NHA NOTES


Shifting Hydrogen Institutions

by Robert L. Mauro, Executive Vice President, National Hydrogen Association
Dramatic changes in the roles and relationships between the major institutional players in hydrogen were revealed at the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP) meeting in mid-October, 1996, in Denver, Colorado (U.S.A.). Presentations by or about the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Program, the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee, and the National Hydrogen Association caused the hydrogen community to look at each organization in a new light. The collective effect of these presentations was to adjust the relationships between each of the organizations and increase their interdependency upon each other. The net effect of this may be to grow a stronger, larger, and more cohesive hydrogen community.

DOE staff presented their perceptions of hydrogen commercialization, barriers to hydrogen use, and the DOE’s Hydrogen Program strategies, and described their dialogue with industry and how to continue it. While one can argue that some of the projects that support the strategies are weak or that too few of the appropriated dollars are going to the researchers, this is the first serious attempt, that I am aware of, for a DOE program manager to bring together all the elements of a program into a comprehensible package. The package is not complete, but this is a major step in the right direction.

The DOE presentation on their dialogue with industry was particularly interesting. For both the breadth and diversity of comments presented, it is clear that DOE spoke to a diverse group of industry stakeholders. This is commendable and should continue to be encouraged.

Perhaps more interesting was the Hydrogen Program’s measure of industry interest. Industry interest in hydrogen would be measured by its response to a DOE-issued solicitation. This is a multiphase solicitation with “exit ramps, but no entrance ramps.” In other words, if a firm chooses not to respond to the initial solicitation, it cannot compete for later phases of the solicitation.

The structure of this solicitation illustrates two points about DOE and its role in hydrogen. First, it wants to know about and work with the hydrogen industry. In fact, it needs to do so for the DOE Hydrogen Program to successfully perform its mission. Secondly, even with the best of intentions, the bureaucratic weight of the institution makes the program rheumatoid in its flexibility to respond to change or adjust to circumstances. This limits industry’s ability to enter partnerships with DOE. To the extent that the hydrogen community can create partnerships with DOE, it should work toward increasing the flexibility of the Hydrogen Program to become partners in unique ways.

HTAP was empowered to an extent that was not completely realized before Mason Wiggins, Counsel to the House Science Committee, made his presentation on the Hydrogen Futures Act of 1996. In the Act, HTAP is effectively emancipated from DOE. As a creature of Congress created under the Matsunaga Act, HTAP has been a stepchild of DOE. Under the Hydrogen Futures Act of 1996, HTAP has standing with Congress to make its report on hydrogen needs directly to Congress as well as to the U.S. Secretary of Energy.

This means that DOE does not have the right of review as had previously been the case. This strengthens HTAP’s position in its dealing with DOE. It also puts HTAP in the position of validating actions it supports and defining the need for DOE action in activities occurring throughout the hydrogen community. HTAP cannot, on its own, initiate research activities other than for preparing reports and developing recommendations. It requires, in some sense, becoming partners with DOE, NHA and its members, or others to have its recommendations realized.

Commercialization Plan Introduced

On the second day of the HTAP meeting, Frank Lynch, President of HCI, revealed the NHA’s Commercialization Plan, which is a cost-shared effort between the NHA and DOE. The plan focuses on markets and identifies the respective roles of government and industry in commercial hydrogen development. In a real sense, the plan represents industry’s portion of the jigsaw puzzle that is the transition to and creation of a hydrogen electric economy. The plan also identifies where the interfaces occur between government and industry. It is meant to be comprehensive, but does not lay out an all-encompassing vision. It is the role of HTAP to provide that in a manner that mates that vision as an overlay to government and industry hydrogen activities.

In the course of HTAP, I observed DOE struggling to understand its program as a whole and trying to figure out how it fits in the context of the hydrogen community. HTAP is wrestling with how to most effectively use its newfound freedom to guide DOE in its struggles. The NHA, having written a commercialization plan, now has the daunting task of devising an implementation plan with DOE buy-in, developing support for that plan within and without the hydrogen community, and acquiring the resources to implement the commercialization plan. It is clear that each of these organizations need the support of the others to be successful.

©1997. All Rights Reserved. A Publication of the National Hydrogen Association.
This material may not be reproduced in any form without permission.

Home Page • Return to NHA News Index