administrative · web viewcommission staff expects each project to vary and require different...

Pre-application Questions and Answers for Solicitation GFO-18-302:

Production Scale-Up for Clean Energy Technologies

Written for:

Solicitation GFO-18-302 Applicants

Written By:

Energy Development and Market Facilitation Office

California Energy Commission

Date: February 2019

of 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Administrative.............................................................................................................................................4

General Solicitation Information.................................................................................................................6

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..............................................................................................7

Intellectual Property....................................................................................................................................7

Applicant Eligibility....................................................................................................................................10

Project Eligibility........................................................................................................................................12

Validity of Technology...............................................................................................................................14

Technology Eligibility.................................................................................................................................16

Use of California Energy Commission’s Funds...........................................................................................19

Match Funding...........................................................................................................................................21

Scoring.......................................................................................................................................................25

Awarding...................................................................................................................................................27

of 27

Administrative

1. QUESTION: Will the workshop presentation be available for the public?

RESPONSE: Yes, the workshop presentation and all documents for GFO-18-302 will be located at this link: https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic.html#GFO-18-302.

2. QUESTION: What is the range of time for projects in this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Commission staff expects each project to vary and require different timeframes to achieve the goals of the solicitation and the individual project. However, as stated in, Section I.G “Key Activities Schedule” of the solicitation manual, all projects must be scheduled to be completed by March 31, 2022. Projects are allowed to be completed before this date.

3. QUESTION: The anticipated project agreement’s end date is March 31, 2022. Can the project be complete before that date?

RESPONSE: Yes, please refer to response given in Question #2.

4. QUESTION: What is the California Energy Commission’s process to releasing funds to the recipient?

RESPONSE: After proposals are submitted, evaluated, and scored, a Notice of Proposed Award will be posted at this link: https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic.html#GFO-18-302 as well as distributed to the EPIC listserv. Grant agreements based on the proposals submitted by the proposed awardees will be developed between Commission staff and recipient’s staff. The agreements will be brought to an Energy Commission Business Meeting for formal approval. If approved, the agreements must then be executed by the recipient and the Energy Commission.

The grant funds throughout the agreement term are paid out on a reimbursement basis, so the recipient will incur the cost and then invoice the Energy Commission. The Energy Commission reimburses the recipient if the costs are allowable under the agreement budget and the terms and conditions. See Section 8 of the terms and conditions for more information: https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic_terms_segmented/EPIC_Standard_Grant_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

5. QUESTION: Is the recipient required to prepay for all grant project’s expenditures or are there exceptions for the California Energy Commission to front the funds beforehand? If there are exceptions, please provide examples.

RESPONSE: Yes, the recipient is required to incur the cost of the project prior to invoicing the Energy Commission for payment. Please refer to response given in

of 27

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic_terms_segmented/EPIC_Standard_Grant_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic_terms_segmented/EPIC_Standard_Grant_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic.html#GFO-18-302



Question #4. The only exception is if a subcontractor on the project is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory. In that case, advance payments of grant funds can be made to the laboratory, under the terms listed in the EPIC terms and conditions for Department of Energy grants listed here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/pier.html#epicterms

6. QUESTION: In the application, is it necessary for the applicant to identify all specific contractors, subcontractors and dedicated staff that it intends to use to fulfill the grant’s scope of work?

RESPONSE: Applicants should provide as much information as possible about the project and the project team. The Energy Commission understands that some staff or contractors may not be known at the time of application – these can be identified with a “TBD” placeholder. However, please note that team qualifications are part of the scoring criteria. Therefore, if less information is provided in the application about team qualifications it could result in a lower score for that scoring criterion. See Section F Stage Two: Application Scoring, scoring criterion 4 of the solicitation manual for more information.

7. QUESTION: The California Energy Commission states in the Grant Funding Opportunity Solicitation Manual, Section I.A. that “all submitted documents will become publicly available records upon the posting of the Notice of Proposed Award.” How does the California Energy Commission make these documents available, and are they attached to the Notice of Proposed Award?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission does not post proposal applications to its website or distribute through other means and the applications are not attached to the Notice of Proposed Award. However, application documents submitted to the California Energy Commission for this solicitation as well as documents submitted to the Energy Commission as part of the grant project throughout the term of the grant agreement will be available to the public upon request. For more information on public records requests, please visit the following link: https://www.energy.ca.gov/public_records/.

8. QUESTION: If the project is started after the recipient applies for this solicitation, but before the award is granted to the recipient, will any funds spent towards the project in that time period be reimbursed if granted the award?

RESPONSE: No, any funds applied to the project before the agreement has been executed will not be reimbursed by the Energy Commission. Please refer to Section III.D 7. “Budget Forms” of the solicitation manual for more information. All project costs for which a recipient seeks reimbursement must be incurred during the term of the grant agreement.

of 27

https://www.energy.ca.gov/public_records/

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/pier.html#epicterms

General Solicitation Information

9. QUESTION: If we are applying for federal funding, will this be an issue while applying for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: No, applicants are allowed to apply for federal funding while applying for this solicitation. However, please note that federal funds cannot be used as match funding if the federal funds have not been awarded to the recipient yet. Please refer to Section I.F 2. “Match Funding Requirements” of the solicitation manual for more information about match funding.

10. QUESTION: Is the funding received in this solicitation coming from federal funds or state funds?

RESPONSE: Funds awarded from this solicitation are funded by the Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC), which are state funds. EPIC funds are collected from the electricity ratepayers of California’s three largest investor-owned utilities (IOUs) – Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company.

11. QUESTION: If an applicant is awarded this grant, can the recipient apply for and receive other EPIC grants from different solicitations that fund different activities (e.g. the construction costs of a demonstration project)?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as the other solicitations do not prohibit awardees from this solicitation from applying. Please also note that EPIC funds cannot be used as match funding for other EPIC awards.

12. QUESTION: The solicitation says, “In accordance with CPUC Decision 12-05-037, funds administered by the Energy Commission may not be used for any purposes associated with local publicly owned electric utility activities.” Does this preclude applicants from partnering with a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) in the territory of PG&E, SCE, or SDG&E on deployment?

RESPONSE: No, this does not preclude CCA’s from participating in the project. CCA’s are eligible to be subcontractors or project partners to the project.

13. QUESTION: Should applicants focus more on the Attachment 4 – Project Narrative Form to make proposals about uncertain technologies that may qualify for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Yes, if an applicant believes its technology fits within one of the eligible technology groups listed in Section II.B 2 “Project Focus” of the solicitation manual, the applicant should use Attachment 4 to illustrate to the scoring team how it fits.

of 27

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

14. QUESTION: Regarding CEQA compliance, if the applicant is using a California-based contract manufacturer that is CEQA compliant, does applicant need any additional compliance documentation?

RESPONSE: Yes, all applicants must include a completed Attachment 8 – CEQA Compliance Form in their application. Please refer to Section III. D 8. “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Form” in the solicitation manual and Attachment 8 for complete details.

15. QUESTION: This solicitation gave an emphasis on CEQA and timing. Can the Energy Commission elaborate more about the concerns about this topic? Should applicants not apply if there is any environmental impact during the project?

RESPONSE: Applicants do not need to identify a manufacturing site or location for a pilot production line at the time of application. This should reduce the need for complex or time consuming CEQA analysis. Applicants can select such sites during the term of the agreement. Utilizing pre-existing facilities or structures typically qualify for CEQA exemptions and is another way to mitigate the need for lengthy CEQA reviews.

Intellectual Property

16. QUESTION: If no Intellectual Property (IP) is owned, does that technology and commercial potential still qualify?

RESPONSE: Yes, however the applicant must demonstrate in the proposal that they have the rights to commercialize the technology.

17. QUESTION: What is the percentage of ownership rights for companies to be eligible for the program? If applicants do not have 100% ownership, are they not eligible? What is the threshold?

RESPONSE: There is no threshold set in the rules of this solicitation for applicants as to ownership rights to the intellectual property. The Energy Commission would like to see that the applicant has the ability and rights to take the technology and commercialize it without conflict from another entity.

18. QUESTION: How does the California Energy Commission define IP rights? Patents applications through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)? Awarded? Defended?RESPONSE: Please refer to response given in Questions #17 and #19.

of 27

19. QUESTION: What are the IP provisions likely to be (California Energy Commission’s IP licensing requirements)? Where can applicants find this information in the solicitation manual?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission’s intellectual property (IP) provisions can be found in the standard Terms and Conditions for EPIC grants, linked here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/pier.html#epicterms, IP is covered in sections 19-21.

Applicants are encouraged to read those sections in full to understand how the receipt of a grant could affect rights to the project IP. In short, grant recipients own all intellectual property developed under the grant agreement. However, if grant funds or match funds are used to create, conceive, discover, make, develop, alter, or reduce to practice the IP during or after the Agreement term certain rights to that IP will accrue to the Energy Commission. These rights include a right to royalty payments if the IP is sold, licensed, leased or otherwise transferred and a right to license the IP for governmental purposes.

Prior to execution of the grant agreement, awardees will be asked to identify any “pre-existing IP” the awardee (or its subcontractors) already owns. The Energy Commission makes no ownership, license or royalty claims to pre-existing IP. However, pre-existing IP only retains its identification as pre-existing IP if grant funds or match funds are not used to create, conceive, discover, make, develop, alter, or reduce to practice the pre-existing IP during or after the Agreement term. If grant funds or match funds are used to create, conceive, discover, make, develop, alter, or reduce to practice the pre-existing IP then certain rights to that IP will accrue to the Energy Commission. These rights include a right to royalty payments if the IP is sold, licensed, leased or otherwise transferred and a right to license the IP for governmental purposes.

20. QUESTION: If the applicant owns the IP, does the IP ownership stay with the company? For instance, if the company has an issued patent, does the California Energy Commission support the monopoly guaranteed by the patent office?

RESPONSE: Please refer to response given in Question #19.

21. QUESTION: If an IP is developed during the execution of the scope of work for this grant, will IP ownership be retained by the applicant, or will other entities (such as the California Energy Commission) have a claim over the new IP?

RESPONSE: Applicants retain ownership of the IP developed during the term of the agreement, however, the Energy Commission would receive certain rights to the IP including a right to royalty payments if the IP is sold, licensed, leased or otherwise

of 27

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/pier.html#epicterms

transferred, and a right to license the IP for governmental purposes. For additional information, please refer to response given in Question #19.

22. QUESTION: Would the California Energy Commission want rights for any new IP developed under the grant? Would the awardee company need to disclose patents and trade secrets that the applicant already owns?

RESPONSE: As to the first question, please refer to response given in Question #19.

As to the second question, if the awardee wants to identify an IP it already owns as “pre-existing IP” the awardee will be asked to fill out a form that lists any patent number, copyrights or trademark/service mark applicable to that IP. The awardee will not be asked to disclose trade secrets. The Energy Commission makes no ownership, license or royalty claims to pre-existing IP. However, pre-existing IP only retains its identification as pre-existing IP if grant funds or match funds are not used to create, conceive, discover, make, develop, alter, or reduce to practice the pre-existing IP during or after the Agreement term. If grant funds or match funds are used to create, conceive, discover, make, develop, alter, or reduce to practice the pre-existing IP then certain rights to that IP will accrue to the Energy Commission. These rights include a right to royalty payments if the IP is sold, licensed, leased or otherwise transferred and a right to license the IP for governmental purposes.

23. QUESTION: Does the California Energy Commission seek to gain rights to any of the intellectual property created during and after the grant period?


24. QUESTION: Does the recipient have the right to keep certain findings, inventions, and other information related to work done during the grant period from being released to the public and to deem such confidential and proprietary? If so, how is this process managed by the CEC to ensure confidentiality?

RESPONSE: Recipients may be able to keep certain findings, inventions, and other information related to work done during the grant period from being released to the public but must have a legal basis for doing so.

The grant agreement’s Scope of Work determines what deliverables are provided to the Energy Commission during the term of the agreement. These deliverables are subject to public disclosure if a request comes to the Energy Commission for the deliverable. However, Energy Commission staff does not intend or want the information in the deliverables to discuss findings, inventions, etc. in a way that could affect the competitive advantage the recipient has because of the information. Deliverables should be described in the Scope of Work with this intent in mind.

of 27

Further, if the recipient believes that certain deliverables will have confidential information included, and the recipient believes they have a legal basis to keep that information confidential, the recipient will be given a chance to assert that basis prior to execution of the grant agreement.

Applicant Eligibility

25. QUESTION: If an applicant’s company is already receiving EPIC funds via an existing award, is the applicant still eligible to apply/submit a proposal for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Yes, the applicant’s company is still eligible to apply for this solicitation. The work scope proposed for this solicitation must be distinct from the applicant’s current EPIC award. Please note that California Energy Commission funds (including EPIC) cannot be used for match funding.

26. QUESTION: If the applicant is an existing company, but have a new product geared for energy efficiency, is the applicant eligible?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as there is not an existing production line for the new product/technology. This solicitation is for companies without established production lines for the associated technology.

27. QUESTION: Regarding the statement that "Companies with established production lines are not eligible for this solicitation"...does this refer to companies with any established production lines at all, or only to companies with established production lines for the new technology / product for which grant funding is being sought?


28. QUESTION: We are a social enterprise with for-profit programs within the non-profit entity and a part of our innovation is to show that renewable energy can be produced and delivered in a non-profit model. Why are only for-profits allowed to submit applications?

RESPONSE: The focus of this solicitation is on supporting companies actively looking to commercialize innovative technologies. Non-profits are still eligible to participate as subcontractors or project partners.

29. QUESTION: Is a company eligible for award if they are already in the early stages of manufacture?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as there is not an established production line for the associated technology, and the technology has not already entered the low-rate initial production stage.

of 27

30. QUESTION: Given that startups move quickly, should applicants consider if they are at Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 7 today or be at MRL 7 when funds are disbursed?

RESPONSE: Applicants do not need to be at a MRL 7 in order to qualify for this solicitation. Applicants must demonstrate in proposals that the technology is mature enough, and they have a feasible plan, to reach MRL 8 by the end of the agreement. which must be by March 31, 2022. There is not a specific starting MRL that is required for this solicitation.

31. QUESTION: Department of Defense MRL 7 was mentioned as the level at which applicants should be in order to successfully apply. In practice, MRL 7 is quite specific so is the requirement that applicants should generally demonstrate readiness for the award and document their ability to get to MRL 8 as a result of the award or is MRL 7 a literal, check-the-boxes type of requirement for applicants?

RESPONSE: MRL 7 is not a requirement for applicants to qualify for this solicitation. Please refer to the response given in Question #30.

32. QUESTION: Can an applicant manufacture outside California and still be eligible?

RESPONSE: Any direct manufacturing activities or any pilot production lines that are established as a result of activities funded under this solicitation must be located in California. An addendum to the solicitation manual will be made to the solicitation manual to reflect this requirement.

33. QUESTION: Is funding applicable if the system is already designed to avoid the Valley of Death, but has other operational issues that need to be resolved?

RESPONSE: Yes, however applicants will need to describe in their proposal how these operational issues can be addressed through production scale-up. Proposed projects for technology development or demonstration are not eligible for this solicitation.

34. QUESTION: We are in prototype phase of manufacturing a gas turbine, but it is not completed yet. Are we still eligible to apply or we should have prototype first?

RESPONSE: Applicants must demonstrate in proposals that the technology is mature enough, and they have a feasible plan, to reach MRL 8 by the end of the agreement which must be by March 31, 2022. Please note, that gas turbines are not an approved technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section I. A for all approved technologies for this solicitation.

35. QUESTION: Must the grant recipient be a business located in California for any funds spent on materials or equipment to be considered “funds spent in California?” If so, would the grant recipient be considered a business located in California if it were

of 27

headquartered out of state, but had an office in California that is registered with the California Secretary of State?

RESPONSE: Funds “spent in California” means that: (1) Funds under the “Direct Labor” category and all categories calculated based on direct labor (Prime and Subcontractor Labor Rates) are paid to individuals who pay California state income taxes on wages received for work performed under the agreement; and/or (2) Business transactions (e.g., material and equipment purchases, leases, rentals, and contractual work) are entered into with a business located in California.

Therefore, for materials or equipment purchases, the consideration is whether the entity selling the materials or equipment is located in California. “Located in California” for the purposes of the above definition refers to the physical location of the office where the materials or equipment are being purchased from.

Applicants do not have to be headquartered in California to be eligible for this solicitation. However, all applicants that are corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships are required to be registered and in good standing with the California Secretary of State prior to its project being recommended for approval at an Energy Commission business meeting.

Please remember the Energy Commission does have a section in the scoring criteria about “Funds Spent in California” (which is worth up to 15 points) for proposals. The more funds spent outside of California, proposal scores will suffer accordingly. Please refer to Section IV.F of the solicitation manual for more detailed information.

36. QUESTION: In the solicitation manual Section II.A.3, it says “All corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited partnerships (LPs) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that conduct intrastate business in California are required to be registered and in good standing with the California Secretary of State prior to its project being recommended for approval at an Energy Commission Business Meeting.” Does this requirement mean that applicants must be headquartered in CA? That they must have a physically office in CA?


Project Eligibility

37. QUESTION: Is it okay for applicants to use a California-based contract manufacturer or is it necessary for the applicant to setup its own manufacturing line?

RESPONSE: Either is acceptable for this solicitation.

38. QUESTION: Can the project be an actual commercial project?

of 27

RESPONSE: Yes, technologies that are currently being commercially sold are eligible. However, technologies that are already being manufactured through a production line are not eligible. The emphasis of this solicitation is to assist companies with innovative clean energy technologies reach the low-rate initial production stage.

39. QUESTION: If the applicant is improving an existent technology regarding gas conditioning, such as efficiency, is it eligible?

RESPONSE: No, improving an existent technology regarding gas conditioning such as efficiency is not an eligible technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

40. QUESTION: If a project, under this solicitation, can provide benefits to the electric ratepayer and the utility by; first, lowering total energy costs for the ratepayer via lowering their natural gas cost, secondly, promote greater electricity reliability by supporting the inclusion of additional renewables by reducing the curtailment of renewable energy output and therefore encouraging the reduction of GHG production and lastly, providing valuable ancillary services, such as Regulation Down. Would this be of interest under this solicitation?

RESPONSE: No, please refer to response given in Question #39.

41. QUESTION: Would enabling technology to increase system efficiency and reduce cost qualify for this solicitation? The proposed technology might not exactly fit in the technology group criteria provided, but this technology uses waste heat generated from burners, etc, to increase overall system efficiency.

RESPONSE: No, this technology would not be eligible for this solicitation.

42. QUESTION: How narrowly will the topic areas be interpreted? For example, for Solid State Lighting, would an applicant need to actually develop a light source or would it also allow for related technologies (e.g. lighting controls systems designed to control SSL light sources)?

RESPONSE: Topic areas are not narrowly defined. However, the applicant must demonstrate in the proposal that the technology fits within the solicitation scope. The focus of the solicitation is on production-scale up which inherently refers to physical technology products that are manufactured. Software-based technology, and software-only innovations are not eligible for this solicitation.

43. QUESTION: Does this solicitation cover both hardware and software technology?

RESPONSE: Please see the response given in Question #42

of 27

44. QUESTION: Is the funding limited to hardware technologies only? Can software technologies qualify?

RESPONSE: Please see the response given in Question #42.

45. QUESTION: If the applicant is developing a hardware that can reduce electricity usage, is it eligible? The technology does not store electricity.

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as it falls under one of the eligible technology groups in Section I.A of the solicitation manual.

46. QUESTION: Does energy storage have to be grid-tied?

RESPONSE: No, energy storage does not have to be grid-tied to qualify for this solicitation.

47. QUESTION: At the top of GFO-18-302 Solicitation Manual, under the heading "Group 2: Renewable Generation" is the statement: “Projects under Group 2 must fall within one of the following technology categories: · Solar photovoltaic systems · Solid-state energy harvesting: Thermoelectrics, Thermionics. Piezoelectrics” Why are the renewable generation categories were so narrowly constrained? Has any additional consideration been given to opening up the acceptable technology categories to include other technologies generally considered renewable generation, e.g., wind, geothermal, etc.?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission selected technology categories where moving from hand-built prototypes to a pilot production line could 1) significantly improve the technology’s market competitiveness; and 2) be accomplished with the available amount of funding in this solicitation. Energy Commission staff considered other renewable generation technologies but did not believe they met those criteria. In addition, the Energy Commission released a Request for Comments for this solicitation to get additional stakeholder feedback on the solicitation scope and the list of eligible technologies.

Validity of Technology

48. QUESTION: Can the California Energy Commission give any insight on what well suited Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is needed for this grant? e.g. It says there must be previous prototype testing of the technology. Can this be lab scale testing? If an applicant is at a TRL at 3 or 4, would this grant be a good fit for the applicant? We are looking to scale up the technology to a level it can be demonstrated in the power sector. It seems that the LRIP might be a little bit later staged focus.

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for a technology to be at a specific TRL to be eligible to apply to this solicitation. The technology has to be at a mature enough stage to be ready to transition from being a one-off prototype to low-rate initial production

of 27

scale. The more information the applicant can provide regarding the readiness of its technology in the proposal, the more confident the Energy Commission staff is likely to be that the technology has been validated. This solicitation does not fund technology development or demonstration.

49. QUESTION: In terms of testing or the results the Energy Commission is looking for in determining the viability of the technology and the capability of the technology, what is the Energy Commission looking for? Are there ways that the applicant can collaborate on doing test with a lab or a Commission affiliated lab or university? How does the applicant prove, if they haven’t already, that the technology is capable?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission does not have affiliated or approved labs. It is up to the applicant to provide any documentation to the Energy Commission that shows that the technology is at a mature enough stage to begin transition from being a one-off prototype to low-rate initial production scale. Examples may include, but are not limited to: measurement and verification reports, market study reports, certifications from a third-party testing facility, descriptions of where the technology has been deployed, or descriptions of partners (either governmental or corporate) that has contributed to the technology’s development.

50. QUESTION: How does the applicant prove the legitimacy of the technology without informing the California Energy Commission of confidential and proprietary information?

RESPONSE: It is up to the applicant on how to best present their technology as being mature enough to warrant this next step of scaling-up production. Please remember that confidential information is not allowed in applications for this solicitation. Examples of ways an applicant can show technology maturity are provided in the response to Question #49. Applicant’s may submit redacted or edited versions of reports to show technology maturity while keeping certain aspects confidential.

51. QUESTION: How will the California Energy Commission evaluate that the applicant has “achieved an established full-scale prototype?” How can an applicant demonstrate that it has achieved a full-scale prototype if the prototype is confidential? How does the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that it has achieved a full-scale prototype factor into the California Energy Commission’s scoring criteria?

RESPONSE: Please refer to the response given in Question #50.

Technology Eligibility

52. QUESTION: Would carbon dioxide conversion technology be an eligible topic under this solicitation?

of 27

RESPONSE: No, carbon dioxide conversion technology is not listed as an approved technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group

53. QUESTION: Would the Energy Commission consider taking a bit broader view of opportunities in new small wind technology that has a consumer focus not a utility scale application?

RESPONSE: Small wind technology is not listed as an approved technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group

54. QUESTION: Are miscellaneous electrical loads technology eligible for Group 1; Energy Efficiency?

RESPONSE: No, miscellaneous electrical loads technology is not listed as an approved technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

55. QUESTION: Can the Energy Commission elaborate on what subgroup Thermal Storage encompasses?

RESPONSE: Thermal energy storage represents another type of energy storage that helps an individual manage their electricity demand. This type of energy storage technology stores energy produced in the form of heat or cold that be stored and use at a different time. The thermal energy can be derived from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, solar, geothermal, waste heat, or the electric grid. There is no specific requirement on the medium which is storing the thermal energy. Thermal storage qualifies under Group 3 of the solicitation.

56. QUESTION: Are plug load energy efficiency projects admissible for Group 1: Energy Efficiency?

RESPONSE: No, plug-load energy efficiency projects are not listed as an approved technology for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

57. QUESTION: Is technology for energy efficiency during distributed wastewater treatment eligible?

RESPONSE: Yes, technology for energy efficiency during distributed wastewater treatment is eligible for this solicitation.

58. QUESTION: Would a clean energy technology, such as off-grid product that optimizes solar power generation be considered/qualified?

of 27

RESPONSE: Staff is unable to make a determination on eligibility from the information provided in this question.

59. QUESTION: Is smart window technology qualified here, or only solid lighting is qualified in energy efficiency?

RESPONSE: Yes, smart window technology is an approved technology under Group 1; Energy Efficiency – Building Envelope.

60. QUESTION: Would building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) window technology apply under Building Efficiency (Building Envelope) or Renewable Generation category?

RESPONSE: BIPV window technology would apply under Group 2: Renewable Energy for this solicitation.

61. QUESTION: Is electromagnetic energy harvesting applicable under the energy harvesting category?

RESPONSE: Yes, electromagnetic energy harvesting is an acceptable technology for Group 3: Renewable Generation – Solid State Energy Harvesting for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

62. QUESTION: Is battery storage for the purpose of mobile charging applicable under the California Energy Commission’s definition of energy storage?

RESPONSE: Yes, battery storage for the purpose of mobile charging is applicable under the Energy Commission’s definition of energy storage.

63. QUESTION: Regarding product eligibility, does the battery storage category include mobile batteries as part of vehicle-to-grid systems?

RESPONSE: Yes, mobile batteries as part of vehicle-to-grid systems is acceptable under battery storage.

64. QUESTION: Are solar thermal innovations that supply heat to commercial uses where the ratepayer benefits from reduced energy costs an allowable project focus for this solicitation? Or is it necessary that a project focus on electricity applications?

RESPONSE: Solar thermal innovations that offset natural gas use are not eligible for this solicitation.

65. QUESTION: Which category is the best for an applicant that is designing and manufacturing prototype for a gas turbine to burn biogas and increase efficiency?

of 27

RESPONSE: Bio-energy and bio-energy technologies are not listed as approved technologies for this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

66. QUESTION: Our technology provides nighttime lighting, daytime lighting, and collects thermal energy for storage, what is the right category for us?

RESPONSE: If the technology is primarily a lighting efficiency technology – Group 1 would apply. If the primary use is for storage, then Group 3 would apply.

67. QUESTION: Can I get more clarification on the Project Group/technology categories defined in the solicitation? Specifically, on page 19 of the solicitation, for Group 3: Energy Storage on technology category Thermal Storage. Can the Energy Commission provide any information and or point to any reference documents that provide more detail on what this category describes?


68. QUESTION: Does thermal storage refer to the storage of heat for later use in the form of heat?

RESPONSE: Yes, or in the form of electricity. Please refer to response given in Question #55.

69. QUESTION: Does thermal storage include systems that collect heat from sources including waste heat, the electricity grid, solar thermal heat, or others?

RESPONSE: Thermal storage includes systems and materials – such as phase change materials - that collect and store thermal energy and release it when needed by the electric grid or electric customers. Please refer to Section 1.A in the solicitation manual for the complete list of approved technologies for each group.

70. QUESTION: Why such a narrow technology limit on Group 2 renewable generation? Will there be subsequent solicitations under this program?

RESPONSE: Please see response to question #47. There is a potential for future solicitations focused on supporting production scale-up, however there are currently no specific plans or timelines for a solicitation release.

71. QUESTION: For thermal storage, would optimize geothermal be approved for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Based on the few details in the question, Energy Commission staff believes that thermal storage technologies for geothermal applications – such as helping geothermal plants provide flexible generation - are eligible for this solicitation.

of 27

72. QUESTION: Does thermal storage imply that the output must be electricity? Alternatively, could it be use for some other purpose?

RESPONSE: Thermal storage can be used for other purposes, not just for outputting electricity. Please remember that the applicant must show how electric ratepayers will benefit from the technology such as lower electricity costs or increased reliability of electricity service. The full list of electric ratepayer benefits can be found in CPUC Decision 12-05-037 pages 103-104: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/167664.PDF

73. QUESTION: Would off-grid solar systems qualify for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Yes, off-grid solar systems would qualify for this solicitation

74. QUESTION: Could the Energy Commission please confirm if batteries for electric vehicles would qualify for this funding opportunity?

RESPONSE: Yes, batteries for electric vehicles is applicable under the Energy Commission’s definition of energy storage.

75. QUESTION: Are the "Solid-state energy harvesting" approaches listed under the "Renewable Generation" group (Group 2) also focused on solar as a renewable resource?

RESPONSE: Group 2 includes solar photovoltaic technologies including emerging thin-film materials used for solid-state electricity generation from solar.

76. QUESTION: If our technology stores thermal energy for domestic hot water needs can we compare it to electric water heaters when calculating benefits to California Investor-Owned Utility ratepayers?

RESPONSE: Yes, comparing the proposed technology with electric water heaters when calculating benefits to California Investor-Owned Utility ratepayers is appropriate.

Use of California Energy Commission’s Funds

77. QUESTION: Given that this solicitation will be targeting Market Facilitation, does this mean that this solicitation will only fund market facilitation activities? Or will it more broadly fund any activity necessary as part of scaling up to LRIP, including funding process equipment?

RESPONSE: Activities and expenses that directly support production scale-up of the technology from one-off prototypes to the LRIP stage are eligible. This includes but is not limited to hiring the necessary expertise and purchasing necessary equipment. Applicants should describe in their proposal their plan and steps to reach the LRIP stage and how the funding will support those steps. Grant funds cannot be used for actual

of 27

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/167664.PDF

production of the technology except to validate the production process. Match funds may be used for actual production costs.

78. QUESTION: Are the following permissible uses of funds: Paying contractors or employees to perform supply chain research, paying contractors or employees to validate component suppliers, and manufacturers & paying contractors or employees to obtain and test product components?

RESPONSE: Yes, please see the response to Question #77 above.

79. QUESTION: Can funds be used to support product design for manufacturing (e.g., enhancing manufacturability of a product to prepare it for LRIP)?

RESPONSE: Yes, please see the response to Question #77 above.

80. QUESTION: Can funds be used to purchase inventory or anything in cost-of-goods-sold?

RESPONSE: No, cost-of-goods sold cannot be funded by this solicitation. Grant funds cannot be used for anything that is available for resale. Please refer see the response given in Question #77 for acceptable funds usage for this solicitation.

81. QUESTION: Can funds be used to optimize tooling and validate manufactured design?

RESPONSE: Yes, these are allowable use of grant funds under this solicitation.

82. QUESTION: Can awarded funds be used for production of the product, including inventory, or only for the tooling and similar aspects of the manufacturing process, but not production of the product itself? If the funds can be used for production/inventory can they be used for products that will be permanently affixed to a customer’s site?

RESPONSE: Grant funds cannot be used for actual production of the technology except to validate the production process. Grant funds can be used for necessary equipment related to the manufacturing process – there are no restrictions on equipment being permanently affixed to a site. Please see the response to Question #77 and #80 above.

83. QUESTION: If a grant recipient purchases materials and equipment from a business located in California, would the Energy Commission consider that expenditure “funds spent in California” if the business sourced the materials and equipment from an affiliate business that manufactures the materials or equipment outside of California?

RESPONSE: Yes, please refer to Section 4 F., scoring criteria 6, EPIC Funds Spent in California in the solicitation manual for additional information.

84. QUESTION: Along with funding activities to scale-up manufacturing process to low-rate production, can the grant fund activities to produce and deploy the cleantech product at the first customer’s facility?

of 27

RESPONSE: No, funding cannot be used for any technology demonstration or deployment activities.

85. QUESTION: Can demonstration projects with a DOE-recognized national lab be paid for with grant funds?


Match Funding

86. QUESTION: Does the required 20% match funding need to come from a company other than the applicant (Prime) or can the applicant commit the 20% match?

RESPONSE: Either is acceptable; the required 20% match funding from the EPIC funds requested for the project can come from the applicant, or from a company other than the applicant. All individuals or entities committing match funding to the project must submit a commitment letter in the applicant’s proposal. Please refer to Section I.F. 2 of the solicitation manual for more details regarding match funding requirements and Section III D. 10 of the solicitation manual and Attachment 11 for more details regarding commitment letters.

87. QUESTION: Is each partner in the project required to give 20% of match funding or is it collectively given for the total project?

RESPONSE: The minimum required match funding is 20 percent of the requested EPIC funds and can come from any member of the project team.

88. QUESTION: Does the match need to be in cash, or can it be in labor the company pays to employees? In this case the company would not need to produce cash at the grant, but rather the match is paid over the term of the agreement?

RESPONSE: The required 20% of match fund from request EPIC funds for the project is not obligated to be cash and applicants are allowed to provide direct labor as match. Any match funding proposed in the application must be devoted to the project over the term of the agreement. Please refer to Section I F. 2 for more details regarding acceptable forms of match funding.

89. QUESTION: Can matching funding come from project finance?

RESPONSE: Yes, however applicants must have possession of the funds at the time of application. Contingent or future funds that have not been secured by the applicant are not eligible forms of match funding.

90. Can a CalSEED grant award qualify for the matching funds?

of 27

RESPONSE: No, Energy Commission awards and EPIC funds received from other sources cannot be used for match funding in this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1 F.2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

91. QUESTION: It is possible to use a federal grant as a potential cost share for this program?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as 1) the federal award has been approved and executed prior to the proposal submission; and 2) there is direct link between the work being conducted under the federal award and the work being proposed for this solicitation. Future or contingent awards from any entities (public or private) do not qualify for match funding in this solicitation. Please refer to Section 1 F.2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

Also, please note, match funding requires commitment letters from all individuals and entities proving the match funds for the project. Please refer to Section III D. 10 of the solicitation manual and Attachment 11 for more details regarding commitment letters.

92. QUESTION: Can federal DOE grant money be used as matching funds?


93. QUESTION: During the webinar, it was said that federal funds may be used as matching funds. Our company has Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funds (through agencies such as the National Science Foundation) and plans to apply to several future federal grants. We understand these matching funds may be directly applicable to the Energy Commission proposal work. Which costs from federal funds (ex. salary, materials, equipment, indirect overhead, etc.) are allowable for the CEC to act as matching funds?

RESPONSE: All costs from the federal funds are allowable as match as long as the criteria in response to Question 91 have been met.

94. QUESTION: May salary be contributed to matching funds? I.e., taking a salary reduction from an accepted (or average) salary level for that individual towards matching funds?

RESPONSE: Salary (Direct Labor) may be used as match funds. Discounts are allowed, but proof of the discount used towards match will be required. Please refer to Section 1 F.2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

95. QUESTION: Can salary be counted towards the 20% cost share?


of 27

96. QUESTION: Can a project subcontractor provide match funding in the form of discounted or in-kind services while also being paid for separate work on the project?

RESPONSE: Yes, subcontractor effort may be used as match funds. Please refer to Section 1 F.2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

97. QUESTION: In regards to the 20% match funding, can the operating cost of the current business be utilized as a portion of that? On budget, does it have to specifically articulated that it has to be for this project? For instance, if you are already an operating organization, and are already doing a project in that field, however a new product is being created. How can an applicant separate costs when the products could overlap together?

RESPONSE: Operating cost of the company can be included as match funds and would be define as “Indirect Costs” on Attachment 7 – Budget Forms. Attachment 7 – Budget Form is organized for applicants to show the Energy Commission how match funds will be allocated to each category (travel, direct labor, etc.). Within each category that has match funding should be a budget line item that identifies what the match funding is specific to (overhead, specific employee, etc.) All match funding provided in the budget should be devoted to the project, not shared between other projects the company has in progress.

98. QUESTION: Can applicants portion out and prorate expense, that 20% (in labor) should be entirely devoted to this project?

RESPONSE: Yes, labor costs can be portioned out and prorated to meet the 20 percent requirement.

For additional clarification, match funding is required in the amount of at least 20% of the requested EPIC funds for this solicitation. This seemed to imply that the 20% or more requirement must all come from in-kind labor costs, which is not the case. Please see Section I.F. 2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

99. QUESTION: Does the Energy Commission allow any pre-spent funds from the company to be considered for match funds?

RESPONSE: No, pre-spent funds from the company are not acceptable forms of match funding. Please refer to Section 1 F.2 “Match Funding Requirements” for complete details on acceptable match funding for this solicitation.

100.QUESTION: Please confirm if the Energy Commission allows any allocations of recipient funds used prior to award date to be considered as match funds. If the Energy

of 27

Commission does allow consideration of past, pre-award expenditures please give some examples of such potential scenarios.


101.QUESTION: If you have already spent more than $200,000 on testing and development, can that be used as matching funding?


102.QUESTION: Can computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer simulation software purchased by the prime contractor before a grant is awarded be counted as equipment toward match funding?


103.QUESTION: I am interested in the match funding requirement and in particular the timing of it, so for example if you were to use the funds up front to complete significant due diligent and say the market was to change and you were to determine that your efforts were no longer financially viable. At what point are you committing that 20%? Is it dollar for dollar, dollar per twenty cents or is it commitment at the hind end of the allotment?

RESPONSE: The recipient is expected to spend the match funding during the term of the agreement, but there is no requirement on the timing of when the match funding is spent. Each project is different and may have different spending timelines for the match funds. Please refer to Attachment 7 – Budget Forms; this is where the applicant must input figures which describe the match funding committed to the project by category (direct labor, equipment, etc.).

The Energy Commission is looking for applicants to demonstrate a clear commitment to the project in the form of investments in the project. If unforeseeable market conditions were to render the project no longer financially viable the applicant should contact the Energy Commission immediately to discuss.

104.QUESTION: Can the source of an applicant’s cost-sharing be changed between the proposal and a potential award? For example, if an applicant has a pending award from another agency at the time of the submission to the Energy Commission, but they receive this award by the time Energy Commission makes their award, can the applicant replace the source originally committed (e.g. replace a "cash-in-hand" commitment with the Notice of Award from another agency).

RESPONSE: Yes, it is possible to change the source of match funding for the project during the agreement. The Energy Commission does urge applicants to identify this possibility in the associated match funding commitment Letter if this could occur during

of 27

the agreement. Match funding is a section of the scoring criteria of the proposal, so the expectation from applicants is to follow through with the proposed match funding during the agreement.

105.QUESTION: The solicitation indicates “cash-in-hand” matching funds will be considered more favorably than other matching funds. Does this only pertain to matching funds greater than the 20% minimum? Or does a full 20% of matching funds from cash-on-hand receive additional points?

RESPONSE: The additional points provided for match funding only pertain to the amount above the 20 percent minimum. Up to 10 points are available, up to 5 points will be awarded based on the percentage of funds that exceeds the minimum divided by the total EPIC funds requested, and up to 5 points will be awarded based on the type of match funding above the required minimum, dollar value justification, and funding replacement strategy. Please refer to Section IV. F, scoring criterion 8 for complete details on the scoring criterion for match funding.

106.QUESTION: How may we submit proof of “cash in hand” matching funds? Will a print out of bank account balance for month of submission suffice?

RESPONSE: A commitment letter from the organization providing the match funding that identifies the amount and type of match is sufficient. Please refer to Section III D. 11 and Attachment 11 for more details regarding commitment letters.

107.QUESTION: Can a demonstration project with a DOE-recognized national lab be used as matching funds?

RESPONSE: See response to Question 91.

Scoring

108.QUESTION: Regarding the California IOU benefits, how does the Energy Commission score that category if a major share of the products is sold to developing countries?

RESPONSE: Proposals where the applicant does not plan to sell the product in California are likely to be scored low. Applicants should identify in the proposal the market segments for their product, the estimated sized of those markets in California, and studies supporting the market estimates. Please refer to Section IV.F, scoring criterion 3 for more details on the scoring criterion applicable to California IOU benefits.

109.QUESTION: If the two top projects are scored equally, will the project that asks for less money be given preference? This will potentially allow for a larger number of projects to be funded?

of 27

RESPONSE: The amount of requested CEC funds by applicants does not affect the scoring of the proposals. The Energy Commission evaluates and scores each proposal comprehensively based on all information provided by the applicant through each attachment of the application. Please refer to Section IV. E and F in the solicitation manual to see more details on the screening and scoring criteria for this solicitation. Depending on their overall ranking, if two proposals received the exact same score the Energy Commission would consider funding both projects.

110.QUESTION: How heavily does the Energy Commission weigh the use of the funds that go directly towards the manufacturing processes? To put another way, if the proposal were to distribute funds across engineering and project execution, is that weighted differently? It there a weighting in scoring towards spending the money on actual manufacturing?

RESPONSE: Grant funds cannot be used for actual production of the technology except to validate the production process.

A portion of an application’s score is based on the budget and cost effectiveness, which includes considerations such as the extent to which the application justifies the reasonableness of costs by project task. Please refer to Section IV. F in the solicitation manual for more details.

111.QUESTION: Is there priority given to projects or funding needs that can be successful sooner? Is there priority given if the project excels expected net benefit to the people of California’s timeline?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission evaluates the project as a whole, which includes the readiness to impact the market and successful execution. These considerations are factored into the Technical Approach and Impacts and Benefits to California IOU Ratepayers portions of the scoring criteria. Please see Section IV. F in the solicitation manual for more details.

112.QUESTION: Is the amount requested from the Energy Commission apart of the scoring? If projects request a low amount verses the maximum amount, does that project get an advantage?

RESPONSE: Please see the response to Question #109.

Awarding

113.QUESTION: Are there multiple awards given per submittal type or is there a single winner in each of the three technology categories specified? Also, what is the total available funding amount?

of 27

RESPONSE: Depending on the scoring of the proposals and the funds requested from the top-scorers of those proposals, there can be up to 4 grants awarded per technology group (Energy Efficiency, Renewable Generation, and Energy Storage). If the top proposal does not request the maximum amount of available funding for that technology category, the remaining funds will be available to the next highest scored proposal, assuming that proposal receives a score above the minimum passing score. Regardless of the amount of funds requested, applicants must justify the reasonableness of the requested funds relative to the project goals, objectives, and tasks. Please see the Budget and Cost-Effectiveness portion of the scoring criteria in section IV. F. for more detail.

For example: Project A is the top-scored project and has requested 1 million for Group 1: Energy Efficiency. There is now 3 million left Group 1 to fund additional high-scored projects.

Please remember, the Energy Commission also has the discretion to allocate remaining funds in one technology group to another technology group. There is up $12,000,000 available for this solicitation and up to $4,000,000 per group. Please refer to Section I F.1 “Amount Available and Minimum/Maximum Funding Amounts” in the solicitation manual.

114.QUESTION: Is there only a total of $4,000,000 per group available? If the top-scored project asks for $4,000,000, then there would only be one awardee? If so, those are not great odds for applicants.


of 27

administrative · web viewcommission staff expects each project to vary and require different...

Documents