Hydrogen Production Decisions: Decision Making in View of Differing Stakeholder Preferences

1. Hydrogen Production Decisions: Decision Making in View of Differing Stakeholder Preferences Elvin Yuzugullu Doctoral Candidate The George Washington University

2. Problem Statement • Hydrogen produced via different methods with varying requirements and consequences • Decision makers with diverse interests and values involved • Currently no structured approach to evaluate options • Complexities and disagreements may hinder transition to the Hydrogen Economy

3. Solution: Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Model • Design, evaluate, and test decision-aiding model to determine: • Capability of model to facilitate convergence of divergent viewpoints • How robust selection among hydrogen production alternatives is, with respect to conflicting stakeholder preferences and interests • Effectiveness of model in facilitating hydrogen production decisions

4. Value of Research • Complex issues involved regarding hydrogen production options • Impacts of decisions can vary from beneficial to harmful • Critical decisions need to be made • Need informed and structured decision making, with all relevant factors considered and an effort towards consensus • Decision-aiding framework developed will serve as a valuable tool to aid decision makers with hydrogen decision problems

5. Methodology • Model Design & Development: • Identification of diverse set of decision makers • Interactive and anonymous format method to obtain judgments from decision makers • Development of an “objectives hierarchy” • Selection of criteria

6. Methodologycontinued.. • Model Application, Assessment & Testing: • Baseline importance comparison of criteria • 1st convergence analysis • 2nd convergence analysis • 3rd convergence analysis • Analysis of results

7. Model Design & Development - Identification of Decision Makers - • Initially, a short list of potential individuals to contact was developed, based on referrals by colleagues and literature research. • Purpose of study, scope, and process explained and invited to take part in research

8. Model Design & Development - Identification of Decision Makers –continued.. • 12 individuals from following interest groups participated in research: • Hydrogen production companies • Automotive manufacturers • Oil & gas companies • Government • State energy offices • National labs • Utility companies • Environmental organizations • Infrastructure developers • Renewable energy financing companies • Fuel cell companies, consulting companies, international organizations, and universities were also contacted, but were not able to participate.

9. Model Design & Development - Method to Obtain Judgments - • “Delphi” technique used • Enables idea generation and interaction via several rounds of anonymous surveys • Do not need to be in the same place at the same time • Reduces group pressure involved in expressing opinions

10. Model Design & Development-Objectives Hierarchy Development & Selection of Criteria- • Objectives Hierarchy: main goal --- objectives (to accomplish goal) --- sub-objectives --- attributes (measure for achieving objectives) • Based on literature survey, an illustrative objectives hierarchy (with environmental and cost criteria) presented to decision makers • 1st survey: Decision makers asked to comment on this hierarchy (agree completely, agree but have additions/changes, give completely different set of criteria, or agree but structure differently.

11. Model Design & Development-Objectives Hierarchy Development & Selection of Criteria-continued… • Feedback from decision makers analyzed and organized to provide an objectives hierarchy inclusive of all comments received • This hierarchy sent back to decision makers, along with original responses • Two more rounds of similar interaction with decision makers • Reasonable agreement reached on set of criteria in the objectives hierarchy • This objectives hierarchy organized once again to determine optimum level of detail (criteria cannot be too general - but too much detail diverts from main point)

12. Final Objectives Hierarchy

13. Model Application,Assessment & Testing- Criteria Importance Comparisons - • Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) used: pairwise comparison of relative importance of criteria • Scale if 1 (equal importance) to 9 (extremely more important) • Baseline importance comparison: Decision makers provided judgments on pairwise comparison of criteria in objectives hierarchy • 1st Convergence Analysis: Comparison results from baseline comparison plotted in frequency diagrams, with group average, to show group judgment distribution. This info sent to decision makers to review. Structured phone interview to: • Clarify definitions of criteria • Obtain decision maker line of reasoning for judgments in previous round (baseline importance comparison)

14. Model Application,Assessment & Testing- Criteria Importance Comparisons –continued… • 2nd Convergence Analysis: Changes in group distribution and mean (due to changes in judgments in previous round), along with reasoning provided in summary bullet points, presented to decision makers once again to review and re-consider judgments in light of the new information and group position • 3rd Convergence Analysis: Similar to 2nd convergence analysis. Number of changes in judgments dropped considerably, indicating stopping point.

15. Model Application,Assessment & Testing- Analysis of Results – • Development of Input Data: • 7 alternative hydrogen production options (to represent both fossil and renewable hydrogen production) • Criteria weights (from all rounds of interactions with decision makers) • Performance of alternatives on criteria (obtained from literature)

16. Model Application,Assessment & Testing- Analysis of Results –continued… • Optimization: • Input data (alternatives, weights, performance data) used as input to model methodology to determine rankings of alternatives (for each decision maker) • Performed for baseline comparison and final convergence analysis results (weights) • Goal: to determine convergence based on changes in alternative rankings • Statistical Analysis: Correlated samples t-Test done on weights from all rounds of surveys to determine if there was significant change or not

17. Conclusions & Recommendations • Decision-aiding model developed serves as tool for decision makers to: • Consider all relevant criteria in a structured manner • Eliminate misconceptions • Understand perspectives of others • Improve the decision making process • Contrary to initial expectations, objectives hierarchy development phase had much more significant effect on convergence of opinion • Some more convergence in subsequent weight adjustment steps (based on definitional clarifications and consideration of others’ perspectives), but not as significant

18. Conclusions & Recommendationscontinued… • Objectives hierarchy development: • Enhanced decision makers’ understanding of the issues • Helped clarify and structure their thinking • Facilitated convergence of opinion • Decision-aiding model developed may be applied to any type and scale of decision on hydrogen production alternatives (especially when data on actual project alternatives are available), such as selecting among: • Small-scale options • National policy options • Options for specific locations

19. Bio SketchElvin Yuzugullu • B.Sc., Environmental Engineering – Yιldιz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey • M.Sc., Environmental Engineering – West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV • Intern, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)’s Energy Analysis Office, June 2002 – August 2003: worked on database of grid-connected renewable energy systems • D.Sc. (to be obtained, May 2005) – The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. (Engineering Mgt. & Systems Eng. Dept.; Environmental & Energy Mgt. Program)

20. Contact Information • GW Tel: (202) 994 – 9101 • Mobile Tel: (703) 981 – 8547 • Email: elvin@gwu.edu • Program Newsletter: http://www.gwu.edu/~eemnews