Moniz replies: I concur with Daniel Cohn and John Heywood; their comments prompt us to elaborate.

For a publicly funded R&D program to be effective, its components must address a variety of time scales and levels of risk. In addition, its strategic goals must represent the public good in areas that are perceived as having little commercial value. In the case of motor vehicle R&D, strategic goals include reduction of both atmospheric emissions and oil dependence.

The current administration’s sharp focus on the long-term, high-risk approach of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles appears contrary to a balanced portfolio approach that generally yields the greatest long-term impact. Just such a “picking winners” R&D approach failed two decades ago with synthetic fuels.

The intermediate-term programs—the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and the synergistic Clean Fuels Initiative—targeted a decadal time scale and met criteria appropriate to that time frame. Those programs envisioned use of a good deal of existing infrastructure for vehicle manufacturing, refining, and distribution; they shared costs with industrial consortia; and they met specific Environmental Protection Agency standards. Indeed, environmental regulation as a key driver of intermediate-term R&D is an important issue. However, we emphasize the converse—that emerging technological realities should drive enlightened regulation. Too often, that is not the case. The PNGV program, driven principally by fuel efficiency, was hampered by inadequate coordination between technological and regulatory development. Remedying that situation requires either more effective interagency coordination or enhanced technological capability at EPA. It is unclear which of those two remedies is more easily achievable.