b. —r,The current federal R&D program focuses almost exclusively on developing advanced vehicles;
at most, a few million dollars--perhaps 1 percent of the hardware budget--has been set aside for
infrastructure considerations. DOE has a $2 million program to work with the electric utility
industry to develop infrastructure for EVs and finding for studies to determine infrrastructure
needs for fuel cell vehicles has been requested in FY 1996.
There are undoubtedly many reasons for the lack of federal attention to infrastructure issues.
One is the chicken-or-egg problem: it is risky to invest in infrastructure development for vehicles
whose numbers and requirements are not yet clearly defined. Another has been the belief that the
private sector has the responsibility for infrastructure development. A third reason has been a lack
of follow-through on the part of government. For example, although $40 million was authorized
by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for electric vehicle infrastructure development and
demonstration programs, no money was ever appropriated.U.S. experience with programs aimed at promoting the use of alternatively fueled vehicles has
shown that the lack of a convenient refueling infrastructure is a critical constraint. The
infrastructure issue is certain to constrain advanced vehicle development as well. Ultimately, the
cost of developing a national infrastructure for advanced vehicles is the responsibility of fuel
providers and the automakers. Experience with AFV programs, however, has shown that the
government has an important role to play in such areas as national standards development, federal
fleet procurement, coordinating with states and localities to ensure an adequate concentration of
vehicles in a given area, demonstration programs, and so forth. As the technological uncertainties
of advanced vehicles are resolved, the federal government will have to pay increased attention to
this area to ensure the national availability and reliability of infrastructure to support these
vehicles.Standards. Today’s light-duty vehicle fleet is largely uniform in terms of the structural materials
and propulsion system technologies. Although there are slight variations among models--such as
in their use of plastics or size of engine, for the most part the fleet is composed of steel vehicles
using gasoline internal combustion engines. The standards and specifications for these materials
and engines are well established.With the prospect of a fleet of vehicles made of exotic structural materials, mix-and-match
powertrains, operation algorithms, and alternative fuels and fueling systems, manufacturers,
consumers and regulators must each be assured of the safety, reliability, and performance of these
vehicles and subsystems. This is certain to -become a critical area of government involvement
(along with standards organizations and private companies) for complex new vehicle
technologies. Standards associated with crashworthiness and infrastructure have already been
mentioned above. In addition, however, much more work will be needed in the areas of vehicle
testing, component testing, and material testing. With an increasingly global automobile industry,
harmonization of U.S. standards with international standards is also essential.Again, the primary responsibility for development of these standards will be private-sector
organizations such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The government, however, must also
be able to set such standards as are necessary to fulfill its regulatory functions (examples include