Date: Jan. 23, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
U.S. DRIVE Technical Teams Conducting Excellent Work,
But Partnership Lacks Direction From Leadership
WASHINGTON -- A new report from the National Research Council calls the operation and management of the technical teams of U.S. DRIVE generally "exemplary," but finds that its Executive Steering Group has not provided adequate guidance for fitting the technical teams' work into an overall plan for the partnership's goals of reduced petroleum use. The public-private partnership has made steady progress in creating viable alternatives to gas-powered vehicles, but formidable technical barriers have prevented the emergence of a stand-out contender to replace petroleum.
U.S. DRIVE is a government-industry partnership conducting precompetitive research and development to help accelerate the emergence of advanced technologies for clean and efficient light-duty vehicles that could eventually compete commercially with petroleum vehicles. The partnership participants include four automotive companies, five energy companies, two electric power companies, and the Electric Power Research Institute, with the U.S. Department of Energy providing federal leadership. The partnership has determined three potential primary pathways to reaching significantly reduced petroleum consumption: improved internal combustion engine vehicles coupled with greater use of biofuels and natural gas in conventional or hybrid vehicles; expanded use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles; and the possible transition to hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Nine technical teams, including those on hydrogen storage, grid interaction, and combustion and emissions control, focus on specific research needed to make any or all of the pathways a commercial possibility.
As in previous Research Council reviews of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership -- predecessor of U.S. DRIVE -- the report finds the operation and management of the technical teams and the integration of the systems analysis functions within those teams to be exemplary for the most part, and provides recommendations in specific technical areas. However, it is not apparent that critical issues being investigated by the technical teams are guided and prioritized by an overall understanding of how these technical improvements affect larger program goals. Without overarching guidance, there is a potential for conflict among the respective goals of the various technical teams. It is imperative that the partnership's Executive Steering Group, Joint Operations Group, or other program decision-making groups continually broaden their understanding of these implications and adapt research plans to provide effective portfolio management.
The Executive Steering Group should set targets for the technical teams that are consistent with the objectives of reduced petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and U.S. DRIVE should conduct a comprehensive review of the partnership's portfolio, the report says. Focusing on the mission of supporting longer-term, higher-risk precompetitive activities in all three potential primary pathways, the review will ensure that research and development efforts are adequate and appropriate to achieve the targets. The report also recommends adopting a portfolio-based research and development strategy to balance the investment among alternative pathways with more traditional reviews of the individual pathways' progress.
The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, independent nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.
Lorin Hancock, Media Relations Officer
Shaquanna Shields, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Pre-publication copies of Review of the U.S. DRIVE Research Program, Phase 4 are available from the National Academies Press on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu or by calling tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Committee on Review of the U.S. DRIVE Research Program, Phase 4
Vernon P. Roan (chair)
Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering, and
University of Florida (retired)
R. Stephen Berry1
James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus
Gordon Center for Integrative Studies
Department of Chemistry and James Franck Institute
University of Chicago
David L. Bodde
Senior Fellow and Professor
Kathryn R. Bullock
President and Founder
Blue Bell, Pa.
Dennis A. Corrigan
Founder and President
D.C. Energy Consulting LLC
Glenn A. Eisman
Materials Science and Engineering
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and
W. Robert Epperly
Mountain View, Calif.
David E. Foster
Myers Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Engine Research Center
University of Wisconsin
Leverett Professor of Physics
Department of Physics
Linos J. Jacovides2
Delphi Research Labs (retired)
Grosse Pointe Farms, Mich.
Harold Hing Chuen Kung
Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director
Center for Energy Efficient Transportation
Chevron Technology Ventures (retired)
Robert J. Nowak
Rehoboth Beach, Del.
Bernard I. Robertson2
Senior Vice President
Engineering Technologies and Regulatory Affairs, and
DaimlerChrysler Corp. (retired)
Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
R. Rhoads Stephenson
La Canada, Calif.
Kathleen C. Taylor2
Director of Materials and Processes Laboratory
General Motors Corp. (retired)
Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff
Florham Park, N.J.