<DOC> [109th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:23205.wais] THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: IS IT ATTAINABLE? WHEN? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 27, 2005 __________ Serial No. 109-61 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 23-205 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------ CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent) ------ ------ Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Energy and Resources DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director Dave Solan, Professional Staff Member Lori Gavaghan, Clerk Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on July 27, 2005.................................... 1 Statement of: Burns, Lawrence D., vice president of research and development and strategic planning for General Motors; Dennis Campbell, CEO, Ballard Power Systems; Mujid Kazimi, director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Daniel Sperling, director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis..................................... 46 Burns, Lawrence D........................................ 46 Campbell, Dennis......................................... 53 Kazimi, Mujid............................................ 60 Sperling, Daniel......................................... 69 Faulkner, Douglas L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Alan Lloyd, agency secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 5 Faulkner, Douglas L...................................... 5 Lloyd, Alan.............................................. 22 Russell, Richard M....................................... 15 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Burns, Lawrence D., vice president of research and development and strategic planning for General Motors, prepared statement of...................................... 49 Campbell, Dennis, CEO, Ballard Power Systems, prepared statement of............................................... 55 Faulkner, Douglas L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, prepared statement of...................................... 7 Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 3 Kazimi, Mujid, director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, prepared statement of............................................... 62 Lloyd, Alan, agency secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of................... 24 Russell, Richard M., Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, prepared statement of......................................................... 17 Sperling, Daniel, director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, prepared statement of............................................... 71 Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 81 THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: IS IT ATTAINABLE? WHEN? ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Issa and Kucinich. Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan, legislative clerk; Dave Solan, Steve Cima, and Chase Huntley, professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority professional staff member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager. Mr. Issa. Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your patience. Please remain standing, you will feel more comfortable. All those who are testifying or who may advise those testifying, please raise your right hands. It is our custom to have all witnesses sworn. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Issa. From everyone who is here in attendance today, a quorum is present. We do expect to have Members in and out. I apologize. The importance of this hearing caused us not to cancel it in spite of the fact that there are markups in virtually every committee of the House trying to get prepared for getaway day which should be Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. But this is an important hearing and I appreciate your very large attendance. Today we will discuss our country's progress toward a hydrogen economy. Are our goals attainable and when? The United States is increasingly dependent on imported energy sources to power the country's vehicles and sustain the Nation's growing economy. But our Nation's increasing reliance on overseas oil imports acts as a drag on our economy. This year high oil prices will likely account for more than a third of our annual trade deficit. Furthermore, all too often the foreign sources the United States depends on for fuels are located in insecure regions of the world and, in some cases, are under the control of nations which are hostile to the United States. At this time when national security and environmental concerns, including climate change, are at the forefront of our policy discussions, government and industries around the world are looking at hydrogen as a major energy carrier of the future. Hydrogen holds the potential to be the backbone of a safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable energy system for our Nation's future. However, clean, efficient and cost effective hydrogen production is a significant challenge. As a fuel, hydrogen does not exist in a readily usable form in nature like oil and coal. Rather it more closely resembles electricity, an energy carrier that must be generated from another fuel source. Moreover, commercially viable technologies to store and efficiently convert hydrogen into energy appear to be years away. In 2003, the President announced an ambitious effort to transition the country to an economy powered not by hydrocarbons, but by hydrogen. This hearing will assess how and when this goal might be attained. In other words, is a hydrogen economy attainable and if so, when? Our first panel will examine the status of the Federal initiatives aimed at realizing the President's vision, including the extent of Federal support for leading State initiatives. We are pleased to welcome three committed public servants: the Honorable Douglas Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy; the Honorable Richard Russell, Associate Director for Technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Dr. Alan Lloyd, Agency Secretary of the California EPA and someone who I had a personal opportunity to begin the conversation with. I appreciate your appearing twice. Our second panel will offer their insights on these Federal initiatives, meaning whatever you say we are going to have the private sector address on the second panel. It will include Dr. Lawrence Burns, vice president of Research and Development at General Motors Corp.; Mr. Dennis Campbell, president and chief executive officer, Ballard Power Systems; Dr. Mujid Kazimi, member of the National Academies' Committee on hydrogen production and use; and Dr. Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis. I look forward to hearing your testimony. When the ranking member arrives, we will pause for her statement. Mr. Faulkner, you are first. [The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.002 STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; RICHARD M. RUSSELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; AND ALAN LLOYD, AGENCY SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy's hydrogen program. Today I will cover our plans, our progress and our partners focusing on State initiatives, demonstration projects and what we believe must be accomplished. Since President Bush launched the hydrogen fuel initiative over 2 years ago, we have implemented the valuable feedback from the National Academy of Sciences and have already seen results. In fact, as we speak the Academy is completing its biennial review of the program. We developed the Hydrogen Posture Plan with strategies, milestones to enable a 2015 industry commercialization decision. We are now implementing our plans and making tangible progress. The Department competitively selected over $510 million in Federal funding, subject to appropriations, for projects to address critical challenges. DOE's Office of Science announced 70 new projects on topics such as new materials and catalyst design at the nano scale. We established the National Hydrogen Storage Project, including three centers of excellence to focus on hydrogen storage, a critical technology for the hydrogen economy. Sixty-five projects were initiated on hydrogen production and delivery and the results are already promising. We believe we can meet our goal of $2 to $3 per gallon of gasoline equivalent which is independent of production pathway. Our ultimate goal is carbon-neutral hydrogen production that emphasizes resource diversity. To address fuel cell costs and durability, we have a new $75 million solicitation of complement current work. Results are already being achieved here, too. As highlighted by Secretary Bodman in earlier testimony, the high volume cost of automotive fuel cells was reduced from $275 to $200 per kilowatt. Through new strategies for fabricating electrodes and improving durability, we believe our targets are achievable. As you know see, the program is focused on research, aligned with the academy's recommendation to shift away from some development areas toward exploratory work. But there is a value for a few selective demonstration projects. We must keep sight of our ultimate goal to transfer research to the real world. We have complemented our research efforts with a learning demonstration activity. This 50-50 cost share activity brings auto and energy companies together to validate vehicle infrastructure technologies. These are pre-commercial demonstrations and serve a specific purpose at this early stage, to gather technical data from real world operations and help refocus our research efforts and validate progress toward our milestones. In May, President Bush participated in the refueling of a GM hydrogen vehicle at D.C.'s Benning Road Shell Station, which is involved in our learning demonstration effort. The department is working with partners on all fronts to address the challenges to a hydrogen economy. Under the Freedom Car and Fuel Partnership, the Department of Energy is collaborating with the U.S. Council for Automotive Research and major automotive and energy companies. We conduct research on safety codes and standards working with the Department of Transportation and globally through the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy. We are working with the Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies to create an R&D road map for manufacturing technologies. This effort will help attract new business, new investment, create new high technology jobs and create a competitive U.S. supply base. We are also working with State governments to leverage resources, coordinate efforts and reduce duplication. Hydrogen initiatives exist now in more than 10 States. For instance, since we participate in the California Fuel Cell Partnership and the California Hydrogen Highway Network, the working group sharing information and technology expertise. Last year the Hydrogen 101 education workshop was offered to interested State and local governments. States can also serve a role to education target audiences including safety and code officials in local communities and to catalyze the research community to focus on R&D needs for a hydrogen economy. The realization of the national hydrogen economy will eventually require the active and sustained participation of State leaders at many levels. Mr. Chairman, the DOE hydrogen program is committed to a balanced portfolio which integrates basic and applied research, engineering development and learning demonstrations. We anticipate staying in close touch with State and local governments as our Federal partnership matures. This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Faulkner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.010 Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Faulkner. We will complete all three on the panel and then take questions. We have also been joined by the gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Russell. STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. RUSSELL Mr. Russell. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Watson and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal effort in hydrogen research and development. America's energy challenges must be met with dedicated leadership and advanced technologies to improve the production, distribution and use of energy. Beginning with his National Energy Policy Report in 2001, President Bush has established a clear path for our Nation to achieve a clean, secure and affordable energy future through advances in technology. The President has launched key research and development initiatives in hydrogen, clean coal, carbon sequestration, biomass, nuclear energy and fusion. While this progress is encouraging, additional research is needed to make these technologies commercially viable. Commercial viability depends upon significant advances in protection, storage, distribution and use of hydrogen fuel. Because all four areas present complex challenges, the overall Federal R&D effort has been engaged. To help ensure all pertinent agencies contribute to the President's objective in this area, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and OMB have identified hydrogen R&D as an interagency priority for the past several years. To encourage collaboration among Federal agencies OSTP has established an interagency task force on hydrogen R&D. While DOE provides the leadership and most of the funding for the hydrogen fuel initiative and co-chairs the task force with OSTP, other Federal agencies also fund hydrogen-related R&D projects and demonstrations. In fact, the Hydrogen Task Force has identified 22 focused R&D priorities for interagency collaboration. In the areas of fundamental research these include investigations of high performance, low cost catalysts for hydrogen production and fuel cells, novel materials for hydrogen storage, robust and cost-effective membrane materials and the molecular interactions of hydrogen and other materials. These topics serve as focal points for collaboration among agency funding, basic research, including the Departments of Energy and Defense, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce, and the Research and Innovation Technology Administration at DOT. Beyond fundamental research, the hydrogen task force coordinates activities associated with hydrogen pipeline and refueling; hydrogen turbines and internal combustion engines; solid oxide fuel cells; safety codes and standards; and several exploratory approaches to hydrogen production. Additionally, we have recently begun a coordination group within the hydrogen task force devoted to work force issues, with the expected participation of the Departments of Labor, Energy, Defense, Transportation, NASA, National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In addition to developing an extensive inventory of hydrogen research activities, the hydrogen task force has developed a Web site, Hydrogen.gov., organized conferences and workshops on funding opportunities provided by the small business innovative research program and the small business technology transfer program and initiated plans for public forums to highlight nanotechnology breakthroughs that could enable the hydrogen economy. Nanotechnology exemplifies how other interagency efforts are contributing to the hydrogen fuel initiative. With its ability to yield insight into structures and material at the molecular level, nanotechnology holds the key to understanding and solving many of these basic challenges. To identify specific opportunities in this area, the National Nano Scale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the interagency National Science and Technology Council organized an interagency workshop in March 2004 on nano scale science research for energy needs. This workshop and the recently published strategic plan for the National Nanotechnology Initiative have highlighted the potential for research in nano materials, nano-scale processes and next generation instrumentations to enable significant advances in hydrogen production, storage and fuel cells. Since my time is up, let me quickly say that in addition to the task force, we also have a working group on manufacturing that is specifically spending time and effort on hydrogen manufacturing issues. We also have two coordinating mechanisms; one for the national nanotechnology initiative and also one for the high performance computing initiative. Actually, it's called NITRD, Networking Information Technology Research and Development Program, to ensure that R&D that is occurring in other areas is also coordinated and that there's good interaction between DOE that funds the vast majority of R&D in the hydrogen sphere and all the other work that is going on throughout the Federal Government. Thank you so much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.015 Mr. Issa. Thank you. The best part, of course, is what you did extemporaneously. Thank you. Dr. Lloyd, we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF ALAN LLOYD Mr. Lloyd. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you very much for drawing attention to this issue and your interest in this issue of critical importance to the Governor of California and also the President himself. I will be speaking from this Power Point document. I think California is committed to realizing a hydrogen economy. Just some background: We formed the California Fuel Cell Partnership back in 1999, which I will mention some more. The California Hydrogen Highway Network, which was the key part of the Governor's environmental action plan when he came into office, focusing on the renewal policy, an important priority and part of a long term strategy. We feel, in fact, that it is going to take a decade or two to get to a hydrogen economy and we need to start now. In fact, California's drive to a sustainable transportation future is based on our need to protect public health. We had the Low Emission Vehicle Program in 1990 which focused on and continues to focus on super clean cars, alternate fuels, hybrids, battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. Then we had the zero emission bus program in 2001 which is still in existence. Then we have the 2004 motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulation. So in California we have adopted an approach of regulations, partnerships, and incentives. We look to the Hydrogen Highway Initiative. We are delighted to have DOE as a major partner as well as DOT and EPA at the Federal level, together with eight auto companies, four energy companies, two technology developers, State and local entities involved with the formation of the California fuel cell partnership designed to bring fuel cell vehicles to the market faster. We have the stationary fuel cell collaborative emphasizing the stationary side. I think, again, with the Governor coming in exciting we launched as part of his environmental action plan the Hydrogen Highway Network. In fact, out of that was a charge to come up with a Blueprint Plan for the implementation. You have before you, I think, a copy of the Blueprint Plan which was a culmination of efforts by over 200 stakeholders from all segments to work together to implement this policy, basically looking at a phased approach for vehicles and stations and in fact starting off with 50 to 100 stations in 2010 with up to 2,000 vehicles getting up to 20,000 vehicles and 250 stations in 2015 and 2016. The emphasis is on renewable energies. Renewable is an important piece of what we are trying to do there. To show the State is committed, we have committed $6.5 million this year to kick off that program. That's the first year of a down payment which will get us some help toward infrastructure, help toward buying vehicles, both fuel cell as well as hydrogen IC engines there. That is already in the Blueprint Plan. So, the State is committed, working with the Federal Government to move ahead and with the stakeholders. In terms of the recommendations, you can see my recommendations. Fully fund the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Well, we didn't expect things to move so quickly. So, congratulations, in fact you have already implemented that. Another recommendation is to work more closely with California in developing an integrated network of third-party accessible stations. That is an important piece because in order to be part of the California Hydrogen Network they have to be publicly accessible. On the Governor's objectives by 2010, in fact you will be able to drive from D.C. to Baja, CA to British Columbia. Working with our partners there, you would be able to drive a hydrogen vehicle from D.C. to B.C. Then of course, 2010, Whistler, the Canadians have a plan to do that. Level the playing field in competing for Federal dollars. I think that is another very important piece. Then, I think fully fund the programs for advanced renewable technologies in particular. I know these are areas we need to work on when the benefits of hydrogen can be gotten from a variety of sources. Last, I show you the map there, I think for those who say that in fact it was too soon, I think the map showing you where we have some stations already. On the right hand side it shows the Governor kicking off the first station on the Hydrogen Highway Network at U.C. Davis with Professor Sperling and Vice Chancellor Heer. Then we also see on the left hand side Honda turning over a fuel cell vehicle to the general public so that they can commute. The Spillano family is using it to commute from Redondo Beach to Irvine. So, for those who say not today, it is here. Other companies are doing the same thing. We need that infrastructure. So thank you very much. We look forward to working with the Federal Government and with you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lloyd follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.031 Mr. Issa. Thank you. Dr. Lloyd, I'm just going to ask you one question that came up during your testimony. I am a little concerned. Your definition of a level playing field, I would assume, is those States which contribute the most, take their own tax dollars and do advanced research should be at an advantage over those States who simply would like the money. Is that what you call a level playing field? Mr. Lloyd. No. What I meant in that, Mr. Chairman, was in fact compete for the dollars, that everybody competes for the dollars. I recognize there is earmarking going on and I recognize we also participate in that because in fact if the rules aren't followed--and I know that's a tough issue from my colleagues at DOE. That is what I meant in that case. Mr. Issa. As a Californian, I always tend to have this feeling that since we led the way in clean air technology and our universities have done so much and we are contributing our own tax dollars that perhaps more of the research and development should be done in California than some other State that simply earmarks the dollars. I think we are pretty close to the same definition. Mr. Lloyd. I think some of our neighbors in California seem to do very well. Mr. Issa. Yes, exactly. Thank you. This is a more general question, but it is particularly important to the committee. There is a great deal of skepticism about whether the Department's time lines are attainable. The national academies are calling them unrealistic and private industry has said that they should come sooner. Generally, somewhere between people who say it's too slow and too fast lies the truth. But in this case, and Dr. Lloyd did a good job of saying so, hydrogen is here now, even if there may be a slower ramp up in actual production and delivery. Well, Mr. Faulkner, the Department's view is that we have this long plan of test and evaluate and so on. There couldn't be two more different testimonies than what I saw here today. We could do it faster. Now Honda is not ready to do 100 percent, but they are ready to do a much more similar rollout to what they have done in hybrid. Well, we, Congress--myself included--and the administration, seem to be looking at this as a 2020 program. Could you help us reconcile that? Mr. Faulkner. Yes, sir. I think we all might not be that much different. Yes, there are hydrogen fuel cell cars out there, some of them being driven. They are not ready for mass production. They are too expensive for the average driver. What we are talking about is looking at the longer term so that this does have mass market breakout potential. We are working in a partnership. I think that is important to emphasize because government won't be making these cars. We are helping to do the high risk R&D that will help the companies that are actually going to be doing the work to make the money selling these things make the commercialization decision about 2015. That's the date that we and our private sector partners have focused on. There will be instances of these vehicles being used in the marketplace, but they won't be available in showrooms for the regular person. I think about 2020 is the timeframe when we look at that starting to hit the marketplace. Then, of course, because vehicles take so long to turn over, it will take 10, 15 or 20 years to have that full impact be reached. I think another point I'd like to make is that we have a lot of technology hurdles we are wrestling with. Research doesn't happen overnight. You have to start working on it today and that is why the President was so on target to start this 2 or 3 years ago because it does take years to work through these. It is a lenghty process unless you have technology breakthroughs, but it does take time to work through the process. Mr. Russell. I would like to echo what Doug just said. I think the important point here is that you need something that is cost competitive on a commercial basis. Whereas the technology currently exists, it is not yet cost competitive. There are some major issues that have to be overcome, technical issues that need to be overcome. DOE is doing an excellent job, as is the private sector, in terms of tackling those issues. But until you have a car that has a reasonable range and is cost competitive, it is not going to be ready for the general market. Mr. Issa. I am going to have to do something that I regret. I am going to have to recess for about 5 minutes. I hope you will give me the indulgence. I will offer an amendment in Judiciary and run back as fast as my sneakers can bring me. Thank you for your patience. [Recess.] Mr. Issa. The committee is now back in session. I am a man of my word, but I do need to get to the gym a little more often. Dr. Sperling, who will be testifying in the second panel of the hearing, stated in his written testimony that there is no overall strategy to guide Federal spending on hydrogen research and development. Can you respond to what is going to be said? Yes or no or I agree is fine. Mr. Faulkner. Well, I'm puzzled by that statement. I brought some documents here as props. We have the Hydrogen Posture Plan. We have the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. This program is one of the most reviewed and dissected programs I have seen in the government. I think it is well run. We have a plan that lays out on an integrated basis, not only in DOE, but in the government. Mr. Russell here has a hand in looking at that. There are interagency reviews. Congress reviews these pretty carefully. I think I would have to disagree with that statement. Mr. Issa. Do you have a different opinion? Mr. Russell. No, no, I would echo that. One of the benefits of being in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, we really do see all the budgets for all the various research initiatives that are going on. I would say this one in particular is extremely well thought out and has been well charted into the future. I think the biggest single issue is that we make sure that the funding we get maps to the funding we are asking for. When I say we, I mean the Federal Government and the administration in particular because it has been well diagramed. So as long as we stay on track, as long as the funding that DOE ends up getting for the Hydrogen Program actually maps to the funding they need and the programs they need, I think we are going to be in good shape. Mr. Issa. Well, these documents, how do they specifically address the National Academy's concern for, among other things, the question of clear priorities to get you to that date there? I appreciate that there are multiple documents, Mr. Faulkner, and I really appreciate your saying various people who have a hand in it. But I will say from my time in the private sector, I never could answer that the buck stops with everyone who has a hand in it. Where does the buck stop in meeting those timetables and coordinating them, assuming, as Richard said, that you have funding that matches your scheduled request? Mr. Faulkner. Well, when I was referring to people who have a hand in, I meant we have a partnership. We have not only the government, but we work very closely with our private sector partners. The buck stops in my office, sir, at my desk. We have been put in charge of the initiative. We work through other parts of the Department of Energy. This has pretty clear time lines, goals and schedules laid out. In terms of the National Academy, we have implemented 39 of the 43 recommendations in the Academy's report. So, we think we are on track with what they were looking at, what they were recommending. I should note the academy is getting ready to issue another report, next week, probably. Mr. Issa. Excellent. I think I will go to a slightly different tact which I think is equally important. Dr. Lloyd, is California moving too quickly to develop infrastructure relative to the time lines of the other two panelists? Mr. Lloyd. No, I don't think we are. As a matter of fact, compared to the original program that the Governor outlined when he first came to office, the Blueprint Plan takes a more realistic approach of growing this from clusters and growing it outwards. Obviously, we are working very closely with the private sector as well so we see what the vehicles and what the infrastructure is going to be. So, I think we have that about right. Another aspect I want to indicate, getting back to an earlier topic, I think there are tremendous business opportunities with this technology, with hydrogen fuels technology and related technologies. I think the Governor wants to take advantage of those in California. So, in fact we see that being driven forward not only by the major stakeholder, but also some of the minor ones as well. Mr. Issa. Following up on that, Dr. Lloyd, has California picked a preferred method of hydrogen production at this point? Mr. Lloyd. Well at the moment clearly the preferred one would be looking at renewable technologies. In fact, in order to get the money through the legislature, they were very concerned about that. The environmental justice community was very concerned about that. But clearly we have a menu of options that you can use and in the nearer term you can use things like natural gas, but you can have electrolysis using renewables, you can look at biomass. So there is a variety of options. The preferred one is renewable technology, but clearly as we move forward we have to look at all of those sources. Mr. Faulkner. May I make a comment, sir? Mr. Issa. Yes. That is what we brought you here for. Mr. Faulkner. Well, I didn't want to interrupt you if you were getting ready to ask another question. It's too early to make that choice yet. Looking at the time line, 2015, 2020, we are looking at a range of different pathways of production. As Alan Lloyd at the other end said, our preferred pathway at the end would be renewable production of hydrogen, but in the interim it would be natural gas that we are looking at. Mr. Issa. And following up with both of you, at the present time, D.C. to B.C., all likely rollouts will be 100 percent local creation of hydrogen from natural gas, is that correct? The Governor's filling station right now is natural gas? Mr. Lloyd. Yes. Mr. Issa. Are there any filling stations in the design of D.C. to B.C., as we named it here that would be other than natural gas? Mr. Lloyd. In fact there would be a variety of sources. Clearly, we have to work with our partners in Oregon and Washington and get that. I think you might ask Mr. Campbell, who is intimately involved with what is happening in Vancouver. But no, we are looking at a variety of sources. No, it is not just all natural gas. Mr. Issa. At least some of them will be water-based electrolysis? Mr. Lloyd. Will be renewable, exactly. In fact, if you look at places like Toyota and Honda, they also already have vehicles there are renewables using electrolysis, using solar to get the electricity. Mr. Issa. Mr. Russell, please describe the activities of the Hydrogen Interagency Research and Development Task Force. Tell us what this wonderful sounding long name means. Mr. Russell. The task force is co-chaired by both the Department of Energy and also OSTP. Actually, as it happens we also have, and I would like to introduce him, the co-chair of the task force, Dr. Kevin Hurst, who is behind me. Essentially what we are trying to do is make sure that all the other agencies that are involved, everyone from EPA to even NASA have coordinated activities associated with their various pieces of R&D. So the task force has done everything from set up a Web site which I mentioned in my testimony, Hydrogen.gov., to hold workshops. Essentially, it is a coordinating mechanism which we use. So that is the primary purpose and that is what we do with it. Mr. Issa. One closing question from me, and this is the closing question because I recognize that the Senate is waiting for many of our panelists or will be. At the present time, particularly in California, but on a national basis, we are using 100 percent of our domestic production of natural gas. We are importing relatively small amounts of liquefied natural gas. However, plans are underway to import a fairly substantial amount of LNG. Would it be fair--and hopefully this is a yes or no--fair to say that any increase in consumption of natural gas in hydrogen-based automobiles, you know, any net increase that was not offset by some other reduction in the use of natural gas in some other area of our economy would leave us as or more dependent on an imported hydrocarbon than we are today? If I am missing anything in the logic of ``we are using it all, we are importing some and we are going to import more even if we don't make hydrogen cars,'' please say so. Because if we don't find another source for producing hydrogen we will be dependent on imported natural gas to fuel our vehicles which, oddly enough, comes from many of the same areas of the world as our oil does. Is there any fallacy in that statement? Mr. Lloyd. One of the things I would say for California, certainly in the nearer term there are lots of sources where we can in fact get the natural gas, and make hydrogen. For example, lots of landfills where you can actually capture emissions from there, capture methane and turn it into hydrogen. There are lots of places where natural gas is clear. So, in the nearer term we are not keeping track of all the resource we have to tap that natural gas. In the longer term, then we have to look at a whole variety of options. Mr. Russell. There is an additional point which is slightly different than the way you asked the question, which is there's an efficiency game associated with fuel cell vehicles. So, when you have a fuel cell vehicle, for the same amount of energy you have about 2.4 times the efficiency associated with that as compared to your standard automobile. So, yes, you are right, you still are relying on natural gas, but you are relying on less of it than you are relying on oil. So, there definitely is an efficiency gain. Even if we are using natural gas as our source of hydrogen, we are still gaining benefit both from a dependence on foreign oil and from an environmental standpoint. Mr. Issa. And you are saying 2\1/2\ times more efficient than if I simply had a compressed natural gas automobile? Mr. Russell. Well, that is actually a standard auto. If you are talking about a hybrid electric vehicle, it is 1.6 times as efficient. I don't have a natural gas vehicle comparison, but maybe DOE does. Mr. Faulkner. Just to add a couple of points to what they have already said, sir, we mentioned that natural gas was an interim fuel for production of hydrogen. It is not a long term permanent fix until we develop some of these other pathways to hydrogen. The second thing is the national security issue of our increasing reliance on foreign oil, now it is in the high 50 percent of our use and climbing over the next two decades or more. This is the only thing that will completely eliminate that dependence on foreign oil, the hydrogen fuel cell car. Mr. Issa. Well, I would like to thank all of you. I think you have done an excellent job of defending the work that the Federal Government is already doing. Dr. Lloyd, I would be remiss if I didn't take advantage of having a key advisor to the Governor here to mention, when you brought up flaring of natural gas in California, just as one Californian to another, we flare that gas because the legislature prohibits it from being used, transferred for cogen and prohibits it from being put into the system if it is not natural gas burning automobile compliant. Much of that could stop being flared with some small legislative changes that you have helped point out here today. I very much would love to see that natural gas captured and used in one of those two ways. With that I would like to thank the panel. I realize that you are moving on to other panels on the other side of the Capitol. Your testimony is very much appreciated. I'll say it again after the second panel, but you will have 20 legislative days to include any additional thoughts you have. Many of the members of the committee will be submitting questions you may not have had today. With unanimous consent, which I'm sure I'll get right now, we will allow them to forward them to you and to revise and extend. We will also be forwarding to you their opening statements. With that the first panel is dismissed with my compliments. Mr. Lloyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Issa. Will the second panel please come forward? I would like to thank the second panel for their patience. Hopefully, you saw that the Federal and State governments were not given a free pass here today. I promised them as they left that I would do the same back to private industry. So you are aware, we are going to have a long series of votes at some point. I am going to do everything I can to be as expeditious as possible in getting through this. I would ask you to do the same. There are not a lot of people to ask different questions, so you have that going for you, but when we adjourn, which will be about 10 minutes after the vote is called, it would be unreasonable to hold you through that long series of votes, so that will end the panel for today. Since you have all been sworn in, and you were all mentioned and introduced earlier, we will now start with Dr. Burns and we will get through this as quickly as we can so you all get your statements in and our Q and A. Thank you. STATEMENTS OF LAWRENCE D. BURNS, VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR GENERAL MOTORS; DENNIS CAMPBELL, CEO, BALLARD POWER SYSTEMS; MUJID KAZIMI, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; AND DANIEL SPERLING, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE D. BURNS Mr. Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am vice president of research, development and strategic planning for GM and I am responsible for General Motors Fuel Cell Program. We place very high priority on the combination of hydrogen and fuel cell technology because we see this combination as the best way to simultaneously increase energy independence, remove the automobile from the environmental debate, stimulate economic and jobs growth and allow automakers to create better vehicles that customers will want to buy in high volume. I want to emphasize, high volume is crucial. It is the only way to meet the growing global demand for automobiles while at the same time realizing the energy and environmental benefits that we are seeking. So we must get the high volume. Our fuel cell program is focused in three areas. We are focused on developing a fuel cell propulsion system that can be competitive, go head to head with conventional automotive propulsion systems, the internal combustion engine. Second, we are demonstrating our progress publicly to let stakeholders experience first hand the benefits of the technology. Finally, we are collaborating with energy companies and governments to ensure safe, convenience and affordable hydrogen available to our customers. This is key to enable a rapid transformation. We are targeting to design and validate a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that can compete with the internal combustion engine. Let me clarify what that means: It is competitive on performance in terms of its power density, its speed and its range. It is competitive on durability, 150,000 mile life and at scale volumes it is competitive on cost. That is an important step because without having the propulsion system being competitive we are not going to be able to get the high volume. This is an aggressive timetable. It is clear that because of this aggressive timetable we are really signaling that this is an industry-led initiative and also we believe that the technology has matured to the point where this time it is indeed possible. We have made significant progress on the technology in the last 6 years. We have improved our power density by a factor of seven. This means you can make the fuel cell components smaller, more efficient, which package in conventional automobiles. We have significantly increased the durability, the cold start capability and reliability of our system. We have developed safe hydrogen storage systems that are beginning to approach the range that our customers will expect. We have made significant progress on cost reduction. Now, this progress has convinced us that fuel cell vehicles have the potential to be fundamentally better automobiles on nearly all the attributes that our customers consider to be important. This is really key to enabling high volume. With just one-tenth as many moving parts in a fuel cell propulsion system versus an internal combustion engine, we have also grown in our confidence that our vision design can indeed be cost competitive and durable. We have also made excellent progress with our vehicle demonstrations. We have a fleet of six vehicles here in Washington, DC. We have had nearly 3,000 people take a ride or a drive in these vehicles so they can experience first-hand the technology. The D.C. fleet is fueled by a Shell station out on Benning Road. Shell is our partner and it really is a small but very important step toward a hydrogen infrastructure. We collaborated with the U.S. Army in developing the world's first Army truck that is based on fuel cell technology. We are part of the Department of Energy's program. We will be fielding 40 vehicles as part of that program. Very importantly, we have demonstrated what concepts, what the new automobile of the future can be like. There are concepts called AUTOnomy, Hy-wire and Sequel. Sequel is the world's first vehicle that will be capable of going 300 miles between fill-ups, using a fuel cell. Then we are partnering widely with Shell, Sandia, Dow, Department of Energy, Quantum, Hydrogenics. We are quite connected. We see the biggest challenge being a fast industry transformation to hydrogen and fuel cells. The biggest challenge to that is the fuel and infrastructure. A major advantage of hydrogen is that it can come from so many different pathways, including renewables. As such it gives us a chance to relieve our 98 percent dependence on petroleum. This is a big task, the infrastructure, but fortunately we are not starting from scratch. There are 50 million tons of hydrogen produced each year in the world today. Now if all of that was used in automobiles, that could fuel every automobile here in the United States, nearly 200 million automobiles. Obviously, this hydrogen is being used for other purposes, for commercial purposes. The point I am trying to make here is that there is a lot of experience making hydrogen. It is experience that is safe. It is experience that is cost competitive for these commercial applications, which really encourages us that the infrastructure can fall into place. We also don't have to build this infrastructure instantaneously. The entire car park of the Nation would take about 20 years to turn over. So, we could evolve the infrastructure in kind with that. We would like to applaud the Department of Energy and the government for the initiatives that are in place on hydrogen. However, we think there is more that needs to be done to be ready for large scale demonstrations and ultimately mass market applications in the next decade. We would like to see the Federal Government articulate a clear and concise and broadly sanctioned vision that goes beyond just what the DOE and the Department of Defense is doing, focused both on technology and application. Clear and consistent communication to American people of this vision and the underlying rationale for it we think is really important to help transform the market. The energy bill that is being considered we think is directionally quite good. But if we are really serious about transforming to a hydrogen economy, there is really a lot more that can be done in the coming years. The auto industry alone is spending about $1 billion a year collectively on this technology. So, if the government would like to accelerate that, the government funding could be greater. We welcome in particular the energy bill's increased funding of R&D. Yes, we have made dramatic progress on our first generation design, the one I referenced for 2010. But the real volume and the real benefits will come with second generation designs and beyond. So we would like to see the continued support of R&D for advanced materials for fuel cells as well as for hydrogen storage. Market to man for fuel cell vehicles must also be encouraged. We think the price of hydrogen will be a critical factor and that Congress should act now to exempt hydrogen from fuel taxes to try to help hydrogen get on a level playing field with gasoline as we introduce it. Then looking past 2010, we really have to start thinking about going beyond today's small demonstrations. We welcome any Federal fleet purchases that could go along to help encourage that. We think the energy bill, and we believe Congress should consider doing more and this would be an important bridge to commercial vehicles. So to summarize, GMC sees hydrogen as the long term automotive fuel and fuel cell as a long term power source, our fuel cell program seeks to create clean, affordable, full performance fuel cell vehicles that will excite and delight our customers. We believe customers will buy these vehicles in large numbers and that society will reap the economic, energy and environmental benefits that would be related to that. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.035 Mr. Issa. Thank you, Dr. Burns. If I can paraphrase your request, zero emissions, zero tax. Mr. Campbell. STATEMENT OF DENNIS CAMPBELL Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Dennis Campbell. I am the president and CEO of Ballard Power Systems. We are the exclusive fuel cell supplier to Ford Motor Co. and to Daimler Chrysler. To date, we have supplied 8 of the top 10 automotive manufactures. Fuel cells offer a game-changing technology that can help us overcome some of the most pressing issues of our time, energy security, global climate change, urban air quality and long term energy supply. As with any disruptive technology, there are critics, those who prefer the status quo, those for whom the glass is always half empty. Today I would like to respond to the skeptics and the naysayers with a factual update that suggests the hydrogen economy is closer than many people think. I will discuss three of the major challenges that must be overcome: reducing the cost, increasing the durability, and ensuring reliable startup in freezing temperatures. Now, earlier this year Ballard released a technology roadmap as part of our plan to demonstrate commercially viable fuel cells by 2010. Our roadmap is fully aligned with the Department of Energy's 2010 automotive fuel cell goals. From 1999 to 2003, we reduced the cost of our fuel cell by 80 percent, while achieving a tenfold increase in lifetime. By 2004, we reduced our cost, adjusted for high volume production, to $103 per kilowatt. Our goal this year is to get down to $85 a kilowatt. We are confident that by 2010 we can meet the DOE target of $30. The DOE has also set a commercial durability target of 5,000 hours, roughly the expected life of today's internal combustion engines, 150,000 miles. We are on track to meet that goal. Last year we demonstrated automotive technology with a lifetime of 2,200 hours. Ballard-powered fuel cell buses in Europe have surpassed more than 2,500 hours of operation and our stationery cogeneration fuel cell for Japan has achieved more than 25,000 hours of lifetime. Now, a third technical challenge is to improve the ability of our fuel cells to start in freezing temperatures. Last year we demonstrated the ability to start at minus 20 degrees Celsius, reaching 50 percent power in 100 seconds. Our goal for 2010 is to demonstrate startup for minus 30 in 30 seconds. Now, a key enabler of this progress is the demonstration of fuel cell vehicles in the hands of everyday customers. Since 2003, Ballard fuel cells have been powering 30 Mercedes-Benz transit buses in daily revenue service in 10 cities in Europe. More than 3\1/2\ million passengers have already experienced the advantages of clean, quiet fuel cell transportation. The Department of Energy's fleet validation program takes our field experience to the next level. Ballard, through its automotive partners, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, as part of the DOE initiative, will be powering approximately 60 vehicles in various locations throughout the United States. The effective demonstrations are critical, but the more important determinant of when fuel cells can be introduced to the mass market will be the will and the commitment of government. There is no better investment for government to make in the health and welfare of its people than an all-out Apollo-like commitment to hydrogen and fuel cells. The President's hydrogen initiative has galvanized industry and government in support of the hydrogen economy and continues to facilitate public and private collaboration. The pending energy bill's R&D demonstration programs, if fully funded, will strengthen the President's initiative and will provide a vital boost to fuel cell commercialization. Now, it's a great start, but considering the stakes, I urge Congress to do more. An effective national strategy to accelerate the hydrogen economy must also include a transition to market plan. Only government can overcome the classic chicken and egg problem and kick-start the transition to fuel cell power. We applaud the proposed $1,000 per kilowatt tax credit for stationary fuel cells. For automotive fuel cells, the framework of an effective transition to market program is present in legislation sponsored earlier by Senators Dorgan and Graham. It is also captured in the energy bill's vehicles and fuels provision. In closing, I strongly recommend that Congress significantly increase funding for the fuel cell vehicle procurement program. A vigorous procurement program targeting fuel cell vehicles for Federal and State fleets must be in place alongside R&D and demonstrations as a third component of a national strategy to accelerate the hydrogen economy. A clear commitment by Congress to make a specific and sizable annual outlay in fiscal years 2010 to 2015 for State and Federal fuel cell fleets would support the volume production necessary to drive costs down, stimulate the buildout of a hydrogen infrastructure, draw additional private capital into the sector and provide the American public with a large scale introduction to the hydrogen economy. There is no doubt the challenges are real, but they can and they will be met. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to any questions that you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.040 Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Kazimi. STATEMENT OF MUJID KAZIMI Mr. Kazimi. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to discuss with you the subject of hydrogen energy. As noted, I was a member of the National Research Council Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use which published a report entitled ``The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs.'' This committee recommended several things, but the main ones were as follows: Hydrogen can, with appropriate development of technology, fundamentally change the U.S. energy outlook, both because of its impact on imported energy sources and its impact on the potential climate change. Second, there are formidable technical hurdles to overcome, including economic, social and political challenges. There are many options for the production, distribution, storage and use of hydrogen, but none of them satisfies the full combination of desired attributes. The R&D program should establish criteria to judge the potential technical and economic performance for each. Finally, the United States must maintain a robust, balanced energy program in areas other than hydrogen to maximize the likelihood of meeting that national goal. Since the issue of the NRC report, several developments took place, you mentioned them in your opening statement, which simply added to the urgency of addressing the issue. So, today we have a higher priority for the development of alternative energy that relies on domestic sources and do not increase carbon emissions. For the long run, that means clean coal, that is coal with sequestration of the carbon dioxide, nuclear energy and renewable energy. The NRC committee has made recommendations to improve the DOE program for hydrogen and by and large the DOE has followed with a good number of changes in order to accommodate the NRC recommendations. However, there are certain areas that are lagging that are important to pay attention to. I would like to mention a few. First, the recommended system models to assist the evolution from near term technology to long term technology is still being planned. That leaves us now working on the evolution of our clean energy system in a piecemeal as opposed to a coordinated fashion. Second, we need an assessment of alternative methods to produce liquid fuel that might require hydrogen for their production but that do not alter the car power train or the infrastructure needed for distribution. I mentioned two examples that might be competing with the fuel cell approach that we have heard good progress reports on. One is the use of unconventional oil reserves that we have. In North America, we have approximately 1,500 ExaJoules in oil and that are sands, in shale and tar sands. Whereas, in the entire Middle East they have about 2,500 ExaJoules of that kind of resource. With that amount of resource available to us, I can't imagine that we would not be using it. The heat and hydrogen needed to sweeten the shale and tar sand oil could be produced from sources other than natural gas that is being used today, such as renewables and nuclear sources to avoid the carbon emission to the atmosphere. This will not be a total solution for the carbon emissions, but it will reduce the overall carbon emissions to the atmosphere. The second approach that I would like to mention is the question of producing synthetic liquid fuels using carbon dioxide that is captured from electric power plants. The technology exists. It needs some development and I think it would be worth it. Finally, I would like to say that the issue of production of hydrogen has not been given enough attention. I am very familiar with the nuclear hydrogen production program and I see some hesitation about going forward with a demonstration of the appropriate technology today. While we know that we need a new type of reactor that can produce high temperatures in order to facilitate efficient production of hydrogen, we have none in the United States today. Meanwhile, Japan already has one that started operation in 2001 and has already produced hydrogen using high temperatures approaches in the order of 30 meters per hour as of last December. Their program is progressing to about 1,000 times as much, which they would like to accomplish by 2007. So, I would like to urge that DOE put a higher priority on the development of the high temperature reactors and the demonstration of the ability to integrate such reactors with the means for production of hydrogen. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kazimi follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.047 Mr. Issa. Thank you and thank you for your insightful testimony when it came to areas that were slightly on the periphery of today, but absolutely within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Dr. Sperling, I do apologize, we are going to be adjourning shortly after your testimony. I will try to get one or two questions in, but I am going to miss one vote, and that will be as much as I can miss. Dr. Sperling. STATEMENT OF DANIEL SPERLING Mr. Sperling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. I do thank you for the opportunity to speak here on Federal policy toward hydrogen fuel cells. I am a professor of engineering and environmental policy at the University of California, Davis. I direct the campus's Institute of Transportation Studies and co-direct our Hydrogen Pathways Research Program. I also served on that National Academy's committee that Dr. Kazimi just referred to, last year. I am very pleased to provide testimony on this important subject. My statement is going to address the Federal portfolio of hydrogen research, development and demonstration activities. I have one general recommendation and three more specific recommendations. First, though, I do want to note that DOE is doing, I believe, an excellent job of managing the hydrogen program in its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, especially given the constraints it operates under. They are to be commended for their efforts to coordinate and to collaborate. They have developed strong relationships with the automotive industry. They have reached out to the oil industry, and they do seek outside input in developing their research programs and they also seek to coordinate with other Federal activities. The principal challenges and concerns lie elsewhere. So my overarching recommendation and thought is that I do believe, as you mentioned earlier, the Federal Government needs to develop a strategic clean energy plan including, but not limited, to hydrogen. No such plan exists. A plan is needed that addresses how much money the Federal Government should spend on clean energy R&D relative to other priorities in science, technology demonstrations; what it should be spent on and who should receive the funding. Congress needs to work with DOE, the National Science Foundation and others to develop this science and technology plan. This plan needs to articulate the priorities regarding how funding should be split between short and long term challenges; between fossil, nuclear and renewable energy; between science, technology and demonstrations; between industry, national labs and universities. It would be aimed at assuring that the United States continues to be a technology leader in the energy area, something very much at risk. I have three more specific recommendations of what should be in that plan, what I would hope would be. First is a dramatic increase in fundamental R&D for clean energy production including hydrogen. A clean energy revolution is about to get underway. Given the huge energy challenges and opportunities and given the huge public benefit that will result, one can only judge that current levels of Federal funding of energy R&D are far too low. Note that the energy sector spends far less on R&D than most other sectors and that DOE spends far less on energy R&D than it did 20 years ago. Congress needs to rethink and expand the role of energy R&D. I note that the clean energy revolution is going to include some mix of renewable energy on the one hand and fossil energy coupled with carbon sequestration on the other. The energy industries have great motivation to invest in carbon sequestration, and they are. But there is no analogous, well-funded stakeholder industry with a strong incentive to invest in renewable energy. Thus the most important role for the Federal Government is to accelerate the development of renewable technologies, including those that produce hydrogen. Second, in my observation, my reading, the planned hydrogen demonstrations are probably about right in scale, but would benefit from a more targeted approach. Technology demonstrations are designed to meet a variety of goals, technology, political, educational, economic. No single project can satisfy all these goals. Trying to do so almost always will result in failures. The challenge is to design small scale projects that each meet different needs. And yes, there is value in providing public exposure in different regions and beginning the process of educating fire marshals and the myriad of other local regulators. But at this time the hydrogen demonstration projects should be small and directly tied to a goal. DOE needs to become more sophisticated about designing and evaluating these demonstration programs. Third and last is I believe we need to dramatically expand clean energy funding for universities. Now, I know this sounds self-serving, but I believe it. If I don't say it, who will? Although I would hope some of my partners on the panel would agree, and I know they do. Universities are the source of much of the breakthrough science in this country. Universities are also the place where scientists and engineers are trained. If energy research funding does not go to universities, universities are going to shift their attention elsewhere. Indeed that is what has happened. In the past 20 years almost all the large energy centers and energy study programs at universities have disappeared. The thinning of energy research at universities is already undermining U.S. leadership in clean energy technology. The United States will not be at the forefront of the coming clean energy revolution. It will not be able to respond effectively to energy security and climate change challenges without large new investments in university energy research. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sperling follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.053 Mr. Issa. Thank you, and you did just about as good a job of explaining that as Dr. Rountree did from the University of California at Berkeley a couple of weeks earlier. You are right. That's why in this subcommittee it does seem as though the University of California makes that point at every hearing. Probably the biggest question I can ask of the private sector here today, and it is for everyone, but to be honest, Dr. Burns, it is going to fall squarely in your lap, when is your best estimate of when the consumer would be able to buy a hydrogen automobile without all the frills, but the basic automobile, if you will, in the $30,000 range, plus or minus. Mr. Burns. My best estimate would be in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. Mr. Issa. In 2015. Mr. Burns. The 2015 to 2020 timeframe. Mr. Issa. Is there anyone who thinks that range of 2015 to 2020 is unreasonable? Let me just followup with one additional question, as somebody who has had three hybrid automobiles and has a fourth on order, and who notices the parking lot of Congress is practically a used car lot of hybrids at this point, when would you offer the automobile that is 25 to 30 percent more expensive than its counterparts but that appeals to early adopters--and included in that I believe should be the Federal Government. When would that occur? Mr. Burns. Well, we certainly think we can have the propulsion system designed and validated by 2010. So, I would put that in that 2010 to 2015 window. It is going to depend in part on the availability of the hydrogen. I think Dennis referred to this as the chicken and egg dilemma. We don't want to put our capital into a capacity to build cars if hydrogen isn't conveniently and safely available to our customers. We certainly can understand why the energy industry wouldn't want to put significant capital into fueling stations if the vehicles aren't available. That is really the transformation that needs to be managed. First you have to get the technology right and proven and it has to be cost competitive. Mr. Issa. A question I don't know the answer to at all: what is the cost of the smallest, least expensive, micro- producer of hydrogen? Can I buy a hydrogen producer that I hook up to my natural gas line and produce hydrogen at home to refuel my automobile at a competitive price? Mr. Burns. Well, certainly there are a number of companies with the vision to do just that. That is the beauty of hydrogen. It is as widely distributed today as the water and natural gas needed to make it. Most all of our homes and businesses have it. We like to think of the infrastructure challenges as an appliance issue as opposed to pipelines and refinery and ports and other things. So, the real question is can you get an appliance that either uses the sun, uses electricity from other sources, or reforms natural gas at your home that can create hydrogen at a competitive price to petroleum. Mr. Issa. No, that was my question. I wanted your answer. Mr. Burns. My answer is I absolutely believe that can happen. I believe that can happen in the 2015 timeframe. I have seen studies of companies that claim that is possible. Mr. Issa. I was hoping for an earlier date. You will notice that. Mr. Kazimi. As of today, I think if you are trying to get an electrolyzer that gives you substantial quantities, you are talking about $50,000 and above. So, it is not yet available for the average household. Mr. Burns. Let me just make it clear, as we reach our target of $50 per kilowatt for our fuel cell propulsion system, which is our 2010 target, electrolyzers are fuel cells running backward. So they are basically the same technology. They run at higher pressure. So, we believe the enablers that will allow us to get fuel cells cost competitive will do similarly for electrolyzers---- Mr. Issa. Dr. Sperling. Mr. Sperling. Well, you know, the bigger issue is that hydrogen, as Dr. Burns said earlier, there is a lot of hydrogen being produced. It is produced at a cost of probably under $2 a gallon equivalent. So, especially from fossil sources we can make it. We need to develop ways of sequestering carbon when we make it using fossil sources. But it requires in that case a large distribution system to efficiently move it from a source where it can be produced fairly efficiently to the end users. What Dr. Burns is talking about is that until that kind of distribution system is set up, perhaps a better way to do it is, and perhaps go in parallel with it, is developing very small units that can be at the household or local neighborhood level. You know, this is part of this challenge of the transition, how do we get from here to there? How do we get started? It is not obvious. It is not straightforward. Parts of it need a lot of research. Mr. Issa. I am in the business of pushing hard to try to get that for people who can produce it. But I will ask each of you, to the extent that you have resources, to make this committee aware in the following days or weeks or even months, if you remember us, if you discover anyone who is, if you will, on that track already because I know that my house has natural gas, I know my house has water. To be candid, if a micro-unit were available today, I think there would be lots of early adapters who would be saying, it could be $100 a kilowatt and I am still willing to do it, particularly if I have a solar cell in the back or something else where I want to be zero emissions. Let me get to the heart of one of my concerns, though, since I have to answer this bell. There has been a lot of concern--and I know Dr. Burns and Mr. Campbell, you have it, too--about providing data that could be further shared from industry that might in fact, as often is claimed in Europe, could be shared with competing companies. Do you feel that the Federal Government has put in the safeguards and if not, what would you suggest that we do to make sure that you are able to fully provide us with the kinds of information that you cannot risk letting a competitor have? Is that firewall in place and if not, can we do more to make it be in place so that we can have the kind of data that would allow these programs to go forward a lot faster? Mr. Campbell. Well, I think we can do more to provide data on the actual progress in terms of where we are. We have been much more open this year at Ballard than we ever have been in the past. We felt there was a lot of misinformation out in the marketplace about the state-of-the-art with respect to the technology. So, we kind of opened our kimono and are sharing our cost levels and where we are in durability. This is information that in the past we kept private. We think it is important to get that news out there so people can really see how far the technology has advanced. You do have to protect your intellectual property, but I think there is a great spirit of collaboration in this industry today where automakers are collaborating, technology companies are collaborating. There is a realization that by working together we can move this thing a lot faster. Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your sensitivity on that issue. We worked very hard with the Department of Energy on their hydrogen fuel initiative on that exact issue. It did take a little longer than both parties expected to reach agreement on protecting the privacy of the data, but we feel we have reached a good common ground on that and we appreciate DOE's sensitivity. I just want to emphasize, it is a very important issue. The fundamental reason why General Motors is pursuing this as aggressively as we are pursuing it is we see a tremendous business growth opportunity here. We see an opportunity to take the world's auto ownership from beyond just 12 percent of the world's population. We see a vehicle that is simpler, that is more exciting to own and drive, that emits just water, that can get from renewable energies and provides a foundation for a dramatic growth of our industry. We want to have a competitive advantage as we pursue that, so I appreciate your sensitivity on that. I believe we can work through the issues as necessary. Mr. Issa. Thank you. I would like to thank all the panelists here today. In closing, the path to realizing the hydrogen economy has been described as a moon shot, or an Apollo shot to paraphrase the statement made here today, by some skeptics--fraught with technical and economic challenges. But the importance of getting the economy away from its dependence on foreign oil in an environmentally responsible manner justifies such an ambitious initiative. We are halfway through the President's 5 year hydrogen initiative and as today's hearing indicates, we have already begun to see results. Moreover, Congress is just hours from passing the most comprehensive clean energy bill in this country's history. This bill will be a further step in moving expressly toward a hydrogen economy. At the same time, our witnesses noted that the Federal investment must be on a par with these challenges, dramatically greater. The investment must be dedicated in a strategic way and it must be accountable for the dollars spent. That is why congressional oversight hearings like this are so important and why this one is so timely. I am personally a fan of the goals of Kyoto. Although we never affirmed it here in the House or in the Senate, the only way we get to Kyoto is through, among other things, the President's vision for renewables, for nuclear and for hydrogen. If there is anything that both sides of the aisle should be committed to, it is reaching those three goals. On that I will hold the record open, contrary to an earlier statement, for 2 weeks from this date so that you may put forward any additional submissions. Beyond that the committee, though, will accept your submissions, not as part of the record, but for our continued work, at any time. With that, this meeting is adjourned with my thanks. [Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3205.058 <all>