automakers.^80 Most of these small companies recognize that successful commercialization of
these innovations will require partnering with a large company in the industry. The automakers for
their part recognize that small entrepreneurial companies have important contributions to make to
solving the many challenging problems. These considerations suggest that the federal advanced
vehicle R&D program should maintain a balance between small and large company participation
to ensure maximum potential for a successful outcome.
Historically, DOE advanced vehicle technology programs have worked primarily with large
companies: defense contractors, automotive suppliers, or the Big Three themselves. To the
extent that small or medium-sized companies have participated, it has generally been as part of a
subcontractor team. The Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with federal labs
are also difficult for small companies to participate in, owing in part to the 50 percent cost-sharing
requirements. PNGV, which is structured to work as a partnership under the leadership of the Big
Three, seems likely to reinforce the large company orientation of the federal effort.^81
Recently, other government programs, such as NIST’s Advanced Technology Program, and
ARPA’s Electric and Hybrid Vehicle (EHV) program and Technology Reinvestment Project
(TRP) have begun to provide significant funding to contractors outside the traditional auto
industry, especially to small- and medium-size companies. The administration, however, has
requested no finding for EHV in FY 1996, and substantial cuts in TRP and ATP are being
debated in Congress. If these cuts are made as threatened, the federal program would become
even more dependent on the traditional industry than it already is.
Conclusions ABOUT R&D.
The more than 20-year federal involvement with advanced vehicle R&D provides an important
perspective on current efforts to commercialize advanced automotive technologies. First, from the
earliest days of these programs, the amount of time that would be required to commercialize
advanced vehicle technologies was severely underestimated. For example, according to a
projection made in the first annual report to Congress of DOE’s Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Program, dated December 1977: “The technology of electric and hybrid vehicles is such that...
advanced vehicles with advanced energy storage systems are not likely to appear before the early
to mid-1980s. ” In fact, many of the technical challenges cited in those early reports, such as
battery energy storage capacity, power density, and lifetime continue to be major challenges
today.
Although most of the technologies involved in advanced vehicles (batteries, flywheels, motors,
and controllers) have received government funding for decades, this finding has been highly(^80) Examples include superior regenerative braking systems and battery thermalmanagement systems to enhance EV range in cold climates. The
Big Three are no doubt working on these technologies, but may not be talking publicly about them.8l
PNGV reviewers of this report noted that while 41 percent of government funds in FY 1995 involved contracts with the Big Three, more than
two-thirds of that amount was passed through to suppliers. Thus, the fraction of PNGV funds flowing directly to the Big Three may be only 10 to 15
percent- It is more accurate to view the Big Three as directing and coordinating the flow of funds, rather than as the primary recipients. The PNGV
steering committee has recognized the need to find ways to bring innovative ideas from entrepreneurs and small companies into the progran, and has
published a document titled “Inventions Needed for PNGV.”