REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP: Fifth Report

The energy security, environmental, and economic issues associated with the transportation sector and with light-duty vehicles can be addressed in a number of ways. An important part of the nation’s approach to reducing petroleum consumption and the environmental impact of light-duty vehicles is to improve automotive technology in a variety of ways that lead to higher fuel economy vehicles that are affordable. In addition, vehicles that can use alternative sources of energy, such as electricity or hydrogen, can have low greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions. Since the early 1990s the nation has formed government-industry partnerships to help accelerate the research and development (R&D) for light-duty vehicles (see Chapter 1). This report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the Academies) Committee on the Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5 (the committee), presents the results of a review of the U.S. DRIVE (Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability) Partnership, which was formed in 2011. U.S. DRIVE is very much in line with the partnerships that preceded it, namely, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and, prior to that, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).¹ The PNGV focused on achieving a significant increase in fuel economy for a family sedan and resulted in unveiling three concept vehicles at the end of that program. Under President George W. Bush, a shift in the program took place toward addressing the challenges of developing technologies for hydrogen fuel as well as for fuel cell vehicle technologies. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership was established to address these challenges and to advance the technologies sufficiently so that a decision on the commercial viability of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) could be made by 2015. As the Obama administration took office in early 2009, a redirection began to take place, with reduced R&D on hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles and increased attention directed toward technologies for the use of electricity to power light-duty vehicles, with emphasis on plug-in electric vehicles including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and all-electric vehicles (or battery electric vehicles [BEVs]). The Academies reviewed the PNGV seven times, from 1993 to 2001; the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership three times, between 2004 and 2010; and the U.S. DRIVE Partnership in 2011-2012. The U.S. DRIVE Partnership is considered a continuation of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and hence the current review a fifth (Phase 5) review.² The Partnership provides a forum to discuss precompetitive, technology-specific R&D needs; identify possible solutions; and evaluate progress toward jointly developed technical goals.³ This process helps to inform the Department of Energy (DOE) on the precompetitive R&D that is carried out by DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and the Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO). U.S. DRIVE and its member partners focus on precompetitive R&D that can help to accelerate the emergence of advanced technologies that are commercially feasible. The U.S. DRIVE vision is that “American consumers have a broad range of affordable personal transportation choices that reduce petroleum consumption and significantly reduce harmful emissions from the transportation sector.” Its mission is as follows: “Accelerate the development of pre-competitive and innovative technologies to enable a full range of efficient and clean advanced light-duty vehicles, as well as related energy infrastructure” (U.S. DRIVE, 2016). The guidance for the work of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership as well as the priority setting and targets for needed research are provided by 12 joint industry/ government technical teams, and working groups are formed as needed to address crosscutting issues. This structure has been demonstrated to be an effective means of identifying high-priority, long-term precompetitive research needs for each technology with which the Partnership is involved (see Chapters 1 and 2). Technical areas in which R&D as well as technology validation programs have been pursued include the following: • Internal combustion engines (ICEs) operating on conventional and various alternative fuels, • Automotive fuel cell power systems, • Hydrogen storage systems (especially onboard vehicles), • Batteries and other forms of electrochemical energy storage, • Electric propulsion systems, • Hydrogen production and delivery, and • Materials leading to vehicle weight reductions. In each of these technology areas, specific research targets have been established, although some targets and time frames are undergoing revision. U.S. DRIVE oversight is provided by an Executive Steering Group (ESG), which is not a federal advisory committee as defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). It consists of the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and a vice-presidential-level executive from each of the Partnership companies. The DOE EERE efforts are divided between the VTO and FCTO. The Partnership collaborates with other DOE offices within EERE and outside of EERE, as appropriate, and other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Transportation on safety-related activities. The U.S. DRIVE partners presently include three automotive companies, five energy companies, two electric power companies, and the Electric Power Research Institute, with the DOE providing the federal leadership.⁴ Several associate members are also associated with the technical teams. The Partnership does not itself have a budget or conduct or fund R&D, but each partner makes its own decisions regarding the funding and management of its projects (see Chapters 1 and 2 for more detailed discussion of the organization of the Partnership). This Summary provides overall comments and a brief discussion of the technical areas covered more completely in this report and presents the committee’s main findings and recommendations.