 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
DOE's FreedomCAR: Hurdles, Benchmarks for Progress, and Role in Energy Policy
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jim Greenwood
Good
morning and welcome. Today we'll be examining a far-reaching and quite bold
automotive research initiative that has been launched by the Department of Energy
and the big three automakers. The
FreedomCar program, a public-private research and development initiative,
presents a vision of a day when automobiles will be not only pollution free, but
no longer dependent on petroleum. This is a bold vision indeed.
The
focus of this initiative is for the long-term, of course, which may have merit
for setting priorities, but it also raises some basic issues i hope we can
explore in depth today. Some of these issues involve assuring that we will be
able to assess, as the program moves forward, whether taxpayer money is well
spent. Some issues also involve placing this program in the broader context of
our energy policy - an important area of the Full Committee's jurisdiction
- and fully appreciating the challenges the program will face. Some
of you may remember the large ad campaign a couple of month's ago for the new
model line-up from Nissan's Infiniti division. The flashy ads displayed all
these futuristic vehicles - the kind we used to read about in Popular Science
-- with the catchy question: "Where are the cars we were promised?"
We know now those so-called future cars, promised to be right around the
corner, were never delivered. The
ads struck me because they pointed to something I think can infect our thinking
about future technology; we can get carried away with our imagination, only to
be disappointed as reality sets in. Now,
this is not to say that we shouldn't have bold visions, visions that go beyond
what we're presently capable of achieving. Innovation would wither away
otherwise. But it should serve to remind us, as we go forward with spending from
limited resources to seek policy goals that are important for our nation, that
we must maintain some perspective, and be willing to say no when a vision
goes off track. The
two panels we will hear this morning should help us make sure we stay on track
with this program so we can be confident it's a beneficial pursuit for our
nation's energy policy goals. The panelists should help us check whether we
will be able to assess, as time goes on, that the program fits with policy
goals, that it will make a positive impact on our efforts to reduce our oil
dependence and cut pollution, or whether adjustments are necessary. At
the outset, there are some key questions we must consider about the respective
roles in the program of the department of energy and u.s. council for automotive
research, or uscar, which represents the automakers.
For
example, there are some threshold questions about the structure of the program.
What is the role of industry in this partnership? How is the money spent? Where
does it go? There
are questions about the balance of the technology portfolio currently being
pursued by FreedomCar. Has the shift in focus to a fuel cell, hydrogen future diminished
the pressure to get the intermediate gains in automobile efficiency we've
already been researching - and spending more than a billion dollars on -
these past eight years? As
our General Accounting Office witness will point out in his testimony, reviews
of past R&D efforts by the federal government reveal that some of these
efforts have come up short - due to lack of focus, absence of measurable goals
and benchmarks, or failure to consider actual marketplace potential of the
research. Some efforts have produced positive results. So we have some
experience here that offers up lessons we should consider as we examine FreedomCar.
It
is essential that we examine this program in the context of our broader energy
policy. We must consider how the pieces- the technology portfolio, the
benchmarks and goals - fit together to make an actual difference in how we use
energy, in what we emit into the air. When all is said and spent, this
initiative should enable the production of something that consumers, businesses
will want to purchase and use. Is
FreedomCar structured to help launch products and innovation into the
marketplace? Is the strategy contemplated by the department of energy sufficient
to prevent advances from gathering dust on a lab shelf? Panelists
today will help us put FreedomCar's goals and its connection to a hydrogen
future in proper perspective. I
look forward to discussion about the requirements for infrastructure, the
demands on fuel supply, the cost barriers and challenges. I look forward to
learning about what congress may have to consider, to help address these issues.
I am not sure that all that will be involved or how long this vision will take
to be realized has been fully appreciated by the public. Moreover,
I'm not so sure the questions are settled about the current course of FreedomCar.
We will hear today about other aspects of research and development - concerning hydrogen infrastructure, for example -- that might
need more immediate attention if the hydrogen vision is to overcome the chicken
and egg problem. Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, after all, you can't
really convince people to leap to fuel cell cars unless they can drive them far
and wide, without worry about filling up. Finally, as we step back to
view this program in a broad context, we should also not lose sight of its
potential for positive side effects. There's something to be said about
long-rang focus, properly sighted. It can generate research outcomes we cannot
even contemplate as it fosters innovation. So I'd like to kick off this hearing on that upbeat note, but without forgetting that we should not let our imaginations get too far ahead of us when we're spending other people's money.
|
|||||||||||
|
