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

27–587PS 2006

THE PLUG–IN HYBRID ELECTRIC

VEHICLE ACT OF 2006

(DISCUSSION DRAFT)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 17, 2006

Serial No. 109–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

AL GREEN, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Republican Professional Staff Member

CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member

MIKE HOLLAND Chairman’s Designee ́

COLIN HUBBELL Staff Assistant

RICHARD CHANDLER Republican Fellow

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 17, 2006

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ..................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 14

Witnesses:

Dr. Andrew A. Frank, Professor, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

Department; Director, Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center, University

of California–Davis

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Biography .......................................................................................................... 57

Mr. Roger Duncan, Deputy General Manager, Austin Energy in Texas

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59

Biography .......................................................................................................... 60

Dr. Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology Division, Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62

Biography .......................................................................................................... 65

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 66

Mr. John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses, American

Honda Motor Company

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 67

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 69

Biography .......................................................................................................... 72

Dr. S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education, School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 72

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 74

Biography .......................................................................................................... 80

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 81

Page

IV

Dr. Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division, Center

for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 81

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 84

Biography .......................................................................................................... 91

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 92

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 93

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology Division, Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI) ................................................................................... 112

Mr. John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses, American

Honda Motor Company ........................................................................................ 114

Dr. S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education, School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State University ........................ 116

Dr. Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division, Center

for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory ............................ 118

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Discussion Draft of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 ......................... 124

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 134

Department of Energy Workshop Paper on Plug-in Hybrids ............................... 136

Plug-In Partner National Campaign ...................................................................... 163

(1)

THE PLUG–IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE

ACT OF 2006 (DISCUSSION DRAFT)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy L. Biggert

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Plug-In Hybrid Electric

Vehicle Act of 2006

(Discussion Draft)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, May 17, 2006, the Energy Subcommittee of the House Committee

on Science will hold a hearing on a discussion draft of legislation to promote research and development (R&D) on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and related advanced-vehicle technologies.

2. Witnesses

Mr. Roger Duncan is the Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy in Texas and

serves on the board of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.

Dr. Mark Duvall is a Technology Development Manager for Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles in the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI)

Science & Technology Division. He currently oversees EPRI’s Grid-Connected Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group and is EPRI’s technical lead for the

DaimlerChrysler-EPRI Plug-in Hybrid Electric Sprinter Van Program. EPRI is the

research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry.

Dr. Andrew Frank is a Professor in the Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

Department at the University of California, Davis, and the Director of the UC Davis

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center.

Mr. John German is Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. German is the author of a variety of technical papers and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles published by the Society of

Automotive Engineers.

Dr. Cliff Ricketts is a Professor of Agricultural Education in the School of Agribusiness and Agriscience at Middle Tennessee State University. Dr. Ricketts has designed and built engines powered from a variety of sources including ethanol, methane, soybean oil, and hydrogen.

Dr. Danilo Santini is a Senior Economist in the Energy Systems Division of Argonne National Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research, as well as a

former Chair of the Alternative Fuels Committee of the National Academy of

Sciences’ Transportation Research Board.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

1. What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be

prioritized?

2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial application

of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to be taken to address

these hurdles? (batteries, infrastructure, consumer preference, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)

3. How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government do to

accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

4

1Plug-In Partners website. Date accessed—May 12, 2006. See http://

www.pluginpartners.org/plugInHybrids/economicBenefits.cfm

4. Does the discussion draft of the Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Act of 2006 address

the most significant technical barriers to the widespread adoption of plugin hybrid electric vehicles?

4. Brief Overview

• Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius or the Ford Escape, combine batteries and an electric motor, along with a gasoline engine, to improve vehicle

performance in city driving conditions and to reduce gasoline consumption.

• Plug-in hybrid vehicles are a more advanced version of today’s hybrid vehicles. They involve larger batteries and the ability to charge those batteries

overnight using an ordinary electric outlet.

• Unlike today’s hybrids, plug-in hybrids are designed to be able to drive for

extended periods solely on battery power, thus moving energy consumption

from the gasoline tank to the electric grid (batteries are charged overnight

from the grid) and emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant (where, in

theory, they are more easily controlled).

• Plug-in hybrids could significantly reduce U.S. gasoline consumption because

most daily trips would be powered by a battery. The potential for oil savings

is related to the length of time, or the distance, that a plug-in hybrid can

travel solely on battery power.

• President Bush, as part of his Advanced Energy Initiative, has established the

goal of developing technology that would enable plug-in hybrids to travel up

to 40 miles on battery power alone. Plug-in hybrids that could operate for 40

miles on an overnight charge from the electrical grid could offer significant

oil savings because most Americans commute less than 40 miles a day. The

electricity used to charge the batteries overnight would be generated from domestic sources (only three percent of the electricity used in the United States

is generated from oil) and that electricity would primarily be consumed at

night when demand is low.

• Plug-in hybrids could benefit consumers because of their greater fuel economy

and the relatively low cost of energy from the electric grid. Fuel economy in

hybrid vehicles is related to the degree to which engine load can be carried

by the electric motor (powered by batteries). Because plug-in hybrids have

large batteries and are designed to operate for an extended period on battery

power alone, they offer the potential of significantly greater fuel economy.

Some proponents of plug-in hybrids claim that consumers will be able to recharge their batteries overnight at gasoline-equivalent cost of $1 per gallon.1

• While plug-in hybrid vehicles offer many advantages, a number of technical

barriers must be overcome to enable their development and widespread commercial application. Although specialty conversion kits are available (in very

limited quantities and at high cost) to upgrade an ordinary hybrid to a plugin hybrid, many component technologies, particularly battery technology,

must be advanced before plug-in hybrids can be made available to consumers,

at mass-market scale, and at reasonable cost and reliability. R&D is needed

to increase the reliability and durability of batteries, to significantly extend

their lifetimes, and to reduce their size and weight.

• In May 2006, Mr. Smith of Texas prepared a discussion draft of legislation

to conduct research and development (R&D) on advanced plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies and to demonstrate plug-in hybrid vehicles so as to promote

their commercial application in the consumer marketplace. (A section-by-section analysis of the bill is included later in this charter.)

5. Background

How would plug-in hybrid vehicles differ from today’s hybrid vehicles? Plug-in hybrid vehicles would have a much bigger battery and motor, and thus could offset

even more gasoline consumption than hybrids do by using more electric power. Unlike today’s hybrid vehicles, the battery of a plug-in hybrid would be charged while

parked using a standard 120-volt electrical outlet. (Additional technical information

is available in the technical appendix to this charter.)

How would plug-in hybrid vehicles promote energy independence? Plug-in hybrids

could greatly decrease the need for petroleum by shifting the energy supply for vehicles from the gasoline pump to the electrical grid. Since only three percent of petroVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

leum is used to generate electricity (a figure unlikely to increase due to poor economics associated with electricity from oil), an expansion in plug-in hybrids would

help decrease U.S. dependence on imported oil. Because of their greater ability to

operate on electric power, plug-in hybrids have the potential for significantly greater

fuel economy than currently-available hybrid vehicles. An entrepreneurial group in

California (CalCars) has experimented with plug-in hybrids and claims to have

achieved fuel economy in excess of 100 miles per gallon after converting a standard

hybrid vehicle to a plug-in hybrid.

How would plug-in hybrid vehicles affect the grid? Plug-in hybrids typically would

be used during the daytime, when people commute to work or when businesses are

making deliveries, and charged overnight, when the grid is running well below its

peak load. The increased demand for electricity during overnight charging also

would provide a load leveling effect—idle generating capacity would be brought into

productive use during off-peak hours. Allowing plants to operate with less variability and closer to optimum output could enhance the overall efficiency of the electrical system.

How would plug-in hybrid vehicles affect emissions? Plug-in hybrids shift much

of the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant. Proponents claim that the

overall emissions level of the most common pollutants is lower from plug-in hybrids

than from standard automobiles, even accounting for emissions at the power plant.

The one exception is sulfur dioxide emissions in areas that utilize a great deal of

coal-fired electricity.

Widespread use of plug-in hybrids would enable metropolitan areas suffering from

high air pollution concentrations during morning and evening commutes to shift

those emissions away from city centers and to nighttime hours. This shift would reduce the exposure of high population density areas to harmful ozone levels and

other tailpipe pollutants. Greenhouse gas levels could also be reduced, depending on

the mix of energy sources used to generate electricity.

What does the President’s budget include for plug-in hybrid R&D? The President’s

fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget submission requests $12 million for R&D on plugin hybrid vehicles, including an increase of $6 million for R&D related to advanced

battery development. The President’s FY07 request also includes $51 million for

R&D on related vehicle technologies, including advanced power electronics, simulation and validation, and vehicle test & evaluation.

Addition details on the difference between plug-in hybrids and today’s hybrids,

along with details on the technical barriers to developing mass-market plug-in hybrid vehicles, are given in the technical appendix (section 8) of this charter.

A description of Mr. Smith’s discussion draft, as provided to the witnesses, is

given below. The language describing the demonstration program in the discussion

draft has been modified since it was sent to the witnesses.

6. Section-by-Section Description of the Discussion Draft

Sec. 1. Short Title.

The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.

Sec. 2. Near-Term Vehicle Technology Program

a. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the text.

b. Program.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development,

demonstration, and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and

electric drive transportation technology.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the research program is designed

to develop

• high capacity, high efficiency batteries with:

Æ improved battery life, energy storage capacity, and power discharge;

Æ enhanced manufacturability; and

Æ the minimization of waste and hazardous material production throughout

the entire value chain, including after the end of the useful life of the

batteries

• high efficiency on-board and off-board charging components;

• high power drive train systems for passenger and commercial vehicles and for

non-road equipment;

6

• control systems, power trains, and systems integration for all types of hybrid

electric vehicles, including:

Æ development of efficient cooling systems; and

Æ research and development of control systems that minimize the emissions

profile of plug-in hybrid drive systems

• a nationwide public awareness strategy for electric drive transportation technologies that provide teaching materials and support for university education

focused on electric drive systems and component engineering.

c. Goals.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the program develops projects,

in partnership with industry and institutions of higher education, which are focused

on:

• innovative electric drive technology developed in the United States;

• growth of employment in the United States in electric drive design and manufacturing;

• clarification of the plug-in hybrid potential through fleet demonstrations; and

• acceleration of fuel cell commercial application through comprehensive development and demonstration of electric drive technology systems.

d. Demonstration and Commercial Application Program.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a program of demonstration and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and flexible fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to award grants under this program on a competitive basis, but give preference to applications that are matched with state or

local funds.

Requires that grants awarded by the Secretary do not exceed the annual maximum per-vehicle amounts as follows:

e. Merit based federal investments.

Requires the Department of Energy to ensure that the funding for the activities

in this section are awarded consistent with the merit based guidelines for federal

investments established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L. 109–58).

f. Authorization of Appropriations.

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $200 million for each of

fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the program of research, development,

demonstration, and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and

electric drive transportation technology.

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million for each of

fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Sec. 3. Lightweight Materials Research & Development.

a. In General.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to create a lightweight materials research and

development program. The program will focus on materials (for both light and heavy

duty vehicles) that will reduce vehicle weight and increase fuel economy while maintaining safety. In addition, the program will investigate ways to reduce the cost and

enhance the manufacturability of lightweight materials used in making vehicles.

b. Authorization of Appropriations.

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million for each of

fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.

7

7. Witness Questions

In the letters inviting them to the hearing, each of the witnesses was asked to

address the following questions in his testimony:

• What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on plugin hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be prioritized?

• What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercialization of

plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to be taken to address

these hurdles? (batteries, infrastructure, consumer preference, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)

• How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

• Does the discussion draft address the most significant technical barriers to

the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

8. Technical Appendix

What are the technological differences between plug-in hybrid vehicles and the hybrid

vehicles on the road today?

The hybrid vehicles on the road today leverage the battery and electric motor at

certain peak demand points during the drive cycle of the vehicle. The battery, generally nickel metal hydride (NiMH) technology, is replenished by occasionally transferring energy from the engine as well as from recovering energy expended in braking the vehicle (i.e., regenerative braking). The battery maintains a state of charge

within a fairly narrow band, never gaining or losing a great deal of energy; this is

known as shallow cycling or a ‘‘sustained charge’’ approach. Using the energy from

NiMH battery to avoid gasoline consumption helps hybrid vehicles achieve increased

fuel economy.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles take advantage of the same fuel economy principle, only

the goal is to use a better battery to avoid even greater amounts of gasoline. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery technology has been identified as the most promising candidate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Li-ion batteries have greater energy density than NiMH batteries and greater power discharge, characteristics that would

allow a vehicle to travel further using less gasoline and offer better performance

than one with a NiMH battery.

In addition, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could offer long ranges of electric-only

operation (also known as a ‘‘ZEV’’ range or Zero Emissions Vehicle range). This attribute is particularly desirable in congested metropolitan areas. If today’s hybrid

vehicles with a NiMH battery were available with an electric-only operation mode,

they would be capable of only a one-two mile ZEV range. In comparison, experts

familiar with battery technology claim that Li-ion batteries could achieve ZEV

ranges of 20, 40, or even 60 miles.

It is not clear whether plug-in hybrid vehicles would be manufactured with an option of driving in ‘‘electric-only’’ mode. Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the

energy used in city driving would stem from the battery, given that the engine is

inefficient in stop-and-go traffic. Thus, the long ZEV range figures associated with

Li-ion batteries not only indicate the large quantity of electrical energy they contain,

but also the potential to drive lengthy distances under city conditions using mostly

electrical energy. With Americans commuting an average of 20–30 miles roundtrip

each day, the plug-in hybrid vehicle with a Li-ion battery could greatly reduce petroleum consumption.

Why don’t we use lithium-ion battery technology today given its benefits?

Li-ion batteries are not a new technology. They are used in cell phones and laptop

computers. Scaling up Li-ion batteries for use in automobiles, however, is new territory and presents new challenges. Experts in the field estimate that the cost of Liion batteries is two to four times above the level needed to be commercially viable.

Cost reductions are needed in the areas of raw materials and processing, as well

as cell and module packaging.

In addition, it is not clear if Li-ion batteries are capable of lasting 15 years, the

average life of a vehicle. This issue is compounded by the fact that plug-in hybrid

vehicles would use deep cycling, which shortens the life of the battery, over the

course of its drive cycle. Unlike the sustained charge approach used in today’s hybrid vehicles, the profile of plug-in hybrid is much different. Plug-in hybrids would

start the day at nearly 100 percent state of charge (SOC), having been charged overnight. To minimize use of gasoline, the battery would be depleted over the course

of the day until the SOC reached about 20 percent; fully depleting the battery each

8

day would severely limit its lifetime. At a SOC of about 20 percent, the plug-in hybrid would act like a hybrid vehicle and proceed with a ‘‘sustained charge’’ approach

until the vehicle could be fully recharged again. Further testing is needed to determine whether Li-ion batteries could last the life of the vehicle under this combined

deep/shallow cycling.

Additional R&D is needed in other areas as well. There is uncertainly about the

ability of Li-ion batteries to handle abuse and improper maintenance, such as crushing the battery or overcharging. Current Li-ion batteries require mechanical and

electronic devices for protection against these abuses. Likewise, more work is needed to enhance Li-ion technology in colder temperatures. Under these conditions, Liion demonstrates a reduction in its ability to discharge power and its lack of tolerance for handling surges from regenerative braking. In addition, thermal management issues will need to be addressed, as long periods of continuous battery use can

lead to a build up of heat. There are existing technologies that can be used that

tolerate higher temperatures, but they would increase the cost of the battery.

What challenges inhibit the near-term introduction of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

As noted earlier, the battery technology for plug-in hybrids is not yet cost-competitive. Since the battery represents a large proportion of the incremental cost of plugin hybrid over a conventional vehicle, R&D will likely be focused here. The issue

of cost is further complicated by the deep discharges that are used in plug-in hybrids. If batteries do not last the lifetime of the vehicle, replacement batteries will

make the plug-in hybrids even less attractive from a cost standpoint. The cost of

a plug-in hybrid passenger vehicle with a 20 mile ZEV is approximately $4,500 to

$6,100 more than a conventional vehicle of comparable size, according to a 2002 report by the Electric Power Research Institute.

Major manufacturers of today’s hybrids have exerted a great deal of effort to educate consumers that hybrid vehicles differ from all-electric vehicles of the past in

that they do not need to be plugged in. The plug-in hybrid would be a new technology, also using the word ‘‘hybrid’’ in its label, but will require customers to plug

into an electrical outlet in their home or garage. Even if customers understand this

distinction, they may not be willing or able to conform to a new norm. Plug-in hybrids may provide the convenience of reducing the number of trips to gas stations,

but consumers must become comfortable with and accustomed to the idea of plugging in their vehicle. Other customers may be interested in plug-in hybrids, but currently may live in a dwelling without a plug-in infrastructure or otherwise not conducive to vehicle charging. Responding to all of these challenges will likely require

outreach and education.

9

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The hearing of the Energy Subcommittee

of Science will come to order.

Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Mr.

Smith from Texas, be allowed to join the Energy Subcommittee for

this hearing. If there are no objections, so ordered.

I would like to welcome everyone to this Energy Subcommittee

hearing on the many potential contributions that plug-in hybrid

electric vehicles could make to our energy security.

Last year, if somebody had asked me if I had any plans to chair

a hearing on plug-in hybrids in 2006, my response would have

been: ‘‘What is a plug-in hybrid?’’ Yet here we are today examining

a discussion draft of legislation that will be introduced by a senior

Member of this committee, Congressman Lamar Smith, to promote

the development and use of plug-in hybrids. I want to thank Mr.

Smith for introducing me to plug-in hybrids.

What is so special about a plug-in hybrid? Well, in a nutshell, average Americans who drive their cars or trucks between 25 and 30

miles a day could complete their commute and run some errands

without burning a drop of gasoline. That is good for energy security, not to mention the pocketbook.

Furthermore, the technology to make this happen is an improvement upon existing technology in the market today. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, which are still very much in the research and development stage, and by some estimates, still 20 years from reaching

the market, conventional or traditional hybrids can be found in

dealership lots across the country and are growing in popularity.

With research, I hope this transition from conventional hybrids to

plug-in hybrids can proceed quickly.

And there is nothing like a $3 gallon of gasoline to help get us

thinking about new and creative ways to diversify the fuel supply

and use anything besides gasoline to power our vehicles. As I have

said many times before, I do not believe that there is a single solution to our energy problems. Plug-in hybrids would allow us to

power our cars with clean energy, including from renewable

sources, such as solar and wind. They can also be fueled by other

clean and abundant sources, like nuclear and even coal, preferably

from power plants employing advanced clean coal technologies that

I hope will soon be the norm.

The fact of the matter is that all Americans, including those in

my suburban Chicago district, want to hop into their cars and go.

Very few care what makes their car go. They simply want it to be

inexpensive and easy to get. Again, the consumer is pointing us in

the right direction. We should be working towards cars that can

run on whatever energy source is available at the lowest cost: be

it electricity, gasoline, biofuel, or some combination of these.

That brings me to my final point on the potential benefits of the

plug-in hybrid. They do not require a whole new ‘‘refueling’’ infrastructure. To think that you could pull into your garage at the end

of the day and ‘‘fill ’er up’’ just by plugging your car into a regular

110-volt socket in the garage is very appealing. Imagine the convenience of recharging your car just as you recharge your cell

phone, blackberry, or laptop every evening, by simply plugging it

in. The next morning, unplug it, and you are ready to go.

10

That is not to say there aren’t challenges to realizing the potential benefits of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Our purpose here

today is to identify the most significant obstacles facing the widespread commercial availability of these vehicles. Are there technical or cost-competitiveness issues with important components,

such as batteries or power electronics? Do consumer preferences or

auto industry inertia present high hurdles? Our witnesses today

can help us understand what additional steps the Federal Government can take to address these barriers and accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrids.

And I, again, would like to thank Mr. Smith for bringing this to

our attention.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JUDY BIGGERT

Good morning. On behalf of Ranking Member Honda and myself, I want to welcome everyone to this Energy Subcommittee hearing. We are examining the potential contribution that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can make to the energy security of this nation. We also want to obtain feedback on a discussion draft of legislation Representative Lamar Smith has developed to promote the use of plug-in hybrids.

Needless to say, energy security is a rather timely issue. Americans consume

more than 20 million barrels of oil products every day, and 40 percent of that goes

to fueling our cars and trucks. By the year 2020, more than sixty percent of our

oil will come from foreign sources. If that comes true, we will face real and significant challenges to our efforts to maintain our security and fight terrorism. A major

interruption in the supply chain, whether accidental—as we saw with Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita—or intentional could have enormous impacts on our economy.

As our economy grows and our population prospers, our demand for oil and other

sources of energy will only increase. But continuing on a business as usual path is

risky not only for our security and for our economy but also for our environment.

The carbon dioxide, particulates and ozone-forming emissions from cars and trucks

contribute to both global climate change and localized urban air pollution. Not only

is urban air pollution correlated with high levels of asthma, lung cancer and other

devastating illnesses, but it reduces the quality of life for those who live in and

around cities. I can assure you none of my constituents are demanding more smog!

As I have said many times before, I do not believe that there is a single solution

to our energy problems. We need to use the resources we do have more wisely, and

we need to expand domestic sources of clean energy, including both renewable

sources, such as solar and wind, and nuclear energy.

Some technologies that we hope will be a part of the solution—such as hydrogen

fuel cells—are still largely in the research and development stage. They are likely

to be many years off. There are other technologies that may be economically deployed on a large scale in the near term. We are looking to you, our witnesses, to

tell us whether you believe plug-in hybrid vehicles are in this category.

Personally, I hope they are. I find the concept of plug-in hybrids fascinating. To

think that I could pull into my garage at the end of the day and ‘‘fill ’er up’’ just

by plugging my car in to a socket is very attractive. Imagine how convenient that

would be: Recharge my car, walk in the house, recharge my cell phone. The next

morning, unplug and be ready to go. I’d only have to go to the gas station before

road trips!

I also think it is important—exciting is probably not the word—that plug-in hybrids offer the chance to diversify the fuel supply for our transportation sector. Plugin hybrids would allow us to power our cars with coal—I hope that will soon be

clean coal—nuclear or some combination of renewable resources. Here in D.C., we

have the oil lobby, the switch grass lobby, the corn lobby, the coal lobby, the wind

and solar lobby. In my district in suburban Chicago, my constituents want to hop

in their cars and go. Very few of them care what makes their car go. Consumers

may be pointing us in the right direction. We should be working towards cars that

can run on what ever energy source is available at the lowest cost: be it electricity,

gasoline, or some biofuel.

In our hearing today, we will examine the major research and development questions facing plug-in hybrid technologies and try to understand how this work should

be prioritized. We want to be able to identify the most significant obstacles facing

11

the widespread commercial availability of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Are there

technical or cost-competitiveness issues with important components, such as batteries or power electronics? Do we lack essential infrastructure? Do consumer preferences or auto industry inertia present high hurdles? Our witnesses today can help

us understand what additional steps the Federal Government can take to address

these barriers.

I don’t want to presume to speak for my colleagues on this subcommittee, but I

think all of us would like to see the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicles accelerated. I know my constituents think plug-in hybrids sound exciting when they hear about the technology. They want to know when they will be

able to buy them, and—to be honest—so do we.

I would like to thank each of our witnesses for taking the time to educate us

about this important subject and to comment upon our draft legislation. I would like

to thank Representative Smith of Texas for the leadership he has taken on this

issue. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide input on his draft legislation, and we hope to see it move expeditiously towards enactment.

Finally, I would like to mention that at the conclusion of our hearing, we have

an opportunity to see two plug-in hybrids by CalCars at noon at the corner of New

Jersey Avenue and C Street Southeast, courtesy of Representatives Jack Kingston

and Elliot Engel. Begging everyone’s apologies, this really is a technology right

around the corner.

And now, I want to welcome my colleague Mr. Honda and recognize him for his

opening remarks.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Honda, for his opening statement.

But before I recognize him, I just want to make a quick announcement and recognize a couple of folks from CalCars who have

a special treat for us this morning. At the conclusion of our hearing, we have an opportunity to see two plug-in hybrids by CalCars

on the corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street Southeast, courtesy of Congressman Jack Kingston and Congressman Eliot Engel.

And begging everyone’s apology, this really is a technology right

around the corner, so I hope everyone here will join us. If you

would like to stand up and—so with that, I recognize Mr. Honda

for five minutes.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

I guess that infrastructure, if you don’t have one, you can congratulate yourself for not having one.

I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this important hearing today and thank all of our witnesses for being here to share

their expertise with us. You have come from all across the country.

And let me just say to the Honda dealer—the Honda folks that

there is no relationship, and when I mentioned Prius, it is only because they had the hybrid out, the first one. I was looking for one,

and then you came right after that.

As you may know, I do drive a Prius hybrid, and I have asked

my poor staffers to hook up a server cell to my Prius, because when

I left my car at the airport for a week or so, the starting battery

would die out, and I couldn’t figure it out, and so I decided to try

to add a little bit more technology and have a trickle charge hooked

up to the back of my car.

So I think it is fair to say that you can count me in among the

converted on this technology.

As gasoline prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, there seems

to be more of a sentiment, fortunately, among us policy-makers to

support the development of more efficient vehicles. Consequently,

75 percent of the energy consumed in transportation is provided by

petroleum. Of that 75 percent in 2004, nearly 63 percent came from

12

foreign sources. The trend indicates that this will only get worse

if the United States does not make significant strides towards reducing consumption in the transportation sector.

Small steps can make a big difference. A 10 percent reduction in

energy use from cars and light trucks would result in a savings of

nearly—approximately 750,000 barrels of petroleum per day. Today’s electric hybrids are a step in the right direction to reducing

our dependence on petroleum with the Prius traveling about 42 to

50 miles per gallon of gasoline. But because the only source of energy for today’s hybrids is gasoline, some of that energy must go

into charging the batteries, limiting the overall vehicle efficiency.

I am excited about the prospect of plug-in hybrids because they are

able to store more electrical energy on-board, meaning that they

can travel further on their initial charge than the gasoline carried

on-board.

Plug-ins can also reduce the overall amount of pollution, because

the power plants are more efficient at controlling combustion emissions than the vehicles are.

One question I do have, however, is that what impacts would—

plug-in hybrid use will have on the Nation’s electricity grid if we

are successful in convincing hundreds of millions of Americans to

purchase and use plug-in vehicles. And that is a question. In California, we don’t have a whole lot of electricity to spare. Advocates

for plug-in hybrids say that we will recharge these cars at night

when most of the demand is baseload, so it won’t be a problem. But

if we get enough people to adopt plug-in hybrid technology, will we

exceed the capacity of a baseload generation and need to use more

power plants, ones that use natural gas as fuel? If so, then I fear

we would just be shifting our addiction from one petrochemical to

another.

Hopefully, the witnesses will address this in their testimony or

in the question-and-answer period.

Now please let me apologize in advance. I may need to leave

early to go to a markup in another committee, but rest assured

that I share the Chairwoman’s enthusiasm for this technology, and

I look forward to hearing the testimony. Again, I thank the witnesses for being here, for your knowledge, and for your enthusiasm.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

I thank the Chairwoman for holding this important hearing today, and thank all

of our witnesses for being here to share their expertise with us.

As you may know, I drive a Prius hybrid, and I’ve asked my poor staffer about

hooking up a solar cell to keep the starting battery charged for those times when

I’ve left the car at the airport for a few weeks. So I think it’s fair to say that you

can count me among the converted on this technology.

As gasoline prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, there seems to more sentiment among policy-makers to support the development of more efficient vehicles.

Approximately 75 percent of the energy consumed in the transportation is provided by petroleum. Of that 75 percent, in 2004 nearly 63 percent came from foreign

sources. The trend line indicates that this will only get worse if the U.S. does not

make significant strides towards reducing consumption in the transportation sector.

Small steps can make a big difference. A 10 percent reduction in energy use from

cars and light trucks would result in the savings of nearly 750,000 barrels of petroleum per day.

13

Today’s electric hybrids are a step in the right direction to reducing our dependence on petroleum, with the Prius traveling about 50 miles per gallon of gasoline.

But because the only source of energy for today’s hybrids is the gasoline, some of

that energy must go into charging the batteries, limiting the overall vehicle efficiency.

I’m excited by the prospect of plug-in hybrids because they are able to store more

electrical energy on-board, meaning they can travel farther on their initial charge

and the gasoline carried on board. Plug-ins can also reduce the overall amount of

pollution because power plants are more efficient at controlling combustion emissions than vehicles are.

One question I do have, however, is what impact plug-in hybrid use will have on

our nation’s electricity grid if we are successful in convincing hundreds of millions

of Americans to purchase and use plug-in hybrid vehicles. In California, we don’t

have a whole lot of electricity to spare.

Advocates for plug-in hybrids say that we will recharge these cars at night, when

most of the demand is base load, so it won’t be a problem. But if we get enough

people to adopt plug-in hybrid technology, will we exceed the capacity of the base

load generation and need to use more power plants, ones that use natural gas as

a fuel?

If so, then I fear we would just be shifting our addiction from one petrochemical

to another. Hopefully the witnesses will address this in their testimony or in the

Question and Answer period.

I share the Chairwoman’s enthusiasm for this technology, and I look forward to

hearing the testimony. Thanks again to the witnesses for being here, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Honda.

Any additional opening statements submitted by Members may

be added to the record.

[The prepared statement by Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee

to discuss a draft of legislation sponsored by Representative Smith, to promote research and development (R&D) on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are hybrid cars with an added battery. As the

term suggests, plug-in hybrids—which look and perform much like ‘‘regular’’ cars—

can be plugged in each night at home, or during the workday at a parking garage,

and charged. Plug-ins run on the stored energy for much of a typical day’s driving—

depending on the size of the battery up to 60 miles per charge. When the charge

is used up, the car automatically keeps running on the fuel in the fuel tank. Therefore, plug-in hybrids can deliver dramatic improvements in fuel economy by driving

their first 25 to 50 miles on clean renewable electric fuel for about one-fourth the

price of gasoline before turning on the combustion engine. Many experts contend

that widespread use of plug-in hybrids could significantly contribute to the reduction of emissions and dependency on foreign oil.

While hybrid-plug in cars could benefit consumers because of their greater fuel

economy and the relatively low cost of energy from the electric grid, I am interested

in learning what are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercialization

of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to be taken to address these

hurdles. In addition, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on their assessment of the discussion draft. Thank you.

[The prepared statement by Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. We have a number of witnesses

here today to discuss the feasibility of plug-in hybrid vehicles and how they can help

America lessen its dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

I would like to provide a special Texas welcome to Mr. Roger Duncan, who is the

Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy and a fellow Texan.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to see this Subcommittee focused on the issue of energy as it relates to this nation’s transportation needs.

Gas prices continue to escalate, especially in Texas. Pair that with the issue of

urban sprawl, what we’re seeing is an energy crisis that experts predict will affect

American’s spending and vacation plans this coming summer.

14

Congress must provide strong leadership to spur research and development in the

areas of energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

Again, I am pleased we are having this discussion today and welcome the witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Madame Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to explore the development

and relevance of plug-in hybrid technology, and to discuss the merits of legislation

that promotes research and development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

As we are all aware, this country faces both short-term and long-term energy crises, most immediately evidenced by gas prices that creep higher every day. Our dependence on oil, and the negative consequences inherent in this dependency, is well

documented and one of the few policy issues over which there is no partisan dispute.

The plug-in technology combines a significantly more powerful battery with gasoline fuel, with the added benefit of being able to plug in the vehicle to an electricity

outlet and recharge the battery. At this time, the batteries last for approximately

20 to 30 miles, which is, coincidentally, the average American commuting distance.

Imagine spending money only to fuel long-distance drives, and recharging your car

completely every night!

The fuel economy and energy efficiency of plug-in hybrid vehicles could benefit

consumers and the economy as a whole. The legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to pursue further research on technology such as high capacity and high efficiency batteries, as well as research into lightweight materials, which can also affect

the efficiency of the car.

One of the many reasons I enjoy sitting on this subcommittee is the frequent exposure and discovery of innovative policy options. I am so pleased today to have the

opportunity to discuss one consumer option that appears feasible and practical, and

that is likely to prove its worth in the marketplace. I applaud all of the witnesses

for their efforts in making electric vehicles even more of a reality.

Thank you Madame Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And at this time, I would like to introduce

our witnesses and thank you all for coming this morning.

First, we have Dr. Andy Frank. He is a Professor in the Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Department at the University of

California, Davis, and the Director of the UC Davis Hybrid Electric

Vehicle Research Center. Welcome.

I would now like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Smith, to introduce the next witness.

Mr. SMITH. I thank you, Madame Chairman.

First of all, let me thank you for having this hearing on the general subject of hybrid vehicles and more specifically on the discussion draft of the bill ‘‘The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of

2006,’’ which I expect to introduce in a few days with your good

support as an original co-sponsor, and I thank you for that.

I would like to introduce Roger Duncan, who is from my home

state of Texas and also from Austin, which is a city that is in my

Congressional district. He is here to share his knowledge of plugin hybrid electric technology.

Mr. Duncan has been a leader in energy conservation and environmental policy for over 20 years. He is the Deputy General Manger of Austin Energy, which is the Nation’s tenth largest community-owned electric utility.

Since joining the City of Austin’s management staff in 1989, he

has overseen the development and implementation of water and air

quality programs, environmental reviews, and energy and water

conservation programs.

15

Prior to his service in city management, he served four years as

a city council member. So, Madame Chair, I think we should probably call him honorable today, among other terms.

He also serves as a board member of the Electric Drive Transportation Association and is the campaign coordinator for Plug-In

Partners.

He has been recognized by BusinessWeek Magazine as one of the

20 top leaders of the decade in the effort to reduce gases that cause

global warming.

So I am pleased to introduce him today to our fellow colleagues

on this committee, but I also have to say, Madame Chairman, that

because of a markup on the Homeland Security Committee on

which I also sit, I am going to need to leave after his testimony,

but I do intend to stay at least for that amount of time.

And thank you again for the privilege of introducing a constituent.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

It must be Wednesday morning. We seem to have a lot of hearings every Wednesday. We are all trying to be in three places at

once.

Next, Dr. Duvall, is a Technology Development Manger for Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles in the Electric Power Research Institute’s, or EPRI, Science & Technology Division. He currently oversees EPRI’s Grid-Connected Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Working Group and is EPRI’s technical lead for the

DaimlerChrysler-EPRI Plug-in Hybrid Electric Sprinter Van Program. Welcome.

And next we have Dr. John German. He is a Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. German is the author of a variety of technical papers

and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles published by the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome, Mr. German.

Mr. Gordon, our Ranking Member on the Science Committee, is

here to introduce the next witness.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Madame Chair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce one of my

home boys. Dr. Cliff Ricketts is one of the most innovative individuals I know. He has held the land speed record for hydrogen vehicles at the Bonneville Salt Flats for 15 years and has experimented

with a variety of electric hybrid and biodiesel fuel vehicles in his

30 years at my alma mater, Middle Tennessee State University. He

has also worked with solar energy and has a 10-kilowatt solar unit

that banks electricity with the local electric supplier to charge his

own hybrid vehicle and hybrid—and produce hydrogen from water

through electrolysis to operate his own internal combustion automobile. The only two sources of energy that runs his vehicles are

sun and water.

But I think the importance of Dr. Ricketts being here today is

he represents a cadre of hundreds, maybe thousands, of garage

innovators all around this country that are working with virtually

no resources but only their own innovation. And it is my hope that

we are going to be able to find them ways to get the resources so

that we can spark a new technology here. I am convinced that

there are Orville and Wilbur Wrights in our midst, and we just

16

have to go out and find them. And Dr. Ricketts, I think, is at the

head of that stream.

So thank you, Dr. Ricketts, for being here today.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

And last, but not least, we have Dr. Dan Santini. He is a senior

economist in the Energy Systems Division of Argonne National

Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research as well as the

former Chair of the Alternative Fuels Committee of the National

Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board. Thank you

very much for being here.

As I am sure the witnesses know, spoken testimony will be limited to five minutes each, after which the Members will have five

minutes each to ask questions. So try and keep somewhat near to

that limit. I know you have a lot to say, and I really look forward

to hearing from you.

And we will begin with Dr. Frank.

Dr. Frank, could you turn on the microphone, please, and pull it

a little bit closer?

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW A. FRANK, PROFESSOR, MECHANICAL AND AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Dr. FRANK. Okay. Here we go.

I am going to waste a minute of my precious time right here, but

I will play this little clip from——

[Video.]

Okay. Now I am going to address some questions that I think

Mr. Honda had just started, but here are some questions.

What major R&D work remains for plug-in hybrids technology

and what needs to be prioritized?

I think the most important thing is: a lot of the R&D has been

done by many of us sitting here at the table, but the most important thing is it is not ready for production. Pre-production vehicles

and demonstrations are really needed. And we have got to develop

a supply chain. There are pieces of the supply chain not completed,

and that is one of the reasons why car companies say, ‘‘Well, we

can’t put these in production tomorrow.’’

But in terms of the priorities for a demo fleet, I think we would

have to focus on the most important, the mid-sized, high-volume

car and then the minivan and small SUVs. I think Ford has already started that. And we need to go to compact cars, like Prius.

But we have to convert these to plug-ins.

Finally, the objective is to obtain feedback from customers and

the manufacturing of the structure with the supply chain development, and then, of course, how much are we going to charge for

these.

And then, most important is to integrate with the electric utilities, and Dr. Duvall will talk about that and what we should do.

But beyond the utilities, we need to consider wind and solar.

So do the feds support plug-in hybrids now? Well, we have had

some support in the past, but my support has primarily come from

student competitions, surprisingly enough, from the U.S. DOE, so

I have to thank people for that. But it is really, and as I think the

chairperson said this morning, they didn’t hear about it last year.

17

Anyway, government support is needed today to build a fleet of, I

think, 100 advanced, fully-engineered, plug-in hybrids just to demonstrate.

But the—one of the big issues is electric range. How far should

these things go? Ten or sixty miles? What I have done is I have

demonstrated that 60 miles is possible, but it may not be economically feasible. So OAMs are talking about that. How much is it going to cost? Well, I don’t know, but I think $50

million or so would get us started.

Convincing the oil companies—and what technical and social

barriers are needed in convincing the auto and oil companies? You

know, when you introduce these to the oil companies, they say,

‘‘You mean, you want to support something that is going to reduce

the use of oil? That doesn’t help our business.’’ But in actual fact,

it does. And the reason why is oil is a world market, and what oil

we don’t use in this country at a low cost will sell in the world market at a higher cost. So they will make more money rather than

less. So it will—it behooves them to support this as well. And I

know they haven’t supported it in the past.

Auto companies, it is the same thing. If we, in our American auto

companies, don’t do something, foreign car companies will jump in

immediately.

Ethanol. You know, the problem with ethanol is—we have cars

that will burn ethanol, but we don’t have an ethanol—we don’t

have an infrastructure to make ethanol. With a plug-in hybrid, we

have infrastructure to—for electricity, but we don’t have cars that

use electricity. So what we really need to do is to marry these two

concepts with the largest and quickest impact on oil reduction.

Use of plug-in hybrids to integrate rooftop solar and wind. I am

not talking about big solar and wind, in other words, vehicle home

office systems with rooftop solar can be all integrated. And what

this will do is create new industries and jobs for Americans. And

so anyway—and it will improve and move us towards a zero CO2

emission society.

What is, as pointed out by the Chairperson, the most important

thing is the cost of fuel. Fuel using electricity—using gasoline is

about 15 cents per mile, but using electricity from the power plants

is around three cents per mile. So you know, that is a major difference. Of course, using solar, you drive that even—down lower.

What we don’t want to do is step back in technology.

What are our technical and social barriers to the widespread

adoption to PHEVs? We have an acceptance of home fueling, and

I—by the way, you can’t just plug these things into any old plug.

You really need to have properly installed electric plugs in garages

and so on. You see, the City of Davis has already passed an ordinance that every garage, new construction garage, has to have an

EV-charging plug in the garage, so that is the kind of thing that

has to be done.

We change our habits a little bit, because, as you point out, you

plug it into the house and the most important thing is by fueling

at home, you reduce your trips to the gas station from 35 times a

year to about five times a year.

And for the electric grid, on the electric grid size, you really—you

know, there is always the question that Mr. Honda pointed out.

18

Okay, what is going to happen to the grid? We have all of these

hundreds of millions of cars plugged in. Eventually, we are going

to have to go to something like the grid-wise system of the U.S.

DOE where you only get a charge when the power company has it.

All right. So I think—am I running out of five minutes? Yeah.

Okay. I will skip to the conclusion here.

I made this chart here, which shows the gasoline—gallons of gasoline saved per year for all electric ranges, ranging from zero

range, so that is a regular hybrid, up to 40 miles. So when the

President said all electric cars—plug-in hybrids with 40 miles

range is kind of an optimum, he was right. Forty miles—beyond

forty miles of all electric range, there isn’t much gain, because you

don’t save much more gasoline after that.

Okay. Conclusions. R&D for plug-in hybrids has been done and

ready for pre-production. We need 25 to 50 pre-production, completely engineered, properly integrated systems on existing cars to

show that mass manufacturing can be done. And we need standards for design and tests by SAE and EPA and CARB, because at

this current time, the standards for testing cars don’t apply to

plug-in hybrids. It is very important to redevelop that. And then

finally, we need to integrate plug-in hybrids with small solar, wind,

and ethanol and move towards—move the United States towards

zero oil, coal, and CO2. In the end, we can end up with an improved lifestyle and a much more energy-efficient society without

any change in infrastructure.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANDREW A. FRANK

Professor Frank received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1967 from the University of Southern California, he has a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, 1955 and 1957 from UC–Berkeley. He worked in the aerospace industry for over ten years on such projects as the Minute Man Missile, and the Apollo space craft to the Moon. He holds patents on helicopter stability systems from

this period.

After his Ph.D. from USC in 1967, he became a Professor at the University of

Wisconsin. While there, his research turned toward advance transportation systems

for much higher fuel efficiency. A goal of developing cars with 100 mpg and 0 to

60 mph in six seconds or less was set then. He began research on the hybrid electric

drive train to improve fuel efficiency. He received nine patents in the next 18 years

on various flywheel and electric drive systems for automobiles. He left Wisconsin for

his present position at the University of California–Davis in 1985.

Since coming to UC–Davis, he has continued research into super fuel efficiency.

In 1992 he and his student team set the world record in super fuel efficiency by

constructing a car with his students that achieved 3300 mpg on gasoline and another car at 2200 mpg on M–85. These vehicles set the boundary of what is possible

but are not real practical cars since they weigh less than 100 lbs.

Since then he and his students have been designing and constructing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles which have the capability of using electric energy from the utility system and ordinary gasoline. All this research is being done in the U.S. DOE

GATE Center for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research. Recent studies from the Center

show that such cars will reduce gasoline consumption by 75 percent or more, and

provide two times the energy efficiency while providing zero emission driving capability with no change in the energy infrastructure. As part of this research program

a large amount of effort is also being spent on Continuously Variable Transmission

design development and theory. The research in the CVT allows vehicles to be either a conventional vehicle or a hybrid with no change in the power train. The CVT

systems designed by Dr. Frank and associates have no power or torque limitations

and are over 95 percent efficient. At the Center, we have developed world class research in these areas.

Professor Frank is the author of over 120 publications and currently holds 27 patents with many more pending.

Professor Frank has worked as a consultant on patent problems, electrical accidents, and design defect cases for the last 30 years.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Dr. Frank.

Mr. Duncan, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER DUNCAN, DEPUTY GENERAL

MANAGER, AUSTIN ENERGY IN TEXAS

Mr. DUNCAN. Madame Chairman and Members of Congress,

thank you for inviting me today to give testimony on the proposed

legislation regarding plug-in hybrid vehicles. We have several expert witnesses today to speak to the technical aspects of how a

flexible fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle works, and the state of research

and development of such a vehicle.

In my opinion, any obstacles in research and development will be

met by the proposed legislation. I believe that the battery issues

can be rather easily addressed, and I do not think that there are

any major infrastructure issues to overcome, because the infrastructure is the existing electric grid.

The main obstacle I see to widespread commercial application of

these vehicles is automotive industry inertia based on a perception

that there is not a commercially viable market. So today, I will

focus on customer acceptance and the potential market for these

vehicles, specifically the Plug-In Partners campaign currently being

conducted by the City of Austin.

We became very excited in Austin when we found out about plugin hybrid electric vehicles. These vehicles can reduce America’s reliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
58

ance on foreign oil, decrease greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and help Americans save on fuel costs.

In Austin, citizens could charge their vehicles overnight and then

drive around town the next day on the electric equivalent of 75-

cents-a-gallon gasoline. The equivalent cost of electricity in our nation anywhere is under a dollar a gallon. And we were also very

excited in Austin when we realized that we could use our Green

Choice renewable energy program, which is primarily wind-based,

as a transportation fuel.

Our Mayor, Will Wynn, now proudly tells people that in Austin

we intend to replace Middle Eastern oil with West Texas wind. And

the fueling infrastructure is already in place. In fact, we have an

alternative vehicle fueling station in this hearing room today: the

electric wall socket.

Last August, our city, county, chamber of commerce, and local

environmentalists joined together to kickoff the Plug In Austin

campaign. Our utility is setting aside $1 million in rebates for the

first plug-in hybrids in our service area. And we came up with the

idea of ‘‘soft’’ fleet orders, asking our partners to seriously consider

purchasing such vehicles if they became available.

We realized, however, that the automakers were not going to

make these vehicles just for Austin, Texas, even though we are the

home of the national champion Texas Longhorns.

So my Mayor and Council said to take this campaign to the 50

largest cities in the Nation, and we launched the Plug-In Partners

campaign here in Washington four months ago.

Today, we are proud to be joined in this effort by cities such as

Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Dallas,

Fort Worth, Memphis, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, San

Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and many other cities and counties.

Since we are promoting a flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid, the American Corn Growers Association and the Soybean Producers of

America have joined us.

Our broad-based coalition now has over 200 partners throughout

state and local governments, non-profit organizations, including environmental and national security organizations, public and private

utilities, and businesses.

We already have ‘‘soft’’ fleet orders for over 5,000 vehicles.

But almost all of our partners ask me the same question: where

can I get one? The proposed legislation will be very helpful in this

regard. The demonstration program in this legislation will directly

address our most pressing need, providing demonstration vehicles

to the state and local governments, businesses, and other Plug-In

Partners. We will help in matching the great consumer demand

that we are uncovering with the demonstration program proposed

in this legislation.

The only additional recommendation I have is to consider federal

fleet commitments. The diversity of federal vehicles would provide

a wonderful testing and demonstration platform for this new technology. We would also ask you to encourage the Postal Service to

transition their neighborhood delivery vehicles to plug-in hybrids

and to perhaps provide incentives to the post office for that transition. This type of vehicle is perfect for this technology, and it would

show everyone in the country what they are.

59

In conclusion, we believe the proposed legislation is a very important step in addressing the energy crisis facing this nation and encourage you to move forward with it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER DUNCAN

Madame Chairman and Members of Congress, thank you for inviting me today

to give testimony on the proposed legislation regarding plug-in hybrid vehicles. Solving the energy crises that America faces today requires new and innovative thinking

and I am glad to see that this committee has focused on what I consider to be one

of the prime solutions.

You have several expert witnesses today to speak to the technical aspects of how

a flexible fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle works and the state of research and development of such a vehicle. In my opinion, any obstacles in research and development

will be met by the proposed legislation. I believe that the battery issues can be easily addressed and I do not think there are any major infrastructure issues to overcome—because the infrastructure is the existing electric grid.

The main obstacle I see to widespread commercial application of these vehicles

is automotive industry inertia based on a perception that there is not a commercially viable market. So today I will focus on customer acceptance and the potential

market for these vehicles—specifically the Plug-In Partners campaign currently

being conducted by the City of Austin.

We became very excited in Austin when we found out about plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles. These vehicles can reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, decrease greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and help Americans save on fuel costs.

Also, plug-in hybrid vehicles can also be built with flexible fuel engines, magnifying the national security, environmental and economic benefits while also increasing business for American agriculture.

In Austin we are particularly interested in electricity because if an Austin citizen

could charge their vehicle overnight, they could drive around town the next day on

the electric equivalent of 75 cents a gallon gasoline. As we checked utility rates

around the country, we realized that the equivalent cost of electricity anywhere in

our nation is under a dollar a gallon. And we were also very excited in Austin when

we realized that we could use our Green Choice renewable energy program, which

is primarily wind-based, as a transportation fuel.

Our Mayor, Will Wynn, now proudly tells people that in Austin we intend to substitute West Texas wind for Middle Eastern oil. And the fueling infrastructure is

already in place. In fact, we have an alternative vehicle fueling station in this hearing room today, the ordinary electric wall socket.

Our Mayor and Council launched Plug-in Austin last August. The city, county,

chamber of commerce, and local environmentalists joined together to kick off the

campaign. Austin Energy, the City of Austin’s public utility, is setting aside a million dollars in rebates for the first plug-in hybrids in our service area. And we came

up with the idea of ‘‘soft’’ fleet orders, asking our partners to seriously consider purchasing such vehicles if they became available.

We realized, however, that the automakers were not going to make these vehicles

just for Austin, Texas—even though we are the home of the national champion

Texas Longhorns.

So out Mayor and Council said to take this campaign to the 50 largest cities in

the Nation and we launched the Plug-In Partners campaign here in Washington

four months ago.

Today we are proud to have been joined in this effort by cities such as Chicago,

Los Angeles, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Dallas, Fort Worth, Memphis, Denver, Salt

Lake City, Kansas City, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and many other cities and

counties.

Since we are promoting a flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid, the American Corn Growers

Association and the Soybean Producers of America have joined the coalition.

Our broad based coalition now has over 200 partners throughout State and local

governments, non-profit organizations—including environmental and national security organizations, public and private utilities, and businesses. We already have

‘‘soft’’ fleet orders for over 5,000 vehicles. A complete list of our partners had been

provided.

But almost all our partners ask me the same question—where can I get one? And

this is one place where I think the proposed legislation will be very helpful. The

demonstration program proposed in the legislation will directly address our most

60

pressing need—providing demonstration vehicles to the State and local governments, businesses and other Plug-In Partners. We will help in matching the great

consumer demand that we are uncovering with the demonstration program proposed

in this legislation.

If I were to recommend that anything at all be added to the legislation, it would

be consideration of federal fleet commitments. The diversity of federal vehicles

would provide a wonderful testing and demonstration platform for this new technology. We would also ask you to encourage the Postal Service to transition their

neighborhood delivery vehicles to plug-in hybrids and to perhaps provide incentives

to the Post Office for that transition. These types of vehicles are perfect for this

technology, and it would show everyone in the country what they are.

In conclusion, we believe the proposed legislation is a very important step in addressing the energy crises facing this nation and encourage you to move forward

with it. Thank you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROGER DUNCAN

Roger Duncan is the Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy, the Municipal

Utility for Austin, Texas. He manages Strategic Planning, Government Relations,

On-site Generation, Demand-side Management, and Green Building for the Utility.

Prior to joining Austin Energy, Mr. Duncan was Director of the Environmental Department for the City of Austin and was elected to two terms on the Austin City

Council.

Mr. Duncan is currently Co-chair of the Urban Consortium Sustainability Council

and serves on the Board of Directors of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. He also is a member of the

Western Governor’s Association Committee on Energy Efficiency and was appointed

by the Secretary of Energy to the Federal Energy Management Advisory Council.

Mr. Duncan holds a B.A. degree with a major in Philosophy, University of Texas

at Austin.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

I have to say that you did forget one city when you were mentioning all of those, and that is Naperville, Illinois, which is the

largest city in my suburban Chicago district, but they are a PlugIn Partner and one of the campaign’s founding members. I am not

sure if the campaign has switched to—from cities to individuals

yet, but if it has, that makes the list. I would buy a plug-in hybrid

if they were available today.

Thank you.

Dr. Duvall, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK S. DUVALL, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION & SPECIALTY VEHICLES, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DIVISION,

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI)

Dr. DUVALL. Thank you, Chairman Biggert, for the opportunity

to address your committee.

I would like to briefly highlight a few key points of the written

testimony I have submitted in response to questions posed by the

Committee, and I look forward to any additional inquiries you

have.

In 2000, EPRI created a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group.

It was a collaboration with Ford, General Motors, several of our

utility members, some state and local agencies, and two National

Laboratories, Argonne National Lab, and the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, and others. This group of stakeholders completed the first comprehensive study on the benefits, costs, technical challenges, and market potential of conventional hybrid and

plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

61

EPRI used this study as a roadmap to guide research and development activities over the past six years on battery technology,

control system development, infrastructure, and also on environmental analysis. While the R&D continues, EPRI has worked with

others to inform federal and State policy-makers about the energy

security benefits of plug-in hybrids, reducing U.S. dependency on

petroleum while maintaining the usefulness and utility of conventional automobiles.

During this work, we found that the cost and durability and safety of advanced battery technologies were high-priority development

issues, followed closely by other overall electric drive system development and integration issues. Our current experience suggests

that these technologies are sufficiently well developed to move

plug-in hybrid technology to the market for early entry. It further

suggests that continuing R&D on key component technologies is

critical and has the potential to significantly improve the performance of the technology, especially with respect to advanced batteries.

I would like to highlight three important actions that can dramatically improve near-term prospects for plug-in hybrid vehicles,

and which I believe are also supported well by the draft legislation.

The first is to establish programs with automotive manufacturers

to develop production prototype plug-in hybrid vehicles and to demonstrate them with private and public fleets. One example of this

type of program is a collaboration between EPRI and

DaimlerChrysler with several electric utilities and the South Coast

Air Quality Management District in southern California to test a

fleet of plug-in hybrid delivery vans with advanced battery technology. These prototypes are currently undergoing extensive testing

in Germany and Los Angeles and currently demonstrating excellent performance with the potential to provide long-term durability

in a demanding application.

The second is to develop a plan for acquiring and deploying larger fleets of plug-in hybrid vehicles in various vehicle platforms and

configurations for multiple locations across the United States. Plugin hybrid vehicles have a wide variety of application to different

platforms. We should not assume that they are only for small passenger cars. They can serve many different needs. One example is

that EPRI and some of the utilities are working with a major hybrid drive system manufacturer to develop a plug-in hybrid electric

utility vehicle that can go and repair distribution lines in neighborhoods using only electricity, without exposing the operator to harmful diesel emissions, and while providing backup power to customers during some outages.

There are always additional costs and risks associated with the

development of new technology, and large scale fleet demonstrations help to minimize these issues and build market familiarity

with plug-in hybrids and create a minimum level of certainty for

the first-to-market manufacturers.

Finally, the creation of national research programs focused on increasing the overall performance of batteries, electric drive systems, and power electronics. The Department of Energy recently

held a meeting to define key plug-in hybrid research challenges,

62

and this effort should be fully supported as much and as soon as

possible.

One of the most important benefits of plug-in hybrid vehicles is

the ability to diversify our transportation energy sources by displacing a portion of the sector’s petroleum consumption with electricity. At high levels of market penetration, PHEVs can achieve

dramatic reductions in petroleum consumption with a modest increase in the nationwide electricity demand. The electric sector has

a large capacity to provide for electricity for transportation uses

with minimal adverse impact and several significant potential benefits to the electric grid as a whole.

The effort to move PHEVs into commercialization must be a serious one, given the current status of the technologies. And this is

an achievable near-term objective with enormous potential to reduce national petroleum consumption, to lower transportation fuel

costs, to diversify and secure transportation energy sources, and to

reduce vehicle emissions.

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Biggert and the Members of Congress for your attention, and I look forward to your

questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Duvall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK S. DUVALL

On behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute, I appreciate the opportunity

to address your committee. My remarks will offer a brief history of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicle development, the current status of the technology and answers to

some questions posed by Committee staff.

Recent History of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Development

In 2000, EPRI created a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group (HEVWG) in conjunction with Ford, General Motors, Argonne National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, New York Power Authority, Southern Company and Southern California Edison. The HEVWG was supported by a consulting team with a

strong background in marketing, emissions, and cost analysis.

The resulting study that compared the benefits, costs and challenges between conventional vehicles, hybrid vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) set the stage

for additional research over the past six years on battery technology, control system

development, infrastructure, and environmental analysis. While R&D continues,

EPRI has worked with other advocates to inform federal and State policy-makers

about the energy security benefits of plug-in hybrids—reducing U.S. dependency on

petroleum while maintaining the usefulness and utility of conventional automobiles.

This R&D work identified the challenges facing plug-in hybrid commercialization.

We found that the cost and durability of advanced battery technologies was the

highest priority, followed closely by battery system and drive system vehicle integration and coordinated energy management. The analysis to date suggests that the

technology, control systems and advanced battery systems are sufficient to move

plug-in hybrid technology to the market at an early entry level. It further suggests

that continued R&D on key component technologies is critical, especially advanced

batteries. Additional analysis and experience with the vehicle and systems can lead

to further optimization as test data is applied to the design of motor and engine

systems, and engine/motor coordination strategies are further refined.

Current Status

At this time, plug-in hybrid technology is at the prototype stage, although with

excellent prospects for near-term commercial development. As one example, EPRI

and DaimlerChrysler are working with several electric utilities and the South Coast

Air Quality Management District to test a small fleet of PHEVs with advanced battery technology. These prototypes are undergoing testing in Germany and Los Angeles. They are demonstrating excellent performance, and have the potential to demonstrate long-term durability.

Current battery technology is also proceeding well. The most recent batteries

demonstrate excellent safety, power performance, and laboratory life. Future chalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
63

lenges will include verifying lifetime testing in field testing, and developing production facilities to ramp up the availability of this technology.

Questions

What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be

prioritized?

What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to be taken to

address these hurdles (batteries, infrastructure, consumer preference,

automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)?

There are three main technical challenges which will need to be addressed in the

commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: first, proof of concept of high

performance energy batteries capable of PHEV operation; second, the development

of a robust supplier base for automotive electric motors and hybrid vehicle components; third, the coordination of a safe and usable set of charging standards.

The first and primary challenge is the validation of batteries capable of meeting

PHEV operation requirements. This is a considerable challenge which has been

under evaluation for many years, but this work has made tremendous progress and

the batteries which are currently available in prototype form are capable of meeting

PHEV requirements. Although more basic research can always be helpful, the best

way to address the battery challenge is to increase testing of current pre-production

technology and push forward towards meeting the production challenges.

The development of a robust supplier base is an important second step. Plug-in

hybrid vehicles are generally similar to conventional hybrid vehicles, so an important first step is increasing the potential pool of component users and component

suppliers so that economies of scale can be generated as quickly as possible. This

is a broad effort that will have to be addressed on a nationwide basis.

The third challenge is the coordination of a safe and usable set of charging standards. Americans need to know that charging their vehicles is as safe and easy as

charging their cell phones. This is the easiest challenge to meet from a technical

standpoint, but it will require active participation from regulators, the automotive

industry, and the electric power industry.

How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government do to

accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

The most important question is what the Federal Government can do to help. The

primary hurdle to plug-in hybrid development is the uncertainty of the market for

electric transportation. In order to build batteries and components at a reasonable

cost, considerable up-front capital investment is required. Although public comments by national leaders in support of PHEVs have been tremendously helpful,

government can help further address this challenge by sending a clear signal that

it supports this technology in the future. The following measures can be an important first step:

• Establish a program with the automotive manufacturers to create prototype

demonstrations with a focus on near-term applications.

• Develop a plan for acquiring a fleet of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in various configurations to be operated in multiple locations across the United

States.

• As fleet data becomes available, collect and share the operating data to appropriately inform consumers and fleet operators about the benefits of plug-in

hybrid technology.

• Direct the appropriate regulators to develop a certification test protocol for

plug-in hybrid drive systems to maximize the benefits received by the manufacturer and consumer.

• Create an education program that informs the general public on the attributes of plug-in technology. In addition, create a program which reaches

into the university level to educate science and engineering students on all

types of electric-drive technology.

• Direct the national research programs to focus development on increasing the

performance of batteries, electric drive systems, and power electronics. The

Department of Energy recently held a summit laying out the research chalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

lenges; this effort should be fully funded and expanded as much and as soon

as possible.

Does the discussion draft address the most significant barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

EPRI has reviewed the discussion draft and is of the opinion that it addresses the

most critical technical challenges to the development and adoption of plug-in hybrid

vehicles. There is a high degree of correlation between the discussion draft and the

six priorities listed by EPRI in response to the previous question.

How much additional energy demand could the electricity grid and utilities absorb if PHEV users decided to charge their vehicles in the middle

of the day during peak power demand?

It is important to place the energy requirements of plug-in hybrids in perspective

with current and projected U.S. electrical energy demands. A typical battery charger

for a plug-in hybrid will draw about 1400 watts of power from a 120 volt outlet and

be active for about two to eight hours per day. This is roughly equivalent to an electric space heater. Several analyses by EPRI or the DOE estimate the energy demand of plug-in hybrids, even at 50 percent market penetration, at between four

and seven percent of total U.S. electricity demand. By 2050, total U.S. electrical demand is projected by the EIA to grow by almost 100 percent, 200 million plug-in

hybrids (with an equivalent of 20 miles of electric range), driven and charged daily

by their owners, would be responsible for approximately four to seven percent of this

growth.

It will take many years to reach even this level of electrical energy consumption—

the charging load from PHEVs will grow slowly and predictably. The total PHEV

charging load is anticipated to be relatively consistent and electric utilities and system operators will be able to accurately monitor and react to the adoption of the

vehicles.

What would be the likely net impact in criteria pollutant emissions and

greenhouse gas emissions with the commercialization of PHEVs?

There are two primary components to the criteria pollutants of PHEVs—upstream

emissions—produced by the refineries that produce the gasoline or diesel fuel and

power plants that generate the electricity to recharge the batteries—and tailpipe

emissions produced when driving the vehicles.

Utilities today operate under a number of different compliance requirements for

criteria emissions. In many cases key pollutants are capped. The recent EPA Clean

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) has established new, lower limits on the emissions of

SOΧ and NOΧ. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) will set a strict limit on mercury emissions. When these federal regulations are combined with State and local

requirements, the general result is that each year utilities must generate more and

more energy while decreasing the total amount of pollutants generated. A historical

review of electric sector emissions in the U.S. shows a steady growth in demand

(typically one to two percent per year) alongside a steady decline in emissions.

There is significant potential for PHEVs to improve urban air quality by the

elimination of a portion of the tailpipe emissions. PHEVs with a moderate ability

to operate in an all-electric driving mode can reduce the emissions associated with

‘‘cold starts’’ of the combustion engine. These vehicles can also operate using only

electricity for extended stop-and-go driving in cities or other congested areas.

The greenhouse gas emissions of a plug-in hybrid are the sum of tailpipe emissions from the combustion of fuel, refinery emissions, and power plant emissions.

Plug-in hybrids use less hydrocarbon fuel and have lower refinery and tailpipe

greenhouse gas emissions than either conventional vehicles or non-grid hybrids that

are commercially available today. PHEVs have the added greenhouse gas emissions

produced by generating electricity to recharge the battery.

Plug-in hybrids that are recharged from today’s national electric grid will have

37 percent fewer GHG emissions than conventional cars and 13 percent fewer than

comparable hybrids. However, it is more useful to look at the future characteristics

of electricity in the U.S. when there would be significant numbers of PHEVs in the

market.

The carbon intensity of the electric sector is declining year-over-year. This is due

to several factors, including the retirement of old, inefficient fossil plants (many of

which are more than 50–70 years old), construction of new more efficient power

plants, and introduction of renewables and other non-emitting technologies. As the

utility sector reduces carbon intensity, the greenhouse gas emissions of PHEVs that

are recharged from this electricity will also decline.

65

The degree to which the electric sector reduces carbon intensity depends on a

number of factors, including the rate of introduction and cost of new technologies,

cost of different energy feedstocks, and governmental policy. EPRI has simulated a

number of future cases for up to 200 million PHEVs in the U.S. by the year 2050

as part of our current work characterizing the emissions characteristics of plug-in

hybrids. Each of these cases, including a ‘‘worst case’’ scenario of minimum technology introduction and no downward drivers on CO2, resulted in a minimum GHG

reduction of 44 percent compared to a conventional car.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK S. DUVALL

Mark S. Duvall is the Manager of Technology Development for Electric Transportation at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit organization

whose mission is to provide collaborative science and technology solutions for the

electric power industry.

Dr. Duvall conducts research and technology development efforts in advanced

transportation, including hybrid system design, advanced energy storage, vehicle efficiency, systems modeling, and environmental analysis. His primary focus is plugin hybrid electric vehicles and he oversees a number of EPRI research partnerships

and collaborations with the automotive industry, State and federal agencies, national laboratories, and academic research institutions.

Dr. Duvall holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Davis and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue

University.

66

67

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Duvall.

Mr. German, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN GERMAN, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY ANALYSES FOR AMERICAN HONDA

MOTOR COMPANY

Mr. GERMAN. Yes. Good morning, Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Honda thanks you for the opportunity to provide our views on

the subject of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

However, before beginning my testimony, I want to share with

the Subcommittee several energy announcements Honda is making

this morning.

First, Honda has established a goal to increase its industry-leading corporate average fuel economy by five percent from 2005 to

2010, resulting in a combined car and light truck CAFE fleet average of about 30.6 miles per gallon.

Second, we will introduce new diesel technology that achieves

tier 2 bin 5 emission levels within the next three years without

using Urea.

Third, we will introduce an all new and more affordable dedicated hybrid car with a goal of 100,000 sales in North America in

2009. These new commitments are part of our company’s ‘‘2010 Vision: Commitment for the Future.’’

The automotive industry is in a period of unprecedented technology development. Gasoline development is still proceeding rapidly. The manufacturers are working hard on diesels that can meet

the U.S. emission standards. Honda is producing third-generation

hybrid electric vehicles, and most other manufacturers have also,

or will be introducing hybrid electric vehicles.

Honda continues to make a dedicated compressed natural gas vehicle, the Civic GX, and a number of manufacturers are—produce

flexible-fuel vehicles that run on gasoline or E–85.

Fuel cells are being heavily researched and developed, and plugin hybrids are yet another advanced technology that merits further

examination.

The development of all technologies is accelerating in response to

growing concerns about energy security and global warming. Global

demand for transportation energy is so immense that no single

technology can possibly be the solution. There is no ‘‘magic bullet.’’

We are going to need rapid development and implementation of as

many feasible technologies as possible. But what is cutting-edge

one day can quickly become outdated. And Honda, as well as other

manufacturers, is constantly exploring a variety of technologies to

achieve energy sustainability.

Thus technology-specific mandates cannot get us where we need

to go. Performance requirements and incentives supported by research and development are much more effective.

Plug-in hybrids have a lot of promise, especially to displace oil

consumption. However, plug-in hybrids and advanced batteries are

still in the early stages of development. In that regard, the thrust

of the draft legislation on research and development makes a great

deal of sense.

68

The Subcommittee asked that I address the obstacles facing the

widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid vehicles and

the steps that need to be taken. There are many issues that still

need to be addressed. The extra batteries required for plug-in applications are heavy, decreasing performance, and take up valuable

interior space. Plug-in systems must be safe and easy to use, and

customer acceptance to plugging in the vehicle must be evaluated.

Performance must be preserved, which means that either a larger,

more costly electrical propulsion system must be installed, or the

engine must be used for harder accelerations and higher speeds,

which has potential emission implications.

From a societal point of view, there are additional issues with

criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions. How the electricity is generated will have a significant impact on benefits other than energy

security.

While these are all legitimate issues that need further research,

the issue of energy storage is much more significant. Although current hybrid vehicles have relatively small battery packs, the battery pack is still the largest single cost of the hybrid system. In addition, the energy flow in conventional hybrids is carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that the battery pack will last the

life of the vehicle.

The battery pack for a plug-in hybrid must be many times larger.

This adds thousands of dollars to the initial price of the vehicle and

detracts from performance and interior space. Further, the battery

pack is routinely discharged during electric-only operation and is

subject to higher temperatures and rapid energy draws to maintain

performance. This would cause much faster deterioration of the

battery pack and a shorter battery life.

The lithium-ion battery is being promoted by some as the answer

to these challenges. However, despite intense development of lithium-ion batteries for many years, durability has not been proven,

they are more susceptible to damage than nickel metal hydride,

and they do not perform well in cold or hot environments. End-oflife battery disposal may be a larger issue for lithium-ion than for

nickel metal hydride, as the raw materials in the nickel metal hydride battery are much more valuable.

Cost effectiveness is the major issue. Even at $3 per gallon and

including the cost of electricity to recharge the battery pack, adding

plug-in capacity to a conventional hybrid car would initially cost

about $3,000—I am sorry, would save about $3,000 over the vehicle

lifetime. These energy savings would likely be offset just by the initial incremental costs of the additional batteries, even in high-volume applications. If you add in the costs of shorter battery life,

lower performance, less interior space, off-board charging systems,

plus the customer discounting of fuel savings, customer acceptance

is going to be a major challenge unless fuel prices rise to substantially more than $3 per gallon, fuel shortages occur, plug-in hybrids

are heavily subsidized, or there is a breakthrough in energy storage.

Thus, by far, the most important action the government can take

is research into improved energy storage. Honda strongly supports

the research program outlined in the House plug-in discussion

draft. Hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, have a great deal of

69

promise, and the potential issues should be adequately investigated

for solutions, especially energy storage. Until improved batteries

can be developed, there is little need to assess customer acceptability or conduct vehicle demonstration projects.

As Dr. Duvall mentioned, the Department of Energy held a workshop on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on May 4–5. This was an

excellent workshop, and I request that the paper be used as the

basis for the workshop you submitted for the record. The Department of Energy’s work in this area should be supported and funded

by Congress.

I appreciate the opportunity to present Honda’s views, and I

would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. German follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN GERMAN

Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name

is John German and I am Manager of Environmental and Energy Analysis with

American Honda Motor Company. We thank you for the opportunity to provide

Honda’s views on the subject of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

The automotive industry is in a period of unprecedented technology development,

encompassing everything from gasoline engines and transmissions to diesels, hybrid-electric vehicles, fuel cells, and vehicles powered by alternative fuels. The efficiency of the conventional gasoline engine has improved by 1.5 to two percent per

year for the last 20 years, although these gains have largely gone into features more

highly valued by customers than fuel economy, such as performance, utility, luxury,

and safety. Gasoline technology development is still proceeding rapidly, with variable valve timing, direct fuel injection, variable cylinder displacement, and turbocharging all on the horizon. Diesel engines have also seen dramatic improvement

in recent years and manufacturers are working hard to meet the U.S. emission

standards. Hybrid-electric vehicles are in their second and third generation at Toyota and Honda and most other manufacturers have also or will be introducing hybrid-electric vehicles. Honda continues to market a dedicated compressed natural

gas vehicle, the Civic GX, and is backing it with development of a home natural

gas refueling system developed by Fuelmaker, called PHILL. A number of manufacturers produce flexible-fuel vehicles that run on gasoline or E–85. Development of

battery-electric vehicles continues and they have found a niche in neighborhood vehicles for closed communities. And, of course fuel cells are being heavily researched

and developed. Different companies are working on different technologies, which is

the optimal way and makes good use of competition.

Development of all technologies is accelerating in response to growing concerns

about energy security and global warming. Global demand for transportation energy

is so immense that no single technology can possibly be the solution. Fuel cells

might be the final solution someday, but the challenges of hydrogen production,

transport, and storage will take a long time to solve and implement, especially on

the volume demanded for transportation worldwide. Biofuels are promising and can

replace some fuel use, but even development of cellulosic ethanol only has the potential to displace, at most, 10 to 20 percent of the world’s oil demand. The point is

that there is no magic bullet—we are going to need rapid development and implementation of as many feasible technologies as possible. Honda is developing technology that meets both the needs of our customers and those of society. What was

cutting edge one day can quickly become out dated. Thus we are constantly exploring a variety of technologies to achieve energy sustainability.

Given the rapid changes in technology, performance-based incentives are the best

way to move the ball forward. It is impossible to predict the pace of technology development and when breakthroughs will or will not occur. Accordingly, technologyspecific mandates cannot get us where we need to go. In fact, previous attempts to

mandate specific technologies have a poor track record, such as the attempt to promote methanol in the 1990s and the California electric vehicle mandate. The primary effect of technology-specific mandates is to divert precious resources from

other development programs that likely are much more promising. If there are to

be mandates, they should be stated in terms of performance requirements, with incentives and supported by research and development.

With respect to plug-in hybrids, it is really too early in the development of hybrid

vehicles and advanced batteries to predict whether plug-in vehicles will reach their

70

hoped-for potential. Plug-in hybrids have a lot of promise, especially to displace oil

consumption. They need and deserve further research and development. In that regard, the thrust of the draft legislation makes a good deal of sense. Before plugin vehicles can be viable, however, there are a number of technology, consumer acceptance, environmental and cost issues that still need to be addressed.

A. Battery Weight and Size and Motor Performance Demands

The extra batteries add 175 to 500 pounds to the vehicle, which decreases performance, and it is difficult to find space for the extra batteries without detracting

from the utility of the vehicle. Systems to plug the vehicle in to the electric grid

must be safe and easy to use. Customer reaction to having to plug in the vehicle

is largely unknown. Performance must be preserved, which means that either the

electric motor and energy storage must provide performance equivalent to the engine; or the engine must be started and used with the electric motor for harder accelerations and higher speeds.

If the engine is not turned on for high accelerations, the vehicle is entirely dependent on the electrical system for acceleration. This requires a much larger electric motor and power electronics, which adds cost and weight and requires more

cooling. The high electrical demand during high accelerations also generates high

battery temperatures and accelerates battery deterioration. Adding an ultra-capacitor to handle the high loads might solve the battery problem, but this adds yet

more cost and takes up additional space.

If the engine is turned on only during high accelerations, emissions become a

major issue. Catalytic converters are used to reduce most of the harmful emissions

from the engine. However, these converters must be at least 350 degrees Centigrade

(660 degrees Fahrenheit) to function properly. If the engine is off most of the time,

catalyst temperatures will drop well below the level needed for conversion of emissions and tailpipe emissions will be orders of magnitude higher. Also note that current emission and fuel economy test procedures are not designed to accurately measure emissions from these types of vehicles and would have to be revised.

B. Energy Storage

However, while these are all legitimate issues that need further development, the

issue of energy storage is the most significant. Some industry analysts have been

critical of hybrids because they cost more and the fuel savings are not recoverable

in the short term. Although current hybrid vehicles have relatively small battery

packs, the battery pack is still the single largest cost of the hybrid system. Further,

energy flow in conventional hybrids is carefully monitored and controlled to ensure

maximum battery life. The battery state-of-charge is never allowed to rise above

about 80 percent or drop below about 20 percent, where more deterioration occurs.

Battery temperatures are carefully monitored at many points inside the battery

pack and battery assist and regeneration is limited when necessary to keep the temperature at levels that ensure low deterioration. Also, the duty cycle of a conventional hybrid usually just changes the battery state-of-charge by a few percent of

the total energy capacity. As a result of these efforts, the NiMH battery packs in

current hybrid vehicles are expected to last the life of the vehicle.

The battery pack must be many times larger for a plug-in hybrid, even with just

a 20-mile electric range. This adds thousands of dollars to the initial price of the

vehicle, not to mention the impact the extra batteries have on weight and interior

space. Further, the battery pack is now subjected to deep discharge cycles during

electric-only operation and to much higher electrical loads and temperatures to

maintain performance. This will cause much more rapid deterioration of the battery

pack, likely requiring replacement of the battery pack at least once during the vehicle life.

The lithium-ion battery is being promoted by some as the answer to these challenges. Lithium-ion has the promise to increase energy and power density compared

to NiMH, perhaps by as much as 100 percent, which would reduce the weight and

size impacts. However, despite intense development of Lithium-ion batteries for

many years, durability has not been proven, they are more susceptible to damage

than NiMH, and they do not perform well in cold or hot environments. Additionally,

Lithium-ion batteries are expensive and may not offer significant cost savings compared to NiMH batteries.

C. Cost Effectiveness Challenge

Let’s examine the real world economic problem posed by the battery storage issue

using a specific example to help illustrate the issues. According to statements made

by Mark Duvall of EPRI at the SAE Government/Industry Meeting on May 10,

about 40 percent of the duty cycle of a plug-in hybrid should be electric-only operation. For a typical vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles, this means that about 60,000

71

miles will be accumulated while the battery is being charge depleted. For a vehicle

with an all-electric range of 20 miles, this requires that the battery pack be able

to tolerate 3,000 deep discharge cycles without significant energy or power storage

deterioration. Note that assumptions about the proportion of operation in chargedepleting mode directly affect the number of deep discharge cycles that the battery

pack must be able to tolerate. For example, if the vehicle operates in charge-depleting mode 60 percent of the time, the battery pack will be used for 90,000 miles and

it must be able to tolerate 4,500 deep discharge cycles or it will need to be replaced.

3,000 deep discharge cycles is the current goal for Lithium-ion batteries, but it has

not been proven yet, especially under the range of temperatures and operating conditions experienced in the real world.

For our example, let us assume that the starting point for a plug-in hybrid is the

Toyota Prius. Real world fuel economy for the Prius is in the 45–50 mpg range. To

be conservative, we will assume 45 mpg. Thus, for 150,000 miles, the Prius will use

3,333 gallons of fuel. If 40 percent of the mileage on the Prius is in charge-depleting

mode, then the fuel savings will be 40 percent of 3,333 gallons, or 1,333 gallons.

Even at $3 per gallon, the fuel savings for a plug-in vehicle like the Prius is only

$4,000 over the average vehicle lifetime. After factoring in the electricity cost to recharge the battery pack, which would be at least $1,000, the net savings to the consumer is less than $3,000. Even if the Lithium-ion battery meets all of its targets,

the incremental cost of just the additional batteries in high volume applications

would be close to the lifetime fuel savings. This ignores the tradeoff between electric

motor size and emissions, the performance penalty from the additional weight of the

batteries, the space needed for the batteries, the higher deterioration rate and increased risk of battery replacement due to the deep discharge cycles, and the cost

of safe off-board charging systems. From a manufacturers’ and customers’ point of

view, there is no business case unless fuel prices rises to substantially more than

$3 per gallon, fuel shortages occur, plug-in hybrids are heavily subsidized, or there

is a breakthrough in energy storage. By far the most important action the government can take is research into improved energy storage.

Until improved batteries can be developed with lower cost and better durability,

there is little need to assess customer acceptability or conduct vehicle demonstration

projects. However, customer discounting of fuel savings is a potential long-term barrier that eventually will need to be overcome. While some customers value fuel savings more highly, the average new vehicle customer only values the fuel savings for

roughly his or her period of ownership, or about 50,000 miles. This means that, at

$3 per gallon, the average new vehicle customer would only value a plug-in hybrid

at about $1,000. Of course, this would change dramatically if fuel shortages were

to occur. The government may also wish to explore ways to incentivize the full useful life savings to manufacturers or customers.

D. Environmental Considerations

From a societal point of view, there are additional issues with criteria pollutants

and CO2 emissions. How the electricity is generated will have a significant impact

on benefits other than energy security. If coal is the primary source of the energy,

criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions will be higher with the plug-in hybrid. If renewable sources of energy are used to generate the electricity, plug-in hybrids can

offer benefits for clean air and global warming. Another societal issue is end-of-life

battery disposal. This is not likely to be a problem for NiMH batteries, as the raw

materials are very valuable and recyclers will be active in setting up systems to recycle the batteries. However, it may be a problem for Lithium-ion batteries, where

the raw materials are far less valuable. These are all additional areas for research.

E. Additional Research Is Needed

Honda strongly supports the research program outlined in the House discussion

draft of the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006. Hybrids, including plug-in

hybrids have a great deal of promise and their potential issues should be actively

investigated for solutions, especially energy storage. The outlined research program

is the best way for the Federal Government to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Fortunately, the Department of Energy is already developing plans to identify

plug-in hybrid research needs and solutions. The Department of Energy held a

Workshop on Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on May 4–5, 2006 to discuss issues

and questions on plug-in hybrid research needs. The paper issued in advance of the

workshop presented an excellent outline of the advantages of plug-in hybrids, the

challenges faced, especially energy storage, the technical gaps, and the questions

that need to be answered. The paper is an excellent resource for planning future

research and development for plug-in hybrids and should be read by everyone interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
72

ested in promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Department of Energy’s work in this

area should be supported and funded by Congress.

I appreciate the opportunity to present Honda’s views and would be happy to address any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN GERMAN

John German is Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses for American

Honda Motor Company. His responsibilities include anything connected with environmental and energy matters, with an emphasis on being a liaison between

Honda’s R&D people in Japan and regulatory affairs.

Mr. German has been involved with advanced technology and fuel economy since

joining Chrysler in 1976, where he spent eight years in Powertrain Engineering

working on fuel economy issues. Prior to joining Honda eight years ago, he spent

13 years doing research and writing regulations for EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources’

laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI. Mr. German is the author of a variety of technical papers and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles published by SAE. He was the

first recipient of the recently established Barry D. McNutt award, presented annually by SAE for Excellence in Automotive Policy Analysis.

He has a Bachelor’s degree in Physics from the University of Michigan and got

over halfway through an MBA before he came to his senses.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. German.

Dr. Ricketts, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. S. CLIFFORD RICKETTS, PROFESSOR, AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION, SCHOOL OF AGRIBUSINESS AND

AGRISCIENCE, MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. RICKETTS. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I want to focus my comments on flex-fuel. It was mentioned in

the draft legislation, but it—and you mentioned it, I think, once in

your opening statement, so all the things that I say today is going

to pyramid in to flex-fuel.

I believe the help with the high fuel costs lies in plug-in flex-fuel,

and I emphasize flex-fuel hybrid vehicles. I believe the legislation

is on track, but I believe it can do more.

Now let me explain my rationale.

I have been working with alternative fuel since 1978. In the

early 1970s and 1980s, we did an ethanol engine, ran ethanol from

corn. Our whole objective was to make the American farming energy independent in the time of a national crisis. That is why an

ag. boy is here against these heavyweights today from the agricultural production point of view.

After we ran an engine off of corn, our next endeavor was to run

engines off cow manure. Well, that was from methane. That actually led to my next goal, and that was running engines off of water.

On October 14, 1987, we ran our first engine for eight seconds off

of hydrogen from water. Four years later, we set the land speed

record at the Bonneville Salt Flats with our hydrogen vehicle and

held it for several years. Then we ran an engine off soybean oil,

now called soy diesel. And actually, I didn’t know it was called that

in 1991, but we had a flex-fuel vehicle in 1991 that ran off hydrogen, propane, and gas, or a combination of any of those fuels. And

then one of our latest things was to run an electric vehicle.

However, my ultimate goal has always been to run engines off

water, specifically sun and water.

Now that brings us up to where we are today, and let me talk

about the plug-in flex-fuel vehicle, because I think this legislation,

from a personal point of view, brings my research into focus from

73

the last 25 to 30 years. Everything that we have done so far can

be pyramided into this flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle. I believe we

can have some legislation, again, by beefing up the flex-fuel part.

It was only eluded to in a couple of places, so let me briefly say

that what we are doing now, my vision for the future and why flexfuel is important to be added to this legislation.

Now Representative Gordon mentioned earlier that we are running engines off of sun and water. Let me tell you how we are

doing this.

We installed a 10-kW cylinder unit through the Green Switch

program with Tennessee Valley Authority. It goes into the

Murfreesboro Electric Gridline, which is under the umbrella of

TVA. Now with the aide of automatic readings and computers and

calculations and so forth, all of the electricity is monitored. Since

the unit was started March 9, 2004, that little unit has produced

over 28,000 kilowatts. The system works analogous to the banking

system. The energy is stored in the bank for use at any time, day

or night, sunny or cloudy. And when the electric component plugin of the electric hybrid is charged, the kilowatts used are counted

through another meter. So in other words, the electricity is taken

from the bank, and an immediate balance is also available by comparing the difference in the input meter and the output meter. The

present kilowatt balance is 24,000.

Now, when I am starting to do this, I wanted to run the electric

component directly off the solar unit. I wanted to run the hydrogen

component directly off the solar unit, but I was talked out of it, and

I am glad I was. I would have lost 90 percent efficiency.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Dr. Ricketts, your microphone seems to be

cutting out. Maybe if you could just turn it, this part of it, up a

little bit more. No, like this. Yeah, and then pull it a little bit closer to you.

Dr. RICKETTS. Okay.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay.

Dr. RICKETTS. How are we doing now? Okay.

People think you have to have a solar panel on a vehicle for it

to be a solar vehicle. Actually, you don’t. As explained earlier, once

you bank it into the grid, once the vehicle is charged, the electricity

is taken from the bank. Let us say we have to travel to an adjoining county that has a different electric co-op. This hasn’t been developed. This is creative stuff. By using a barcode system, the electric charge of kilowatts could be used to transfer the visited electric

co-op to your home-based co-op. The amount would be charged

against you, or taken from your bank. Now this can work for solar.

It can work for wind. It can work for some other alternative fuels.

Now the same process works with the hydrogen or water component. A similar procedure occurs when the hydrogen is produced.

The kilowatts needed to power the electrolysis is metered. The

banked electricity powers the electrolysis unit which separates the

hydrogen from the water. It goes through several processes that I

won’t bore you with, but eventually, it is compressed and fills an

on-board 5,000 psi carbon wrapped tank.

So by using the system described above, vehicles are driven only

with sources of sun and water.

74

So in conclusion, by adding the flex-fuel part of the legislation to

the plug-in, we could use gasoline, that is what we are trying to

get away from obviously, a plug-in, a solar, a wind, or ethanol, or

hydrogen with this legislation that we are proposing. The thing

that I couldn’t figure out was how to run an internal combustion

spark-ignited engine off soy diesel. So with the flex-fuel hybrid

technology in place as our near innovative technologies come on of

sun and hydrogen, and as they continue to gain momentum, the infrastructure, the vehicle technology will already be in place.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ricketts follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF S. CLIFFORD RICKETTS

Alternative Fuel: Past, Present, and Future

(Plug-in Flex-Fuel Hybrid Electric Vehicles)

PAST

Work on alternative fuel began at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) in

1979. The work was spurred by the fact that the Iranians had taken hostages, and

OPEC was attempting to control the world’s fuel (petroleum) supply. Out of frustration, the author and his students started the conquest for the American farmer to

be energy independent in the time of global crisis.

Running an engine off corn (ethanol) was the first challenge. Although many

other persons or groups were doing similar research making ethanol, it was the persistency of the MTSU team that eventually led to the building and running of an

ethanol-powered truck that ran over 25,000 miles on pure ethanol. Presentations

were made at the 1982 World’s Fair and TVA’s 50th Anniversary Barge Tours.

Having succeeded in building an ethanol-powered vehicle, the next challenge was

to run an engine off cow manure (methane). Once hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide are removed, the gas which remains is CH4 (natural gas). Natural gas engines

were fairly common, and several engines were reviewed that ran off methane. It was

75

found that methane production was viable and methane digesters were available in

selected large dairy farms.

The knowledge gained in the study of methane production lead to the ultimate

challenge; to run an engine off hydrogen from water. On October 14, 1987, the

MTSU team ran an engine for eight seconds off hydrogen from water. The next day

they ran the eight horsepower engine for two minutes.

Since that time, the author and his students have run tractors, cars, trucks, and

stationary engines off hydrogen. The MTSU team was invited to the world’s first

hydrogen race at the 1991 Bonneville Speed Trials at the Great Salt Flats in

Wendover, Utah, where they set the world’s land speed record (timed only) for a hydrogen vehicle. Researchers at MTSU proceeded to build another engine to run off

pure hydrogen. The MTSU team entered the vehicle in the Southern California Timing Association (SCTA) World Finals on October 18, 1992, at the Bonneville Salt

Flats in Wendover, Utah, and set a new world land speed record for pure hydrogenfueled vehicles. The record stood for several years.

76

The next fuel to be tested was soybean oil. An Allis-Chambers diesel tractor engine was placed in a 1975 Corvette. The author and his students placed fourth of

40, behind two entries by NASA and one from American Honda, in an alternative

fuel road rally sponsored by the Florida Solar Energy Commission and others. The

rally started at Cape Canaveral and ended at Disney World. A clogged fuel line resulted from the decomposition of soybean oil. Soybean oil breaks down after six

months.

PRESENT

The lifetime goal of the MTSU research is to run engines off sun and water (hydrogen from water). This is presently happening at Middle Tennessee State University. An electric/hydrogen hybrid truck is presently being developed. The electric

77

component (plug-in) is complete, and the internal hydrogen combustion engine generator set is complete. The range and on-board charging system is in the process

of being tested.

The following explains how to run engines off sun and water.

Sun

A 10-kilowatt unit was installed. The unit was installed by Big Frog Mountain

Energy. Through the Green Power Switch program with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the electricity produced by the solar array goes into the Murfreesboro

Electric Grid Lines within TVA. With the aid of automatic computer readings and

calculations, all the electricity produced is monitored. Since the 10-kilowatt solar

unit was started March 9, 2004, over 28,000 kilowatts have been produced.

The system works analogously to the banking system. The energy is stored in the

‘‘bank’’ for use at any time—day or night, sunny or cloudy. When the electric component (plug-in) of the electric hybrid truck is charged, the kilowatts used are counted

through another meter. In other words, the electricity is taken from the bank and

an immediate balance is also available by comparing the difference in the input

meter and output meter. The kilowatt balance is presently over 24,000. This is

enough stored kilowatts to drive from New York City to Los Angeles, approximately

four road trips. The ‘‘plug-in’’ component of the hydrogen/electric hybrid truck uses

approximately one kilowatt per mile.

Water (Hydrogen)

A similar procedure occurs when the hydrogen is produced. The kilowatts needed

to power the 40 cubic foot per hour electrolysis unit is metered. The unit is a Proton

40 electrolysis unit from the Proton Energy Company. The banked electricity powers

the electrolysis unit which separates the hydrogen and oxygen from the water. The

hydrogen is then temporarily stored in two 500-gallon tanks at 200 psi. Another system, constructed by General Hydrogen, Gallatin, Tennessee (U.S. headquarters),

compresses the hydrogen to fill the 4–K cylinders at 6,500 psi. Using a cascading

system, a 5,000 psi (4.2 kilogram) hydrogen tank is filled on-board the hydrogen

electric/hybrid truck. (NOTE: We also have three hydrogen internal combustion engine cars which can run off sun and hydrogen from water.)

78

By using the system just described, vehicles are being driven with the only power

sources being sun and water. Please note that both the electric component of the

truck and the hydrogen component of the truck could be powered directly from the

solar unit. However, approximately 90 percent of the electricity produced would be

lost. By banking the electricity through the grid, the solar unit is working and saving any time the sun is shining and somewhat when it is cloudy. Time has not permitted energy cost calculations as of today.

FUTURE

I believe the alleviation of the future U.S. energy crisis lies within Plug-in FlexFuel Hybrid Vehicles. I will explain my rationale. At Middle Tennessee State University, as mentioned before, we are running engines off sun and/or water. We are

working on a vehicle that runs off most any fuel. The vehicle is a plug-in hybrid

but not in the sense that modern hybrids are once they have the proper adaptation

kits. Here is my vision for the future, with the versatile use of PHEVs.

*Option 1 (Plug-in wall outlet)—The plug-in hybrid can be driven on short

trips of 20–40 miles simply by plugging into either a 110- or 220-watt outlet. You

get a quicker and deeper charge with 220 current.

*Option 2 (Make it a solar car)—We are doing this at Middle Tennessee State

University. People think that you have to have a solar panel on a vehicle for it to

run off the sun. This is not true. As explained earlier, the 10-kilowatt solar unit

that we have installed at MTSU produces electricity and stores it (‘‘banks it’’) into

the electric grid. Once the vehicle is charged, the stored electricity is taken from

the ‘‘bank.’’ Let us say that we have to travel to an adjoining county that has a different electric cooperative. By using a bar code system, the electrical charge or kilowatts used could be transferred from the visited electric cooperative to your homebased electric cooperative. The amount would be charged against, or taken from,

your ‘‘banked’’ amount. For example, the University is a member of the

Murfreesboro Electric Cooperative, but my home residence is served by Middle Tennessee Electric. Nashville (32 miles away) is a part of Nashville Electric Service.

Electric plug-ins could be installed in selected parking lots with the appropriate bar

code system. This way, people could drive their cars off solar energy without having

a solar unit on board the vehicle. Obviously, the same principle would work with

wind generators.

79

*Option 3 (Gasoline)—For trips with a range over 20–40 miles, the internal

combustion engine starts charging the system and the vehicle works like a normal

hybrid. Even though we are using gasoline, our electric utilities are saying the electricity to move a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) down the road costs about

one-third the cost of the equivalent gasoline at today’s prices.

*Option 4 (Ethanol—E–85)—A flex-fueled vehicle that uses spark plugs can run

off practically anything except diesel fuel and any oil-based alternative fuels (soybean oil, cooking oil, etc.). Ford Motor Company has the Ford F–250 Super Chief

that can run off hydrogen, gasoline, or E–85 ethanol fuel. Option 4, ethanol, would

be used as an alternative to gasoline.

Using E–85 instead of gasoline is also good for the environment because it generates 30 percent less carbon monoxide and 27 percent less CO2 than a comparable

gallon of gasoline, and most of that CO2 is carbon cycle neutral because it is derived

from plants which need CO2 to grow. (E–85 generates 17.06 pounds of CO2 to create

15,500 BTUs compared to the 23.95 pounds for gasoline.) (www.evworld.com/

electrichybrid.cfm)

*Option 5 (Hydrogen from water, separated by the sun)—This process was

explained earlier. I really believe that the fuel of the future is hydrogen and sun.

(NOTE: From an agriculture point of view, I am for ethanol from corn and soybean

oil as fuels. However, realistically, I believe they are only short-term solutions. I believe the price of corn and soybeans in five to ten years will become so expensive

due to agriculture economics (supply and demand) that these products will be cost

prohibitive as a fuel stock. I don’t have a ‘‘handle’’ on the potential of switch grass

and other cellulose materials.)

With the flex-fuel hybrid, the automotive technology will already be in place while

the hydrogen technology continues to gain momentum. Realistically, sun and water

are the most viable fuel alternatives. Once they are gone, we will have no need for

fuel anyway.

Answers to Specific Questions About PHEVs

1. What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be

prioritized?

The biggest obstacles are conversions of the existing hybrids to become plug-in hybrids. The cost of most conversions listed on the Internet was approximately

$10,000. It seems reasonable that if the automotive companies engineered the cars

80

as PHEVs, the cost should not be much more than the price of conventional hybrids

currently coming off the assembly line.

I believe the priority on PHEVs should be developing flex-fuel PHEVs. The rationale for this was given earlier. There are so many options on alternatives to the purchase of foreign oil with flex-fuel PHEVs. There are also environmental and other

implications.

2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and what steps need to be

taken to address these hurdles (batteries, infrastructure, consumer preferences, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)?

Three issues need to be mentioned:

First, the development of the perfect battery is always an issue and a challenge.

If the perfect battery had already been developed, it would have a range of 300–

350 miles with a 15-minute charging time at an affordable cost. Obviously, we are

not there. However, nickel cadmium, nickel-metal hydride batteries, and lithium-ion

are very adaptable and would work quite well with PHEVs. One battery engineer

told me to give him the range needed and he could build the battery. On the other

hand, the cost would probably be prohibitive.

The second issue would be cost competitiveness. Presently, hybrids are around

$4,000 more than an equal counterpart. A PHEV would be around $6,000 more than

a regular car. It seems that a flex-fuel PHEV would be even higher, but I have no

data for proof.

The third issue would be infrastructure. Charging at home would not be a problem; but charging at work, while shopping, or while on simple leisure trips could

pose a problem. Coin-operated charging meters would need to become commonplace.

While visiting the University of Alaska at Fairbanks last summer, I noticed the

electrical outlets at nearly every parking spot. These were a necessity for block heaters on the vehicles with the ¥50° temperatures in the winter. Yet, it was a part

of the infrastructure in Fairbanks, Alaska.

3. How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in

hybrid electric vehicles technologies? What can the Federal Government

do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

I am not aware of any direct federal funding of plug-in electric hybrids. Indirectly,

converted PHEVs have been at U.S. Energy Department-sponsored ‘‘Future Truck’’

competitions. Also, General Dynamics built the U.S. Marine Corps’ diesel-electric

PHEV–20 HUMVEE.

The Federal Government can offer grants to develop a more economic conversion

kit. Secondly, automotive companies need some incentive to build PHEVs. Thirdly,

customers that buy PHEVs or flex-fuel PHEVs could be offered a tax credit between

the difference in cost of a regular automobile and a PHEV or flex-fuel PHEV.

4. Does the discussion draft address the most significant technical barriers

to the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

Yes. However, I do not believe we should overlook the internal combustion engine

for hydrogen. Hydrogen can work with a flex-fuel vehicle. Fuel cells are great, but

the cost makes them a non-issue for several years. The minimum cost for any fuel

cell strong enough to power a highway vehicle would be $55,000 plus the price of

the vehicle. Presently, the cost of construction for a fuel cell is around $700 per kilowatt (1.2 horsepower) compared to $50 per kilowatt for an internal combustion engine.

5. Would commercial applications of PHEVs be delayed by incorporating

flexible fuel capabilities?

I suspect that the commercial applications of PHEVs might be delayed a year or

two. As stated earlier, Ford Motor Company already has a flex-fuel vehicle and a

hybrid. I suspect other manufacturers are close behind. Since the present hybrids

have to be redesigned and engineered to offer the plug-in options, it may take the

same amount of time to develop their flex-fuel vehicle hybrids.

BIOGRAPHY FOR S. CLIFFORD RICKETTS

Dr. S. Cliff Ricketts is a Professor of Agricultural Education and Acting Director

in the School of Agribusiness and Agriscience at Middle Tennessee State University,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

81

Dr. Ricketts has been involved with alternative fuel research since 1978. He and

his students have designed and built engines powered from a variety of sources, including ethanol, methane, soybean oil, hydrogen, solar/electric, and hydrogen/electric

hybrid.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Ricketts.

Now Dr. Santini, who—are you still living in Downers Grove?

Dr. SANTINI. I am in Westmont now.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. You are still in my district, so——

Dr. SANTINI. Right.

Chairwoman BIGGERT.—I am glad for that.

Thank you.

You are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANILO J. SANTINI, SENIOR ECONOMIST,

ENERGY SYSTEMS DIVISION, CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Dr. SANTINI. Thank you.

Madame Chairwoman, Representative Honda, Members of the

Subcommittee, thank you very much for your invitation to testify.

I respond to your request to answer several questions and discuss the draft bill the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.

Your first question was what major research, development, and

demonstration work remains on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies, and how should this be prioritized.

I believe that the highest priority is that Congress and the Department of Energy make a long-term commitment to research and

development of lithium-ion batteries, in particular, and energy

storage, in general, with the focus on needs of plug-in hybrids. The

‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ white paper distributed at the

Department of Energy’s May 4–5 workshop on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which I have included with my written testimony,

stimulated discussion of plug-in priorities. The participating national and international experts have provided excellent guidance

on research priorities. The consensus view of participants was that

plug-in hybrids belong in the research portfolio of the Federal Government.

82

The second question was what are the largest obstacles facing

the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and what steps need to be taken to address these hurdles.

I quote the DOE workshop white paper ‘‘battery technology could

be a showstopper for plug-in hybrids.’’ Lithium-ion batteries are superior to nickel metal hydride in terms of specific energy and specific power, but are not yet competitive in cost per kilowatt hour

per unit of energy. Because of increasing materials cost for nickel

metal hydride batteries and steady power increases and cost per

kilowatt reductions, lithium-ion batteries may soon be used in hybrids, but low costs per kilowatt hour are needed for plug-in hybrids to succeed. Simple adaptation of current parallel hybrids will

not allow consumers to drive all electrically with performance suitable for universal use. Top all-electric operation speeds would not

match current urban and highway test speeds. The need to fully

deplete batteries will reduce battery life relative to conventional

hybrids. There are multiple component alterations and control systems adaptations possible to eliminate or reduce these limitations

but at a cost. Perhaps these would increase marketability, perhaps

not.

A key question is whether we should ever expect or require a

plug-in hybrid to operate all electrically on current test cycles. If

a lesser capability satisfies consumers and significant oil savings

and environmental benefits could be realized, then regulation and

legislation should be adapted to allow this to happen.

DaimlerChrysler and the Electric Power Research Institute plan to

evaluate intermittent engine operation accompanying electric

charge depletion, which would allow electricity to replace gasoline

and diesel fuel without sacrificing vehicle performance. Perhaps

this type of charge depletion strategy with top all-electric speeds

below 55 miles an hour would be the most attractive approach to

cost-effectively achieve oil savings nationwide.

But this option cannot meet present California Air Resources

Board minimum zero-emissions vehicle emissions credit requirement that vehicles operate all electrically for 10 or more consecutive miles on the federal-city test—cycle test. That test requires a

top all-electric speed of 55 miles an hour.

Representative Honda had a question that my next paragraph

addresses.

For decades, infrastructure will be adequate to support a far

larger market penetration to plug-in hybrids than is likely. Interim

reports by colleagues at three National Laboratories and Mark’s

work at the Electric Power Research Institute all imply that national electric infrastructure, both power plants and grid, has overnight charging capacity far in excess of plausible near-term needs.

When this eventually changes, the industry can easily and

smoothly adapt. There may be some regional exceptions, but not

many. Hypothetical mass success of plug-ins has been estimated by

two National Labs to increase electric generation needs only a few

percent and also by colleagues of Mark’s at the Electric Power Research Institute.

However, it is desirable for utilities everywhere to promptly

adopt overnight charging rate options for plug-ins. Automakers

need and deserve this reassurance.

83

The problem for domestic automakers will be scarcity of resources, not resistance to plug-in research, development, and demonstration. They will want to see evidence of success in battery

technology. If they see it, with rate structure encouragement from

electric utilities, I believe they would develop plug-in hybrids. I believe that initial development of plug-in hybrids should focus on

switching from nickel metal hydride to lithium-ion battery packs in

existing and eminent full hybrids, providing 10 to 20 miles of

urban electric range. Chargers should allow inexpensive plugging

in using 110-volt circuits, which are standard in modern houses.

Regulations or incentives requiring significantly more electric

range could delay development.

The third question is how does the Federal Government support

the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies and

what can the Federal Government do to accelerate the development

and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

The authorizations of spending and directions to include research

on plug-in hybrids contained in last year’s Energy Policy Act were

an excellent first step. Appropriation of funds to allow the work authorized is desirable. I anticipate, as mandated plug-in studies are

completed, the wisdom of a significant plug-in program will be

demonstrated. Studies being promoted by the Energy Policy Act

can prove very valuable by validating potential plug-in benefits.

Proponents see promising implications for oil savings, greenhouse

gas reductions, zero-emissions capability, energy savings, electric

utility system efficiency, and emergency services. I expect careful

documentation of reasons for these implications to accelerate emergence of consensus and development and deployment.

The fourth question is does the ‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ paper in the prior DOE meeting address the most significant

technical barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicles.

I do believe that the Department of Energy’s workshop ‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ paper and affiliated morning presentations properly identified the most significant technical and cost

barriers. However, a number of excellent comments and suggestions were developed by experts there, which will lead to desirable

modifications and refinements.

Question five is if a standard zero——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Dr. Santini, if you could, sum up. I am

sure we will get to those other questions.

Dr. SANTINI. Okay.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Dr. SANTINI. I will move to my comments on the Plug-In Hybrid

Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.

I provided some suggestions on wording and several instructions

on plug-in grants. I like the overall content and structure of the

bill. I recommend that plug-ins be allowed to qualify with less than

20 miles of all-electric range. I recommend rewording to allow flexibility in establishing the all-electric driving schedule required to

qualify at the minimum range. I like the decline of per-vehicle

grants over time. I suggested that per-vehicle grants in any given

year be altered to create a sliding scale, increasing in magnitude

with increasing all-electric range capability. I suggested much

84

higher per-vehicle grants through about 2010 with the limit of 50

prototype vehicles per manufacturer, and then after 2010, I suggested that grants be provided to individual manufacturers only if

10,000 or more plug-ins were produced. I noticed that the funding

authorization level of $200 million per year is comparable to the

President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, but I defer to battery and

electric drive experts concerning judgments on how much money is

necessary.

I do understand the desire to authorize a prompt significant expansion in plug-in research, development, and demonstration, and

since I believe results of ongoing studies will be quite positive, I am

not inclined to ask the Subcommittee to await further study.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Santini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANILO J. SANTINI

Introductory remarks

Madame Chairwoman, Representative Honda, and Members of the Subcommittee,

it is my pleasure to submit this written testimony in support of my more brief oral

testimony concerning plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. I respond to the questions

posed in your letter of invitation and provide requested discussion of a draft of the

bill ‘‘Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.’’ I believe that my comments on

the discussion draft bill will be more clearly understood if they come after my responses to the questions. Note that the substance of my answers to the questions

was developed before I saw the draft legislation.

1. What major research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) work remains on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this

work be prioritized?

In recent presentations at meetings organized by the Society of Automotive Engineers in January and May, I included very similar lists of major research needs,

without providing an explicit priority ordering. However, it was not a coincidence

that lithium ion battery research and development was first on the list. In my latest

presentation, I listed lithium-ion battery cost, longevity, and safety as the key priorities.

Concerning the setting of priorities, I participated in the May 4–5 Workshop on

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles at the Department of Energy. This workshop’s purpose was to provide expert guidance to DOE on the priorities for the planned plugin hybrid research program. Before that workshop a ‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ paper was circulated to participants to stimulate discussion. I enclose that

document as supporting written testimony. Although results of that workshop remain to be documented, I think the consensus view of participants was that plugin hybrids belong in the research portfolio of the Federal Government and Department of Energy. I also anticipate that the well-chosen national and international experts will provide excellent guidance on research priorities.

I am confident enough about the potential of plug-in hybrid technology to recommend that Congress and DOE make a long-term commitment to research and development of lithium-ion battery chemistry R&D in particular, and energy storage

in general, with a focus on needs of plug-in hybrids. I am also optimistic that the

workshop participants will agree with my opinion that a second high priority is the

conduct of a comprehensive assessment to determine where plug-in hybrid technology should be in the current RD&D portfolio of federally supported advanced

21st Century transportation powertrain and fuel options. Included in this assessment must be an examination of continuation along the present path. Costs and environmental effects of such options as oil shale, coal-to-liquids, natural-gas-to-liquids, heavy oil, deepwater oil, and arctic oil should be compared with those of improved conventional powertrains, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cell hybrids.

Ethanol and hydrogen should be evaluated as possible fuels for any of these

powertrain options.

In my professional judgment ‘‘demonstration’’ is a very important part of RD&D.

Sustained, but steadily declining real subsidies for critical technologies are very valuable in creating a ‘‘learning-by-doing’’ cost reduction path that cannot be obtained

any other way. I believe that plug-in hybrids should remain on the Nation’s list of

critical transportation energy technologies for a long while. In effect, what governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
85

ment researchers think of as ‘‘demonstration’’ is often in reality the proper handing

over of research and development to the private sector.

2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to be

taken to address these hurdles? (batteries, infrastructure, consumer

preference, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)

Batteries

I quote the aforementioned white paper ‘‘battery technology could be a show-stopper for plug-in hybrids.’’ In fact, value to the customer is the crucial hurdle. Lithium-ion batteries have swept past nickel metal hydride battery technology in consumer electronics. This could happen in hybrid vehicles, but the challenges are

great. Lithium-ion is clearly superior to nickel metal hydride in terms of gravimetric

and volumetric specific energy and specific power, features that have allowed the

packs to be ‘‘dropped into’’ spaces developed for less-capable batteries and thereby

enhance value to the consumer by extending operating time. ‘‘Time is money’’ as

they say, so even though the cost per unit of energy stored ($/kWh) is presently

higher for lithium-ion than nickel metal hydride, it is the runaway winner in consumer electronics. For plug-in hybrids, optimism about lithium-ion competing with

nickel metal hydride batteries arises in part because the costs per unit of energy

of nickel metal hydride batteries have gone up, as a result of rising materials costs.

Switching battery chemistry because of increasing battery cost is not the way to

build a quick mass market for hybrids, but may get potentially more attractive longterm battery chemistry into the plug-in hybrid market, which would be beneficial.

Cost-competitiveness

The fundamental battery discoveries that enabled today’s hybrids were achievement of specific power and longevity far in excess of the expectations of all battery

experts that we surveyed in the mid-1990s. Further, the parallel hybrid powertrain

allowed effective use of much less electric energy storage for hybrids than the 1990s

experts anticipated. Effective use of very small amounts of energy allowed a narrow

state-of-charge swing, which allows battery life to be extended dramatically. The experts we surveyed had anticipated a series hybrid powertrain that would cost more

than an electric vehicle. Instead, the technology commercialized by the Japanese

that succeeded was a parallel hybrid powertrain that costs far less than a comparable electric vehicle, and also costs less than a series hybrid. This commercial

hybrid succeeds economically in part because there is no attempt to make the electric drive suitable for all-electric operation serving universal customer needs.

Consumer acceptance

Therein are problems limiting consumer acceptance of the plug-in hybrid. Adaptation of current parallel hybrids will not allow consumers to drive all-electrically with

performance suitable for universal use. The need to fully deplete batteries should

reduce battery life relative to conventional hybrids. Top all-electric operations

speeds would not match required current urban and highway test speeds. There are

multiple ways to deal with these limitations, too numerous to mention here. All will

add cost, but if adopted successfully could add significant consumer value and marketability to a plug-in hybrid concept.

Nevertheless, a key question is whether we should ever expect or require a plugin hybrid to operate all-electrically on our current test cycles. It may be far more

cost effective to recognize that we cannot afford this capability and develop new test

cycles legitimate for a totally new kind of vehicle. Test cycles are, after all, a reflection of the behavior of the technology being tested. If a combination of attributes

of plug-in hybrids can be found that makes consumers more satisfied, then regulations and legislation should be adapted to allow this satisfaction to be realized.

In the short-run, DaimlerChrysler is not attempting to make its plug-in hybrid

Sprinter serve all needs when operating all-electrically. Selection of the plug-in option by customers using all-electric operation in slow stop-and-go driving may create

a profitable niche market.

An alternative battery charge depletion strategy

DaimlerChrysler and the Electric Power Research Institute also plan to evaluate

intermittent electric operation with charge depletion, which would allow electricity

to replace gasoline or diesel fuel use without sacrifice in vehicle performance. But

this option cannot be guaranteed to provide the extremely low emissions that California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulators originally hoped for when creating its

first emissions credit system for plug-in hybrids required to operate continuously in

all-electric mode for 20 miles or more. Note that CARB has since modified the credit

86

system to allow plug-in hybrids with 10 miles of all-electric range on the city test

cycle to obtain credits. A sliding scale of increasing credits as range increases remains in CARB’s plug-in credit system. I recommend a sliding scale of grants increasing with range in the draft legislation.

For the Nation as a whole, where all-electric operation may seldom be needed for

air quality purposes (many hybrids are already among the cleanest light duty vehicles), charge depletion with intermittent engine operation might be the most attractive approach to consumers. Such hybrids would still have to have emissions as low

as for conventional vehicles. Charge depletion with intermittent engine operation

could be implemented in places and at times when emissions would be low enough

to cause no air quality deterioration.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure is adequate to support a far larger market penetration of plug-in

hybrids than is likely to be seen for decades. Interim reports from ongoing analyses

by colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Electric Power Research are

all highly supportive of the argument that the electric infrastructure—both power

plants and grid—is adequate on a national average basis to serve any plausible

plug-in hybrid market for many years. There are likely some regional exceptions,

but not many. Avoiding charging at times when the grid is at peak load is important, but I am confident that creative minds will readily determine how to avoid

charging at critical times and places. I am also confident that such restrictions will

prove quantitatively paltry relative to annual hours of charging and operation of

plug in hybrids and to total national electricity generation.

To enable any automakers to take advantage of the capability of our infrastructure we need to develop economically legitimate model off-peak incentive rate structures and encourage utilities and Public Utilities Commissions across the Nation to

adopt such rates. This is a critical path item that should be done as rapidly as possible; to assure automakers that the national power generation and distribution industry does support the introduction of plug-in hybrids. Commitment to retention

of the rate structures for a long period is highly desirable.

Automotive inertia

In my opinion, under the current fuel price environment, and given the level of

political as well as geological uncertainty about availability of oil supplies, automotive inertia is no longer the primary problem constraining the development of

plug-in hybrids. Time and scarce resources are now a problem. For U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers, the traditional preference of consumers for large vehicles means

that a shift in oil and gasoline prices has a larger effect on U.S. producers than on

vehicle manufacturers in competing nations. Losses of market share for large domestically produced vehicles occur at the same time that investment in production

of more fuel efficient technology becomes increasingly desirable to U.S. consumers.

This puts U.S. producers in a bind with respect to profitability and capability to develop new technology, even if they are willing.

Because of limited resources, it seems less likely that U.S. automakers will be less

likely to develop a plug-in hybrid in new purpose-built platforms such as the Prius.

Instead, if trying to get a plug-in hybrid vehicle to market promptly, they would be

likely to try to adapt the coming full hybrid powertrains and a vehicle containing

them. DaimlerChrysler is adapting an existing vehicle platform’s powertrain its

plug-in Sprinter program. Adapting existing vehicle models implies limitations on

battery space and all-electric range that could be provided. One recent paper study

by Siemens implied that a lithium ion battery pack option in place of a nickel metal

hydride pack could lead to a hybrid with between 10 and 20 miles of all-electric

range, which is comparable to the expectations for the plug-in Sprinter. Such a capability would be consistent with adoption of cheap 120V overnight charging, with

little or no modification of the wiring in most modern houses, at least for the first

plug-in hybrid in the household. Promotional information on a SAAB hybrid showvehicle indicated that if a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries were achieved in

the next few years, their vehicle could use such a battery and operate all-electrically

at speeds up to about 30 mph and travel 6-12 miles in all-electric mode under those

conditions.

These are the kinds of plug-in hybrids that I would expect to initially emerge in

the market. They may not pass the current California Air Resources Board’s test

to allow plug-in hybrid emissions credits, but they could offer many consumers in

the United States the opportunity to decide whether they would like to have a capability to save gasoline by using electricity and perhaps drive to nearby destinations

all-electrically.

87

Consistent with my professional judgment that demonstration in market niches

is a critical path step to widespread market success for a technology, I am encouraged by the possibility that such plug-in hybrids produced by original equipment

automakers will emerge within a few years. An obstacle would be for the government to try to alter this evolutionary path and push the industry to develop plugin hybrids with so much range and/or all-electric operations capability that major

redesigns of vehicle platforms would be required to accommodate large enough battery packs to comply, and/or powerful enough electric motors.

3. How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in

hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government

do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

The authorizations related to research on plug-in hybrids contained in the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) are an excellent first step. Funds should be allocated

to allow the work. Although I may be premature in saying this, since I’m a scientist

committed to the value of peer review, I do believe that as mandated studies of

plug-in hybrids called for in Section 705 are completed, the wisdom of focusing on

plug-in hybrid vehicles will be strongly supported.

In trying to prepare summaries of ongoing activities by the Federal Government

and private sector for the recent meeting at DOE, I have been very encouraged by

the response to EPACT05. From my perspective as an analyst EPACT05 appears

to have caused a shift in thinking and priorities among the many key parties that

must work cooperatively to make plug-in hybrids succeed. I have found the recent

dialogue very valuable, in that it answers a lot of my questions and strengthens my

opinion that this technology deserves a high priority in a portfolio of options to ensure that U.S. consumers continue to enjoy a high level of transportation services

in the 21st Century, with far less environmental damage.

I believe that the studies that EPACT05 is promoting can be very valuable by illustrating the potential benefits of plug-in technology. In the white paper we mentioned that the enthusiasm for plug-in hybrids that caused the legislation in

EPACT05 arises from promising implications for oil savings, greenhouse gas reductions, timely and well placed zero emissions capability, energy savings, improvement

in electric utility system efficiency, and provision of emergency services. In my opinion, comprehensive confirmation and testing of existing and emerging estimates,

with thorough peer review, will reassure the public, electric utilities, automakers,

government employees, elected representatives and the scientific community that

there is significant merit to steady, deliberate pursuit of success for this technology.

Although the process is often slow, I have always been optimistic that careful technology assessment can result in the most desirable technologies, and eliminate those

that lack merit.

Thus, I believe that Congress should allow RD&D to proceed for a while and then

review the plug-in hybrid RD&D programs for a more detailed needs assessment,

in light of the evolution of events (and battery technology) over the next few years.

I am concerned about EPACT05 Sec. 706 (b) (2). Requiring a minimum of 250

miles per gallon of petroleum consumption to provide funding for plug-in hybrid

demonstrations could cause adversely affect RD&D. In my view, for near-term technology, the only way to meet this requirement would be for the plug-in hybrid to

also be able to run primarily on ethanol, probably as E–85.

Emissions with charge depletion and intermittent engine operation may involve

difficulties for current hybrid emissions control systems running on gasoline, much

less E–85. Our experience with flex-fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles whose emissions

control system was originally designed for gasoline was that when adapted for E–

85 they generally had higher emissions running on E–85 than on gasoline. Thus,

forcing plug-in hybrids to simultaneously develop an ability to use both electricity

and E–85 might create a major ‘‘show slowing’’ impediment to implementation, requiring far more costly emissions control and implementation delays. I would emphasize that a plug-in hybrid is a multi-fuel vehicle, even if it does not have the

ability to run the engine on an alternative fuel. Further, for many years hence the

E–85 fueling capability of conventional powertrain flex-fuel vehicles already in and

entering the market will greatly exceed the quantities of E–85 available. Thus the

EPACT Section 705 (b) (2) requirement satisfies no useful near-term commercialization need. In my opinion, this requirement should be repealed. I am pleased to see

that this requirement does not carry over into the present draft of the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.

88

4. Does the ‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ paper address the most significant technical barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicles?

I believe that the ‘‘Discussion Issues and Questions’’ paper and the affiliated

morning presentations did properly address the most significant technical and cost

barriers, identified opportunities, and educated participants concerning important

considerations outside their field of expertise. However, the reasons for the workshop were to assure that we had not missed anything, confirm that our best judgment was legitimate, and help set priorities among items on our list. Based on my

recollection of the reports of the breakout sessions on May 5, the discussion paper

did set the stage well, but a number of excellent comments and suggestions were

developed by the experts, which will lead to desirable modifications and refinements.

5. If a standard ZEV range was needed to facilitate the commercial application of PHEVs, what would be the optimal ZEV range that would still

allow users to meet their driving needs? What would be the likely impact on fuel economy and oil savings?

One point made at the DOE meeting is that there is no single ZEV range that

will suit all consumers. The ideal range will vary by consumer, depending upon

driving patterns. According to the Electric Power Research Institute’s 2001 study

Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options, consumers with relatively short commutes would always prefer a plug-in hybrid with a relatively short all-electric range, while consumers that had a long commute became

more interested in plug-in hybrids with a lot of all-electric range as the theoretical

cost of the plug-in powertrains came down. Since batteries will probably always be

relatively expensive, it will always be smart to only purchase as much electric range

as you can use in everyday travel. So, just as consumers have a choice of engines

in most vehicle models, the participants thought that consumers should be given options in battery size and electric range capability. In one trade-off analysis by scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, if a single range were picked,

a range between 10 and 20 miles seemed most likely to be cost-effective to the largest number of consumers. If the range of the plug-in hybrid were 20 miles, then

those who only needed 10 miles might not benefit. However, of those being able to

use perhaps 15 miles or more, all were estimated to benefit from a plug-in hybrid

with 20 miles of all-electric range.

Effects of plug-in hybrids on oil savings will depend dramatically on future oil

prices and on regulatory priorities with regard to all-electric operation. Although the

vehicles have so far been evaluated under the assumption of one or less charges per

day, this perspective is too narrow. Possibly a more important question is what is

the plausible range of electricity substitution for gasoline in the event of a range

of gasoline prices? What is the degree of resilience of our economy that would be

provided by the flexibility of consumers owning plug-in hybrids to shift from less

than one charge per day to more than two per day? Could such an increase in charging frequency be accomplished with battery life remaining proportional to total energy throughput?

Oil Savings

The total national benefits depend on two interacting factors—how many vehicles

can be sold, and once they are sold, how much oil each vehicle can save (a variable

quantity, as discussed in the prior paragraph). While plug-in hybrids with a lot of

all-electric range could save more oil per vehicle than plug-in hybrids with only a

small amount of electric range, we don’t know if enough of the vehicles with a lot

of range would be sold. The short term risks to the automobile industry of ‘‘jumping’’

to plug-in hybrids with a lot of all-electric range instead of making less-challenging

adaptations of existing powertrains has not been evaluated in prior studies, but this

would also be a factor to consider.

I believe we should start with plug-in hybrids with an ‘‘electric equivalent’’ range

between 10 and 20 miles, try to learn to use them as cost-effectively as possible to

reduce oil consumption, and hope that RD&D can lead to a steady sequence of battery improvements and cost reductions that allow platform changes to be planned

in advance to take advantage of emerging battery improvements. Perhaps the number of electric range options available to customers in a single vehicle platform could

thereby be expanded.

I am familiar with one idea that might nearly double the energy storage capability of a lithium-ion battery pack of a given amount of material, if successful. If

such a development were to occur, we could nearly double the range of a plug-in

hybrid model by simply switching to a new battery technology, with minimal adapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
89

tation of the vehicle. Admittedly, this may not happen, and it may be that the only

way to extend range would be with physically larger batteries. Nevertheless, the

possibility does illustrate that early emphasis on 10–20 miles of all-electric range

may not be inconsistent with a long-term R&D effort whose goal is to achieve double

that range.

6. How large an impact could PHEVs have in reducing oil consumption

over the next 10 years?

7. How long will it take before we begin to see PHEVs in the marketplace?

The impact on oil consumption is unlikely to be large in the next decade because

the plausible market share of new plug-in hybrids would be hard pressed to exceed

one to two percent at the end of the next decade, with essentially no significant penetration early in the decade.

To help understand how long it takes for a more efficient, but significantly more

costly vehicle to affect total fleet fuel consumption, consider hybrids. Hybrids, available for about a decade, have only reached a little over one percent of the new light

duty vehicle market in 2005. At this rate, to reach one percent of the total fleet of

cars on the road (the vehicle stock) would take nearly one more decade, at which

time hybrids might reduce light duty vehicle oil consumption by about one third of

one percent. Since light duty vehicle oil consumption is about half of total national

oil consumption, this would be one sixth of one percent of national oil consumption.

However, since hybrids are expanding their share of the new light duty vehicle

market, and since consumers drive new vehicles more miles per year, the reality

will be better than this. Nevertheless, this discussion demonstrates limitations involved in turning over the vehicle stock. Successfully penetrating the new vehicle

market is the first step, but it takes several years of continued success to affect the

entire fleet and its oil consumption.

EPACT05 calls for plug-in hybrid commercialization within five years. If the Prius

history is used as a model, the first Prius factory produced 30,000 commercial vehicles per year in 1997. The 2004 Prius comes from a new factory that can produce

well over 100,000 per year. It took over five years to ‘‘mass market’’ sales of Prius

hybrids, after the first model was commercialized. Thus, the Prius path to commercialization implies at least a decade before a tiny fraction of national oil consumption reduction could result from plug-in hybrids. The point is that the process will

be slow during a peaceful, deliberate expansion of the technology.

During a true international crisis with oil supplies restricted for long periods, the

contributions could be far more significant. Though subject to verification in the

market, it does appear that retrofit of a Prius to become a plug-in hybrid is possible.

If research promoted by EPACT05—or by private sector innovators—suggests that

simple plug-in retrofits of several existing and coming hybrids would be possible,

then an option would be to provide incentives for manufacturers to allow for such

retrofits when they produce and sell hybrids, so that such retrofits could be accomplished in the event of a prolonged emergency, or—more optimistically—in the event

of battery breakthroughs during the life of the vehicle.

Alternatively, if the plug-in option becomes ‘‘fashionable’’ to consumers for reasons

other than just saving fuel, the technology could ‘‘take off’’ within the hybrid

powertrain category. My opinion is that, if battery technology does improve enough,

switching from a focus on hybrids to a focus on plug-in hybrids would be a far less

daunting step than was switching from conventional powertrains to hybrids. Further, we must acknowledge that the sense of urgency about reducing oil use is

greater now than in the 1990s when the Prius was developed, so the level of effort

on plug-in hybrids across automobile manufacturers could be significantly greater

in the next decade than for hybrids in the last.

Comments on the draft ‘‘Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006’’

While I have emphasized that a focus on lithium ion batteries is desirable, it is

wise to allow administrative flexibility for energy storage research, as has been done

in the legislation. This flexibility could be extended even further by deleting the

word ‘‘electrochemical’’ in Sec. 2 (1), or substituting ‘‘electrical.’’

It is good that hybrid fuel cell vehicles are included. For Sec. 2 (a) (7) (A) I suggest ‘‘provides motive power by converting either liquid or gaseous fuel to power

and/or uses electric power extracted from an on-board battery.’’ I recommend this

or a similar change to make it clear that a hybrid fuel cell vehicle capable of using

hydrogen is included in the umbrella definition of a hybrid electric vehicle.

For Sec. 2 (a) (5) (B) I suggest ‘‘that uses a fuel cell and stored battery energy

for motive power.’’ It is fair to call this a flexible fuel vehicle because there are a

number of possible original fuels from which hydrogen can be derived.

90

In Sec. 2 (a) (8) I suggest a bit of ‘‘word engineering’’ to allow the flexibility that

I suggested is desirable in my prior answers to questions. Recall that CARB will

now provide credit for 10 miles of all-electric range on the city cycle. If the types

of plug-in hybrids I discussed are to be allowed under this bill’s research umbrella,

I suggest that a lesser range and less difficult driving cycle be allowed for. I recommend that you change ‘‘20 miles under city driving conditions’’ to ‘‘15 miles under

most urban driving conditions.’’ Note that average daily miles driven are about 30

miles. Based on EPRI’s preferred estimate, if a plug-in hybrid with 15 miles of

range were charged once a day, gasoline use would be reduced by 31 percent. This

would be equivalent to a miles per gallon increase of 45 percent.

I like the sliding subsidy scale in Sec. 2 (d). Consistent with the argument that

multiple plug-in hybrid ranges should ultimately be offered to consumers, I suggest

a tiered subsidy. If we think about evolution from 15 to about 40 miles of range,

it is likely that one would go from congested urban driving for the 15–25 mile range,

to relatively free flowing, higher speed suburban cases with 40 miles of range. I expect that, as range goes up, top electric-only speed to cover usual trips would also

increase. To illustrate, for the initial $10,000 per vehicle from 2007 to 2009, one

might allow $3000 for a plug-in hybrid with 15 miles of urban range, $5000 for a

plug-in with 20 miles of city test cycle range, and $8500 for a plug-in with 40 miles

of highway test cycle range. If any of these vehicles were flex-fuel vehicles the subsidy could be increased by $1500. This would allow an automaker to take advantage

of up to $10,000 of subsidy per vehicle. If this idea were acceptable, then similar

allocations could be made for remaining years.

Concerning the funding levels that are to be authorized if the draft bill becomes

law, I note that if these funds were appropriated, expenditure on the plug-in program would be comparable to the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. I also note

that by including fuel cell hybrids the draft bill supports the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and may enhance the odds of success of that program. I like the fact that the

funds would do ‘‘double duty’’ providing another path away from oil dependence via

plugging into the grid, for either combustion engine or fuel cell motive power. Our

ongoing R&D on pathway energy use and greenhouse gases indicates that this may

be a desirable combination even if hydrogen fuel cell breakthroughs are realized.

There are some pathways where generation and use of electricity for a plug-in hybrid will be a better choice than producing hydrogen for a fuel cell, whether or not

the plug-in hybrid uses a fuel cell or combustion engine.

It is quite difficult when attempting to cause technological breakthroughs to know

the probability of success as a function of the amount of money assigned to the task.

I defer to battery and electric drive experts with respect to judgment on how much

money is necessary to cause needed breakthroughs. With regard to oil prices and

energy security, concerns are greater today than when the hydrogen fuel initiative

started, and the circumstance of domestic automobile manufacturing is more precarious. Due to a scarcity of automaker resources and a greater national need, and due

to a degree of optimism about plug-in-hybrids which started several years ago and

which has increased significantly over the last several months, I am supportive of

a very significant increase in funding for plug-in hybrid research, development and

demonstration.

As I have stated, I believe that learning-by-doing is critical, so I support the

grants provision.

It is possible that the allocation of funds might be better tilted toward production

subsidies. $50,000,000 per year, if allocated at $10,000 per plug-in hybrid, would

support only 5000 vehicles. On the other hand, if $3000 were to be adequate to create an incentive for a 15 mile hybrid suitable to run electrically for most urban driving, then one manufacturer’s production run of about 17,000 vehicles could garner

the present draft’s total subsidy for each vehicle produced. Most factories produce

hundreds of thousands of vehicles, while the initial Prius factory produced 30,000

per year. So, if the intention is to cause multiple factories to produce plug-in hybrid

powertrains, the incentives may not stretch far enough. One positive feature of incentives of this nature is that the government only has to pay them if vehicles are

produced. If production capabilities with economies of scale are an intended outcome, I would suggest after 2010 that no manufacturer be allowed any subsidy unless a minimum of 10,000 plug-in hybrid powertrains were produced and sold per

year. Total subsidies, which may need to be larger, could be allocated among all

manufacturers meeting this criterion.

The first steps toward mass production of plug-in hybrids are likely to involve limited runs of prototype vehicles. In its Sprinter program, DaimlerChrysler intends to

follow a sequence from less than five vehicles to 30, then hopefully large fleet tests,

and finally commercialization. This process was anticipated to take four years.

Thus, it might be desirable to alter the subsidy authorization schedule to allow for

91

significantly higher per vehicle subsidies in the first four years for prototype vehicles produced in the dozens. You might consider subsidies as high as $100,000 per

vehicle, up to a total of 50 vehicles per manufacturer from about 2007 to 2010.

Thereafter, impose the 10,000 unit production volume requirement and a per vehicle

maximum grant schedule similar to the present one for any further subsidy. This

would be consistent with the Energy Policy Act goal of commercialization within five

years.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DANILO J. SANTINI

Senior Economist, Section Leader, Technology Analysis, Center for Transportation

Research, Argonne National Laboratory

Danilo Santini obtained his Ph.D. in Urban Systems Engineering and Policy Analysis from Northwestern University in 1976, a Master’s in Business and Economics

from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a Bachelor of Architecture

from MIT in 1968. From 1968 to 1970 he taught Physics and Math at George Washington High School in the Kanawha County school district in West Virginia. He

worked at three Architectural firms over the period 1963–72. He began working at

Argonne National Laboratory in 1974. Dr. Santini was Chair of the Chicago Chapter

of the International Association of Energy Economists from 1985–86. From 1992–

2004 Dr. Santini was section leader of the Technology Assessments section within

the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory, and now

is leader of the Technology Analysis section. He served as Chair of the Alternative

Fuels Committee of the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board

from 1996–2002. In 2003 he was awarded the title Senior Economist. Since May of

2001, he has been the Department of Energy’s primary technical representative for

the U.S. to the International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement on Hybrid

and Electric Vehicles. In 2003 he became a member of the American Transportation

Research Institute’s Research Advisory Committee. Dr. Santini has authored, co-authored or edited 150 articles, reports, and conference papers.

92

93

DISCUSSION

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I thought we were going to have technical

difficulties.

Thank you very much.

And now, at this point, we will open our round of—first round

of questions.

And I recognize myself for five minutes.

My first question is that the legislation that we are considering

has two major components. One is the research on batteries, the

control systems, and the lightweight materials, and the second is

a demonstration component that would add federal dollars to efforts to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles. And right now, the research—right now, the ratio is $5 of research for every dollar of

demonstration. Is this the right ratio and why? If anyone would

like to start, take a stab on that.

Mr. Duncan, you look like——

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.

I cannot say exactly whether it should be five-to-one or whatever.

The people who are more technical and the research and development area can speak to that. I am just happy to see that the $50

million dedicated to demonstration vehicles because that is certainly—there is an overwhelming demand among the people who

learn about plug-in hybrids to have some vehicles spread around

the Nation. Right now, we have a couple of vehicles in California

and some in New York and one in Kansas and trying to move those

vehicles around the Nation to meet the demand of people who want

to see one and drive one is tremendous. So we—I am very happy

that we are providing some money. And I think the important

thing is to get a number of vehicles in various states all at once.

And I do not know if the five-to-one ratio is appropriate, but——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody have any information on that?

Dr. Frank.

Dr. FRANK. I would like to say that, you know, the plug-in hybrid

is—uses components developed by the hybrid cars, and so we are

going just one step further. And while there are still things that

have to be researched, of course, as pointed out by Mr. German at

Honda, but really, I think, at this point, we should be spending

more in demos and less in R&D, because this is near-term technology , and it is not something like the hydrogen program. So I

would like to see the ratio closer to two-to-one.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Let me just follow up with that, then.

There seems to be some disagreement about how—just how far

along these technologies are. And I think Dr. Frank and Dr. Duvall

indicate that they are quite close to the market. And Mr. German,

you seem to cite numerous difficulties. I think that you talk about

the heating and longevity as the main issues with the batteries

and—what has been the experience with batteries in transportation use, and why do you think these are disagreements? And

then I think, Mr. German, you talked about storage, too, and also

mentioned that—what are we going to do with these batteries

when they wear out? And actually, if we have to replace them withVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

in, you know, 90,000 miles, is this—how much of a cost is that

going to be?

Mr. GERMAN. Yeah, the—I think that our hesitation to launch

immediately into demonstration fleets has to do with the previous

demonstration program in California on battery electric vehicles,

which was hugely expensive and did not succeed in advancing battery technology to the point where it could be commercial for battery electric vehicles. And what we are concerned is the same thing

may be happening here is that the—you need a good battery, or a

good source of energy storage of some kind in the system. And it

is critical that we do the R&D on this, and this what we like about

the House proposal. But there is no question that these plug-in batteries are going to be subjected to more severe operating conditions.

They are not going to last as long. And they are very expensive.

I haven’t even talked about the current price, because that is just

prohibitive. You know. We are trying to estimate where the price

might be with further development, and there is a lot of uncertainty there, but even that price is potentially a problem with customer acceptance.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Anybody else like to comment? Dr. Duvall, I think that you had

a different point of view.

Dr. DUVALL. Well, I would present a different point of view, and

that is that our experience has led us to believe that the current

state-of-the-art for automotive batteries, particularly with lithiumion, shows extremely good use—durability in this application. We

are not ready to say that they are ready for production, but they

are certainly ready to move to the next stage, which is to be run

in very rigorous, real-world demonstration programs and a certain

number of them. When we started working on the battery electric

vehicles, the first vehicles launched with very primitive, very shortlived batteries in the mid-1990s, but by the end of the decade, so

before 2000, some of the best vehicles in class were tested by certain utilities up to 150,000 miles of battery life under extremely

rigorous conditions with extremely hot weather charging. So the

technology showed that it could dramatically improve year over

year very quickly.

And the same thing is happening now with lithium-ion batteries.

There is a lot of activity. There are some startling innovations

going on right now that show tremendous potential to improve the

technology. And it is important to understand that a plug-in hybrid

vehicle really relies on its battery, and the better that battery is,

the more electric capability the vehicle has, the more range, the

more petroleum you can displace.

So to really state right now, we believe the best batteries are

very good and good enough to really be run through their paces

and attempt to really understand how long they can last. It is a

different operating cycle than a hybrid, but I think it is unfair to

say that it is directly more severe or less severe. It is different.

That needs to be understood.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

My time has expired.

Mr. Green from Texas, you are recognized.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madame Chairlady.

95

And I would like to thank our Chairman and Ranking Member

for having this hearing. I think the intelligence that we are acquiring is invaluable. And I also thank the members of the panel for

participating.

I attended a meeting this morning wherein our Speaker talked

about the price of oil, in a sense, being a blessing in disguise. By

going up to the extent that it has, it has caused us to focus on

these various alternatives. But then he went on to make another

comment, and that is that there are people in the world who are

capable of manipulating the price of oil such that if we start to

make an inordinate amount of progress, the price of oil can be

brought back down. Now whether that is true or not is debatable.

But first, I ask how important has the price of oil, the escalating

of the price of oil, been to this process? And I see that Dr. Ricketts

is prepared to answer, so why don’t you take the first stab at it.

I read faces quite well.

Dr. RICKETTS. Thank you.

Necessity is the mother of invention. My rule of thumb, it seems to be $2.50. It seems like there is not much excitement until gas

gets $2.50, and then once it gets over $2.50, people start going,

‘‘Wow.’’ Yeah, probably the best thing that could happen in this

country is fuel to go to $5 a gallon and stay there for a year. We

would be having committee meetings every months, we would get

something done, and we will move on with it.

Mr. GREEN. No disrespect, Dr. Ricketts, it may be the best thing,

but I don’t—I suspect some of us might not be sitting here if it happens.

But given that high gas prices can be a benefit, sort of a blessing

in disguise, what type of policies do you envision necessary to assist us such that we can make it through a crisis of $5-a-gallon oil?

How would we work through that?

Dr. RICKETTS. I can’t answer that question, but I was hoping you

would ask me another question——

Mr. GREEN. Okay.

Dr. RICKETTS.—and that was why—that is why I am so strong about flex-fuel. If gas goes back down to $1.50, then with the flexfuel, we will just use the gas component. But if it gets to $5 a gallon, we will use the ethanol or whatever. So that is why I am so

strong on the flex-fuel part of it.

Mr. GREEN. With reference to the hydrogen that you talked

about——

Dr. RICKETTS. Yes.

Mr. GREEN.—is that technology, right now, in its infancy of

course, but is it something that we can assume will, at some point,

replace or will it become a substitute for other technology?

Dr. RICKETTS. In my opinion, the long-term future of this country, I am talking 30-plus years, is with hydrogen and the sun, because once they are done, we won’t have any need for fuel anyway.

I think—I am for ethanol. I am for soy diesel. I am an

agriculturalist, but I believe, at best, they have got a five- to 10-

year run, because just pure agricultural economics, supply and demand, I am afraid corn and soybeans both are going to go so high

that we can’t even feed the country or feed our cattle for our beef

and so forth. Again, that is why I like the flex-fuel. You have got

96

so many options to go. It is almost like we are playing the stock

market. Which fuel am I going to use today? Which one is the best

option?

Mr. GREEN. Dr. Duvall, do you have an additional comment?

Dr. DUVALL. I think one of the keys is diversity. The—you have

to have a diversity of fuels, which will allow you to address this

issue, which right now is high fuel prices, or tomorrow’s issue,

which may be carbon management in the transportation sector, or

it may be something else. And one of the key advantages to electricity, and possibly ultimately hydrogen, is that they are carriers,

energy carriers, that can be generated with a number of—produces

a number of different fuel sources. Also, this is one strength of

biofuels. But I agree with Mr. German’s statement that there is no

silver bullet, that we have a very limited list of options, and we

should explore all of them fully. And many of these, and especially,

we believe, electricity, instantly brings you diversity and can be an

instant, very secure component.

Mr. GREEN. Will the additional use of the electricity, which is

generated from sources other than oil—generally speaking, about

three percent of our electricity comes from oil, as I understand it.

With the additional, however, tax on electricity, will we have

enough of our coal, the wind, and other forms of power, nuclear,

to sustain us with the plug-in cars?

Yes, Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. There is a short-term and a long-term answer to

that. And in the short-term, the answer is an unqualified yes. The

extra capacity in the electric grid, particularly at night, is—as was

addressed in other testimony, is very adequate. You could put millions of these vehicles on the road without having to build a new

power plant of any type.

In the long-term, however, if you are successful in transitioning

a significant portion of our transportation sector over to the electric

grid, you are going to have to build new power plants. And the

questions remain the same, whether the plants are clean coal or

nuclear or solar or wind or whatever, still have to be addressed,

and in fact, in my opinion, this technology raises the stakes in

those decisions. But in the short-term, there is certainly plenty of

capacity for these vehicles without building new power plants.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madame Chairlady.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Schwarz, you are recognized.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Gentlemen, I am going to ask some pie-in-the-sky

questions, and you can give me pie-in-the-sky answers, if you want.

But I just want to get a fix as to where we are with this technology. So just very briefly, I am going to throw these out.

How much oil are we going to save if, for example, in 10 or 15

years 10 or 15 percent of the vehicles on the road are hybrids?

Secondly, I think I am getting some fix from you on what stage

this technology is in right now. You talked about the supply chain

is not ready. Is there interest, real interest, from American companies, like GM and Ford? I know—and I am from Michigan, but are

they serious? In your opinion, are they serious about putting hybrid

97

vehicles on the road as opposed to ethanol-burning vehicles, E–85

compatible vehicles, that sort of thing?

And thirdly, you have got to convince me that hydrogen really is

fuel X. Is there something else out there? Are your labs working

on anything else? It costs money to produce hydrogen. And I am

from Missouri a little bit on whether in the future it really is going

to be hydrogen or not.

So I free-associated a little bit with my questions, and you certainly have my permission to free-associate with your answers—

with your responses.

Thank you.

Dr. FRANK. Can I answer the first part?

I have a slide on the—that I showed. If 10 percent of the cars

were plug-in hybrid, you save about 4.5 percent oil per year, which

is quite a bit, actually. That is enough to make a real dent. So of

course, you have got—but to get to 10 percent plug-in hybrids, it

is going to take five or 10 years, because you don’t replace car

fleet—but—the whole car fleet—new car fleet is only 10 percent of

the fleet—the total fleet. So to get to 10 percent penetration within

the entire car fleet, it is a 10-year program.

So that answers that question.

Dr. SANTINI. The thing that I like about the plug-in hybrid option

is that it gives us—it is part of our research portfolio that would

give us a significant amount of diversity of options. And with respect to hydrogen, the bill does allow for a hydrogen plug-in option

to be researched. And some of the research that we see indicates

that there could be pathways, solar and wind I have in mind, in

particular, would be better, and Andy Frank has pointed this out,

better to simply use the electricity in the plug-in mode rather than

hydrogen under those circumstances. So it would add—it may

make the hydrogen option even more efficient in the very long run.

Another question on the long run, utilities, it—the paper—the

presentation that I submitted into the record that was submitted

at the May 4–5 workshop included analysis by the National Renewable Energy Lab and Argonne colleagues in which they evaluated

the effect on the electric utility industry of massive increases of

plug-in hybrids. We will be lucky if they are right, but going out

to 2040 or 2050, and both of them were optimistic about wind. One

of them estimated, under certain—with the higher-range vehicle,

that wind could actually increase in an amount that would be sufficient to cover the needs of the vehicles themselves, the other just

a share. There is reason to believe that the movement would be toward clean technology, including coal. Actually, the scenarios accelerated the development of the—an implementation of the cleaner

coal technology and market-shared ways that coal can evolve in a

way that it could actually reduce net CO2 emissions. Another thing

I like about the technology is that there are a number of ways that

it could be seen as a benefit, and so it may have staying power if

oil prices drop. I mean, it may—there may be markets where it

would continue to be sold and used because of the air quality benefits. It—people might be interested because climate change is becoming more of an issue and they might buy it simply to show their

commitment to that.

So those are a few thoughts.

98

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Madame Chair.

I see that my time has expired.

I have many questions left on this simply because, as someone

who comes from an auto manufacturing state and has the biggest

plant that General Motors has built in the last 50 years in my district in Delta Township, just outside of Lansing. It is imperative

that we know which way this is going to go. And I don’t know yet

whether the hybrid is the answer, whether ethanol is the answer.

The capacity of ag. to make enough ethanol and soy product comes

up in my district all of the time, so I am fascinated by your answers and by the questions.

And I thank you, Madame Chair.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

The observation that when gasoline went up we could then

switch to ethanol for a flex-fuel vehicle, I would like to suggest that

ethanol prices are very likely to track gas prices, because it is unlikely that we will do better than three-fourths of a gallon of fossil

fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. So there will be an obligatory

linkage between those two.

Right now, coal provides a meaningful amount of our electricity.

And the question is, would it be better to use this electricity to

drive—of course, I am a big, big fan of plug-in hybrids. Or would

it be more efficient simply to use the coal and produce coal oil?

When I was a kid growing up, we didn’t have kerosene lamps. We

had coal oil lamps. I was born in 1926 and Hitler ran all of his

country in World War II on coal oil, and South Africa did the same

thing.

So if we simply are using fossil fuels to produce the electricity,

would—all of them could be converted into a fuel to run cars. I

think that if we are going to go to plug-in hybrids, don’t we have

to have electricity produced by other than fossil fuels or we really

aren’t solving a fundamental problem?

And then I have a question about how quickly we can get there.

And I would like to be there tomorrow, but we have two variables

here. And I know they trade off one against another. One is the

price of oil. How expensive will gasoline have to be before people

are serious about moving to plug-in hybrids? And secondly, how

quickly can we develop batteries that are economically-acceptable?

Of course, the higher gasoline prices go, the more expensive batteries can be and still be acceptable in the market. What is your

best judgment as to—and I know it is anybody’s guess what oil is

going to do. I think it is up and up and ever up with saw teeth

up and down, but more up than down. What is your best guess of

how soon these two things are going to come together so that electric hybrids will be really competitive out there, that is the price

of oil and improvement of batteries?

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I will start and address the first one, and I

am not really the expert on the speed of battery adaptation here.

The other speakers are.

As far as using fuels other than fossil fuels, what really interested Austin in this initially is because we sell more wind power

than any other utility in the Nation, and we saw a way to get wind

99

in as a transportation fuel. And as—and the research that was addressed earlier by Dr. Santini, wind power, alone, has the capability, at least on paper, to meet this transportation need. But it—

I mean, it is a fundamental decision that has to be made and as

in relation to the other decisions on carbon that the Congress and

the Nation need to make. I think there is no question that we have

the technical capability to transition the transportation sector away

from fossil fuels through the electric grid, which has the ability to

take multiple fuels and combine them in any way that you want

to provide a transportation fuel, if you use it that way. And it is

not just the cost of gasoline itself. It is really the spread between

the gasoline cost and other fuels. You mentioned how ethanol is

starting to track and will track gasoline. That is not necessarily the

case for the electric grid in comparison with gasoline, because you

are dealing with totally different fuel structures and infrastructures. So the spread between the electric grid and the liquid fuel

of gasoline and ethanol could grow to be quite great and quite rapidly.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Duncan.

Yes, sir. Go ahead.

Dr. DUVALL. One of the things that EPRI forecasts for the future

in the electric sector is that we have a diversity of energy sources

now, and we will continue to have a diversity of energy sources in

the future. And we can provide some additional information in

writing to show how these scenarios play out, depending on what

the future looks like. There is an aggressive technology development roadmap for coal to be more efficient, to be cleaner, and to

ultimately be low-carbon-emitting at the plant level. So electricity

from coal could ultimately be a very good source, very low-emitting

source for transportation.

This second comment is that, in general, batteries follow a very

strict cost-volume relationship. And so when there is not much production volume, the costs are very high. And when we completely

learn out the manufacturing techniques for batteries and we have

high consistent volume and a lot of competitive choices in the marketplace, battery costs can be minimized. It is still an expensive

component. But at today’s current gas prices, life cycle cost studies

done at EPRI show a variety of very favorable results for hybrid

and plug-in hybrid vehicles of different configurations, and we can

provide examples of those in writing now. So today’s fuel prices

really do, I think, incentivize alternatives and more efficient vehicles.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

Madame Chairman, this is a great hearing. I wish that it occurred 10 years ago then we would still be behind the curve, actually. Thank you very much for holding the hearing. I think that

plug-in hybrids are a great, great partial solution to the pending

liquid fuels crisis that we are facing. And batteries are the pacing

item, and any amount of money that it takes to infuse into that

technology to make this happen sooner would be money well invested for our future.

Thank you very much.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. And I couldn’t

agree more with you. I wish I had known about it 10 years ago,

100

but since I didn’t, I think that we really do have an opportunity

right now to move forward with our main goal, really, which is to

reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and this certainly is one means

of doing that. And I think that the sooner that this can roll out,

the better, as well as all of the other alternatives that we have

talked about. And so I think that this is a real challenge. But we

have the opportunity, and I think, as Mr. Honda had said earlier,

that because of the spiraling of gasoline prices, that it calls our attention to it. What I hope, and what we can’t let happen, is that

we then let this slide when the gas—when the prices start going

down again, as we have done so—in so many cycles before. And I

think with the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative and our

looking at developing GNEP with the nuclear as well as the hydrogen, and I had an opportunity to drive the hydrogen car yesterday,

thanks to Mr. Chairman’s company. It was kind of scary to drive

a $1.5 million car around the streets of Washington, but I made it

without any damage, so—you know, and those things are on the

way, but I think that we have to really take this very seriously and

really do all that we can to—you know, to move us forward on that.

And with that, Mr. Hall, do you have a question?

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madame.

I am—inasmuch as I have not been here, I don’t know the questions that have been asked. I am honored to have Mr. Duncan here

and the knowledge that he brings and the history of success that

he has known and all of them to give their time, travel time, and

testimony time and all. I know that the Chairlady appreciates that,

as I do.

I will submit questions. I am sure you will get that unanimous

consent at the end.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Yes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Yes. Thank you.

All right. Then we will start the second round, and I will ask——

Mr. SHERMAN. Madame Chair?

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Yes.

Mr. SHERMAN. I just came into the room for the first round.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Sherman.

You are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I thank you.

The big problem with electric cars, whether—and the reason why

we are told that we need to put a gasoline engine is their limited

range. And one would hope that we would see new developments

in battery technology that would solve that problem. Another way

to solve that problem, and I would like your comment on it, and

my guess is it doesn’t work because nobody is talking about it, and

it is relatively obvious, is that we could have a system where, say,

the major oil companies, who happen to already have an infrastructure of service stations, would own batteries of, say, 500 pounds,

you would lease those, or—from the oil companies or the service

station chain owners. You would drive in. Somebody would have a

forklift. Imagine service at a service station. It once happened. And

they would remove your depleted 500-pound battery, install a fully

charged one, both of which are the property of the same oil or other

company anyway, and you would drive off for another several hunVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
101

dred miles. But of course, when you use the car just for commuting,

you would just plug it in at your home and recharge the existing

battery, but you know that the car is great for commuting, say, 48

weeks a year and that you can drive across country, if you want

to, on vacation as well.

Put aside the governmental and societal problems of creating an

infrastructure where there are thousands of stations across the

country ready to install a battery that is fully charged and to

charge—and to cause the customer to pay an appropriate amount,

and deal with the technical problems of a battery-switching electric—a nationwide system of battery-switching electric cars, knowing that most of the time they are going to be recharged by the consumer, but on cross-country trips or whatever, or you just happen

to have a lot of driving, you can stop at a service station.

Mr. DUNCAN. Congressman, two responses.

The first is that that is why we were so excited about the plugin hybrid is that it did not have the range limitation of the all-electric vehicle. It is truly a hybrid. If you don’t plug it in or forget to

plug it in, it still goes. So we didn’t have the range limitation and

it didn’t require a special charging station. You could put it into

an ordinary wall socket to charge it.

As far as the second suggestion, I think it is a good suggestion,

and actually, it is my understanding that the French utility EDF

has the type of system that you are talking about where you can

drive in and they will exchange a battery in your vehicle.

Mr. SHERMAN. How much would a—using current or technology

pretty well guaranteed to be available in the next couple of years,

how much would a battery weigh that could get you 200 or 300

miles?

Mr. DUNCAN. I don’t know the answer to that.

Dr. DUVALL. I think Mr. German and I can agree that it would

weigh—it would still be a lot. I think maybe the more critical——

Mr. SHERMAN. Excuse me. Can you—a lot is not the kind of specificity we are used to in the Science Committee.

Dr. DUVALL. Okay. It would be a minimum of a 50- to 60-kilowatt hour battery, which would probably weigh somewhere around

300 to 600 kilograms, depending on how good the battery was. I

think the major——

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are talking over—well over 600 pounds,

and I put forward the idea of a 500——

Dr. DUVALL. The more critical aspect would be the battery would

be extremely expensive, and the architecture of a modern car is extremely complex and may not facilitate the installation. But it requires a lot of volume and a lot of packaging design work to integrate that battery into a vehicle and to integrate it to be easily removable. This is done very common—this is very common for electric material handling equipment. Forklifts with electric batteries

are—often have the batteries changed so that you can run a twoor three-shift operation where you don’t have time to stop the vehicles and charge. But actually, high-power fast charging is becoming

an alternative even there, because there is a certain amount of

time that if you actually did, maybe, the back of the envelope economics, that the labor required to change the batteries and the

added cost, it might not work out as well.

102

Mr. SHERMAN. With high-power recharging, how long would it

take to recharge an automobile with a 200-mile range?

Dr. DUVALL. Twenty to thirty kilowatts of charge capacity is

pretty common, and there are—is a possibility to make that greater

in the future.

Mr. SHERMAN. All right. Then I want to say how long would it

take, using the technology available two or three years from now.

Dr. DUVALL. An hour to two hours to completely recharge a battery with significant range capable and, like, a five- to 10-minute

recharge.

Dr. RICKETTS. Mr. Sherman, I will tell you how far we have come

with better technology. I am still using deep cycle lead acid. I have

26 batteries on my truck at 70 pounds a piece. That is 1,820

pounds of batteries. That will get you just 60 miles. So these fellows with the lithium-ion, that is how far we have come.

Mr. GERMAN. But you need to consider the interior space in a vehicle is extremely valuable.

Mr. SHERMAN. But let me just ask one more question. The Chair

has been very indulgent with time. And that is, let us say I just

use the car for short range, so I am always home to plug it in. And

I never actually turn on the gasoline engine. And let us say I happen to live in one of those very few American cities where they actually generate the electricity using petroleum. And so you have to

burn a certain amount of petroleum to get a certain amount of kilowatts to charge my commuter car. How many miles per gallon or—

am I getting? In other words, how much fuel do you have to burn

at my local electric utility, assuming it is burning petroleum, and

I realize most don’t, but some do, in order to get me 100 miles or

whatever the range is?

Dr. DUVALL. It would almost certainly be lower than if you——

Mr. SHERMAN. I know, but is it three times lower, 10 times

lower, or 20 times lower?

Dr. DUVALL. No, it would be a fraction lower. I can provide an

answer later, but it would be some fraction lower. It wouldn’t be

double the fuel consumption. In most areas where there are still

oil-fired power plants, they are primarily peaking plants, and so

they only operate a very limited number of hours per year. So in

general, the margin of electricity, wherever you are in the United

States, is probably not petroleum unless there is some peak activity.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

We will start a second round, if we could go quickly, and I have

just a couple of questions.

Going back to the battery, some experts suggest that the lithiumion batteries are the answer for the plug-in hybrid vehicles yet this

battery type has been under development for many years and still

presents challenges for use in the vehicles. So I would like just a

quick answer from Dr. Frank and Dr. Duvall and Mr. Duncan and

Mr. German. What is your view on the lithium-ion batteries? Just

a very, very brief——

Dr. FRANK. Real quick, you—batteries for all of these cars are no

longer benign things. They are all intelligent batteries with computer controls. And by the way, computer control is a very small

103

marginal cost for the total battery system. The computer controlled

batteries are what will make lithium even metal hydride now practical for these kinds of applications. And it changes the picture entirely. So it becomes very practical very quickly.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. I will defer to the other witnesses on the battery

question. I am not——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay.

Mr. DUNCAN.—the expert in this field.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay.

Dr. Duvall.

Dr. DUVALL. I would like to share an opinion of a representative

of one of the leading auto makers with respect to hybrid vehicle

technologies who felt that we would see lithium-ion batteries introduced into commercial hybrid vehicles within three years and by 10

years, likely to dominate the market. So there—I think there is a

strong undercurrent that believes that the technology is rapidly becoming ready for automotive application. And there are already at

least one or two commercial applications of lithium-ion batteries in

commercial hybrid vehicles.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Mr. German.

Mr. GERMAN. I think part of the problem here is that when people say lithium-ion, they have the connotation that you have a single battery. And the—part of the problem I had with lithium-ion

is that the formulations, depending on anode materials and other

things are tremendously variable. And what the industry has

been—batteries have been doing is experimenting with all of these

different combinations trying to come up with something that has

both high energy and good durability and is robust and long-lasting. And it is very difficult. They are still working through this. As

far as the lithium-ion batteries for conventional hybrids, that is actually a different formulation than you need for a plug-in. Plug-ins

need to be lower power density, higher energy density. So even

those might not be the optimum for plug-in. It is this complexity

that is causing the problems, and they are still trying to find the

right combination.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. Can you estimate if it will be costeffective?

Mr. GERMAN. It depends on how you define cost-effective. The estimate—the targets I have seen for lithium-ion batteries, even in

the future in high volume, are not going to be accepted by most

customers. Certainly there can—might—may be a niche market.

But it is very difficult to talk about the future price of lithium-ion

because we don’t know what the pace of development is going to

be. That is why research and development is so important.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Dr. Santini.

Dr. SANTINI. Lithium-ion has eclipsed nickel metal hydride in

consumer electronics and at the advanced automotive battery conference last year, there was a presentation that indicated that a

very large number of patents of lithium-ion batteries had been

adopted by Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, not by the battery manufacturers. So obviously, the auto industry found the technology to

104

be intriguing. So that is indirect evidence that it is a promising

technology. John gave you a very good description of the difficulties

and the fact that it is very complex, many alternatives. There is

an alternative that my colleagues at Argonne have that they are

hopeful would double the amount of energy storage per unit volume

and per unit—per kilogram. If that would happen, that would be

a great boom. So——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Well, I have been out to see your program

at Argonne. You are doing a great job.

And then just one other question. This really isn’t—part of this—

it is really not the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, because

it has to do with tax relief and tax credits, but the hybrid cars

right now, and under the energy bill that we passed in—last August, has a component in for tax credits for buying hybrid cars.

And the companies are limited to 60,000 cars sold a year. And it—

a question is, of course I think probably we would have to have

something like that for hybrid plug-ins to have that, because what

people tell me when they go to buy a hybrid is that they are so expensive that the tax breaks makes it—brings it down to about

equal to a regular car. But they are also—they can’t get them, that

there is such a waiting list. And I see this happening, you know.

I am certain—since I already want a plug-in, I am sure everybody

else does, too, and it is going to be hard to get them, but—and I

think that Dr. Santini, you, in your testimony, said about 100,000

of the hybrid cars like the Prius had been sold, in the past year,

it started out, you know——

Dr. SANTINI. Per year.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Per year. Right. Is that holding up for

most all of the hybrids? The SUVs and——

Dr. SANTINI. We—sales showed some sensitivity to oil prices over

the period—it looked like, anyway, from the Katrina, and then

prices subsided. The sales came down a bit. And then, you know,

when, more recently, the prices have spiked, and sales—the pressures took off. Toyota said that the Prius—there was actually a decline in Prius’ monthly sales rate, but Toyota said it was due to

availability and some glitches——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. But why aren’t these companies, then,

making more of them when they are—you know, they are wanted

by the public? Is there some reason why there is such a backlog

when other—you know, other—the regular cars? Is it cost? Or does

anybody know?

Dr. SANTINI. Well, one thing I am—that I observed in studying

the purchasers and the highest level of interest in hybrids was that

high level of education explained it much better than annual driving, for example. So there are people that, I think, are probably a

relatively significant market that are interested in the technology

for many of its, sort of, own sake attributes.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So we probably need an education or a PR

campaign as well about the benefits and the conservation that people would be making by driving these cars?

Dr. SANTINI. That is why I think that the ongoing study is trying

to cover all of the potential benefits look—that look promising for

their ability to back up leaders.

105

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So Mr. Duncan, with your demonstration

project, is this something you think will help to—for individuals to

realize the importance of conservation?

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, absolutely. As I have said, when fleet managers and ordinary individuals are explained this technology, they

have the same reaction that you and others have had: ‘‘Where do

I get one?’’ But a major hold-up is actually being able to see and

drive one and see that it drives like an ordinary vehicle does and

there is nothing you have to do. So that is why I am pressing so

hard to get some spread around the country instead of—I will take

the vehicle you are seeing here today, in order to get it here in

time, had to be flown in, because there are so few around the country right now.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I am sorry.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. The electric meter at my home is 1950’s

technology. It cannot distinguish whether I am buying the electricity at peak or non-peak hours. If I am going to recharge a car

at home, I am going to be paying, say, 10 cents a kilowatt because

the—that is a fair price if you are paying, sort of , a blend between

peak and non-peak fair prices. Should we have a system whereby

those who own plug-in hybrids are able to fill out a form saying,

‘‘Look, this is how much electricity my car used. I only plug it in

non-peak hours. Therefore, for that amount of electricity, cut me

down to four cents or five cents a kilowatt.’’ How much—this is

something Congress could require. How much of an incentive will

it be to getting plug-in hybrids accepted if people are able to pay

a fair, non-peak cost for their kilowatts rather than having to pay

the blended average rate that we all pay now?

Yes. Mr. Santini.

Dr. SANTINI. In my testimony, I mentioned that it is very important for the electric utility industry across the country to adopt,

and I—in the written testimony, I used the word economically-legitimate off-peak rates as promptly as possible and show the auto

industry that what they tell me and what I believe as an economist

that there are good reasons for low marginal costs off peak. And

I—it is a short-term benefit to the—not short-term, but it is a significant benefit to the electric utility industry, so the rates should

be in place. Now whether Congress should require that or not, I

didn’t say that, but——

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, it would need, almost, a consumer-completed

form. There—at a huge industrial facility, they can keep track of

how many kilowatts are on-peak and how many are off-peak and

how many—and at my home, there is no way to know when—

which kilowatts are going to the TV I am watching during peak

hours and which kilowatts are being used in—to recharge the car.

But if you had a system by which, perhaps under penalty of perjury, the same way you sign a tax form, you are able to inform the

utility how many recharge hours you used, and they were required

to give you the same low rate that they give non-peak industrial

customers, that would be a reduction in price. I am trying to get

106

a handle on this from a consumer standpoint. I know what it costs

to operate a regular car. I know what it costs to operate a hybrid

car. And I know that a plug-in hybrid is going to be somewhere in

between a purely electric car on the one hand and a hybrid nonplug-in car on the other. Let us say I buy one of these plug-in hybrids and I never have to turn on the electric—the gasoline motor,

because I just use it for short distances. What is my fuel or energy

cost per mile at 10 cents a kilowatt? How many miles can I go per

kilowatt if I am just going short distances.

Dr. FRANK. Well, these cars have—I can answer that. Or maybe

I can answer part of that. But these cars get about 250 watt hours

per mile, roughly.

Mr. SHERMAN. Two hundred and fifty watt hours——

Dr. FRANK. Watt hours per mile.

Mr. SHERMAN.—per mile. And at 10 cents a kilowatt, is——

Dr. FRANK. Well, there are two-tenths of a—0.2—a quarter of a

kilowatt hour a mile.

Mr. SHERMAN. A quarter of a kilowatt hour, so I am paying 2.5

cents to go a mile——

Dr. FRANK. Yeah.

Mr. SHERMAN.—for fuel costs?

Dr. FRANK. Right. That is about right. Yeah.

Mr. SHERMAN. Whereas, at $3 a gallon, even if I am getting 30

miles per gallon——

Dr. FRANK. It is about 12 cents kilowatt——

Dr. SANTINI. The EPRI study had about 0.3 kilowatt hours per

mile, and my colleagues are concerned about effects of air conditioning and auxiliary loads, so I use 0.38 in some of my most recent

calculations. I am going to give you a range of values to think

about.

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So I am seeing one range here of a difference between 2.5 cents a mile and 12 cents a mile?

Dr. FRANK. That is about right.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is about right?

Dr. FRANK. Right.

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. And that is at—that is paying the regular

cost for electricity rather than non-peak cost?

Dr. FRANK. Right. Right.

Mr. SHERMAN. So that could come down——

Dr. FRANK. Even more than that.

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. The other problem I——

Mr. GERMAN. Keep in mind that even if you drive, I am sorry,

800 miles a month just on the battery alone, that is going to work

out to $20 a month on your electric bill. Getting this low rate is

going to cut it from $20 to $10. And I am not sure how much of

an impact it is going to have on the customers.

Mr. SHERMAN. Got you. So what you are saying is that the technology—the fuel usage economy is already so good——

Dr. FRANK. Yeah.

Mr. SHERMAN.—that you don’t need to pay a fair price for the

electricity? The other thing that is missing, of course, is places to

plug it in.

Dr. FRANK. That is an incentive right there to plug it in.

107

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, no, what I mean—what we have not done,

as a society, is require every garage owner to have places you could

plug it in, whether it be three or whether it be—or whether you

would, you know, be coin-operated or whatever, the most important

thing that would make my vehicle more efficient is drive to work,

have a place to plug it in——

Dr. FRANK. Yeah.

Mr. SHERMAN.—and then use the electricity to come back rather

than having to use the engine. I hope that as the bill goes forward,

we are able to come up with a workable plan to require those in

the business of garaging cars to provide a few spots where you

could re-plug.

Dr. FRANK. In Canada, they do, you know. Canada has—the cold

climates have plugs on every parking spot.

Mr. SHERMAN. I wonder if Mr. Duncan has a comment, and then

my time is expired.

Mr. DUNCAN. Speaking from an electric utility, I think you are

right on target with several points. Several—the electric utility

could start providing—charging positions in parking garages. Ultimately, you know, you could even reverse this technology, and if

we started wiring parking garages, a vehicle could charge at night,

come in, plug in, and then on a hot afternoon day in Austin, for

instance, we could actually reverse that charge and draw down just

a little bit on a whole bunch of batteries and avoid peaking power

plants. The transportation system could actually act as a capacitor

in that regard. The utilities could certainly start to offer off-peak

pricing during the evenings for charging. I think that you may find

one of the greatest obstacles in the electric utility industry is not

really the technology of the metering and such but the billing system. And it has been my practical limitations on learning how to—

in dealing with this. But it is certainly all possible within the electric utility industry.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Before I recognize Ms. Jackson Lee, I just wanted to remind everyone that is here that we do have the demonstration out at New

Jersey and C Southeast, which is right out—just a block away. And

I think that I will enjoy seeing the hybrid plug-in cars that are

available there. So I would urge you all to—after here to go over

there.

So now, Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas, you are recognized.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Thank

you for, I think, a very timely hearing.

Let me welcome Mr. Roger Duncan from Austin, Texas. We are

just—or at least Austin Energy in Texas. And hopefully—is that in

Austin?

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And we are your neighbors in Houston. So let

me welcome you and congratulate you for some of this work.

Thank you for yielding to me, and I ask for you to indulge the

fact that I was in a Homeland Security hearing, but I thought this

was extremely important. I am going to raise, just, some questions,

and I would like everyone to take a stab at them.

Obviously, you are in the backdrop of the rising eye of Americans

on gasoline prices and the lack of focus on alternative fuels. And

108

so I raise the question on, first, though you may have covered this,

the kind of standards necessary to begin to set up the framework

of an industry that would engage in the plug-in hybrid. I would

also be interested in what role universities can play in this research. Are we at the peak level of the research, or can we utilize

new technologies through more research funding through universities? I am also concerned about the workforce. This is a broad

question of alternative fuels, but the plug-in is particularly unique.

What skills will the new—or training will the new workforce need

to really, if you will, plug in to this new plug-in hybrid to make

this a viable industry or a viable concept? And finally, the Administration has the Advanced Energy Initiative. Is that enough, or

what more can we do? I am noting legislation that is proposed to

this committee, and I am going to be looking at this very carefully.

But what more can we do around the Advanced Energy Initiative

to really pump, if you will, energy into this concept of alternative

and this plug-in hybrid?

And gentlemen.

Dr. SANTINI. Well, I will speak first.

The—I am proud to have been associated with the—but very indirectly, just—most of my colleagues did the work, the student

competitions program that Andy mentioned earlier where a number of technologies have been evaluated over the years, but this is

a cooperative program of universities, industry, and the National

Labs that has tried to work to make it—to keep it moving and with

a good topic every year. So but the plug-in hybrid technology itself

emerged, in part, as a result of the student competitions. It did

train students to work in the auto industry. So I think it is a good

model going forward. It has been focused on very long-term technology. We may be in a different environment, but it is a good

model, and working with universities has—is probably responsible

for the great interest, in significant part, in plug-in hybrids now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And should—we should expand that work

with universities?

Dr. SANTINI. Well, you certainly—if the technology is to succeed

and if electric drive is a technology that is a great long-term interest to the country, and I believe it looks like it is, then probably

it should—something like that should be expanded.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Just jump in.

Dr. RICKETTS. I feel strong about demonstration projects. My,

probably, role in this energy thing is more a linker in linking these

technologies together. Earlier, I explained the processes in producing hydrogen. I didn’t really invent any of that, but I brought

the electrolysis unit together. I brought the solar unit together. I

brought the storage together. So it is there in a demonstration spot

so that people could come in and see how it can be done.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Others? The training, the standards, the

amount of money invested?

Dr. Frank.

Dr. FRANK. Yeah, I really would like to say that one of the biggest problems we have in judging these hybrids, and especially

plug-in hybrids, which uses, really, two energy sources, electricity

and gasoline, is how to measure performance. EPA has, over the

109

years, established performance for conventional cars. That is miles

per gallon and emissions and so on. But no standards, no such

standards have been made for a dual fuel—dual energy source system like the plug-in hybrid. And we have to establish those standards so that industry can have something to work towards. And it

is—that is kind of the first step that we should be taking, establishing those kinds of standards to give all of the car companies an

equal footing on getting a program started.

Then your last point was on advanced energy?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Advanced Energy Initiative that has been

proposed by the President. Is it enough? Or what more do we need

to do?

Dr. FRANK. Yeah, I think the—that—in that program, you number of—you specify a number of areas where you are going to be

putting money into. And relative to the plug-in hybrid, I think the

plug-in hybrid has the biggest chance to offset the use of oil. And

we really should be focusing on that now, because this is an important—this is the most important thing for our country. So I would

like to see a reallocation of resources and effort on—in that energy

bill. Some of the things that are important are, perhaps—lightweight materials is important, but that is a much longer research.

And certainly fuel cells may be, but that is even longer research.

So what is important now to the country is to do something that

we can get started now on.

I mentioned earlier, even if we were to start the plug-in program

today, we would only be saving about five percent of the oil after

five or six years, and maybe even 10 years. So all of these other

programs, it would be—it is even longer than that. We have got to

do something in the next five or 10 years.

Mr. GERMAN. Yeah, the—your basic research on batteries and

other forms of energy storage is extremely important, not only for

plug-in hybrids but for conventional hybrids, for battery electric vehicles. There are neighborhood electric vehicles that are already a

commercial market, and there are ways to expand that. Even fuel

cells can benefit from it. So I think that anything you—any amount

you can spend on basic energy storage research is going to be

money well spent.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. German——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. If we could close this, we are—there are—

we are expected at the demonstration of the hybrid cars that

have——

Mr. SHERMAN. Request 20 seconds.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Go ahead.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I could let someone just tell me about the

skills, and I will end. And I thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I

will just—if someone just have skills, and I will certainly thank

you for any other answers you can put in writing. I thank you.

Mr. German.

Dr. DUVALL. Duvall, actually. I think that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Duvall, I am sorry.

Dr. DUVALL.—one of the main requirements that is needed in the

university are now that we are putting a lot of power electronics

on board vehicles and high-voltage systems is that power systems

engineering has become extremely rare at the university level. It

110

is a common concern in the utility industry before transportation.

A lot of the electrical engineering students cannot—simply cannot

study power systems engineering even though they go to major research universities. And I think this is one extremely important

near-term requirement, because the—we will have to be training

engineers and technicians that are very familiar with power electronics and power systems.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And with that——

Mr. SHERMAN. Madame Chair, if I could just speak for 20 seconds.

Perhaps your slogan, or our slogan, should be ‘‘Plug in to 62-centa-gallon gasoline,’’ because I have done the calculations.

Dr. FRANK. Yes.

Mr. SHERMAN. And 2.5 cents a mile is like taking us back to 62

cents a gallon.

Dr. FRANK. Right.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Before we bring this hearing to a close, I

want to thank our panelists for testifying before the Energy Subcommittee.

If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional

statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up

questions the Subcommittee may ask the panelists. Without objection, so ordered.

This hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(111)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

112

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology Division, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel cells are available or as a

substitute for fuel cells for transportation purposes?

A1. They are separate and complementary technologies. The role of electricity in

transportation is to introduce an energy source that is extremely efficient, can be

generated with many low- or non-emitting (including renewable) plant technologies,

and is relatively near-term in its commercialization prospects. The role of hydrogen

fuel cells is to replace combustion engines—increasing efficiency and allowing the

use of non-petroleum, renewable energy sources (although at lower efficiency than

direct electricity-battery systems.

As an example, hydrogen is a very good fuel for large, commercial applications

like trucks, transit buses, and other vehicles that use a very large quantity of diesel

fuel each day. These vehicles are fueled at large depots, minimizing hydrogen infrastructure requirements and there are significant criteria pollutant savings by replacing the diesel engine with a hydrogen fuel cell.

For light- and medium-duty vehicles, a plug-in hybrid with 20–40 miles of electric

range will generally have superior fuel cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions compared to an equivalent fuel cell vehicle, with dramatically lower infrastructure costs.

Hydrogen vehicles are unlikely to become either as efficient or as cost-effective as

plug-in hybrids in the foreseeable future. Renewable electricity (e.g., wind) is three

to four times more efficient when applied to a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle as

when used to generate hydrogen.

In the future, these two technologies will likely co-exist and can even be combined

as plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles—the fuel cell replaced the combustion engine and

the vehicle runs on a combination of electricity and hydrogen energy.

Q2. In your statement, you say that the most recent batteries demonstrate excellent

safety, power performance, and laboratory life. Future challenges will include

verifying lifetime testing, and developing production facilities to ramp up the

availability of this technology. Expand on your statement and tell us what you

see as the biggest hurdles in the development of satisfactory batteries and why

these problems continue to be significant.

A2. The single most important issue with advanced batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles is that there is presently no large-scale manufacturing capacity for these batteries. Existing lithium ion ‘‘energy’’ batteries are adequate to meet the near-term

requirements of plug-in hybrids. The costs of these batteries are currently high because volume is very low. The government and industry need to discuss how to

‘‘prime’’ this market so that battery suppliers will build the manufacturing capacity

to supply an emerging plug-in hybrid market. This can provide promising opportunities to incentivize domestic manufacturing capacity.

We currently need to do more testing (both in the laboratory and in the field with

demonstration vehicles) to thoroughly understand how to get the best long-term performance from plug-in hybrid battery systems. Near-term R&D needs to focus on

large-scale demonstration programs (minimum of 200–300 vehicles) as this will promote both good battery system development and provide suppliers and manufacturers with valuable in-use data on the performance of these systems.

A secondary issue is to encourage and support R&D on new energy batteries suitable for plug-in hybrids. The majority of the battery R&D in transportation is focused on high-power designs for current hybrid vehicles. Specifically supporting

R&D on high-energy designs more suitable for plug-in hybrids will help promote further development to ensure that energy batteries continue to improve in cost, performance, and durability.

Q3. You mention in your testimony that one of the three technical challenges is the

development of a set of charging standards. Of the three parties you mention—

government, the auto industry and the electric utilities—which one should take

the lead in developing the standards? Should the legislation address the standards issue, and if so, what should be done?

113

A3. The utility industry should take the lead on this issue, but charging standards

must be developed in tandem by the automotive industry and utility industry to account for both vehicle-related and infrastructure-related aspects of standardization.

The utility industry already has an organization in place—the Infrastructure Working Council (IWC)—to facilitate this collaboration between industries. The IWC has

worked in the past to bring auto manufacturers, utilities, and component suppliers

together to develop standards and make appropriate recommendations to the official

standards-making bodies like SAE, NEC, etc. The Federal Government, who already

participates in the IWC (via the National Labs), can support this process both technically and financially. Legislation can direct the DOE to support the standards

making process.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in hybrids, including

an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better car-batteries.

Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for development and application of these technologies? What amount do you feel is sufficient for such

an initiative?

A1. There are three previous federal programs that were similar in intent and objectives-the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium to develop electric vehicle batteries,

the FreedomCAR (PNGV) effort to develop hybrid electric vehicle technology, and

the FreedomCAR program to develop hydrogen and fuel cell technology.

Ramping up plug-in hybrid vehicle program support to similar levels as these programs will significantly aid commercialization prospects for the technology—the

technology gaps for plug-in hybrids are significantly fewer than for each of the previous programs at their inception.

114

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses, American Honda Motor Company

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel cells are available or as a

substitute for fuel cells for transportation purposes?

A1. It is not possible to give a definitive answer to this question. Clearly, at some

point in the future transportation must become truly sustainable, with no net carbon emissions and little, if any, fossil fuel use. There are a number of possible options that could provide this sustainability. One broad option is a fuel cell vehicle

powered by hydrogen created from renewable sources. Another possibility is batteryelectric vehicles powered by electricity created from renewable sources. A third option could be highly efficient vehicles powered by fuels created with renewable

methods, such as biomass and waste-to-energy. Combinations of these three broad

options are also possible.

To further complicate matters, there is a multitude of potential pathways forward

that could greatly improve our energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions

while we are working towards truly sustainable technologies. Also note that from

a technical and market viewpoint liquid fuels have two huge advantages, assuming

similar production costs and environmental impacts. One is a readily available infrastructure with very fast, convenient refueling. More importantly, liquid fuels

have very high energy density. Ten gallons of gasoline only weighs 62 pounds, but

contains about 330,000 Wh (watt-hour) of energy. By comparison, a current state

of the art NiMH battery (70 Wh/kg) with the same energy capacity would weigh

over five tons. A theoretical advanced Li-ion battery pack (120 Wh/kg) would still

weigh over three tons. One of the advantages of fuel cells over battery electric vehicles is that hydrogen energy density is a lot better than battery energy density.

However, hydrogen is a very lightweight gas that is difficult to compress and turns

to liquid only at ¥423°F (¥253°C). Thus, the energy density of hydrogen is still

much worse than liquid fuels.

As long as fossil fuels are readily available, battery-electric and, to a lesser degree, hydrogen vehicles need a breakthrough in energy storage in order to compete

with liquid fuels in light-duty vehicles. This is the appeal of hybrid vehicles, as they

obtain large improvements in efficiency with relatively small battery packs. This is

also where plug-in hybrid vehicles may be able to compete if the cost of energy storage comes down, as liquid fuels are still used to provide extended range when needed. However, note that the current electrical grid has a large coal fraction with high

CO2 emissions, especially for the marginal units that would be used for transportation. A switch to plug-in hybrid vehicles would not help reduce global warming

gases very much unless electricity generation moves to low greenhouse gas sources.

If hydrogen storage is resistant to solutions or the cost of making and distributing

hydrogen proves to be higher than other options, then highly efficient conventional

vehicles, possibility including hybrids and plug-in hybrids, may be the optimal solution for a long time. But there are a lot of potentially productive pathways that may

not include either of these two alternatives. For example:

• Efficient hybrids (not necessarily plug-in) could lead to fuel cell vehicles.

• Efficient ICE vehicles utilizing renewable liquid or gaseous fuels could lead

directly to fuel cell vehicles.

• Natural gas and hydrogen ICE vehicles could lead to fuel cell vehicles and

hydrogen.

• If a genuine breakthrough occurs in energy storage, then hybrid vehicles and

plug-in hybrid vehicles are more likely to be a transitional technology to battery-electric vehicles, or a mixture of fuel cell and battery-electric vehicles.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in hybrids, including

an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better car batteries.

Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for development and application of these technologies? What amount do you feel is sufficient for such

an initiative?

115

A1. Honda strongly supports R&D to develop better energy storage in general. Better energy storage is critically needed for hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles,

and battery-electric vehicles. Improved energy storage, including both batteries and

ultra-capacitors, will have great benefits for all types of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Fuel cell vehicles may potentially benefit as well.

Batteries have been in widespread use and development for over 100 years. If it

were easy to develop an improved battery, it would have already happened. Advanced battery formulations are extremely complex and there are a wide variety of

options that need to be explored. While $6 million for R&D to develop better batteries is not likely to be enough, it is not possible to predict the pace of technology

development. Larger amounts of research increase the chances of finding a breakthrough and battery research should be among Congress’ highest energy-related

R&D priorities. Congress should seek a five-year research plan from the Department of Energy that is updated annually to reflect progress. Funding should be reevaluated as the plan is updated.

116

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education, School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State University

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel cells are available or as a

substitute for fuel cells for transportation purposes?

A1. I did not believe that the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicle is either (1) ‘‘a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel cells are available’’ or (2) ‘‘a substitute for fuel cells for transportation purposes.’’

Rationale for Statement (1): I did not believe ‘‘plug-ins’’ are a transition to anything. I believe that they are viable within themselves. It is unfathomable that the

automotive companies ever built hybrid vehicles without the plug-in component (option). Fuel cells are the power for the future for automobiles, but presently they cost

6.5 times the equivalent horsepower of an internal combustion engine. Furthermore,

plug-ins cost one-third as much as gasoline per mile.

Rationale for Statement (2): Plug-ins are not a substitute for fuel cells. Plug-ins

are valuable today, and offer many opportunities to run vehicles off a variety of energy sources through the grid lines. As mentioned above, fuel cells are the power

source in vehicles for the future, but due to the cost the future is twenty to thirty

years away.

My Proposal for the Future: In reality, I don’t believe ‘‘The Plug-In hybrid Electric

Vehicle Act of 2006’’ goes far enough. CalCars and others have already developed

plug-in hybrids. Let us amend the Act and call it ‘‘The Flex-Fuel Plug-In Electric

Vehicle Act of 2006.’’ Let us get real serious about the energy crisis. I have always

been taught not to bring up a problem unless you have a solution. The following

is where I really believe our legislation should center:

(1) Provide research funds for researchers (public or private) to develop flex-fuel vehicles to run off (a) plug-in (b) gasoline (c) ethanol (d) hydrogen (e) propane and

(f) natural gas. Note: These vehicles exist but are not available as plug in hybrids.

Justification: With the plug-in component, we have the infrastructure to run vehicles off nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, plus the fossil fuels. Gasoline is still an option,

ethanol can be used in places where it is available. Hydrogen can be used where

it is available, and be used as a transition in the internal combustion engine until

fuel cells are feasible. Propane and natural gas could be used in the same vehicle

if they are more economical. Really, this is a ‘‘no-brainer.’’ That is, let us develop

a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid spark-ignited vehicle that will run off anything that the

spark-ignited (gasoline) vehicle can run off individually.

(2) Provide research funds for researchers (public or private) to develop a plug-in

flex-fuel spark-ignited (gasoline)/heat of combustion (diesel) engine. For example,

a six or eight cylinder engine could be developed that uses three or four cylinders as spark-ignited and three or four cylinders as heat of combustion.

Justification: This vehicle could run off everything in proposal one just discussed,

plus the engine/vehicle could run off diesel, soybean oil, and other vegetable oils.

This would be the ultimate alternative fuel vehicle that could run off anything. This

vehicle would be the true bridge (transition) until fuel cells are available.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in hybrids, including

an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better car-batteries.

Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for development and application of these technologies? What amount do you feel is sufficient for such

an initiative?

A1. I don’t fell qualified to answer this question. However, I am very passionate

about the answer to Representative Honda’s question. The only educated response

that I can give to the question is that a researcher at a National Energy Convention

from Zebra Battery said that they could develop a battery for any range if they had

enough orders to justify the research, set-up, and construction costs. Therefore, I beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
117

lieve the technology is available, it is just a matter of cost-efficient ratio, and I do

not know what that is.

118

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division, Center

for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel cells are available or as a

substitute for fuel cells for transportation purposes?

A1. Actually, though it is only an educated guess at this point, the answer is neither. I speculate that R&D on the two technologies will lead to a shift of focus of

fuel cell vehicle development toward a plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle. If that is correct, then the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles would be complementary to,

and enabling of fuel cell vehicle technology.

Imagine a success scenario where plug-in hybrids with initially limited range and

electric use capability evolve to plug-in hybrids with conventional engines and 30

to 60 miles of all-electric range, followed by plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles with

similar all electric range. In my view, this could take one to two decades to evolve.

With such a capability, on most days within an urban area, consumers could use

electricity. Since far less hydrogen would need to be delivered within the urban

area, this would reduce hydrogen infrastructure construction needs. Since the costs

of hydrogen delivery infrastructure are high in urban areas, this cost is an impediment to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Also, if fewer hydrogen delivery stations had

to be built within urban areas, fewer suitable sites would need to be found, probably

making safety issues less of a problem.

Also, even with less electric use capability than for a plug-in hybrid with 30–60

miles of electric range, a plug in infrastructure in place could allow electric heating

of fuel cell stacks of plug-in fuel cell vehicles prior to unplugging. This could help

to greatly reduce concerns over delays while awaiting fuel cell stack warm-up. Further, since a fuel cell stack in a plug-in hybrid could be smaller, there would be less

stack mass to keep warm.

Finally, if half of a plug-in fuel cell vehicle’s mileage was provided via grid electricity, this would mean that the total hours of use of the fuel cell stack could be

half as much as in a grid independent fuel cell vehicle with the same total mileage.

Since stack life (total hours of service) is an issue of concern, this could allow fuel

cell stacks to be successfully introduced sooner, with more reliability than would

otherwise be the case.

Though all of these theoretical opportunities would need to be examined carefully,

they are each arguments that support the possibility that plug-in hybrids could

make fuel cell power units more quickly available, at a lower total cost to the customer.

A reason that it would likely be desirable to keep the plug-in option as a part

of the fuel cell powertrain is that the battery storage of electricity from wind power

and solar energy would provide more miles of travel than if that electricity were

used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis and used to power the fuel cell stack. Conversely, once fuel feedstocks were gasified to separate carbon and hydrogen, it would

be less efficient to use the hydrogen to produce electricity for the grid for use in

the plug-in battery than to use hydrogen on-board to power the fuel cell stack.

From another perspective, previously produced hydrogen should be used in the

fuel cell stack to generate electricity on board a vehicle rather than to generate electricity off-board for use in electric vehicles. The reason is that the energy storage

capability of the hydrogen fuel cell powertrain is far better than for batteries—even

lithium based batteries. Thus, if urban areas of the future desire a zero tailpipe

emissions vehicle (as several presently do), but customers continue to desire a vehicle with 300 or more miles of range, a pure battery electric option cannot meet the

latter need, while a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can.

The enticing feature of a hydrogen fuel cell stack is that its electric generation

efficiency is not particularly sensitive to scale. For other methods of generating electricity, if the amount of power generated is as small as the amount required to

power a vehicle, the efficiency drops sharply. But for a fuel cell stack, a very small

stack with a power rating suitable for a vehicle will be about as efficient as a stack

providing megawatts of power, and will be far more efficient than an internal combustion engine.

In my view, opinions of some colleagues notwithstanding, along with battery cost,

the inability of electric vehicles to provide customers driving range comparable to

gasoline vehicles has been their Achilles heel. Until and unless we know that a batVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
119

tery electric vehicle can accomplish such a feat, it is appropriate to conduct research

on fuel cell vehicles. Though lithium based batteries would get us closer to a range

capability acceptable to the consumer, at the present time my estimates imply that

they still could not provide enough range at an acceptable cost. A related issue is

the amount of material and processing energy required to provide large enough batteries to provide the needed vehicle range. Note that a 2001 MIT study (On the

Road in 2020) estimated that a theoretical nickel metal hydride battery electric vehicle with 300 miles of range would cause more greenhouse gas emissions than a

hybrid electric vehicle with 470 miles of range, due to processing energy in battery

production. This has to be looked into for li-ion, but you see that it is an issue.

While GM says that it now has a prototype fuel cell vehicle (the Sequel) that can

achieve 300 miles of range, I am not aware of any manufacturer claiming that there

is or soon will be an electric vehicle which can do this.

Remember that one of the attractive features of both electric vehicles and fuel cell

vehicles, from environmentalist’s point of view, is that they can never fail to provide

zero tailpipe emissions, even if they are not functioning properly. Many regulators

and environmental scientists I have worked with have been concerned with what

are called ‘‘gross emitters’’—vehicles whose emissions control system has failed.

Plug-in hybrids using internal combustion engines are unlikely to ever be perfect

in this regard. So, assured zero tailpipe emissions capability will likely remain a

reason that many members of the environmental community will maintain an interest in the fuel cell vehicle. Thus, this is another reason to maintain research on fuel

cell vehicles.

Q2. How can the organized research community tap the creativity and talents of the

experimentalists who push technologies and open our eyes to the possibilities of

technological breakthroughs?

A2. In my opinion, the U.S. private sector is the most vibrant and productive in the

world in tapping creativity of experimentalists. Further, much of the organized research community wishes to tap into the riches that can become available if a technology is successfully pursued, so experimentalists do get the best opportunities in

the world here.

I believe that the one area where innovators—those who bring a product to market—would be well served by the research community would be through far more

unbiased, independent testing and verification of results claimed by experimentalists. Testing and verification is of value to both experimentalists and technology

innovators because it helps more efficiently allocate resources. When the claims of

the experimentalist are shown to be unwarranted, the mode of failure or area of

weakness of the technology is identified, allowing the experimentalist to focus any

further work on weak points. Should the claims of the experimentalists be verified,

then innovators such as venture capitalists can more confidently invest in the conversion of the experimental technology to a market ready technology.

Actually, I believe that verification and testing—under real conditions that the

product will experience in the hands of consumers—is extremely important if we

want to successfully accelerate the adoption of advanced vehicle technologies. If we

don’t do thorough testing and become knowledgeable about technology limitations

before the technology is in the hands of consumers, then early versions of the technologies will be seen to be failures. Such experiences could delay—or even worse

eliminate—a technology that could save the Nation a lot of oil if used properly, recognizing its strengths and weaknesses. This may mean spending considerable

amounts of money to develop new test facilities and methods. A simple contemporary example is the approved methods of testing of vehicles with ‘‘auxiliary

loads’’—air conditioning in particular—turned off. Vehicles are also tested and officially rated—across the world—as if they were driven far less aggressively than in

actual use by consumers. For hybrid vehicles these omissions led to expectations

and claims of greater percentage improvements in fuel economy than has actually

been realized ‘‘on-road’’ by consumers. As a result, the Environmental Protection

Agency has been working on the development of a significantly more costly set of

vehicle tests than used in the past—adding low and high temperature tests and

more ‘‘aggressive’’ and higher top speed driving tests. The plug-in hybrid will be a

far greater challenge than even the hybrid, which itself has caused us to rethink

our vehicle testing protocols. To develop reliable new technology plug-in hybrid batteries suitable to consumers throughout the U.S., we will need a lot more testing

at extreme environmental conditions. We should plan on constructing facilities and

establishing multiple fleet test locations that will allow us to do such testing. With

regard to the need to expand the testing ‘‘envelope,’’ testing over a wider range of

speeds and acceleration/deceleration conditions will be necessary. Legal speed limits

have moved up since existing test protocols were developed, and the increased power

120

available in vehicles allows more rapid acceleration. Texas just moved the maximum

rural speed limit up to 80 mph.

In my opinion, both hybrids and plug-in hybrids will provide owners an ability

to manipulate their fuel efficiency to a far greater degree than for a conventional

vehicle, by altering their driving behavior. If so, I would argue that potential consumers would need to be made aware of this. Driver education might eventually be

adapted to provide training in how to get the best fuel economy out of hybrids and

plug-in hybrids.

The bottom line is that if we want to see experiments work their way successfully

and expeditiously into the market, the technology being experimented with needs

to be tested thoroughly and realistically. In my view, both rigorous field tests and

much better laboratory tests need to be supported.

Q3. There is a belief that there is a secondary market for current generation of lead

acid and nickel metal hydride batteries after they are retired from service in hybrid vehicles. Do the characteristics of Lithium-ion batteries lend themselves to

follow-on uses after being used in vehicles?

A3. At this time, I would not regard myself as an expert on secondary markets. The

most appropriate answer would be ‘‘I don’t know,’’ or ‘‘it remains to be determined.’’

As you imply, although batteries used in hybrids may end their useful life from

the point of view of suitability for the vehicle customer, they may have remaining

useful life from the point of other customers. Power and/or energy per unit mass

and volume may no longer suit the hybrid vehicle owner, but may be adequate for

other purposes. For nickel metal hydride hybrid batteries, I believe that it remains

to be seen whether a significant post-vehicle market for used batteries will develop,

other than the recycling market.

Of course recycling is presently the primary source of residual value. The secondary market for recycled materials has proven to be important to date for lead

acid and nickel metal hydride at the end of their useful life for all purposes. Others

have speculated that recycling of lithium ion batteries is less likely than for nickel

metal hydride. However, for hybrid batteries in particular, I suggest that this would

be subject to the yet-to-be determined path of battery development, and should be

affected by battery design and pack design. Many combinations of materials and assembly configurations are being considered, so it is too early to do anything more

than study the possibility of development of secondary markets and recycling probability. My understanding is that the Department of Energy Office of FreedomCAR

and Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Program now requires assessment of recycling in each of its contracts supporting development of different battery chemistries

and designs. Perhaps investigation of possible secondary markets should be included

as well.

My limited knowledge is that there is one secondary market for used vehicle batteries in less developed nations that do not have rural grid electricity. For these locations, use of batteries, charged at a not-too distant small generating facility, provides television, radio and perhaps computer services. For such markets, the batteries have to be carried back and forth between the generator and the customer.

Since li-ion has more kWh of energy storage per unit volume and per unit mass

than lead acid batteries and nickel metal hydride batteries, it would have an advantage in this market. More kWh of battery capacity could be carried in existing transport equipment. Similarly, more kWh of capacity could theoretically be loaded onto

a ship for transport from the U.S. to other nations.

However, one of the issues to be resolved with li-ion is shelf life (years of life, regardless of rate of use), and another is the possibility of fire due to overheating and

venting of flammable gases in the event of excessive overcharging. Both of these factors would work against li-ion relative to nickel metal hydride or lead acid.

Q4. Should there be a more systematic role for the Federal Government in developing

standards for the various elements of plug-in hybrid vehicles and its associated

infrastructure or should these activities be left to the private sector?

A4. I have just submitted a draft paper to an academic journal which addresses the

role of technical standards in the U.S. as a part of the process of causing a transition from one transportation technology to another. The argument of that paper is

that technical standards, adopted or codified by government in response to pressure

from industry and the public, have always played a critical role in such transitions.

I studied transitions through the 1800s and 1900s. In view of the arguments of that

paper, I would say that it would be without historical precedent for the U.S. to leave

the introduction of the plug-in hybrid vehicle to the private sector. Even if it tried

to do so, segments of industry would at some point lay one or more sets of technical

standards on the table and ask government to make them official.

121

Typically, the process of developing standards involves years of back and forth

discussions between industry and government(s), with both groups responding to or

trying to manipulate public opinion. It will be no different in this case. Testing and

demonstration is a typical part of this process. Expect it to be necessary again. I

do think that the process can be more systematic. My earlier argument for support

of more thorough and realistic testing is intended to make the process work better

and faster than it otherwise would, hopefully leading to earlier and more appropriate technical standards than would otherwise be the case.

I would say that the process of developing and implementing technical standards

is actually already very systematic and built into how the capitalist system works

within the context of our government structure. The form of your question—how to

make it ‘‘more’’ systematic—was apt.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in hybrids, including

an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better car-batteries.

Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for development and application of these technologies? What amount do you feel is sufficient for such

an initiative?

A1. The President in his budget submission must make judgment on many worthy

programs. I am in no position to offer a better judgment given the myriad of programs. When it comes to specifying an amount that will provide a predictable outcome for advanced R&D to cause a technology to succeed, no one, even in the technical community, is able to provide a precise answer. But I believe it is safe to assume that if Congress and the President determine that greater financial resources

are warranted, they would be effectively utilized and a greater chance of success is

probable.

(123)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCUSSION DRAFT

Sec. 1. Short Title.

The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.

Sec. 2. Near-Term Vehicle Technology Program.

a. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the text.

b. Program.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development,

demonstration, and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and

electric drive transportation technology.

Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the research program is designed

to develop

• high capacity, high efficiency batteries with:

Æ improved battery life, energy storage capacity, and power discharge;

Æ enhanced manufacturability; and

Æ minimized of waste and hazardous material use throughout the entire

value chain, including after the end of the useful life of the batteries.

• high efficiency on-board and off-board charging components;

• high-power drive train systems for passenger and commercial vehicles;

• on-board power control systems, power trains, and system integration research for all types of hybrid electric vehicles, including:

Æ development of efficient cooling systems; and

Æ research and development of on-board power control systems that minimize the emissions profile of plug-in hybrid drive systems.

• lightweight materials to:

Æ reduce vehicle weight and increase fuel economy while maintaining safety; and

Æ reduce the cost and enhance the manufacturability of lightweight materials used in making vehicles.

c. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Pilot Program.

(1) Requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program for the demonstration and commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

The pilot program would provide no more than 25 grants annually to State

governments, local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, or

a combination of these entities.

(2) Grants will be used to acquire plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, including

passenger vehicles.

(3) Requires the Secretary to issue requirements to apply for grants under the

pilot program and sets minimum requirements for applications, including

cost estimates and a description of how the project will continue after federal assistance ends.

(4) Requires the Secretary to consider the following criteria in reviewing applications:

• prior experience involving plug-in hybrid electric vehicles;

• project or projects that are most likely to maximize protection of the environment; and

• project or projects that demonstrate the greatest commitment on the part

of the applicant to ensure funding for the proposed project or projects and

the greatest likelihood that each project proposed in the application will

be maintained or expanded after federal assistance under this program

is completed.

(5) Requires the Secretary to provide no more than $20,000,000 in federal assistance under the pilot program to any single applicant for the period encompassing fiscal years 2007 through fiscal year 2016.

Requires that grants awarded by the Secretary do not exceed the annual

maximum per-vehicle amounts as follows:

135

Requires the Secretary to establish mechanisms to ensure that the information and knowledge gained by participants in the pilot program are transferred among the pilot program participants and to other interested parties,

including other applicants.

(6) Requires the Secretary to widely publish requests for proposals related to

this grant program and to begin awarding grants no later than 180 days

after the date by which applications for grants are due. Requires the Secretary to award grants through a competitive, peer reviewed process.

d. Merit based federal investments.

Requires the Department of Energy to ensure that the funding for the activities

in this section are awarded consistent with the merit based guidelines for federal

energy R&D investments established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L.

109–58).

e. Authorization of Appropriations.

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $250 million for each of

fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the program of research, development,

demonstration, and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and

electric drive transportation technology. Of the $250 million, $50 million may be

used for lightweight materials research and development as described in subsection

(b)(5).

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million for each of

fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pilot

program.

136

DOE Workshop on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Discussion Issues and Questions

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

MAY 4–5, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC

Hybrid vehicles with the ability to operate in an electric-only mode and recharge

from an electric outlet (referred to as ‘‘plug-in hybrids’’) have received a great deal

of attention recently because of their energy supply flexibility, ability to reduce petroleum consumption and potential environmental benefits. Plug-in hybrids are described in the Advanced Energy Initiative, announced by President Bush in the

State of the Union Address, as a way to increase fuel efficiency and utilize spare

electric generating capacity at night as well as being ‘‘a practical step toward hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, which have some of the same electric-drive and power-management technologies.’’

The Department of Energy (DOE) conducts research and development on a variety

of complementary (and competing) technologies to meet its energy efficiency and renewable energy objectives, including hybrid propulsion systems. As a precursor to

supporting plug-in hybrid technology research, DOE must consider:

• What are the technical and economic merits of plug-in hybrids within the candidate set of fuels and powertrains of the future?

• What should be the basis for comparison to other fuel/powertrain combinations? (e.g., oil use, greenhouse gas emissions, criteria pollutants, flexibility

of fueling and energy sources, utilization of electricity to enhance efficiency,

cost)

Answers to these questions are complex due to the potential interdependencies

among the elements of the system—including the vehicle, the recharging infrastructure and the electric utility power plant. This paper sets the stage for discussion

among DOE, industry and academia by beginning to identify opportunities and impediments, summarizing the status and applicability of critical technologies and posing key questions about system elements and their interactions.

Workshop Objectives

The following workshop objectives are expected to lead to suggestions for R&D

and to establish a framework for continuing dialogue:

1. Identify the state-of-the-art of current technologies that may have direct application to plug-in hybrids and related energy technologies.

2. Identify research gaps and their relative importance.

3. Identify possible research roles of the Federal Government, industry and academia.

4. Establish a technology baseline and develop sets of plug-in hybrid vehicle architectures to be evaluated.

5. Begin a dialogue among hybrid vehicle designers/producers, electric utilities

and researchers for the purpose of specifying mutually desirable plug-in hybrid and utility attributes.

6. Identify the value proposition (for both the customer and manufacturer) that

would allow the widespread application and adoption of plug-in technology.

Why Plug-in Hybrids?

Advocates have offered the following reasons for government and industry to support the development and deployment of plug-in hybrids:

Oil savings. Since very little oil is used in the production of electric power, switching to electric drive using energy from the grid can result in significant reductions

of oil use.

Greenhouse gas reductions. With the use of carbon sequestration for electricity

from coal, nearly all methods of generating electricity should result in reduced

greenhouse gases via use of grid electric power. The reductions would be dramatic

for electricity generated from nuclear, hydro and renewable sources.

Zero (tailpipe) emissions. Electric drive via plug-in hybrids charged overnight

displaces emissions in time and space. Displacement of daytime emissions to nighttime should reduce ozone, since sun and precursor pollutants are necessary to cause

137

this air pollutant. Displacement of emissions from urban to rural areas could reduce

net population exposure, even if total emissions do not drop. Although total emissions from coal-fired power plants for some pollutants could increase, use of electricity in most cases could reduce total emissions, in addition to reducing urban

emissions. And finally, emissions produced by vehicles prior to warm-up could be

greatly reduced with electric operation.

Energy savings. Plug-in hybrid advocates have noted that grid-sourced electric vehicle operation may provide the lowest full-fuel-cycle energy use when compared to

other transportation technologies. This could enhance the long-term energy supply.

Electric utility efficiency. ‘‘Load leveling,’’ the concept of filling the nighttime

trough in electric demand by shifting electricity use to this period, can enhance both

economic and thermal efficiency of electric utilities. Economic efficiency in the short

run is enhanced because capital (power plants and the grid) is more efficiently used

and generating efficiency is improved by operating plants at steady, near optimum

conditions instead of cyclic operation to match varying demand. In the long-term as

more generating capacity is needed, nuclear and efficient fossil fueled combined

cycle power plants could be added. From another perspective, relatively low cost,

clean wind power and overnight charging match each other in time reasonably well.

In the long run some see a bi-directional flow of power between plug-in hybrids and

the grid, with the batteries used for further load leveling and to improve the viability of intermittent wind.

Emergency services. Some see the plug-in hybrid as a potential clean, quiet

backup electric generator for the home in the event of power outages. A more expansive view is that plug-in hybrids could be connected to a grid that could carry power

of many vehicles as a utility’s back-up for power plant outages. Plug-in hybrids

could also provide reserve assurance that, in the event of a long-term shortage of

oil, the most valuable transportation services could be maintained by domestic fuel

supplies powering the grid.

Challenges

Despite the numerous anticipated benefits of plug-in hybrids, implementation of

any complex transportation technology is difficult, time consuming and costly. Details matter. If the cost is too high, the anticipated benefits may not be realizable.

Battery technology. Perhaps the most important ‘detail’ is the battery, as recognized in the State of the Union Address, with notable technical barriers to achieving

the energy capacity for a reasonable electric range, the power needed for acceptable

performance in all operating modes and life comparable to that of the vehicle—all

at a reasonable cost. Consumers are aware of the benefits of conventional hybrid

vehicles and plug-in hybrids sound even more attractive due to the higher fuel economy potential. But today’s batteries are capable of only one to two miles electric

range, as stated in the Advanced Energy Initiative, not enough to realize meaningful fuel economy improvements. And, when subjected to the deep discharges required for long electric range in a plug-in hybrid, batteries will probably not last

as long as in a conventional hybrid (e.g., typical eight-year/80,000 mile warranty).

Current battery technology could be a show-stopper for plug-in hybrids.

Electric drives. Another technical detail worth noting is that current production

hybrid vehicles cannot be used as plug-in hybrids without reduced performance in

their all-electric mode. Electric drives in production hybrids have been optimized for

intermittent use—to assist the engine during peak demands. They are not powerful

enough to provide the same acceleration or top speed without the engine and are

not designed to handle the temperature rise caused by continuous operation. Production hybrids cannot be easily adapted to remove this limitation because the motors/generators are highly integrated. The power of both the electric motor and

power electronics must be increased substantially (up to 100 percent) to provide

comparable performance. This is not a show-stopper for a new vehicle design, but

it will add cost and exacerbate packaging issues.

Interdependencies with utilities. The most obvious interdependency is the need

for plug-in hybrid vehicles to communicate with and (perhaps) be controlled by the

utility during charging for the most effective electric energy utilization. Beyond that,

the requirements and benefits of the relationship are not as clear. For example, the

choice of powertrain technology could have a regional dependency—a vehicle for

urban areas with air quality problems might not be the best choice for the Nation

as a whole, where priorities other than air quality would dominate. There are many

possible alternative powertrain configurations and priorities (on both the supply and

demand sides) that could alter design choices. In addition, the optimum mid- and

138

long-term sources of energy are not obvious. Wind and nuclear power might compete

to be the option that fills a nighttime trough in demand to meet charging needs—

though neither may be the best choice at this time.

A solid R&D roadmap needs to be developed if success is to be achieved. The following discussions illustrate the numerous challenges that exist. Using these discussions as a starting point, it is expected that the attending experts will help determine research gaps, identify omissions, and provide recommendations on answering

the important questions.

Hybrid Vehicle Systems

Current Status

• Current hybrid vehicles are designed to rely heavily on the engine with intermittent use of the electric propulsion system—to assist the engine during peak

power demands, capture regenerative braking energy and, in some cases, provide low-speed electric driving.

• Battery, motor and power electronics are sized to provide part of the propulsion power on an intermittent basis.

• Cost in comparison to conventional vehicles appears to be an important impediment to large scale production and sales.

• The propulsion system control strategy is focused on fuel economy, emissions

reduction and protection of the battery (i.e., limited to shallow dischargecharge cycles to maximize life).

• Tools and procedures for analysis (i.e. modeling and simulation) and testing

(laboratory and field) for technology development and validation are in place.

Regulatory test procedures are defined based on standard driving cycles.

Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids

• Plug-in hybrids have been proposed with a variety of vehicle architectures,

ranging from the present power sharing configurations (with the addition of

external charging capability) to vehicles with substantial electric-only range

and intermittent use of the engine.

• The battery must be sized (higher energy) for the desired electric range.

• The electric motor and power electronics must be sized (higher power) for desired performance in the electric-only mode.

• Cost must be competitive; a higher power and energy electric propulsion system will exacerbate the production cost differential relative to conventional

vehicles.

• Present control strategies are not applicable—revision is needed to focus on

electric range and a daily use pattern that includes external charging.

• Analytical tools require revision to account for mutually exclusive or power

sharing operating modes and daily use patterns. Existing HEV test procedures to measure and report fuel economy are not applicable to a vehicle with

substantial electric range and a daily use pattern that includes overnight and/

or opportunity charging.

Technical Gaps

• Vehicle analysis—Duty cycles (consistent with consumer use patterns and

proposed test procedures) and projected component characteristics are needed

to design vehicles, specify components and evaluate options.

• Control strategy—Algorithms need to be refocused to maximize petroleum

displacement as a function of the vehicle configuration, on-board energy storage and interaction with the electric utilities.

• Testing—Test procedures that reflect daily driving and charging patterns are

needed to support benchmark testing (to identify key performance requirements for component development) and technology validation.

Key Questions

1. What is the definition of ‘electric range’ for a plug-in hybrid?

Continuous or cumulative electric-mode operation (e.g., will intermittent engine operation be allowed in the determination of range)?

139

2. What are the design trade-offs among cost, configuration, control

strategy, battery power and energy requirements?

Is the same vehicle performance necessary in hybrid and electric modes?

What electric range provides the best cost-benefit ratio at the vehicle level?

Can available battery technology meet the needs of a plug-in hybrid?

Can ultra-capacitors be used for additional power?

Can control strategy compensate for near-term energy/power limitations of

the electric propulsion system?

3. How will consumers utilize the electric range (i.e., battery energy)

and recharge the battery on a daily basis?

From a customer perspective, is opportunity charging a realistic alternative

to longer electric range (i.e., a larger battery)?

How does use pattern and control strategy impact battery life and life cycle

cost?

What duty cycles/daily patterns are appropriate for analysis (i.e., modeling

and simulation of vehicle/propulsion system alternatives)?

4. Is plug-in technology applicable to and beneficial for varying vehicle

types?

Will plug-ins be beneficial in all regions of the country?

Will plug-in powertrains be viable for a range of platforms (S, M, L, and XL)

and appeal to a range of customers (performance and/or economy)?

5. How will plug-in hybrids be tested?

Since plug-ins will use both liquid fuel and electric energy (perhaps with

limited use of the engine), how should fuel economy be measured and reported?

What test cycles and procedures should be used?

Since plug-in hybrids could use both overnight and opportunity charging,

should a daily driving cycle be considered?

6. What is the value proposition for the customer and manufacturer?

Why would a customer buy a plug-in hybrid?

Why would the manufacturer invest to develop and produce plug-in hybrids?

Some believe that a $1300 cost differential or a three-year payback is necessary for hybrids to have mass market appeal—will this be different for

plug-in hybrids?

7. Will the requirement to plug in and/or the plug-in limitations (e.g.,

availability of 220V outlet, charge rates/times) limit the market?

Energy Storage Technology

Current Status

• The typical battery in a production hybrid vehicle is a nickel-metal hydride

(NiMH) sized for power demands, i.e., start/stop functionality, power assist

during acceleration, recovering regenerative braking energy and supporting

some low-speed driving.

Æ Energy capacity provides only a few miles all-electric range (at reduced

performance).

Æ Service life appears to fall short of vehicle life, even if the state-of-charge

is maintained within a relatively narrow range (i.e., not discharged deeply). Manufacturers employ a control strategy to ensure this type of operation and provide warrantees accordingly (e.g., eight years/80,000 miles).

Æ DOE has performed limited testing with NiMH in a production hybrid

with a plug-in duty cycle and the results have been extrapolated to estimate battery requirements for various electric ranges. In addition, NNE

batteries have been used in an after-market modification of a production

hybrid to demonstrate the impact of the plug-in concept on fuel economy.

• Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, being developed by DOE and considered by

some manufacturers for conventional hybrid vehicle applications, are currently used in consumer electronics exclusively.

140

Æ Life tests have successfully demonstrated 300,000 shallow charge-discharge cycles, likely adequate for conventional power-assist hybrids.

Æ Currently they are considered two to four times too expensive for vehicles.

Æ Li-ion batteries have been incorporated in a plug-in hybrid concept vehicle by a major manufacturer and analyzed by DOE for use plug-in hybrids; the higher specific energy and power illustrated potential advantages relative to NiMH.

• Other technologies, such as ultra-capacitors (low energy/high power density)

and Li-metal batteries (high energy, but short life) are being investigated by

DOE.

Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids

• Analysis and testing with NiMH batteries in current production hybrid vehicle configurations indicates the potential for high fuel economy, but their

service life with a plug-in vehicle duty cycle (including deep discharge cycles)

is unknown.

• Li-ion batteries could perform better than NiMH in plug-ins due to their higher specific energy and power. In addition, they are potentially less expensive

and could last longer, but similar to NiMH, their service life with deep discharge cycles has not been demonstrated.

Technical Gaps

• Cost of Li-ion batteries must be reduced by 50–75 percent; cost drivers (raw

materials and processing, cell and module packaging) are being addressed.

• Life with combined deep/shallow cycling as in plug-in hybrid vehicle use

needs to be determined for all batteries; 15-year calendar life target not demonstrated.

• Safety—Li-ion batteries are not intrinsically tolerant of abusive conditions

(short circuits, overcharge, over-discharge, crush or exposure to fire) and currently require mechanical and electronic devices for protection; implications

of plug-in recharging remain to be determined.

• Low-temperature operation of Li-ion batteries needs to address poor discharge characteristics and failure modes during charge.

Key Questions

1. What is required of the battery to support plug-in hybrids?

What is the optimum power-energy ratio?

What is the allowable weight and volume?

What are the trade-offs among service life, deep and shallow cycling?

Can available batteries be utilized in near-term plug-in hybrids?

Is dual energy/power storage applicable (e.g., battery + super capacitor)?

Could plug-in batteries be modularized to provide broader cost benefit to the

consumer?

2. How should plug-in hybrid batteries be bench tested?

What cycling profiles match potential vehicle architectures?

Will daily cycles (with overnight and/or opportunity charging) be incorporated into the test regime?

Is accurate determination of state-of-charge (SOC) complicated by a plug-in

hybrid duty cycle?

Electric Motors and Power Electronics

Current Status

• Electric drive motors and power electronics currently in production hybrid vehicles are designed for intermittent operation, i.e., sized for the power requirements, duty cycle and thermal loads to assist the engine during peak demands, convert braking energy, charge the battery and, in some cases, provide low speed driving.

141

• Drive motors/generators are typically optimized for and integrated within the

drivetrain. Typical drive motors in production hybrids are rated at about 50

kW (∼1500 rpm) and the latest introductions are up to 100 kW (∼4500 rpm)—

both about half the maximum power of their respective propulsion systems.

‘‘Upgrading’’ these systems for electric-only operation, i.e., increasing the peak

and average power and thermal loads, is not likely due to the packaging and

thermal limitations.

• Power electronics are designed to match the characteristics of the energy storage subsystem and the drive motor. Batteries are nominally 200–250V, with

power electronics operating at 500–600V max (using a boost converter) to decrease the current and associated losses. Consequently, the power semi-conductors are rated at about twice that voltage.

Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids

• Several powertrain architectures are being considered for plug-in hybrids.

The power-assist configuration with a modified control strategy to allow battery depletion would have the least impact on the motor and power electronics. The architecture presenting the greatest challenges is the dual-mode

with equal performance in both modes. Current production hybrid motors and

power electronics—optimized for intermittent use and supplying about half

the max power—cannot operate in a continuous electric-only mode with full

performance due to the inherent power and thermal limitations.

Technical Gaps

• Motor power must be increased (perhaps doubled) for continuous operation in

full-performance dual-mode vehicles, which could require further increases in

maximum motor speed and constant power speed range.

• Power electronics must be resized (or redesigned) to allow higher continuous

ratings, putting pressure on packaging and efficiency. Voltage may have to

increase to 800V or more and the associated silicon devices may need to be

rated at 1440V to 1700V.

• Thermal management issues are exacerbated because the electric drive duty

cycle is a larger fraction of vehicle propulsion. Electrolytic capacitors may

have to be replaced with film capacitors—more expensive, but more tolerant

of higher temperatures. Liquid cooling may be required.

Key Questions

1. Are motor and/or power electronics issues unique to plug-ins?

What types of motors are best suited to various plug-in hybrid configurations, and how do they differ from conventional HEVs and fuel cell vehicles?

What motor R&D is most needed to realize commercially viable plug-in hybrid systems?

2. What are the thermal system requirements (heat rejection, component and subsystem sizing, coolant temperatures, etc.) for motor and

power electronics in plug-in hybrids?

3. What are the implications of dual energy storage (e.g., battery +

super capacitor), including the performance degradation of each at

low ambient temperatures?

Recharging Infrastructure

Current Status

• Nearly all houses are equipped with 110VAC/15A circuits throughout, capable

of supplying up to 10 kWh in a six-hour period.

• Modern houses have 220VAC/20A circuits (capable of supplying up to 26 kWh

in six hours) for hard-wired appliances such as the range or water heater.

• Not all residences are single family homes with a garage or carport.

Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids

• Examples: A 110VAC outlet could recharge a vehicle with a 15–20 mile range

and a 220VAC outlet could support a vehicle with a 40–50 mile range (assumVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:00 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 027587 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER06\051706\27587 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
142

ing energy consumption of 500Wh/mi and an 85 percent efficient six-hour

charge for both).

Technical Gaps

• The most efficient nighttime charging (from the utility perspective) will require a communication link with the vehicle to control the charge time and

the power available, in addition to metering (if preferential pricing for vehicles is offered).

• Appropriate circuits in convenient vehicle charging locations (e.g., garages,

parking lots and structures)—220VAC for longer electric ranges.

Key Questions

1. What changes to customers’ electrical systems are required to recharge?

What is a reasonable amount of time to charge?

Should there be a standard interface (for power, communication and control)?

What is the impact of more than one vehicle per customer/residence?

How many customers can take advantage of a plug-in hybrid (due to parking

location)?

What is the impact on local substations as well as the utility in general?

2. How would plug-in hybrids impact/benefit the utility?

How many plug-in hybrids can a utility support?

How difficult is communication with and controlled charging of plug-in hybrids?

What benefits can be realized from plug-ins returning energy to the grid?

How many vehicles are necessary and/or desirable for the utility to implement distribution system modifications?

Would plug-in hybrids affect grid quality? If so, how important is this and

how costly might a fix be?

Electric Power Plant

Current Status

Present power plants are fueled by a variety of fuels across the country:

• Natural gas—clean and efficient, but no longer thought to be abundant in the

United States.

• Coal—Abundant, but present technology (with the exception of integrated

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) ) is not considered the clean alternative;

DOE is undertaking CO2 sequestration R&D in the FutureGen Initiative.

• Nuclear—Present capacity operating at very high load factors.

• Wind—Turbines produce more power at night when vehicle battery charging

needed most; regionally variable and limited supply but relatively cheap to

install.

• Solar—Photovoltaic arrays not competitive except in areas not served by the

grid.

Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids

• Nuclear—Unlikely spare capacity would be used in the near-term due to high

load factor, load leveling with plug-ins might enhance economic viability in

the future.

• Wind—Should benefit from plug-ins, which can match supply and demand,

minimizing the initial impact on existing utilities.

• Solar—Mismatch with overnight charging, but perhaps long-term source (i.e.,

central or distributed arrays at business locations) for opportunity charging.

Key Questions

1. What are the regional impacts and benefits of plug-in hybrids?

Where is the extra capacity to charge plug-in hybrids, when is it available

and is there fuel to support it?

143

Does this change in the long-term?

Could additional demand for plug-in hybrids be met with additional capacity

planned for normal demand growth?

What is the impact of variation in electricity cost and price?

How would local and total emissions/air quality be affected by plug-in hybrids?

2. Can renewable sources play a significant role?

Is there an adequate match of producers (e.g., wind farms) and vehicles in

a region to make this a viable entry strategy or a long-term option?

3. How important are the ‘emergency provisions’ of a plug-in hybrid to

the value proposition (considering the customer and utility)?

What is the value of the grid connection in an oil shortage?

What is the value of the auxiliary power capability in a power outage?

How would use in an emergency situation affect grid operations or power

quality?

To what extent would fixing power quality issues raise technology cost?

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171