GFO-19-302 Questions and Answers



Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Group #1 Next-Generation Land-Based Wind Energy Technologies PAGEREF _Toc23760420 \h 2Group #2 Real-Time Monitoring Systems for Next-Generation Offshore Wind PAGEREF _Toc23760421 \h 3Group #3 Environmental Risk Assessment for Offshore Wind Energy Systems PAGEREF _Toc23760422 \h 4Group #3 and Group #2 PAGEREF _Toc23760423 \h 6General Questions PAGEREF _Toc23760424 \h 7 Group #1 Next-Generation Land-Based Wind Energy TechnologiesQ.1We are keen to increase the generation capacity of near shore and offshore wind turbines through a new hybrid energy technology.? Is it allowed as a part of this call?A.1The objective of project group #1 “Next-Generation Land-Based Wind Energy Technologies” is the development and pilot demonstration of wind energy prototypes using novel on-site or hybrid manufacturing approaches to address the technical, economic and logistical challenges of tall towers (>120-meter height) or super-sized blades (≥75-m) for land-based wind turbines. It is the responsibility of the potential applicant to determine if their manufacturing technique or technology meets the criteria outlined in the solicitation.Q.2As I understand that this solicitation had been released from the Research Team at California Energy Commission, which means to me, that it is basically designed or let me say tailored to attract and collect Ideas and Inventions. In other meaning, the winner won’t be demanded to build up what he is going to provide in his solicitation proposal?A.2Selected R&D projects under project Group #1 are not required to build up full-scale systems (e.g. tall towers >120-meter height or super-sized blades ≥75-m), but must demonstrate through advanced lab testing or pilot demonstration the viability of using the proposed advanced manufacturing approach for developing functional prototypes, as well as to demonstrate that the prototypes meet the quality standard requirements and specifications for the proposed wind component.The expected research projects in this group are technology pilot demonstration, with a technology readiness level (TRL) of either TRL4 or TRL5 at the beginning of the project, advancing to a higher TRL at the end of the project.TRL4 is the technology development step where a technological component or system is validated on a low fidelity lab-scale. TRL5 is the technology development step where high-fidelity lab-scale system is tested in a relevant environment. Technology Readiness Level Definition (Right click on the hyperlink to open)Q.3What do you mean by developing solutions for the end-of-life of next-generation wind energy technologies that consider a closed-loop cycle approach?A.3Proposals under Group #1 are required to include tasks to address at least two of the following requirements: evaluate supply chain and labor needs for commercial-scale manufacturing, develop solutions for the end-of-life of next-generation wind energy technologies that consider a closed-loop cycle approach, conduct an economic and environmental life cycle assessment and compare the economic and environmental performance of the proposed technology with conventional technology, and demonstrate the viability of using the proposed advanced manufacturing approach also as a baseline for potential offshore wind energy projects in California. Applicants that chose to include the task “develop solutions for the end-of-life of next-generation wind energy technologies that consider a closed-loop cycle approach” need to suggest a technical analysis that demonstrates how the proposed technology has recycling capabilities. Q.4Is a design or manufacturing blueprint required or is a functional description fine for the proposal?A.4Next Wind solicitation does not allow applicants to submit confidential or proprietary information in the proposals. Applicants should include a functional description of the proposed manufacturing approach and technology such that the scoring team can understand the technical aspects and benefits of the proposed research and is able to evaluate the proposal to the best of their judgment. It is important to be aware that after the notice of proposed awards (NOPA) is released, proposals become open to public request. Group #2 Real-Time Monitoring Systems for Next-Generation Offshore WindQ.5As I understand that it had been released from the Research Team at California Energy Commission, which means to me that it is basically designed or let me say tailored to attract and collect Ideas and Inventions. In other meaning, the winner won’t be demanded to build up what he is going to provide in his solicitation proposal?A.5See answer to Question 2 (Q2) (A2). Q.6We are particularly interested in Group 2 of the solicitation: real-time monitoring, remote monitoring systems. The language around this particular topic seems to be focused on detecting blade strikes by seabirds and species identification of birds flying in the vicinity of offshore turbines. However, given that, the turbines will be located in deeper waters that are marine mammal habitats, would technologies that characterize underwater noise from turbines and marine mammal vocalizations in the vicinity of the turbines qualify for this solicitation?A.6 The solicitation manual provides examples of potential subjects that could be investigated under project Group #2, but applications are not limited to these examples. Applicants should justify why the proposed monitoring is needed and explain how the environmental data would be integrated into the operational control of the turbines for an integrated assessment for offshore wind applications. Studies that focus only on understanding marine mammal behavior or wildlife impacts of offshore wind technology are a better fit in Group #3.Q.7Given no offshore platforms off the CA or western coast, does the CEC envision considering wind-wildlife technology evaluation proposals that are applicable to offshore wind but tested at onshore CA facilities as meeting the conditions of the EPIC funding opportunity? More broadly, will offshore-related technologies tested outside of CA at onshore facilities be acceptable?A.7Given that it is not possible to demonstrate prototype monitoring systems for Group #2 at existing offshore wind energy facilities in California at this time, projects could propose to install prototypes on operating onshore wind energy facilities in California or elsewhere. However, advanced lab testing at a test facility would also be acceptable. Note that proposals to test at facilities outside of California may reduce the applicant’s score for Criterion 7 “EPIC Funds Spent in California,” if CEC funds are used to perform testing activities at facilities outside of California. However, it is suggested to include match funds to cover expenses outside of California if an applicant?seeks to avoid reduction of points related to Criterion 7.For more details on Criterion 7, please go to the solicitation manual, section IV.F, Scoring Criteria, page 39.Q.8Regarding Group 2, should the monitoring system be focused on species or the performance of the turbine? If it is the later, is it focused more on the tower or turbine performance?A.8Projects under Group #2 must propose to develop an integrated sensing and monitoring system that provides both real-time environmental and operational data and sends all the discrete signals to the turbine controller. Therefore, both operational and environmental data need to be collected with the proposed monitoring system for an integrated assessment. The applicant should explain which component(s) of the turbine and environmental data will be monitored and evaluated, and justify why the proposed integrated assessment is relevant for offshore wind energy projects in California. Group #3 Environmental Risk Assessment for Offshore Wind Energy SystemsQ.9Regarding Group 3, second category, bird collision impact example: How is this example different than Josh Adams, Emily C. Kelsey, Jonathan J. Felis, and David M. Pereksta. 2016 (BOEM/USGS) “Collision and Displacement Vulnerability among Marine Birds of the California Current System Associated with Offshore Wind Energy Infrastructure”?A.9The Adams et al. study generated indices of vulnerability of marine birds to collision or displacement by wind turbines, based on an arithmetic combination of factors. The Energy Commission would be interested in the development of collision risk models that incorporate observed data on flight height and behavior to simulate flight paths under varying wind strength relative to the rotor swept area of offshore wind turbines. Birds considered most sensitive include soaring seabirds (such as albatrosses, shearwaters, and petrels).Q.10Regarding Group #3, bird impact example: How suitable is a spatial planning project using existing bird behavioral data on bird-turbine collision vulnerability (e.g., Adams et al. 2016) and spatial data on bird distributions (e.g., North Pacific Seabird Database) to identify locations for offshore wind turbines for minimizing turbine-bird interactions? The spatial planning work I have in mind would be proactive modeling research for informing the permitting of offshore development areas (by BOEM).A.10Point Blue Conservation Science has been funded by the Ocean Protection Council to identify suitable locations for marine renewable energy siting using the existing body of information compiled in the Offshore Wind Energy Gateway in Data Basin (Using Available Data to Identify Offshore Wind Energy Areas - Point Blue (Right click on the hyperlink to open)). Applicants to GFO-19-302 Group 3 proposing marine spatial planning studies will need to demonstrate clearly how their project is different from and complementary to the Point Blue project. Applicants should also demonstrate how the proposed project is applied research and not a planning exercise.Q.11The footings, anchors/anchor chains, and seabed power transmission cables, which will be part of offshore wind energy installations, all have the potential to alter near-bottom hydrodynamics and sediment transport patterns. These physical changes will likely bring about near, mid, and possibly even far-field shifts in demersal, epifaunal, and infaunal communities. These shifts could impact both sensitive species and essential fish habitat. Are potential changes to benthic habitats by Offshore Wind Energy Systems an environmental concern for this funding opportunity? Will methods for mapping and monitoring changes in seabed habitat conditions be considered for funding under the Group 3 category?A.11Yes, the topic suggested here would fall within the scope of Group #3. Applicants would need to justify why this topic is significant with respect to permitting and deploying offshore wind energy infrastructure along the California coast, including the Outer Continental Shelf. Q.12Would it be beneficial to demonstrate leveraging potential with other federal programs that seek similar objectives for understanding potential wind energy effects to wildlife offshore across California?A.12Yes, it is always beneficial to demonstrate how an application would leverage or complement other research.Q.13Is there a list of wind energy companies that have proposed offshore developments to California?A.13BOEM requested nominations from companies interested in commercial wind energy leases within the proposed areas off central and northern California. Please see BOEM results of requested nominations (Right click on the hyperlink to open) for the results of this request.Q.14In relation to the impacts of offshore wind energy on birds, are there specific state and/or federal T&E species of concern that CEC has in mind, especially in relation to Group 3?A.14No, the solicitation is open to any species considered relevant for the California coast, including the Outer Continental Shelf. However, applicants should justify why the species they propose to study will help fill important knowledge gaps for permitting and deploying offshore wind energy infrastructure on the California Outer Continental Shelf.Group #3 and Group #2Q.15In regards to funding groups 2 and 3: Would it be beneficial to propose site-specific and/or species-specific questions for known wind-energy call areas (e.g., the Northern California Call Area off of Humboldt County) - or is the CEC more interested in larger-scale questions relevant to all species across California offshore areas?A.15Proposals under Groups #2 or #3 of this solicitation are not required to be located in the BOEM call areas. However, applicants need to justify their choice of research questions with respect to their importance to reduce cost and/or support the deployment of offshore wind energy projects along the California coast, including the Outer Continental Shelf. Q.16We know some of the planned wind development areas, but we wondered whether there was a specific coastal region of concern?A.16Please see answer to Question Q.15 (A.15)Q.17 Group 2 carries the requirement that all projects must "Demonstrate how the proposed technology will achieve a reduction of at least 21 percent in the baseline O&M cost of offshore wind projects." This restriction seems to apply quite specifically to the engineering applications for this group. However, it's unclear how environmental monitoring systems, especially in relation to wildlife impacts, can demonstrate this reduction other than by offsetting a regulatory burden, for example, turbine curtailment in the event of a 'take'. However, the likelihood of a 'take' that would be offset by monitoring technology is impossible to estimate without an environmental risk assessment, which is what Group 3 addresses. It seems this reduction of costs requirement should be relaxed for projects of this kind that lack the means to make reasonable estimates. This is more a comment than a question, but I would appreciate any feedback.A.17Yes, the targeted metric required for Group #2 projects is focused only on the engineering application of the monitoring system. The proposed operational applications should contribute to achieve a reduction of at least 21 percent in the baseline O&M cost of offshore wind projects. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable to the environmental part of the monitoring system of Group #2 and projects under Group #3. Projects under Group #2 must develop an integrated sensing and monitoring system that provides both real-time environmental and operational data and sends all the discrete signals to the turbine controller for an integrated assessment for offshore wind applications.Projects under Group #3 will assess the potential risks to sensitive species and habitats. No specific cost reduction metric is required for Group #3.General QuestionsQ.18Do team members need to be California residents?A.18No. Team members can be from outside of California. However, the applicant needs to be aware of Criterion 7 “EPIC Funds Spent in California,” which states that projects that maximize the spending of EPIC funds in California will receive points as indicated in the solicitation Manual IV.F. Page 39. For instance, proposals committing higher than 98 percent of EPIC funds spent in California will receive 100 percent of the points under criterion 7. Q.19Can individuals submit an application? Are stakeholders part of the project team?A.19This solicitation is open to all public and private entities and individuals with the exception of local publicly owned electric utilities. Stakeholders are not part of the project team. However, all applicants must include at least one support letter from a project stakeholder.Please review support letter requirement in the solicitation manual section III.D.11. Page 28.Q.20Are match funds required? What can be included as match fundsA.20Match funding is not required for this solicitation. However, applications that include match funding will be receiving additional points during the scoring phase. Match funds include: cash in hand funds, equipment, materials, information technology services, travel, subcontractor costs, project partner in-kind labor costs, and advanced practice costs. Match funding sources include the prime contractor, subcontractor, and pilot demonstration sites. All applicants providing match funds must submit commitment letters. More information, please read solicitation manual section I.F.2. Q.21 How is scoring criterion 1 “Project Team Past Performance with CEC” evaluated for first-time applicants to CEC research programs?A.21Applicants who have not performed under a grant agreement with the Energy Commission will receive the full points.For more details, please see the solicitation manual section IV.F. Page 36.Q.22 Could applicant submit more than one application?A.22Applicants may submit multiple applications to this solicitation, however each application must be unique in nature and propose a different research approach. For more details, please see the solicitation manual section I.A. Page 1. If submitting multiple applications, each application must be submitted separately. Only one Project Group should be selected on Attachment 1 Application Form. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download