1. 07/26/2010 National Petroleum Council Future Transportation Fuels Study - Task Group/Subgroup Overview November 9 CSC Meeting Technology Task Group 1

2. 07/26/2010 Topics 2 Team and framing questions Technology Pinchpoints L1 Peer Review

3. 07/26/2010 Technology Task Group Membership Stephen BrandChairConocoPhillips Melissa StarkAssistantAccenture Pat DavisCo-ChairDepartment of Energy Ed Owens Co-Chair Department of Energy L1 SMEssee following slide Tom BinderTTG Rep, BiofuelsADM Jaycie ChitwoodTTG Rep, Electricity Toyota Charles SchleyerTTG Rep, Hydrocarbon LiquidsExxonMobil Corporation Graham WilliamsTTG Rep, Natural GasGP Williams Consulting Norm BrinkmanTTG Rep, Engine/ VehicleGeneral Motors Puneet VermaTTG Rep, HydrogenChevron Joseph CaggianoS&I interfaceChevron Jose BravoSeparationsShell Peter Thompson Intern- technical researchUniversity of California, Berkeley J. Rothe/ Dirk HayesNew Fuels- macro, cyano- carbohydrateTexas A&M Padma S/ Dirk Hayes New Fuels- photobacteriaTexas A&M V. Gunderson/WasielewskiSolar fuels/Artificial PhotosynthesisNorthwestern (TBC) TBDAdvanced levitation TBDBeyond lithium ion/ advanced batteries TBDFree piston engines TBDCO2 to fuel DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only

4. 07/26/2010 Technology L1’s 4 AreaSME Solar FuelsDan Nocera, MIT Agriculture – biofuelsRobert Fraley, Monsanto BiotechnologyJay Keasling - JBEI Materials science / nanotechnologyGeorge Whitesides, Harvard EnginesJohn Heywood, MIT Batteries/ ElectrochemistryYet-Ming Chiang, A123 Systems/MIT Energy EfficiencyAmory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) Hydrogen/ Fuel CellsHenry White, University of Utah Cryogenic StorageTom Drube, Chart Industries OtherJohn Deutch

5. 07/26/2010 Technology Framing Questions 5 1.Value chain pinch points. Where in the value chain could technology have the highest impact on cost, technology development rate (acceleration), improved economics, and deployment at commercial scale? 2.Step change in cost and/or performance. Where in the value chain are there technology assumptions dramatically different from today’s cost and/or y-o-y improvement? (80/20 rules) or assumptions that are step changes relative to historical learning rates] 3.New technologies. What disruptive technologies are being developed that would reshape existing value chains or create new businesses? What are the prospects for and hurdles to their successful commercial deployment? What is the likely time frame for deployment? 4.Improvement drivers and probability a.For the reference case what are the key yield and scale improvement drivers and probability assumed? b.For the accelerated cases, what are the key yield and scale improvement drivers? What is the likelihood? 5.Scale-up. What are the risks, challenges, costs, and considerations for scaling these technologies? Doability? 6.Choices. How have you chosen between competing technologies at the sub group level? 1.Need to compare cost-effectiveness of each option somehow, for ex on a $/tonne CO2 basis or on a $/gal gasoline displaced basis, etc… 7.Good investments under all scenarios. Are there obvious “no brainer” or “no regret” technology investments? (e.g., energy efficiency/improving fuel economy) 8.Scope. Are there (new) technologies being developed that have been scoped out by the sub group? Why? 9.Environmental effects. In addition to goals of energy security and carbon mitigation, what other environmental effects should be considered for this technology besides just GHGs. For example, the sustainability impact of technologies being considered (e.g., land use, water impact, criteria pollutants, toxicity – e.g., effect of biofuel crop fertilizer run off in Gulf of Mexico] 10.Acceleration. Is there an acceleration opportunity? Is it realistic and what would it take to move in this direction?

6. 07/26/2010 Topics 6 Team and framing questions Technology Pinchpoints L1 Peer Review

7. 07/26/2010 Technology Pinchpoints Methodology 7 Technology Scope Supply Chains Pinchpoints Narrowing to 3-4 target pathways Pathways over time Acceleration Examples What is the scope of the technology being analysed by the subgroup? What are the key elements in the supply chain? What are the challenges and opportunities in the supply chain that could drive deployment? What are the focus areas for research? Of the universe of competing pathways available in this technology group, what are the shortlist of pathways based on likelihood of commercial success? Which pathways meet scenario objectives? Example: Biofuels has a number of competing pathways How can we accelerate the scale up of this pathway? Where is the uncertainty/risk in this acceleration Choice of acceleration impacted by scenario choices What is the benefit/value? Objective: To identify the focus area for research that can accelerate the market success of a technology by unblocking the challenges and opportunities Current Status For the shortlist of pathways overtime, where are their significant barriers? How is the pathway likely to evolve? Where is the uncertainty/risk in this evolution and how is this treated? What is the cost/benefit/value? Example: Electric has 3 charts: PHEV20, PHEV40, 100% Electric

8. 07/26/2010 Natural Gas Pinchpoints 8 NGV Infrastructure Vehicle Pumps Site Storage Site Production CNG Storage On-site Liquefaction CNG Compression LNG Storage CNG Pumps LNG Cryogenic Pumps Digesters and Upgrading Facilities Engines OEM Integration Vehicle Fuel Tanks LNG Tanks CNG Cylinders Vehicle Conversions Specific NGV Designs Dual Fuel Engines Engine Types & Sizes Engine Performance High Medium Low Priority of resolution to drive NGV deployment Need to ensure engine efficiency growth, and remain compatible with new auxiliary technology such as heat recovery Expand range of engine types and sizes to increase user compatibility Need to increase diesel substitution and robustness Increase purpose-design NGV vehicles with optimisedperf/packaging Important to support for early roll out, but need to standardise and cost reduce Increase storgae capacity/density for range, and reduce storage pressure requirements Reduce cost, increase production scale. Improve fuel level sensing On-site compression is widespread. Standards and cost reduction required. Technology for small fleet/ home refueling Small scale liquefaction plants will allow wider, economic LNG site deployment. Digesters & biogas upgraders are commercially available & widely used in Europe/China Reduce site costs to improve infrastructure economics Widespread LNG storage will require low-cost modular tanks Cryogenic pumps not as reliable as CNG/Gasoline. Further dev’t of automated unmanned pumps. Home and small fleet pumps are reasonably mature but not economic Peak shavers/LNG Terminals Better utilisation of existing LNG production Fuel quality consistency Standards required for RNG. Auto- sensing & correction will increase product robustness

9. 07/26/2010 Hydrogen Pinchpoints

10. 07/26/2010 Engines/Platforms Benefit and cost of existing technology - Small Car 10 New Technologies HCCI Emerging engine technologies SMART vehicles to avoid congestion diesel after treatment (emissions control) stratified charge lean burn Many conventional and advanced technologies can be stacked to achieve significant reductions, but costs exceed breakeven even with high gasoline prices

11. 07/26/2010 Engines- Benefit and cost of existing technology Large Truck 11 New Technologies HCCI Emerging engine technologies SMART vehicles to avoid congestion diesel after treatment (emissions control) stratified charge lean burn Breakeven, 3 yrs/15% Costs of fuel consumption reduction with large light duty vehicles, greater than those for compact vehicles, also exceed breakeven

12. 07/26/2010 Technology Pinchpoints Methodology 12 Technology Scope Supply Chains Pinchpoints Narrowing to 3-4 target pathways Pathways over time Acceleration Examples What is the scope of the technology being analysed by the subgroup? What are the key elements in the supply chain? What are the challenges and opportunities in the supply chain that could drive deployment? What are the focus areas for research? Of the universe of competing pathways available in this technology group, what are the shortlist of pathways based on likelihood of commercial success? Which pathways meet scenario objectives? Example: Biofuels has a number of competing pathways Objective: To identify the focus area for research that can accelerate the market success of a technology by unblocking the challenges and opportunities Current Status Activity from now Nov- Jan How can we accelerate the scale up of this pathway? Where is the uncertainty/risk in this acceleration Choice of acceleration impacted by scenario choices For the shortlist of pathways overtime, where are their significant barriers? How is the pathway likely to evolve? Where is the uncertainty/risk in this evolution and how is this treated? What is the cost/benefit/value? Example: Electric has 3 charts: PHEV20, PHEV40, 100% Electric

13. 07/26/2010 Need to narrow to 3-4 target pathways (biofuels example) 13 Narrowing to 3-4 target pathways FeedstockBiochemical Thermochemical (has similar chart as biochemical) Distribution Sample Technical scope of biofuels includes 5 groupings of feedstocks and more than 10 different conversion technologies

14. 07/26/2010 14 Work in Progress Pathways over time Pathways over time (electrification example)

15. 07/26/2010 Pathways over time Pathways over time (electrification example) Work in Progress

16. 07/26/2010 Topics 16 Team and framing questions Technology Pinchpoints L1 Peer Review Pathways over time

17. 07/26/2010 Objectives of Level 1 SME Reviews 17 1.Assurance on the treatment of science/technology in the study The Level 1 SMEs are a group of leading experts whose composition would ensure there was no doubt in Energy Secretary Chu’s mind on the: Breadth of the technologies considered Aggressiveness of the accelerated case Quality of the data, assumptions and analysis 2.Early feedback/sounding board to the sub groups The Peer Reviews are meant to be helpful (not an inquisition that will result in significant rework or actions). The Level 1 SMEs will provide feedback on: Technology scope and approach and key assumptions Provide early challenge and suggestions for improvement 3. Reviewer of responses to Technology framing questions The Technology Framing questions represent the expectation of how technology will be analysed in the sub groups. The peer reviews will Ensure consistency in technology approach and level of detail Be structured around the framing questions.

18. 07/26/2010 Format of Level 1 SME Reviews 18 2-3 hour face to face or webex review with each sub group Technology Task Group and sub group will document the Peer Review, but this is only for the use of the sub group. It will not be published 3 Peer Reviews 1.w/c November 29th (proposed): Key assumptions and base case Pre-reading (to be pulled together by planners and TTG sub group leads by 1 Nov) Technology scope, data sources and L2/3 SMEs, AEO technology feedback Sub group supply chains Key assumptions At the session Feedback on pre-read content Framing questions 1.Value chain pinch points 4a. Improvement drivers and probability assumed in base case 8.Technologies scoped out? Why? 10. Acceleration opportunities (ideas and initial thinking only) 2. March: Accelerated cases peer review 3. July: First draft peer review

19. 07/26/2010 19 Actual Date Peer review pre-read issued15 November Peer review 129 Nov Peer review 2March? Peer review 3July? L1 Peer Review Timeline