FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Japan Hydrogen & Fuel Cell … · 2011-06-06 · 1 | Fuel Cell Technologies Program Source: US DOE 2/24/2011 eere.energy.gov Overview of Hydrogen &

1 | Fuel Cell Technologies Program Source: US DOE 2/24/2011 eere.energy.gov

Overview of Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Activities

FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

JHFC International Seminar and Roundtable

Rick FarmerU.S. Department of EnergyFuel Cell Technologies ProgramDeputy Program Manager

February 28, 2011


• Overview• R&D Progress• Program Plan• Partnerships & Collaborations• Budget• Additional Information - CCS

Agenda


On October 5, 2009President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 –

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Performance

Requires Agencies to:

Set GHG reduction TargetsDevelop Strategic Sustainability Plans and provide in concert with budget submissionsConduct bottom up Scope 1, 2 and 3 baselinesTrack performance

Examples:Achieve 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020

Requires 15% of buildings meet the Guiding Principles for High Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015

Design all new Federal buildings which begin the planning process by 2020 to achieve zero-net energy by 2030

Potential opportunities for fuel cells and other clean energy technologies….

Executive Order 13514

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/eo13514.html


Hydrogen Fueling Facility Tax Credit

Increases the credit for a hydrogen fueling station from 30% or $30,000 to 30% or $200,000. Equipment must be installed by December 31, 2014.

Fuel Cell Motor Vehicle Tax Credit

A tax credit of up to $4,000 is available for the purchase of qualified light-duty fuel cell vehicles. Tax credits are also available for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Expires December 31, 2014.

Fuel Cell Tax Credit (other than residential)

Offers tax credit of 30% for qualified fuel cell property or $3,000/kW of the fuel cell nameplate capacity. Feature a 10% credit for combined-heat-and-power-system property. Equipment must be installed by December 31, 2016.

Residential Energy Efficiency Credit

Raises ITC cap for residential fuel cells in joint occupancy dwellings to $3,334/kW. Equipment must be installed by December 31, 2016.

Power Generation Credit

Offers 1.8¢/kW-hr payment to the owner/operator of a qualifying advanced power system technology facility including those using advanced fuel cells. An additional 0.7¢/kW-hr shall be paid to the owner/operator of a qualifying security and assured power facility for electricity generated at such facility. Expires 2012.

Examples of Policies Promoting Fuel Cells

Some tax credits affecting fuel cells were expanded. Through new financing mechanisms, these credits can help facilitate federal deployments.


Fuel Cells: Diverse Fuels and Applications


Analysis shows DOE’s portfolio of transportation technologies will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Systems Analysis — WTW Updates

Notes: For a projected state of technologies in 2035-2045.Ultra-low carbon renewable electricity includes wind, solar, etc.Does not include the life-cycle effects of vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure construction/decommissioning.

Assumptions and details at: http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

Low/high band: sensitivity to uncertainties associated with projected fuel economy of vehicles and attributes of fuels pathways, e.g., electricity credit for ethanol or hydrogen, electric generation mix, fraction of biomass-to-hydrogen plants with carbon sequestration, etc.


• Did not include the life-cycle effects of vehicle manufacturing and infrastructure construction/decommissioning.

• Carbon intensity of electricity from the average U.S. grid is based on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 for calendar year 2035 (11% reduction from current carbon intensity).

• Production of corn and switchgrass as ethanol feedstock and production of cellulosic woody crops for gasification to produce hydrogen incur no indirect land use change effect with respect to GHG emissions.

• Switchgrass ethanol plants & hydrogen production plants using gasification technologies for coal and biomass do not benefit from the carbon credit associated with the export of excess electricity.

• Gasoline and diesel are produced from the average U.S. crude oil mix in the future (GREET model assumes future crude oil mix contains 18.1% of tar sands oil ).

• No natural gas from shale formations is assumed. • The sensitivity parameters did not include variability in the mix of crude oil or natural gas

sources.• Hydrogen produced via electrolysis with low-carbon electricity is assumed to use EIA-projected

grid electricity for hydrogen compression.• CCS was not assumed for hydrogen production via biomass gasification.

Systems Analysis – WTW Assumptions

Well-to-Wheels Green House Gas Emissions


Analysis shows DOE’s portfolio of transportation technologies will reduce oil consumption

Systems Analysis — WTW Updates

Assumptions and details at: http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

Low/high band: sensitivity to uncertainties associated with projected fuel economy of vehicles and attributes of fuels pathways


Systems Analysis – WTW Assumptions

• Key input parameters for hydrogen production simulations developed by NREL staff using the H2A hydrogen production and delivery models.

• The Hydrogen MSM was used to guarantee consistency of assumptions between the H2A models and GREET.

• Fuel economies (as measured in the laboratory) for all fuel/vehicle systems were determined using ANL’s PSAT Model.

• Fuel economy estimates for vehicles are based on the gge of each applicable fuel, approximately 114,000 Btu.

• Hydrogen used in FCEVs is to be dispensed from filling stations at 6,250 psi for 5,000-psi vehicle tank storage pressure.

• Upstream energy and emissions associated with electricity use are based on EIA’s reference case projections for the national average generation mix in 2035: 46.7% coal, 19.6% natural gas, 18.6% nuclear, 0.9% residual fuel oil, 2.4% biomass, and 11.8% other sources of renewable energy.

Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Energy Use


Progress


Tech

nolo

gy

Bar

rier

s*E

cono

mic

&

Inst

itut

iona

l B

arri

ers

Fuel Cell Cost & Durability Targets*:

Stationary Systems: $750 per kW, 40,000-hr durability

Vehicles: $30 per kW, 5,000-hr durability

Safety, Codes & Standards Development

Domestic Manufacturing & Supplier Base

Public Awareness & Acceptance

Hydrogen Supply & Delivery Infrastructure

Hydrogen CostTarget*: $2 – 4 /gge, (dispensed and untaxed)

Key Challenges

Technology Validation:Technologies must be demonstrated under real-world conditions. Assisting the

growth of early markets will help to overcome many barriers, including achieving significant cost reductions through economies of scale.

Market Transformation

* Targets and Metrics are being updated.

Hydrogen Storage CapacityTarget: > 300-mile range for vehicles—without compromising interior space or performance

The Program has been addressing the key challenges facing the widespread commercialization of fuel cells.


Current status: $51/kWvs 2015 goal of $30/kW

$43

$65

Projected high-volume cost of fuel cells has been reduced to $51/kW (2010)*

• More than 30% reduction since 2008


• 2008 cost projection was validated by independent panel**

*Based on projection to high-volume manufacturing (500,000 units/year).

**Panel found $60 – $80/kW to be a “valid estimate”: http://hydrogendoedev.nrel.gov/peer_reviews.html

DOE Fuel Cell R&D — Progress: Cost

As stack costs are reduced, balance-of-plant components are

responsible for a larger % of costs.

ICECost

$26 $25

Balance of Plant ($/kW, includes assembly & testing)

Stack ($/kW)

2010

2007


High volume projected costs for hydrogen production technologies continue to decrease. Low volume/early market costs are still high. Hydrogen cost range reassessed – includes gasoline cost volatility and range of vehicle

assumptions.

Hydrogen Threshold Cost Analysis

Notes:

Data points are being updated to the 2009 AEO reference case.

The 2010 Technology Validation results show a cost range of $8-$10/gge for a 1,500 kg/day distributed natural gas and $10-$13/gge for a 1,500 kg/day distributed electrolysis hydrogen station.

Projected High‐Volume Cost of Hydrogen (Dispensed)—Status

($/gallon gasoline eq

uivalent [g

ge], un

taxed)


Hydrogen Delivery R&DThe Program is developing technologies to deliver hydrogen from centralized

production facilities, efficiently and at low cost.

We’ve reduced the cost of hydrogen delivery* —~30% reduction in tube trailer costs>20% reduction in pipeline costs~15% reduction liquid hydrogen delivery costs

*Projected cost, based on analysis of state-of-the-art technology


Infrastructure (Station with Tube Trailer Delivery) — Progress: CostThe delivered hydrogen cost at high-volume with tube trailer delivery was projected to be ~$2.85/gge(2009)*


• Majority of cost reduction from tube trailer advancements

*Based on projection to high-volume hydrogen delivery.

As station and delivery costs are reduced, compressor, terminal, storage components are responsible for a larger % of costs.

Targets

Tube Trailer

$2.25/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.25/gge

Storage Station

$0.3/gge

Station Compress$0.8/gge

Terminal$0.7/gge

Tube Trailer

$0.5/gge

Terminal$0.75/gge

Storage Station

$0.25/gge

Station Compress$0.8/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.25/gge

Cooling Costs

$0.25/gge


Demonstrations are validating the performance of fuel cell technologies in integrated systems, under real-world conditions.

Technology Validation

RECENT PROGRESSVehicles & Infrastructure

• 152 fuel cell vehicles and 24 hydrogen fueling stations• Over 2.8 million miles (4.5 million km) traveled• Over 114,000 total vehicle hours driven• 2,500 hours (nearly 75K miles [121K km]) durability• Fuel cell efficiency 53-59%• Vehicle Range: ~196 – 254 miles (~315-410 km)Buses• DOE is evaluating real-world bus fleet data (DOT

collaboration)• H2 fuel cell buses have a 42% to 139% better fuel economy

when compared to diesel & CNG busesForklifts• Over 18,000 fuelings at Defense Logistics Agency siteRecovery Act• DOE (NREL) is collecting operating data from deployments

to provide feedback to R&D, validate technology and generate an industry-wide report


DOE RD&D

Data Collection & Validation

DOTDeployment

DOE – DOT Collaborations

AccomplishmentsDemonstrated:• Doubled fuel economies (8 mpg, >2X compared to

diesel buses)• 41% increase in average miles between road call with

new fuel cell system (~8,500 MBRC)• Demonstrated more than 7,000 hr fuel cell durability

Fuel Cell buses: 39% to 141% better fuel economy than conventional buses

Developed low Pt approachReduced cost by >30% since 2008, 80% since 2002 NREL

National Bus Program($49 million for 4 years)

DOE and DOT support the development and deployment of fuel cell technology


Fuel Cell Bus Buildout AnalysisPotential deployment strategies envisioned for Fuel Cell Buses deployment

scenario analysis identified in California’s Action Plan.

*Source: California Fuel Cell Partnership, Action Plan, April 2010 based on industry input.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Num

ber o

f Bus

es

Bus Rollout Scenario

0

1

2

3

4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Hyd

roge

n Fu

elin

g St

atio

ns

Potential H2 Fueling Station Buildout for Buses

100 kg/d Station 500 kg/d Station

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Number of Fuel Cell Buses* 17 20 – 60 60 – 150

Minimum Number of 100 kg/d Stations 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum Number of 500 kg/d Stations 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

Notes: The station requirements for the fuel cell bus build out was based on ANL analysis with the HDSAM delivery model.


• Letter of Understanding signed on Dec 8, 2010 by DOE and DOD, among others• State of Hawaii, the Hawaii Gas Company, University of Hawaii, General

Motors, Fuel Cell Energy, and others• Mission is to fill a strategic role that supports Hawaii’s transformation to a

clean energy economy• Part of a portfolio approach of technologies and fuels for reducing

emissions and petroleum use• Supports the deployment of fuel cell vehicles to Hawaii as a means of

reducing petroleum consumption as well as green house gas emissions• Takes advantage of the existing gas pipelines to deliver hydrogen for

dispensing hydrogen to fuel cell vehicles

Hawaii’s Hydrogen Initiative (H2I)A public/ private effort that seeks to be a major component of the solution to

Hawaii’s energy challenges

http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/index.php


Key Program Documents


Program Plan

Update to the Hydrogen Posture Plan published in 2006

Describes the planned RD&D activities for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies

Public comment closed 11/30/10. Final will be

published in early 2011.


Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation ProceedingsIncludes downloadable versions of all presentations at the Annual Merit Review

• Latest edition released June 2010www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_review10_proceedings.html

Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation ReportSummarizes the comments of the Peer Review Panel at the Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting• Released January 2011

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_review10_report.html

Annual Progress ReportSummarizes activities and accomplishments within the Program over the preceding year, with reports on individual projects • To be released 2011

www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress.html

Next Annual Review: May 9 – 13, 2011

Washington, D.C.http://annualmeritreview.energy.gov/

Annual Merit Review


Partnerships & Collaborations


Past and Existing Collaboration• IEA Hydrogen and Advanced Fuel Cells Implementing Agreements• IPHE• Technical collaboration (e.g. Hydrogenius Project, Codes & Standards, Storage,

Fuel Cells)• MOU between NEDO, AIST and LANL• MOU between Hiroshima University and LANL• IPHE Infrastructure workshop – Feb 2010• Stationary Fuel Cell Workshop – Mar 2011 (Japan)• High Pressure Vessel Technical Forum – Sep 2010

U.S. – Japan Examples of Collaboration

Potential Future Collaboration• Analysis (e.g. infrastructure, stationary fuel cells)• Expand fuel cell demonstration activities and exchange of data (e.g.

CHP)• Increased collaboration in safety, codes & standards


Organized by

Upcoming Conference

2011 4th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety - ICHS

September 12-14, 2011San Francisco, CA-USA

Endorsed by

The ICHS 2011 will focus on the improvement, knowledge, and understanding of hydrogen safety to overcome barriers to the wide spread use of hydrogen as an energy carrier. Therefore, this conference seeks papers focused on the following three major themes:

1) International Progress on Enabling Opportunities2) Latest Advances in Hydrogen Safety R&D and 3) Risk Management of Hydrogen Technologies. All contributions to be included in the ICHS

2011 will be evaluated exclusively in the light of their scientific content and relevance to hydrogen safety.

The conference will improve public awareness and trust in hydrogen technologies by communicating a better understanding of both the hazards and risks associated with hydrogen and their management.


Budget


EERE H2 & Fuel Cells BudgetsFunding ($ in thousands)

Key Activity FY 20094 FY 2010 Current Appropriation

FY 2012 Request

Fuel Cell Systems R&D1 - 75,609 45,450

Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D 61,133

Transportation Systems R&D 6,435 -

Distributed Energy Systems R&D 9,750 -

Fuel Processor R&D 2,750 -

Hydrogen Fuel R&D2 - 45,750 35,000

Hydrogen Production & Delivery R&D 10,000 -

Hydrogen Storage R&D 57,823 -

Technology Validation 14,7895 13,005 8,000

Market Transformation3 4,747 15,005 -

Early Markets 4,747 15,005 -

Safety, Codes & Standards 12,2385 8,653 7,000

Education 4,2005 2,000 -

Systems Analysis 7,520 5,408 3,000

Manufacturing R&D 4,480 4,867 2,000

Total $195,865 $170,297 $100,4506

1 Fuel Cell Systems R &D includes Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D, Transportation Systems R&D, Distributed Energy Systems R&D, and Fuel Processor R&D 2 Hydrogen Fuel R&D includes Hydrogen Production & Delivery R&D and Hydrogen Storage R&D 3 No Market Transformation in FY 2012. 4 FY 2009 Recovery Act funding of $42.967M not shown in table 5

Under Vehicle Technologies Budget in FY 2009 6 Includes SBIR/STTR funds to be transferred to the Science Appropriation; all prior years shown exclude this funding


Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies

FY12 Key Activities- Examples• Fuel Cell Systems R&D (45.5M): Maintains critical R&D for stationary, transportation and portable power. Key

goals include:Reduce costs by increasing PEM fuel cell power output per gram of platinum-group catalyst from 2.8 kW/g (in 2008) to 6.0 kW/g in 2012 and 8.0 kW/g by 2016.

• Hydrogen Fuel R&D ($35.0M): Will focus on materials R&D to achieve a 25% reduction in electrolyzer capital cost by 2012, reducing the total hydrogen cost to less than $5/gge compared to $6/gge in 2009. Develop materials with photoelectrochemical conversion efficiency of 10% in 2012 compared to 4% baseline.

• Safety, Codes and Standards ($7.0M): Will determine and demonstrate hydrogen storage system testing procedures to enable publication of a Global Technical Regulation by 2012.

• Manufacturing R&D ($2.0M): Will develop low-cost, high-volume, continuous in-line MEA quality control measurement technologies in 2012, on track to develop continuous fabrication and assembly processes for polymer electrolyte membranes by 2016.

• Technology Validation ($8.0M): Will collect real-world data from fuel cells operating in forklifts, backup power, vehicles, and buses including 2012 projects with DOD (e.g. Hawaii).

• Systems Analysis ($3.0M): Will determine technology gaps, economic/jobs potential, and quantify 2012 technology advancement.

a These activities are funded under Market Transformation in FY 2011.b Due to deployments and ongoing data collection and analyses underway through the Recovery Act, these

activities are deferred in FY 2012.

Program Focus: Develop cost competitive hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for diverse applications to meet long-term goals of $30/kW for transportation, $750/kW for stationary power, and $2-4/gge for

hydrogen production and delivery.


Additional InformationCCS


Technological Carbon Management Options

ImproveEfficiency

SequesterCarbon

• Renewables• Nuclear• Fuel Switching

• Demand Side• Supply Side

• Capture & Store• Enhance Natural

Sinks

Reduce CarbonIntensity

All options needed to:• Affordably meet energy

demand• Address environmental

objectives


Large Scale Injection Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)

Advancing CCS Demonstration

Sequestration Atlas available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasII/atlasII.pdf

Characterization – Phase I (2003-2005)- Catalogued Potential CO2 sinks in US

Validation – Phase II (2005-2009)- 7 Partnerships, 43 states, 25 geologic field validation tests

Deployment – Phase III (2008-2017)- 9 large-scale injection tests have already been announced- Sizes range from 250,000 to 1 MMT CO2 per year

7 Carbon Sequestration

Regional Partnerships

Round IiRound III

Demonstration projects with a minimum of 50% industry cost-share

CCPI-III focusing on early commercialization of carbon capture technologies:

-- Minimum 300,000 tons/yr CO2 captured and sequestered/reused (EOR)

-- Opportunities for CCS retrofits to existing plants

-- 5 projects selected in 2009 and 2010, representing over $1.3 Billion in DOE investment and over $4.5 Billion in industry cost-share

-- When in operation, CCPI-III will capture and sequester nearly 8 million tons of CO2 per year (including EOR)

Information from Fossil Energy


Thank you

[email protected]

[email protected]

www.hydrogenandfuelcells.energy.gov

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Back up


The delivered hydrogen cost at high-volume with pipeline delivery was projected to be ~$2.20/gge (2009)*


• Majority of cost reduction from pipeline advancements


Infrastructure (Station with Pipeline Delivery) — Progress: Cost

As station and delivery costs are reduced, compressor, terminal, storage components are responsible for a larger % of costs.

Station Compression

$0.9/gge

Pipeline Compression

$0.25/gge

Distribution Pipeline$0.7/gge

Transmission Pipeline$0.2/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.25/gge

Storage Station

$0.5/gge

Pipeline Compression

$0.25/gge

Distribution Pipeline

$0.35/gge

Transmission Pipeline$0.1/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.25/gge

Station Storage$0.5/gge

Station Compression

$0.9/gge


The delivered hydrogen cost at high-volume with liquid truck delivery was projected to be ~$2.70/gge (2009)*

• ~20% reduction since 2005

• Majority of cost reduction from treminaladvancements


Infrastructure (Station with Liquid Truck Delivery) — Progress: Cost

As station and delivery costs are reduced, cyropump and terminal components are responsible for a larger % of costs.

Terminal$1.9/gge

Liquid H2 Truck

$0.25/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.3/gge


Station Cryopump$0.7/gge


Station Cryopump$0.7/gge

Terminal$1.25/gge

Liquid H2 Truck

$0.25/gge

Other Station Costs

$0.3/gge


More than $40 million from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund 12 projects to deploy up to 1,000 fuel cells

Recovery Act Funding for Fuel Cells

COMPANY AWARD APPLICATION

Delphi Automotive $2.4 M Auxiliary Power

FedEx Freight East $1.3 M Lift Truck

GENCO $6.1 M Lift Truck

Jadoo Power $2.2 M Portable

MTI MicroFuel Cells $3.0 M Portable

Nuvera Fuel Cells $1.1 M Lift Truck

Plug Power, Inc. (1) $3.4 M CHP

Plug Power, Inc. (2) $2.7 M Back-up Power

Univ. of N. Florida $2.5 M Portable

ReliOn, Inc. $8.5 M Back-up Power

Sprint Nextel $7.3 M Back-up Power

Sysco of Houston $1.2 M Lift TruckApproximately $54 million in cost-share funding from industry participants—for a

total of about $96 million.

FROM the LABORATORY to DEPLOYMENT:

DOE funding has supported R&D by all of the fuel cell suppliers

involved in these projects. Residentialand SmallCommercial CHP

AuxiliaryPower


Carbon-Neutral Energy Research InstituteUniversity of Illinois – Kyushu University collaboration directed by Petros Sofronis to advance the

fundamental science for a “Carbon-Neutral Energy Fueled World” and offer science driven solutions for energy technologies that will enable environmentally friendly and sustainable development

Source: P. Sofronis


Technology Validation - Tri-Gen Highlight

We are participating in a project to demonstrate a combined heat, hydrogen, and power (CHHP) system using biogas.

• System has been designed, fabricated and shop-tested.• Improvements in design have led to higher H2-recovery (from 75% to >85%).• On-site operation began in FY10 and data-collection planned for Q3 in FY11.

Combined heat, hydrogen, and power systems can:

• Produce clean power and fuel for multiple applications

• Provide a potential approach to establishing an initial fueling infrastructure

Tri-Generation (CHHP) Concept

Public-Sector Partners:

California Air Resources Board

South Coast Air Quality Management District


Program Plan includes PortfolioThe Role of Federal Research,

Development, and Demonstration


Significant progress has been made but meeting all weight, volume, performance and cost requirements is still challenging.

TIAX 12/2009

1 Cost estimate in 2005 USD. Includes processing costs.

Compressed gas storage offers a near-term option for initial vehicle

commercialization and early markets• Validated driving range of up to ~ 430 mi• Cost of composite tanks is challenging

• carbon fiber layer estimated to be >75% of cost• Advanced materials R&D under way for the long

term

H2 Storage R&D

Projected Capacities for Complete 5.6-kg H2 Storage Systems


Collaborations

DOE Fuel Cell

Technologies Program*

− Applied RD&D − Efforts to Overcome

Non-Technical Barriers− Internal Collaboration

with Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and Basic Energy Sciences

Federal Agencies Industry Partnerships & Stakeholder Assn’s.• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership• Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy

Association (FCHEA)• Hydrogen Utility Group• ~ 65 projects with 50 companies

Universities~ 50 projects with 40 universities

State & Regional Partnerships

• California Fuel Cell Partnership• California Stationary Fuel Cell

Collaborative• SC H2 & Fuel Cell Alliance• Upper Midwest Hydrogen Initiative• Ohio Fuel Coalition• Connecticut Center for Advanced

Technology

• DOC• DOD• DOE• DOT

• EPA• GSA• DOI• DHS

P&D = Production & Delivery; S = Storage; FC = Fuel Cells; A = Analysis; SC&S = Safety, Codes & Standards; TV = Technology Validation, MN = Manufacturing

International• IEA Implementing agreements –

25 countries• International Partnership for

Hydrogen & Fuel Cells in the Economy –

17 countries & EC, 30 projects

− Interagency coordination through staff-level Interagency Working Group (meets monthly)

− Assistant Secretary-level Interagency Task Force mandated by EPACT 2005.

•NASA•NSF•USDA•USPS

* Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

National LaboratoriesNational Renewable Energy Laboratory

P&D, S, FC, A, SC&S, TV, MNArgonne A, FC, P&D, SC&SLos Alamos S, FC, SC&S

Sandia P&D, S, SC&SPacific Northwest P&D, S, FC, SC&S, AOak Ridge P&D, S, FC, A, SC&SLawrence Berkeley FC, A

Other Federal Labs: Jet Propulsion Lab, National Institute of Standards & Technology, National Energy Technology Lab (NETL)

Lawrence Livermore P&D, S, SC&SSavannah River S, P&DBrookhaven S, FCIdaho National Lab P&D


Director, Technology Advancement & Outreach

Philip R. West

Office of Technology DevelopmentDAS for Energy Efficiency DAS for Renewable EnergyKathleen B. Hogan Steven G. Chalk, Acting

Solar Energy TechnologyRamamoorthy RamesProgram Manager

Vehicle TechnologiesPatrick DavisProgram Manager

Fuel Cell TechnologiesSunita SatyapalProgram Manager

Wind & Hydropower TechnologiesJacques Beaudry-LosiqueProgram Manager

Geothermal TechnologiesJoAnn MilikenActing Program Manager

Building TechnologiesRichard J. RisserProgram Manager

Biomass ProgramPaul F. BryanProgram Manager

Weatherization & IntergovernmentalLeAnn M. OliverProgram Manager

Industrial TechnologiesIsaac S. ChanActing Program Manager

Federal Energy ManagementRichard G. Kidd IVProgram ManagerSustainability Performance

Jennifer MacDonaldActing Director

DAS for Business Administration

Scott E. Hine, Acting

Program Execution & Support

Melody C. Bell, Director

Planning, Budget, & Analysis

A. Awon Meacham, Director

Information & Business Management Systems

Douglas E. Kaempf, Director

Executive Director Field Operations

Carol Battershell

Field Performance Management

Scott E. Hine, Director

Golden Field OfficeDerek Passerall

Acting Deputy Manager

EERE Organizational ChartAssistant Secretary

Cathy Zoi

Director, Strategic ProgramsVacant

Principal DeputyHenry Kelly

Chief Operating OfficerSteven G. Chalk