Joint All COS Staff MeetingGeneral Motors GM Renewable & Energy Efficiency “Successes & Strategies" September 16, 2009

Joint All COS Staff MeetingGeneral Motors

GM Renewable & Energy Efficiency GM Renewable & Energy Efficiency “Successes & Strategies"“Successes & Strategies"

September 16, 2009September 16, 2009


GM’s Renewable Energy Overview• Benefits

– Grow renewable energy portfolio on a global basis to support GM Environmental Principles– All projects must meet economic sustainability criteria, GM management will only approve

projects that bring economic benefit to GM– Include diversity of Renewable Sources

• Landfill Gas/Biomass• Solar• Wind • Small Hydro

• Strategy– Demonstrates Environmental Stewardship of GM in a Sustainable Manner– Reduces energy costs, acts as future hedge against increased costs or shortages– Provides positive image– GM’s renewable program driven to redefine the technology and economics of completing

renewable projects– Technology demonstration and project economic model have benefited others


GMNA Current Renewable Portfolio• LFG

– 2nd Largest Corporate User of LFG for Thermal Energy

• Solar – First public solar power project in US over 1mW, GM Rancho Cucamonga SPO

facility (outside of govt. private, or research related activities) July 2006– Commissioned 2nd roughly 1mW solar installation at the Fontana SPO facility on

12/17/07– Commissioned world’s largest solar roof top array at GM’s Zaragoza, Spain

Assembly Plant. Total size of the array is nearly 12mW

• Global Expansion– Reviewing other opportunities globally to expand the use of solar at GM facilities

through the Global BPD Initiative 04-14


= Landfill Gas

= Hydro

= Solar (Photovoltaic)

= Biomass

Installations - In Place

Flint, MIFlint, MIFlint, MIFlint, MI

Grand Blanc, MIGrand Blanc, MIGrand Blanc, MIGrand Blanc, MI

Fort Wayne, INFort Wayne, INFort Wayne, INFort Wayne, IN

Rancho Cucamonga, CARancho Cucamonga, CARancho Cucamonga, CARancho Cucamonga, CA

Fontana, CAFontana, CAFontana, CAFontana, CA

MexicoMexicoMexicoMexico

Shreveport, LAShreveport, LAShreveport, LAShreveport, LA

Toledo, OHToledo, OHToledo, OHToledo, OH

Lake Orion, MILake Orion, MILake Orion, MILake Orion, MI

Zaragoza, SpainZaragoza, SpainZaragoza, SpainZaragoza, Spain

GM Renewable InstallationsGM Renewable Installations

BrazilBrazilBrazilBrazil


Facilities EnergyGMNA Renewable Energy Portfolio and Cost Savings

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ren

ewab

le E

ner

gy

as %

of

To

tal

.

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Cu

mm

ula

tive

Sav

ing

s $

(mil)

.

PT Toledo LFG

GMVM Orion LFG

GMVM Ft Wayne LFG

Flint SPO GP +Shreveport LFG

GMVM OKC LFG

Fontana Solar + Shreveport LFG Exp &

Reduction @ Oklahoma

% Renewable

Cumulative CostSavings $(mil)

Actuals thru 1-2-2008

GMM Hydro+Cucamonga Solar

Future Project Projections

GMNA >2.5% Renewable Energy

Zaragoza, Spain Photovoltaic at 12 MW

Facilities EnergyGMNA Renewable Energy Portfolio & Cost

Savings


LFG Program2nd Largest Industrial User

Wellhead


USUS


• GM has significant Solar Portfolio– 1 MW – SPO Cucamonga, CA – 2006– 1 MW – SPO Fontana, CA – Dec 2007– 12 MW – Zaragoza, Spain – Sept 2008

• Achieved Leadership in Solar Renewable Energy• Solar Opportunity Growing

Solar Portfolio


Source: World Resources Institute

USUS

General Motors

Facility Energy Contribution to GM’s Environmental Image

12 MW Roof Top Installation


Business

Sunny Side Up

Photograph by Jill Connelly for The New York Times By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH Published: October 21, 2006

General Motors liked the idea of using the sun to power its buildings. But until recently, one immutable economic fact held G.M. back: The upfront costs were simply too high to justify the ultimate payoff.

A property manager examines the photovoltaic cells on the roof of a General Motors warehouse in Cucamonga, Calif. The cells have the capacity to generate as much as 1.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year.

Positive PR


• Energy Sufficiency & Best Practices

• EMS Energy OnStar

• ESPI Program– Expense Type Projects

– Multiple Locations

– Single Supplier for Development, Engineering & Implementation

• Project Types– Paint shop optimization – Building ventilation– Process - Utility optimization thru integration

Energy Efficiency Improvements


ESPI ProjectsOven DVT

Booth


Plant Initiative Implemented Savings $

Moraine Oven Optimization Initiatives January, 2007 800,600

Pontiac Oven Optimization Initiatives January, 2007 1,817,000

"B 2 B" (Capital Project)

Cascade Building Air to Booth ASH Units at: Oshawa, LDT and LGR

September, 2007 2,800,000

Ft. Wayne Oven Optimization Initiatives

Cascade Observe Exhaust to Clear Coat ASH'sDecember, 2007 1,702,300

WilmingtonDowndraft Reduction Prep & Observe - Cascade Building Air to One (1) Mod - By-Pass Washer #1, Dry-off & Sealer Ovens

December, 2007 200,000

Arlington Robot Bell Compressed Air Control Shut Down,

Idle Durr Abatement EquipmentDecember, 2007 250,000

2007 Estimated Savings ** 8,824,900

**Savings will be Achieved during the 12 Months immediately following completion of each project

2007 Annual Savings – ESPI Paint Process Projects


Structural Cost – ESPI / CESPI Financials


Capital ESPI

– Similar to ESPI, except that major components of these projects are capital

– Similar in implementation process-PRM

– Carried in project forecast and WFG project targets whereas ESPI projects are not as they are funded from budget


CESPI-Bedford Melt Project

– Melt initiative focused on improving melting process inside the fence.

– A capital project funded by WFG replaced five existing furnaces with one modern, flexible, energy efficient furnace and total savings are being tracked at $5.3 million per year level.

– Since start of the furnace in April 2007, energy savings are at $2.6 million per year.

– Project also achieved a $1.8 million per year savings in productive materials as the furnace can use waste aluminum chips as input material.


CESPI-Bedford Melt Project9/10/2007

Starting Project Goal Actual Change Change %

of GoalProjected Savings

Annual Savings Actual

Natural Gas Usage (mcf/yr)

859,200 624,820 596,000 263200 112.30% $2,590,000 $2,626,736

Melting Personnel

36 31.5 29 7 155.56% $540,000 $840,000

Melt Materials (#/day Chips)

100,000 175,000 168,604 68604 91.47% $1,990,000 $1,820,293

$5,120,000 $5,287,029

$4,520,000Approved Project Funding


Questions?

The End

Documents

Joint All COS Staff MeetingGeneral Motors GM Renewable & Energy Efficiency “Successes & Strategies" September 16, 2009