National Petroleum Council Future Transportation Fuels Study Supply & Infrastructure Task Group 1 DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only Summary of 1 st Draft Feedback and Responses for Engines-Vehicles April 7th, 2011

2 DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only 1 st Draft Feedback & Response Summary April 7, 2011 High-priority feedback on data sources & references, e,g., gaps in data, range/ nature of sources or references: 1. Too much preference given to NRC study 2.Add references in addition to NRC and EPA/NHTSA 3.Don’t try to reconcile differences between NRC and EPA/NHTSA; instead use range 4.Differences between NRC and EPA/NHTSA due to different time focus Actions/ Follow-up Several other major studies added to assess fuel economy potential and cost of fuel economy All studies given equal weight Plot constructed of incremental cost versus mpg for all studies Results general fell on two different lines which were fit with regression to give upper bound and lower bound cost of fuel economy Plot constructed to describe upper bound and lower bound cost of fuel economy, and how it reduces with time After accounting for time impact, large range of cost estimates remain

3 DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only 1 st Draft Feedback & Response Summary April 7, 2011 High-priority feedback on key assumptions, e.g. feedstocks, technology, infrastructure: 1.Add references to planned production vehicles using aggressive lightweighting 2.Too pessimistic on use of lightweight materials 3.Manufacturability and repair diagnostics comments on carbon fiber polymer matrix composites (PMC) are out of date 4.Future fuel economy should be assessed assuming no increase in acceleration 5.Breakeven of fuel economy technology should be also evaluated with less stringent criteria than 3 yrs/15%discount 6.Include more discussion of diesel 7.Include discussion of other technologies, such HCCI Actions/ Follow-up References added to vehicles in production or planned that implement lightweight materials such as carbon fiber reinforced PMC Discussion rewritten to be more balanced on lightweight materials Reference added to a Feb report of The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society that identifies research needed to solve manufacturability and repair diagnostics on carbon fiber reinforced PMC The draft already assumed no future increase in acceleration; this will be clarified Breakeven analysis added using 15 yrs/10% in addition to 3 yrs/15% More diesel and HCCI discussion will be added, but not in Apr 4 draft

4 DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only 1 st Draft Feedback & Response Summary April 7, 2011 High-priority feedback on conclusions and findings: 1.Comments on breakeven cost of fuel economy need updating after considering other criteria 2.More discussion needed to support the GHG and petroleum modeling section Actions/ Follow-up Findings on breakeven cost have been updated Additional discussion of GHG and petroleum modeling

5 DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE For NPC Study Discussion Only 1 st Draft Feedback & Response Summary April 7, 2011 Other high-priority feedback, e.g., suggested additions to the chapters: 1.The analysis in the chapter should include the impact of anticipated future CAFE regulations rather than customer demand for fuel economy 2.The chapter should predict fleet fuel economy throughout the time period of the study 3.Draft needs to include medium and heavy duty trucks Actions/ Follow-up It is not appropriate to include the impact of anticipated future CAFE regulations. The purpose of the chapter is to identify technologies that can improve fuel economy, their cost, barriers to their implementation, and the potential impact of vehicle fuel economy on study goals. Scenarios of fleet fuel economy throughout the time period of the study will be the primary focus in Phase 2 using the Vehicle Choice Model Work is underway to recruit an heavy vehicle industry expert write a section or chapter on medium and heavy duty