全球智库信息集成服务系统

Findings from the Process Evaluation

• •The process for developing the plan has been reasonable. • • • • • • •
• •CEC has targeted major barriers to market viability across the five main fuel types funded by the program.
• There appears to be a general awareness about the program.
• Most project solicitations (also known as project opportunity notices) have attracted more requests for funds than the total funds available and appear to have attracted a healthy diversity of applicants.
• Survey respondents believe the criteria and weights used by CEC to evaluate award applications are appropriate, but there were some concerns.
• There were both strengths and weaknesses in how CEC oversees grants once the grants begin.
• Awardees by and large secure the proposed matching funds.
• Completing projects on time has been a challenge for many awardees.
• Awardees are by and large achieving the technical objectives most central to their projects.

Findings from the Outcome Evaluation

• •Study findings suggest that roughly one-half of the projects funded by the ARFVTP would not have proceeded otherwise. • • •
• After completing their ARFVTP projects, awardees overwhelmingly indicated they had taken steps to continue to develop, market, install, or produce the product or technology funded by the award.
• The ARFVTP has made considerable progress reducing many barriers to the market viability of alternative fuels and vehicles.
• CEC's ARFVTP project grants supported some employment both in California and elsewhere and did result in some hiring for the projects.

This report presents the results of a process and outcome evaluation of the California Energy Commission's (CEC's) Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP), relying on quantitative and qualitative methods. We find that the process for developing the ARFVTP's investment plan has been reasonable; CEC has targeted the major barriers to market viability across the main fuel-sector types funded by the ARFVTP (hydrogen, electricity, diesel substitutes, gasoline substitutes, and natural gas and biomethane); the ARFVTP has been successful in soliciting proposals; the criteria and weights that the CEC used to evaluate award applications are appropriate, but there are some concerns about the amount of time required to review applications and execute agreements; there are both strengths and weaknesses in how CEC oversees grants once they begin; completing projects on time has been a challenge for many awardees; and awardees are largely achieving their projects' most-central technical objectives. The ARFVTP has made considerable progress reducing many barriers to the market viability of alternative fuels and vehicles. The ARFVTP appears to have allowed awardees to proceed with projects they would not have undertaken otherwise. The program also supported some employment in California and did result in some hiring for the projects. Stakeholder suggestions (from successful, unsuccessful, and potential applicants) on ARFVTP investment priorities going forward vary by fuel type but generally call for continued program support.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  The Process for Developing and Executing ARFVTP Investment Plans

• Chapter Three

  Impact of Program on Barriers to Market Viability of Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles

• Chapter Four

  Impact of Program on Barriers to Market Viability of Plug-In Electric Vehicles

• Chapter Five

  Impact of Program on Barriers to Market Viability of Diesel Substitutes

• Chapter Six

  Impact of Program on Barriers to Market Viability of Gasoline Substitutes

• Chapter Seven

  Impact of Program on Barriers to Market Viability of Natural Gas and Biomethane

• Chapter Eight

  Synthesis of Fuel-Type Findings

• Chapter Nine

  Impact of Program on Employment and Workforce Capabilities

• Chapter Ten

  Overall Conclusions and Observations for Future ARFVTP Investment Priorities

• Appendix A

  Web-Based Survey of Awardees, Unsuccessful Applicants, and Potential Applicants

• Appendix B

  Procedures for In-Depth Project Reviews and Protocol