Fuel Cell Material Handling: U.S. success and European growth

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Fuel Cell Material Handling: U.S. success and European growth Webinar 27th November, 2013 Celia Greaves +44 (0) 1206 241360 c.greaves@synnogy.co.uk

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Energy Generation & Supply KTN A dynamic network delivering strategic value to the UK energy sector by enabling accelerated innovation access to funding partnerships international engagement cross-sector links technology deployment

Offshore Wind Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry EG&S KTN Priority Areas Carbon Abatement Technologies Large Power Stations Nuclear Maximising Oil & Gas Resources Wave & Tidal Fuel Cells & Hydrogen Future & Emerging Opportunities

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Benefits of membership Membership of the EG&S KTN is free of charge and provides multiple benefits, including: greater awareness of developments in the energy space, particularly the cross-cutting issues the opportunity to attend regular workshops and networking events, the opportunity to participate in webinars, access to reports and other KTN materials, participation in focus working groups, and insights into new funding opportunities and key developments across the fuel cell and hydrogen landscape over 4,500 members

Events: Stimulating access to funding Fuel cells manufacturing and supply chain Competition Consortium Building Event, November 2013 Joint TSB and EG&S KTN workshops on Fuel Cell Manufacturing and Supply Chain, August / September 2013 Joint TSB, EG&S KTN and RCUK workshop on Outstanding Business and Research Challenges for Hydrogen, May 2013 Joint EG&S KTN and EU Energy Focus webinar on the FCH JU 2013 Call, March 2013 Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Events: Exploring specific themes Fuel Cell Material Handling: U.S. success and European growth- webinar, November 2013 Power to Gas: New Opportunities - webinar, March 2013 Facilitating on-line collaboration Focus work groups to support new Calls Events Expanding your reach into energy we can help you: Find new partners / build new relationships Gain deeper understanding of challenges and opportunities and how you can respond Access new funding On-line sub-groups to provide a focus for specific interests / activities Private groups to allow sharing and exchange

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel cell industry. Accelerating the commercialization of fuel cell and hydrogen energy. Helping fuel cells and hydrogen energy to become a key component of a low carbon economy reducing greenhouse gases, enhancing energy security and delivering green collar jobs. We cover: All fuel cell types and applications; The full fuel cell supply chain (from research into material science through to systems integration and distribution); Hydrogen production and storage; Hydrogen infrastructure; and Other issues around the delivery, storage and use of associated fuels. UK HFCA

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Webinar tips Please type any questions that arise during the presentations in the chat box. These will be addressed to speakers during the Q&A part of the webinar. If you face any technical difficulties please send Nikoleta a private note via the chat box by choosing her name from the list, give her a call on 07580 945008 or send an e-mail at n.piperidou@synnogy.co.uk. Please keep your microphones muted throughout the session to avoid interference.

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry This event will: Webinar objectives Provide an overview of U.S. and European developments in fuel cell material handling Explain how DOE support and other activities have helped stimulate the sector Give a commercial view of recent progress and prospects for further growth, both in the U.S. and Europe

Representing the UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Agenda 14.00pm Introduction, Celia Greaves, Energy Generation and Supply KTN and UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association 14.10pm U.S. DOE funded performance validation of fuel cell material handling deployments and current status, Jennifer Kurtz, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 14.40pm Fuel Cell Material Handling: Commercial progress and prospects for further growth in U.S. and Europe, Warren Brower, Plug Power / HyPulsion 15.10pm Q&A session 15.30pm Close

U.S. DOE Funded Performance Valida7on of Fuel Cell Material Handling Equipment UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Associa7on Webinar Jennifer Kurtz, Sam Sprik, Todd Ramsden, Genevieve Saur, Chris Ainscough, MaN Post, Mike Peters November 27, 2013 NREL is a na*onal laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

FCMHE Valida7on Overview U.S. DOE enabling early fuel cell markets Na7onal Fuel Cell Technology Evalua7on Center objec7ves FCMHE Performance Status 2

Enabling Early Markets Deployments help catalyze market penetration and ensure continued technology utilization growth while providing data and lessons learned. 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 Leveraging DOE Funds: Government as catalyst for market success of emerging technologies. DOE cost-shared deployments led to >5X additional purchases and orders. Lift Trucks ~9,000 ADDITIONAL FUEL CELL LIFT TRUCKS AND BACKUP POWER UNITS PLANNED OR INSTALLED with NO DOE funding Examples of industry* sectors in DOE ARRA projects Telecommunications (e.g. AT&T, PG&E. Sprint, etc.) Distribution Centers/Warehouses (e.g. FedEx, Genco, Sysco, Wegmans, Whole Foods, etc.) 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Lift Trucks BU Power Cost Share Deployments ~1,600 Backup Power Additional Purchases without DOE Funding ~9,000 *Provided as examples and not intended as endorsement DOE FCTO Fall 2013 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html 3 Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

The Case for Fuel Cell Forklifts Fuel cell forklifts offer several advantages compared to conventional fork lift technology Preliminary Analysis Compared to conventional forklifts, fuel cell forklifts have: 1.5 X lower maintenance cost 8 X lower refueling/recharging labor cost 2 X lower net present value of total system cost Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of PEM Fuel Celland Battery-Powered Forklifts Time for Refueling/ Changing Batteries Labor Cost of Refueling/Recharging 4-8 min/day 45-60 min/day (for battery change-outs) 8 hours (for battery recharging & cooling) $1,100/year NPV of Capital Costs $12,600 ($18,000 w/o incentives) $8,750/year $14,000 NPV of O&M Costs (including fuel) $52,000 $128,000 Published Fact Sheets & Case Studies DOE FCTO Fall 2013 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html 4 Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

NFCTEC Analysis Approach Analysis and repor7ng of real- world opera7on data NFCTEC National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_valida5on.html 5

6 Objec7ves Assess the technology status in real world operations, establish performance baselines, report on fuel cell and hydrogen technology, and support market growth by evaluating performance relevant to the markets value proposition Assess technology o o o o o Perform independent technology assessment in real world opera*on condi*ons Focus on fuel cell system and hydrogen infrastructure: performance, opera*on, and safety Leverage data processing and analysis capabili*es developed under the fuel cell vehicle Learning Demonstra*on project Evaluate material handling equipment (MHE) and backup power Analysis includes up to 1,000 fuel cell systems deployed with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds Support market growth o o Provide analyses and results relevant to the markets value proposi*on Report on technology status to fuel cell and hydrogen communi*es and other key stakeholders such as end users

12 10 8 6 4 2 250 200 150 100 50 0 Maximum Daily Fills Average Daily Fills 1 Number of Fuelings Per Hour - ARRA Station Usage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount) 1 NREL cdparra_mhe_70 Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred Created: Apr-02-13 8:52 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 Average: 7.3 per hour Median: 5.0 per hour Max: 39.0 per hour 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 NREL cdparra_mhe_68 Number of Fuelings in an Hour Created: Apr-02-13 8:25 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 100 90 80 70 60 50 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Back-to-Back Fills Histogram of Time Between Fuelings Station Capacity Utilization 36 % of fills are within 0-5 minutes of each other 23 % of fills have more than 20 minutes between them 228912 Total Fills <0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time Between Fuelings* [min] Final Pressures for Fills with <5 Minutes in Between x 104 5 4 3 2 1 Average Daily Utilization 1 Maximum Daily Utilization All Sites Combined Individual Sites 0 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 NREL cdparra_mhe_65 Final Pressure [bar] Created: Apr-02-13 8:12 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 *Time is from end of fill to start of next fill. Previous Fill Next Fill 40 42.9% 4 30 3 20 2 10 Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily Max Daily 1 20 kg 25 kg 64 kg 99 kg 102 kg 135 kg 293 kg 358 kg 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount) 0 1 Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 NREL cdparra_mhe_71 2 NREL cdparra_mhe_69 100% represents maximum daily amount dispensed for each individual site Amount Fueled in an Hour [kg] Created: Apr-02-13 10:48 AM Data Range: 2009Q4-2012Q4 Created: Apr-02-13 8:41 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 10 9 8 7 6 5 Hydrogen Dispensed Per Hour - ARRA Average: 4.8 kgs per hour Median: 3.5 kgs per hour Max: 52.5 kgs per hour NREL cdparra_mhe_72 250 200 150 100 50 Created: Apr-02-13 11:01 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 0 MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H 2 Only) Median Site Lowest Site 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 NREL cdp_mhe_67 Created: Apr-02-13 9:36 AM Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4 0 Infrastructure Maintenance by Month Unscheduled Scheduled Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NREL cdp_mhe_97 Created: Apr-02-13 9:36 AM Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4 19% 23% Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation < 10000 hours > 10000 hours Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3 1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0. Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes. In Service Not In Service 2 2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues or c) removed from DOE program. 3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours. Total Events = 1,058 1 64% unscheduled 8% NREL cdp_mhe_66 Created: Apr-02-13 9:35 AM Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4 Delivered Hydrogen Infrastructure Maintenance By Equipment Type 50% multiple systems misc 124 entire system 46 hydrogen compressor control electronics dispenser air system classified events 1 667 221 Event Count 17% 19% Total Hours = 7,080 62% unscheduled 8% 56% MISC includes the following failure modes: seal, fuel system, safety, thermal management, storage, electrical, software, fittings&piping, valves, sensors, other 12 11 10 NREL cdparra_mhe_76 Created: Sep-28-13 10:08 AM Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Equipment Category Repair Time: Infrastructure (Delivered H 2 Only) 75% Percentile Mean Median 25% Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 NREL cdparra_mhe_77 Created: Sep-30-13 12:56 PM Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2 0 Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time* HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR CONTROL ELECTRONICS DISPENSER AIR SYSTEM *Calculated as a percentage of all maintenance each month; bars may not total to 100% if other maintenance categories were present. 74 MHE CDPs Count and Category Deployment & Site Overview (1, 40) Frequency [% of total] Infra. Opera7on (3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 21, 22, 35, 37, 42, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71) # of Fuelings [% of total] # of Fuelings Simultaneous Fills Fuel Cell Durability (32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 73) Infra. Reliability (45, 48, 49, 50) Fuel Cell Opera7on (2, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 63) FC Maintenance (12, 13, 14, 43, 54, 61) FC Stacks [%] Fuel Cell Reliability (28, 29, 30, 31) Fills Per Day Capacity Utilization 2 [%] Frequency [% of total] Fuel Cell Safety (26, 27, 53, 56, 57) Infra. Safety (25, 41, 46, 51, 55) Infra. Maintenance (18, 19, 20, 44, 47, 52, 66, 67, 72,76,77) Cost of Ownership (58, 59, 60,64) NREL cdp_mhe_58 Created: Sep-23-11 4:32 PM NREL cdp_mhe_59 Created: Sep-23-11 4:32 PM MTBF (Days) AIR SYSTEM CONTROL ELECTRONICS DISPENSER FITTINGS&PIPING HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR VALVES Count of Maintenance Events Repair Labor Time (Hours) AIR SYSTEM CONTROL ELECTRONICS DISPENSER ELECTRICAL ENTIRE SYSTEM FITTINGS&PIPING FUEL SYSTEM MULTIPLE SYSTEMS HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR OTHER SAFETY SENSORS SOFTWARE STORAGE THERMAL MANAGEMENT VALVES % of Total Monthly Maintenance Labor Hours Apr-2010 Jul-2010 Oct-2010 Jan-2011 Apr-2011 Jul-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Apr-2012 Jul-2012 Oct-2012 Jan-2013 Apr-2013 7

MHE Opera7on Summary 2009 Q4 2013 Q2 8 Valida*on of MHE is based on real- world opera*on data from high- use facili*es Opera*on hours Hydrogen fills Units in opera*on* Average opera*on hours between fills Hydrogen dispensed in kg Average fill amount in kg *One project has completed Average fill *me in minutes

9 Study of FC Voltage Degrada7on Against 10,000 Hours FC Stacks [%] 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation More than 50% of stacks have projected hours to 10% voltage degrada*on >10,000 hours. In Service Not In Service 2 0% NREL cdp_mhe_97 Created: Sep-28-13 12:46 PM Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2 < 10000 hours > 10000 hours Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3 1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0. Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes. 2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues or c) removed from DOE program. 3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

Published MHE Cost of Ownership Report Cost advantage per unit is ~$2,000/year for the average high- use facility with Class I and II fuel cell li_ trucks analyzed by NREL Key Findings Total Cost of Ownership for Class I, II & III Cost Forklifts advantages 1 dependent on deployment size and use (i.e., mul*- shi_ opera*on per day) H 2 fuel cell cost advantages in maintenance, warehouse infrastructure space, and refueling labor cost H 2 fuel cell cost disadvantages in infrastructure and fuel cell cost and hydrogen cost Report Sec7ons Inputs, assump*ons, and results for Class I/II and Class III Sensi*vity study (1) Total cost represents the annualized cost of ownership of Class I, II, and III forklifts Intensive on a net present deployment value basis, accounting scenario for capital, operating, and maintenance costs of forklifts, power packs, and infrastructure (labor costs for maintenance and for charging or fueling are included, but labor costs of forklift material handling operations are excluded). Costs are calculated assuming that the material handling operations are ongoing, with equipment replacements made as necessary. Capital, operating, and maintenance costs are assumed to remain constant in real-dollar terms, and capital purchases are discounted using a discount rate representing the time value of money. Fuel cell system costs reflect the current fuel cell tax credit of $3,000/kW or 30% of purchase price. Analysis does not consider the potential productivity increases resulting from the constant power output of fuel cell systems, which may be significant. Costs of ownership of Class II forklifts are expected to be similar for Class I forklifts, though the cost of the lift itself is 10

11 Study of Infrastructure Usage by Daily Fills Station Usage Maximum Daily Fills 250 Average Daily Fills 1 Fills Per Day 200 150 The maximum daily fill count for two sites was >200 fills. Those two sites average nearly 100 fills per day. 100 50 NREL cdparra_mhe_70 Created: Sep-26-13 10:20 AM Data Range: 2009Q4-2013Q2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount) 1 Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred

12 Infrastructure Reliability Analysis Count of Sites 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Site MTBF (Calendar Days In Operation): Infrastructure Infrastructure consistently delivering 250 and 350 bar fills even though the majority of the sites have a MTBF of 25 days or less Delivered H2 Maintenance Count by Category 1,330 Maintenance Events 63% unscheduled Dispenser 19% Control Electronics 20% Air System 10% Compressor 51% 2 1 NREL cdp_mhe_48 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Created: Sep-28-13 12:45 PM Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2 1. Cumulative Mean Time Between Failure Site MTBF 1 (Days)

13 Equipment Percentage of Monthly Repair Labor Hours % of Total Monthly Maintenance Labor Hours 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Apr-2010 Jul-2010 Oct-2010 Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time* Compressor and dispenser repairs consistent over evalua*on period. Jan-2011 Apr-2011 Jul-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Apr-2012 Jul-2012 Oct-2012 Jan-2013 Apr-2013 NREL cdparra_mhe_77 Created: Sep-30-13 12:56 PM Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2 HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR CONTROL ELECTRONICS DISPENSER AIR SYSTEM *Calculated as a percentage of all maintenance each month; bars may not total to 100% if other maintenance categories were present.

Breakdown of MTBF by Key Delivered Hydrogen Infrastructure Categories 14 MTBF (Days) 250 200 150 100 MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H 2 Only) Consistent across all sites are failures with control electronics and hydrogen compressors. These two categories have low MTBF. Median Site Lowest Site 50 NREL cdparra_mhe_72 Created: Sep-26-13 10:24 AM Data Range: 2010Q1-2013Q2 0 AIR SYSTEM CONTROL ELECTRONICS DISPENSER FITTINGS&PIPING HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR SENSORS VALVES

Breakdown of Failure Modes for Top Four Maintenance Categories for Infrastructure 15 There are many different failure modes for the top four categories Failure Modes and for these Top Four modes Infrastructure provide Equipment insight Categories for RD&D needs AIR SYSTEM 10%* CONTROL ELECTRONICS 19%* DISPENSER 20%* HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR 51%* 0 100 200 300 400 Event Count AIR SYSTEM 9%* CONTROL ELECTRONICS 14%* DATA ERROR DRIVE OFF EXCESSIVE NOISE FAILED CLOSED HYDROGEN LEAK INSPECT TROUBLE ALARM OR REPORT LIGHTNING STRIKE METAL FATIGUE MOISTURE INFILTRATION OUT OF CALIBRATION PRESSURE LOW REPLACE FAILED PARTS TEMPERATURE HIGH MISC DISPENSER 18%* HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR 58%* NREL cdp_mhe_52 Created: Sep-26-13 9:51 AM Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Labor Hours MISC includes the following failure modes: ambient temperature too low, broken wire, cavitation, data error, debris infiltration, electrical short, failed closed, false alarm, flow high, flow low, fluid leak non-hydrogen, fluid leak non_hydrogen, fluid leak_non_hydrogen, inspect trouble alarm or report, maintenance error, manufacturing defect, metal fatigue, moisture infiltration, network malfunction, operator protocol, other, power outage, pressure high, pressure low, replace failed parts, software bug, unspecified electronics failure, vandalism, voltage low, other * Percentage of total events or hours, reference CDP 66.

MHE and Infrastructure Safety Report Analyses Majority of MHE safety reports (217) are minor hydrogen leaks (4,480 stack hours per report) y: ARRA MHE Safety Reports By Equipment Category: Infrastructure Majority of infrastructure safety reports (82) are hydrogen leaks primarily from the hydrogen compressor and plumbing (2,879 kg dispensed per report) ber of ReportsBy Number of Incidents Miss Reports = 71 hydrogen compressor Total Incidents = 7 nt 14% 14% 14% Electrical FC Stack 48% Fikngs & Piping Fuel System 14% 29% dispenser Control Electronics Operator Protocol fittings & piping seal valves reformer 14% Misc By Number of Incidents Total Incidents = 21 5% 5% Compressor Valves Dispenser 90% the following categories: An INCIDENT is an event that results in: 16

17 Technical Summary What We ve Learned Opera*ng with an average availability of ~98% at eight end- user facili*es. Most systems operate at least 6 hours a day. Cost of ownership comparison between fuel cell and balery MHE indicate significant cost savings for refueling labor and infrastructure space but much greater cost for hydrogen infrastructure and fuel. MHE infrastructure can provide insight into infrastructure performance for the light duty vehicle applica*on. Aggregated data showcase performance over the last two years in MHE and backup power. Performance results address a need for published results on the technology status. Data analyses develop as systems operate and based on the key performance areas in the markets.

This project is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Fuel Cell Technology Office EERE, Jason Marcinkoski, Sara Dillich, & Pete Devlin Image Source: NREL Jennifer Kurtz jennifer.kurtz @ nrel.gov 18

Fuel Cell Material Handling: U.S. Success & European Growth Warren Brower, November 27, 2013 The content of this presentation is PLUG POWER INC. PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL. Copyright 2013 by Plug Power Inc. 1 1

This communication contains statements that are not historical facts and are considered forward-looking within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. These forward-looking statements contain projections of our future results of operations or of our financial position or state other forward-looking information. We believe that it is important to communicate our future expectations to our investors. However, there may be events in the future that we are not able to accurately predict or control and that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in our forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on forward-looking statements because they involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed as a result of various factors, including, but not limited to: the risk that we continue to incur losses and might never achieve or maintain profitability, the risk that we expect we will need to raise additional capital to fund our operations and such capital may not be available to us; the risk that we do not have enough cash to fund our operations to profitability and if we are unable to secure additional capital, we may need to reduce and/or cease our operations; the risk that a "going concern opinion from our auditors, KPMG LLP, could impair our ability to finance its operations through the sale of equity, incurring debt, or other financing alternatives; the recent restructuring plan we adopted may adversely impact management s ability to meet financial reporting requirements; our lack of extensive experience in manufacturing and marketing products may impact our ability to manufacture and market products on a profitable and large-scale commercial basis; the risk that unit orders will not ship, be installed and/or converted to revenue; the risk that pending orders may not convert to purchase orders; the risk that our continued failure to comply with NASDAQ s listing standards may result in our common stock being delisted from the NASDAQ stock market, which may severely limit our ability to raise additional capital; the cost and timing of developing, marketing and selling our products and our ability to raise the necessary capital to fund such costs; the ability to achieve the forecasted gross margin on the sale of our products; the actual net cash used for operating expenses may exceed the projected net cash for operating expenses; the cost and availability of fuel and fueling infrastructures for our products; market acceptance of our GenDrive systems; our ability to establish and maintain relationships with third parties with respect to product development, manufacturing, distribution and servicing and the supply of key product components; the cost and availability of components and parts for our products; our ability to develop commercially viable products; our ability to reduce product and manufacturing costs; our ability to successfully expand our product lines; our ability to improve system reliability for our GenDrive systems; competitive factors, such as price competition and competition from other traditional and alternative energy companies; our ability to protect our intellectual property; the cost of complying with current and future federal, state and international governmental regulations; and other risks and uncertainties discussed under Item IA Risk Factors in Plug Power s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) on April 1, 2013 and as amended on April 30, 2013 and the reports Plug Power filed from time to time with the SEC. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which the statements were made and are not guarantees of future performance. Except as may be required by applicable law, we do not undertake or intend to update any forward-looking statements after the date of this communication. 2

Premier System Integrator of PEM Fuel Cells Leader in development and production of clean, commercial energy solutions for the material handling industry. Founded in June 1997 World class manufacturing facility in upstate NY Over 150 employees 152 issued patents Over 5,000 GenDrive fuel cell units in the field, accumulating over 20 M hours runtime Plug Power holds over 90% of the fuel cell market in the material handling industry European Expansion through the JV with Air Liquide 3

Plug Power: Poised for Profitability Today s focus: material handling market Endorsed via an investment by Air Liquide, a leading industrial gas firm Significant and new customers are buying Quality problems behind us EBITDA profitability within reach Success in materials transport is generating interest (and development funds) from adjacent markets This is the first step toward Plug Power s long-term goal to displace lead-acid batteries and diesel engines in a broad array of applications. 4

HyPulsion - European Joint Venture Created 2012 Luc VANDEWALLE Warren BROWER Paul DEPREZ Sosthene GRANDJEAN Camille VRIGNAUD Arnaud CERCEAU Michael NINDEL Ranjieve WILLIAMS US Engineers : Managing Director : Product, Marketing, OEM Director : Sales & After Sales Director : Program Management : Customer Support Service Technician : Operations & Manufacturing : Business Dev. Germany : Engineering Director European Team : 7 Design Engineers (Plug Power)

HyPulsion JV is Bearing Fruit HyPulsion has completed one year of business and product development activities Shipment of product has begun in multiple countries with multiple OEMs Market opportunity greater than North America 9 CE certified products with multiple configurations available for deployment Collaboration projects in place with 7 fork lift OEMs Includes Jungheinrich, TMHE, Linde/Fenwick, Still, Crown, NACCO, Airmarrel 6

GenDrive GenDrive Products Benefits Operational Benefits Counterbalanced Trucks Increased Productivity Reduced Operational Costs Reach Trucks Additional Commercial Space Reduced Carbon Emissions Rider Order Picking Trucks

Total Power Solution Hydrogen Infrastructure Delivery, Storage and Compression on exterior Dispensing Performed by operators in convenient location (part of work flow) Three step process < 3 minutes Data collection cable De-watering hose Hydrogen nozzle Multiple locations if needed Opportunity filling Eliminates drive time and queuing Mobile Hydrogen Solution for Demonstration

Applications and Markets Full suite of GenDrive fuel cell products to meet material handling customer needs SAM Address 40% of today s TAM* Market Opportunity* Address greenfield/brownfield sites in the markets: Retail and Food Distribution Manufacturing Potential for market expansion into Asia *SAM: Serviceable Addressable Market TAM: Total Available Market 9

Expanding the Opportunity in the $20B Material Handling Industry North American shipments have been isolated to 40% of the total fork truck population Segment Experience Hydrogen Solutions Market Size QTY* Market Size USD** North America Large 6 Years (1 Year onsite generation) Delivery with on-site liquefied storage Large on-site generation w/ gaseous storage 15% (~180 K) Medium 6 Years (1 Year onsite generation) Delivery with on-site liquefied or gaseous storage Small on-site generation w/ gaseous storage 25% (~300 K) $ 4.2 Billion Small 1-3 Years Delivery with gaseous storage Small on-site generation w/gaseous storage 20% (~240 K) Retail Under development Under development 40% (~480 K) Europe All 1 Year AL advanced hydrogen fueling stations ~1,700 K $5.7 Billion Japan & China All N/A Under review N / A $7.8 Billion ROW All N/A Under review N / A $2.1 Billion Low-cost Hydrogen Infrastructure is Crucial to Expansion * Sources: Analysis of Industrial Truck Association data, JVIA, and ongoing management discussions with OEM s 10

NA Customer Base Continues to Grow 44 total site deployments with 24 different customers 29 brownfield sites 15 greenfield sites More than 5,000 units shipped >8,000 fills per day by customer More than 5,000 kg of H 2 dispensed per day 11

European Customer Traction Growing High Throughput Distribution Centers Consumer & Retail Distribution Centers Manufacturing Facilities

Future Market Expansion Targeting adjacent markets that have the same dynamics as materials handling Ground Support Equipment 60,000 units deployed Big Rig Transportation Refrigeration Units 290,000 units deployed Range extenders for heavy-duty electric vehicles President Obama target: 1M electric vehicles by 2015 Charlatte BTT Significant development funds provided by external agencies DOE: grant for Bridge Terminal Transport tuggers (BTT) $2.5 Million Transportation Refrigeration Unit NYSERDA: $500,000 for TRUs DOE RFP: planned application for range extenders Heavy Duty Electric Car 13