Locations Roadmap Working Group

National 

Hydrogen 

Scenarios

How many stations, where, and when?

October 2017
ii | National Hydrogen Scenarios 
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | iii

Disclaimer

Since fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) went on sale to the public in California in the fall of 2015, auto original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and hydrogen station developers have gained real-world experience about the 

refueling patterns and preferences of FCEV customers. In review of these learnings, OEMs and the State of California 

have developed target locations for the next phase of hydrogen station build-out in California. Similarly in the 

Northeast, OEMs are working with station developers and public stakeholders to coordinate next steps.

An understanding of consumer demand, balanced with sound business cases for new hydrogen stations, is essential 

in the successful build-out and growth of the hydrogen station network. This goal can be more readily attained by 

increasing communication between multiple stakeholders, including public officials, investors, auto OEMs, station 

developers, and other decision makers.

H2USA members and working groups adhere to strict anti-trust guidelines. The information shared between Locations 

Roadmap Working Group members adhered to these anti-trust guidelines. Development of the analysis for this 

report occurred in parallel with the deployment of FCEVs into the early market. The resulting scenarios in this report 

represent the future potential of the network image. The contents of the present report therefore represent a very 

general means of achieving the common goal of hydrogen station network growth. Any forward-looking statements 

should not be interpreted as basis for making business decisions or investment decisions.
iv | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Acknowledgements

This report has been developed by the H2USA Locations Roadmap Working Group and approved for publication by 

H2USA members. The contents reflect the result of many working group discussions and reviews, as well as reviews 

and feedback provided by several different stakeholders. Key contributors include the co-chairs of the Locations 

Roadmap Working Group, Stephen Ellis (American Honda Motor Company) and Marc Melaina (National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory), as well as Brian Bush (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Matteo Muratori (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory), and Jarett Zuboy (Independent Contractor). The full list of Locations Roadmap 

Working Group members is provided in the Appendix.

This work has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under Contract 

No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”). The U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Cell 

Technologies Office within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) provided support for this 

work. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United 

States government or any agency thereof. Toyota Motor Company provided support for station location analyses 

conducted by the University of California, Irvine, for the Northeast states, which have been used to develop station 

rollout scenarios in the Northeast. Similarly, the scenarios rely on successful strategies developed through many years 

of planning, coordination, and resource development conducted by the California Fuel Cell Partnership, California 

Energy Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Governor’s Office.

This report should be cited as:

Melaina, M., B. Bush, M. Muratori, J. Zuboy and S. Ellis, 2017. National Hydrogen Scenarios: How Many Stations, Where, 

and When? Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the H2USA Locations Roadmap Working 

Group. http://h2usa.org/sites/default/files/H2USA_LRWG_NationalScenarios2017.pdf.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | v

Acronyms

EAM Early Adopter Metric

FCEV Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle

HRS Hydrogen refueling station

LDV Light-duty vehicle

mpge Miles per gasoline gallon equivalent

ROC Rest of country

ZEV Zero-emission vehicle
vi | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Executive Summary

Technological advances are transforming personal 

mobility, providing improved safety, automated 

driving, enhanced vehicle performance, and increased 

sustainability. Hydrogen fuel cells are a key technology 

option within this transformation. As fully zero-emission 

electrified vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles 

(FCEVs) can refuel in 3–5 minutes to a range of 360 

miles or more and can be scaled from small sedans for 

personal use to large line-haul trucks and car or truck 

platforms in between. When compared to conventional 

gasoline vehicles, FCEVs provide a range of economic, 

energy security, public health, and environmental 

benefits for the nation without requiring consumers 

to compromise on vehicle size or performance (NRC 

2013). Several FCEVs are commercially available today. 

However, the lack of convenient and extensive networks 

of hydrogen refueling stations is limiting market growth. 

A significantly larger network of retail hydrogen stations 

must be established before FCEVs can be sold to the 

general public in a broad, geographically diverse manner 

similar to conventional 

vehicles.

This report was 

developed within 

the framework of the 

U.S. public-private 

collaboration known 

as H2USA, with 

approximately 50 

partners committed 

to enabling hydrogen 

infrastructure for FCEV 

adoption. The report 

examines development 

scenarios for hydrogen 

station networks 

needed to support a national rollout of FCEVs in the 

United States. As FCEV prices decrease and the variety 

of available FCEVs increases over the next 5–10 years, 

a select number of urban, state, and regional markets 

can help establish the station networks required for 

FCEV market growth. California is fully engaged in this 

station funding and deployment process today, and a 

number of other states are showing interest, primarily in 

the northeast but also in Hawaii, Texas, Ohio, and South 

Carolina to name a few. Based on experience over the 

last two decades, California’s successful planning and 

execution of coordinated FCEV adoption and hydrogen 

refueling station deployment can serve as a valuable 

resource for other states and regions in their hydrogen 

infrastructure development efforts. The following 

planning processes have been key ingredients of 

California’s historical success:

1. Quantify FCEV market potential and automaker 

commitments. 

2. Establish financial support mechanisms for hydrogen 

refueling station investments. 

3. Establish FCEV market support mechanisms. 

4. Implement station network planning and 

coordination tools. 

The success of government-industry partnerships in 

California, along with comparable initiatives in Europe 

and East Asia, are laying the foundations for global 

FCEV market growth by funding hydrogen stations. 

Although additional U.S. 

cities, states, and industry 

partnerships may follow a 

slightly different process, 

these four strategies 

have been demonstrated 

as successful methods 

to reduce investment 

risks and leverage the 

effectiveness of public 

and private funds in the 

development of hydrogen 

station networks.

In this report, an internally 

consistent analytic 

modeling method 

simulates how station networks might develop across 

cities and regions, assuming that successful planning and 

coordination activities result in a rollout of FCEVs and 

stations similar to California’s. The report’s three scenarios 

capture some of the variations that might occur as FCEV 

markets and station networks expand.

In the Urban Markets scenario, FCEV markets are driven 

by a combination of consumer demand, initiatives 

implemented by individual cities, and stakeholder focus 

on the most promising urban markets. The State Success 

Technological advances are 

transforming personal mobility, 

providing improved safety, 

automated driving, enhanced 

vehicle performance, and increased 

sustainability. Hydrogen fuel cells 

are a key technology option within 

this transformation.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | vii

scenario achieves a higher level of FCEV market adoption than does the 

Urban Markets scenario, with FCEV sales primarily driven by the Zero Emission 

Vehicle (ZEV) mandate and other market support mechanisms, which are 

complemented by strong stakeholder planning and coordination in ZEV states. 

The National Expansion scenario achieves the highest levels of FCEV adoption, 

with FCEV markets and station network development responding to consumer 

demand, strong market support initiatives implemented at city, state, and 

national levels, as well as aggressive stakeholder coordination and planning 

across economically integrated megaregions.

These scenarios are not forecasts of future market outcomes. Rather, they 

provide insight to various public and private stakeholders engaged in the 

planning and coordination required to help facilitate their own station 

networks, while reducing hydrogen station investment risks. Early markets 

for alternative fuel vehicles are widely acknowledged as difficult to develop—

these scenarios are meant to help stakeholders better understand and 

potentially leverage California’s past lessons and ongoing efforts to build 

momentum for national FCEV market growth while respecting their own 

differences, processes, and local knowledge.

The following conclusions and insights are supported by the scenario results: 

• Robust networks of hydrogen stations must be established in advance of 

selling large volumes of FCEVs into any given urban area. Following the 

rollout of stations planned for California, by 2025 a total of 320–570 additional 

stations would be required both in California and nationwide to enable 

significant FCEV market growth. Intensive stakeholder coordination and 

planning activities should precede the introduction of these initial stations to 

ensure progress toward a national milestone of “500 in 2025.”

• There are multiple means of achieving FCEV market growth beyond 

California. Although the ZEV mandate has been a key policy driver in 

California, high concentrations of early adopters in other cities and states—

combined with track records of strong support for advanced vehicles—

suggest many other markets are promising for FCEV sales and hydrogen 

station investments.

• Large cities with high concentrations of early adopters and strong market 

support mechanisms, as demonstrated in California, are assumed to be 

the most promising markets for introducing FCEVs and hydrogen station 

networks. With adequate market support mechanisms in place, these 

markets could prove to be the most promising options for rapidly achieving 

vehicle growth and substantial hydrogen demand, thereby reducing the 

financial risk posed to hydrogen station investors.

• The market potential for hydrogen station networks is large. The scenarios 

portray a national network of approximately 1,500–3,300 hydrogen 

stations by 2035, with a hydrogen capacity of 1.3 million to 3.4 million kg/

day, serving 1.8 million to 4.5 million FCEVs. Assuming average hydrogen 

prices of $8–$10 per kg, annual revenues would be around $3.0 billion to 

$9.2 billion. Based upon the scenario results, the largest and most robust 

segments of these station networks would initially be located in a select 

number of major urban areas where a track record of surrogate vehicles has 

already paved the way for FCEVs.
viii | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

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

1.1 International Context.................................................................................................................................................................................4

1.2 Purpose of this Report..............................................................................................................................................................................5

2 The California Precedent..................................................................................................................................................................................6

3 Hydrogen Infrastructure Scenarios ..............................................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Overview of Analytic Methods...............................................................................................................................................................8

3.2 Scenario Results.........................................................................................................................................................................................9

3.3 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Market Growth Scenarios......................................................................................................................11

3.4 Hydrogen Station Network Development.......................................................................................................................................13

4 Scenario Results................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

5 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................21

Appendix: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................23

References .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Table of Contents

Figures

Figure 1. Commercially available FCEVs (top) and examples of limited-production FCEVs (bottom) ...................................2

Figure 2. Existing and planned stations in Northern (top) and Southern (bottom) California (CEC 2017a; CEC 2017c; 

AFDC 2017; CARB 2017).......................................................................................................................................................................................3

Figure 3. Existing and planned hydrogen refueling stations in Europe and East Asia (LBST 2017)........................................4

Figure 4. Basic components of a continuous cycle of support for early FCEV and HRS markets ............................................7

Figure 5. U.S. population across urban areas and regions. Megaregions indicate frequency and geographic extent of 

household vehicle commuting patterns. ........................................................................................................................................................9

Figure 6. FCEV sales by scenario compared with total U.S. LDV sales ...............................................................................................11

Figure 7. Breakdown of FCEV sales by period and region......................................................................................................................12

Figure 8. Market activation station example: Seattle, Washington (Map data: Google).............................................................14

Figure 9. Number of FCEVs on the road and total HRSs by scenario and region......................................................................... 15

Figure 10. Population with access to hydrogen refueling by scenario...............................................................................................16

Figure 11. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2025 ..................................................................18

Figure 12. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2035...................................................................19

Figure 13. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2050.................................................................20

Table 1. Status of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen refueling stations in 2016 and future planned 

stations by country.................................................................................................................................................................................................4

Table 2. Scenario geographic scales and time periods..............................................................................................................................8

Table 3. Market influences by scenario..........................................................................................................................................................10

Table 4. Summary of scenario results by period........................................................................................................................................22

Tables
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 1

1 Introduction

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are one of 

several promising advanced transportation technologies 

that can help to address the nation’s energy, economic, 

and environmental challenges. FCEVs are fully electric 

zero-emission vehicles: hydrogen stored onboard is 

converted into electricity by the fuel cell stack, and 

water is the only tailpipe emission. The high efficiency 

of fuel cell propulsion systems, combined with onboard 

hydrogen storage, enables FCEVs to be fully functional 

long-range, zero-emission vehicles—with the size, power, 

and range of conventional gasoline vehicles. Passenger 

FCEVs have a range of 300–350 miles and, unlike plugin electric vehicles, can refuel in less than 5 minutes. 

Drivetrain components can be scaled cost effectively 

for use in a broad array of light, medium, and heavy 

duty vehicles. Because hydrogen can be produced from 

various energy resources—including domestic natural 

gas, nuclear, and renewables—FCEVs are a clean, secure, 

and sustainable substitute for conventional gasoline and 

diesel vehicles (NRC 2013).1

The cost and performance of fuel cell powertrain 

technologies have improved dramatically over the past 

15 years (Wilson et al. 2016). Today three passenger 

FCEVs are commercially available in California, by 

nature of progress with hydrogen station developments. 

These are: the Hyundai Tucson, Toyota Mirai, and 

Honda Clarity. These commercial vehicles build on 

experience accumulated by many automakers through 

1 For a brief introduction to hydrogen fuel cell technologies, see the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s video, “Energy 101: Fuel Cell Technology,” 

https://energy.gov/eere/videos/energy-101-fuel-cell-technology.

the development of prototype FCEVs and completion 

of several real-world retail consumer demonstration 

programs (FCHJU 2017; Wipke et al. 2012). Figure 1 

shows commercially available and limited-production 

FCEVs. Additional light-duty FCEV makes and models 

will be introduced into these hydrogen station enabled 

markets in the near future.

The major barrier to widespread national deployment 

of FCEVs is the lack of convenient, extensive networks 

of hydrogen refueling stations (HRSs). The existing U.S. 

fleet of about 240 million gasoline-fueled light-duty 

vehicles (LDVs) is served by a network of 120,000–

150,000 retail gasoline refueling stations (AFDC 2014; 

U.S. Census 2012; NACS 2015). This suggests a ratio of 

about 2,000 gasoline vehicles for every gasoline station. 

By comparison, at the end of 2016, 33 retail HRSs served 

approximately 1,000 FCEVs in the United States (CEC 

2017a; Cobb 2017). Private companies, government 

agencies, and research institutions own and operate 

another 26 HRSs (AFDC 2017). Eight HRSs are serving 

25 active fuel cell transit buses, and deployment of 

another 46 fuel cell buses is planned (Eudy et al. 2016). 

The vast majority of these early HRSs is concentrated in 

California, which has a total of 62 operational and underconstruction stations (Figure 2) (AFDC 2017; CARB 

2017). In 2016, Air Liquide and Toyota announced plans 

to install an initial network of 12 HRSs along a Northeast 

corridor extending from northern New Jersey through 

Boston (Air Liquide 2016). In early 2017, the California 

Energy Commission announced awards for 16 additional 

stations in California (CEC 2017c).
2 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

FCEVs commercially available today

Examples of limited-production FCEVs

Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell 

Vehicle

May 2014, Commercially Available

265-mile range, 49 mpge, 100-kW 

max power

Photo from the California Fuel Cell 

Partnership

2008 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle

2008 Demonstration, Project Driveway, 100 Vehicles

200-mile range, 43 mpge, 94-kW max power

Photo from NREL 15340

Mercedes Benz B-Class F-Cell

2002–2012, Multiple Generations

Photo from NREL 18281

Toyota Mirai Fuel 

Cell Vehicle

October 2015, Commercially 

Available

312-mile range, 66 mpge, 113-kW 

max power

Photo from Toyota

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell 

Vehicle

December 2016, Commercially 

Available

366-mile range, 67 mpge, 103-kW 

max power

Photo from Honda

Figure 1. Commercially available FCEVs (top) and examples of limited-production FCEVs (bottom) 

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 3

More information on FCEVs, the 

existing HRS network, and real-time 

tracking of station status for mobile 

applications can be found through 

H2USA (http://h2usa.org), the California 

Fuel Cell Partnership (http://cafcp.

org), the Alternative Fuels Data Center 

(http://www.afdc.energy.gov), and 

the international H2-Stations website 

maintained by Ludwig-BölkowSystemtechnick GmbH (http://www.

H2Stations.org).

Figure 2. Existing and planned stations in Northern (top) and Southern (bottom) California 

(CEC 2017a; CEC 2017c; AFDC 2017; CARB 2017)

Source: NREL
4 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

1.1 International Context

Country

2016 Status

Planned Hydrogen Stations FCEVs FC Buses Stations

United States 1,186 25 53 100 in California by 2024, 15 in 

Northeast beginning in 2017

Germany 103 14 22 400 by 2023

Japan 573 Demo only 86 1,000 by 2025

France 110 - 5

United Kingdom 37 8 7

Scandinavia 40 5 10 21 by 2017

Total 2,049 52 183

Table 1. Status of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen refueling stations in 2016 and future planned stations by country

Sources: Schneider 2016; James and Karlsson 2016; CEC 2017; AFDC 2017; HARC 2017. Total FCEVs in the United States comprise the sum of sales in 

2016 and 2015, as reported by Cobb (2017).

Figure 3. Existing and planned hydrogen refueling stations in Europe and East Asia (LBST 2017)

Source: NREL

Efforts to commercialize FCEVs in the United States 

are among the initiatives led by many governments 

and private corporations, with major concentrations in 

Europe, Japan, and South Korea (LBST 2017; HARC 2017; 

Schneider 2016; James and Karlsson 2016). Approximate 

numbers of non-bus FCEVs, fuel cell buses, and hydrogen 

stations as of 2016 are reported in Table 1. Figure 3 shows 

the locations of existing and planned stations in Europe 

and East Asia.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 5

1.2 Purpose of this Report

This report provides context and insight to stakeholders 

involved in the development of national HRS networks 

by examining the quantity, location, and deployment 

schedule of stations needed to satisfy consumer demand 

for FCEVs. The results of these scenarios can help guide 

plans to enable FCEV market growth. Three national 

scenarios are developed based on California’s successful 

market transformation and planning processes. These 

scenarios illustrate how national FCEV markets and HRS 

networks might coevolve in space and time in response to 

various combinations of market demand, market support, 

and corporate strategy trends. The scenarios represent 

a range of possible futures, with the goal of enabling 

more informed decisions by various public and private 

stakeholders with different perspectives and priorities, 

ranging from near-term investors to long-term planning 

organizations.

Coordination and planning by public-private partnerships 

will be an essential part of the successful creation and 

acceleration of future markets for FCEVs and HRSs. 

Consumers are reluctant to buy FCEVs until the refueling 

infrastructure is well developed, and investment in 

alternative fuel infrastructure is only justified with 

assurance of a significant level of demand. Stakeholder 

coordination can reduce HRS network investment 

risks by increasing the probability of achieving high 

utilization rates and larger economies of scale, which are 

fundamental requirements for a successful business case.

This business case must be achieved while establishing an 

infrastructure network sufficient in scale and geographic 

scope to enable strong FCEV market growth. As HRS 

networks coevolve 

with FCEV market 

growth, they must 

provide coverage 

to entire urban 

areas, link clusters 

of urban areas, 

and enable longdistance travel 

along interstate 

corridors.

These requirements 

highlight the 

interdependence 

of stakeholder decisions, investment risks, and profit 

potential, and they emphasize the fundamental 

role of planning and coordination among multiple 

stakeholders. The scenarios presented here contribute 

to these collaborative efforts by examining the national 

expansion of HRS networks across different cities, 

regions, and time periods. 

Scenario results provide preliminary and high-level 

answers to the following questions:

• How many HRSs are needed to serve growing FCEV 

markets? This question is addressed by examining 

initial coverage requirements for urban areas, total 

network capacity required to satisfy local demand, 

and geographic network expansion required to satisfy 

growth into mainstream consumer markets. 

• Where would HRSs need to be located? This question 

is addressed at neighborhood, urban area, and regional 

scales, relying on previous analytic studies and new 

applications of detailed station location and national 

network expansion models. All scenarios include strong 

growth in California followed by a variety of expansion 

patterns into additional urban and regional markets. 

• When would new HRSs need to be deployed? This 

question is addressed through three distinct rates 

of FCEV market growth, ranging from 23 million to 

61 million passenger FCEVs deployed by 2050 (1.8 

million to 4.5 million by 2035). For all new markets, 

initial coverage stations are established before FCEVs 

are introduced.

All three questions depend on assumptions about initial 

station coverage requirements for early FCEV adopters, 

average station sizes, the geographic extent of urban 

markets, consumer demographics, and rates of FCEV 

market growth. Each of the three scenarios resolves 

these interrelated factors through internally consistent 

simulations of FCEV adoption and HRS network 

expansion dynamics, drawing on empirical trends and 

updated plans from recent studies. The result is a set 

of complete national HRS network simulations, with 

temporally and spatially resolved HRS locations, sizes, 

and installation years as FCEV market shares increase 

over time and across different U.S. cities and regions.

Coordination and 

planning by publicprivate partnerships 

will be an essential 

part of the successful 

creation and 

acceleration of 

future markets for 

FCEVs and HRSs. 
6 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

This report reflects the perspectives of H2USA Locations 

Roadmap Working Group members. The scenarios are 

intended to inform stakeholders involved in developing 

partnerships for local or regional HRS networks. 

The FCEV sales volumes discussed in each scenario, 

nationally and by region, do not necessarily suggest 

that sales are more or less likely to materialize in a given 

market. Instead, the trends and relationships discussed 

in each scenario provide insight into likely dynamics 

as HRS networks and FCEV markets coevolve. Specific 

investment decisions should be made based on the 

latest and most reliable market data and in response 

to progress with stakeholder coordination activities in 

promising markets. For more information on investment 

opportunities, see the online H2FAST investment 

tool, the H2USA website, and the Hydrogen Network 

Investment Plan (NREL 2017; H2USA 2017; Eckerle and 

Garderet 2013).

The remainder of the report is organized as follows. 

Section 2 reviews California’s successful market 

transformation process. Section 3 describes the elements 

of each scenario, and Section 4 presents scenario results. 

Finally, Section 5 summarizes key study takeaways. 

Supporting information on modeling methods is provided 

in a companion report (Bush et al. forthcoming).

2 The California Precedent

Because California leads the United States in the 

development of a successful passenger FCEV market 

and convenient HRS network, the present study is 

grounded in the research, processes, and empirical 

results that have emerged from California’s experience. 

This experience is summarized in Figure 4 and the box at 

the end of this section, summarized as basic components 

and key ingredients that may prove useful to other U.S. 

states and regions.

Building on a long history of air-quality improvement 

efforts, California began setting aggressive advanced 

vehicle standards in the 1990s, including the Zero 

Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, to address issues 

related to air quality, energy security, and climate change. 

The state government also began proactively supporting 

implementation of advanced and alternative fuel vehicles. 

In 2009, the California Fuel Cell Partnership—which 

includes automakers, energy companies, government 

agencies, fuel cell and hydrogen technology companies, 

and research and advocacy organizations—published 

a plan outlining the early introduction of FCEVs and 

HRSs in key geographic clusters with large numbers 

of expected early FCEV adopters. This led to the 

identification of early markets to be targeted by local 

HRS clusters (Ogden and Nicholas 2011; CaFCP 2012a; 

CaFCP 2014; Brown et al. 2015).

FCEVs are one aspect of California’s overall goal to 

deploy 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025, as articulated in 

the state’s ZEV Action Plan (CAGO 2016). Financial 

support today relies on public funds allocated through 

the California Energy Commission’s Alternative and 

Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, which 

is authorized to allocate $20 million in program funds to 

HRSs each year (CEC 2016; CEC 2017a). In 2013 California 

signed a memorandum of understanding with seven 

additional states to pursue the multi-state ZEV Action 

Plan, with the goal of deploying 3.3 million ZEVs by 2025 

in California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont (ZEV-PITF 2014). 

Each of these states, as well as Maine and New Jersey 

more recently, has adopted California’s ZEV mandate 

regulation—thus, about 25%–30% of all new vehicles sold 

in the United States are subject to ZEV regulation (CARB 

2017). Therefore, OEMs have an intrinsic business reason 

to help promote and advance ZEV infrastructure, for 

both battery electric vehicles and FCEVs. Sales of FCEVs 

result in necessary credits under the ZEV mandate, but 

a convenient HRS network must be in place first to allow 

an initial FCEV market launch and subsequent growth. 

While partnership arrangements, planning methods, and 

market support mechanisms may all vary across states 

and regions, the basic components shown in Figure 4 
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 7

provide fundamental support for 

FCEV markets. 

A wide variety of outreach, planning, 

analysis, and coordination activities 

has contributed to the successful 

establishment of FCEV markets in 

California. These have included fire 

marshal training by U.S. Department 

of Energy and California Fuel Cell 

Partnership staff, financial analyses 

of early station clusters (Ogden and 

Nicholas 2011; Eckerle and Garderet 

2013), and long-term scenarios 

developed by the National Academy 

of Sciences (NRC 2008). Detailed 

descriptions of these activities can 

be found in various reports and 

workshop proceedings (Melaina et 

al. 2008; NREL 2011; CaFCP 2017).

Figure 4. Basic components of a continuous cycle of support for early FCEV and HRS markets

National Scenario 

Planning

Local HRS

Availability Automaker

Commitment

National 

Network Expansion

- Station Location & Planning Tools

- HRS Subsidies

- Finance

- Mechanisms

- Stakeholder Partnerships

- Public Outreach

- Codes & Standards

- OEM Survey and 

 Commitments

- ZEV Mandate

- ZEV Purchase 

 Incentives

- Early Adopter 

 Demand

- Education

H2

Key ingredients of California’s strategic market success

1. Quantify near and mid-term FCEV intended market locations and 

vehicle volume potential by way of automaker commitments. 

This has been achieved through an annual survey of original 

equipment manufacturers required by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB 2016).

2. Establish financial support mechanisms for HRS investments. 

These include direct capital subsidies as well as operation 

and maintenance grants provided by the California Energy 

Commission (CEC 2016). Assembly Bill 8 provides $20 million per 

year in investment commitment toward HRSs.

3. Establish FCEV market support mechanisms. These include the 

ZEV mandate as the major market pull mechanism as well as direct 

vehicle subsidies as market push mechanisms. The Clean Vehicle 

Rebate Program is one example, offering a $5,000 rebate for each 

FCEV purchased (CSE 2017).

4. Implement HRS network planning and coordination tools in 

collaboration with OEMs. Within California, these have included the 

University of California, Irvine’s STREET model, the station coverage 

modeling conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s SERA model, the proposal 

scoring methods used internally by the California Energy Commission (CEC 

2017b), and the California Air Resource Board’s CHIT and CHAT models 

(CARB 2016, available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/

hydrogen/h2fueling.htm). 
8 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

3 Hydrogen Infrastructure Scenarios

Each of the three scenarios developed in this report— 

Urban Markets, State Success, and National Expansion— 

varies by the rate and geographic scope of HRS 

network investments. These infrastructure investments 

support FCEV market growth trends that vary based 

on responsiveness to consumer demand, policy drivers, 

and local and regional planning and coordination efforts. 

Each scenario is similar in that successful FCEV market 

growth is achieved through the coordinated rollout of 

vehicles and stations, ensuring a positive consumer 

experience and reducing station investment risks. 

Differences between the scenarios provide insights into 

infrastructure development trends that could result from 

the combined influences of market support mechanisms, 

consumer demand, and successful coordination and 

planning among automakers, fuel providers, station 

owners, investors, and government agencies. 

3.1 Overview of Analytic 

Methods

All three scenarios assume strong future FCEV market 

growth in California followed by market expansion into 

other cities, states, and regions. Cities are modeled 

individually with respect to when and how many new 

stations are installed before FCEVs can be sold in large 

numbers. After establishing initial station coverage to 

satisfy the driving needs of early adopters (Melaina 

2003; Nicholas, Handy and Sperling 2004), the number, 

geographic extent, and average size of hydrogen stations 

increases in proportion to the growth in FCEV sales 

for any individual city. Total nationwide FCEV sales are 

different for each scenario, as is the distribution of sales 

between regions and cities. Hydrogen station network 

expansion modeling assumptions rely upon the most 

recent trends in new station installations, and draw 

from planning guidelines developed over many years by 

various California stakeholders (CEC 2017a; CEC 2017c; 

CARB 2016; Brown et al. 2015; CaFCP 2012a; Ogden and 

Nicholas 2011).

As summarized in Table 2, HRS networks are described 

in terms of three geographic scales, each of which 

is useful for analyzing different types of market and 

infrastructure development trends: urban areas, regions, 

and megaregions. FCEV sales and use are resolved at 

the urban area scale,2 with sales rates varying between 

regions, which include California, the other ZEV states, 

and the rest of the country based on presumed future 

influence of state government policies. Megaregions—

integrated regional economies that extend across 

conventional political boundaries—are useful in capturing 

large-scale infrastructure and market development 

trends. Table 2 also indicates the three time periods over 

which the scenarios are analyzed.

2  The U.S. Census Bureau defines urban areas as densely populated urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people. In the present report, 

urban area also includes urban clusters, which are based on the same 

criteria but with 2,500–50,000 people (https://www.census.gov/geo/

reference/ua/uafaq.html).

Geographic Scales Time Periods

Urban areas

• U.S. Census designations

Regions

• California (CA)

• Other states adopting the ZEV mandate (ZEV)

• Rest of the country (ROC)

Megaregions

• As proposed by the Regional Plan Association (RPA 2017)

Early Markets (2015–2025)

Expansion (2025–2035) 

Long-term Growth (2035–2050)

Table 2. Scenario geographic scales and time periods
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 9

Urban area populations are illustrated in Figure 5 by 

circles (totaling 224 million people), with circle color 

indicating the region. The ZEV region includes states 

other than California that have adopted the ZEV 

mandate: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont. The color density of the 11 megaregions shown 

in Figure 5 indicates frequency and geographic extent 

of household vehicle commuting patterns between cities 

(Nelson and Rae 2016). 

Figure 5. U.S. population across urban areas and regions. Megaregions indicate frequency and geographic extent of household vehicle 

commuting patterns.

Source: NREL

3.2 Scenario Results

The scenarios assume three distinct FCEV market growth 

futures followed by a simulation of the HRS network 

expansion required to support the resulting hydrogen 

demand. The market growth rates are not forecasts of 

future outcomes. Instead, they illustrate how national 

station networks might develop over time as FCEV 

markets grow in response to a variety of future market 

conditions. By taking into account a relatively wide range 

of market influences and infrastructure development 

patterns, the scenarios are intended to be useful to a 

broader set of stakeholders. Each scenario is described 

below, and market influences for each scenario are 

summarized in Table 3.

Urban Markets—Local Demand and 

Metropolitan Area Initiatives 

Focused infrastructure investments respond to a 

combination of highly concentrated early adopters and 

market support mechanisms implemented by a select 

number of major metropolitan areas. The result is rapid 

growth within a relatively small number of large urban 

markets, followed by slower diffusion into nearby cities 

and across megaregions. Although the select urban 

areas experience rapid market growth, overall national 

growth is slower than in the other two scenarios.
10 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Market Influence Urban Markets State Success National Expansion

Dominant market drivers Support at local and municipal 

levels combined with strong 

early adopter demand

ZEV mandate and other state 

market support mechanisms

Combination of strong local, 

state, and national market 

support mechanisms

Coordination and 

planning

Investments focused on 

most promising metropolitan 

markets

Strong coordination across ZEV 

mandate states

Strong coordination and planning 

across all regions

Consumer adoption High concentrations of early 

adopters guide market 

development 

FCEV adoption primarily driven 

by ZEV mandate

Adoption moves quickly from 

concentrated early adopters and 

ZEV mandate states to broad 

megaregion markets 

HRS network expansion Gradual expansion from 

promising urban markets to 

nearby cities

Focus on ZEV mandate states, 

with gradual expansion into 

additional markets

Strong stakeholder planning and 

coordination reduces investment 

risks, allowing rapid network 

expansion

FCEV sales per year (millions) and total urban area market share (%) in 2050

United States 3.1 M (23%) 5.0 M (35%) 8.9 M (59%)

 California (CA) 1.0 M (49%) 1.3 M (64%) 1.7 M (84%)

 Other ZEV States (ZEV) 0.9 M (26%) 1.9 M (56%) 1.9 M (57%)

 Rest of Country (ROC) 1.2 M (10%) 1.9 M (14%) 5.3 M (41%)

Table 3. Market influences by scenario

State Success—Creating Markets 

through Regulation

In this scenario, implementation of the ZEV mandate and 

other state market support mechanisms are assumed 

to be significant drivers of market growth. HRS network 

investments are guided through highly coordinated 

efforts across states, resulting in strong FCEV market 

growth. Larger urban markets outside states offering 

policy support grow more slowly. Urban markets in 

the western Cascadia, Front Range, and Arizona Sun 

Corridor megaregions open and grow relatively quickly 

owing to market spillover from California and Oregon, 

while cities with very high early adopter concentrations 

take the lead in other regions. The result is relatively 

rapid growth in a select number of states followed by 

more moderate growth across the rest of the country.

National Expansion—Unleashing 

Market Forces 

By combining highly coordinated planning and 

development efforts with aggressive market support 

mechanisms, rapid FCEV market growth is assumed to 

occur across megaregions. HRS network investments 

respond to the combined influence of highly concentrated 

early adopters, the ZEV mandate, other market support 

mechanisms, and successful stakeholder coordination 

and planning activities at the national and megaregion 

scales. Most major urban markets open quickly, followed 

by strong local spillover into smaller nearby cities within 

all megaregions.

Table 3 summarizes the market influences that define 

each scenario. These influences capture the major 

influences on how FCEV markets and HRS networks 

expand geographically and over time. The bottom of 

Table 3 shows the corresponding annual FCEV sales and 

urban area market share in 2050 for the United States 

and each region (CA, ZEV, and ROC). Additional details 

on FCEV market share influences by scenario and 

region are provided in Section 3.3. Section 3.4 discusses 

how HRS network expansion responds to the resulting 

FCEV market trends. A companion report provides 

additional details on the modeling assumptions and 

analytical methods used to develop each scenario 

(Bush et al. forthcoming).
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 11

3.3 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle 

Market Growth Scenarios

FCEV sales are assumed to follow an “s-curve” growth pattern, with relatively 

slow adoption in early years giving way to rapid growth and eventual market 

saturation (Rogers 1995; Lund 2006). This pattern is realized at the urban 

area level and at the regional and national scales. National sales of FCEVs 

out to 2050 are shown in Figure 6 with reference to total U.S. LDV sales. 

Initial (2016–2022) sales in the State Success scenario match FCEV sales 

estimates in California from recent automaker surveys. Sales in the Urban 

Markets and State Success scenarios reach approximately 3 million and 5 

million FCEVs per year by 2050, respectively. The sales trajectory in Urban 

Markets is approaching saturation near 2050, while sales in State Success are 

still growing strongly by 2050. Sales in the National Expansion scenario are 

at about 9 million FCEVs per year by 2050, roughly half of all LDV sales, and 

still experiencing relatively strong growth.

A more detailed depiction of these sales projections is shown by region in 

Figure 7. The top set of panels indicates that within the Early Markets time 

period (2015–2025), FCEV sales in the Urban Markets and State Success 

scenarios are significantly lower than those in the National Expansion 

scenario. Most of the sales are into California markets in each scenario, with 

the State Success scenario having minimal sales into ROC markets. The 

middle set of panels shows sales for the Expansion time period (2015–2035), 

and has a different scale on the vertical axis: 1.5 million FCEVs per year, 

compared with 100,000 FCEVs per year in the Early Market time period. 

Sales into ROC markets are still minimal in the State Success scenario, but 

ROC and ZEV sales begin stronger growth in the Urban Markets and National 

Expansion scenarios. California sales still dominate the FCEV market by 

2035. The bottom set of panels shows FCEV sales in the Long-term Growth 

time period (2015–2050), adjusting to a scale of 10 million FCEVs per year 

on the vertical axis. By 2050, FCEV sales in State Success are nearly double 

those in Urban Markets, and sales in National Expansion are nearly double 

those in State Success. These sales are roughly equally divided among the 

0M

2M

4M

6M

8M

10M

12M

14M

16M

18M

20M

FCEV Sales per Year

National Expansion

State Success

Urban Markets

Total U.S. LDV Sales

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 6. FCEV sales by scenario compared with total U.S. LDV sales
12 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

three regions in the Urban Markets 

scenario, while the ZEV states play 

a larger role in the State Success 

scenario and the ROC region 

becomes the dominant market in 

the National Expansion scenario. 

The rate of growth in the National 

Expansion scenario is comparable 

to growth in the FCEV success 

scenario developed in a report from 

the National Academy of Sciences 

(NRC 2013). In that study, annual 

sales of 10 million FCEVs were 

achieved through aggressive market 

growth between 2015 and 2036, 

approximately 15 years earlier than 

the National Expansion scenario 

sales trend indicated in Figure 7. 

The National Expansion scenario 

is therefore more conservative 

than the 2013 NRC estimate of 

feasible FCEV market growth 

under favorable market and policy 

conditions.

2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

0K

20K

40K

60K

80K

100K

FCEV Sales per Year

Early Markets

Urban Markets State Success National Expansion

Expansion

Urban Markets State Success National Expansion

2020 2025 2030 2035

0.0M

0.5M

1.0M

1.5M

FCEV Sales per Year

2020 2025 2030 2035 2020 2025 2030 2035

Long-term Growth

Urban Markets State Success National Expansion

2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050

0M

2M

4M

6M

8M

10M

FCEV Sales per Year

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

Figure 7. Breakdown of FCEV sales by period and region

Note: The scale of the vertical axis changes between each of the three periods.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 13

3.4 Hydrogen Station Network Development

The first three market influences summarized in Table 

3—market drivers, coordination, and adoption—indicate 

major influences on FCEV market success in each of 

the three scenarios. The fourth influence—HRS network 

expansion—describes the refueling infrastructure 

deployment that responds to FCEV market growth. The 

rollout of FCEVs and HRS networks in ZEV and ROC cities 

and megaregions is assumed to follow patterns similar to 

the planned rollout in California, although delayed in time 

and adjusted for variations in consumer demographics. 

Three main dynamics influence infrastructure supply 

simulations: (1) the influence of early adopters, (2) the 

requirement for activation stations to open urban markets 

to large FCEV sales volumes, and (3) the sequence in 

which additional urban markets are opened over time. 

Each dynamic is reviewed below. 

Early Adopter Influence—Because so few FCEVs have 

been deployed to date, future consumer demand for 

FCEVs is projected by analyzing empirical data on 

historical sales of other advanced vehicles (including 

hybrid electric and plug-in electric vehicles) and luxury 

vehicles as well as the prevalence of high-income 

households. The result is a consumer demand metric 

referred to as the Early Adopter Metric (EAM), which 

serves as a proxy for where FCEV sales are likely to be 

strongest and, therefore, where and how many new 

stations must be built to activate FCEV market growth. 

Early adopters are critical to initial market development 

in all three scenarios. However, the scenarios differ in the 

extent to which network development patterns depend 

on the influence of early adopters compared with the 

other market drivers summarized in Table 3. The EAM is 

a unitless metric, indicating the spatial distribution and 

density of early adopters.3 The EAM does not influence 

the rate of FCEV market growth. 

3 Analytically, EAM is resolved at the ZIP-code level based on vehicle 

registrations and Census household income. EAM is determined by 

giving 50% weight to the number of hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid 

electric, and pure battery electric vehicle registrations, 25% weight 

to luxury vehicle registrations, and 25% weight to average household 

income. For the sake of exposition, it is assumed that one out of five 

consumers falls into the early adopter category, resulting in a spatial 

representation of 63 million potential early adopters in more than 600 

urban areas.

Activation Station Requirements—For early FCEV 

markets to be successful, consumers must be confident 

in the availability of convenient local and regional HRS 

networks (Melaina 2003; Nicholas, Handy and Sperling, 

2004). During the early years of FCEV introduction, 

convenience for early adopters is of primary concern. 

Based on the analytic approach used to develop the 

California Fuel Cell Partnership Roadmap (see Section 

2), a certain number of market activation stations must 

be installed before OEMs will begin unique dealership 

outreach and marketing of FCEVs, allowing them to 

be sold in large volumes into a given urban area. The 

coverage of activation stations must enable most early 

adopters to live within a 6-minute drive of a station 

(Nicholas et al. 2004; Melaina et al. 2013; CaFCP 2014; 

Brown et al. 2015). This approach tends to result in one or 

more activation stations being clustered in neighborhoods 

with high concentrations of early adopters. Additional 

activation stations provide refueling availability across 

the larger urban area, resulting in a network that satisfies 

the refueling needs of most early adopters. An example 

of how activation stations might be distributed across 

an urban area is shown in Figure 8, with 36 stations 

serving early adopters in Seattle. These activation stations 

represent approximately 5% of all gasoline stations 

serving the urban area indicated in the map.

Urban Market Sequencing—More than 600 urban 

areas are prioritized based on the density of early 

adopters (EAM per square mile) and the number 

of early adopters served by the activation stations 

required in any given city (EAM per activation station). 

The rationale behind this sequencing approach is that 

capital is the limiting factor in determining the most 

effective station investments, whether it is provided 

by government agencies through subsidies or directly 

by private investors. Cities with both large numbers 

of early adopters and high densities of early adopters, 

measured as a ratio of early adopters per activation 

station, are opened to new FCEV sales before other 

cities. In addition, cities in close proximity to these highpriority cities are also prioritized, although this effect is 

stronger in the National Expansion and State Success 

scenarios than in the Urban Markets scenario, where 
14 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

FCEV markets are strongly influenced by market support 

mechanisms provided by individual cities. Following this 

sequence of prioritization, new cities are activated as 

the volumes of FCEV sales shown in Figure 6 and Figure 

7 increase over time. The result is that large cities with 

high concentrations of early adopters receive the first 

activation stations and large volumes of FCEV sales.

Additional cities are then activated as total FCEV sales 

in a given region increase over time. The modeling 

methodology companion report includes a more detailed 

discussion of the city sequencing methodology (Bush et 

al. forthcoming). 

Activating Greater Seattle

It is estimated that 36 hydrogen stations could 

provide sufficient refueling availability for early 

adopters such that large volumes of FCEVs could 

be sold into the Greater Seattle market. The map 

indicates high densities of early adopters (darker 

shades of purple) as well as the location (circles) 

of the first 12 stations (red), second 12 stations 

(salmon), and third 12 stations (gray). 

The first 12 stations include four clusters: four 

stations in North, Central, and West Seattle; four 

stations running through Bellevue north to Bothell; 

and three northern stations extending from 

Mountlake Terrace to Snohomish; and a station at the 

airport. The airport in SeaTac serves as a destination 

station and is therefore distinct from the other high 

EAM density stations. Additional activation stations 

reinforce these clusters, provide connectivity across 

outlying urban areas, and extend south to Tacoma.

Central	Sea*le

North	Sea*le

West	Sea*le

SeaTac/

Airport

Mountlake

Terrace

Snohomish

Bellevue

Bothell

Tacoma

 1st 12 Stations

 2nd 12 Stations

 3rd 12 Stations

 High EAM density

 Mid EAM density

Figure 8. Market activation station example: Seattle, Washington Low EAM density

(Map data: Google)
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 15

4 Scenario Results

Each of the scenarios represents a successful rollout 

of FCEVs and HRS networks into major urban areas 

across the United States. All three scenarios involve 

strong FCEV and HRS growth in California followed by 

expansion into other regions and urban areas. The total 

FCEV stocks and HRSs installed are shown by scenario 

in Figure 9 for three time periods, each represented by 

a panel with FCEV stock in the upper bar charts and 

total stations in the lower bar charts. The panel on the 

left indicates results at the end of 2025, the middle 

panel shows results at the end of 2035, and the panel 

on the right shows results by 2050. The magnitude 

and geographic distribution of FCEV stocks and HRS 

network expansion vary among the three scenarios. 

In succession, each scenario involves greater market 

growth in California accompanied by increased market 

growth in either the ZEV or ROC markets. The Urban 

Markets scenario expands into both ROC and ZEV large 

metropolitan areas early, with significant growth at the 

end of both 2025 and 2035, but relatively limited growth 

nationally by 2050. The State Success scenario involves 

strong early growth in ZEV markets followed by delayed 

growth in ROC markets. The National Expansion scenario 

involves rapid growth in all three regions, reaching the 

greatest number of stations and FCEVs by 2050. 

Again, these scenarios are not predictions of future 

market outcomes. Instead, they are intended to stimulate 

discussions about HRS network requirements and 

provide insights into how those networks might coevolve 

with a growing national FCEV market. 

An HRS network will provide convenient refueling access 

to a share of the total population based on how many 

stations are deployed and the population density of 

0K

50K

100K

150K

200K

250K

FCEV Stock (veh)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total Stations

0M

1M

2M

3M

4M

FCEV Stock (veh)

0K

1K

2K

3K

0M

10M

20M

30M

40M

50M

60M

FCEV Stock (veh)

0K

5K

10K

15K

20K

Total StationsTotal Stations

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

2035 2050

Urban 

Markets

State 

Success

National

Expansion

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

Region

 ROC

 ZEV

 CA

2025

Figure 9. Number of FCEVs on the road and total HRSs by scenario and region

Note: The scale of the vertical axis changes between each of the three periods.
16 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

the area in which they are deployed. Each HRS covers a 

physical area, enabling access to the refueling network 

to all of the people living, working, or driving within 

that area. Using detailed traffic simulations, Nicholas 

and Ogden (2006) estimate a correlation between 

station availability and city demographics. Based on 

an extrapolation of these results, it is estimated that 

each station can provide convenient access for an 

area of approximately 6 square miles (Melaina et al. 

2013). Figure 10 shows the population with access to a 

convenient HRS for the different scenarios over time, 

which is proportional to the number of stations deployed 

in each urban area in a particular year divided by the 

number of stations required to cover the entire urban 

area surface, assuming that each station can cover up 

to 6 square miles. As the HRS network expands, the 

population enabled approaches the total population in 

each region, opening up greater market opportunities 

for FCEV adoption.

CA ZEV ROC

2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050

10M

20M

30M

40M

50M

60M

70M

80M

90M

100M

110M

120M

130M

140M

Enabled Population

Total Urban Population

Total Urban Population

Total Urban Population

Scenario

 National Expansion

 State Success

 Urban Markets

Figure 10. Population with access to hydrogen refueling by scenario
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 17

The discussion below details HRS deployment over time in the three scenarios, illustrating how many stations are 

needed to support different FCEV market-adoption trends, where these stations are needed, and when they are needed. 

This discussion relates to several figures below. Figure 11 shows the number of stations and the average capacity of 

installed stations for select urban areas in 2025. Figure 12 shows the same for 2035, and Figure 13 shows the same for 

2050. The extent of market megaregions is also indicated, following the color-coding depicted in Figure 5.

Early Markets 

(2015–2025): 

Initial station deployment allows 

for early FCEV adoption in 

select cities. Station sizes tend 

to be small when opening new 

urban markets in order to reduce 

capital costs while ensuring 

sufficient station availability.

In the early years, the HRS network is limited to California and a few other 

metropolitan areas, depending on the expansion followed in the different scenarios. 

Overall, 320–570 HRSs are deployed, supporting 90,000–200,000 FCEVs and 

providing 9 million to 14 million people access to convenient station networks. Major 

cities activated by 2025 are similar in California (multiple cities) and the ZEV region 

(including New York, Boston and Portland) in all three scenarios, but the cities 

activated differ in the ROC region. Chicago, Miami and Denver are activated in the 

Urban Markets and National Expansion scenarios, while only Seattle is activated in the 

State Success scenario, due to a high density of early adopters. In addition, the strong 

market growth in California in the National Expansion scenario results in market 

spillover and activation of Las Vegas by 2025.

Expansion 

(2025–2035):

National coverage varies 

significantly across scenarios, 

and station utilizations begin to 

reach high values.

In this mid-term period, the HRS network expands significantly, reaching 1,500–3,300 

total stations, supporting 1.8 million to 4.5 million FCEVs, and providing 38 million to 

57 million people access to convenient station networks. The sequence of activating 

different urban areas varies between scenarios, based upon the market influences 

described in Table 3. For example, Chicago plays a significant role in the Urban 

Markets scenario, with 47 stations and an average station size of 790 kg/day. By 

comparison, Chicago has only 26 stations with an average size of 470 kg/day in 

the State Success scenario, owing to a more focused expansion in the ZEV states, 

and it reaches 56 stations with an average capacity of about 1,000 kg/day in the 

National Expansion scenario. New York City, which is in a ZEV state, experiences the 

opposite, with more and larger stations deployed in the State Success scenario than 

in the Urban Markets scenario. The National Expansion scenario remains the most 

aggressive scenario for all urban areas. In particular, station deployment surges under 

the National Expansion scenario in Los Angeles (the largest FCEV market across all 

scenarios), pulling ahead of the State Success scenario’s Los Angeles deployment and 

even further ahead of the Urban Markets scenario’s deployment.

Long-term Growth

(2035–2050): 

Fully developed markets have 

FCEVs in the tens of millions and 

HRSs in the tens of thousands. 

Spatial coverage varies 

significantly across scenarios, 

while HRS networks tend to be 

highly utilized on average.

By 2050, 7,800–21,000 stations are deployed, supporting 23 million to 61 million 

FCEVs and enabling reliable station access for 100 million to 215 million people. 

With the benefit of economies of scale achieved through high volumes of hydrogen 

demand, large stations become dominant in many major urban areas under all three 

scenarios. The overall coverage is dictated by the market influences described in 

Table 3, resulting in an extensive and successful HRS network in all three scenarios.
18 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 8

Ave Cap (kg/d): 394

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 3

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 11

Ave Cap (kg/d): 380

Boston, MA

Total Stations: 1

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

New York, NY

Total Stations: 18

Ave Cap (kg/d): 397

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 9

Ave Cap (kg/d): 419

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 5

Ave Cap (kg/d): 360

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 11

Ave Cap (kg/d): 409

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 120

Ave Cap (kg/d): 397

Number HRS: 320

Pop. Enabled: 8.7 M

Urban Markets

Results for 2025

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 10

Ave Cap (kg/d): 482

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 2

Ave Cap (kg/d): 359

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 16

Ave Cap (kg/d): 410

Boston, MA

Total Stations: 13

Ave Cap (kg/d): 383

New York, NY

Total Stations: 40

Ave Cap (kg/d): 550

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 11

Ave Cap (kg/d): 527

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 2

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 17

Ave Cap (kg/d): 445

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 173

Ave Cap (kg/d): 482

Number HRS: 570

Pop. Enabled: 14.4 M

Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 3

Ave Cap (kg/d): 378

National Expansion

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 5

Ave Cap (kg/d): 384

Boston, MA

Total Stations: 6

Ave Cap (kg/d): 364

New York, NY

Total Stations: 29

Ave Cap (kg/d): 599

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 5

Ave Cap (kg/d): 355

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 15

Ave Cap (kg/d): 441

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 158

Ave Cap (kg/d): 449

Number HRS: 420

Pop. Enabled: 10.9 M

State Success

Total Capacity

(kg/day)

180

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

Region

ROC

ZEV

CA

Figure 11. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2025 

Source: NREL

Note: Connector and destination stations needed to support regional travel are not indicated.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 19

Figure 12. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2035

Source: NREL 

Note: Connector and destination stations needed to support regional travel are not indicated.

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 26

Ave Cap (kg/d): 914

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 14

Ave Cap (kg/d): 643

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 1

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 8

Ave Cap (kg/d): 368

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 47

Ave Cap (kg/d): 790 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 25

Ave Cap (kg/d): 382

New York, NY

Total Stations: 75

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,142

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 4

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 2

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 27

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,110

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 18

Ave Cap (kg/d): 394

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 22

Ave Cap (kg/d): 581

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 40

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,171

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 423

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,317 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 6

Ave Cap (kg/d): 355

Number HRS: 1,500

Pop. Enabled: 37.9 M

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 14

Ave Cap (kg/d): 578

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 8

Ave Cap (kg/d): 389

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 1

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 4

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 26

Ave Cap (kg/d): 470 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 53

Ave Cap (kg/d): 611

New York, NY

Total Stations: 142

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,790

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 1

Ave Cap (kg/d): 350

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 15

Ave Cap (kg/d): 376

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 11

Ave Cap (kg/d): 400

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 22

Ave Cap (kg/d): 457

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 19

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,021

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 53

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,282

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 557

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,441 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 11

Ave Cap (kg/d): 382

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 28

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,144

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 16

Ave Cap (kg/d): 821

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 9

Ave Cap (kg/d): 376

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 18

Ave Cap (kg/d): 485

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 56

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,003 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 95

Ave Cap (kg/d): 785

New York, NY

Total Stations: 190

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,723

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 8

Ave Cap (kg/d): 507

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 45

Ave Cap (kg/d): 449

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 31

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,310

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 32

Ave Cap (kg/d): 702

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 18

Ave Cap (kg/d): 881

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 62

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,415

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 660

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,570 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 19

Ave Cap (kg/d): 680

Urban Markets

Results for 2035

Number HRS: 3,300

Pop. Enabled: 56.8 M

National Expansion

Number HRS: 2,100

Pop. Enabled: 45.2 M

State Success

Total Capacity

(kg/day)

180

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

Region

ROC

ZEV

CA
20 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Figure 13. Number of stations and average capacity for select urban areas in 2050

Source: NREL

Note: Connector and destination stations needed to support regional travel are not indicated.

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 272

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,925

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 122

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,781

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 16

Ave Cap (kg/d): 468

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 56

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,142

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 447

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,951 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 166

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,204

New York, NY

Total Stations: 794

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,963

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 26

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,077

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 67

Ave Cap (kg/d): 504

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 347

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,929

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 110

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,578

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 127

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,521

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 111

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,754

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 1,222

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,895 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 49

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,150

Number HRS: 7,800

Pop. Enabled: 103 M

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 248

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,937

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 91

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,853

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 27

Ave Cap (kg/d): 689

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 57

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,031

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 366

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,953 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 346

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,880

New York, NY

Total Stations: 1,627

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,959

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 18

Ave Cap (kg/d): 736

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 217

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,331

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 129

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,870

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 302

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,944

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 157

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,896

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 138

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,782

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 1,519

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,951 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 122

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,580

Seattle, WA

Total Stations: 440

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,932

Denver-Aurora, CO

Total Stations: 244

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,917

Kansas City, MO

Total Stations: 9

Ave Cap (kg/d): 376

Minn.-St. Paul, MN

Total Stations: 163

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,853

Chicago, IL

Total Stations: 832

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,960 Boston, MA

Total Stations: 455

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,862

New York, NY

Total Stations: 1,599

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,970

Columbus, OH

Total Stations: 82

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,822

Atlanta, GA

Total Stations: 365

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,830

Miami, FL

Total Stations: 563

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,928

Houston, TX

Total Stations: 439

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,945

Portland, OR

Total Stations: 129

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,864

Sacramento, CA

Total Stations: 167

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,832

Los Angeles, CA

Total Stations: 1,854

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,945 Las Vegas, NV

Total Stations: 242

Ave Cap (kg/d): 1,718

Urban Markets

Results for 2050

Number HRS: 21,000

Pop. Enabled: 215 M

National Expansion

Number HRS: 11,800

Pop. Enabled: 126 M

State Success

Total Capacity

(kg/day)

180

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

Region

ROC

ZEV

CA
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 21

5 Summary and Conclusions

Widespread deployment of FCEVs can provide a 

range of economic, energy security, public health, and 

environmental benefits for the nation without requiring 

consumers to compromise on vehicle size or performance.

This study examines the development of HRS networks 

needed to support a national rollout of FCEVs in the 

United States. As FCEV prices decrease and the variety of 

available FCEVs increases over the next 5–10 years, a few 

urban, state, and regional markets will establish the HRS 

networks required for FCEV market growth. California is 

fully engaged in this process today, and a number of other 

states are showing interest, primarily in the northeast 

but also in Hawaii, Texas, Ohio, and South Carolina to 

name a few. Based on experience over the last two 

decades, California’s successful planning and execution 

of coordinated FCEV adoption and HRS can potentially 

help guide other states and regions in their hydrogen 

infrastructure development efforts. The following are key 

ingredients of California’s historical success:

1. Quantify FCEV market potential and 

automaker commitments. 

2. Establish financial support mechanisms for 

HRS investments. 

3. Establish FCEV market support mechanisms. 

4. Implement HRS network planning and 

coordination tools. 

The success of government-industry partnerships in 

California, along with comparable initiatives in Europe 

and East Asia, are laying the foundations for global FCEV 

market growth. While additional U.S. cities, states, and 

industry partnerships may follow a slightly different 

process, it is recommended that these four steps be 

followed to help reduce investment risks and leverage 

the effectiveness of public and private funds in the 

development of HRS networks.

Although additional U.S. cities, states, and industry 

partnerships may follow a slightly different process, 

the California experience suggests that these four 

steps can help to reduce investment risks and leverage 

the effectiveness of public and private funds in the 

development of HRS networks.

In this report, developed under the framework of the 

U.S. public-private collaboration, H2USA, an internally 

consistent analytic modeling method simulates how 

HRS networks might develop across cities and regions, 

assuming that successful planning and coordination 

activities result in a rollout of FCEVs and stations similar 

to California’s. The report’s three scenarios capture some 

of the variations that might occur as FCEV markets and 

HRS networks expand. In the Urban Markets scenario, 

FCEV markets are driven by a combination of consumer 

demand, market support mechanisms implemented 

by individual cities, and stakeholder focus on the most 

promising urban markets. The State Success scenario 

achieves a higher level of FCEV market adoption than 

does the Urban Markets scenario, with FCEV sales 

primarily driven by the ZEV mandate and other market 

support policies, which are complemented by strong 

stakeholder planning and coordination in ZEV states. The 

National Expansion scenario achieves the highest levels 

of FCEV adoption, with FCEV markets and HRS network 

development responding to consumer demand, strong 

market support mechanisms at city, state, and national 

levels, and aggressive stakeholder coordination and 

planning across economically integrated megaregions. 

These scenarios are not forecasts of future market 

outcomes. Rather, they provide insight to various public 

and private stakeholders engaged in the planning and 

coordination required to reduce HRS network investment 

risks. Early markets for alternative fuel vehicles are 

notoriously difficult to develop—these scenarios are 

meant to help stakeholders leverage and learn from 

California’s ongoing efforts to build momentum for 

national FCEV market growth.

Scenario results are presented for three periods: Early 

Markets (2015–2025), Expansion (2025–2035), and 

Long-Term Growth (2035–2050). Each period may 

be of interest to different stakeholders. Table 4 shows 

summary results by period for the following: number 

of FCEVs on the road, total HRSs, hydrogen demand, 

total HRS network capacity, network utilization, average 

station capacity, and population served.
22 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

Year Scenario Characteristic Urban Markets State Success

National 

Expansion

2025

FCEV Stock 91,000 144,100 201,200

Demand [kg/day] 63,800 102,100 143,400

Total Stations 320 420 570

Total Network Capacity [kg/day] 121,700 178,700 249,200

Network Utilization 52% 57% 58%

Ave. Station Capacity [kg/day] 380 420 440

Population Enabled [millions] 8.7 10.9 14.4

2035

FCEV Stock 1,790,000 2,800,000 4,460,000

Demand [kg/day] 1,020,000 1,590,000 2,530,000

Total Stations 1,500 2,100 3,300

Total Network Capacity [kg/day] 1,340,000 2,090,000 3,360,000

Network Utilization 76% 76% 75%

Ave. Station Capacity [kg/day] 890 1,000 1,010

Population Enabled [millions] 37.9 45.2 56.8

2050

FCEV Stock 23,500,000 36,000,000 61,100,000

Demand [kg/day] 9,200,000 14,200,000 24,000,000

Total Stations 7,800 11,800 21,000

Total Network Capacity [kg/day] 11,800,000 18,200,000 30,800,000

Network Utilization 78% 78% 78%

Ave. Station Capacity [kg/day] 1,520 1,540 1,470

Population Enabled [millions] 103.0 125.8 214.8

Table 4. Summary of scenario results by period

The following conclusions and recommendations are 

supported by the scenario results: 

• Robust networks of HRSs must be assured, and 

established in advance of selling large volumes 

of FCEVs into any given urban area. Following the 

rollout of stations planned for California, the scenarios 

suggest that other urban areas would need to install 

a total of 320–570 stations nationwide to enable 

significant FCEV market growth by 2025. Intensive 

stakeholder coordination and planning activities must 

precede the introduction of these initial stations.

• There are multiple means of achieving FCEV market 

growth beyond California. Although the ZEV mandate 

is a key market driver, high concentrations of early 

adopters in other cities and states—combined with 

track records of strong support for advanced vehicles—

make many other urban and regional markets 

promising for FCEV sales and HRS investments.

• Large cities with high concentrations of early 

adopters and strong market support mechanisms are 

the most promising markets for introducing FCEVs 

and HRS networks. With adequate market support 

mechanisms in place, these urban areas are the most 

promising options for rapidly achieving substantial 

hydrogen demand, thereby reducing the financial risk 

posed to HRS network investors.

• The market potential for HRS networks is large. The 

scenarios portray a national network of approximately 

1,500–3,300 hydrogen stations by 2035, with a 

hydrogen capacity of 1.3 million to 3.4 million kg/day 

serving 1.8 million to 4.5 million FCEVs. Assuming 

average hydrogen prices of $8–$10 per kg, annual 

revenues would be around $3.0 billion to $9.2 billion. 

The largest and most robust segments of these station 

networks would initially be located in a select number 

of large urban areas.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 23

Appendix: 

H2USA Background and Locations Roadmap Working Group 

Membership

About H2USA

H2USA is a public-private partnership to promote the commercial introduction and widespread adoption of FCEVs 

across the United States by addressing hurdles to establishing hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

H2USA contributes to:

• Establishing necessary hydrogen infrastructure and leveraging multiple energy sources for hydrogen production, 

including natural gas and renewables

• Deploying FCEVs across the United States

• Improving U.S. energy and economic security

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

• Developing domestic sources of clean energy and creating jobs in the United States

• Validating new technologies and creating a strong domestic supply base in the clean energy sector.

H2USA Participants

H2USA participants support the development of hydrogen infrastructure and deployment of FCEVs across the 

United States. Participants include the stakeholders indicated below. Organizations indicated with an asterisk have 

representatives on the Locations Roadmap Working Group.

• Applied Research Center: 

Hydrogen*

• Air Liquide*

• American Gas Association

• Argonne National Laboratory 

(ANL)*

• Baker Institute at the University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville*

• The Business Council for 

Sustainable Energy

• California Air Resources Board 

(CARB)*

• California Energy Commission 

(CEC)*

• California Fuel Cell Partnership 

(CaFCP)*

• Center for Advanced Research, 

South Carolina

• Christensen Consulting Group*

• Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technology. Inc.*

• Daimler*

• Electric Drive Transportation 

Association (EDTA)

• Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)

• Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy 

Association (FCHEA)*

• General Motors (GM)

• Global Automakers*

• Hawaii Natural Energy Institute 

(HNEI)

• Honda R&D Americas*

• Hydrogenics*

• HydrogeNXT

• Hyundai*

• Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

• Intelligent Energy

• ITM Power

• Kalibrate*
24 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

• Kobelco

• Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL)

• The Linde Group

• Massachusetts Hydrogen 

Coalition*

• McPhy Energy

• Mercedes-Benz

• National Association of 

Convenience Stores (NACS)*

• National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL)*

• Nel*

• Nissan Technical Center North 

America*

• Northeast States for Coordinated 

Air Use Management (NESCAUM)*

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL)

• Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition (OFCC)

• Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL)

• PDC Machines

• Plug Power

• Proton OnSite

• Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL)*

• Savannah River National 

Laboratory (SRNL)

• SCRA Applied Technologies

• Toyota*

• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

• United Hydrogen*

• University of California, Irvine, 

National Fuel Cell Research 

Center*

• Volkswagen

• Wire Tough Cylinders, LLC

• Zero Carbon Energy Solutions*

*Representation on Locations Roadmap Working Group (LRWG)
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 25

References

AFDC (Alternative Fuels Data Center). 2017. “Alternative Fueling Station Locator.” http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/

stations/.

———. 2014. “Public Retail Gasoline Stations by Year.” Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/

data/10333.

Air Liquide. 2016. “Air Liquide announces locations of several hydrogen fueling stations in northeast U.S.A.” https://

www.airliquide.com/united-states-america/air-liquide-announces-locations-several-hydrogen-fueling- stationsnortheast.

Brown, T., S. Stephens-Romero, K. Manliclic, J. Soukup, and S. Samuelsen. 2015. Strategic Plan for the Rollout of 

Hydrogen Fueling Stations in California. CEC-600-2015- 005. Prepared for the California Energy Commission, 

Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-005/CEC600-2015-005.pdf.

Bush, B., M. Muratori, C. Hunter, J. Zuboy, and M. Melaina. Forthcoming. Scenario Evaluation and Regionalization 

Analysis (SERA) Model: Demand Side and Refueling Infrastructure Build-Out. Supporting documentation for the 

H2USA National Scenario Report. NREL/TP-5400-70090. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

CaFCP (California Fuel Cell Partnership). 2017. “Homepage.” Accessed January 5, 2013. http://cafcp.org/. 

———. 2014. A California Road Map: The Commercialization of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. 2014 Update: Hydrogen 

Progress, Priorities and Opportunities (HyPPO) Report. West Sacramento, CA: California Fuel Cell Partnership. 

http://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/Roadmap-Progress-Report2014-FINAL.pdf.

———. 2012a. A California Road Map: Bringing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles to the Golden State. 

West Sacramento, CA: California Fuel Cell Partnership. https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/20120814_

Roadmapv(Overview).pdf.

———. 2012b. A California Road Map: The Commercialization of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. West Sacramento, CA: 

California Fuel Cell Partnership. https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/A California Road Map June 2012 (CaFCP 

technical version).pdf. 

CAGO (California Governor’s Office). 2016. 2016 ZEV Action Plan. Sacramento, CA: California Governor’s Interagency 

Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles. https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/2016_ZEV_Action_Plan.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2017a. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review. Sacramento, CA: 

California Air Resources Board. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/mtr/acc_mtr_finalreport_full.pdf.

———. 2017b. 2017 Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network. 

Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2017.pdf.

———. 2016. 2016 Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station 

Network Development. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/

ab8/ab8_report_2016.pdf.
26 | National Hydrogen Scenarios 

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2017a. Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time 

and Cost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California. CEC-600-2017-002. Sacramento, CA: 

California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-600-2017-002/CEC-600-2017-

002.pdf.

———. 2017b. “Solicitations for Transportation Area Programs, California Energy Commission.” Accessed February 26, 

2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/transportation.html.

———. 2017c. Notice of Proposed Awards, Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, Grant 

Solicitation GFO-15-605, Light Duty Vehicle Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure, California Energy Commission, 

February 17, 2017. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-

605_NOPA.pdf.

———. 2016. Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: Assessment of Time and Cost Needed to Attain 100 

Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California. CEC-600-2015-016. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-600-2015-016/CEC-600-2015-016.pdf.

Cobb, J. 2017. “December 2016 Dashboard.” HybridCars.com. http://www.hybridcars.com/december-2016-dashboard/.

CSE (Center for Sustainable Energy). 2017. “Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.” https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng. 

Eckerle, T. and R. Garderet. 2013. Hydrogen Network Investment Plan. Santa Monica, CA: Energy Independence Now. 

https://www.einow.org/s/H2NIP_Full_Paper_Final.pdf.

Eudy, L., K. Chandler, and C. Gikakis. 2016. Fuel Cell Buses in US Transit Fleets: Current Status 2016. NREL/TP-5400-

67097. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67097.pdf. 

FCHJU (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking). 2017. “Homepage.” http://www.fch.europa.eu/.

H2USA. 2017. “Homepage.” http://h2usa.org/.

HARC (Hydrogen Analysis Resource Center). 2017. “International Hydrogen Fueling Stations.” Accessed February 26, 

2017. http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/. 

James, W. and T. Karlsson. 2016. “International Hydrogen Infrastructure Status.” U.S. Department of Energy 

webinar, accessed February 26, 2017. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/08/f33/fcto_intntl_h2_

infrastructure_083016.pdf. 

LBST (Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH). 2017. “Hydrogen Refuelling Stations Worldwide.” Accessed February 25, 

2017. https://www.netinform.de/H2/H2Stations/.

Lund, P. 2006. “Market Penetration Rates of New Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy 34, no. 17: 3317–3326.

Melaina, M.W., G. Heath, D. Sandor, D. Steward, L. Vimmerstedt, E. Warner, and K.W. Webster. 2013. Alternative 

Fuel Infrastructure Expansion: Costs, Resources, Production Capacity, and Retail Availability for Low-Carbon 

Scenarios, Transportation Energy Futures Series. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55640.pdf.

Melaina, M.W., S. McQueen, and J. Brinch. 2008. “Refueling Infrastructure for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Lessons 

Learned for Hydrogen: Workshop Proceedings.” NREL/BK-560-43669. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/refueling-infrastructure-alternative-fuel-vehicles-lessons-learnedhydrogen.

Melaina, M.W. 2003. “Initiating Hydrogen Infrastructures: Preliminary Analysis of a Sufficient Number of Initial 

Hydrogen Stations in the US.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28, no. 7: 743–755.
 National Hydrogen Scenarios | 27

NACS (Association for Convenience & Fuel Retailing). 2015. 2015 Retail Fuels Report. Alexandria, VA: Association for 

Convenience & Fuel Retailing. http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/FuelsReports/2015/Documents/2015-

NACS-Fuels-Report_full.pdf.

Nelson, G.D. and A. Rae. 2016. “An economic geography of the United States: from commutes to megaregions.” PloS 

one 11, no. 11: p.e0166083.

Nicholas, M. and J.M. Ogden. 2006. “Detailed Analysis of Urban Station Siting for the California Hydrogen Highway 

Network.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1983: 121–128. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3141/1983-17.

Nicholas, M.A., S.L. Handy, and D. Sperling. 2004. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Evaluate Siting and 

Networks of Hydrogen Stations.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

1880: 126–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1880-15.

NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18264.

———. 2008. Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: A Focus on Hydrogen. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12222. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2017. “Hydrogen Financial Analysis Scenario Tool (H2FAST).” Accessed 

February 26, 2017. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/h2fast/.

———. 2011. “Hydrogen Infrastructure Market Readiness Workshop.” Accessed February 26, 2017. https://energy.gov/

eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-infrastructure-market-readiness-workshop.

Ogden, J. and M. Nicholas. 2011. “Analysis of a ‘cluster’ strategy for introducing hydrogen vehicles in Southern 

California.” Energy Policy 39, no. 4: 1923–1938.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.

RPA (Regional Plan Association). 2017. “America 2050: Megaregions.” http://www.america2050.org/content/

megaregions.html. 

Schneider, J. 2016. “ISO Update and the 2016 World Congress, Green Car Congress.” Accessed February 26, 2017. 

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/04/20160425-pfl720.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “2012 NAICS: 447 - Gasoline stations.” Accessed February 23, 2017. https://www.census.gov/

econ/isp/sampler.php?naicscode=447&naicslevel=3. 

Wilson, A., J. Marcinkoski, and D. Papageorgopoulos. 2016. “DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Office Record 16020: Fuel Cell 

System Cost – 2016.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/16020_

fuel_cell_system_cost_2016.pdf.

Wipke, K., S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, T. Ramsden, C. Ainscough, and G. Saur. 2012. National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning 

Demonstration Final Report. NREL/TP-5600-54860. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54860.pdf.

ZEV-PITF (ZEV Program Implementation Task Force). 2014. Multi-State ZEV Action Plan. Multi-State ZEV Task Force. 

http://www. nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-zev-action-plan.pdf.
Locations Roadmap Working Group

National Hydrogen Scenarios

How many stations, where, and when?

October 2017

Photos:

Front/back cover: iStock 511665488; page vii: iStock 525695907; page 1: iStock 94502433; page 2-3: iStock 487945168; 

page 11: iStock 180821019