Video Url

Below is the text version of the webinar titled "Hydrogen Fueling for Current and Anticipated Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs)," originally presented on June 24, 2014. In addition to this text version of the audio, you can access the presentation slides.

Alli Aman:
[Audio starts mid-sentence] … housekeeping items before I turn it over to today's speakers. Today's webinar is being recorded. So a recording along with slides will be posted to our website in about 10 business days. I will be sending out an email once those are posted to our website, but I also would encourage you to check back. Everyone is on mute today so please submit your questions via the question box. I have an example here on this slide.

[Slide 2]

On your panel of GoToMeeting there is a questions box. So if you can just submit your questions throughout the presentation and we will cover those at the end of the presentation. We'll leave about 10-15 minutes for questions. Since there are multiple speakers today please indicate who your question is for when submitting your question just so we know who to ask that of at the end.

Please check back to our website for future webinars. We do host these monthly, so I encourage you to definitely get on our website. And I also encourage you to sign up for our newsletter which keeps you in the loop—we send it out monthly—of what's going on in the world of hydrogen and fuel cells and especially what's going on in our office.

[Slide 3]

On that note I'm going to turn it over to Jason Marcinkoski. He is a fuel cell technology manager for the Fuel Cell Technologies Office managing the Technology Validation Program. And on that note Jason I'm going to turn it over to you.

Jason Marcinkoski:
Thank you Alli. Like Alli said I'm Jason Marcinkoski. I manage the Technology Validation Program in the Fuel Cell Technologies Office. And today we have two presentations. I'm very thankful to have Marianne Mintz of Argonne National Laboratory and Sarah Williams from the CEC, the California Energy Commission. Marianne will present second. Marianne is discussing new tools for estimating the economic impacts of hydrogen infrastructure for early market fuel cell electric vehicles.

But first we'll hear from Sarah Williams who has worked at the Energy Commission since 2007. She's a member of the hydrogen team in the Emerging Fuels and Technologies Office. She has been instrumental in gathering, designing, and conducting the past two hydrogen refueling infrastructure solicitations for California. Sarah will discuss the funding process used to fund hydrogen refueling infrastructure in the California Energy Commission's Program Opportunity Notice PON 13-607, the recent solicitation which proposed 28 new stations for funding.

The webinar will address the evaluation criteria, the variety of competitions, and the information included in the notice of proposed awards. So with that I'd like to welcome Sarah Williams to present.

[Slide 4]

Sarah Williams:
All right, thank you Jason. This is Sarah Williams like he just said, and I'm going to be talking about our work trying to fund hydrogen fueling infrastructure in California. If you could go ahead and move on.

[Slide 5]

Last summer we launched an exhaustive effort to make sure that we understood the needs of all the stakeholders to ensure that we could properly support hydrogen fueling infrastructure. And so we had stakeholder interviews, we did several workshops, we released a draft for comments, and then finally released the solicitation. And if you could move on.

[Slide 6]

Some of the things that we put into the solicitation were we had specific locations areas identified but not required. We have the minimum of 33 percent renewable hydrogen because that's the law here. There were project incentives for early completion. And we wanted to make sure there wasn't any overlap, so we had the minimum of a six-minute drive time between stations. And we had a 60 percent applicant cap to try and encourage multiple applicants. You can move on.

[Slide 7]

This is one of our sample station location areas, just so you can see what it looks like. Go on to the next slide.

[Slide 8]

Our proposals were evaluated against scoring criteria. This is fairly standard for when the Energy Commission funds something, but we do articulate them. And then disqualifications were determined—we required they achieve 21 points, which was 70 percent on the qualification scoring criteria. We only funded one station per station location area. We only funded one station within a six-minute drive time. And the 60 percent single applicant cap. And then funding recommendations were finalized. You can move on.

[Slide 9]
These were our scoring criteria. I mentioned the qualification of the applicant team. As one of them before we're really focused this time on market viability. We also looked at project readiness, implementation, and budget. Economic benefits, performance, and innovation and sustainability. And then we did have several competitions—if you could move on to the next slide—in the solicitation.

[Slide 10]

Our first step was to fund operation and maintenance for existing and planned stations. And we wanted to make sure we put that in front to make sure that we could support the stations that needed it. Then we had a competition for 100 percent renewable fueling stations. We wanted to have a mobile refueler so that we'd have a backup if stations went down. And we did stations that were within or assigned to station location areas and then any stations that were outside of that area. So we went in that order to show priority of funding. We put funding limits on renewable hydrogen and mobile refuelers to highlight their importance but not use all of the funds for them. If we could move on to the next slide.

[Slide 11]

So operation and maintenance support grants were providing up to $100,000 per year for up to three years. These were for existing, planned, or newly proposed stations. All applications are expected to be awarded, and stations are incentivized for early operational dates. For the existing stations I believe we have four agreements already underway on this, and as new stations become operational we'll be funding them at that time. Next we're looking at the 100 percent renewable support grants. If you could move on to the next slide—oh sorry, yes.

[Slide 12]

So these are required to dispense 100 percent renewable hydrogen and they can do that with RECs or credits if necessary. The maximum funding per station was $3.15 million. We had a required match at 10 percent. And we awarded $2.9 million for two stations. So they came in at under the max funding. And we got two 100 percent renewable stations. We were excited about that.

[Slide 13]

Then under mobile refuelers, this is like I said to provide backup for refueling to support the network. We required that it be deployed statewide. It can be used, when not needed for backup, to do fuel cell vehicle demonstrations and other events. The max funding was $1 million with a required match of 20 percent. And there was just under $1 million recommended for funding for one mobile refueler. So that should be on its way.

[Slide 14]

We want to look at station location area competition. That provides the capital expenses for a station installation for stations that are within or assigned to the station location area. And the way we did that is if you remember the map that I showed you a little bit ago, that was within the station location area, and then if they were outside that but within a 20-minute drive time they were assigned to that station location area.

The max funding here was $2.125 million, so a little bit less than the 100 percent renewable, with a minimum match share of 15 percent. $40.5 million was recommended for funding for 25 stations. That includes three additional stations dispensing 100 percent renewable hydrogen. And we were really excited to see that because that's something we are always happy to support.

[Slide 15]

In the unassigned station competition, funds were for stations that were not within the assigned station location areas. This funding was the same with the $2.125 million and 15 percent match. We did suggest for award $2.1 million for one station located in Ontario, California.

[Slide 16]

And then here's our status. The Notice of Proposed Awards was released May 1. It recommended $46.6 million for 28 stations and one mobile refueler. The agreements are currently under development for approval and you can find all the details at the Web link there. And then if you want to move onto the next slide this is what we recommended for funding.

[Slide 17]

FirstElement Fuel was proposed for 19 stations: seven in the San Francisco Bay Area, nine in the Greater Los Angeles area, and a connector or destination station in Truckee, Coalinga, and San Diego. Hygen Industries was proposed for funding for three stations in Rohnert Park, Pacific Palisades, and Orange. And Orange is in Southern California but those other two are in Northern California. Linde was proposed for two stations in Oakland and San Ramon; that's Northern California again. And Air Liquide was proposed for one station in Palo Alto. And then we have Riverside, Woodside, Ontario, and the mobile refueler which will cover the entire state. So we were excited both to see that many applicants and the variety of geographical coverage there.

[Slide 18]

Just so you're aware this is the background we're coming from. The existing stations—we have one in Northern California, it's in Emeryville. AC Transit worked with Linde and did a renewable by electrolyzer station. It fuels both buses and light duty vehicles. It's supplemented when necessary with commercially supplied hydrogen delivery by truck. And that's been working well.

[Slide 19]

There are more stations existing in Southern California. We have Burbank, West Los Angeles, Torrance, Los Angeles-Harbor City, Fountain Valley, UC Irvine, Newport Beach, and Thousand Palms.

[Slide 20]

There are also a number of stations that have been funded but haven't yet become operational. These are the ones in Northern California. The West Sacramento station is expected in September. Then Mountain View, Foster City, and Cupertino are all expected next June. And I know West Sacramento they've broken ground, so we're all excited about that because it's close to us. And then if we move on to the planned stations in Southern Cal…

[Slide 21]

… oh, and here's a map so that you can see where many of those stations are. It doesn't include the West Sacramento one because that's further to the east. But you can see they've got—the green ones are the ones that are open, the blue ones are those that we were just talking about that are in development, and you can see the orange dots are the ones that we're proposing for funding this time. So that gives you a better idea if you're not as familiar with the California geography.

[Slide 22]

And these are the planned stations in Southern California. I'm not going to read through all of these but you can see there are a lot of them coming operational this year. The one in Diamond Bar is just about ready to have itself declared operational. I think they're expecting that to happen in the next couple of weeks. And the rest of them should be by the end of the year. We're excited about that because that will really build the network.

[Slide 23]

And here's a map so that you can see where those are located with the same color scheme as before. And I believe that's the state of hydrogen refueling in California, and we're really looking forward to seeing the stations roll out.

[Slide 24]

Jason Marcinkoski:
Thank you very much Sarah for your presentation. We're going to hold questions until the end of both presentations. So now I would like to introduce Marianne Mintz, who leads the deployment and analysis team within Argonne's Energy Systems Division. She has over 30 years' experience in transportation and energy analysis. Her current work centers on infrastructure requirements of alternative fuel pathways, hydrogen delivery, and economic impacts of fuel cells as well as hydrogen and natural gas fueling infrastructure.

Marianne will discuss a new tool for estimating the economic impacts of hydrogen infrastructure for early market fuel cell electric vehicles. The tool titled Hydrogen—JOBS H2 estimates the jobs, earnings, and economic output created by deploying hydrogen fueling stations. The webinar will include the model’s approach and its capabilities, a discussion of default parameters and assumptions, results, and sensitivities, and access to the tools and additional resources. Please welcome Marianne Mintz.

Marianne Mintz:
Thank you Jason. And thank you Alli for advancing the slides. Good morning or afternoon everybody. This is a very nice pairing between the activities of California, where they're actually funding the stations and our work, which is looking at some of the potential impacts and the reasons why these are a good thing to be doing. Today I'll be speaking on behalf of my colleagues, Jerry Gillette here at Argonne and Catherine Mertes and Eric Stewart at RCF.

Basically I'll talk for all of us but as far as questions are concerned if we end up having to respond via email you may be hearing from one of these other fellows as well. I'd also like to acknowledge the support of the Fuel Cell Technologies Office within DOE and specifically Fred Joseck and Greg Kleen who have supported this work. Next slide please.

[Slide 25]

As Jason indicated in his introductory comments we'll talk quickly about the JOBS H2 tool—its approach, some metrics, and some illustrative results and sensitivities. We'll also talk a little bit about user resources and next steps and then allow some time for open discussion or Q&A as Jason indicated.

[Slide 26]

Next slide please.

[Slide 27]

First of all why do we have a JOBS H2? Why are we developing this model? Basically three reasons: to provide a consistent platform to analyze employment and other economic impacts of hydrogen infrastructure investments for early markets; also to analyze specific fuel cell and infrastructure deployment strategies, scenarios, projects; and to provide input for DOE's R&D priorities.

And I just want to emphasize that at this point we're only looking—when you talk about hydrogen infrastructure the tool is only looking at stations and only certain kinds of stations. And by those kinds I'm talking about how the hydrogen is delivered to the stations or—yeah, these are all delivery scenarios—and the capacity of the station. And then lastly and very importantly we've developed this tool to support stakeholders in their efforts to develop and deploy stations. Next slide please.

[Slide 28]

So what is JOBS H2? It stands for JOBS and economic impacts of Hydrogen. It's a spreadsheet-based tool, Excel-based, to estimate economic impact of user defined scenarios. And it does that by modeling the economic impacts via supply chains and induced effects. And I'll explain that in a moment. It can be run with default values or user inputs and it uses a methodology to convert dollars spent into economic impacts that's based upon a publically available input/output model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

And that model is called the Regional Input-Output Modeling System or RIMS. And jobs are created from equipment production, installation, station construction, all of the things involved in getting the stations up and running. And then from operating the station, as well as from ripple effects. And we call those ripple effects induced jobs. And the next figure I think will explain this a little bit better. It's kind of like a little cartoon. Next slide please.

[Slide 29]

Basically when you think about a station you think about the equipment that's actually on the ground. And here we're showing a little illustration of the three big components of the hydrogen station. You have compression, storage, and dispensing. When you think about putting a hydrogen station in place you think about the workers that are installing all of that equipment. But that's really only a very small piece of the whole. Next slide please.

First of all, when we talk about that small piece though I just want to introduce a couple of other concepts: those workers have wages, they earn wages which we call earnings; they also add to the overall economy in the form of economic output. And so when we model the impact of the station equipment that's actually on site we model the workers, the output, and the earnings—all three of them. And then as we move up the supply chain we also look at all of the various activities that are required to get that station up and running.

There's a lot of planning. The station has to be designed. There is survey work. There's permitting. There are all kinds of preparatory work and we call that the station planning supply chain. Next slide please. We also have a construction supply chain. We have a management activity, and we have the equipment that's on site, and it's bringing materials, concrete, or whatever to the site. And doing all the site prep and the pre-installation work.

And all of those activities—the station planning, the construction, and as we move up to the station equipment supply chain—all of those require employment. Those employees earn wages and they produce economic output. And the station equipment supply chain—I'd like to just emphasize the fact that it's not just the production of the equipment but it's also the integration, the transportation of the equipment to the site, it's the planning, all the fabrication, and the materials that go into that equipment.

So we're trying to capture all of that and then once the station is actually up and running we have a hydrogen supply chain at the bottom. And in this case we're talking about tube trailers that deliver the hydrogen to the station. That hydrogen is produced and it's transported and all of those involve employment: workers, earnings, and output. And then we also have expenses to operate and run—next slide please—the station. We call that the station O&M supply chain.

Now all of those we can group into the overall supply chain. You can see these arrows going up through each of those on both sides. There's one on the right and on the left. And then lastly I just want to make the point that they create jobs not just on site but also from ripple effects. So each of those workers goes out and spends their dollars that they earn on different things. They may go on vacation, out to dinner, or whatever. But those are ripple or induced effects. And we include those as well. Next slide please.

[Slide 30]

Another aspect of the model was to permit regional analysis. And we do that by permitting the user to look at 60 different geographies. Those are any one of the 50 states, the nine census regions, or the U.S. as a whole. For each of those geographies there are different multipliers in the RIMS input-output model. And so the users—when they pick a geography the model will automatically provide the correct multipliers.

Another very important concept that we use is what we call in-region or local shares of expenditures. So that we can account for the fact of whether or not those dollars are being spent within the particular region that's being analyzed or whether they go outside the region. Clearly if you spend more of those dollars inside a particular region you will have greater impacts in that region. If they go outside, if they leak into other regions, then you won't be capturing them in your estimates. And local shares tend to be greatest for things that involve site labor like site prep or installation, retailing; those things you're really not going to have people coming from outside your region to supply them. So they tend to have relatively high local shares, where some of the other aspects of station development that I mentioned earlier like station design, engineering, and equipment production, those might have somewhat lower local shares. But the local shares are a user input. The user can assign whatever value they feel is most reasonable for the scenario that they're running—we do have defaults and I'll get into those in a moment—but basically this is all user defined. And then there's a takeaway on the last part of the slide that jobs occur—next slide please—where expenditures occur. And so if you have a high local share as I said before you'll have more jobs. Next slide please.

[Slide 31]

This is a screen capture of the user interface for the station development tab in the model. I'm not going to actually demonstrate the model here today because we simply don't have enough time. But I'm going to try to give you a little bit of a sense of how it operates and refer you to resources that will enable you to download it and to see how it operates.

Basically this user interface—the user defines various things. If you look at the top, the default value for station size is 200 kilograms per day. The user can specify any value between 100 and 400 kilograms per day. So they put their value in the white cells where it says user specified value. And then it will automatically be repeated in the gray cells as the value that's actually used in the model. So you can check to make sure that what you put in is actually what the model is going to run with.

The next area—we have steps, step two is the project development timeframe. The value can be either one year or two years; the default is two years. In this case the user didn't enter anything so it automatically picks up two years. Step three requires a user input; there is no default. Step three is the number of new stations that you as the user anticipate to be completed by the end of a given year. So in this case we've entered 25 stations per year. The first set to be completed by the end of 2015, meaning that they were developed over 2014 and 2015 because there was a two-year timeframe that we specified up above for the development time.

So that means that at the end of 2015 we will have 25 stations. At the end of 2016 we will have another 25 stations developed—not necessarily operating yet, but developed. And if you look at the default dollars per station it's quite similar to the numbers that Sarah mentioned earlier out in California, it's a little over $2 million per station. Now if you go down to the next step, step 4a, you'll see the default assumptions for some of the components. And if I were able to copy the entire sheet here you'd see additional ones as well.

These are the default values that are in the model that add up to the $2,145,000 that you see up above. And as I said earlier the user could override any of those numbers and put in their own values. So if they feel that one dispenser is not going to be adequate, they need two, there's another tab for that. But they would put that in and they might disagree with the price and they'll put a different number in. And that's fine, usually it will take whatever they put in. Next slide please.

[Slide 32]

So with those assumptions, the 25 stations per year, I'm just going to illustrate what happens when we run the model. If we assume a U.S. region, so this is for the U.S. as a whole, not any particular state or census region. And a 200 kilogram per day station as I said earlier. We complete the first 25 stations in 2015 and then they begin operating the following year. That's why we'd go down to the next year, to 2016, for stations in operation.

Now another parameter which was not shown in that particular portion that I just showed you of the screen capture is station utilization. And that's the percent that the station is operating based upon what its theoretical capacity is. So we start off with 10 percent—and this is a user input—and we increase it up to 70 percent in this particular scenario. The user can enter anything they wish in that case; I believe the defaults are 50 percent.

The local share of expenditure—when we're talking the U.S. as a whole we have a higher local share because the U.S. basically would include equipment and everything else that's manufactured or installed or whatever from workers who reside in any state. The only thing that would not be captured were components that are imported from overseas. And in this particular scenario the only component that we assume comes from overseas is the nozzle, which is a fairly small piece of the total. We assume a retail price of $14.50, which is basically you add the blue and the red together, that's what delivered cost of the hydrogen that comes to the station in that tube trailer costs, $6.50, and then these onsite expenditures are about $8.00 and that's for the overhead and margin. It's also for the O&M—the operation and maintenance of all the equipment at the station.

So if you take those assumptions on the number of stations and how much fuel is being dispensed then these are—again these are all inputs—the resulting hydrogen fuel sales end up being a little under 8 million kilograms per year. That's the graph on the left. And the total station expenditures—that big pie chart on the right—of that $2.1 million which I'd mentioned earlier, this is how it breaks down to all the various pieces of equipment. You see the compressor is the biggest piece, 26.5 percent. Installation is also quite expensive, and the onsite storage, the cascade system, is relatively expensive as well. And again these are the inputs to the model. In the next slide I'll show some results. Next slide please.

[Slide 33]

Here on the first graph on the top we show the number of stations in operation, just to refresh your memory. We start with 25 in 2016. The year after they're completed they go into operation. We go up to 150 by 2021. The number of jobs that are associated with those stations is a constant. It's about 1,000 jobs per year because we're always developing 25 stations up until 2020 when we—it kind of trails off because we stop. The total jobs peak at about 2,400, and that's in 2020 when the last stations begin operation. We're still doing a little bit of station development at that point and so it drops a little bit in 2021 when we're only operating.

If you go down and you look at the second set, which is basically the same graph, but here I'm focusing on the distribution between supply chain and induced jobs whereas the top one focused on the difference between station development and station operations jobs. So the second slide, if you look at the bottom part you see that induced jobs are about 40 percent of the total in most years. So they're a very significant piece and it's important that we capture that as well when we're doing this kind of modeling. Next slide please.

[Slide 34]

I'm not going to spend much time on this slide. This is the earnings and output associated with that same number of stations. It follows a similar pattern but the dollars associated—these are dollars instead of jobs—the dollars are a little bit different. Next slide please.

[Slide 35]

Now we've also looked at sensitivities and just to talk about our base case—I have to emphasize here that this is not exactly the same as the scenario I just talked about. In our base case we picked a middle scenario. We picked 100 stations whereas before we were growing over time to 150. They are still 200 kilograms per day but we looked a particular region. In this case we looked at census region 5, South Atlantic. So we have what I just said, fewer stations, different region and years of operation than in our illustrative scenario.

In that base case, if you look at the box on the top, we estimate a little over 2,000 jobs. We assume a local share of 100 percent for installation and site prep, 50 percent for the equipment and contingencies, design and engineering. Again 200 kilograms per day for the station size, and station costs we kept the same, $2.1 million. Now for the sensitivity analysis we varied those parameters.

The first graph here talks only about station development jobs, which is the planning and getting all the equipment installed actually before we begin operations. Those station development jobs tend to be shorter duration. They basically end once everything is built —one to two years. They're, as I said, planning construction, equipment production, and installation. And we also do include the induced portion as well as the supply chain portion. And if you look at the—this is called a tornado chart, if you look at the tornado chart at the bottom portion you see that the results are less sensitive to station size because there's not as much variation there. You still need to have a compressor. You still need to have actually the same cascade system. So a lot of your expenses are going to be not that much less for the smaller-size stations than for a larger-size station. So we don't see as much variation in jobs.

The vertical line, I mentioned that's around those 2,080 jobs that’s referred to in the box up above in the base case. So you see a little bit of variation with station size. You see much more variation with local share for all of the various parameters that I mentioned before, for the equipment and all of the site prep, contingencies—everything. There you vary it from—we varied it from 100 percent to 0 percent and the base case is a combination of the two, which we show up above. You see at the low end we end up with about 1,000 jobs instead of the 2,080. At the high end we end up with over 3,000 jobs.

Even more significant is station cost. We end up with more expensive stations simply put more dollars into the economy. They require more spending on equipment —mainly the equipment, but everything.

And therefore that has a bigger induced effect as well. So if you have more expensive stations you can create over 4,000 jobs. If you have less expensive stations you're down at about 1,000. Base case—again I said 2,080. And then at the highest end, if we include both variations in local share and in station costs we can get much larger impacts. And so you see on the positive side if stations are more costly with high local share they produce more jobs. If they're less costly with no local share they produce less jobs. I think we've covered everything. Next slide please.

[Slide 36]

Now looking at the station operation jobs in the same way—again we have a tornado chart, it's the same base case, but here the station operation jobs are a bit less. They're a little bit under 700. And these are the jobs associated with producing and bringing the hydrogen to the station and operating and maintaining the station, dispensing the fuel—all of the stuff that basically happens once the station is in operation.

These jobs tend to be multi-year duration and they continue beyond the particular scenario that we're talking about. In the earlier slides I forgot to mention the fact that beyond the last year shown in those graphs the number of station operation jobs continues at the same level because we assume those stations continue to operate and they continue to have the same expenses and require the same maintenance and all of the various things that are required to keep that station operating.

These station operation jobs—basically the higher the throughput and the higher the local share, they put more dollars into the local economy and they create more jobs. So as you move up the tornado chart local share by itself is not as significant because we have a fair amount of local share already in the base case. We basically assume that for retail expenses and O&M we were already at 100 percent from some of those pieces.

Station utilization has a big effect. If you get up to 80 percent utilization you create many more jobs than 20 percent utilization, and recall again our utilization is 50 percent in this base case. The station size is as I said before—now here it matters because you're putting more hydrogen through the station and the hydrogen has various impacts going up the supply chain and those create more jobs. So for the station operation, station size matters quite a bit. If you combine local share and station utilization you get even more of an impact. Or combining local share and station size—kind of similar levels, you end up at well over 1,000 jobs if you're on the high end and only 300 or so jobs on the low end. Next slide please.

[Slide 37]

[Slide 38]

Now I want to talk a little bit about the user resources. As I said earlier I'm not doing a demonstration of the model here and so therefore I want to refer you to where you can see more of a demonstration type of thing. We have several reports and we have documentation, which are on our website.

We have a prior model which was called JOBS FC. That's JOBS and economic output of fuel cells instead hydrogen. That model has a user's guide. It has a documentation report. We did an analysis of the impact of the Recovery Act on jobs and that was the deployment of fuel cells and backup power in forklifts. And we did an EERE webinar like the one today. And that link that you see there is the link to the recording of that webinar on the EERE website. Now for today we do have a report on the methodology in the JOBS H2 model and that's mentioned here, and that is the first image that you see shown of those reports.

And we have today's webinar, and we will be posting a link to the recording once that becomes available. And as Alli indicated earlier it will be in several days. Now I just want to mention that we had an earlier website which was called jobsfc.es.anl.gov. That has now been linked to a new website. It still works but the link to the new website which is called jobsmodels.es.anl.gov. And all of this material is on that new website. It went live today. Next slide please.

[Slide 39]

One thing I want to show you is a screen capture of part of that website. This is the home page, which just talks about the JOBS models in general. There are links on the left. We also have another link which is not shown in this particular slide called User Resources, and also the two models are separately identified. But if you go to that website, as I said jobsfc.es.anl.gov, you will see all of this. Next slide please.

[Slide 40]

Now there is one link on there called User Resources and the user resources include, as I said earlier, a user guide. And I just want to mention that for the H2 model we went from the paper format—the print format—to a video format. We have five videos that are posted. They're short, five-minute videos which demonstrate different aspects of how to use the model. And that's part of the reason why we're not doing the demonstration here today. We also have the link to the publications and presentations, as I said before the webinar presentations and the links. Next slide please.

[Slide 41]

Next steps.

[Slide 42]

We're continuing to work on the development of the model and using it for various analyses. We will be looking at a rollout analysis over the summer, the next few months, due by the end of September. We'll also be looking at liquid hydrogen delivery and larger stations. Next year we plan to look at uncertainty analysis, which will be a big addition to the model. We have not started that work; that will be beginning this coming October.

Another thing that we may be looking at next year—and it's listed under not funded but it's in discussion at the moment—is distributed hydrogen production. I don't know if I emphasized it enough but the current version of the model looks only at gaseous delivery of hydrogen via tube trailers, conventional tube trailers. We would like to—I'm sorry, we will be adding liquid delivery and we would like to add production of hydrogen on site, what we call distributed hydrogen production. That will be next year.

We would also like to look at novel stations and pathway options and fuel cell applications in vehicles, which will be different from what we did before in the fuel cell model because we were looking at very small fuel cells for forklifts and backup pallets. These would be much larger fuel cells for vehicles and there would be bigger impacts through the supply chain. We have not addressed that in this work. Next slide please.

[Slide 43]

I'd just like to quickly thank some of the stakeholders who have been very helpful to us in our work. They included representatives of public agencies, station developers, the hydrogen and fuel cell industry, fuel suppliers, and researchers. They provided help in developing the default values and I'd just like to mention that the default value for our hydrogen station is very similar to the California Energy Commission's value for actual funding amount. So we think we're talking to the same people and we're getting good data.

They also helped with our future directions and needs and in beta testing the model and validating it. The table on the lower left-hand side of the screen is some of the specific parameters that they provided input for. You can see in parens that's the actual default value in the model. You can see some values that are in a lighter shade. They're not in the model right now but we're hoping to add them later. And all of these are based upon input from our advisory group, and we mentioned a few comments at the top. So I just do want to thank them. Next slide please.

[Slide 44]

Briefly to summarize that the JOBS models—both the H2 model which we're launching today and the prior FC model—they provide a consistent platform for analyzing employment and economic impacts of alternative hydrogen and fuel cell investments. And JOBS H2, which is today's new launch, is a free downloadable spreadsheet model and it's currently available on this website. Stakeholders have provided critical input and validation as we've developed these models and we specifically thank DOE's Fuel Cell Technologies Office for their continued support, our stakeholder advisory group for their assistance, and of course you for your attention. Thank you.

[Slide 45]

And here's my contacts.

[Slide 46]

[Slide 47]

Jason Marcinkoski:
So now we'll move into our question and answer period. We have a number of questions. I'll just take it from the top. The first question is: when are hydrogen fuel cell cars going to be sold or leased in the United States?

Sarah Williams:
Fuel cell cars can currently be leased in areas where there is fueling supported and as more fueling rolls out and the new car models roll out we expect to see more.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK, I'd like to add that there are a number of auto manufacturers that have made announcements for plans to roll out fuel cell vehicles in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. The next question is—this is for Sarah and this is regarding the mobile refueler. We'd like an example of how this type of system would be deployed to help explain what it is.

Sarah Williams:
All right. And this is one where it's not something we've funded in the past so we've left the solicitation general enough that different applicants could propose different technologies. What it is generally is hydrogen storage and dispensing ability on some sort of mobile platform. I believe the GTI one that we proposed for funding is a large pickup. So it has—there it has capacity to hold the hydrogen. It can dispense directly to cars or it can fill to a station if their reason for being down is a lack of supply. And it should have compression to deliver at least at 350 bar with hopefully 700. Does that answer your question?

Jason Marcinkoski:
Yeah I think so. It's hard to get the feedback from the people writing the question so we'll just assume it does. Does California have statistics regarding use of completed stations? I know NREL is collecting a lot of data—that's the National Renewable Energy Laboratory—on existing stations through their prior work in the National Learning Demonstration, and new work in data collection from the DOE that will be on the next round—nine additional stations. But right now we're relying on the data from the Learning Demonstration.

Sarah Williams:
I know we have a good deal of information. The Air Resource Board does as well because they funded some of the—or I think all of the currently existing stations. And as part of our grant agreements we're requiring data collection which would include throughput numbers.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK. This is another one for California CEC. Can these stations also be used by homes and small businesses? I think just speak to the accessibility of these stations.

Sarah Williams:
Absolutely. We require that all stations be publically accessible. So even the picture I showed you of the AC Transit one, which is probably doing most of its throughput for buses, does have access for light duty vehicles that are personally owned.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK. This is for Marianne. I understand the DOE's regional analysis. Do the states of each region—California, Washington, Oregon, for example—both 1) adhere to DOE's regional standards, if any, and 2) coordinate with the states in its region, for example California, Washington, or Oregon? So this may be a bit outside scope but I'll give you a chance to respond.

Marianne Mintz:
I'm not sure—coordinate in their deployments of fuel cell electric vehicles? I'm not quite sure what the question is. I know that we can certainly model activities. If the user wishes to define a scenario for California or Oregon or Washington they can run it for any individual state. What we cannot do in the model—this is just a model—is combine those three and create a separate region. We are complying to the census region that they reside in, which I believe is the Pacific census region. Which I believe also includes Alaska and Hawaii, but most of it is those three states. But I'm not quite sure what the question is, I'm sorry.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK, that's fine. This one is for Sarah. What is the total cost for a hydrogen dispenser—and I assume this means the dispenser and the supporting equipment—for an existing gas station seen in the recent solicitation? And this question is suggesting that California might be paying 90 percent. So could you speak to the cost share and what that covers?

Sarah Williams:
So the cost share is slightly different depending on whether it's a 100 percent renewable station or a 33 percent renewable station or one within a 33 percent renewable network. For the renewable stations we are providing 90 percent. That's for the 100 percent renewable because we know that those are generally more expensive. And then for the more standard stations we are providing 85 percent share. So we require 10 percent or 15 percent depending on the station type. With that, and the Energy Commission share being $2.125 million, we're expecting stations to be about $2.5 million.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK. Can you tell us how many renewable stations have been awarded or proposed for award?

Sarah Williams:
Absolutely. There were two stations proposed for awards under the actual 100 percent renewable competition. And then there are three stations that were proposed for awards outside of that competition that will be 100 percent renewable because that's just the business model for that particular applicant.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK. So I guess I'll field the next question. What is the gasoline—gas equivalent of hydrogen to the consumer? I assume this means the—one kilogram of hydrogen is equal to one gallon of gasoline on an energy basis. However fuel cell vehicles are generally more efficient—up to twice as efficient as current gasoline vehicles. But on energy equivalents it's one kilogram per one gallon. The next question is for Sarah. Are there any backup power requirements in case of grid failures for the stations?

Sarah Williams:
We require that applicants explain what they would do for backups in their proposals. So there are a variety of different options. Many of the applicants did look at a lack of power. One of the things we looked at in mobile refuelers was the ability to work without power. And I believe that the one that we're proposing for funding actually had the fuel cell on it so that it can power itself with that, at least partially.

Jason Marcinkoski:
This is for Marianne. It seems the local share generated by a company building up to 17 stations will actually be less than expected because I think the company will rotate employees from one station to the next so as to minimize training expense, etc. So can you explain how this is accounted for in your model?

Marianne Mintz:
Yes. The station development expenses are short-term jobs. That's the point I made. And that's true, they can rotate employees. So we only talk about them as short-term jobs. And you notice when I present them I distinguish between the two kinds. They could be held by different people or they could be held by the same people. A company could rotate employees; that definitely happens. And that's always an issue when you're talking about jobs because we talk about a job for a year, sometimes we've used the word job year to account for that. And they are different duration jobs from the continued jobs to operate the station. That is an issue and it's true of all employment numbers. When you talk about the government's jobs reports or whatever they don’t really go into that but it's basically the same point. If you create jobs—there may be a new job in one year but then that person holds that job over multiple years. So it is confusing. But the way we've estimated them is the way that most people do.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK. Did the model factor in projected salaries as part of the induced spending or ripple effects? I'm curious about how operational jobs compare to standard oil-based infrastructure.

Marianne Mintz:
Well that's all embedded in the input/output in the transactions matrix that's in the model. So the oil and gas industry would have a different set of—a salary structure that might be different from the industrial gas sector for example. So when we track the expenditures and we allocate them to different sectors it picks up whatever the multipliers are in the model. So I can't tell you what they are but it is captured in the input/output table because that's the way it's developed. They are different and it would be captured.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK, this one's for Sarah. Is it better to site stations close together initially to give great coverage to a few people or to spread them as widely as possible? So this sounds like kind of two extremes. Can you speak to how yours were spaced?

Sarah Williams:
Absolutely. There's been for several years now this concept of clusters where we expect early adopters to be. So where the OEMs are targeting vehicle release as well as where we're targeting most of our building infrastructure. So as you may have noticed when we went through the locations we've got a large core in the Los Angeles area where we expect there to be a lot of vehicles and in the San Francisco Bay Area. So those are the places we expect the most initial adoptions and so we've focused there. But we do recognize the need for more complete coverage and that's why we're starting to see some of the connector or destination stations. So we were excited to have the Coalinga station even though it's not likely to be where a lot of hydrogen vehicle adopters are but because it allows for those drivers to move throughout the state. So yes, as we get more stations it'll be important to get overall coverage. But to get things started, density where they're likely to be used was our goal.

Jason Marcinkoski:
Thank you. Marianne does the JOBS H2 apply for a national model only or can it work for state estimates as well?

Marianne Mintz:
Yes it can. That was the point of the map that I showed. It can be run for any state and the correct multipliers will be assigned. So you can do an analysis for the state of Arizona, Connecticut, California, or whichever state you pick. Or you can do a regional analysis using the nine census regions. Or you can do a U.S. analysis.

Jason Marcinkoski:
Is there any companion research related to the environmental impacts associated with hydrogen fueling stations?

Marianne Mintz:
The fueling stations themselves—not that I'm aware of unless it's part of the station application process. And that would be a question for the local jurisdictions in California or wherever they're being developed. There's a lot of work that's gone into hydrogen production including if it's on a distributed production. There's a lot of environmental analysis of that. And that would include greenhouse gas emissions, and I know that and criteria air pollutant emissions are estimated in a model called the GREET model.

There's a California version of the GREET model. There's also a U.S. version that's here at the lab. So it's kind of a mixed bag. Parts of it are done. There is also water analysis of how much water is required for some of these things. So there's quite a bit of environmental analysis. But of the station itself that would probably be—I would think, in California it might be under the permitting process. Sarah?

Sarah Williams:
Yes it is definitely part of our permitting process. But the AB 118 program, which is where our funding comes from, also requires that we do a localized health impacts report in which we look at the health impacts to the local area for any project that we're funding. And if anyone's interested you can find all of those on our website and I can send a link out if that would be useful. But we do look at the impacts of the construction as well as the possible increases of traffic due to the station.

Jason Marcinkoski:
OK, I think we're out of time. Thank you everyone for your questions and thank you to our presenters. Sorry we didn't get to all of the questions. Alli is there a wrap up?

Alli Aman:
Yes, thank you so much Marianne and Sarah and Jason for hosting this webinar. Just as a reminder we have recorded today's webinar. So a recording along with slides will be posted to our website in about 10 business days, but I will send out an email as soon as those have posted. Thank you again everyone, and definitely I encourage you to get back on our website and look for next month's webinar. Thanks everyone.