Products and Services for DOE Programs and External

Products and Services for DOE Programs and External Stakeholders in Support of Lab Commercialization Efforts STIP Annual Meeting, May 3, 2017 Clara Asmail Senior Program Advisor Energy. gov/technologytransitions

TT Goal: Open Access to Research Labs and Their Resources – a Rocky History energy. gov/technologytransitions 2

Fraction of effort and competence DOE’s National Laboratories Occupy a Distinctive Space in the Innovation Ecosystem National labs Ideally suited for high‐complexity, multidisciplinary, long‐time‐horizon challenges spanning fundamental to applied R&D Universities Emphasis on early discovery Basic science Use‐inspired basic science Applied science Industry Emphasis on near‐term solutions Engineering Serial production Source: Thom Mason, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory energy. gov/technologytransitions 3

Stages of Innovation Development GOVERNMENT Policy and Programs Product/Technology Push Basic R&D Applied R&D Demonstration Cost per unit Pre‐Commercial Market Engagement Programs Niche Market and Supported Commercial Full Scale Commercial Barrier Removal Strategic Deployment Policies Market Expansion Invention Translation Commercialization Technology Transfer Investments Market/Demand Pull BUSINESS AND FINANCE COMMUNITIES Source: adapted from Grubb, M. 2004, Technological Innovation and Climate Change Policy: an overview of issues and options, Keio Economic Studies, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 103 -132. energy. gov/technologytransitions 4

Energy Innovation: Coordination and Facilitating Linkages(Not a complete listing) Translation Adoption Diffusion Funding Invention Focus Output Research Development First Principles Application Basic Energy Science/ Energy Frontier Research Centers (Basic) Accelerator Stewardship Program ASCR Scale Up Prototype Deployment Commercial Demo Time Improvement In-Use Loan Programs (First Deploy) Lab‐Corps Market Structures Tax Incentives Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR/STTR and SBIR‐TTO) FERC/States/ ISO/RTOs Cooperative Research and Development Agreements Small Business Vouchers Technology Commercialization Fund Private Lab Partnering Service Strategic Partnership Projects Agreements for Commercializing Technology VC Corporate Linkages Between Ecosystems Gov’t Hubs Pre‐competitive consortia Demonstration VC Series A/B Philanthropic / UHNW / “Patient” Corporate R&D / • Information exchange (showcase early‐stage • VC Series C/D/Late‐stage PE Traditional Institutional VC opportunities via accelerator, prizes, tools, forums) Public-Private Partnerships (IP rights, flexible cost share) / Project Finance / • Industry Membership-driven R&D model (workshops, consortia) • New demonstration board / funding and financing models (equity investments) Industry 5

Industry Engagement: Partnering with DOE National Labs INFORMATION s A D A CR PUBLIC‐PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SPPs ACTs s n o i t Op REDUCE BARRIERS s e s n e Lic 17 National Laboratories and 5 Facilities Use r Fa cilit ies SBV s ACCESS TIRs SBIR /STT R TCF RISK/COST SHARING (Navigator recommended) energy. gov/technologytransitions 6

Traditional and New Industry Engagement Models: Streamlining Central Policies and Procedures for Accessing Capabilities and Resources “The remarkable thing is that although basic research does not begin with a particular practical goal, when you look at the results over the years, it ends up being one of the most practical things government does. ” President Reagan, radio address, April 2, 1988. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements Strategic Partnership Projects User Facility Agreements for Commercializing Technology - Pilot SBIR – TT energy. gov/technologytransitions 7

Challenge: Expanding the Impact of DOE’s Portfolio of Research for Security and Prosperity Transformative Science and Technology Solutions in Cooperation with the Private Sector: Coordinating Lab / Government • • Tech Transfer Working Group National Lab Technology Transfer Program Offices / NNSA Technology Transfer Policy Board Federal Lab Consortium Inter‐Agency Working Group for Technology Transfer Laboratory Policy Council Secretary’s Energy Advisory Board energy. gov/technologytransitions Facilitating Industry Engagement • • • Outreach Information aggregation Reduction of barriers Public‐Private Partnerships Risk and cost sharing Access to facilities, expertise, technologies 8

Office of Technology Transfer: Coordinating/Facilitating C O O R D I N A T I N G IA WG TT FLC Office of Science Office of Electricity Board, committee or consortium Nuclear Energy Fossil Energy SEAB Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Intermediaries Entrepreneurs All government staff Contractor and government staff All private sector energy. gov/technologytransitions OSD BU MA IA Administration Venture Capital NATIONAL LABS AND FACILITIES GC National Nuclear Security Private Sector Entities N Office of Technology Transitions Technology Transfer Working Group National Lab Tech Transfer (NLTT) LPC Technology Transfer Policy Board PA Universities F A C I L I T A T I N G CI 9

Technology Transfer Execution Plan: Goals and Objectives: Responding to Challenges … work in progress … Define and elevate the Department’s Technology Transitions mission across the National Laboratories Support National Laboratories to provide active collaborative research, strategic partnerships, and facilities access to the private sector Increase the ease of industry access to National Laboratory capabilities and intellectual property Enable and incentivize National Laboratory management and personnel to pursue technology transition activities Streamlining Central Policies and Procedures Increase the level and quality of connectivity between National Laboratories and the private sector energy. gov/technologytransitions Accessing Capabilities and Resources Facilitating Information and Connectivity Enhance the capabilities of National Laboratory researchers and Technology Transfer Offices to advance technology transitions Support National Laboratories to mature and subsequently transition federally sponsored technologies for commercial uptake Provide clearer, more accessible, and more comprehensive information on available National Laboratory resources to the private sector 10

Technology Commercialization Fund: Partnering with the Private Sector – the Rocky Road (EPAct 2005, Title X, Sec 1001) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U. S. C. § 16391(e)) “The Secretary shall establish an Energy Technology Commercialization Fund, using 0. 9 percent of the amount made available to the Department for applied energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for each fiscal year based on future planned activities and the amount of the appropriations for the fiscal year, to be used to provide matching funds with private partners to promote promising energy technologies for commercial purposes. ” energy. gov/technologytransitions 11

Technology Commercialization Fund Partnering with the Private Sector: Accessing Capabilities and Resources for Maturing Technologies for Commercial Uptake (EPAct 2005, Title X, Sec 1001) Sources of Funding: DOE Funding TCF Topic 1 Funding Private Funding TCF Topic 2 Funding LDRD, DOE Office of Science, etc. Product Lifecycle: Discovery Science Lab Proof of Concept FY 2016 Results: 54/104 projects selected $16 M in TCF funds $17 M private matching funds 12 Labs 52 individual private partners large multi‐national firms to regional companies Engineering Prototype Material Qualifications Bench test of a lab system Component Qualifications System Integration & Testing Field Prototype Scale-Up of System Design for Scalability Field Prototype #1, #2, etc. energy. gov/technologytransitions Manufacturing Prototype Market DFx 1. 2. 3. 4. Df. X: Design for X Reliability Cost Reduction Durability Manufacturability 12

Energy Investor Center Offerings - Informing Investors: Increasing Connectivity with More Comprehensive Information Laboratory Partnering Service Laboratory – Investor Knowledge Seminars (LINKS) Innovation Interface (I 2) Online connection platform for energy investors and subject matter experts at National Laboratories Results and update from Beta expected March 2017 Meetings between DOE National Laboratories and Investors Discussions of Partnership Opportunities Sessions at DOE HQ with Investors and DOE Technical Experts/Program Managers Project Data Initiative Online deal‐flow providing access to DOE portfolio of investable energy opportunities Target launch for clean energy pilot: March 2017 Technical Assistance Sharing of research and analysis produced by DOE and its National Laboratories on relevant developments in energy technology energy. gov/technologytransitions 13

FY 2015 DOE Technology Transfer Summary Non-Classified SPP, CRADA, and ACT Agreements Only TT agreements (Fed, non-Fed) with U. S. National Labs FY 14 FY 15 Partne r $ In ($MM ) Partne r $ In ($MM) Agreeme nts SPP (non‐fed) $239. 8 2021 $249. 0 2395 n/a $912. 6 2338 CRADA $70. 1 704 $64. 9 734 ACT $29. 0 67 $30. 3 74 Type SPP (fed) Agreeme nts Total $338. 2792 $1, 25 National Impact of US Non-Federal Agreements 6. 8 9 • FY 15: 78% with entities >200 miles away from lab • 5% within 50 miles of the partnering lab • • 5541 < 5 energy. gov/technologytransitions 1 0 1 5 2 0 > 2 0 DOE tech transfer efforts can be measured and tracked by key comparison variables Partner Types • College/University • Foreign Government • Large Business 36% of non‐fed agreements were with large businesses • Small Business • Not‐for‐Profit 22% of non‐fed agreements were with universities • Research Institute • State/ Local Government 21% of non‐fed agreements were with small businesses • U. S. Federal Agency U. S. National Lab Not for public • release FY 15 Partner Types (non-fed agreements) • FY 15 Partner $ In ($ million) DOE Taxonomy Categories • 10 parallel categorizations • 14 taxonomies • 113 secondary taxonomies provide additional granularity • Categories refined based on FY 14 and FY 15 results 14

Annual Technology Transitions Data Call: How is the collected data used? Targeted Outreach • Enables DOE Senior Leadership to engage directly with lab partners and identify stakeholders for regional events • Data used for more than 70 requests in 2016 ‐ raw data tables, summaries, analyses, overviews, and talking points To Promote Lab Value • Enables Senior Leadership to promote lab value during congressional hearings and briefings • Enables responses to requests from congressional and other stakeholders TT Evaluation • Data analysis and visualization tools provided to labs upon request • Data analyses provided to inform DOE Programs Statutory and Regulatory Compliance & Reports OTT Collects Agreement Data Only for Non-Classified SPP, CRADA, and ACT Agreements. Aggregate Data includes Patenting and Licensing metrics. energy. gov/technologytransitions Not for public release 15

Annual Technology Transitions Data Call: What data fields are collected for each agreement from the labs? National Lab FY 15 Partner $ In Kind Lab Type Total Partner $ In Kind Fiscal Year (FY) Effective Date Partner Name (clean) End Date Partner Name (from lab) Status Multiple Partners on Same Agreement # FY DOE $ Contribution Partner Type FY 2015 DOE $ Contribution Is partner a foreign owned/run organization? FY 2014 DOE $ Contribution (FY 15) … address fields FY 2014 DOE $ Contribution (FY 14) Taxonomy Parallel B&R Code for DOE Contribution Taxonomy Parallel (Aligned) DOE Program Office DOE Taxonomy (aligned) Total DOE $ Contribution Secondary category describing technical area (aligned) First time this private sector entity has engaged your lab? Facilities Used Entity’s reason(s) for selecting ACT for laboratory engagement Contract Type Lab Support other than from Programs ‐ Type FY Partner $ In Lab Support Other than from Programs, $ Amount FY 2015 Partner $ funds in Total $ Value FY 2014 Partner $ funds in (FY 14) Associated AOP Project (where applicable) Level 4 WBS Total Partner $ Funds in Notes/Comments/ Questions 16

Data Collection: Lab Agreements, Analysis and Visualization • DOE contributed $38. 0 M to 233 CRADAs NATIONAL Impact: 70% of agreements are across 38 states in FY 14 with entities > 200 miles away from a lab • 2, 792 Total Non-Fed Agreements in FY 14 ($339 M partner funds in) DOE tech transfer efforts can be measured ‐ 2021 SPP ($240 M partner funds in) and tracked by key comparison variables ‐ 704 CRADA ($70 M partner funds in) Partner Types DOE Taxonomy ($29 M partner funds in) ‐ 67 ACT Sum of partner contributed funds to FY 14 TT agreements with U. S. National Labs by State • • • Large Business – Industry Small Business Academic/ University Not‐for‐Profit State/ Local Government Foreign National Labs • Improve understanding of lab core competencies • Provide quantitative info to support success stories • Analyze partner type and contract preferences Categories • 23 taxonomies • >300 subcategories provide additional granularity • Categories being refined based on FY 14 results Regional Influence • Identify regional hotspots of research focus areas • Visualize global distribution and clustering of partners The FY 14 lab data call delivers the first complete set of non‐federal government agreements (SPPs, CRADAs and ACTs) for all labs and facilities

Summary of FY 15 Federal TT Agreements with National Labs Non-Classified • 2336 Agreements with 63 agencies SPP, CRADA, • $912. 6 million FY 15 Partner $ In and ACT Agreements • 75% of agreements are in the DMV Only area FY 15 Federal TT Agreements Technology Transfer Agreements with U. S. Federal Agencies The Department of Defense is the single largest contributor to the national labs, having spent nearly $172 million in FY 15 on 447 agreements Among the top 10 Federal agencies partnering with national labs, National Security projects account for 59% of all FY 15 Partner Funds In. The top 10 technology research areas account for 97% of all Partner Funds In and 94% of all agreements. Of these National Security projects, 39% ($191 million) focus on Threat/Risk/Vulnerability Assessments. Top 10 Federal Agencies (by FY 15 Partner Funds In) Dept of Defense $172 Dept of Homeland. . . $154 US Army $134 NASA $104 Dept of Health and. . . $63 Nuclear Regulatory. . . $51 Dept of State $49 US Air Force $46 US Navy $38 Environmental Protecti. . . $15 $0 energy. gov/technologytransitions Top 10 Technology Research Areas of Top 10 Federal Partners (by FY 15 Partner Funds In) National Security $486 Nuclear Medical Bioscience. . . Earth and. . . Energy Efficiency Physics Applications Power Distribution Advanced. . . Chemical Science $128 $40 $30 $24 $12 $11 $10 $0 Millions Not for public release $200 Millions $400 18

Local, Regional, and National Agreements in the Continental US Local <50 miles Regional 50 -200 miles National >200 miles 248 projects (8. 9%); $27. 5 M (8. 1% of funds) 1940 projects (69. 5%); $201. 0 M (59. 3% of funds) Argonne & Fermi PNNL Idaho Ames BNL NETL KCP NREL PPPL ORNL LANL & Sandia JLAB SRNL $ 150 Millions 262 projects (9. 4%); $33. 8 M (10. 0% of funds) $ 125 $ 150 Millions LBNL, LLNL, & SLAC $ 125 $ 150 $ 125 $ 100 $ 75 $ 50 $ 25 $1. 9 M (4) $2. 8 M (52) $29. 1 M (206) $ 25 $‐ $‐ ACT CRADA $ 50 SPP $0. 7 M (5) ACT $1. 4 M (35) CRADA $25. 5 M (208) $142. 7 M (1334) $54. 8 M (561) $ 50 $ 25 $3. 5 M (45) $‐ SPP ACT CRADA SPP Notes: Investment $ are for FY 14 partner funds in only (non-federal agreements). 12. 2% of projects were with partners located outside of the US, accounting for 22. 6% of funds. energy. gov/technologytransitions 19

Snapshot: Data Visualization by Geography – prepared for: Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee (R) Agreements U. S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations: Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Non-Classified • 92 Agreements • $7. 6 million FY 15 Partner $ SPP, CRADA, and ACT In Agreements • $2. 4 million FY 15 DOE $ In Only 31 1 National Labs working with TN Partners Partner $MM DOE $MM # Brookhaven National Laboratory $0. 05 - 3 Idaho National Laboratory Kansas City National Security Campus $0. 00 - 4 $0. 01 - 1 Los Alamos National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory $0. 12 - 3 $4. 43 $0. 25 29 $0. 05 - 2 Nevada National Security Site National Renewable Energy Laboratory $1. 03 - 2 $0. 06 - 3 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Consolidated Nuclear Security Pantex Y-12 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory $1. 25 $1. 14 28 $0. 10 - 1 $0. 09 - 3 Sandia National Laboratories energy. gov/technologytransitions $0. 19 $0. 30 6 Federal Partner $ In Non-Federal Partner $ In DOE $ Contribution 20

Snapshot: Data Visualization by Laboratory TT Activity prepared for DOE Senior Leadership Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Technology Transfer Agreement Activity in the United States Partner Type College/University Partner Types – LLNL (FY 15) Partner $MM DOE $MM # $23. 72 - 136 Foreign Govt. $0. 19 - 6 Large Business $7. 98 $1. 51 50 National Lab $0. 16 - 3 Not-for-Profit $0. 18 - 5 Other $0. 00 - 1 Research Institute $0. 81 - 15 Small Business $2. 84 $0. 05 35 State/Local U. S. Govt. $1. 39 - 8 U. S. Federal Agency $102. 50 - 217 Total $139. 77 $1. 56 476 energy. gov/technologytransitions 21

Snapshots Informing Funding Options: Opportunities in Nuclear Technology? Question: What is typical size of a nuclear R&D project? Question: What is current demand for nuclear R&D projects? FY 15 Laboratory Partnership Agreements Nuclear Partner $ / Agreements Total # by Type Partner $ In Agreemen t SPP (non$17, 679, 544 200 $88, 397 fed) SPP (fed) $130, 936, 764 249 $525, 850 CRADA ACT Total $17, 091, 651 40 $427, 291 $529, 838 21 $25, 230 $166, 237, 797 510 $325, 956 energy. gov/technologytransitions FY 15 Laboratory Partnership Agreements – Nuclear • 510 agreements globally in the “nuclear space” • 162 agreements with non‐foreign and non‐ fed partners (from 12 national labs) - $13. 9 million in FY 15 partner $ in Non-Classified SPP, CRADA, and ACT Agreements Only 22

Number of Agreements Snapshot: Benchmarking TT Activity by Lab Type and Partner 2 600 2 400 2 200 2 000 1 800 1 600 1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 - 2386 Non-fed Data on work with Other Federal Agencies first collected in FY 15 1767 U. S. Federal Agency 1264 1041 735 547 131 130 FY 14 FY 15 115 FY 14 FY 15 FY 14 217 FY 15 Single-Program Science Multi-Program Labs Science Energy Labs & Environmental National Labs. Security National. Labs Security Production Facilities energy. gov/technologytransitions 23

2 338 Local (< 50 miles) Regional (51200 miles) 644 681 FY 15 FY 14 FY 15 n/a FY 14 103 123 104 89 FY 14 FY 15 4 Re In sea st rc itu h te Sm al l. B us in es St s at e/ Lo ca l. U. G U. ov S. S. t. Ag Fed en era cy l FY 14 FY 15 FY 14 2 400 2 200 2 000 1 800 1 600 1 400 1 149 1 200 999 1 000 800 664 703 600 400 241 264 115 200 26 86 9 2 FY 14 Number of Agreements Snapshot: Labs by Proximity to Partners and Partner Type Not for public release * er th O ro fit -f or -P ab l. L na io N at e energy. gov/technologytransitions N ot s es sin Bu n ig re Fo La rg Co lle ge /U n iv Go er ity s vt College/University Foreign. Large Govt. Business National. Not-for-Profit Lab Other Research. Small Institute State/Local Business U. S. Federal Govt. Agency *Data on work with Other Federal Agencies first collected in FY 15 24

APPENDICES 25

DOE & Lab Technology Transfer Efforts: Providing Access (*Not a complete listing) Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (NE): Provides the nuclear energy community with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move new or advanced nuclear reactor designs toward commercialization. Accelerator Stewardship Test Facility Pilot (SC): Broadens public awareness of accelerator R&D capabilities at DOE’s national laboratories. Surveys the demand for accelerator R&D capabilities. Seed‐fund collaborative R&D efforts. Center for Collaboration and Commercialization (NNSA): Serves as a public face for Sandia National Laboratories, providing access to the Labs, and building linkages with the community. It can be a place where industrial, academic, and government partners interact easily and freely, outside the gates. energy. gov/technologytransitions 26

Lab-Corps - Bridging the Lab/Industry Knowledge Gap: Enhancing Capabilities of Researchers and Technology Transfer Offices Currently operated by EERE Accelerates the transfer of new technologies from National Labs into the commercial sector by training scientists how breakthrough discoveries transition into high‐impact, real‐ world technologies in the private sector • 11 National Labs • Fifth class graduates April 2017 • 64 teams, more than 64 industry mentors and more than 4500 customer discovery interviews • At least 4 teams have incorporated or launched a new small business • more than $8 million in follow‐on funding • Planning expansion to NE, FE, EM, OE and SC for 6 th class energy. gov/technologytransitions 27

Decentralized: Lab Collaboration Models Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science • • Facilitates access to scientists and engineers from across Argonne that help public and private‐sector customers turn science into solutions Maximizes the benefits of federally funded facilities by helping industry translate scientific discoveries into products that can impact people’s daily lives i-GATE Innovation Hub, near Livermore Valley Open Campus • • Founded in 2010 by the City of Livermore, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories' California site Supports technology entrepreneurs with work space, mentoring, tools and services energy. gov/technologytransitions Photo courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories 28

TT Goal: Open Access to Research Labs and Their Resources – a Rocky History – EPAct 2005, Title X, Sec 1001 Technology Transfer Working Group (Lab TT, site/field office and HQ staff) (EPAct 2005) Engaging private sector entities, including venture capital companies Energy Technology Commercialization Fund (EPAct 2005) Technology Transfer Coordinator (TTC) (EPAct 2005) (Director, Technology Transitions) Oversee expenditure allocated for technology transfer Technology Transfer Execution Plan (EPAct 2005) Technology Transfer Policy Board (DOE Senior Staff – TTC Chairs) energy. gov/technologytransitions 29

Innovating Polycrystalline Diamond Cutter As a result of this industry engagement with DOE, the use of PDC bits now dominates the oil and gas drilling industry 2010 Impact Study: NPV $7. 8 B (7% discount rate) - $18. 4 B (3% discount rate) BCR 295 to 1 (7% discount rate) - 495 to 1 (3% discount rate) Innovation Cycle of the Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Drill Bit: This figure illustrates the nonlinear nature of the cycle of innovation for the PDC drill bit, from basic research through deployment and commercialization, including many feedback loops throughout the development stages. 30

Realizing the Goal: Industry Engagement at a Crossroads ACCESS E N R O I T U A S M R O O F IN EXP 31

Office of Technology Transitions: Budget FY 2017 Budget Request: $ 8. 4 M Status of Energy and Water Appropriations Bill: • • Data Collection and Analysis Senate Status: Passed May 12, 2016 with OTT new budget line in Departmental Administration at $8. 4 M Stakeholder Engagement Evidence‐Based Evaluations House Status: OTT new budget line at $7. 0 M Current Operation Under Continuing Resolution: energy. gov/technologytransitions Statutory and Execution Plan Activities including: Energy Investment Center Support Services including: Office Requirements (space, etc. ), Software licenses, Subscriptions $ 3. 75 M 32

energy. gov/technologytransitions 33

Example TCF Awards FY 2016 Project Title Lead Laboratory Funding Program Office Topic Partners Total Budget Requested TCF Cost Share Carbon Fiber Plasma Surface Treatment Oak Ridge National Laboratory EE(AMO) Topic 2 RMX Technologies, LLC. C. A. Litzler Company, LLC. $1, 000 $500, 000 Scaled production of high octane biofuel from biomass‐deriveddimethyl ether National Renewable Energy Laboratory EE(BIO) Topic 2 Enerkem $1, 500, 000 $740, 000 Commercialization of the Sandia Cooler Sandia National Laboratory EE(Buildings) Topic 2 Wakefield‐Vette Thermal Solutions $500, 000 $250, 000 Direct Fabrication of Fuel Cell Electrodes by Brookhaven National Laboratory Electrodeposition of High‐performance Core‐shell Catalysts Frac. Man/dfn. Works: From Geological Fracture Los Alamos National Laboratory Characterization to Multiphase. Subsurface Flow and Transport Simulation EE(Fuel Cell) Topic 1 $200, 000 $100, 000 EE (GTO), NE Topic 1 Golder Associates, Inc. $330, 000 $150, 000 Commercialization of Uncertainty Prediction Tools Pacific Northwest National for Wind and Solar Energy for Probabilistic Electric Laboratory Power Grid Operations EE(Solar), OE Topic 2 California Independent System Operator (CAISO) AWS Truepower (AWST) $580, 000 $290, 000 Enhancing Lithium‐Ion Battery Safety for Vehicle Technologies and Energy Storage EE(Vehicles) Topic 1 $242, 170 $119, 005 Solid State Processing for Improved Performance of Pacific Northwest National Current and Next‐Generation Hydropower Laboratory Components Improved Wind Plant Energy Production by National Renewable Energy Application of Wind‐Plant Integrated Laboratory Systems. Engineering Model (WISDEM™) to Wind Plant Controls (A Demonstration Project) EE(Water) Topic 1 $400, 000 $200, 000 EE(Wind) Topic 2 Next. Era Energy Resources Ystrategies $500, 000 $250, 000 Cooperative Development of NETL Electrode Engineering Process for SOFC Commercialization FE Topic 2 Acumentrics $500, 512 $250, 256 Efficient Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory Situ Recovery Sites to Enable Domestic Uranium Production for Nuclear Energy NE Topic 2 Cameco Resources, Inc. $1, 400, 000 $700, 000 Demonstration of a k. W class Redox Flow Battery using an Advanced Bi‐additive Vanadium Sulfate Electrolyte OE Topic 2 ITN Energy Systems, Inc. $1, 200, 000 $600, 000 energy. gov/technologytransitions Idaho National Laboratory National Energy Technology Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 34

Technology Transfer Operating Funds at DOE Labs Lab Ames** ANL BNL Fermi. Lab INL LBNL NETL NREL ORNL PNNL PPPL** SLAC** TJNAF Reported Statutory Tech Transfer Funds ($M) 0. 11 3. 20 1. 70 0. 71 2. 02 4. 40 0. 98 4. 63 2. 56 0. 30 N/A 0. 40 Total Lab Operating Cost ($M) 58. 00 663. 40 560. 30 324. 00 697. 70 776. 00 232. 64 395. 36 1, 241. 00 982. 80 94. 00 328. 20 186. 10 [Reported %] Statutory Tech Transfer Funds as % of Total Lab Budget* 0. 20% 0. 40% 0. 03% 0. 20% 0. 50% 0. 17% 0. 27% 0. 33% 0. 28% 0. 30% N/A 0. 15% *not to exceed 0. 5 percent of the operating funds included in the Federal research and development budget (without written approval of the CO) **Labs that have technology transfer activities of their ORTA’s conducted by their university M&O energy. gov/technologytransitions 35

How do we know what the Private Sector and Others are Seeking from the DOE/National Labs? • DOE Requests for Information (RFIs) • 2008 • 2013 • 2015 PRIVATE SECTOR INPUT • Large businesses • Industry associations • Universities • Non‐profits • Laboratories DOE RFIs energy. gov/technologytransitions • Outreach • Information aggregation • Reduction of barriers • Public-Private Partnerships and risk and cost sharing • Access to facilities, expertise, technologies Consistent responses 36