Advancing the Resilience and Environmental Performance of California’s Electricity System

GFO-16-311

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

August 18, 2017

Group 11. Q: In the funding opportunity table on page 10, there is no study area listed

for Group 1. Are any specific study areas desired? A: The study area must be located in territories served by one of the IOUs (PG&E, SDG&E, or SCE) as indicated on the page 17 in the addendum to the solicitation manual. .

2. Q: Can you give a rough idea of the relative fraction of past similar Group 1 projects that have been funded from Universities, Small Businesses, non-profits, etc.?A: No projects on cloud-seeding have been funded by the California Energy Commission so far.

3. Q: Are the long-term goals of the IOUs cloud seeding program published anywhere?A: We are not aware of any IOU publications on this topic.

4. Q: Page 1 of the GFO states: “Characterization and mitigation of climate change consequences for hydropower generation and electricity demand in dense urban areas are essential to the reliability and performance of California’s energy system.” Is this solicitation limited to projects that impact only hydropower generation resources? If not, what is the significance of the hydropower reference?A: The successful applications must benefit California IOU ratepayers and therefore must be focused on energy-related issues such as impacts on hydropower generation. Also please note that the discussion on page 1 describes the solicitation goals very broadly. The specific requirements for Group 1 can be found on pages 16-18.

Group 25. Q: Currently wrapping up phase one of another CEC grants demonstration

regarding advanced energy communities in disadvantaged communities, specifically in San Joaquin Valley, so for this first phase of the project we have been connecting community stakeholders, leaders, project developers to produce actionable projects. So phase two of this grant would provide CEC funding matching to the specific projects, putting these concepts we are

1

developing into the built environment with our partners out there; is there a conflict of interest to bid on this current grant solicitation if we were to pursue phase 2 of our project? A: No, there would not be a conflict of interest to apply for a project under the future demonstration solicitation. The Energy Commission plans to consider studies resulting from this group, among other resources, to inform that solicitation. However, Applicants must explicitly describe in the Project Narrative (Attachment 4) how proposed research is distinct and unique compared to the on-going and completed research projects.

6. Q: You mentioned that there was a study, something about increasing 40% of efficiency of the building stock perhaps in San Joaquin Valley, is that report listed in the GFO and ROC?A: The reference can be found in the solicitation manual on page 22 (Qomi et al., 2016). Please note that this study was not conducted in the San Joaquin Valley.

7. Q: How would you be defining dense urban areas? We are looking at Oxnard in particular, not sure whether that would qualify as a dense urban area for this definition.A: The GFO is not using a precise definition of “dense urban areas” but the following are examples of cities that are considered “dense urban areas” for the GFO: Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield, Oxnard, Victorville, Blythe, and Chula Vista. The proposals should make clear how the selected urban area will benefit from the research. The selected urban areas must be in IOU service territories as specified on pages 20-21 in the addendum to the solicitation manual.

8. Q: Is there a requirement for the proposed project that there needs to be a synergy between the efficiency of homes and buildings and the distributed generation or separately those things can be different?A: The GFO for Project Group 2 calls for a holistic approach that would examine all options simultaneously and explore synergies.

9. Q: What do you mean about pre-commercial technologies in application form, how is that defined? And whether pre-commercial needs to be the actual technology or can it be the business model or financing mechanism that are used in the project? A: Since the implementation of the urban energy plan(s) would take place in the next few years, the Applicant should also consider technologies that most likely will be commercially available three to six years from now. As part of the research, the GFO asks for an analysis of what policies or practices would have to be implemented to facilitate the deployment of the urban energy plan(s) or some of its parts.

2

10.Q: In the solicitation manual you mention that urban distributed generation and community microgrids could reduce the operation of peaker plants, however it won’t be really easy to significantly reduce the power production from the peakers by only looking at the energy efficiency gains for the DG installation in a single community because these peaker power plants are large. So are we confined to only study one or two communities or do we also need to do some sort of southern California wide study to see how the penetration of DG could reduce the operation of peakers in disadvantaged communities? A: The Energy Commission is interested in overall energy demand not only peak demand/generation. There is no mention of peaks in the Technical Requirements section.

11.Q: While we are looking at disadvantaged communities do we also need to look at territory wide impact on the entire power system?A: The GFO asks to examine the impacts in the selected urban area with a focus on disadvantaged communities.

12.Q: Question regarding the air quality modeling. Solicitation manual states that very sophisticated three dimensional air quality models such as wharf canned are not part of the asked research, however, the movement of these nitrogen dioxide or ozone or aerosol could be harmful. Would you be interested in contribution from environmental scientists to study how the pollutants from the local peaker will impact a particular local community?A: The Energy Commission is not looking to fund sophisticated estimations of the distribution of primary and secondary pollutants in the atmosphere. An estimation of the geographical distribution of air pollution emissions, however, is required. Sophisticated air quality modeling work could be done with matching funds if desired.

13.Q: Would a model for local spread of pollutants be considered as fitting into the scope of research?A:The use of a simple air quality modeling system (e.g., CALPUFF, AERMOD) could be proposed using matching funds. Please note that the Energy Commission is not looking to fund sophisticated estimations of the distribution of primary and secondary pollutants in the atmosphere. An estimation of the geographical distribution of air pollution emissions, however, is required. Sophisticated air quality modeling work could be done with matching funds if desired. See also the answer to question #12.

14.Q: If an Applicant has an existing project and that project or intelligence from that project elaborates in length to the proposal for Group 2, can the gathered intelligence/information be used in the preparation of a proposal?A: Applicants are allowed to use information that they have collected from previous projects.

3

15.Q: Page 1 of the GFO targets building retrofitting and expansion of renewable distributed generation energy sources. Does this mean that proposals targeting low carbon transportation and transportation electrification are ineligible?A: Proposals that include the Electrification of energy services, including transportation, are eligible to apply for funding under this GFO. In fact, this is expected.

16.Q: Could you please clarify to what extent this study is expected to incorporate scenarios related to the electrification of natural gas appliances? There appears to be a conflict between the beginnings of the Group 2 discussion about reducing indoor NO2 through electrification of home cooking, but at the end of the discussion it states “Since this project would be funded by EPIC, the focus of this study will be increases in efficiency of electricity energy services such as space cooling.”A: Projects including electrification of energy services, including replacement of natural gas appliances, are eligible to apply for funding under this GFO.

17.Q: What is the definition of dense urban areas?A: Because of national differences in the characteristics that distinguish dense urban from rural areas, there is no single definition of “dense urban area”. However, as guideline we have provided some examples of cities, that we would consider “dense urban areas”. Please review response to the Q #7.

18.Q: Are behavioral programs counted as part of community engagement strategies to reduce electricity use in buildings?A: No, behavioral studies are not counted as part of community engagement strategies.

19.Q: Is solar hot water considered renewable energy technology? Or does it count as a traditional energy efficiency technology?A: yes, it is considered a technology supporting renewable energy.

20.Q: Are district energy (cooling and/or heating) systems qualified as district/community scale energy technology that is allowed in this solicitation?A: Yes, but the Applicant must make the case about the rationalities of this option. The study results must be actionable/practical and have a reasonable likelihood of being implemented.

21.Q: Can you clarify what organizations do not qualify as community based organizations? Would organizations that are not headquartered in the respective region of interest qualify? Would “advocacy” organizations such as the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters not qualify? Or more broadly, would “any nonprofit group that works at a local level to improve life for residents” qualify as a CBO partner or supporting organization?

4

A: Although there is not a single definition of an acceptable "community based organization," the intent is to include engage the community where the project is located, therefore any choice(s) in CBO(s) should be broadly trusted by the people who live in the community and able to effectively engage the community. For further guidance, please refer to the requirements on pages 20-22 in the solicitation manual. For more background information see "Green Zones and Grassroots," cited in the solicitation manual and available at https://www.libertyhill.org/news/reports/green-zones-and-grassroots

22.Q: What is the key work required for Group 2: a comprehensive analysis of already deployed projects involving integrated energy efficiency of homes and buildings, urban distributed generation and community renewable microgrids or detailed model of the hypothetical projects (not yet deployed) with integrated EE of homes and buildings, urban distributed resources, and community renewable microgrids or a detailed design plan, which includes the model of the hypothetical project with integrated EE of homes and buildings, urban distributed resources, and community renewable microgrids or an actual (physical) deployment or pilot of the project with EE of homes and buildings, urban distributed resources, and community renewable microgrids?A: The work required is a detailed integrated modeling of options creating a draft blueprint for potential energy development for the selected urban area.

23.Q: Define “community renewable microgrid”.A: A “community renewable microgrid” is a coordinated local grid area served by one or more distribution substations and supported by high penetrations of local renewables and other distributed energy resources (DER) such as energy storage and demand response. In particular, the Energy Commission refers to a microgrid as a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid and that automatically connects and disconnects from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected and “islanded” mode. A microgrid is capable of operating autonomously from the electrical grid by supplying all of its generation. Microgrids may be either utility or non-utility owned. Microgrids are characterized by having a microgrid controller capable of automatically integrating and coordinating the generation, storage (if applicable), controllable loads, and the grid intertie equipment within the microgrid to interact with the larger grid as an aggregated single system.The word “community” in association with the “renewable microgrid” in this case should imply that the input of study has to be within a limited range of the community and the output shall not be too large.

24.Q: Define “vulnerability of electricity system”. Is the electricity system referring only to the local distribution system of the project location? What are the indicators of electricity system vulnerability?

5

A: Yes, it is only referring to the local urban area that is part of the study. The indicators would include metrics such as potential loss of service, but it is up to the applicant to suggest other metrics. The metrics would also be identified during the execution of the project with input from the Technical Advisory Committee.

25.Q: Clarify the term “and” in the statement “Urban renewable microgrid and the electrification of energy services”. Are both urban renewable microgrid and the electrification of energy services simultaneous required elements of the project? Would energy service electrification without renewable urban renewable microgrid be allowed?A: The proposals should include both.

26.Q: At the bottom of page 20, “The research must produce a suite of energy development and energy efficiency options (collectively called "urban energy scenarios" here), based on rigorous science.” Would modeling and presenting the energy/environmental/economic impacts for various design configurations (i.e. energy efficiency measures, demand respond measures, and local distributed energy resources) satisfy this requirement? Does this require the deployment of an actual project with the EEs and DERs? If an actual project deployment is required, does this project have to be deployed by the grant applicant?A: The work required is a detailed integrated modeling of options creating a draft blueprint for potential energy development for the selected urban area. The project does not require the installation/deployment of actual projects (e.g., microgrid, retrofit of certain buildings). See also the question #22.

27.Q: At the bottom of page 20 and top of page 21, “these urban energy scenarios should include results using GIS tools.” Does “should” imply a requirement or a recommendation? Clarification needed for ‘in-eligible’ GIS tools.A: The research teams shall use GIS tools for their spatial analyses

28.Q: On page 21, “Additional electricity energy technologies to be considered in scenarios.” Can these scenarios be design models? Does scenario refer to actual deployment (i.e. construction and operation) of various design configurations?A: No, deployment of technologies/options is not required under this GFO. Applicants should propose research that could inform potential future demonstration projects.

29.Q: On page 20, “The Energy Commission has supported statewide studies looking at potential energy futures associated with deep reduction of GHG emissions taking climate change into account. However, the statewide studies do not provide the geographical level of resolution needed for more in-depth environmental analysis. In addition, preliminary identification of actual energy

6

projects is not feasible in statewide studies. The proposed studies are an expansion of past energy scenarios work with a focus on relatively small urban scales to address the limitation of statewide studies as mentioned above”. Provide further detailed clarification of the problem stated in this paragraph. What are the problems the Commission seeks to resolve through Project Group 2?A: The studies1,2 referred on page 20 in the solicitation manual investigated the evolution of the power systems of California and western North America using the SWITCH model. While the study identifies a portfolio of key pathways, including aggressive energy efficiency, clean electricity, low carbon biofuels, and large‐scale electrification of light duty vehicles, and building and industrial heating, it has its limitations in terms of making distinguished suggestions for specific geographical areas targeting low-income population group in California. Constraints of the statewide studies can be reviewed in the final project report “Scenarios for deep carbon emission reduction from electricity by 2050 in western North America using the SWITCH Electric power sector planning model” on pages 11-12 of the Final Report (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-109/CEC-500-2014-109.pdf). Research proposals under this project group must address shortcomings of the statewide model and propose research that will identify optimal pathways for optimization of energy efficiency of existing building stock and electrification of electricity services in Disadvantaged Communities in San Joaquin Valley or in the territories served by Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas and Electric.

Group 330.Q: Is the scope of the work inclusive of transportation technologies such as

plug-in vehicles and fuel cell vehicles? E.g., the lead sentence in the RFP does not mention transportation (“This group will investigate the synergies between increasing efficiency of homes and buildings, urban distributed generation, and community renewable microgrids and how these synergies can be leveraged, leading to improved air quality and substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions”).A: Yes. The electrification of energy services (e.g., electric cars for transportation services) is part of the work to be done.

31.Q: On page 23, “Development, in close collaboration with electricity sector stakeholders, of tools that support electricity sector resilience and meet the specifications generated in collaboration with stakeholders.” Define “electricity sector resilience”. Provide examples of the criteria for evaluating electricity sector resilienceA: Resilience of electricity sector is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain

1 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-108/CEC-500-2014-108.pdf 2 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-109/CEC-500-2014-109.pdf

7

essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. Criterias evaluating electricity sector resilience can be found, for examplein the report prepared by the Department of Energy (https://energy.gov/epsa/initiatives/us-energy-sector-vulnerability-report ), which provides guidelines “assessing electricity sector vulnerabilities and developing resilience solutions, including: hardening existing assets; deploying more climate resilient technologies, including smart grids and microgrids; relocation; and improved policy and strategies to speed establishment of a more climate-resilient energy system.”

32.Q: You mentioned a sea level rise tool that allows comparison viewing of different data sets, currently Cal-adapt does have a sea level rise tool where we are currently showcasing the work of Dr. Radke, I’m wondering that you are imagining that this would just be an enhancement of the current tool or maybe a new stand-alone type tool?A: As part of California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Dr. Radke and colleagues (UC Berkeley) are undertaking a larger assessment of vulnerability and resilience options for California’s transportation fuel sector. One element of this work involves re-running the high-resolution model that contributed the results in the SLR tool currently featured on Cal-Adapt 2.0, but using the increments of secular SLR specified for use by research contributing to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. The intention expressed in the application manual, however, was that the successful application would enable Cal-Adapt users to explore SLR-related risks as portrayed by a number of different models. In other words, Cal-Adapt should provide a common platform for exploring not only SLR-related risks modeled by John Radke et al, but other groups’ models as well. For example, USGS has developed the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) model to explore coastal evolution and SLR-related impacts in the context of various storm scenarios. While the Our Coast, Our Future tool developed by Point Blue depicts a comprehensive suite of CoSMoS results, Cal-Adapt “1.0” shows an abbreviated subset of CoSMoS results for Northern California (greater Bay Area). We envision that Cal-Adapt 2.0 will develop a common platform that enables users to compare differences and similarities between available models of SLR-related risks in California.

33.Q: One more question, a little more general, about the incorporation of the new high resolution algorithms and data sets generated by the energy section contribution to, the fourth assessment, you do mention something here specifically from Eagle Rock Analytics that has acquisition of data, freely available measured surface temperatures. Does that mean that you are looking to include real time data?A: The mention of Eagle Rock analytics was intended as an example of research projects that may, in the future, serve as the basis for tools and/or datasets that would be hosted on Cal-Adapt. At this time, we do not have a specific application in mind, because the research is in progress and results are not yet available. However, one of the key points to keep in mind is that

8

the successful applicant will need to be nimble, flexible, and proactive regarding new data, opportunities, and applications that arise over the course of the agreement.

34.Q: The proposal requires that we maintain a 200TB FTP server. Is this the current or forecast size of the data? What is the estimated size of the data needed to be transferred from GIF to the recipient?A: The 200 TB server indicated in the application manual refers primarily to anticipated future data needs. Presently, GIF has a much smaller server (20 Tb).

35.Q: Does the 200TB requirement include backup or emergency/offsite backup space?A: The Applicant should make a determination as to what their team would provide and why it is desirable/justified. A proposal that is less vulnerable to disruption of the server site is preferred to one that is highly vulnerable.

36.Q: What are the technical specifications of the server or servers currently hosting the datasets, Cal-Adapt web site and Cal-Adapt web API? E.g. per machine RAM, CPUs, storage/disk capacity and configuration, network I/O capability, operating system and version. Are any materials purchased to support Cal-Adapt in prior awards expected to transfer to recipient of this award?A: The Energy Commission does not have this information. However, applicants can consult the following paper “Bringing Global Climate Change Data to a Local Application” by Kevin Koy et al. published on June 2011 in the Journal “Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing.” (http://digital.ipcprintservices.com/publication/?i=71141&p=8 )The following presentation also has useful information: Thomas, N, Mukhtyar, S., Wilhelm, S., Galey, B., Lehmer, E. (2016), Cal-Adapt: California's Climate Data Resource and Interactive Toolkit, presented at 2016 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, CA., 12-16 December. The presentation is available here https://github.com/berkeley-gif/caladapt-docs (check the caladapt-docs/docs folder). This GitHub site also contains information about the API created for Cal-Adapt.To date, no Energy Commission funding has been used to purchase equipment in support of Cal-Adapt.

37.Q: Were there periods where the datasets, Cal-Adapt web site or Cal-Adapt web API were unavailable due to server, power or network outages?A: The Energy Commission’s Agreement Manager for Cal-Adapt is not aware of periods when data or API were unavailable.

38.Q: At present is there a formal change management process for updating the API specification to meet stakeholder, Cal ISO or CEC needs?A: Presently, there is no “formal change management process” in place.

9

39.Q: Are there presently change requests open for the API specification? Where any made and fulfilled or cancelled during the current award?A: The Energy Commission’s Agreement Manager for Cal-Adapt is not aware of any open, posed, fulfilled, or cancelled “change requests” for the API specification.

40.Q: Has there been a survey or solicitation for feedback from electricity sector stakeholders performed in support of ongoing API development? Is this document publicly available?A: On September 12, 2017 a User Needs Assessment Workshop will be held by the Geospatial Innovation Facility. This workshop, which is an important part of ongoing work under an EPIC grant (EPC-15-008), is open to the public. Please check the Cal-Adapt website for an announcement with more information.

41. Q: How many HTTP and FTP requests are served by the FTP server, Cal-Adapt web site and web API per day? Per month?A: Cal-Adapt 2.0, which resides at beta.cal-adapt.org through mid-August but will transition to cal-adapt.org thereafter, has only recently begun hosting data on an FTP server. For this reason, we do not believe that the historical number of requests per day or month is indicative of what the successful applicant would need to be prepared to handle. However, in the past two weeks the server has had 51,200 hits.

42.Q: The solicitation lists a number of potential input datasets for the desired SLR tool, but only a few words describing what the SLR tool is designed to do. Would it be possible to elaborate on the desired functionality of the SLR tool?A: The intention of the envisioned SLR tool is to provide a platform that enables users to explore implications of different models. At present, it is difficult to compare models in part due to the vastly different visualization platforms on which they are made available to the public, as well as different ways of qualitatively describing and quantifying risks. (Other differences between models, including but not limited to the increments of secular SLR considered, also complicate comparison.) Further specifics of the envisioned tool are to be determined and justified by the successful applicant as examples of what the team could do. However, the final details will be developed during the execution of the project with input from the Technical Advisory Committee.

Group 443.Q: It seems you want collection and analysis of data but not just paper

studies, and yet these are small grants, so we’ve been trying to figure out, are you actually looking for the new data as in actually physically monitoring sources of emissions from distributed generation or are you looking for analysis of data that exists but hasn’t been done. It seemed a little surprising

10

what you were asking for given these were small grants ,on the other hand it’s not entirely clear where in the spectrum of data analysis and production what the sweet spot is here given the grant but you don’t just want a paper study?A: The addendum clarifies the definition of paper studies—basically reviews or summarizes published literature or roadmaps of research needs. On the other hand, small grants are also not intended to merely collect monitoring data. Applications should propose exploratory, novel studies, which could include new methods for collecting data, or novel analysis of new or existing data.

44.Q: Can data collection lead to a roadmap to research or does that fall into the paper oriented research?A: The addendum clarifies that a roadmap, or a study that merely produces a set of research needs, would not be eligible under this group. Roadmaps have been eligible under other EPIC solicitations, and may be in future solicitations, but these are usually explicitly requested as a topic.

45.Q: For the small grants, is a modeling based study acceptable?A: A modeling study would be eligible, but as in other answers, it is up to the applicant to make the case that the modeling is exploratory and highly innovative and would potentially provide great benefits to ratepayers.

46.Q: Would a Group 4 application be considered eligible if it includes new data collection along with some modeling? For example, field measurement of sensitive bird species along with habitat modeling to inform the siting of new renewable energy facilities? A: Yes, such an application could be eligible for this group. Note, however, that the intent of small grants is to fund high risk, novel research, so applicants should carefully describe the technical merit of their application.

47.Q: Can the data collection component of the Group 4 application be from a separately funded CEC project? We have an ongoing CEC project that collects field data on the impacts of renewable energy sites on wild birds. Can the Group 4 proposal be used to support the novel analysis of field data that is being collected under a different project? In other words, can the Group 4 application involve ground truthing and further development of work that is part of an ongoing CEC project to gain new insights?A: See also #44. It is acceptable under Group 4 to propose a novel analysis of data that was collected in another project. Merely proposing to use a small grant to ground truth results of a novel analysis done in another project would likely not score highly on technical merit.

48.Q: Wondering whether grid resilience would fit into the small grants category?A: As stated on page 27 of the addendum, small grants projects must specifically address at least one of the environmental issues described under Strategic Objective 5 in the 2015-2017 EPIC Triennial Investment Plan.

11

Studies of improving grid resilience would only be eligible if they addressed climate change adaptation for the electricity sector.

49.Q: About paper study vs. field measurements, wondering if the project might be considered eligible if it had some field work with sensitive species in an IOU area and it also had modeling and extrapolating from field work to inform future siting?A: See Question #46.

50.Q: For the Small Grants (Group 4), could you please elaborate on the third bullet of Slide 19 from the presentation (Collect data and/or conduct analysis)? Is it acceptable that the study be based on 1) environmental modeling results from a prior study in addition to 2) performing new modeling and analysis to evaluate potential environmental impacts in EJ communities and IOU territories? Or is modeling not acceptable in Group 4?A: Modeling is acceptable in Group 4, subject to the other requirements, such as addressing an environmental issue and being a novel, exploratory study. The addendum clarifies what constitutes a paper study that would not be eligible.

51.Q: As it pertains to the conditions in the small grants solicitation that must be satisfied, condition 3 (“be based upon collection and analysis of data obtained directly from designed experiments and/or field measurements/surveys/interviews rather than pure paper studies”) seems to pretty clearly indicate that physical analytical equipment must be deployed for the collection of new data during the proposed study. Is this correct? If not, please clarify.A: The addendum clarifies the distinction between paper studies and the research sought under this group. “Physical analytical equipment” is not required.

52.Q: The description says that the project must “be based upon collection and analysis of data obtained directly from designed experiments and/or field measurements/surveys/interviews rather than pure paper studies”.We are considering project ideas that would involve requesting, receiving and analyzing customer, energy usage data received from utilities through data requests. Would this data qualify as an acceptable type of data under this requirement?A: Yes, subject to the other requirements that the application address and environmental issue and be a novel, exploratory study.

53. Q: Can you clarify what is meant by a “pure paper study?A: See addendum and question #43.

54. Q: Would the following project be eligible (a modeling study using a newly developed air quality model): Generating a spatio-temporal gridded GIS layer

12

of health benefit multiplier for determining the effectiveness of emission reduction strategies targeting the Disadvantaged Communities in SJV. Generating such GIS layer can avoid future re-running of expensive 3D air quality models.A: It could be eligible, subject to the other requirements.

55.Q: On page 26, “Funded projects must 1) directly address environmental issues associated with the electricity system, 2) have the strong potential to substantially benefit California’s electricity ratepayers, including environmental justice communities, in IOU territories, 3) be based upon collection and analysis of data obtained directly from designed experiments and/or field measurements / surveys / interviews rather than pure paper studies, and 4) target to produce results that are useful for electricity stakeholders and/or policy makers”. Provide clarification on the scope of environmental issues that Project Group 4 is required to address directly.A: As stated on page 27 of the addendum, small grants projects must specifically address at least one of the environmental issues described under Strategic Objective 5 in the 2015-2017 EPIC Triennial Investment Plan (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-038/CEC-500-2014-038-CMF.pdf).

56.Q: Clarify “environmental justice communities”. Is there a typo error “environmental justice communities”? If there is no error type, provide clarified definition of this term “environmental justice communities”.A: The Energy Commission defines “environmental justice communities” as those where residents are predominantly minorities or low-income; where residents have been excluded from the environmental policy setting or decision-making process; where they are subject to a disproportionate impact from one or more environmental hazards; and where residents experience disparate implementation of environmental regulations, requirements, practices and activities in their communities (http://www.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/environmental_justice_faq.html).

57.Q: Provide a clarified definition of “pure paper studies”A: See answers to questions #43 and #44.

58.Q: Solicitation manual has the following requirement for the proposals under Group 4: “target to produce results that are useful for electricity stakeholders and/or policy makers.” Are the efforts of Project Group 4 to exclude work that impact non- electricity stakeholders (e.g. natural gas stakeholders)? If so, how do we untangle the intricate links between electricity and natural gas when Project Group 4 considers design options that involve electrification of non-electricity equipment to mitigate local GHG emission?A: Research results may benefit the non-electricity stakeholders, however, they must, at a minimum, produce results that would be useful for electricity stakeholders.

13

Multiple-Groups59.Q: What is the definition of Southern California in terms of the solicitation?

A: Southern California means the territories served by Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas and Electric as clarified in page 20-21 and 27 of the addendum.

60.Q: Could you please state the qualifying CalEnviroScreen 3.0 scores for areas considered Disadvantaged Communities? A: A Disadvantaged Community is identified by census tract and represents the 25% highest scoring tracts in CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Please also see page 46 in the solicitation manual.

61.Q: Please provide further clarification on the interpretation of the term “pre-commercial technologies” in Section II. B. 1, Applied Research and Development Stage, page 16 for the purposes of this solicitation. During the pre-application workshop CEC staff members had mentioned that a potential technology of interest could be grid interactive water heating. Are there other examples of pre-commercial technologies of interest CEC would be interested in examining as part of this effort?A: It is up to the Applicant to decide what technologies would be available at commercial scale in the next three to six years. This selection could also be done, however, in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee to be created for this project, as required in the terms and conditions.

62. I am seeking a bit of clarification about the definitions under Groups 2 and 4 for the southern California area. Does that include Ventura County?A: Ventura County is served by Southern California Edison (http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/Electric_Service_Areas_Detail.pdf) and can be studied under project groups 2, 4 as a part of Southern California.

General63.Q: Follow up: Some of this work may include recommendations that would

lead to program implementation, would any entity or organization that was involved in the research and recommendation be precluded from participating in the future implementation?A. No, they will not be precluded but any implementation supported by EPIC will be selected using a competitive process.

64.Q: Clarification on process now, the deadline for questions is the middle of next week which is less than a week away and there seems to be some ambiguity or some confusion about Group 4, is it possible to also have an extended period for written questions once the group 4 is clarified?

14

A. No, we do not anticipate extending the deadline for technical questions. However, this deadline does not apply to non-technical questions (e.g., questions concerning application format requirements or attachment instructions) or to questions that address an ambiguity, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the solicitation. Such questions may be submitted to the Commission Agreement Officer, Crystal Presley-Willis, (see pages 13-14 in the Solicitation Manual)

65.Q Elaborate more on what qualifies for the matching funds. Specifically, if federal funds qualify or not? A. Federal funds count as matching funds.

66.Q: When stating that each applicant is available to receive one award, does that mean that each applicant also means each institution, or can one institution with different applicants receive more than one award?A. An applicant is eligible to receive only one award under this solicitation. An institution can receive multiple awards as long as the proposed research for each application is distinct and the applications for each project are from different research teams/entities.

67.Q: Are there any specific insurance requirements that the Energy Commission has for subcontractors?A. Recipient of EPIC award must warrant that it will carry Worker's Compensation Insurance for all of its employees who will be engaged in the performance of this Agreement. Please also see the EPIC Terms and Conditions:http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/epic_terms_segmented/EPIC_Standard_Contract_Terms.pdf.

68.Q: Can the local publicly owned investor utilities (POUs) including municipal utilities bid on this solicitation? Are investor owned utilities (IOUs) exempt from applying on this application?A. IOUs are eligible to bid on this solicitation, but POUs are not eligible to apply for EPIC funding.

69.Q: The July 19 deadline for technical questions leaves very little time to obtain feedback from stakeholders before the submittal deadline. Can the deadline be changed to the end of August?A. Please review question #64.

70.Q: Will the pre-application workshop attendee and affiliation list be posted on your website?A. The pre-application workshop attendee and affiliation list will not be posted on the Energy Commission’s website. However, if you would like to network and collaborate with potential bidders on this solicitation, you may participate in the virtual workshop that will be organized on LinkedIn Energy Commission Networking Hub page for this GFO. Each Networking Hub participant would

15

be required to have a LinkedIn account, which would provide the information about affiliation. The virtual workshop will take place on August 21, 2017.

71.Q: Are the Proposal Reviewers topic experts within CEC, or are external reviewers from universities, government laboratories and small businesses also used?A. Technical experts from outside of the Energy Commission may participate in reviewing of the proposals. However, only Energy Commission Staff, knowledgeable with the GFO , can score the proposals.

72.Q: For funds spent in California, we understand that the scoring is a direct calculation of potential points out of 15, but is there a requirement that the PI be located in California?A. No, there is not a requirement for the PI to be located in California. However, wages and benefits paid to a PI based outside of California do not qualify as “funds spent in California” and the score under this criteria will be scored accordingly.

73.Q: Can a Subcontractor be a part of two separate teams responding to different funding groups, should both teams be awarded?A. Yes. Research teams responding to different funding groups can hire the same Subcontractor if they are awarded. However, if the Subcontractor provides technical expertise or work to two or more projects, they must not duplicate services between the projects to avoid a duplication of efforts.

74.Q: The fourth screening criterion listed in the table for Section IV.E states the following: “If the applicant has submitted more than one application for the same project group, each application is for a distinct project (i.e., no overlap with respect to the tasks described in the Scope of Work, Attachment 6)” Please clarify what would constitute overlap between tasks? For example what are the criteria and bases Energy Commission staffs would consider determining whether two proposals from the same Applicant are overlapping or distinct? For example, if an applicant submitted two proposals for Group 2 that each used similar “big-data” GIS methods but focused on different geographic areas of California and sought to answer different research questions, would these two applications be considered distinct?A. Energy Commission staff will determine whether two applications submitted by the same Applicant are overlapping or distinct mainly based upon the scoring criteria 2 “Technical approach” and 3 “Impacts and Benefits for California IOU Ratepayers”. Research proposals using the same technical approach applied to different geographic areas will most likely not be considered distinct enough. Please also review the answer to question #66.

75.Q: Are applicants and awardees for other CEC funded advanced energy technology demonstration projects for disadvantage communities in the San Joaquin Valley eligible to bid on this solicitation?

16

A. Yes, all Recipients of EPIC funding under different GFOs are eligible to bid on this solicitation.

17