Ranking Criteria
In keeping with the mission of the Carbon War Room, which seeks to facilitate market-based gigaton-scale CO2 reductions within the decade, we have established Economic Viability, Scalability and Sustainability as the three principal criteria on which we evaluate renewable jet fuel supply chain companies. The sub-criteria for each of these principal criteria are listed below with examples of some of the indicators used to determine sub-criteria scores.

Stars & Updates
Companies are scored under each criterion and sub-criterion with one, two, or three stars. These are relative scores, meaning the top one third of companies for a given criterion will be awarded three stars, the middle third will be awarded two stars, and so on. As companies, technologies, the market, and the Elsevier Biofuel TechSelect database evolve, the relative positions of each company under each criterion will shift accordingly.

Omissions
In releasing a beta website with company rankings we are drawing initial conclusions based on rapidly changing information from the Elsevier Biofuel TechSelect database. We invite: (1) input that updates or completes company/product information already in the database, and (2) input regarding companies/products that we do not currently have. To be included in the database, please visit our information provider partner website techselect.elsevier-biofuel.com.

If a company does not appear in our rankings there are six possible reasons why:

1. It was ranked and did not make our top ten list;
2. We were unaware of a company working towards producing sustainable renewable jet fuel;
3. We are aware of the company but it is too early stage to rank (e.g. pre-pilot plant);
4. It declined to share data with us and public sources of information were not sufficient to do a valid ranking;
5. We were not able to reach the company or find sufficient publicly available information; or
6. The company plays a role in the supply chain not conducive to side by side ranking comparisons (e.g. companies that license certain technologies to a number of fuel producers who were ranked).

To find out more information about which companies were ranked and which data were made publicly available, go to the Elsevier Biofuel TechSelect database.

Cost of Production
Projected production costs over the near-mid term. Greater weight is assigned to customer/market/third party-validated production cost figures.

Capital Intensity
Projected capital costs normalized for 100 million gallons (378,541,178 liters) per year output, and scale threshold for commercial viability. A lower capital intensity receives a higher score.

Market Risk
Competition/insulation from competitive markets for the company’s target and intermediate products (e.g. demand from food or cosmetic markets, demand for power generation, etc.)

Technology Risk/Maturity
Stage and scale of technology demonstration relative to scale required for commercialization; duration of operation at said scale; third party verification and validation of technology.

Funding
Demonstrated access to funding. Companies with strong capital partnerships and/or lower funding requirements ranked higher.

Resource Constraints
Measure of agro-climatic and geographic constraints on land for suitable production. Measure of potential feedstock volumes taking into consideration potential logistical and market constraints.

Yields
Measure of yields as a function of inputs, and yields achievable per unit of land. Companies with greater yield potential and/or fewer geographic/feedstock constraints score higher.

GHG LCA
A measure of both GHG reductions relative to the fossil fuel baseline, and of the degree to which the LCA has been validated (peer reviewed study, RSB calculation & audit, in-house study, etc.).

Sustainability Certification
A measure of percentage of operations/products of total that are certified, and of the type of certification achieved. RSB certification of all products/operations most desirable, then other multi-stakeholder standards (Bonsucro, RTRS, FSC, etc.), then industry- or internally-developed standards. Government-mandated sustainability requirements (RFSII, RED) given due consideration.

Food Security
Competition with food supply undesirable – both a function of edibility of feedstocks, and competition with arable land.

Land Use Change
A measure of the degree to which high carbon and/or biodiverse land use is used in the company’s operations – directly or indirectly, and the degree to which their land use impacts have been verified in one way or the other.

Fresh Water Impacts
A measure of the company’s fresh water use as a function of its output; the degree to which this water use occurs in fresh-water sensitive areas; and any water quality impacts.