will enhance energy security and deliver environmental benefits, 

and we look forward to partnering with DOE to achieve our common goal of an emission-free cycle of energy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of William T. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. MILLER, PRESIDENT, UTC FUEL CELLS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m Bill Miller, president of UTC Fuel Cells (UTCFC). 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

FreedomCAR program and the role it plays in national energy policy. 

UTC Fuel Cells (UTCFC) is a unit of United Technologies Corporation, which is 

a $28 billion global manufacturer of Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines, Carrier air 

conditioners, Otis elevators and escalators, Hamilton Sundstrand aerospace systems 

and Sikorsky helicopters. 

UTCFC’S FUEL CELL EXPERIENCE

UTC Fuel Cells has more than four decades of fuel cell experience. We’ve developed and produced the fuel cells for every U.S. manned space mission since the 

Apollo missions in the 1960s and continuing today with the Space Shuttle program. 

These fuel cells produce the electricity for the orbiter when it is in space and all 

the drinking water for the astronauts. 

We’ve also sold more than 250 stationary fuel cell power plants to customers in 

19 countries on five continents. Our installed base of these 200 kW fuel cell power 

plants, known as the PC25 TM, has accumulated more than five million hours of operating experience. The PC25 provides powers for schools, hospitals, military installations, data processing centers and other facilities in diverse operating conditions 

and customer configurations. 

Building on this extensive experience, we are now developing new fuel cell technology for transportation, commercial and residential applications. UTCFC is working with DOE and a number of car and bus manufacturers to develop fuel cell power 

plants and auxiliary power units for vehicles. Our partners include BMW, Hyundai, 

Nissan and Renault for auto applications as well as United Parcel Service, Thor and 

Irisbus in the heavy-duty vehicle market. 

84

For example, our hydrogen fuel cells now power four Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 

Utility Vehicles (SUVs). These cars are the world’s first zero emission SUVs and get 

the gasoline equivalent of 50 to 60 miles per gallon. We are a member of the California Fuel Cell Partnership that is demonstrating fuel cell vehicle technology, including the Santa Fe, in real world operating conditions. 

FUEL CELLS AND PNGV

Fuel cell R&D was funded under the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) effort during the early years of the program. Hundreds of technologies 

were evaluated prior to a 1997 ‘‘down select’’ of promising technologies that included: hybrid electric vehicle drive, direct injection engines, fuel cells and lightweight materials. 

From UTCFC’s perspective, PNGV was a success. It served as a catalyst for fuel 

cell technology, including UTCFC efforts with the Ford Motor Company that kicked 

off our entry into Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells for transportation 

applications. 

We had two dramatic technology breakthroughs as a result of this cost shared 

program. 

First, in cooperation with DOE, we developed a PEM fuel cell that operates at 

ambient or room pressure. Why is this important? This enables our system to 

achieve substantially better fuel economy than other automotive fuel cell systems. 

Our system does not need a compressor, which can consume large amounts of 

power and decrease overall system efficiency. This ambient pressure technology enabled us to win ‘‘best in class’’ honors in two key performance tests at the Michelin 

Bibendum in California last year where new automotive technologies are evaluated 

by independent judges. This breakthrough would not have been possible without 

cost-shared PNGV funding. 

Our second significant accomplishment under PNGV was the development of the 

first gasoline powered fuel cell system powerful enough to operate an automobile. 

This technology provides an alternative to automakers should the hydrogen infrastructure take longer than expected to develop by allowing us to use the existing 

gasoline infrastructure. 

UTCFC’s distinction is that its power plant can use readily available, pump grade 

gasoline. Other systems rely on specialized de-sulfurized fuel to accomplish this feat. 

UTCFC’s success in this area is the result of leveraging its own resources, the resources and other expertise available through our United Technologies Research 

Center, as well as funding from the Department of Energy. 

FREEDOMCAR/FUEL CELL HURDLES

Today’s FreedomCAR initiative faces hurdles, not the least of which is a sustained 

national commitment and adequate levels of investment by the private and public 

sector. Other FreedomCAR challenges include technical, market, infrastructure and 

public policy hurdles before fuel cell vehicles are commercially available and DOE’s 

vision of a petroleum free, emission free transportation system is a reality. 

Fuel cells face a number of technical challenges including reducing the system’s 

cost, size and weight while improving durability and performance characteristics. 

We also need to address manufacturing processes and materials issues. While substantial progress has been made on many of these fronts, more work needs to be 

done. 

Cost is a major issue driven by volume as well as a number of technical factors. 

New technology, improved manufacturing processes, materials substitution and 

other strategies have been used to reduce fuel cell costs over the past two decades 

from $600,000 per kilowatt for the unique needs of the Space Shuttle orbiter application to $4,500 per kilowatt today for UTCFC’s current PC25 stationary power 

plant with an annual volume of 50 units per year. We expect to be at $1,500-$2,000 

per kilowatt by the end of 2003 with stationary volumes of 200 units per year, driving towards $50 per kilowatt for the automotive market when volume approaches 

one million units per year. 

Continued investment in fuel cell core power plant technology is needed to reach 

these goals. We believe the government has a legitimate role to play in supporting 

high-risk fuel cell core technology R&D efforts on a cost-share basis with industry 

so the public at large can enjoy the efficiency, reliability and environmental benefits 

of fuel cell technology. 

In addition to these technical challenges, the country also faces significant infrastructure hurdles such as hydrogen production, storage and distribution. The goal 

is to ensure the successful convergence of parallel efforts to meet fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure performance goals. A fuel cell vehicle that meets all the perVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
85

formance targets will have very limited commercial viability without affordable and 

widespread access to hydrogen fueling capability, availability of service technicians 

to maintain the equipment and development and adoption of appropriate codes and 

standards to facilitate customer acceptance and use. All these issues need to be addressed simultaneously so there is no ‘‘long pole in the tent’’ holding back commercialization. 

Practically speaking, this means hydrogen production, storage and distribution research and development efforts must be funded in tandem with research, development and demonstration efforts for the power plant. 

This parallel R&D emphasis on core technology and infrastructure needs to embrace significant supplier involvement to maximize the opportunity for success. 

PNGV drew on expertise from 19 national labs and 400 organizations from 38 

states. We urge that FreedomCAR continue this successful approach by incorporating and promoting significant involvement by the fuel cell power plant and 

supplier base, which we believe will accelerate the pace of technology deployment 

as well as generate innovative approaches. 

It is essential that we harness the ingenuity, innovation and speed with which 

the supplier base brings technology to the market. For example, a FreedomCAR 

focus on fuel cell membrane suppliers will help bring down fuel cell system costs 

and based on a common stationary/transportation technology platform, these breakthroughs can be applied in the near term to buses, fleet vehicles and stationary applications. 

BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS

Our nation’s visionary goal to put a man on the moon first required launching 

primates into space. This was followed by manned orbits of progressively longer 

flights with more complex missions before the ultimate objective of the manned 

moon landing was accomplished. Similarly, our long-term objective of powering our 

economy with a renewable source of hydrogen is a revolutionary concept that will 

require an evolutionary approach. 

UTCFC believes the sequence of this evolutionary process will include first the 

deployment of stationary power plants by the end of 2003 at a cost of $1,500-$2,000 

per kilowatt that will start to be competitive in areas with high electricity costs 

such as California and New York. This will be followed by inner city bus demonstrations in the 2004-2005 timeframe and commercial availability in 2006. These milestones are on track and we believe will occur spurred by developments in California. 

Transit buses are ideal candidates for the initial deployment of fuel cell vehicles. 

Hydrogen storage is not a problem because of space availability on the roof of buses. 

And hydrogen fueling stations and technician training can be made available given 

the relatively small number of inner city bus stations and service technicians. 

Since the automotive application is the most demanding in terms of cost, weight, 

size, durability, ease of maintenance, start up time and other performance criteria, 

it is understandable that it will take longer for fuel cells to successfully compete in 

this market. But as we gain experience in deploying fuel cells for stationary, inner 

city buses and fleet applications, these successes can pave the way for zero emission 

personal vehicles and serve as benchmarks to measure progress towards the 2010 

goals of the FreedomCAR initiative. It will be important to balance funding requirements so the fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure R&D efforts as well as stationary 

and fleet vehicle demonstration programs receive appropriate levels of support. 

ROLE IN ENERGY POLICY

The FreedomCAR initiative is a key element of a more comprehensive strategy 

to address heavy-duty vehicles as well as stationary power generation. This important effort will need to be coordinated with other key federal agencies such as the 

Departments of Transportation and Defense. It should also be integrated with strategies for these other fuel cell applications as indicated above. This will maximize 

the synergies that exist and leverage public and private investment. 

SUMMARY

In summary, UTCFC believes DOE’s FreedomCAR initiative is appropriately focused on hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as a key element of a comprehensive, 

long-term national strategy that will enhance energy security and deliver environmental benefits. Deployment of stationary fuel cells and inner city buses powered 

by fuel cells represent important milestones that will help us measure progress. 

R&D efforts should focus on fuel cell as well as hydrogen production, storage and 

distribution with the full involvement of the supplier community and national labVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
86

oratories. Capturing and leveraging the synergies between the various fuel cell applications will maximize taxpayer benefit and accelerate the pace of deployment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Mr. GREENWOOD. We thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Dr. Paul? 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD L. PAUL 

Mr. PAUL. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

ChevronTexaco is pleased to have the opportunity to testify before 

the subcommittee on the FreedomCAR program and the future of 

advanced energy technologies. As ChevronTexaco’s chief technology 

officer, I am involved in all facets of our company’s energy technology, including fuel cell research and development, and can share 

our experiences about both key market incentives as well as the 

challenges to the development of new energy technology. Today, I 

will focus my testimony on our work in fuel cell technology applications, challenges to commercializing the technology, and public policy recommendations. 

By way of background, ChevronTexaco is an integrated global energy company that produces oil, natural gas, transportation fuels, 

and other energy products. We operate in 180 countries, and employ more than 55,000 people worldwide. ChevronTexaco is the second largest U.S.-based energy company and fifth largest in the 

world. We consider ourselves to be an environmentally responsible 

company; and, in addition to supplying global energy, we are also 

involved in a whole host of advanced clean energy and fuel technologies. 

We believe that fuel cell technology will continue to evolve. Stationary fuel cells to generate high-quality power are commercially 

available in selected operations today; however, we believe that mobile source fuel cells have a much longer timeframe for development given the complexities of the issues. 

We continue to support development of fuel cell technology and 

the conversion of hydrocarbon fuels into hydrogen for use in fuel 

cells. We are actively working to develop safe methods for storing 

and delivering hydrogen in anticipation of future energy demands. 

To meet the numerous challenges involved with this new technology, we are involved in partnerships, participate in government 

and private workshops, and privately fund basic and applied research for hydrogen fuels and refueling stations. 

An example of this type of activity is the California Fuel Cell 

Partnership, which was formed to explore pathways to commercialization of fuel cell vehicles, to demonstrate these vehicles in everyday driving conditions, and to demonstrate fueling options and 

other infrastructure needs. ChevronTexaco has been an active partner in the California Fuel Cell partnership since it was formed in 

1999. 

Challenges facing the development of the technology. First, the 

supply of hydrogen. Hydrogen is a fuel; it is not a natural resource; 

it must be manufactured from other sources. The two primary 

sources of hydrogen are water and hydrocarbons. For the past 50 

years, we have been engaged in the conversion of hydrocarbons to 

hydrogen through refinery and gasification processes. We are 

87

leveraging our longstanding core competencies in fuels, catalysis, 

proprietary gasification, and process engineering technology to explore the development of a fuel processing business for hydrogen. 

Reforming gasoline into hydrogen. An avenue that leverages the 

existing fuel infrastructure is to produce hydrogen onboard. We are 

collaborating to develop systems for the conversion of gasoline into 

hydrogen within a car. ChevronTexaco and General Motors are engaged in a multiyear research collaboration in support of General 

Motors’ development of a gasoline-fed fuel cell for vehicles. One key 

component of this collaboration is the development of an economically producible gasoline that can be used in vehicles with fuel cells 

and conventional internal combustion engines. Providing consumers with this practical solution may help remove fuel availability as a near-term impediment to commercial fuel cell vehicle 

systems. 

The delivery of hydrogen. One of the other challenges—one other 

challenge is how hydrogen would be distributed in a decentralized 

manner. We are trying to design a hydrogen refueling station that 

is economic and safe. Designing these stations requires incorporation of a range of new technologies, including hydrogen extraction, 

safe site storage technologies, stationary fuel cells to provide power 

at the site, and advanced hydrogen detection to control systems to 

make the station safe for consumer use. 

Hydrogen storage. Distribution of fuels for commercial and consumer uses will require an infrastructure that must provide for hydrogen storage. We are currently engaged in the R&D and commercialization of a new hydrogen technology. Our focus is to produce 

safe, reliable products, using a common technology capable of meeting a wide range of applications, including small portable, automotive, and bulk storage applications. 

Challenges to commercialization. We have operated in the refining and marketing business segment for over 100 years. The financial investment has been enormous. Integrated oil companies in the 

United States have generally been reducing their exposure to this 

business because of our inability to achieve a required return on 

capital. It is unlikely that U.S. refiners and marketers would create 

a substantial new infrastructure investment without believing they 

could obtain satisfactory economic returns. The interest—therefore, 

the introduction of fuel cell cars must be coordinated with the introduction of the infrastructure. Hydrogen must be available when 

and where it will be needed. We understand that customers must 

be confident that hydrogen will be available before they will buy 

cars powered by hydrogen. 

It is likely that some of the first fleet refueling stations and even 

retail stations will make the hydrogen right at the station. We 

need codes and standards to be developed that will let us demonstrate this concept. They do not currently exist. 

The challenge will be to build a network of large-scale industrial 

hydrogen generation facilities, pipelines, truck delivery systems, 

and smaller onsite generation facilities. The cost of hydrogen to 

consumers needs to be competitive in the marketplace with other 

energy fuels. 

From our perspective it will take time to work through all of 

these challenges. Centralized fleets of fuel cell cars and buses are 

88

going to be important to get the infrastructure started and to prove 

the value and functionality of the fuel cell vehicle infrastructure. 

Specialty applications and niche markets that use much of the 

same technology but in different products are going to be important 

and will be signposts. We recommend the following: 

One, consider the infrastructure as well as the technology. This 

should be a high priority in terms of DOE and other government 

R&D funds. 

Two, manage public expectations to ensure that the public understands that this technology has a long time line. 

Three, leverage private industry stakeholders. We believe that it 

will help make the technology commercial and also focus government priorities on areas where there is the most need. 

Four, monitor market signals. Often we see that there are factors 

that change the need for particular technology, either increasing or 

decreasing its demand, and these factors need to be considered 

when it comes to looking at competing technologies as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Donald L. Paul follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD L. PAUL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, CHEVRONTEXACO

Chairman Greenwood, Ranking Member Deutsch, and Members of the Subcommittee: ChevronTexaco is pleased to have the opportunity to testify before the 

Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on DOE’s FreedomCAR Program and the future of advanced energy technologies. 

As ChevronTexaco’s Chief Technology Officer, I am involved in all facets of our 

company’s energy technology, including fuel-cell research and development, and can 

share our experiences about both key market incentives as well as challenges to the 

development of new energy technology. 

Today I will focus my testimony on our work in fuel-cell technology applications, 

challenges to commercializing the technology and public policy recommendations. 

By way of background, ChevronTexaco is an integrated, global energy company 

that produces oil, natural gas, transportation fuels and other energy products. We 

operate in 180 countries and employ more than 55,000 people worldwide. 

ChevronTexaco is the second-largest U.S.-based energy company and the fifth largest in the world, based on market capitalization. We consider ourselves to be an environmentally responsible company. In addition to supplying global energy, we are 

also involved in a whole host of advanced clean energy and fuel technologies. 

We believe that fuel-cell technology will continue to evolve. Stationary fuel cells 

to generate high quality power are commercially available in selected operations 

today. ChevronTexaco is particularly optimistic about stationary fuel-cell applications and believes that mobile source fuel cells have a much longer time frame for 

development given the complexity of issues. For example, it was relatively easy for 

us to install Northern California’s first commercial fuel-cell power plant, located at 

our office park in San Ramon, California. This fuel cell converts hydrogen from natural gas into electricity, clean water and usable heat, and provides secure digitalgrade power to information technology systems. We undertook this project to gain 

experience with designing and installing stationary fuel-cell systems, and to help us 

translate this experience into other types of fuel cell projects. However, mobile 

source fuel-cell technology faces substantially more challenges. 

CHEVRONTEXACO’S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

We continue to support development of fuel-cell technology and the conversion of 

hydrocarbon fuels into hydrogen for use in fuel cells. We are actively working to develop safe methods for storing and delivering hydrogen in anticipation of future energy demands. To meet the numerous challenges involved with this new technology, 

we are involved in partnerships, participate in government and private workshops, 

and privately fund basic and applied research for hydrogen fuels and refueling stations. These efforts were under way prior to DOE’s announcement regarding the 

FreedomCAR initiative; however, certainly this does provide an impetus for the priVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
89

vate sector to focus its attention on the development of this technology. Unlike stationary fuel cells, this technology will require long-term development, especially 

with regard to fuel production and distribution infrastructure. 

An example of the type of activity that we are involved in as a private/public partnership includes:

• California Fuel Cell Partnership: One of the most well-recognized initiatives is the 

California Fuel Cell Partnership, which was formed to explore pathways to commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles, to demonstrate these vehicles in everyday 

driving conditions, and to demonstrate fueling options and other infrastructure 

needs. ChevronTexaco has been an active participant in the California Fuel Cell 

Partnership since it was formed in 1999. This organization is a voluntary collaboration of 8 automakers, 4 energy companies, a number of State and Federal 

government agencies, and technology providers. 

Working with other energy partners, we are providing hydrogen to operate a 

project facility that safely delivers high-pressure hydrogen to demonstration vehicles. Today, the partnership is operating about a dozen fuel-cell vehicles at 

its West Sacramento facility. 

Examples of our research and development activities, which reflect the many challenges facing the development of this technology, include:

• Supply of Hydrogen: Hydrogen is a fuel—not a natural resource. It must be manufactured from other sources, so how the supply system is developed is critical. 

The two primary sources of hydrogen are water and hydrocarbons. For the past 

50 years, we have been engaged in the conversion of hydrocarbons to hydrogen 

through refinery and gasification processes. As you may be aware, oil refineries 

are the largest current producers and users of hydrogen. We are leveraging 

long-standing core competencies in fuels, catalysis, proprietary gasification and 

process engineering technology to explore the development of a fuel-processing 

business. The total environmental consequences of making hydrogen from any 

source need to be carefully evaluated. There needs to be a cost effective technology that enables fuel-cell systems to operate on readily available hydrocarbon fuels and to deliver hydrogen fuels at competitive costs. We have developed relationships with leading fuel-cell developers, utilities and suppliers in an 

effort to introduce competitive fuel-cell systems into the market. We have hydrogen fuel-processing systems under development that will convert a hydrocarbon feedstock, such as natural gas, into hydrogen. 

• Reforming Gasoline Into Hydrogen: An avenue that leverages the existing fuel infrastructure is to produce the hydrogen on-board. We are collaborating to develop systems for the conversion of gasoline into hydrogen within a car. 

ChevronTexaco and General Motors are engaged in a multi-year research collaboration in support of General Motor’s development of a gasoline-fed fuel cell 

for vehicles. GM is developing gasoline-fueled fuel cells as its interim strategy 

until a hydrogen infrastructure is established. This technology is largely based 

on fuel refining and related expertise, and is targeted to improve performance 

of converting gasoline-like fuels to hydrogen. 

Technology to convert gasoline to hydrogen in on-board processors has been 

demonstrated. However, to use a gasoline-like fuel to produce hydrogen, onboard a vehicle, it will be necessary to reduce sulfur to very low levels, below 

that of the cleanest fuels available today. Development of a method to reduce 

sulfur to very low levels is one of the main features of our research with General Motors. We also are investigating other modifications to gasoline that will 

be needed for use in fuel-cell systems. 

One key component of this collaboration is the development of an economically producible gasoline that can be used in vehicles with fuel cells and conventional internal combustion engines. As I will discuss in more detail later, the 

special infrastructure requirements, high costs and safety issues associated with 

hydrogen delivery are virtually prohibitive, at least in the near term. It is for 

this reason that we are working with GM to develop on-board fuel processors 

that will allow customers to use gasoline-like fuels that are familiar, the least 

expensive and use existing fueling infrastructure. Providing consumers with 

this practical solution may help remove fuel availability as a near-term impediment to commercial fuel-cell vehicle systems. 

• Delivery of Hydrogen: One other challenge is how hydrogen would bedistributed 

in a decentralized manner. We are trying to design a hydrogen refueling station 

that is economic and safe. Designing these stations requires the incorporation 

of a range of new technologies including hydrogen extraction from natural gas, 

safe-site storage technologies, stationary fuel cells to provide power at the site, 

and advanced hydrogen detection and control systems to make the station safe 

90

for consumer use. This is a daunting array of simultaneous technical challenges 

that we are excited to take on, but recognize that they will require involvement 

of many industry technology providers as well as public and government agencies to make them happen. • Hydrogen Storage: Distribution of fuels for commercial and consumer uses will require an infrastructure that must provide for hydrogen storage. We are currently engaged in the R&D and commercialization of new hydrogen storage 

technology. Our focus is to produce safe, reliable products using a common technology capable of meeting a wide range of applications including small portable, 

automotive, and bulk storage applications. We are forming partnerships and associations with companies in various areas to coordinate our efforts. 

CHALLENGES TO TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

We have operated in the refining and marketing business segment for over 100 

years. The financial investment has been enormous. The current level of discretionary capital spending on the refining business segment by integrated oil companies has been close to zero. Integrated oil companies have generally been reducing 

their exposure to this business because of our inability to achieve a required return 

on capital. This has created an environment where refining assets have been sold 

for about 20% to 40% of replacement cost. It is estimated that six to nine refineries 

may be up for sale in the U.S. within the next 12 months either because of weak 

business conditions or Federal Trade Commission mandates. It is unlikely that U.S. 

refiners and marketers would create a substantial new infrastructure investment 

without believing that they could obtain a satisfactory economic return to compensate for this risk. 

The introduction of fuel-cell cars must be coordinated with the introduction of the 

infrastructure. We know that the infrastructure must be in place before customers 

buy these cars. We also know that this will require significant investment with a 

minimal return initially until widespread adoption occurs. 

In addition to the financial risks outlined above, we see the following additional 

challenges to the commercialization of this new technology and infrastructure: 

Hydrogen must be available when and where it will be needed. We understand 

that customers must be confident that hydrogen will be available before they will 

buy cars powered by hydrogen. It is a significant task to develop technology to:

1. produce the hydrogen at a reasonable cost; 

2. deliver it over a broad geographic area; 

3. store it at the sales point; 

4. fuel the cars; and 

5. in addition, the technology must be employed in a safe manner to achieve total 

consumer confidence. 

There are 9 million tons per year of hydrogen produced and used in the United 

States. Worldwide production is 40 million tons per year. Most of this hydrogen is 

used in refineries, chemical plants, metals processing and the electronics industry. 

Hydrogen right now is a specialty chemical, and it must be transformed into a 

broader energy fuel as it begins to be used for transportation. 

Storing hydrogen in the car, at the refueling station and throughout the delivery 

infrastructure is a sizable, unfulfilled challenge. The problems are different at each 

location, and they each deserve the attention of industry, national labs and the 

DOE. Much attention is given to storing hydrogen on board the car, and rightly so, 

but similar attention is needed in the other places that hydrogen needs to be stored. 

This technology still needs to be developed, tested and embraced. 

It is likely that some of the first fleet refilling stations and even retail stations 

will make the hydrogen right at the station from reforming natural gas. We need 

codes and standards to be developed that will let us demonstrate this concept; they 

do not currently exist. 

Eventually the hydrogen market may be big enough that we can make hydrogen 

in large centralized plants, similar to refineries today. But this still needs to be distributed across the country. The challenge will be to build a network of large-scale 

industrial hydrogen generation facilities, pipelines, truck delivery systems and 

smaller on-site generation facilities—all expanding as an economic market develops 

due to increasing consumer acceptance of fuel-cell vehicles. 

Once large centralized plants are built, it will be possible to capture a significant 

portion of the carbon dioxide made as a by product. Capturing, inertly storing or 

sequestering large volumes of CO2 are two distinct challenges yet to be solved. 

New codes and standards need to be developed that permit the development of the infrastructure. Existing building codes and hydrogen system design 

standards were not developed with consumer applications in mind. Today’s codes 

91

provide large distance ‘‘setbacks’’ from other facilities that limit the locations where 

hydrogen can be manufactured, stored and dispensed. This was appropriate for the 

technology and hydrogen applications of the 20th century, but they make retrofits 

of existing sites with limited area for expansion impractical for future hydrogen facilities. Codes and standards will need to be updated to reflect the developments in 

safer hydrogen technologies arising from the new storage and control system technologies. In some cases, building codes will need to strengthened to ensure safe 

maintenance facilities. In all cases, revisions of the codes will need to occur simultaneously with developing hydrogen technologies. 

The cost of hydrogen to consumers needs to be competitive in the market with other 

energy fuels. We need to be convinced that hydrogen can compete with other fuels 

in the market. This looks achievable once the demand for hydrogen is substantial, 

but as of yet this has not been demonstrated. The ability to supply hydrogen to the 

market while the demand is very low is difficult. 

From our perspective, it will take time to work through all these challenges. Centralized fleets of fuel-cell cars and buses are going to be important to get the infrastructure started and to prove the value and functionality of the fuel-cell vehicle and 

infrastructure. Specialty applications and niche markets that use much of the same 

technology but in different products are going to be important and will be a signpost 

along the path. One opportunity in this area would be for use of the technology by 

the military. In addition, applications, such as airport ground equipment vehicles 

and fleets of industrial vehicles with centralized and stationary refueling, need to 

be successful before consumers become a significant user of this technology. 

PUBLIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

We believe that there are several areas that are critical to the development of the 

technology and the need for a public-private partnership. We recommend the following:

1. Consider the Infrastructure As Well As The Technology: It is absolutely critical 

that DOE work on the infrastructure issues simultaneously. Although technology can be developed, it will not be implemented until there is an infrastructure to support it. Energy companies have a large role to play in the development. This should be a high priority in terms of DOE and other government 

R&D funds. 

2. Manage Public Expectations: When new technologies are on the horizon, there is 

a lot of fanfare and media attention surrounding the development of the technology. Unfortunately, this leads to unrealistic public expectations that such 

technology will be readily available within a short time frame. We believe that 

it is critical and responsible to ensure that the public understands that this 

technology has a long timeline, and not create unrealistic or false expectations. 

3. Leverage Private Industry Stakeholders: DOE has held a number of meetings 

bringing together public and private industry stakeholders. We believe that this 

will help make the technology commercial, and also focus government priorities 

on areas where there is the most need. 

4. Monitor Market Signals: Often we see that factors can change the need for a particular technology—either increasing or decreasing demand. Some of these factors may include competing technologies, availability of resources, public opinion, etc. For example, we expect that hybrid cars are going to increase the fuel 

economy of future cars and impact the market. To embark on a long-term major 

government initiative without doing mid-course reviews would be a mistake. By 

doing periodic full reviews, there would be an opportunity to steer or change 

policy as needed and implement appropriate mid-course corrections. 

I should note that pending energy legislation, now in a House-Senate conference, 

does include several provisions to address issues related to this technology as well 

as other advanced energy technologies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any 

questions.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Dr. Paul. 

Let me start with you, Dr. Roan, and your comparison of the various vehicles and their efficiencies and the amount of fuel used, 

and particularly the amount of CO2 emitted. My recollection—I 

don’t know if we can get those slides back up, but my recollection 

was that it was a hybrid that took the blue ribbon; is that correct? 

Mr. ROAN. In terms of using petroleum fuel today, that’s correct. 

Now, that’s the diesel or compression ignition hybrid. And that’s 

92

why I personally believe that continuing the research—the government-sponsored or supported research on the exhaust emissions, 

both at the source, meaning combustion process and cleanup, is important. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. What are the challenges in getting that diesel, 

that diesel engine, widely used in the marketplace? 

Mr. ROAN. Well, I probably am not the best one to ask, someone 

from the industry would be better, but I can give you my opinion. 

I think that there really are two. 

No. 1 is, of course, the problem in meeting the EPA and the California emission requirements. That’s extremely difficult for diesels. 

No. 2, of course, is the image. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. I think you were present when Mr. Dingell was 

making inquiries about the sulfur content of fuel. Is it your understanding that if we were to succeed in getting close to zero sulfur 

content, that, in fact, that would eliminate that concern, and, in 

fact, move us very quickly toward very significant fuel efficiency? 

Mr. ROAN. I don’t believe that that eliminates the concern, but 

I do believe that it’s a great big help. I think that it helps considerably, and especially in terms of the alternatives for emission treatment. There still is the issue of particulates to deal with and the— it’s very difficult for the diesel engine to meet it; however, I do 

think it’s possible, especially with very low sulfur fuel. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. What about—what’s the most positive thing we 

can say about the amount of CO2 that we will be putting into the 

atmosphere in the best of all scenarios? That’s the question I would 

pose to any of you. 

Mr. ROAN. Right now we would be minimizing the amount of CO2

that we put in the atmosphere either with this compression ignition hybrid vehicle, or with the hydrocarbon fuel cell hybrid vehicle. I believe that, ultimately, there would not be much difference 

in terms of the fuel efficiency, and the fuel cell would have an advantage with respect to emissions. The fuel cell would not have the 

difficulty in meeting the emission requirements that the diesel 

does. 

So, those two, I think, are our best bet using petroleum. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I would just say you could eliminate CO2 entirely if we get to the point where we can produce electricity 

through a renewable means, either through wind or solar or 

through nuclear. And then you electrolyze water to produce hydrogen, and then you use the hydrogen in cars to transport people, you 

would literally have no CO2 emissions in that type, if we get to 

that point of where we get power from—if we can find power from 

renewable means. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Dr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One way, probably a third option—all of those, I think, are options. A third option is if you were 

able to have an infrastructure that allowed for a large central production of hydrogen where you could capture and sequester the 

CO2, you would have effectively the same situation. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. And how would you do that? 

Mr. PAUL. How would you capture it? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. How do you sequester the CO2? 

93

Mr. PAUL. Well, there are challenges there, as you are probably 

aware, but there is a considerable amount of research effort going 

on in the industry as well as in the DOE around finding geologic 

formations where one could inject and sequester CO2, for example, 

in the subsurface. And there are, in fact, a number of projects looking specifically at the options for capture and sequestration of CO2. Mr. GREENWOOD. A question for each of you gentlemen. We 

saw—in the previous panel we saw the graph of petroleum utilization by this country. It’s heading upward. What is a realistic scenario based on the technology, the research that we are doing on 

all of this automotive technology? What is a realistic scenario in 

which we see—is there a realistic scenario in which we see that 

trend line take a negative direction? 

Mr. ROAN. Well, I will give you comments on some of the things 

that were discussed along that line. First of all, nothing is probably 

going to cause it to decrease for the immediate future, because the 

mechanism is already in place for a continuation of the increase. 

The thing that’s going to cause it to decrease, of course, is if we 

consume less petroleum, and this means that either the consumers 

are restricted in the amount of petroleum that they can use, or the 

vehicles are restricted in the amount of fuel that they can consume; 

or, that there is some kind of a strong incentive for the consumer 

to want to use the higher-mileage, lower petroleum-consuming vehicles. 

Mr. MILLER. I would say for the next 10 years, the trend line is 

going to be difficult to change, but if we do get fuel cell cars on the 

road in the next decade, they would be powered by hydrogen, probably coming from natural gas; and, instead of importing oil, we 

have a lot of more resources in terms of natural gases in North 

America than—and that could change the trend line from importing petroleum. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Dr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. I would agree with both gentlemen here. Basically the 

issue to drive down petroleum use is the fundamental energy demand in the system, the efficiency of the system. Looking at a 

broad array of technologies that introduce and improve energy efficiency, this is certainly one of the programs and one of the big 

sources of the use of energy. But I think it’s a broad-based issue 

of improving energy efficiency and use in the U.S. to track down 

overall petroleum and natural gas. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Looking specifically at the FreedomCAR program, are there—given the challenges, the visions that you have 

outlined in your testimony and in your response to the questions, 

do you believe that the existing program as it is functioning now 

is on the right track? Do you think or would you recommend the 

Congress make significant changes, or even minor changes in the 

program to get us where we want to go sooner? 

Mr. ROAN. My personal opinion is that I do believe it’s on the 

right track; however, as you can see from some of the things I’ve 

said, I see enormous pitfalls in getting to the capability to produce 

hydrogen and also the infrastructure. And so I think that it has to 

be reviewed often and carefully to see about the progress being 

made, and to make sure it is going in the right direction. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Miller. 

94

Mr. MILLER. In general, we support the FreedomCAR program. 

I would say—I would like to add one thing and emphasize one 

thing, which is we believe in this evolutionary model. It’s like in 

the computer industry. If, before computers were invented, we tried 

to invent the PC, it never would have happened. You had 

mainframes, and then you went to the first PCs, and now we are 

today where everyone can afford them. 

I think the same thing is going to happen in the fuel cell industry. That’s why we think it’s important for the Federal Government 

and DOE to support the introduction of stationary fuel cells, which 

can afford to pay the most for fuel cell technology, then buses, and 

then cars. And we think it will be that evolution over the next 10 

years which gets us—and it will also keep businesses and suppliers 

interested, because they will be getting revenue serving as suppliers to the fuel cell industry over that period of time as opposed 

to continuing to try and fund research in the hopes that 10 or 12 

years from now there will be a payoff. 

So we think it will be an evolutionary process, and we think it’s 

important for the government to focus on the interim steps as well. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Paul? 

Mr. PAUL. Yes. I would say, in general, we do support the program. As I discussed in my remarks, it is important to ensure that 

the program includes these infrastructure elements. I would also 

say that it’s important that some of the basic research that sits underneath the technology development continue. Research in areas 

like surface chemistry, material science, memory and technology, 

and things like that are extremely important because they support 

the broad platform around fuel cell technologies that will have a 

broad array of applications in addition to perhaps the central feature of transportation. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. How do—what are your views on Congress increasing the CAFE standards? I think it was Dr. Roan who said 

that, in the absence of essentially government efforts or impositions on fuel utilization, that we were going to continue an upward 

trend for the foreseeable future. What do each of you think about 

Congress increasing the average fleet efficiency? 

Mr. ROAN. I—there are so many issues involved there that I hesitate——

Mr. GREENWOOD. I don’t have anybody here to take the microphone, so it’s okay. 

Mr. ROAN. I think that it is going to work better if there is an 

incentive for the industry to make more fuel-efficient vehicles, such 

as hybrids, which they seem to be intending to do, and for the consumers to buy them. The CAFE standards have probably served a 

good purpose, and it’s certainly conceivable to me that it could do 

the same thing again, that it could bring fuel consumption down. 

It seems to be kind of a hard way to do it—a tough way to do it, 

I should say, but I think it could work. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Miller, do you have views on that subject? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, let me answer it may be in a little roundabout 

way. I would just note that the State of California has put in very 

strict guidelines for emissions of a certain percentage of each manufacturer’s fleets for cars in the 2007/2008 timeframe. I believe 

that’s been instrumental in getting most of the major auto manuVerDate 0ct 02 2002 10:55 Oct 09, 2002 Jkt 200250 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80677.TXT 80677
95

facturers to spend in excess of $100 million each annually to go 

pursue fuel cell vehicles. 

California also has legislative requirements on buses for transit 

agencies, and the result of that is that many of the bus transit 

agencies are starting to purchase small fleets of fuel cell buses. 

And so the State of California is taking a leading role, and consequently industry is responding because of how large that market 

is. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Dr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Chairman, Texaco has not taken a position on CAFE 

standards. We just feel that’s not our business. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had just a brief chance to look over your testimony. Forgive me 

for being a bit late and having to run to vote. But, Mr. Miller, you 

mentioned in the testimony that, practically speaking, how does— your production and storage distribution R&D must be funded in 

tandem with R&D in efforts for a power plant. Do you believe that 

the FreedomCAR sufficiently pursues this course now? And what 

are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. MILLER. I think the FreedomCAR program, DOE is absolutely focused and is funding research efforts in both hydrogen 

storage and hydrogen production. And so, you know, I don’t have 

any substantial disagreement with the program as it stands now. 

Mr. FLETCHER. Let me ask you a question in general. And I know 

this is all fairly new to me, other than we used to talk about these 

things years ago when I was in engineering, but what would you 

say, before you start looking at these things being marketable, if 

we strictly did it on a market basis. What would the price of gasoline have to get at the pumps before you would think that this 

would be competitive and that, from a consumer standpoint, it 

would be something they choose based on that, without government 

being much more involved? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. And I will be glad to hear from the others, too, 

committee members as well. 

Mr. MILLER. That’s a good question. I don’t have—I might go 

back to our people and ask them that question. I don’t have a specific dollar number for the price of gasoline where it would really 

encourage—it would really depend on the cost of hydrogen production. 

Mr. PAUL. Yes. We—this is a—the price that one could model in 

a scenario of the future is a very complex issue, involves the cost 

of the infrastructure and the distribution system, the state of—the 

number of cars and a lot of other things. I don’t think there has 

been a—there is a number that one could put forward at this time. 

But I will say that a lot of people are looking at this as a strategic 

issue, but I couldn’t give you a good number at this point. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. Let me go back, I guess. 

Mr. FLETCHER. You mention in your testimony—and this may 

have been asked since I was not here all the time, Mr. Chairman—

96

but in any case, other interim strategies for using fuels such as 

natural gas to achieve fuel efficiency gains, has this been given sufficient consideration or does it conflict with the goals outlined in 

FreedomCAR and the hydrogen vision? 

Mr. ROAN. The issue of natural gas, I don’t believe, is treated 

specifically in the FreedomCAR program. The issue of hydrogen 

production is. I mentioned the natural gas because I have felt for 

a long time that we could have a major problem there. If we provide hydrogen through the conversion of natural gas and steam, 

which is what we’re doing now, and if we use additional natural 

gas to produce the additional electricity that we would need to 

produce hydrogen, then I believe we would be simply importing 

natural gas, liquefied natural gas, in much, much larger quantities 

than we could get it. And we would with petroleum. So I see the 

efficient use of natural gas as a very important part of our energy 

strategy personally. 

Mr. FLETCHER. Well, in addition, do you think the FreedomCAR 

program, at least as it’s currently outlined, do you believe it’s sufficient to really address the various challenges that your testimony 

pointed to? 

Mr. ROAN. I do because of the fact that they included in the 

FreedomCAR programs continued research on the exhaust treatment for the diesel engine, and I think that the diesel hybrid may 

prove to be one of our most efficient transportation systems. They 

also include additional research, insofar as hydrogen carbon-fueled 

fuel cell vehicles is concerned, and I think that that’s a very clean 

alternative and a very fuel-efficient alternative to transportation. 

Both of those would give us a big increase over the conventional 

vehicle. So—and DOE is proposing to do this in addition to the hydrogen fuel cell and the storage and the production and infrastructure issues. 

So I think, yes, I do agree that they are on the right track. 

Mr. FLETCHER. Let me ask just—and it’ll be a final question, a 

kind of follow-up. If you could look in a crystal ball, and I know 

that is difficult to do, but if you’re looking at hydrogen and some 

of the other alternative fuel systems, transportation systems, 

where do you see down the road that these are going to really become significant? I know we have some, certainly hybrid cars now, 

but when you’re looking at hydrogen, when do you see, if you 

looked into a crystal ball, that that may be something that we grow 

accustomed to on a daily basis? 

Mr. ROAN. That is pure speculation. I mean, it’s really very hard 

to tell, but I would see at least two decades, maybe three decades, 

before we would have much hope of getting to that point. 

Mr. MILLER. I would answer it just by once again focusing on 

this issue of an evolutionary change in the industry. I believe 

you’re going to see many, many fuel cell buses in the second half 

of this decade, and it could be that by 2010 almost all—most buses 

are fuel cell buses, because fuel cells are extremely efficient, and 

they’re extremely efficient at low power or at part power, which is 

what inner-city driving cycles are all about. 

Cars, it’s certainly going to be substantially beyond that, sometime in the following decade. 

97

Mr. PAUL. That is very consistent with our perspective. I would 

like to reiterate the support for the evolutionary view with fuel cell 

technology extending across stationary power, fleets, special purpose applications, building that out extensively over the next decade, and—but I think for a large distribution of fuel cell vehicles 

as consumer items, I think you have to think multidecade timeframes. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The gentleman has no—Mr. Miller, did you 

want to comment? 

Mr. MILLER. No, that’s fine. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has 

expired. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you. Dr. Paul, the EPA has informed us 

that it’s feasible to reduce sulfur content of diesel fuel to less than 

15 parts per million with existing technology. Given what we know 

now about the benefits of low-sulfur diesel fuel, why is it the petroleum industry in the United States has not yet reduced the sulfur 

content in diesel? 

Mr. PAUL. Well, I would like to say with respect to—respectfully, 

with respect to our activities, we’re actually converting our major 

refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi to produce a low-sulfur diesel 

actually well ahead of the date. So I think that there are members 

of the industry that are beginning to make these changes. So my 

response would be that we’re making the changes. I believe other 

members of the industry are doing so as well. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. You’re only converting one refinery. Is that it? 

Mr. PAUL. We’re converting the Mississippi refinery at this point 

in time. We already make clean air gasoline in California. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Uh-huh. All right. Dr. Paul, you testified that U.S. 

refiners and marketers would not be willing to make a substantial 

infrastructure investment without a satisfactory economic return. 

If the U.S. auto makers are willing to widely produce vehicles powered by low-sulfur diesel, would you be willing to make the fuels 

to support the significant investment? 

Mr. PAUL. We will always make fuels that meet the market, but 

when—at the same time, one has to decide on capital that it takes 

to build the infrastructure to meet the market. So those two things 

I believe go in concert. But we will always strive to deliver fuels 

that customers demand in the market. 

But the infrastructure issues with fuel production and distribution and sales are very challenging, and historically have not delivered in satisfactory terms. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Interacting with the auto makers, I mean, the 

auto makers build the infrastructure, again this chicken-and-eggtype thing. At what point do you start building the infrastructure? 

Mr. PAUL. For new fuels? 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Correct. 

Mr. PAUL. We of course change fuels—make adjustments to refineries to meet environmental requirements, as I mentioned before 

with the low-sulfur diesel, and as we have for many years in clean 

air gasoline in California. We make infrastructure investments 

when we believe that the timing of the investments and the emergence of the markets will support such investments. 

98

Mr. DEUTSCH. I want to go back to a question I asked the panel, 

and some of you have touched on it, but just to give a time horizon. 

If each of you can respond, how long will it take to develop a fuelcell-powered vehicle for mass production in the United States? Dr. 

Roan. 

Mr. ROAN. The big issue in developing the vehicle is the cost, as 

already was pointed out by Mr. Garman. The progress has been extremely encouraging. In about a 10-year period, we’ve had about a 

factor of 10 decrease in the predicted price, as well as the size. I 

think that the progress is going to continue. I think that the industry is going to be continuing, as well as the work done in the national labs and supported by the government. 

We have quite a ways to go. So I think that probably before we’re 

looking at mass-produced vehicles that would be competitively 

priced so that people would actually buy them, probably 10 years. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. 2010. I think there are auto manufacturers today 

with plans. Whether they eventuate or not is another thing, but 

they have plans, 2010. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Dr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I would agree. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. 2010? 

Mr. PAUL. Yeah. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Whoever feels comfortable answering this. But 

wouldn’t widespread use of hydrogen-powered vehicles almost double the demand for electricity in the United States? 

Mr. ROAN. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the last——

Mr. DEUTSCH. Would the widespread use of hydrogen-powered 

vehicles double the demand for electricity in the United States? 

Mr. ROAN. Not right now, because——

Mr. DEUTSCH. But if it were to occur. 

Mr. ROAN. If we’re using renewable energy source—or using electricity, electrolysis of water to produce the hydrogen to convert our 

personal vehicle fleet would roughly double the amount of electricity we’re using for our residential applications right now. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Do either one of you want to respond? Is that the 

conventional wisdom in terms of the industry at this point? 

Mr. MILLER. I would say I think there’s a debate as to whether 

you’ll produce hydrogen through electrolysis or through reformation 

of a hydrocarbon, and if it happens through the reformation of a 

hydrocarbon, in other words, breaking those hydrogen and carbon 

bonds, then you wouldn’t increase electricity at all, I don’t think. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Then you’re still using the same original basis, 

then, in terms of—you know, where you’re going to—all right. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes for inquiry. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Chairman. Again, I welcome Dr. Roan 

from the University of Florida. Dr. Roan, I at my home where I am 

here in Virginia, I heat the apartment with gas, and down in Florida I use gas to heat my home. And when you transition to this 

FreedomCAR and the use of hydrogen, don’t you—won’t we use a 

lot of gas in this country to do that? 

99

Mr. ROAN. Yes, sir. If we continue making hydrogen the way we 

do now, which is primarily through the steam reformation of natural gas, we would dramatically increase the amount of natural gas 

that we would use if we are talking about large numbers of vehicles and the supporting amount of fuel to power those vehicles. It 

would be a great deal of gas. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think what I’m trying to get at, are we actually 

going to exhaust in doing—in doing this, that we might exhaust 

our domestic supply of natural gas, because a lot of homes, particularly in the Northeast, are using gas. So this goes back to what I 

tried to touch on earlier with Mr. Garman, and also Mr. Wells 

when I asked him relative to the use of petroleum products, to get 

the hydrogen developed, the production of hydrogen, we’re going to 

use a lot of petroleum. So my question to you is, would you say 

that we’re going to actually exhaust or perhaps—because we don’t 

have the same kind of gas supply, and we’re using more and more 

gas. So is it possible we’re going to exhaust our gas supply in-country to do this? 

Mr. ROAN. I don’t consider myself an expert in that area, but 

based on the numbers I have seen, I believe we put in something 

like 22,000 new gas wells last year and roughly broke even, and 

that we’re projecting that our imported liquefied natural gas is 

going to increase, and that is even without using natural gas to 

make large quantities of hydrogen. So I would have to say that, 

again, based on what I’ve read, the reports and so forth, it seems 

to me as though we could get into a very serious problem with the 

availability of natural gas. 

Mr. STEARNS. I’m surprised Mr. Garman didn’t sort of agree with 

what I told him about petroleum. I didn’t ask about gas. 

The idea of the new exploration and production in this country 

of gas is not going very well, is it? I mean, are there incentives in 

place that—when we talk about ANWR for gasoline products—but 

there doesn’t seem to be the new exploration, new production of 

gas. So we have a problem if we continue this FreedomCAR as a 

long-term, long-range objective, and at the same time we don’t 

seem to have the incentives to get more gas production. 

Mr. ROAN. Right now gas is still quite cheap even compared to 

petroleum. As I remember, the number is on the order of about $4 

per million Btu for natural gas as opposed to about 6 for petroleum. And I think, if that’s what you were asking, I don’t think 

there’s a strong incentive there in terms of——

Mr. STEARNS. Let me ask Dr. Paul or Mr. Miller what your feeling is about the thrust of my——

Mr. PAUL. I guess in my remarks, the supply of hydrogen is the 

issue and——

Mr. STEARNS. What did you just say? 

Mr. PAUL. The supply of hydrogen, how you make the hydrogen, 

and certainly today reforming natural gas is the most common way 

in which to make hydrogen for commercial use in either fuel cells 

or for industrial processes. One of our major research efforts, and 

I believe anyone that is involved in the hydrogen supply business, 

is how to reform other things in which there may be much—may 

be much more plentiful. 

100

One that Dr. Garman mentioned that we’ve been actively involved in the technology—in fact, we have over 100 plant licenses 

around the world—is to basically gasify coal refinery bottoms, residuals, very low—in effect low-grade carbons, out of which you do 

in fact produce hydrogen as part of the stream. So it is possible to 

make a broader array of sources through technology, turn them 

into hydrogen; rather than right now the most attractive one, 

which is to reform gas. 

Mr. STEARNS. So, Dr. Paul, you would say we would not be in 

danger of exhausting our supplies of natural gas? 

Mr. PAUL. I think that the conversion of natural gas to hydrogen 

is one of the many demands for natural gas but, you know, burning 

it in power plants for electricity is certainly a much, much larger 

market. 

Mr. STEARNS. So yes and no. Do you agree with Dr. Roan that 

we would possibly exhaust our natural gas supplies at the present 

rate we’re going if we had to develop the hydrogen production? 

Mr. PAUL. In terms of would our use of natural gas—U.S. supplies, of course—— Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. PAUL. [continuing] as opposed to the global supply of natural 

gas——

Mr. STEARNS. We would become more dependent on somebody 

else? 

Mr. PAUL. Would this demand rise? My guess is that gas demand 

will rise. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. And, Mr. Miller, do you—— Mr. MILLER. I’m not an expert in that area. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Roan, the last question is do you believe the 

National Research Council can continue to play a role in reviewing 

and advising on the progress of this research? As I understand 

from staff, these folks, the National Research Council, are not quite 

involved. And I guess the question is, should they continue to play 

a role; and, perhaps, why aren’t they playing a bigger role? 

Mr. ROAN. To my knowledge, they are not involved right now, 

and my speculation would be that it’s too early to even—to set up 

the mechanism to do this. But in terms of the first question, I believe that this involvement played a very positive role in the PNGV 

program. I think it was extremely helpful. And I think that the 

same thing would be true, insofar as the FreedomCAR program is 

concerned. I do think that the National Research Council could 

play a very important, positive role there. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. The Chair thanks our 

witnesses for your testimony this afternoon. You are excused, and 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

101


g:\graphics\80677.044
102


g:\graphics\80677.045
103


g:\graphics\80677.046
104


g:\graphics\80677.047
105


g:\graphics\80677.048
106


g:\graphics\80677.049
107


g:\graphics\80677.050
108


g:\graphics\80677.051
109


g:\graphics\80677.052
110


g:\graphics\80677.053