RL30484: Advanced Vehicle Technologies:
Energy, Environment, and Development Issues

Brent D. Yacobucci

Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

March 27, 2000

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, the sudden rise in world oil prices has reawakened the energy dependence concerns of the 1970s. Meanwhile, research on new technologies continues, with a particular focus on commercialization. Despite widespread agreement in principle on the benefits of decreased dependence on 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 this year as two major Japanese manufacturers are introducing high-efficiency production vehicles to the American market, and the other manufacturers will soon follow suit. Furthermore, interest has grown recently as a result of higher petroleum prices, and the announcement of new emission regulations for passenger vehicles.

The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a consortium of the Federal Government and the three major American automobile manufacturers, has also had a key role in the development of advanced technology vehicles. The main goal of the partnership is to produce prototypes of mid-sized cars that can achieve fuel economy of 80 miles per gallon, meet or exceed existing vehicle emissions and safety standards, and be no more expensive to own and operate than conventional vehicles. While PNGV has not yet reached that goal, it has led to the development of many new vehicle technologies since its establishment in 1993.

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 the 106^th Congress, as well as Federal, state, and local activity relevant to these technologies. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents

Introduction
Electric Vehicles
        Cost
        Infrastructure
        Performance
        Other Issues
        Congressional Action
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
        Cost
        Infrastructure
        Performance
        Other Issues
        Congressional Action
Fuel Cell Vehicles
        Cost
        Infrastructure
        Performance
        Other Issues
        Congressional Action
Component Technologies
        Lightweight Materials
        Decreased Resistance
        Regenerative Braking
Conclusions

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 advanced vehicle research has come through the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a consortium of the Federal Government and the "Big Three" American automobile manufacturers, established in 1993.1 PNGV's goal is for each of these manufacturers to produce a prototype of a mid-sized passenger car capable of achieving 80 miles per gallon fuel economy, without compromising emissions standards, safety, or comfort.2

The United States is not alone in pursuing these new technologies. A major Japanese manufacturer has introduced a car that can achieve two to three times the fuel economy of the standard conventional vehicle, and another Japanese company will introduce its advanced vehicle in Summer 2000.3 The development of these vehicles has been 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 most promising advanced technologies 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 power plant, 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 different chemical process is used, leading to higher levels of efficiency. In addition to altering the power train, 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 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 the 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 produces lower levels of toxic and ozone-forming emissions than that 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.4

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 U.S. 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, to date these vehicles have not been well-received by consumers.5 By 1998, only about 3,500 privately-owned EVs were on the road, mainly in California. An additional 1,800 were operated by the Federal government and local and state governments.6 General Motors only produces its electric vehicle in small batches, since consumer demand is too low to support mass-production, whereas Honda Motor Co. has announced that it will discontinue production of its electric vehicle, the EV Plus, due to lack of demand.7

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 General Motors EV1 is approximately $33,995, 8, 9 which is considerably higher than a comparable Chevrolet Cavalier at $13,670.10

Table 1. Cost Difference for GM EV I (Electric) and Chevrolet Cavalier (Gasoline)

^a Fuel cost savings are those achieved over ten-year ownership (15,000 miles per year), assuming an electricity cost of 10¢ per kilowatt-hour and a gasoline cost of $1.20 per gallon.

However, fuel costs are much lower for EVs than for conventional vehicles. A small conventional vehicle can achieve a fuel cost of approximately $690 per year.11 An electric vehicle, however, can achieve a considerably lower cost of $390 to $480 per year.12 This difference, while significant, fails to make up for the additional purchase or lease cost for an electric vehicle. (See Table 1.) If petroleum prices continue to increase, however, the cost savings for EVs may make them more attractive. In addition, since electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, maintenance costs may be lower, although certain parts, such as replacement batteries, tend to be expensive.

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 $4,000. This credit, which is part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, will be reduced by 25% each year between 2002 and 2004, and will expire after 2004.13,14 In some areas, these vehicles are also exempted from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane restrictions, parking restrictions, and/or vehicle registration fees.

Another key obstacle to more widespread use of electric vehicles is the lack of fueling (charging) and maintenance infrastructure. For example, in California and Arizona, there are approximately 400 public charging stations,15 plus approximately 1,100 General Motors chargers installed for private use (generally in owner's garages).16 This is about 5% of the approximately 8,600 gasoline refueling stations in the two states.17 The lack of recharging infrastructure is not only inconvenient, but also limits long-distance travel, since Arizona and California account for 78% 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.

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.18 While a conventional passenger car can travel 300 to 400 miles before refueling, currently available electric cars generally can only travel about 100 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 5 to 8 hours. Some high-speed chargers can charge a vehicle in 3 to 4 hours, but these quick charges shorten the life of the batteries, which are expensive to replace.19 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, inter-city travel is unlikely with current technology, even if the fueling infrastructure is greatly expanded.20

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.21

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 is 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 generation 22 and the efficiency of the power distribution grid. Furthermore, if electricity transmission and distribution losses are high, energy consumption by electric vehicles may exceed conventional vehicles.

A major issue for vehicle manufacturers, and a motivation for increased research and development on electric vehicles is California's zero emissions mandate.23 Starting in model year (MY) 2003, 10% of vehicle sales by major manufacturers-the "Big Three" American manufacturers (Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors), and the Japanese "Big Four" (Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota)-must be certified as either zero emissions (ZEV) 24 or super-ultra-low-emissions vehicles (SULEV).25 Furthermore, at least 4% of sales are required to be ZEVs. (This mandate could be problematic for the automotive industry.)

Approximately 1,650 electric passenger cars and light trucks were made available in 1998 nationwide.26 During the same year, sales of conventional cars and light trucks in California alone were over 1.6 million.27 At current sales levels, the 4% mandate could require the sale of approximately 65,000 electric vehicles in 2003. However, if these vehicles achieve a range of 100 miles or greater, then the sale of one vehicle can qualify as the sale of multiple low-range ZEVs. In MY 2003, a high-range vehicle can earn up to quadruple credits. The credits are even higher for earlier voluntary compliance. Even with the extended range credits, sales of electric vehicles will have to increase sharply, since electric vehicles are currently the only ZEVs on the market.

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 market percentage program, including New York, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland.28

In terms of funding for EV research, the Administration's budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2001 includes $9.7 million for joint research with the United States Advanced Battery Consortium, a $0.7 million increase from FY 2000.29 Furthermore, the request includes an extension of the Federal EV tax credit to 2006 and would eliminate the phase-down, allowing for the full 10% credit until the expiration of the program.30

Several bills have been introduced in the 106^th Congress that would amend the Energy Policy Act to extend the expiration date of the EV tax credit, eliminate the phase-down of the credit, increase the allowable credit, and/or eliminate the credit. All these bills are currently in committee.

H.R. 1108 (Collins) and S. 1230 (Boxer) would allow for a credit of the fall vehicle price (as opposed to 10%) up to $4,000, and would extend the expiration date to 2008. H.R. 2252 (Camp) and S. 1003 (Rockefeller) would extend the credit to 2010, eliminate the $4,000 limit, and would add an additional $5,000 credit for electric vehicles that achieve a range of 100 miles or greater. In addition, these two bills would allow tax credits for the installation of charging infrastructure. H.R. 2380 (Matsui), H.R. 2574 (Maloney), and S. 1833 (Daschle) would extend the sunset to 2006, and eliminate the phase-down. H.R. 2203 (Andrews), would repeal the credit entirely.

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 an HEV, the batteries are recharged during operation, eliminating the need for an external charger.

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 can lead to significantly higher levels of 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 achieves a city fuel economy rating of 61 miles per gallon (mpg), and a highway rating of 70 mpg. A gasoline-fueled Honda Civic Hatchback, by comparison, achieves a rating of 32 mpg city and 37 mpg highway.31 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, there are none of the fueling infrastructure problems associated with electric vehicles.

The only hybrid vehicle currently available in the U.S. market is the Honda Insight, while another, the Toyota Prius, will become available in Summer 2000. At the 2000 Detroit Auto Show, Ford and General Motors introduced hybrid concept cars-the Prodigy and the Precept, respectively-that could be available within the next few years, along with a prototype from Daimler-Chrysler. Currently, these vehicles are treated as conventional vehicles because they run on gasoline or diesel fuel. However, there is interest in reclassifying these vehicles as alternative fuel vehicles or creating a separate distinction for them, in order to promote their unique characteristics.

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. Both of the current Honda and Toyota vehicles, which are compact cars, are currently priced several thousand dollars above comparable conventional vehicles, despite being heavily subsidized by the manufacturers.32

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 will be significantly lower with hybrids than with conventional vehicles. Depending on fuel prices, these savings could be $250 or more per year.33 (see Table 2.) These savings, along with possible tax credits for the purchase of hybrids (see section on Other Issues), may 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.

^a This price has been subsidized by the manufacturer to motivate sales.
^b Fuel cost savings are over ten-year ownership (15,000 miles per year), at a gasoline price of $1.20 per gallon.

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 first 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.

The most notable features of hybrid vehicles are higher fuel economy and extended range. The efficiency of the hybrid drive system allows for two to three times the fuel economy of 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.

As part of its FY 2001 budget request, the Administration has requested a tax credit of $500 to $3,000 for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, depending on the amount of power supplied by the electric motor system, and the performance of the regenerative braking system (see below).34, 35 The Administration has also requested approximately $47.8 million for research, development and demonstration of hybrid vehicles at the Department of Energy, a $4.8 million increase from FY 2000. Most of these funds ($44.3 million) will support research with PNGV.36 Furthermore, several states are considering policies to exempt hybrids from sales taxes and HOV restrictions.

In the 106^th Congress, three bills have been introduced that deal with hybrid vehicles. H.R. 2380 (Matsui), H.R. 2574 (Maloney), and S. 1833 (Daschle) would provide a tax credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These provisions are similar to the Administration's FY 2001 budget request.

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." 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, 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.37 Using other fuels 38 while the vehicle is no longer a ZEV, emissions would still be drastically cut as compared to conventional vehicles. Furthermore, because over the long term, the eventual fuel supply for FCVs will likely be natural gas, methanol or pure hydrogen-the latter two produced from natural gas 39 -another potential benefit from fuel cells will be their ability to reduce the transportation demand for foreign petroleum. However, it is likely 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.40 They are currently very expensive, and thus there has been a great deal of interest in research and development to improve their marketability.

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 passenger car.41 A comparable fuel cell stack costs around $35,000, according to industry estimates. A leading producer of fuel cells estimates that costs could be cut to $3,500 in the future.42 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 questionable, since there is no hydrogen infrastructure currently, and methanol and natural gas infrastructures are not extensive.43 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.

Another major barrier to the use of FCVs is that there is no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen, and little methanol or natural gas infrastructure. As of 1998, there were only 91 methanol refueling sites in the U. S., and only 1,754 natural gas 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.44

Until the distribution infrastructure for hydrogen, methanol, or natural gas is developed, it is likely that gasoline will be the fuel of choice in FCVs. 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.

One limit on the performance of fuel cell vehicles has been their weight. Fuel cells have been demonstrated on larger vehicles, such as buses, but few passenger car prototypes exist, because the necessary stacks have been too heavy to incorporate into smaller vehicles. Furthermore, reformers for converting gasoline or other fuels to hydrogen are also 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), liquefied (requiring a cooling system for the storage tank), or chemically bonded with a heavy storage material (such as a metal hydride). Each of these storage systems has problems, such as added weight, safety risks, or expensive raw materials that limit their acceptability.45 Therefore, research is currently being conducted on improving both the storage capacity and safety of hydrogen fuel. Some of the same problems are associated with natural gas storage, although to a lesser degree. For these reasons, there has been more interest in using methanol or gasoline, since these fuels are easier to deliver and to store.

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, FCVs may prove to have better environmental performance than any other technology for all types of emissions, including greenhouse gases. In addition, with their higher efficiency, even fuel cells run on gasoline will result in lower emissions than conventional vehicles.

Currently, the main issue for FCVs is research and development (R&D). All major automobile manufacturers are spending considerable amounts of money on fuel cell R&D. The Federal Government, to a smaller degree, has also supported fuel cell R&D through PNGV. For FY 2000, Congress provided approximately $37 million for transportation fuel cell research at the Department of Energy. For FY 2001, the Administration has requested approximately $41.5 million, all to fund research with PNGV.46

In the 106^th Congress, the fuel cell legislation that has seen the most activity is H.R. 1655 (Calvert). This bill would authorize an additional $75.4 million for advanced fuel cell research and systems development. Research would cover both transportation and power generation applications. The bill passed the House on September 15, 1999, and has been referred to the Senate. Two other bills H.R. 2225 (Camp) and S. 1003 (Rockefeller) would provide a tax credit to retailers that sell hydrogen for transportation purposes. The bills provide a $0.50 credit per gasoline- equivalent gallon of hydrogen sold. Both bills have been referred to committee.

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. Most 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.

An effective way to improve efficiency is to simply 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.47 Furthermore, conventional materials can improve safety while reducing weight, if more sophisticated structural designs are used. The Administration's FY 2001 budget request includes $22.9 million for research on lightweight materials technology, a decrease of approximately $2.1 million from FY 2000. This includes S18 million for research with PNGV.

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 panels 48 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.

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.49 This technology is already available on all consumer EVs and HEVs.

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, these technologies are still in various stages of development and have not yet proven marketable to most consumers.

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, drivability, safety, and emissions-must be acceptable.

While most advanced vehicle technologies 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.

Footnotes

3 Eric C. Evarts, "First fleet of 'green' cars about to hit the road," Christian Science Monitor. January 11,2000.

4 However, 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.

5 It is important to note that 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.

6 Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels, 1998. [ http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelalternate.html ].

7 Honda Stops Making Electric Cars, Roiling California Regulators," Wall Street Journal. April 30, 1999. p. B7.

11 John DeCicco, Jim Kliesch, and Martin Tomas, ACEEE 's Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars & Trucks. Washington, D.C. 2000.

12 Ibid.

14 For a detailed discussion of the EV tax credit, see CRS Report 98-193 E, Global climate change: the energy tax incentives in the President's FY2001 budget.

15 Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), US Refueling Site Counts by State and Fuel Type As of 3/14/2000. [ http://www.afdc.nre1.gov/refuel/state_tot.shtml ].

17 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns for the United States, [ http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html ].

19 John 0' Dell, "A Clean Air Detour?; Fuel-efficient, Low-emissions Hybrids are Here," Los Angeles Times. February 2, 2000. p. G.1.

20 There 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.

21 In fact, these techniques, can also affect the range and fuel economy of conventional vehicles, but to a much lesser degree.

25 A SULEV has 71% to 89% lower ozone-forming emissions, and no higher particulate emissions, than a California certified Low Emission Vehicle (2004 standards).

27 Ward's Communications, Ward's Automotive Yearbook 1999. Southfield, Michigan. 1999.

28 In New Jersey and Maryland, the program will be adopted only if neighboring states also adopt the program.

29 Department of Energy, FY2001 Congressional Budget Request. February, 2000. Volume 5.

30 Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2001 Revenue Proposals. February, 2000.

35 For a detailed discussion of the proposed HEV credit, see CRS Report 98-193 E, Global climate change: the energy tax incentives in the President's FY2001 budget.

37 Like electric cars, however, there will be emissions due to the production and distribution of the fuel.

38 In these cases, an extra component, called a reformer, is used to separate hydrogen from the fuel.

39 The eventual goal is to produce hydrogen fuel from renewable sources, but that technology not yet marketable.

41 GM's Fuel-Cell-Powered Precept Hyped as Efficient and Fast," The Salt Lake Tribune. January 12, 2000. p.D9.

43 Expanding current natural gas or methanol infrastructure will likely be less expensive than comparable hydrogen infrastructure.

44 Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Hydrogen General Information. [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/hyd_general.html ].

45 It must be noted that high-pressure on-board storage of hydrogen will likely be safer than current gasoline tanks.

47 Automobiles are currently one of the most recycled consumer products with over 65% of vehicle mass (mostly steel) reused.

49 In 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.