Order Code RL30484
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Advanced Vehicle Technologies:
Energy, Environment, and Development Issues
Updated December 17, 2004
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Advanced Vehicle Technologies:
Energy, Environment, and Development Issues
Summary
Research and development of cleaner and more efficient vehicle technologies
has been ongoing for the past few decades. Much of this research started in response
to the oil shocks of the 1970s which triggered concerns about rising fuel costs and
growing dependence on imported fuel. The urgency of those concerns was lost as
fuel prices declined in the 1980s. At the same time, however, rising concerns about
vehicle contributions to air pollution and global climate change added a new
dimension to the issue. Recently, instability in world oil prices and political concerns
have reawakened the energy dependence concerns of the1970s. Meanwhile, research
on new technologies continues, with a particular focus on commercialization.
Despite widespread agreement in principle on the benefits of decreased dependence
on petroleum and the internal combustion engine, the practical challenges posed by
a transition to advanced vehicle technologies are formidable. Nonetheless,
significant research and development progress has been made since the 1970s.
These new technologies have sparked more interest as some major auto
manufacturers have introduced high-efficiency production vehicles to the American
market, and others have plans to introduce similar vehicles in the future.
Furthermore, interest has grown recently as a result of higher petroleum prices, and
the announcement of new emission regulations for passenger vehicles.
In January 2002, the Bush Administration announced the FreedomCAR
initiative, which focuses federal research on fuel cell vehicles. This initiative
replaces the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which focused
on hybrid technologies and the development of an 80 mile-per-gallon sedan. In
conjunction with FreedomCAR, in January 2003, President Bush announced the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which focuses federal research on hydrogen fuel and fuel
cells for stationary applications.
This report discusses three major vehicle technologies — electric vehicles,
hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles — as well as advanced component
technologies. Each technology is discussed in terms of cost, fueling and maintenance
infrastructure, and performance. The report also discusses key legislation in
Congress, as well as federal, state, and local activity relevant to these technologies.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hybrid Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fuel Cell Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Component Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Lightweight Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Decreased Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Regenerative Braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Variable Valve Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
42-Volt Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Integrated Starter-Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Cylinder Deactivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost Difference for Hybrid (MY05) and Conventional (MY05)
Honda Civic Sedans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Advanced Vehicle Technologies:
Energy, Environment, and
Development Issues
Introduction
Technology using electrical energy to power automobiles has been in existence
for over a century. However, for a number of reasons, including the energy density
of petroleum fuels, the internal combustion engine has been the power source of
choice for automobiles and most other vehicles. However, with the oil shocks of the
past few decades, as well as an increasing awareness of the emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, interest in the use of electrical
power train systems has grown. While there are other potential replacements for the
internal combustion engine, such as compressed air, these other technologies have
not been the subject of much interest scientifically or politically.
Much of the federal advanced vehicle research has come through the Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and the FreedomCAR program, consortia
of the federal government and the “Big Three” American automobile manufacturers.
PNGV focused on near-term goals and the development of hybrid electric vehicles,
while FreedomCAR, which replaced PNGV in 2002, focuses on long-term research
on fuel cells and hydrogen fuel.
The United States is not alone in pursuing these new technologies. Japanese
manufacturers were the first to introduce high-efficiency gasoline-electric hybrid
vehicles in the U.S. market. The development of these vehicles is a response to
global pressures to lower emissions and improve fuel economy. In that context, it is
worth noting that in most developed countries, gasoline and diesel fuel prices are
considerably higher than they are in the United States. In Europe, for example,
gasoline prices range from 3 to 5 dollars per gallon.
The three advanced propulsion technologies closest to commercialization are
electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. In an electric vehicle, the
vehicle runs exclusively on electricity which is supplied from an electric utility
provider, eliminating combustion on-board the vehicle. A hybrid vehicle integrates
an electrical system with an internal combustion engine to utilize the benefits of each
system. In a fuel cell vehicle, instead of combustion, a chemical conversion process
is used, leading to higher levels of efficiency. In addition to altering the propulsion
system, many other efficiency-related technologies, such as improved aerodynamics
and low-resistance tires can be incorporated into both new and conventional vehicles.
While these various technologies are promising, they must overcome certain
obstacles before they will be competitive in the marketplace. There are three main
barriers to their widespread use: cost, infrastructure, and performance. Cost is a

---

CRS-2
factor since without subsidies, consumers are unlikely to purchase new vehicles in
large numbers if the new vehicles are not cost-competitive with conventional
vehicles. Also, convenient infrastructure must exist for both fueling and maintenance
of these vehicles. Finally, the performance of the new vehicles must be comparable
to that of conventional vehicles.
Electric Vehicles
An electric vehicle (EV) is powered by an electric motor, as opposed to a
gasoline or diesel engine. Power is supplied to the motor by batteries, which are
charged through a central charging station (which can be installed in the owner’s
garage) or through a portable charger on board the vehicle, which is plugged into a
standard outlet. Because no fuel is consumed in EVs, and the vehicles therefore do
not produce emissions, they are considered to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in
certain air quality control regions. Although there are emissions attributable to the
production of electricity to charge the vehicles, the overall fuel-cycle of EVs tends
to lead to lower levels of toxic and ozone-forming emissions than those of
conventional vehicles. Also, since pollution attributable to electric vehicles occurs
at power plants, it is generally emitted in areas with relatively low population
density.1
Another potential public policy benefit of electric vehicles is that they can
reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, since only about 3% of electricity in the
United States is generated from petroleum. Furthermore, transportation dependence
on all forms of fossil fuels can be reduced, since approximately 30 to 35% of
electricity in the U.S. is generated from non-fossil fuels. However, high electricity
costs recently, especially in California, have led to questions about the long-term
viability of EVs.
Commercially, these vehicles have not been well-received by consumers.2 By
1998, only about 3,500 privately owned EVs were on the road, mainly in California.3
Only a few car companies currently produce electric vehicles, and most of those are
only available for lease by large fleets. Further, because consumer demand has been
low, some companies have discontinued production of electric vehicles.4 However,
California’s upcoming ZEV mandate (see “Other Issues,” below) may promote EV
sales.
1However, there may be concerns over increasing pollution in areas near a power generation
facility, though it is generally easier to control emissions for a stationary source than from
a mobile source.
2It is important to note that many of the technologies discussed in this report are in relatively
early stages of research and development and thus are not directly comparable to the internal
combustion engine, which has been a mass market product for nearly a century.
3Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Alternatives to
Traditional Transportation Fuels, 2000.
4“Honda Stops Making Electric Cars, Roiling California Regulators,” Wall Street Journal.
April 30, 1999. p. B7.

---

CRS-3
Cost
One of the most significant barriers to wide acceptance of electric vehicles is
their higher purchase cost. For example, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for
a 1999 General Motors EV1 was approximately $33,995,5 which was considerably
higher than a comparable 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier at $13,670.6
However, fuel costs tend to be much lower for EVs than for conventional
vehicles. In 2002, a small conventional vehicle could achieve a fuel cost of
approximately $690 per year.7 An electric vehicle, however, could achieve a
considerably lower cost of $390 to $480 per year.8 This difference, while significant,
fails to make up for the additional purchase or lease cost for an electric vehicle. With
increased petroleum prices, the cost savings for EVs may make them more attractive.
However, its is unlikely that even a very large increase in petroleum prices would be
sufficient to make electric vehicles cost competitive.
In terms of maintenance costs, electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, which
reduces wear. However certain parts, such as replacement batteries, tend to be
expensive.9
Currently, there are federal and state tax credits for the purchase of electric
vehicles. The federal credit is worth 10% of the purchase price of the vehicle, up to
$2,000. This credit, which is part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, will be reduced
to $1,000 in 2006, and will expire after 2006.10 In some areas, these vehicles are also
exempted from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane restrictions, parking restrictions,
and/or vehicle registration fees.
Infrastructure
Another key obstacle to more widespread use of electric vehicles is the lack of
fueling (charging) and maintenance infrastructure. For example, there are
approximately 700 public charging stations, mostly in California and Arizona.11 This
5General Motors, EV1 Electric, at [http://www.gmev.com/]. It must be noted that this
vehicle is currently only available for lease to consumers.
6Chevrolet, Chevrolet Metro. [http://www.chevrolet.com].
7John DeCicco, Jim Kliesch, and Martin Tomas, ACEEE’s Green Book: The Environmental
Guide to Cars & Trucks. Washington, D.C. 2000.
8Ibid.
9Most manufacturers are researching to improve battery life, and are also considering
warrantying batteries for the life of the vehicle.
10P.L. 102-486; 26 U.S.C. 30. For more information on the EV tax credit, see CRS Report
RS21277, Alternative Fuel Vehicle Tax Incentives and the CLEAR ACT.
11Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), Refueling Sites.

---

CRS-4
represents less than 1% of the roughly 125,000 gasoline stations nationwide.12 The
lack of recharging infrastructure is not only inconvenient, but also limits long-
distance travel, since Arizona and California account for the vast majority of all
recharging sites currently in operation.
Adding to the problem of fueling infrastructure, is the lack of maintenance
infrastructure. Few mechanics have experience servicing EVs, and most work must
be done at a certified dealer. For this reason, most EV leases include free dealer
maintenance over the period of the contract. On the other hand, one advantage of
electric vehicles is that they have fewer moving parts and thus may be more durable,
and require less frequent maintenance.
Performance
Another major concern with electric vehicles is their performance. The batteries
used to power the vehicles tend to be quite heavy, limiting the range of these
vehicles.13 While a conventional passenger car can travel 300 to 400 miles before
refueling, currently available electric cars generally can only travel about 100 to 150
miles before needing to be recharged. Furthermore, while refilling the tank of a
conventional vehicle requires only a few minutes, a full residential recharge for an
electric vehicle can take five to eight hours. Some high-speed chargers can charge
a vehicle in three to four hours, but these quick charges may shorten the life of the
batteries, which are expensive to replace.14 For fleet vehicles, or for short-distance
commuting, these performance characteristics might not greatly affect their
marketability, but the feasibility of EVs for long-distance, intercity travel is unlikely
with current technology, even if the fueling infrastructure is greatly expanded.15
A lesser concern with electric vehicles is an unconventional driving style. To
provide maximum efficiency and range, the driver must accelerate and brake very
smoothly, or range is significantly diminished. Because of this, some drivers may not
be comfortable or proficient operating an electric vehicle.16
The greatest performance benefit from an EV is that, as was stated above, there
are no emissions from the vehicle itself. Furthermore, the overall toxic and ozone-
forming emissions tend to be much lower than with conventional vehicles since it can
12Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns for the United
States. [http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html].
13Battery weight is a major obstacle to improving the range of these vehicles. For this
reason, there has been considerable research and development progress, especially with
nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries, which have extended EV range significantly.
14John O’Dell, “A Clean Air Detour?; Fuel-efficient, Low-emissions Hybrids are Here,” Los
Angeles Times. February 2, 2000. p. G.1.
15There has been some research into the use of modular battery packs to eliminate the need
for recharging — depleted batteries are exchanged for fully-charged batteries at a service
station — but problems with design and feasibility have hindered progress in this area.
16In fact, these techniques can also affect the range and fuel economy of conventional
vehicles, but to a much lesser degree.

---

CRS-5
be easier to control emissions at a power plant than it is to control combustion
vehicle emissions. An added benefit is a reduction in noise pollution since EVs are
significantly quieter than conventional vehicles
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by EVs may be lower or higher than those
from conventional vehicles, depending on the local fuel mix used in power
generation17 and the efficiency of the power distribution grid. Furthermore, if
electricity transmission and distribution losses are high, energy consumption
attributable to electric vehicles may exceed conventional vehicles.
Other Issues
A major issue for vehicle manufacturers, and a motivation for increased research
and development on electric vehicles, is California’s zero-emissions mandate.18 This
mandate would require manufacturers to sell ZEVs and other super-low-emission
vehicles. However, many technical and market barriers have hindered the
implementation of the program. Most recently, the California Air Resources Board
amended the program, allowing manufacturers two methods to certify compliance.
First, manufacturers may comply by introducing a limited number of fuel cell
vehicles (see discussion below on fuel cells) by 2005. Second, the manufacturers
must produce a mix of vehicles, with 2% of sales coming from ZEVs, 2% from other
advanced-technology vehicles, and 6% from conventional super-low-emission
vehicles (SULEVs). Environmentalists have criticized the most recent amendments
to the program for not requiring more extensive mandates.19
The original legislation required 2% of MY 1998 vehicle sales to be ZEVs and
SULEVs, and 5% of MY 2001 sales, but these initial requirements were removed in
1996 to encourage market-based introduction of ZEVs. Other states have adopted
the California program, including New York, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
Maryland.20
Congressional Action
The key piece of EV-related legislation in the 108th Congress was the CLEAR
ACT (H.R. 1054 and S. 505).21 Both versions of the bill would have replaced the
existing EV tax credit with a new credit, based on vehicle weight, payload, and range.
For the purchase of a new electric passenger car, the bill would have provided
between $4,000 and $6,000. Further, the bill would have provided a tax credit of up
17This is especially true of the high greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.
18California Code of Regulations. Section 1962(e), title 13.
19Carolyn Whetzel, “California Adopts Changes to ZEV Program Giving Automakers
Reprieve From Quotas,” Daily Environment Report. April 25, 2003. p. A-13.
20In New Jersey and Maryland, the program will be adopted only if neighboring states also
adopt the program.
21For more information on the CLEAR ACT, see CRS Report RS21277, Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Tax Incentives and the CLEAR ACT.

---

CRS-6
to $1,500 for the purchase of neighborhood electric vehicles (small, low-speed EVs).
Some provisions from the CLEAR ACT were inserted into H.R. 6 (the
comprehensive energy bill). The conference report (H.Rept. 108-375) would not
have changed the structure of the existing EV tax credit, but would have eliminated
the phase-down of the credit, without extending the termination date.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
A type of vehicle that may address many of the problems associated with
electric vehicles is a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV). HEVs combine an electric motor
and battery pack with an internal combustion engine to improve efficiency. In some
HEVs, the batteries are recharged during operation, eliminating the need for an
external charger. In other cases, the vehicle must still be plugged in at the end of the
day. Either way, range and performance can be significantly improved over electric
vehicles.
The combustion and electric systems of HEVs are combined in various
configurations. In one configuration (series hybrid), the electric motor supplies
power to move the wheels, while the combustion engine is connected to a generator
which powers the motor and recharges the batteries. In another configuration
(parallel hybrid), the combustion engine provides primary power, while the electric
motor adds extra power for acceleration and climbing, or the electric motor is the
primary power source, with extra power provided by the engine. In some parallel
hybrid systems, the engine and electric motor work in tandem, with either system
providing primary or secondary power depending on driving conditions.
The hybrid drive train allows the combustion engine to operate at or near peak
efficiency most of the time. This can lead to significantly higher levels of overall
vehicle system efficiency. The higher efficiency of these vehicles allows them to
achieve very high fuel economy and lower emissions. For example, the hybrid
Honda Insight is rated at 61 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city, and 70 mpg on the
highway. A gasoline-fueled Honda Civic Hatchback, by comparison, achieves a
rating of 32 mpg city and 37 mpg highway.22 Fuel economy improvements can help
cut demand for foreign petroleum, and the higher efficiency enables hybrid vehicles
to attain, and even surpass, the range of conventional vehicles, even with a smaller
fuel tank. Furthermore, since these vehicles utilize conventional fuel, the fueling
infrastructure problems associated with electric vehicles can be eliminated.
Several hybrid vehicles are currently available in the U.S. market, and over the
next few years most major manufacturers will have introduced hybrid passenger
vehicles.23
22DeCicco, et. al., op. cit.
23Several municipalities currently operate heavy buses with hybrid drivetrains, and research
and development on these larger vehicles is ongoing.

---

CRS-7
Until recently, HEVs were treated as conventional vehicles because they run on
gasoline or diesel fuel. However, the Internal Revenue Service announced on May
21, 2002, that it will allow taxpayers to claim a clean-burning fuel vehicle tax
deduction (up to $1,000 in 2005).24
Cost
One of the key selling points for hybrids is that while they are more expensive
than conventional vehicles, they are much less expensive than pure electric vehicles.
However, these vehicles are still relatively expensive. All of the current hybrids are
priced several thousand dollars above comparable conventional vehicles. Further,
it has been claimed that current hybrid prices are subsidized by the manufacturers.25
The higher purchase price of these vehicles is offset, to some degree, by lower
fuel costs. Due to the higher fuel efficiency of hybrids, fuel costs are significantly
lower with hybrids than with conventional vehicles. Depending on fuel prices, these
savings could be $250 or more per year.26 (see Table 1.) These savings, along with
proposed tax credits for the purchase of hybrids, could cover the incremental cost of
purchasing a hybrid as opposed to a conventional vehicle. Furthermore, some
consumers may be willing to pay a premium to drive a “different” kind of car.
Table 1. Cost Difference for Hybrid (MY05) and
Conventional (MY05) Honda Civic Sedans
Hybrid purchase price (MSRP)a
$19,800
Fuel cost savingsb
$2,520
$1000 Federal income tax deductionc
$250
Hybrid net cost
$17,030
Conventional purchase price (MSRP)
$15,510
Net cost difference
$1,520
a It has been argued that this price has been subsidized by the manufacturer.
b Fuel cost savings are over 10-year ownership (15,000 miles per year), at a gasoline price of $1.95
per gallon. EPA rated combined fuel economy for the hybrid sedan is 48 mpg, and 34 mpg for the
gasoline sedan (both with manual transmission). It should be noted that a shorter ownership period
will decrease the value of these fuel savings.
c Based on a maximum deduction of $1000 and a tax rate of 25%. This is the marginal tax rate for a
married couple, filing jointly with an income of $62,732 (the median income for a family of four in
the United States). From the U.S. Census Bureau, [http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html],
accessed December 15, 2004.
24Internal Revenue Service, News Release: IRS Moves to Clarify Taxpayer Deduction for
Hybrid Vehicles. May 21, 2002. Release No. IR-2002-64.
25“Science and Technology: Hybrid Vigour?,” The Economist. January 29, 2000. p. 94.
26DeCicco, et. al., op. cit.

---

CRS-8
Infrastructure
Another key advantage of hybrid vehicles over pure electrics is that no new
fueling infrastructure must be installed, since the vehicles are fueled by gasoline or
diesel. This will allow hybrid owners to purchase and operate these vehicles
anywhere in the country, and long-distance travel will not be limited by the fueling
infrastructure. Furthermore, maintenance of the combustion components in the
vehicle can rely on the existing service infrastructure.
However, as with pure electric vehicles, maintenance of the electric components
in hybrid vehicles will most likely need to occur at licensed dealers, who will have
more access to the technology. This may limit the acceptability for rural customers
who may live a good distance from the dealership, but is less likely to harm
acceptance of urban and suburban customers.
Performance
The most notable features of hybrid vehicles are higher fuel economy and
extended range. The efficiency of the hybrid drive system allows a significant
increase in fuel economy compared to conventional vehicles, cutting fuel costs.
Also, the improved fuel economy means that vehicle range is greatly extended with
hybrids, even if a slightly smaller fuel tank is used. This higher efficiency also leads
to lower emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as lower emissions of toxic and
ozone-forming pollutants. Further, depending on design, the hybrid system can also
be used to boost horsepower and acceleration.
Congressional Action
As with electric vehicles, the most significant piece of legislation in the 108th
Congress was the CLEAR ACT, which would establish a tax credit for the purchase
of new hybrid electric vehicles. A new passenger car or light truck would qualify for
a tax credit of between $250 and $4,000, depending on fuel efficiency and drivetrain
design. Heavy-duty hybrid vehicles would be eligible for larger tax credits. The
conference report on H.R. 6 would have provided a tax credit of $400 to $3,400,
depending on fuel economy and fuel savings, for the purchase of hybrid passenger
vehicle.
Fuel Cell Vehicles
A third type of new vehicle is a fuel cell vehicle (FCV). A fuel cell can be
likened to a “chemical battery.”27 Unlike a battery, however, a fuel cell can run
continuously, as long as the fuel supply is not exhausted. In a fuel cell, hydrogen
reacts with oxygen to generate an electric current. Hydrogen is supplied to the fuel
cell as either pure hydrogen, or a through hydrogen-rich fuel (such as methanol,
27For more information on fuel cells, see CRS Report RS32196, A Hydrogen Economy and
Fuel Cells: An Overview.

---

CRS-9
natural gas, or gasoline) which is processed (reformed) on-board the vehicle. There
is a physical limit to the voltage that one fuel cell can provide, so fuel cells are
arranged in “stacks” to generate a high voltage which is used to power an electric
motor.
This chemical process eliminates the need for charging a battery, which is
necessary with electric vehicles, while producing much lower emissions than
combustion vehicles. In fact, if pure hydrogen fuel is used, the only product from
the reaction will be water. With hydrogen fuel, an FCV would qualify as a zero
emission vehicle.28 Using other fuels,29 while the vehicle is no longer a ZEV,
emissions would still be drastically cut as compared to conventional vehicles.
Furthermore, because potential fuel supplies for FCVs include natural gas, methanol,
or pure hydrogen — the latter two produced from natural gas30 — another potential
benefit from fuel cells will be their ability to reduce the transportation demand for
foreign petroleum.31 However, because of technical challenges with hydrogen fuel,
it is possible that the first commercially-available FCVs will be gasoline- or diesel-
powered.
While not currently available to consumers, fuel cells have been touted as likely
to be one of the most important technologies in the history of the automobile.32 They
are currently very expensive, and thus there has been a great deal of interest in
research and development to improve their marketability. Because of their potential
to revolutionize the automotive industry, all major manufacturers are working to
develop fuel cell vehicles, and some manufacturers have introduced a limited number
of vehicles for lease; others intend to introduce vehicles for limited leases in the near
future.33 Demonstration projects are ongoing with fuel cell passenger cars, sport
utility vehicles, and transit buses. Many of these demonstrations are in conjunction
with the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a consortium of auto manufacturers, fuel
providers, fuel cell developers, and state and federal agencies.
Cost
Arguably, the largest barrier to the production of FCVs is cost. It currently costs
approximately $2,000 to $3,000 to produce a gasoline engine for a conventional
28Like electric cars, however, there will be emissions due to the production and distribution
of the hydrogen fuel.
29In these cases, an extra component, called a reformer, is used to separate hydrogen from
the fuel.
30The eventual goal is to produce hydrogen fuel from renewable sources, but that technology
not yet marketable.
31Recent high natural gas prices have led to questions of the viability of natural gas as a fuel
source for FCVs.
32Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), Fuel Cell Fact Sheet. February 2000.
33Because of production costs and other barriers, these will likely be very small production
runs, and the vehicles are likely to be heavily subsidized by the manufacturers.

---

CRS-10
passenger car.34 A comparable fuel cell stack costs around $35,000, according to
industry estimates, but a leading producer of fuel cells estimates that costs could be
cut to $3,500 in the future.35 Since there are fewer moving parts in a fuel cell vehicle,
maintenance costs would likely be lower, so the added cost of the fuel cell system
may be offset by lower maintenance costs. Further research and development would
be necessary to achieve these benefits.
Another key cost issue will be fuel costs. Fuel costs are a concern because there
is no hydrogen fueling infrastructure currently, and the use of methanol and natural
gas as transportation fuels is currently limited.36 Consumers might have to pay a
premium for these fuels, in order to support a growing infrastructure. However, since
hydrogen fuel and methanol would likely be produced from natural gas, price
fluctuations caused by changing supply in petroleum markets could be dampened,
although natural gas price fluctuations would certainly have an effect.
Infrastructure
Another major barrier to the use of FCVs is that there is no infrastructure for the
distribution of hydrogen fuel, and little methanol or natural gas infrastructure for
transportation. As of December 2004, there were only about 950 natural gas
refueling sites in the United States, and few, if any, methanol sites. The feedstock
for methanol, and the likely feedstock (in the near future) for hydrogen fuel is natural
gas, although other feedstocks, such as biomass or coal, could be used.37 Hydrogen
derived from renewable energy could also be possible in the future, but that
technology is far from commercialization.
Until the distribution infrastructure for hydrogen, methanol, or natural gas is
developed, it is possible that gasoline will be the fuel of choice for fuel cell passenger
vehicles. However, gasoline fuel cell systems are not as efficient as other systems.
For this reason, gasoline systems are seen as a stepping-stone to other, more efficient
fuel cell systems in the future.
As with electric vehicles, no maintenance infrastructure exists for servicing
these vehicles. The technology is radically different from conventional vehicles, and
most maintenance would likely have to occur at certified dealers.
Performance
One limit on the performance of fuel cell vehicles has been their weight. Fuel
cells have been demonstrated on larger vehicles, such as buses. However, because
34“GM’s Fuel-Cell-Powered Precept Hyped as Efficient and Fast,” The Salt Lake Tribune.
January 12, 2000. p. D9.
35“Ballard Reduces Fuel Cell Costs,” Detroit News. November 30, 1999.
36 Expanding current natural gas or methanol infrastructure will likely be less
expensive than comparable hydrogen infrastructure.
37Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Hydrogen General Information.
[http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/hyd_general.html].

---

CRS-11
of size and weight, until recently, passenger and cargo space has been sacrificed in
prototypes of smaller fuel cell vehicles. However, many of these issues have been
addressed in more recent prototypes. Another potential concern is that on-board
reformers for converting gasoline or other fuels to hydrogen are very heavy.
Therefore, much research has focused not only on cutting the cost of fuel cell
systems, but decreasing their weight, as well.
Another performance concern is one of fuel storage. Since hydrogen is not very
dense, the fuel must be highly concentrated, and must be compressed (requiring a
high-pressure tank), liquified (requiring a cooling system for the storage tank),
chemically bonded with a storage material (such as a chemical or metal hydride), or
stored in a tank with a complicated geometry (e.g., nanotubules). Each of these
storage systems has problems, such as added weight, safety risks, or expensive raw
materials that limit their acceptability.38 Therefore, research is ongoing to improve
both the storage capacity and safety of hydrogen fuel.
On the environmental side, the emissions from fuel cell vehicles are extremely
low. Using hydrogen, there are no emissions of toxic or ozone-forming pollutants.
Using other fuels, the reformer limits the efficiency of the fuel cell system, but
emissions are still much lower than with conventional engines. Depending on the
emissions attributable to the production and distribution of the fuel, fuel cell vehicles
may perform better environmentally than any other technology for all types of
emissions, including greenhouse gases. However, this is not a guarantee, especially
if coal is used to generate hydrogen and no technology is developed to recapture
carbon dioxide from the production process.
Other Issues
Currently, the main issue for fuel cells is research and development (R&D). All
major automobile manufacturers are spending considerable amounts of money on
fuel cell R&D. Further, in January 2002, the Bush Administration announced the
FreedomCAR program, which focuses federal vehicle research on fuel cell vehicles.
To complement this program, in January 2003, the Administration announced the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which focuses research on hydrogen fuel and infrastructure,
as well as research on fuel cells for other applications (e.g., backup power).
Congressional Action
In the 108th Congress, the CLEAR ACT would have provided tax credits for the
purchase of fuel cell vehicles. Depending on design characteristics, the bill would
have provided a tax credit of $4,000 to $12,000 for the purchase of a fuel cell
passenger car or light truck, with larger credits for heavy-duty vehicles. There were
similar provisions in H.R. 6.
38It should be noted that high-pressure on-board storage of hydrogen could potentially be
safer than current gasoline tanks.

---

CRS-12
Component Technologies
Another way to improve the fuel economy and emissions characteristics of
vehicles is to use advanced components that reduce friction, decrease vehicle weight,
or improve system efficiency. Many high-technology vehicles that are available to
the public utilize these technologies, but some of these technologies could also be
incorporated into the design of conventional vehicles.
Lightweight Materials
An effective way to improve efficiency is to reduce the weight of the vehicle.
However, simply reducing weight while using the same materials and structural
design can compromise passenger safety. Therefore, newer vehicles are making
extensive use of advanced materials such as composite or plastic body panels, and
high-strength, lightweight aluminum structural components. The use of some of
these materials may even make a vehicle more recyclable.39 Furthermore,
conventional materials can improve safety while reducing weight, if more
sophisticated structural designs are used.
Decreased Resistance
Another way to improve efficiency is to decrease resistance, both from drag and
from friction between the wheels and the road. Wind resistance can be decreased
through redesigning the body to a more aerodynamic shape. In addition, the use of
“slippery” body panels40 can further decrease drag, as can decreasing the profile of
parts such as side-view mirrors, tires, and the radio antenna. Rolling friction can be
limited through the use of low-resistance tires.
Regenerative Braking
A key component in the efficiency of electric vehicles (including hybrids and
fuel cell vehicles) is a regenerative braking system. This system allows some of the
vehicle’s kinetic energy to be recaptured as electricity when the brakes are applied.
In braking, the motor acts as a generator, taking kinetic energy from the wheels and
converting it to electrical energy which is fed back to the batteries.41 This technology
is already available on consumer EVs and HEVs.
Variable Valve Timing
Computers can be used to electronically adjust valve timing to optimize engine
efficiency. This improved efficiency can be used to lower fuel consumption and/or
39Automobiles are currently one of the most recycled consumer products with over 65% of
vehicle mass (mostly steel) reused.
40These are made from plastics with a very low coefficient of friction.
41In fact, the efficiency of the regenerative braking system is a key factor in the amount of
the credit available in the Administration’s proposed tax credit for hybrid vehicles.

---

CRS-13
increase power output. Variable valve timing is currently available on many
passenger vehicles.
42-Volt Systems
Some new fuel-saving technologies will require more power than is provided
by standard 14-volt electrical systems. A 42-volt system would provide the power
to these new systems. Further, increasing power requirements from existing and
future conveniences such as climate control, power accessories, and audio/video
devices will soon require greater power than a 14-volt system can provide.42
Integrated Starter-Generator
An integrated starter-generator can be used in conventional vehicles to reduce
fuel consumption and improve acceleration. As with a hybrid vehicle, using the
high-torque device allows the engine to shut off when the vehicle is stopped. When
power is applied, the engine can restart in less than one second.43 It is believed that
the integrated starter-generator could improve fuel economy of conventional vehicles
by as much as 20%. However, because the integrated starter-generator requires a
considerable amount of electrical power, it is being developed concurrently with 42-
volt electrical systems.
Cylinder Deactivation
Fuel consumption can also be reduced through cylinder deactivation. When less
power is needed, one or more engine cylinders can be deactivated. These cylinders
can then be reactivated if power needs increase. This technology could be
particularly useful in applications where a six-, eight-, or ten-cylinder engine may be
needed to boost acceleration, haul a trailer, or carry a large payload, but is not needed
when loads are lighter. Cylinder deactivation is currently available in several
vehicles, including certain models of the Chrysler 300 sedan, the GMC Envoy SUV,
and the Honda Odyssey minivan.
Conclusions
The use of advanced vehicle technologies can help curb consumption of fossil
fuels, especially petroleum, and reduce emissions of toxic and ozone-forming
pollutants, as well as greenhouse gases. In general, the most promising technologies
incorporate electric motors and batteries in their design, while all take advantage of
new design techniques and advanced materials to reduce resistance, cut vehicle
weight, and better conserve energy. However, most of these technologies are still in
various stages of development and have not yet proven marketable to most
consumers.
42Paul Sharke, “Power of 42,” Mechanical Engineering. April, 2002. pp. 40-42.
43Richard Truett, “Engineers Search Tech Menu for More Ways to Save Fuel,” Automotive
News. May 14, 2001. p. 36.

---

CRS-14
The three key issues for the marketability of advanced technology vehicles are
cost, infrastructure, and performance. Consumers must be willing and able to
purchase the vehicles, so purchase cost and overall life-cycle cost of these vehicles
must be competitive. In addition, consumers must be able to expect that refueling
and servicing these vehicles will be relatively convenient. Finally, the overall
performance of the vehicles — in terms of fuel economy, range, driveability, safety,
and emissions — must be acceptable.
While most advanced vehicles meet some of these requirements, no new vehicle
has yet met all of them. Therefore, research and development has been a key issue
in the discussion of these vehicles, as have efforts to make the vehicles more
affordable and the infrastructure more accessible. These vehicles may help the
federal government in its role of promoting energy security and environmental
protection if research and development can bring them to a point where they can be
successfully marketed to American consumers.

---