A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Refueling Infrastructure for 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles: 

Lessons Learned for Hydrogen 

Workshop Proceedings 

M.W. Melaina 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

S. McQueen and J. Brinch 

Energetics Incorporated 

Sacramento, California 

April 3, 2008 

Proceedings 

NREL/BK-560-43669 

July 2008 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Refueling Infrastructure for 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles: 

Lessons Learned for Hydrogen 

Workshop Proceedings 

M.W. Melaina 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

S. McQueen and J. Brinch 

Energetics Incorporated 

Sacramento, California 

April 3, 2008 

Prepared under Task No. H278.2350 

Proceedings 

NREL/BK-560-43669 

July 2008 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Acknowledgements 

This workshop was planned under the guidance of Marc Melaina of the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), with input from Fred Joseck and John Garbak of the Department of 

Energy’s Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program. Workshop organization 

and facilitation was provided by Energetics, Incorporated in Columbia, Maryland. Breakout 

group facilitators included Jeannette Brinch, Sabine Brueske, and Mauricio Justiniano. The 

proceedings were prepared by Marc Melaina (NREL), Jeannette Brinch (Energetics), and 

Shawna McQueen (Energetics). Special thanks are extended to the workshop speakers and 

participants for contributing their time and knowledge.

 i
 ii

Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

Summary of Panel Sessions .............................................................................................................1 

Panel Session I: Lessons from the AFV Experience ......................................................................2 

Panel Session II: Lessons from Hydrogen Station Demonstration Projects ...................................3 

Panel Session III: Innovation and Coordination .............................................................................4 

Summary of Breakout Group Results ..............................................................................................6 

Key Lessons and Pitfalls ..................................................................................................................6 

Key Action Items .............................................................................................................................8 

Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................14 

Appendix A Workshop Structure and Agenda ........................................................................... A-1 

Appendix B List of Workshop Participants .................................................................................B-1 

Appendix C Detailed Output from Breakout Group Discussions ................................................C-1 

Appendix D Background Information ........................................................................................ D-1 
1 Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored the Refueling Infrastructure for Alternative 

Fuel Vehicles: Lessons Learned for Hydrogen workshop to gather input on the role of refueling 

infrastructure in introducing alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and how lessons from past 

experiences can inform ongoing and future efforts to commercialize hydrogen vehicles. 

Infrastructure-related challenges include consumer convenience and refueling availability, 

fueling station siting and installation, permitting, liability, capital and operating costs, 

technological compatibility, and consumer acceptance. This document captures the highlights of 

the workshop’s presentations and the major themes that emerged during discussion sessions. 

Over sixty stakeholders from automotive, hydrogen, and alternative fuel industries, government 

agencies, universities, federal laboratories, and non-governmental organizations participated in 

the workshop (see Appendix B). Most of the invited participants provided feedback based upon 

significant experience with hydrogen and other alternative fuels; others were relatively new to 

alternative fuels but brought expertise from related fields. While the workshop was intended to 

build upon past lessons learned, the orientation was forward-looking, with presentations and 

discussions focused on new information and data from modeling, research, and demonstration 

projects. The resulting dialogue among this diverse group of knowledgeable stakeholders 

provides valuable input to ongoing and future opportunities to create a refueling infrastructure to 

support the early commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. 

As shown in Appendix A, the agenda included panel sessions followed by facilitated breakout 

group discussions. Panel presenters reviewed past experiences with AFVs, hydrogen station 

demonstration projects, and efforts to facilitate innovation and stakeholder coordination in AFV 

programs. Panel discussion sessions offered an opportunity for participants to comment and 

share their perspectives. The facilitated breakout groups provided a framework for expanding on 

the many AFV lessons learned and identifying priority action items required to address near-term 

challenges to developing a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. 

2 Summary of Panel Sessions 

Three panel sessions addressed a variety of past and ongoing AFV efforts and the role of 

technology innovation and stakeholder coordination: 

• Panel Session I: Lessons from the AFV Experience 

• Panel Session II: Lessons from Hydrogen Demonstration Projects 

• Panel Session III: Innovation and Coordination 

The sessions featured presentations from hydrogen vehicle and refueling infrastructure experts, 

as well as key natural gas and ethanol stakeholders. Speakers represented a variety of 

organizations, including federal and state agencies, fuel providers, automotive companies, 

academia, and non-governmental organizations. The presentations, which are available on the 

workshop Web site,1

 were followed by panel discussions and set the stage for the issues 

addressed during the breakout groups. Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 below summarize the highlights 

of each panel session. 

 

1 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/refueling_infrastructure_workshop.html

 1
2.1 Panel Session I: Lessons from the AFV Experience 

Presenters in this panel session reviewed infrastructure lessons from past experiences with 

AFVs, historical trends and recent developments with compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles 

and infrastructure, and hydrogen infrastructure transition issues. Panelists noted changes over 

the past several years that influenced market conditions and outlook for AFVs: 

• Technology has improved 

• The high price of oil – above $100 a barrel – provides an economic driver for AFVs2

• Peak oil and climate change drivers have overshadowed air quality concerns 

• Regulatory agencies are beginning to focus on more concrete and ambitious climate change 

regulations. 

A wide variety of lessons have been learned from past experiences with ethanol, natural gas, and 

electric vehicles. Panel presenters reviewed recommended lessons for hydrogen from a previous 

NREL/DOE workshop, including the following: 1) set realistic deployment goals and do not let 

deployment get out ahead of research and development, 2) educate policy makers, automakers, 

vehicle dealers, fleets, and consumers, 3) address both vehicle and infrastructure costs, 4) create 

and maintain a cohesive, consistent national policy, 5) use local efforts for deployment, and 

6) use fleets for initial deployment, but create a strategy to leap to the individual consumer 

market.3

 References discussing these and other lessons learned are provided in Appendix D. 

The CNG vehicle industry has gone through 

many phases over the past several decades, 

resulting in a recent consolidation of refueling 

infrastructure to focus on heavy duty vehicles. 

An infrastructure boom occurred between 

1990 and 1997 in response to anticipated 

government mandates and the introduction of 

the first factory-built CNG vehicles. The main purchasers of these vehicles were municipal 

governments, utilities, and transit agencies. A period of decline and market correction then 

occurred when mandates failed to materialize and deregulation negatively impacted utility CNG 

vehicle programs. Since 2005, with the introduction of Federal Tax Credits, increased diesel 

vehicle ownership costs, and continued improvement in vehicle technology, the CNG vehicle 

industry has seen a revival in heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) applications. These HDV successes 

stand out against a generally lackluster background of light-duty CNG activity, partly due to the 

limited number of light-duty vehicle models provided by automakers. 

“There has to be some real coordination 

between the stations, the fuel providers, and 

the vehicle providers.” 

The strategy of introducing AFVs by focusing on centrally fueled vehicle fleets has been 

criticized as being ineffective at bringing light-duty vehicle technologies into the mass market 

and expanding public refueling infrastructure. The most recent phase within the CNG vehicle 

industry suggests that stations supporting HDVs have been more successful than other stations. 

 

2 The price of crude oil averaged $112.58 per barrel in April 2008 and $133.88 in June 2008 (source: Energy 

Information Administration. Petroleum Navigator. "Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Barrel)." 

Accessed July 9, 2008. <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcM.htm>. 3

 M. Melendez, K. Theis, and C. Johnson. August 2007. Lessons Learned from the Alternative Fuels Experience and 

How They Apply to the Development of a Hydrogen-Fueled Transportation System. NREL/TP-560-40753. 

Available online: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40753.pdf

 2
However, only a subset of stations capable of serving HDV fleets can also be prime stations for 

broader household light-duty vehicle fleets. 

Panel presenters reviewed issues concerning future hydrogen infrastructure rollout, including the 

number of stations required to support early vehicle markets, the phased city-by-city and regional 

rollout approach articulated in a recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Scenario 

Transitions report,4

 and the sequence of vehicle and infrastructure investments over time in 

relation to future fuel savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions. These analyses suggest 

that the total transition costs during the first decade or two of development would require tens of 

billions of dollars in investment, with about 80% of the investment dollars being used to buy 

down the cost of vehicles and the other 20% going to delivery and refueling infrastructure.5 6

 

The general lessons from past AFV experiences discussed in this panel were echoed at various 

times by speakers and participants throughout the workshop, with a focus on infrastructure 

challenges. Speakers agreed that the availability of refueling infrastructure is critical to the 

successful roll-out of hydrogen vehicles. They acknowledged the need for a geographically 

focused approach to infrastructure rollout, the need for solid partnerships across public and 

private sectors, and the need to engage fuel providers effectively. Panelists generally supported a 

“lighthouse” approach in which hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure are rolled out in a 

phased manner, beginning with one or two pilot cities. By concentrating efforts geographically, 

this strategy provides benefits from economies of scale and may help to accelerate stakeholder 

learning. Panel presentations and discussions underscored the value of past AFV lessons for 

both the research and planning phase and the infrastructure and vehicle rollout phase. 

2.2 Panel Session II: Lessons from Hydrogen Station Demonstration Projects 

Panel presenters focused on lessons learned from recent hydrogen fueling station demonstration 

projects.7

 The presentations covered a broad range of hydrogen station issues including: 

identifying station locations, permitting processes, legal contracts, reducing costs to be more 

competitive, hydrogen purity, public outreach and education, equipment acquisition, and station 

design, construction, and operation. The major lessons learned proposed by the speakers 

included the following: 

• Significant technical and design advances are required to reduce station footprint size 

• Station demonstration partners should have complementary objectives and capabilities 

• Aligned or complementary business cases help build solid partnerships 

 

4

 Greene, D. L.; P. N. Leiby; B. D. James; J. Perez; M. Melendez; A. Milbrandt; S. Unnasch; M. Hooks (2008). 

Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles & the Potential Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure 

Requirements. ORNL/TM-2008/30, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available online: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/ 

cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2008_30.pdf

5

 For a discussion of learning and buy-down costs for energy technologies, see Wene, C.-O. (2000). Experience 

Curves for Energy Technology Policy. Paris: OECD, IEA. Available online: 

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf

6

 For a discussion of vehicle and infrastructure costs, see National Research Council (2008). Transitions to 

Alternative Transportation Technologies: A Focus on Hydrogen, Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for 

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies. National Academies Press. Available online: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12222.html. 7

 For more information on DOE's Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation 

Project, see: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_learning_demo.html

 3
• Station safety cannot be compromised 

• Public outreach and education is essential 

• Supply and demand must be coordinated (i.e., vehicles must accompany stations) 

• Convenient locations and accessibility tend to increase utilization 

• Legal contracts and permitting can be significant obstacles, resulting in delays 

• Educating authorities and standardization can improve permitting process 

• Hydrogen purity specification and testing issues need to be resolved. 

Solid and effective public-private partnerships are fundamental for successful hydrogen station 

demonstrations. Demonstration projects should not be confused with commercial investments, 

as demonstrations are primarily intended to provide field trials for technologies and to 

accumulate experience. As demonstration station developments transition into commercial 

station developments, an important technical and commercial goal is to make the price of 

dispensed hydrogen competitive with gasoline, which will ultimately increase demand and 

ensure that station investments receive an acceptable rate of return. However, increasing 

hydrogen demand to the level that makes this possible will take some time. Until this happens, 

station owners would have to operate at a loss in the absence of mitigating factors such as policy 

support, cross subsidies, or investment incentives. In addition, several technical and design 

challenges remain, with reductions in station footprint being one of the most critical. 

Permitting requirements at the state and local level can be onerous, but increased awareness and 

experience should improve the permitting process over time.8

 Another issue raised by the panel 

was the limited capacity of the existing vendor base for station equipment, making it difficult to 

install more than one station at a time. Additional challenges include developing legal contracts, 

reaching agreement on hydrogen purity specifications, coordinating supply and demand, and 

producing consistent messaging and public outreach. Experiences with past demonstration 

projects have shown that resolving these types of issues effectively will require collaboration and 

coordination among involved partners. 

During the panel discussion, speakers made it clear that fuel providers have learned valuable 

lessons from station demonstration projects, but they do not necessarily see the installation of a 

large number of additional hydrogen refueling stations as the next near-term step. This position 

was at odds with automotive and other stakeholders who expressed a critical need for additional 

stations in key urban areas. 

2.3 Panel Session III: Innovation and Coordination 

Presenters in this panel addressed opportunities for both technical and institutional innovation 

and the coordination of stakeholder efforts to develop and deploy hydrogen refueling stations 

and related infrastructure. Innovation was discussed in terms of both technological and 

institutional efforts, including vehicle technology, fuel production, delivery and storage 

technology, marketing, codes and standards, and education and outreach. The panel was opened 

with the recognition that efforts to support innovation, which tends to happen quickly and 

 

8

 “Workshop on Facilitating Permitting of Hydrogen Fueling Stations,” DOE/NREL workshop proceedings (draft), 

March 2007, Available online: http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/workshops/07feb

 4
sometimes unpredictably, must be balanced with efforts to support coordination, which tends to 

happen slowly and deliberately. 

Presenters reviewed and discussed the success of promoting ethanol (E85) stations in Minnesota 

in reference to challenges facing hydrogen station installations. Persistent and long-term support 

from the American Lung Association of the Upper-Midwest has contributed to this success. 

Their efforts included providing grant assistance for retailers, offering technical and marketing 

troubleshooting, providing outreach to raise consumer and industry awareness, matching supply 

and demand on an individual station basis, and leveraging the efforts of local champions. There 

are currently about 355 E85 stations in Minnesota, up from seven stations in 1997, and E85 sales 

have increased approximately ten-fold over the past several years. E85 refueling station costs 

are modest compared to hydrogen; with supporting grants ranging in size from $10,000 to 

$40,000 (some stations have simply converted existing premium or midgrade pumps to supply 

E85). Moreover, E85 has had a significant retail cost advantage over gasoline on a per gallon 

basis and the state has sold E10 yearround since 1997. The higher capital 

costs and technological complexity of 

hydrogen stations and vehicles provide 

a stark contrast to E85 station 

requirements; it is estimated that 

approximately $30 million would be 

required to complete the E85 fueling 

network in Minnesota. 

“Outreach is absolutely essential – it cannot 

be overlooked.” 

Several presenters and participants emphasized the need for additional hydrogen refueling 

stations in promising early markets, such as Los Angeles and New York. As a point of 

reference, the recent ORNL Scenario Transitions report9 suggested that 40 stations may be 

needed in the near term in Los Angeles. Identifying stakeholders willing to take on the technical 

and financial risks associated with installing these stations will prove challenging. Large energy 

companies or fuel providers do not necessarily own, operate, or design stations as a core business 

strength; additionally, they do not necessarily own the primary energy resources these systems 

would draw upon and they may not see an advantage in shifting expertise and capital into retail 

hydrogen stations. Industrial gas companies or other hydrogen equipment suppliers have less 

access to capital than energy companies and lack expertise with retail stations. Companies with 

renewable technology expertise are even further removed from the retail outlet industry. Given 

these stakeholder positions, the potential role of entrepreneurial agents should not be 

underestimated. One workshop participant noted that the hydrogen transition will involve a 

major technology change, and incumbent companies are almost never the agents of major 

change. It would therefore be prudent to engage the entrepreneurial community, including 

venture investors, rather than relying exclusively on existing energy companies and equipment 

suppliers to act as first movers. 

Of the existing hydrogen stations in operation, few are highly accessible in terms of limited 

fueling agreements, credit card access, and 24/7/365 operation. This suggests that a large number 

of highly accessible hydrogen stations will require a significant departure from today’s mindset 

regarding hydrogen stations. Suggestions for addressing this challenge include focusing on the 

consumer experience, building grassroots support, and ensuring the installation of a limited 

 

9

 Greene et al., op. cit. 

 5
number of appealing, “retail-like” stations that are supported by a number of more modest 

stations that extend coverage across a given urban area (e.g., mobile refuelers). In addition, 

various “expectation management” tools may be employed to help match supply with future 

demand, including the use of surveys that capture fuel provider and automaker deployment 

expectations, providing real-time information on station availability and planned installations, 

analyzing gaps where additional stations or supply may be needed, developing effective 

approaches to improve legal and project management issues, and constructing realistic 

projections of future local and regional infrastructure developments. As grassroots efforts 

emerge at regional, state, and local levels, it is important that they remain engaged with industry 

stakeholders so that realistic expectations and practical plans are developed. 

Other key messages from this panel include the following: excellent customer experience is 

necessary to build consumer demand, a new generation of hydrogen stations is needed to inspire 

consumer confidence, consistent codes and standards are required, local “champions” among fire 

and safety code officials must be identified, and training, education, and outreach are imperative. 

3 Summary of Breakout Group Results 

Workshop participants were divided into three 

parallel breakout groups that convened during 

two sessions. During the first breakout 

session, groups clarified and expanded upon 

lessons learned from past AFV refueling 

infrastructure developments and discussed 

how to apply these lessons going forward with 

hydrogen. Each group was asked to discuss 

critical lessons learned and pitfalls to avoid, 

and to recommend detailed action items for 

overcoming those pitfalls when developing a 

near-term hydrogen refueling infrastructure. 

At the end of the first breakout session, 

participants voted to prioritize the action items 

proposed within their respective groups. 

During the second breakout session, each 

group discussed their five “top priority” action 

items in greater detail. 

Breakout group participants, from left: 

Catherine Dunwoody (CaFCP), Nicole 

Barber (Chevron), and Jonathan Weinert 

(Chevron). (Used with permission.) 

Each breakout group included representatives from a range of stakeholder groups, including fuel 

providers, auto manufacturers, state and federal government agencies, non-government agencies, 

public-private partnerships, hydrogen equipment manufacturers, consultants, and academics. 

While there was significant overlap among the lessons learned and action items proposed, each 

breakout group provided unique perspectives and comments during the facilitated discussions. A 

high-level overview of the major themes is provided in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 below. 

3.1 Key Lessons and Pitfalls 

During the first breakout session, participants responded to the question: “What lessons are 

absolutely critical to pay attention to as we launch hydrogen refueling infrastructure efforts? 

What pitfalls must be avoided?” In answering these questions, participants were asked to 

 6
identify major stumbling blocks in past AFV efforts, and similar stumbling blocks that may 

impede hydrogen infrastructure development. As summarized in Table 1, six common themes 

emerged from these initial responses: 

1. Policy commitment 

2. Consumer focus 

3. Number of stations 

4. Geography 

5. Funding 

6. Stakeholder coordination. 

About two-thirds of the key lessons and pitfalls reported could be categorized into these six 

themes. Although the groups addressed these themes from different perspectives, the fact that 

each one was acknowledged by each group confirms their general significance. The detailed 

results from each breakout group are shown in Appendix C. Within these key themes, the groups 

discussed a number of issues affecting the development of hydrogen refueling infrastructure, as 

summarized below. 

Government Leadership and Outreach 

Committed and ample government funding, as well as strong government policies and incentives 

that offer support for both the producers and consumers of hydrogen fuel and vehicles, are 

needed to build a robust refueling infrastructure. Risk, both technical and financial, is known to 

be an inherent barrier. However, strong, committed public-private partnerships have reduced 

risks in past AFV efforts and would be useful in reducing risks for hydrogen refueling station 

infrastructure as well. 

Customer Experience 

The most widely discussed lesson from previous AFV programs relates to customer expectations 

at refueling stations. The hydrogen station experience must be identical to the retail gasoline 

station experience in terms of convenience, 24/7/365 station availability, satisfaction, availability 

of credit card transactions, cleanliness, lighting, and overall ease of use. Unless this experience 

is a positive one, hydrogen vehicle owners will tend not to support stations or other refueling 

options. It was noted that this need for a strongly positive consumer experience at refueling 

stations is made more challenging due to requirements to ensure station safety and to mitigate 

liability and risk on the part of fuel providers, especially during the station demonstration phase. 

Technical Barriers 

While station developments have progressed significantly in recent years, technical barriers 

continue to exist. It is critical to manage expectations in light of these barriers so that the 

industry and its stakeholders do not over-promise. Some of the most important technical barriers 

for fueling infrastructure that still exist relate to fuel quality and consistency, monitoring and 

control of leakage, hydrogen storage, and station footprint size. Some participants emphasized 

that the number of potential hydrogen station locations could be severely limited unless a 

breakthrough in station footprint reduction is achieved; this is a limitation that requires additional 

analysis. 

Costs 

Station cost reductions continue to be achieved, and eventually hydrogen costs must be similar to 

gasoline to make hydrogen stations attractive and viable. The existing funding process for 

 7
stations and infrastructure can be improved and additional effort is required to minimize stranded 

investments, including capital and construction costs, liability costs, worker salaries, and 

permitting costs. Stranded capital is a very real concern for infrastructure providers. One energy 

company representative noted that investment decisions for fueling stations are made on a 20-

year cash flow basis, with payback usually in the 10-15 year range. If a shorter cycle for 

payback on capital is required, or if the station is underutilized, the price of hydrogen would need 

to be increased to ensure an acceptable return. To complicate matters further, the “price point” 

for hydrogen—the price that consumers might be willing to pay—has not been clearly 

established.10 This introduces an additional degree of uncertainty in the development of a viable 

business case for a typical hydrogen station. 

Policy and Institutional Issues 

A number of policy, strategy, 

institutional, and funding issues stand in 

the way of widespread refueling 

infrastructure development. Among 

them are “chicken and egg” problems, 

e.g., how will stations and vehicles be 

deployed over time? Industry and 

government agencies may partner to jump-start station refueling through large infrastructure 

investments, which would require supportive policies and incentives, as well as planning. There 

is some debate about exactly how large these initial investments must be, but participants tended 

to agree that they could be reduced with a lighthouse strategy focusing on early markets in key 

urban areas. In addition, policies that effectively engage the entrepreneurial community could 

facilitate these early investments. Continuing education on safety and codes and standards 

should be available to local officials, who are responsible for siting and permitting, 

environmental assessments, and land use approvals. Experiences with AFV programs provide a 

useful lesson for hydrogen refueling in the arena of public-private partnerships and the need for 

consistent and clear communications among vehicle manufacturers, energy companies, and 

government agencies. Successful communication will lead to better partnerships and business 

models for station installations, as well as clear pathways bridging demonstration and 

commercial stations. 

“We want to avoid the ‘field of dreams’ 

problem. We want to build a station where 

there will be at least planned vehicles.” 

3.2 Key Action Items 

Workshop participants were asked to identify action items needed to overcome the challenges 

facing successful hydrogen refueling infrastructure development over the next 10 to 20 years. A 

voting process was used to determine the five most critical action items proposed within each 

breakout group. A complete list of the proposed action items is included in Appendix C, and a 

summary of high-priority action items is provided in Table 2, where the percentage of votes cast 

for each item is shown by group, and the percentages for the top 15 action items are highlighted. 

The top 15 action items attracted 62% of all votes cast. Of these top action item votes, 34% fell 

into the category of Station Design, Siting, and Availability and 29% fell into the category of

Policy and Regulatory Issues. Ten of the fifteen high priority action items fell into one of these 

two categories. Other categories included Insurance and Liability, Consumer Focus, and 

 

10 If consumers were willing to pay the same price for hydrogen as gasoline on a per mile basis, and if hydrogen 

vehicles are twice as efficient as gasoline vehicles, then an acceptable price for hydrogen would be twice that of 

gasoline on an energy equivalent basis (e.g., $8/kg hydrogen would be roughly equivalent to $4/gallon of gasoline). 

 8
 9

 

Incentives (receiving 15%, 13%, and 9% of top 15 action item votes, respectively). Appendix C 

lists more than 70 additional action items that were proposed but were not voted as high priority. 

To gather more detailed feedback, participants were asked to discuss the following aspects of 

each top-priority action item: scope, stakeholder roles, collaborators (leaders and supporters), 

timeframe, and first steps. The ensuing discussions were wide ranging in scope and level of 

detail. Seven themes common to the discussions in each group are summarized below. 

Station Design, Siting, and Availability 

As demonstrated with previous AFV programs, consumer support will depend heavily on the 

number, location, and design of refueling stations. Workshop participants placed a high priority 

on a number of actions related to station design, siting, and availability. Design issues included 

conducting more aggressive research and development to reduce station costs and footprint, and 

developing standardized modular station designs with pre-approved safety certifications which 

could be fast-tracked through the permitting process. Another design consideration is the 

development of co-production stations capable of providing both electricity and hydrogen, with 

the hydrogen potentially being used for applications other than just passenger vehicles. Related 

to station siting and availability are the following actions: 

• Identifying and supporting hydrogen vehicles other than standard light duty vehicles, 

including commercial vehicles such as buses or mobile equipment such as forklifts 

• Installing real-time station operating status systems in vehicles, with onboard data systems 

that track refueling opportunities and locations 

• Identifying land partners and blighted lots, where state funds might be available for the latter 

as part of remediation efforts. 

Leadership in accomplishing these actions centers on energy companies (or entrepreneurs), who 

presumably would design, build, and operate the stations, and on automakers, who build and sell 

the vehicles that create fuel demand. Support from state and local governments and from 

industry trade groups was identified as necessary to successful station design, construction, and 

management. 

Coordinated National Plan for Hydrogen 

Government leadership is critical in moving forward from past efforts to a more aggressive 

program for refueling infrastructure. A coordinated national plan for hydrogen infrastructure 

development would include establishing production goals, cost targets, market development 

plans and policies, and education and outreach.11 Former and existing demonstration projects 

have been evaluated, and these lessons must be included in a national plan; knowledge of past 

successes, failures, and lessons learned should not be lost. Workshop participants supported 

evaluating our current national energy policy, including recently enacted energy legislation,12 to 

ensure that a national plan for hydrogen is coordinated with the requirements of recent 

legislation. A national plan would also focus attention on research and development that is still 

needed in a number of areas, including station design and footprint issues, co-production, 

liability issues, and small-scale hydrogen production and storage. 

11 Components of this recommendation resemble the Department of Energy’s Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure 

Technologies program (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells) 12 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
Table 1. Common Themes - Key Lessons Learned and Pitfalls. 

Group 1 Group 2 Gro

POLICY COMMITMENT “Strong and consistent national leadership is needed” 

“Need sustained government policy and financial support” “There must be commitment” 

“Need a consistent loncommitment” 

CONSUMER FOCUS “Do not over-sell” “Fueling experience must be identical to retail gasoline station, experience, including convenience, ease of use, instructions, credit card payments, cleanliness, 24/7 service, lighting, safety, self-service. Consumer focus is critical.” 

“Consistent message vs. fuel of the month” “Focus on the customer - abundant fueling stations, abundant capacity, no restrictions on station use, compelling refueling experience” “Access to infrastructure, customer friendly, liability, technically suitable, balanced” 

“Over-promising progr“Belief that H2 is avail“Need realistic projecti

NUMBER OF STATIONS “Identify an appropriate number of fueling stations” “The number of vehicles must be matched with the size and number of stations” "Jump start the chicken/egg problem” 

“Need for convenient refueling experience – number of stations” “Balancing station throughputs with network coverage” “[Execution] always takes longer than expected” 

“Don’t have to start wirefueling infrastructure

GEOGRAPHY “How do we get a coordinated ‘lighthouse plan’ for CA?” “Goals must be transparent, e.g., number of vehicles, target locations, etc. This is not the time to be competitive.” 

“Geographic focus - ‘dense’ network” “A few well placed, convenient access, 24/7 stations in a single region today are more important than serving multiple markets” 

“Difficulty of impleme“Need a focused geogr“Keep in mind the foot

FUNDING “Lack of private funding” “We don’t have a business case today” “Entrepreneurs matter in technology transitions” 

“Government incentives [must] provide compelling cost advantage” “Government funding is critical and needs long legs” 

“There is a fear of strancompetition for resourc“Existing funding procH2” 

STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION “Need for coordinated planning and commitment to public-private partnerships, which will minimize cost and risk” “Re-think current business processes - maybe use entirely new processes and alternative business models” “Cross-functional teams are required” 

“Consistent coordination on infrastructure development strategy between government, industry stakeholders” “Formal communication between automakers fuels and government” “Early develop business model (due to different thinking of energy company vs. automaker)” “Need accountability for station execution” 

“Coordination of timinvehicles, stations, userstay - avoid ‘valley of rolling out a concise te“Make sure manufactuof station equipment is infrastructure build-out

10 
11 
The development of a national plan is seen as a top priority, and would involve a number of 

federal agencies, such as the Departments of Energy and Transportation, as well as a coalition of 

federal, state, and municipal policy-makers, interest groups such as the National Hydrogen 

Association and U.S. Fuel Cell Council, other non-government organizations, automobile 

manufacturers, technology developers, and entrepreneurs. 

Workshop participants supported creating incentives to reduce the risk of investing in hydrogen 

fueling stations, including government sharing of liability; developing an insurance pool; and 

exploring financial support for hydrogen station development, design, and deployment. 

Incentives and financial support developed through such a national planning effort could be tied 

to greenhouse gas emission performance. Support is also needed to develop and disseminate 

best-practice information that can accelerate the adoption of local policies and codes for station 

siting, construction, and operation. 

Lighthouse Deployment 

Workshop participants generally agreed with the concept of a “lighthouse” strategy for deploying 

hydrogen stations. The lighthouse concept involves targeting a few key metropolitan areas or 

“hydrogen communities” and aggressively building fueling stations and deploying vehicles in 

those areas. In this strategy, markets are identified, a consensus is reached on regional 

development plans based on market data, municipalities are engaged to facilitate installations, 

and targets are set. In the early years, this strategy would likely result in an over-capacity of 

stations, with fewer vehicles than needed to 

support the stations in a profit-making mode. 

During this introductory phase it is critical to 

establish appealing hydrogen fueling stations 

that provide drivers with convenient access 

while demonstrating the viability, safety, and 

positive economic, social, and environmental 

impacts of hydrogen technologies. A 

Lighthouse Deployment Program might also 

provide support for passenger vehicle fleets, 

such as taxi cabs or government vehicles, whose 

use would help raise the visibility of hydrogenfueled vehicles in the community and increase 

consumer awareness and acceptance. In some 

cases, public hydrogen stations may also be able 

to serve heavy duty vehicle fleets such as transit 

buses.13 

Mark Ruth (NREL, Systems Integration) 

reporting breakout group results to the 

plenary session. 

Industry and government must partner to progress this effort, with support from environmental 

groups and local champions. Together, these stakeholders would need to agree upon a number 

of issues, including proximity of stations to one another; locations of “flagship” stations vs. more 

modest network support stations; expected demand at particular stations; refueling availability 

along interstate highways; and coordination with state blueprints. Workshop participants 

 

13 The importance of coordinating vehicle and fueling station rollout was downplayed by at least one participant, 

claiming that: 1) small-scale, on-site hydrogen production systems can ramp up relatively rapidly to follow the 

introduction of vehicles, and 2) once public policy “settles on the final rules of the game” the marketplace will 

respond in a self-organizing manner. 

 12
generally support the Lighthouse Deployment strategy as a next step, using a phased approach 

that aligns vehicle sales and refueling station installations. This is an area where planning for 

economies of scale should be considered. 

Liability and Insurance Issues 

At the heart of many of the issues described above is the need to address liability and insurance 

for hydrogen refueling stations. There is a need to limit liability levels for station owners and 

managers by engaging and sharing information with insurance companies and by developing 

methods for sharing financial risk. Key stakeholders, such as automakers, energy companies, 

station operators, public research entities, and many others, need to work together with insurance 

commissioners to collect and compile the data needed so that insurance companies can create an 

“insurance pool” to support hydrogen refueling stations. Some participants anticipate that this 

support will be temporary and that less support will be needed over time as markets mature. 

Consumer Focus 

Consumer issues surfaced repeatedly 

throughout the workshop. Clarifying 

consumer wants and needs and meeting 

them effectively was identified by many 

participants as a top priority action item. 

Independent consumer research and 

behavior analyses need to be collected and coordinated with automaker data (such as GM’s 

“Project Driveway” program and Honda’s Clarity leasing program), data from the California 

Fuel Cell Partnership, and other national and international consumer research results. 

“You have to make it wildly popular. You 

need to thrill customers.” 

The consumer experience at hydrogen refueling stations must be similar to or better than the 

experience at traditional gasoline stations. Refueling should feel “natural” for customers in 

terms of station operation, location, design, and services. Stations should be clean, attractive, 

user-friendly, and designed to impress customers—to create a very positive experience that will 

“wow” customers. Installing a number of appealing and impressive “flagship” stations will help 

to create market pull for hydrogen vehicles. Moreover, additional stations and production 

capacity need to be built at a pace such that hydrogen supply and station availability is always 

ahead of demand. Fuel providers, with support from government, station owners, local officials, 

and automakers, were identified as the key leads and supporters for this effort. 

Codes, Standards, and Regulatory/Institutional Actions 

Workshop participants support the development and adoption of state and local building, fire, 

and other types of safety codes and standards that facilitate rather than hinder station 

development and siting. In addition, policy or regulatory actions are needed to require or reward 

alternative fuels that have low- to zero-carbon impact, provide tax incentives to improve 

consumer affordability, provide financial support for early adopters and investors, and limit the 

financial liability for station development and construction. 

Regulatory and institutional success requires involvement from a broad coalition of stakeholders, 

including the auto industry; station owners; energy companies; federal, state, and local 

governments; and insurance companies. Depending on the issue, one or more of these 

stakeholders would take the lead in developing and implementing hydrogen refueling 

infrastructure codes, standards, and regulatory policies. One specific recommendation is to 

 13
create a position for a “hydrogen ombudsman” in the office of the State Fire Marshal to facilitate 

communication on a local level. 

Education, Training, and Marketing 

The action items outlined in this report rely on education, training, and outreach to ensure 

success. All stakeholders (including consumers; policy-makers at the federal, state, and local 

level; station designers and developers; code officials; non-government organizations; financiers; 

automakers; and fuel providers) need to be reached with clear, consistent information on 

hydrogen availability, safety, environmental benefits, ease of use, station locations and 

deployment, and so forth. Policies at the Federal level supporting national hydrogen 

infrastructure development should also support efforts at state and local levels. 

Many education, outreach, and marketing activities were recommended, including conducting a 

survey to find out exactly what consumers want and desire; developing and circulating 

advertisements on the financial and environmental benefits of hydrogen; providing training for 

local code officials on hydrogen safety 

and re-fueling stations; promoting 

consumer experience at existing 

hydrogen stations to engage a broader 

consumer base and raise awareness 

about station safety and ease of use; 

and engaging one or more well-known 

spokespersons as marketing and 

advertising “messengers.” 

“This is an evolving process; this takes time. 

There are not going to be big leaps and sudden 

expansion, but every phase is important. [We] 

need some kind of start at commercialization.” 

4 Next Steps 

Looking forward at hydrogen refueling infrastructure development, there is a clear need to 

continue efforts to build grassroots relationships; improve the consistency and adoption of codes 

and standards; work toward exceeding customer expectations; and assure sufficient hydrogen 

refueling stations exist to support the deployment of hydrogen vehicles in select urban areas. 

These efforts will require ongoing communication and coordination among a range of 

stakeholders, as well as technical and institutional innovations. The expert feedback collected 

during this workshop can help to inform these efforts as stakeholders enter the next phase along 

the path towards commercialization. 

We have accumulated a large base of experience with AFVs and supporting infrastructure since 

the first energy crisis in the 1970s. Many of the issues discussed at this workshop are similar to 

issues the AFV industry has struggled with for decades. This knowledge base can continue to be 

mined to improve our efforts to advance hydrogen, electricity, ethanol, and other alternative fuels 

for vehicles. Over time, some lessons are forgotten and need to be relearned. Open and ongoing 

discussions among multiple experienced stakeholders can facilitate this learning process. As we 

continue to expand our experience with hydrogen, it will be important to capture and disseminate 

lessons learned to the stakeholder community rapidly and efficiently. 

The workshop identified two additional research areas for hydrogen infrastructure development. 

The first concerns the ownership of alternative fuel stations, which is significant for hydrogen 

due to the apparent gap between the future expectations of automotive and fuel provider 

stakeholders. Learning more about ownership experiences with natural gas or ethanol stations 

 14
 15

may provide insights into the process of installing future hydrogen stations. Considering new 

business models for hydrogen stations and new types of market entrants may provide additional 

insights. 

The second research area concerns potential bottlenecks due to equipment suppliers’ capacity 

constraints as the number of station installations ramps up over time. This issue could be 

examined within the recent history of hydrogen station installations as well as within past 

experiences with other alternative fuels such as natural gas. 

Additional lessons will continue to be learned from ongoing efforts with alternative fuel vehicles 

and refueling infrastructure. As several workshop participants noted, periodic reviews of past 

experiences can help to improve the effectiveness of these ongoing efforts. The approach taken 

in this workshop, gathering a diverse group of stakeholders to engage in open dialogue, is only 

one of many approaches to building upon and benefiting from past lessons learned. 
APPENDIX A 

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE AND AGENDA

A-1 
WORKSHOP STRUCTURE 

The workshop was designed to encourage discussion by a variety of different stakeholders on 

key issues related to hydrogen infrastructure development. While many presentations reviewed 

past or recent efforts to support hydrogen and other AFVs, participants were asked to discuss and 

provide input on current challenges. The one-day workshop included time for both informal 

panel discussions and structured discussions during facilitated breakout sessions as indicated in 

the agenda below. 

Workshop Activity Time Allocated

Panel Session I: Review of Lessons Learned 1 hour 

Panel Discussion 20 min 

Panel Session II: Station Demonstrations 1 hour 

Panel Discussion 20 min 

Facilitated Breakout Session #1 2 hours 

Panel Session III: Innovation and Coordination 1.5 hours 

Panel Discussion 20 min 

Facilitated Breakout Session #2 1.5 hours 

Plenary Reports 30 minutes 

During the first facilitated breakout session, participants compiled and discussed key lessons 

learned, pitfalls, and near-term action items. The breakout groups prioritized key action items 

through a voting process. During the second facilitated breakout session, participants drilled 

down into the top five action items identified in their respective groups. 

A draft version of these proceedings was circulated via email to all workshop participants, who 

were given two weeks to provide additional comments. The comments received have been 

incorporated into these proceedings. Direct quotations from the discussion and breakout sessions 

are interspersed throughout this report. To encourage open dialogue, no attributions have been 

made to specific comments or feedback provided during or after the workshop. 

A-2 
AGENDA 

(Continued next page) 

A-3 
A-4 
APPENDIX B 

LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

B-1 
McKinley Addy 

California Energy Commission 

Timothy Armstrong 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Nicole Barber 

Chevron 

Shannon Baxter-Clemmons 

South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance 

Analisa Bevan 

California Air Resources Board 

Lindsey Bierer 

General Atomics 

David Bodde 

Clemson University 

Nico Bouwkamp 

CA Fuel Cell Partnership 

Email:nbouwkamp@cafcp.org 

Jeannette Brinch 

Energetics Incorporated 

Sabine Brueske 

Energetics Incorporated 

Ulrich Buenger 

Ludwid-bolkow-Systemtechnik GmbH 

Timothy Busch 

Praxair, Inc. 

Ernest Chaput 

Center for Hydrogen Research 

Kim Cierpik 

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. 

Timothy Cunningham 

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. 

Pete Devlin 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Catherine Dunwoody 

CA Fuel Cell Partnership 

David Effross 

California Energy Commission 

Stephen Ellis 

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. 

Bill Elrick 

CA Fuel Cell Partnership 

Dean Fry 

BP 

John Garbak 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Monterey Gardiner 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Tim Gerlach 

American Lung Association of Upper Midwest 

Ronald Grasman 

DaimlerChrysler 

Britta Gross 

General Motors 

Celine Gross 

DaimlerChrysler 

Ryan Harty 

Honda R&D Americas, Inc 

Edward Heydorn 

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. 

Katsuhiko Hirose 

Toyota 

Matthew Hooks 

TIAX LLC 

Douglas Horne 

CVEF 

Fred Humes 

Center for Hydrogen research 

Ali Jalalzadeh-Azar 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Brian James 

Directed Technologies Inc 

Gyujin Jang 

Hyundai-Kia Motors 

Fred Joseck 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Mauricio Justiniano 

Energetics Incorporated 

B-2 
B-3 

Edward Kiczek 

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. 

Lindsay Kishter 

Energetics Incorporated 

Ben Knight 

Honda R&D Americas, Inc 

Aaron Kraus 

Energetics Incorporated 

Paul Leiby 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Aleecia Macias 

California Energy Commission 

Patrice Marshall 

Texas H2 Coalition 

Marc Melaina 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Marianne Mintz 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Bill Murphy 

Praxair, Inc 

Kathleen Nawaz 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Joan Ogden 

University of CA - Davis 

Amisha Patel 

CalChamber 

Pinakin Patel 

FuelCell Energy 

Ravi Prasad 

Praxair, Inc. 

Robert Remick 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Mark Ruth 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory/Systems 

Integration 

Scott Salvati 

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. 

Danilo Santini 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Jesse Schneider 

Chrysler 

Fred Silver 

Calstart 

Alvaro Sousa 

BMW 

Dan Sperling 

University of CA - Davis 

George Sverdrup 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Stefan Unnasch 

Life Cycle Associates 

Puneet Verma 

Chevron 

James Volk 

Shell Hydrogen 

Justin Ward 

Toyota Motor Engineering & Mfg N. America 

Jonathan Weinert 

Chevron 

Keith Wipke 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Christopher Yang 

Institute of Transportation Studies 

Stephe Yborra 

NGV America 

Elvin Yuzugullu 

SENTECH, Inc. 

Michael Zack 

California Energy Commission 
C-1 

APPENDIX C 

DETAILED OUTPUT FROM 

BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 1 - KEY LESSONS AND PITFALLS

• "Jump start” the chicken/egg problem • Manage expectations, education is necessary • Do not over-sell • Identify an appropriate number of fueling stations • H2 price to consumer must not be much greater than gasoline cost 

- take advantage of other business models already developed - hear the voices of customers 

• Cross-functional teams are required • Cost-benefit analysis is required, including number of customers (vehicles, drivers); station suppliers; price of H2 stations 

• Don’t get ahead of R&D that is required for H2 refueling infrastructure 

• Niche markets don’t necessarily grow/expand • Develop tracking database now. Do not lose lessons or equipment over time • Identify the price point, e.g., the price that customers will to be willing to pay 

- customer demand varies 

• The number of vehicles must be matched with the size and number of stations 

• Refueling accessibility and ease of use, which will increase utilization • Permitting needs to be streamlined • Lack of private funding 

• Flexibility is required to grow from 350-700 bars, to deal with stranded assets (e.g., stations), and capacity utilization • R&D to reduce station cost • We don’t have a business case today • Increase fuel demand with current available technology • National codes and standards for infrastructure (permitting) • Entrepreneurs matter in technology transitions • Need for coordinated planning and commitment to public-private partnerships, which will minimize cost and risk • Re-think current business processes - maybe use entirely new processes and alternative business models • Customer demand is variable • Strong and consistent national leadership is needed • Manage expectations, e.g. scope, cost benefit, etc. • Fueling experience must be identical to retail gasoline station, experience, including convenience, ease of use, instructio

payments, cleanliness, 24/7 service, lighting, safety, self-service. Consumer focus is critical 

• Goals must be transparent, e.g., number of vehicles, target locations, etc. This is not the time to be competitive • “Lighthouse plan” - how do we get a coordinated “lighthouse plan” for CA 

- are two stations near one another acceptable for customers? - calculate driving distances - create demand along interstates - coordinate state blueprints 

C-2 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 1 - KEY ACTION ITEMS NEEDED

STATION SITING AND 

AVAILABILITY

R&D INCENTIVES AND FINANCIAL 

ISSUES

C

• Create standardized/modular 

station designs with pre-approved safety certifications ●●●●

• Develop coordinated early market 

plan: 

- all players, new, old, big, small - support with resources, $, and 

policy 

- identify best practices and next 

phase strategy 

- educate - why-where-when-how - build test site in LA ●●●●

• Create a central “Green 

Renewable Hydrogen” bulk location for delivery in key “critical mass areas” ●●●

• Build on National Lighthouse 

concept - “gang” partners (fleets) to increase demand. Use current available technology in the interim. 

• Make land available 

• R&D to reduce station 

footprint ●●●●●●●●

• H2 co-production - build 

hydrogen energy station with multiple coproducts, electricity and H2, H2 for others ●●●●●

• Parallel R&D on station 

technology to make it commercial ●●●

• Establish H2 incentives in $/pound 

- direct use - financial incentive - , renewables - very good incentive - renewables plus waste - excellent incentive ●●●●●

• Create tax incentives to make 

technology affordable for consumers ●●

• Find a way to provide incentives 

“at the right time” for both vehicles and stations ●●

• Provide incentives for early 

investors 

• Gas tax: invest in new efforts to 

make the case for early adopters ●●

• Allow NO H2 taxes until 

commercial onset 

• CARB solicitation: If no takers, 

then use money to support an existing station for insurance/legal fees so that these stations may be utilized 

• Get “all du

there are rthe detrac

• Avoid “Da

approach 

Red dots indicate votes cast.

C-3 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 1 - KEY ACTION ITEMS NEEDED (CONT'D) 

REGULATORY 

POLICY ISSUES

LIABILITY

ISSUES

BUSINESS

MARKET ISSUES 

• Make stable market opportunities for H2 

●●●●●●●

- provide stable long-term incentives to 

involve established fuel providers in H2infrastructure development 

• Agree on National Plan 

- explicit vehicle and infrastructure 

production goals (short, medium, long term) 

- targeted areas (region/sector) - shared costs, (automaker, fuel, public 

incentives) 

- Go/no go review points - build expectations as test ●●●

• Create a state (ultimately national) 

introduction plan (# of vehicles and infrastructure) that has an 8-10 year staying power to outlast political cycle ●●

• National codes and standards ●• Develop public policy - tax credits, etc. for 

both infrastructure and vehicles ●

• Increase (quality) deal flow ●• Make confident (agreement) that hydrogen 

becomes a major transport fuel 

• Government leadership is necessary 

- land for stations - space program a model for 

commitment of funds, clear mission, public outreach, etc. 

- fleet policies per EPAct 05 

• Develop insurance 

and indemnification support, e.g., establish ceilings and buy down, limits ●●●●

• Develop anchor markets for early 

deployment 

- transit - airports - stationary uses - industrial gas - new market areas? - provide financial support and 

resources ●●●

• Influence H2 demand - focus on 

its benefits for advertisement ●●

• Make a flexible business/ 

technical use of hydrogen ●●

• Develop/support existing 

business cases from both auto, energy, stationary with real customer surveys to develop H2

model stations with a “higher probability of success” ●

• Develop a realistic business 

model - financial targets, cost benefit analysis, cost reduction targets, revenue stream 

• Develop cross-functional team to 

meet targets 

• Det

natinfr“Ligwith 

• Syn

apporgfedincDG 

fuewith 

MH

●●●

• Cre

org

stabegCaorgfun

Red dots indicate votes cast.

C-4 
C-5 

REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 1 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS

ACTION

COORDINATED NATIONAL PLAN FOR H2

DEVELOPMENT

R&D ON

STATION

Scope A coordinated National Plan 

• Market Development Plan • Policies • Number of vehicles • Best Practices - incentives • Education and outreach • Production goals • Go/no go review • Long-term goals • Cost targets 

• Central renewable “green hydrog

for delivery in key critical mass a

• Standardized/modular station de

approved safety certifications 

• Reduced “footprint” R&D 

Stakeholder Roles • Federal leadership working with states 

- DOE, DOT, and other agencies - Labs 

• Validation • Safety • Standards • Continuing relationship with private industry 

• Energy companies - clarify the is• Developers • Industrial gas technology leaders 

Collaborators: Leaders 

and Supporters 

• Legislators • National fuel cell caucus • FreedomCAR • Either national NGO or state organization 

Timeframe • Now - allocate funding 

• A phased approach • Common target dates for each phase 

First Steps • Understand demand 

• Prioritize scope • Develop a framework which gives 

independent entities the ability to self-select where they fit in 

• Identify commercial paths to low 

• R&D to identify low-cost paths • Identify the business case 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 1 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS (CONT'D) 

ACTION

HYDROGEN COPRODUCTION STATIONS INCENTIVES FOR H2 H2 LIGHTHOUS

Scope • Build H2 co-production 

stations 

- multiple co-products - electricity and H2

- H2 for others 

• Tax incentives to improve 

consumer affordability 

• Increasing levels of 

incentives based on inputs 

• Incentives “at the right 

time” 

• Incentives for early 

adopters and investors 

• Create and identify existi

organization to facilitate 

“Lighthouse” strategy 

• Begin with CA; 2-3 targe• Enhance public - private • Coordinate with other org

efforts 

• Support with funding 

Stakeholder Roles • Grassroots organizations 

- every type of 

organization 

- Ask for $ 

• State government the lea• Industry support • Public-private partnership 

Collaborators: Leaders 

and Supporters 

• Transparent effort - state 

organizations, governmeand cross-industry and cgroups 

Timeframe • Immediate effort - using 

get cars and refueling sta

• Plan for economies of sc

First Steps • Find a way to fund the 

plan/ infrastructure development - congressional imperative 

CFCP and WESTSTART - • Work with CALSTART • Identify organizations • Contact stakeholders • Identify work done - gaps • Plan in place to work with 

industry 

C-6 
• Access to infrastructure, customer friendly, liability, technically suitable, balanced 

• Long-term planning [10-20 years] • Focus on the customer - abundant fueling stations, abundant capacity, no restrictions on station use, compelling refueli• Balancing station throughputs with network coverage • Public education at station location (e.g., safety, benefits) • There must be commitment • Customers must be comfortable, satisfied with experience • Need sustained government policy and financial support • Government incentives provide compelling cost advantage • Need for convenient refueling experience (# of stations) • Ensure high station utilization by smart siting • Consistent message vs. fuel of the month • Compelling consumer and environmental/energy benefit • Geographic focus - “dense” network • A few well placed, convenient access, 24/7 stations in a single region today are more important than serving multiple m

taken to build volume 

• Consistent coordination on infrastructure development strategy between government, industry stakeholders • Early liability relief • Stations must provide vehicle deployments (mandate timing clear) • Clear and implementable transition path from demo to commercial • Contracting, liability, and other execution issues always take longer than expected • We always go out to bid • Local official education and support • Early develop business model (due to different thinking of energy company vs. automaker) • Government funding is critical and needs long legs • Formal communication between automakers fuels and government • Define kg/day • Need accountability for station execution (in addition to funding) 

REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 2 - KEY LESSONS AND PITFALLS

C-7 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 2 - KEY ACTION ITEMS NEEDED

STATION

LOCATION

STATION

DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY

COMPATIBILITY

INCENTIV

FINANCIA

• Establish H2 fueling 

stations in a few metropolitan areas with stations sized to early market ●●●●●●

• Get fleets to use public 

stations ●●

• Find strategic partners 

with land for siting stations (out of the box) 

• Identify blighted lots in 

target areas for H2stations - state to provide funds for any remediation required 

• Distribute stations across 

cities 

• Develop a station siting 

business model to account for the customer refueling experience 

• Assume H2 will be 

successful and over-build attractive, commercial station networks that help create market pull for H2

●●●●●●●

• Improve C&S to allow 

application of advanced technologies (i.e., composite storage) ●●

• Build station volume around 

stationary and mobile uses ●●

• Leverage co-production 

systems ●

• Reduce station footprint to 

address land constraints 

• More R&D on small-scale 

H2 production/storage ●●●

• Real-time station 

operating status systems to feed on-board GPS/ data systems ●●●

• Recognize/anticipate 

evolving technologies and potential need to update station technology, station appeal, access......●

• Define onboard fuel 

storage standard (5K psi vs. 10K psi) 

• Develop consistent lon

among fuels tied to GH●●●●●

• Federal government c

bear undue costs to pvolume costs are high 

• Provide 25% to 50% o

incentive based on stasiting ●●●

• Properly value the los

accumulation due to la

• Provide mechanisms 

of stakeholders (esp. operators) ●

• Early develop compan

ventures to share costterm), revenue (long-t

• Find out what incentiv• Franchise system for 

bidding) 

• Commitment to long-t

and implementation (scompressors, etc.) 

• Evolve - build on succ

investments from bus

• Streamline the proces

or incentives available 

Red dots indicate votes cast.

C-8 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 2 - KEY ACTION ITEMS NEEDED (CONT’D) 

REGULATORY

ISSUES

LIABILITY

ISSUES MARKETING

CO

ACC

• Convince Congress there 

really is a fuel crisis looming ●●●●●

• Adopt local policies and codes 

to facilitate siting of stations ●●●●●●

• Require or reward 

transformation fuels (low-to zero-carbon) ●●●

• Focus on benefits - policies 

and incentives to address benefits ●●

• Fix broken model of energy 

companies providing fuel to limited number of cars with near-term profit potential 

• Government sharing/limiting 

liability ●●●●●●●●●

• Engage insurance industry to 

share learnings on safety and operations ●

• Address risk/liability of 

hydrogen quality 

• Understand market drivers 

- you can’t foresee technology acceptance ●●

• Vehicles and infrastructure 

must coincide . Focus on fleets for both 

• Open dialogue on state of 

technology to enable technology advancements and C&S 

• Develop a realistic sense 

of urgency to drive market 

• Create same 

experience agasoline ●●

• Eliminate fu

 Red dots indicate votes cast.

C-9 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 2 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS 

ACTION CREATE SAME/BETTER CONSUMER EXPERIENCE AS 

REFUELING WITH GASOLINE

GOVERNMENT SHARING/

LIMITING LIABILITY

(E.G., INSURANCE, FINANCIAL) 

ASSUME H2 WILL B

OVER-BUILD 

COMMERCIAL ST

THAT HELP CREAT

Scope • Excellent access, 24/7, credit 

card 

• Find mechanism to offset liability 

until maturity negates the need 

• Keep hydrogen in

ahead of demand 

Stakeholder 

 Roles 

• Auto industry – get cars in 

consumer hands 

• Station owner – respond to 

consumer needs 

• Government – fund offsetting 

liability 

• Insurance – understand risk • Station owner – buy insurance 

when it matures 

• Design, build and • Automaker deman

Leader • Energy companies • Government • Energy companies 

Supporter • Government 

• Station owners • Local officials • Automakers 

• Insurance companies • Station owners 

• Government - stat• Industry trade gro

First Step • Change mind set to earlymarket • Establish liability pool for first X number of stations • Select locations an

flagship stations 

C-10 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 2 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS (CONT’D) 

ACTION

ESTABLISH H2 FUELING STATIONS IN A FEW 

METROPOLITAN AREAS

ADOPT LOCAL POLICIES AND 

FACILITATE STATION S

Scope • Target key urban areas - “hydrogen communities” • Take codes and standards to loc

local champions 

Stakeholder 

 Roles 

• Municipalities – facilitate installations • Automakers – specify markets, consensus on 

regions 

Project participants: • Provide information • Communicate on a local level • Build relationships 

Leader • Automakers and energy companies • State government 

Supporter • Government 

• Local champions • Industry groups • Environmental groups 

• Project developers • Industry stakeholders • Local champions 

First Step • 40 stations in one or two selected major metro 

areas (e.g., LA, etc.) by 2012 

• Hire a hydrogen ombudsman in o

Fire Marshall 

C-11 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 3 - KEY LESSONS AND PITFALLS

• Need realistic projections • We have an opportunity to re-think our approach using electricity as a model • There is competition for resources, funding, etc. • Need consistency for permitting • Difficulty of implementation in urban core • Existing funding process not conducive for H2• Gas utilities built many of the CNG/electric stations - transportation fuel market share • (pitfall) Belief that H2 available to all • Don’t have to start with large scale H2 refueling infrastructure • Need a focused geographic rollout • (pitfall) Over-promising progress • There is a fear of stranded assets • Construction material resources can be significant • Data availability (e.g., leak testing) • Energy density • Keep in mind the footprint (land cost) • Fuel price is NOT a critical issue for the average citizen • Need public/private partnerships to overcome challenges • Liability for small/mid-size operators • No fueling agreements - WDC example • Operator reliability is an issue • Need a consistent long-term policy commitment • Need regulations, codes and standards • There are other, non-technical issues, e.g., availability of workers, permitting • Plan for stations to stay - avoid “valley of death” outlook by rolling out a concise technical strategy • Make sure manufacturing and standardization of station equipment is available for infrastructure build-out • Need long-term policies - avoid stranded investment • Coordination of timing and location - vehicles, stations, users • People who plan alternative fuel infrastructure/policy must drive alternative fuel vehicles first• Government support for caps on liability/insurance coverage • Fuel quality and consistency is important • Fuel metrics and uniform product code (UPC) is important 

C-12 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 3 - KEY ACTION ITEMS NEEDED

POLICY 

ISSUES

INCENTIVES AND

FINANCIAL ISSUES

REGULATORY

ISSU

• Establish clear short and long-term commitments to H2

technology - to give clear signal ●●●●●●●●●●●●

• Facilitate a common, realistic plan and vision with 

coordination among shareholders ●●●●●●●●●

- AFV rollout 

• Define cost impact (on portfolio) • Relax rules (production of H2) 

• Short term commitment (fiscal timeline vs. project 

timeline) 

• “To the moon” long-term commitment - policies/ 

regulations 

• Understand effects of policy on adoption by consumer 

- Consider both consumers and producers 

• Government to evaluate and 

document station development cost ●●●●●●●●●

• Create insuran

share risk (gov●●●●●●●●●●●

SUPPLY CHAIN

(INITIAL) 

SUPPLY CHAIN

OVERALL

CON

IS

• Find best niche to start market expansion ●●●●●

- Force public access component 

• Create “enterprise zone” favorable to H2

infrastructure ●●●●

- Link industries (e.g., China) - H2/fuel cell “zones” incentivize early 

stations/vehicles 

• Identify, evaluate, prioritize siting issues 

●●●●●●

- Regulatory - Policy - Financial, etc. 

• Build fueling stations like mobile home ●●• Create educational avenues, e.g., 

academic curriculum ●

- Skilled people to feed supply chain 

• Land allocation 

- Existing DOE sub-committee 

involvement 

• Discover 

wants anposition a●●●●●●●

Red dots indicate votes cast.

C-13 
REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 3 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS 

ESTABLISH/RE-EVALUATE 

CLEAR SHORT AND LONGTERM COMMITMENTS TO H2

TECHNOLOGY IN OUR 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

CREATE INSURANCE POOL -

SHARE RISK

DISCOVER CONS

AND NEEDS A

ACCORD

Interested 

Parties 

• Executive Branch • Congress • State • Local/regional 

• Automakers • Energy companies • Operators of demonstrations • Insurance commissioners • Everyone dealing with H2 - LNG 

and CNG ports 

• Steve Weimer (PNNL) 

• Everyone dealing with H2

• National Auto D

Association 

• Coordinated thr

automakers 

- GM’s drivew- Honda’s - le- Fuel cell pa- Automakers 

Barriers/ 

Challenges 

• Democracy • Unwillingness to share data • Unwillingness to 

Timeframe • Immediate 

First Step • Identify forum “think tank” • Collect and compile data to give 

to insurance companies (encourage data sharing) 

Scope • National Advocacy • Qualitative cons

and behavior anPowers, UC Dav

C-14 
C-15 

REFUELING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

GROUP 3 - TOP FIVE ACTION ITEMS (CONT'D) 

FACILITATE A COMMON, REALISTIC PLAN 

AND VISION WITH COORDINATION AMONG 

STAKEHOLDERS

GOVERNMENT TO EVALUATE AND 

STATION DEVELOPMENT C

Interested 

Parties 

• Define stakeholders via a plan/document 

- For example: national (big companies), 

regional (small enterprises) 

- AFV - Energy companies - FCV - NHA, USFCC - Utilities 

Barriers/ 

Challenges 

• Competition about what is the right plan • Size of data pool 

Timeframe • Long term vision - 40 yrs (but start action 

now) 

First Step • Mapping to understand different activities 

going on 

• Define strategy/approach, LDV (e.g., LA) or 

Buses (e.g., Europe) 

• Find information from: NREL databa

CAFCP, Japan 

• Cost report needs to be updated on a 

Scope • Start from government recommendations 

and work down to local/regional 

- Market development plans at 

local/regional level 

• Need to benchmark costs “unexpecte• Take information from DOE demonstr

and build into next projects 
APPENDIX D 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

D-1 
D-2 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Potential Hydrogen Energy 

Infrastructure Requirements. Greene, D, et al. 2008. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

ORNL/TM-2008/30. Available at 

http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2008_30.pdf (accessed June 2, 2008). 

Lessons Learned from the Alternative Fuels Experience and How They Apply to the Development 

of a Hydrogen-Fueled Transportation System. Melendez, M., K. Theis, and C. Johnson. 2007. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-560-40753. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40753.pdf (accessed June 2, 2008). 

Transitioning to a Hydrogen Future: Learning from the Alternative Fuels Experience. 

Melendez, M. 2006. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-540-39423. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39423.pdf (accessed June 2, 2008). 

The Hydrogen Energy Transition: Moving Toward the Post Petroleum Age in Transportation. 

D. Sperling and J. S. Cannon. Burlington, MA, Elsevier. 2004. 

Lessons Learned from 15 Years of Alternative Fuels Experience – 1988 to 2003. McNutt, B., 

and D. Rogers. 2004. Chap. 12 in The hydrogen energy transition: Moving toward the post 

petroleum age in transportation, edited by D. Sperling and J.S. Cannon. Burlington, MA: 

Elsevier. 

Understanding the Transition to New Fuels and Vehicles: Lessons Learned from Analysis and 

Experience of Alternative Fuel and Hybrid Vehicles. P. Leiby and J. Rubin. October 31, 2003. 

Presented at the Asilomar Conference, August 2003. Available at 

http://pzl1.ed.ornl.gov/Asilomar03%20LeibyRubin%20ver8.pdf (accessed June 2, 2008). 
F1147-E(09/2007) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

July 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Workshop Proceedings 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Refueling Infrastructure for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Lessons 

Learned for Hydrogen; Workshop Proceedings 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

M. Melaina, S. McQueen, and J. Brinch 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/BK-560-43669 

5e. TASK NUMBER

H2782350 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/BK-560-43669 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

DOE sponsored the Refueling Infrastructure for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Lessons Learned for Hydrogen workshop 

to understand how lessons from past experiences can inform future efforts to commercialize hydrogen vehicles. This 

report contains the proceedings from the workshop. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

alternative fuel vehicles; hydrogen vehicles; hydrogen infrastructure; Energetics; workshop; Sacramento; AFV 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18