GFO-25-304 - Modeling and Monitoring Air Quality and Co-Benefits of Energy Interventions

GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

Modeling and Monitoring Air Quality and Co-Benefits of Energy Interventions

EPIC Program

GFO-25-304

State of California

California Energy Commission

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 1

A. Purpose of Solicitation 1

B. Key Words/Terms 2

C. Project Focus 5

D. Funding 12

E. Key Activities Schedule 13

F. Notice of Pre-Application Workshop 14

G. Questions 15

H. Applicants' Admonishment 16

I. Additional Requirements regarding environmental review 16

J. Background 17

K. Match Funding 23

L. Funds Spent in California 25

II. Eligibility Requirements 25

A. Applicant Requirements 25

B. Project Requirements 27

III. Application Submission Instructions 28

A. Application Format, Page Limits 28

B. Method For Delivery 29

C. Application Content 30

IV. Evaluation and Award Process 34

A. Application Evaluation 34

B. Ranking, Notice of Proposed Award, and Agreement Development 34

C. Grounds to Reject an Application or Cancel an Award 35

D. Miscellaneous 36

E. Stage One: Application Screening 38

F. Stage Two: Application Scoring 39

I. Introduction

Purpose of Solicitation

The purpose of this solicitation is to fund applied research and development projects that inform California's transition to an equitable, zero-carbon energy system that is climate-resilient and meets environmental goals. Applied research supported by this solicitation will improve existing ambient air quality modeling approaches, advance low-cost measurement technologies, and conduct analyses to quantify the air quality implications and related human health impacts of clean energy interventions across energy use sectors. Ultimately, this research will contribute to a foundation for accurate monetization of non-energy impacts of clean energy interventions.

Improvements in air quality and related human health outcomes are important direct benefits of decarbonizing energy sectors that currently rely on fossil fuels. Capturing these impacts is important to motivate investments in decarbonization strategies but is also a challenging task. Robust air quality modeling and field measurements can help to accurately project the air quality-related benefits and ultimately monetize the human health impacts of clean energy interventions such as implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 100 (), transportation electrification, and building electrification.

This solicitation addresses public interest research opportunities at the nexus of human health, air quality monitoring and modeling, and California's decarbonizing electricity system. Existing ambient air quality simulation models require rigorous evaluation for accuracy of estimates, specific tailoring to California's complex geography and meteorology, and expanded capability to simulate pollutants such as ozone and secondary particulate matter. Additionally, improvements in the spatial resolution and computational efficiency of existing models are critical to illuminate impacts of decarbonization strategies, and applied research is needed related to low-cost air quality sensors for in-situ household pollution measurement. While existing sensors enable collection of abundant data, they can be afflicted by performance issues and associated inaccuracies.

Projects must fall within the following project groups:

Group 1: Advancing Ambient Air Quality Modeling Capabilities and Analysis; and

Group 2: Developing a Low-cost Air Quality Sensor to Assess Household Air Pollution.

See Section II of this solicitation for eligibility requirements. Applications will be evaluated as described in Section IV of this solicitation.

Applicants may submit multiple applications, though each application must address only one of the project groups identified above. If an applicant submits multiple applications that address the same project group, each application must be for a distinct project (i.e., no overlap with respect to the technical tasks described in the Scope of Work).

Prospective applicants looking for partnering opportunities for this funding opportunity should register on the California Energy Commission's Empower Innovation website at www.empowerinnovation.net

Key Words/Terms

Project Focus

Group 1: Advancing Ambient Air Quality Modeling Capabilities and Analysis.

Group 1 will support applied research to advance modeling capabilities of ambient air quality models, test optimal and equitable placement of sensors within California's current air quality sensor network, and perform analysis using data and air quality models to answer policy-relevant questions related to understanding non-energy impacts and benefits of energy system decarbonization scenarios.

The successful applicant for this group must, at a minimum, propose a project that will:

Identify an existing ambient air quality model to improve, or justify development of a new model. The applicant must contextualize its proposed focus based on peer reviewed literature.

Use novel methodologies, such as machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches, to improve the existing model or develop the new model, per the proposed project focus. Proposals must include a description of the methods that will be used to improve an existing model or develop a new one.

Use the improved or new model[s] to perform analyses illuminating important policy-relevant questions, including, at a minimum:

Quantify air quality and health impacts of clean energy transitions in California, namely SB 100 implementation, building electrification, transportation electrification, bioenergy deployments, and distributed generation, with particular attention to health-damaging pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3). Applicants must delineate specific questions that merit inquiry and will drive the analyses.

Quantify distributed air quality impacts of the current energy system (for benchmarking) and future clean energy scenarios to Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Communities.

Quantify impacts of residential electrification on outdoor air quality and human health.

Investigate marginal emission impacts of interventions such as electric vehicles and renewable energy generation.

Quantify impacts of wildfire-generated aerosols on solar photovoltaic (PV) generation in California.

Develop preliminary estimates that monetize impacts of clean energy interventions to clarify, at a minimum, net costs of home electrification by factoring in the non-energy costs with upfront, operational, and maintenance costs. The goal is to provide a credible and empirically grounded assessment of the net cost impact on households-particularly those in Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Communities-when transitioning from fossil gas to electric options. Emphasis should be placed on capturing the distribution of costs and benefits across different household types, moving beyond reliance on average cost metrics. Proposals must outline a robust methodology for this analysis.

Perform air quality and geographic analysis of existing and planned gas power plants-such as those identified in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) interconnection queue and SB 100 planning-to reduce impact of health-damaging pollutants on Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Communities.

Create a high-resolution spatial tool (e.g., an interactive dashboard) that provides estimates of air quality-related health and monetized impacts for Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Communities of future electrification scenarios across energy sectors. The tool should include estimates of health endpoints (e.g., mortality, respiratory effects) as well as monetized health impacts or benefits.

Test optimal and equitable placement of air quality sensors within California's current regulatory air quality sensor network for criteria pollutants such as PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and O3.

Identify high-priority sensor locations to capture air quality benefits of future clean energy interventions.

Identify what (if any) improvements are needed to the air quality monitoring network.

Additionally, it is desirable that funded research addresses additional policy-relevant items below:

Clarify how air quality and health implications of clean energy transitions are affected by climate change and community-specific vulnerability to air pollution.

Estimate the combined climate and health impacts of clean energy interventions.

Assess potential air quality impacts of CEC-proposed activities in Lithium Valley.

Background information (Group 1)

The atmosphere is a complex system in which numerous physical and chemical processes occur simultaneously across a range of spatial and temporal scales. Ambient monitors measure conditions at a particular time and location. Scientists developed air quality (or "atmospheric") models in part to simulate concentrations more comprehensively than limited observational measurements support. These models are useful for illuminating air quality issues and supporting science-based policy decisions.

Air quality models can be broadly classified into two types: (1) statistical or empirical models and (2) mechanistic models. Statistical models are based on observations and predictions (examples: land-use regression models). Mechanistic models explicitly describe physics, chemistry, and meteorology to simulate atmospheric processes that govern the transport and transformation of air pollutants (examples: AERMOD, CMAQ). Mechanistic models can be further classified as Lagrangian, where the reference frame moves with the wind/particles; or Eulerian, where the reference frame is fixed. Eulerian Chemical Transport Models (Eulerian CTMs; examples:CMAQ, CAMx, WRF-Chem) are powerful tools that simulate atmospheric processes to predict concentrations of atmospheric constituents and their spatiotemporal variability.

Many air quality models are used in regulatory and research communities. Complex CTMs represent state-of-the-science atmospheric models and have historically provided the most robust estimates available when time and computational constraints are not limiting.4-7 However, because complex CTMs are time- and resource-intensive, in some cases modelers may prefer reduced-complexity air quality models (RCMs). RCMs can take a CTM-based,, Gaussian,, Lagrangian, or chemical mass balance approach. Although less accurate than complex CTMs, RCMs can have the flexibility to allow for a greater number of sensitivity analyses, Monte Carlo approaches, an understanding of source and receptor effects, use of smaller-sized grid cells, and longer simulated periods.,

Commonly used RCMs that can provide comprehensive estimates covering the contiguous U.S. at relatively high spatial resolution (approximately county level or finer) include: (1) the Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy (APEEP/AP2) model,8 (2) the Estimating Air pollution Social Impacts Using Regression (EASIUR) model, and (3) the Intervention Model for Air Pollution (InMAP). Gilmore et al. (2019) compare these three models. Among the three, APEEP/AP2 has county-level spatial resolution, EASIUR uses a 36 km x 36 km grid covering the contiguous U.S., and InMAP employs a variable spatial grid, where the grid cell size is a function of the gradient in population density and pollutant concentrations, varying from 1 km x 1 km (typically in urban areas) to 48 km x 48 km (typically in rural areas).

Each of these three models has specific strengths and weaknesses. While APEEP/AP2 can model concentrations of PM2.5 that is formed in the atmosphere from emissions of precursors, EASIUR cannot model formation of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) from volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions; hence, EASIUR may not be suitable to estimate total PM2.5. APEEP/AP2 has coarser spatial resolution (county-level) than InMAP does, so it may not be desirable for addressing questions related to environmental justice and other distributional concerns. Currently, InMAP does not have the capability to model other (beyond PM2.5) health-damaging pollutants such as O3 and nitrogen oxides. Many of these models do not offer uncertainty analysis. Additionally, Paolella et al. (2018) demonstrated the importance of fine spatial resolution for identifying and quantifying exposure disparities in energy systems.

There are many areas in which air quality models can be improved for greater efficiency, inclusion of multiple pollutants, and improved accuracy of results. For example, complex CTMs can be made computationally faster. RCMs, such as InMAP, have been widely used in recent years owing to their computational speed. For example, Wei et al. (2023) estimated that more than $40 million in public health benefits would accrue from transitioning all vehicles in Fresno County to zero-emission vehicles, and in another study, InMAP modeling showed transportation-related air pollution disparities in California. However, Tessum et al. (2017) recommends that further improvements in InMAP are needed. Further recommendations include tailoring the model to a specific geography such as California, expanding it to other pollutants such as O3, and enhancing it to produce uncertainty analysis. Machine learning approaches have recently gained attention in the scientific community to train models for efficiency and accuracy in predicting air quality. Models trained by machine learning can adequately account for nonlinear relationships between emissions, atmospheric chemistry, and meteorological factors., These approaches can be used to further improve existing modeling capabilities or to create new models by managing a large quantity of datasets and ultimately achieving desired model computational efficiency for research and regulatory use.

There are several policy-relevant questions that warrant attention and can be addressed using improved air quality models. For example, understanding air quality impacts and related health implications of gas-fueled peaker electricity plants and refineries in Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Communities is an important environmental justice issue. A 2021 report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District used the California Puff (CALPUFF) AQ model and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) BenMAP health analysis model to show three to six premature deaths per year - associated with an economic cost of $29-65 million per year - attributed to PM2.5 emissions from one refinery in the San Francisco Bay Area. Further research is needed to elucidate environmental impacts of transport electrification by evaluating various factors including growth in electric vehicles (both passenger and freight), charging infrastructure, and clean electricity production, as well as human behaviors. Implementation of SB 100 scenarios also require assessing air quality and the related health costs and benefits of the additional clean electricity generation capacity and storage needed to achieve SB 100 goals.

Modeling air quality helps inform future policy decisions, while monitoring air quality using ground sensors plays an important role in capturing real-time, empirically grounded impacts of energy interventions and in validating modeling outputs. Kelp et al. (2022) suggested that the current U.S. EPA monitoring network for PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley and northern California is relatively sparse in the context of capturing impacts of high-pollution events such as wildfires. The study identified the need for significantly more sensors in these regions than were in the current U.S. EPA sensor network to better monitor concentrations from such events. Another study, Marlier et al. (2022) showed that existing air quality monitoring networks in California do not provide adequate coverage of PM2.5 exposure in wildfire-prone regions, particularly those with large populations of agricultural workers who are at heightened risk under both current and future climate conditions. These studies show there is a mismatch between where the sensors are and where air pollution and populations are concentrated, though these studies are largely focused on wildfire pollution. The importance of incorporating location-specific emissions reductions into the US air quality regulatory framework to eliminate exposure disparity has been documented in a recent study by Wang et al. (2022). Although low-cost air sensors exist (e.g., from PurpleAir), the adequacy of crowd-sourced observational networks to portray exposure disparities remains uncertain. Environmental justice advocates have recently raised issues with the placement of new monitors (in terms of number and location) in other states.

California is making significant efforts to improve ambient air quality by decarbonizing economic sectors including electricity generation, transportation, and buildings. To capture the benefits of improved air quality from clean energy interventions such as electrification of end-uses and to identify related equity gaps in allocation of benefits, it is important to develop an optimal and equitable air quality monitoring network across California's complex geography, with particular attention to characterizing air quality among both rural and urban populations. A key question to evaluate is whether the existing air quality monitoring network (for health-damaging pollutants such as PM2.5, NO2, and O3) in California is optimally and equitably placed to capture the benefits of air quality improvements from future clean energy interventions. There is a need to characterize air quality monitoring networks' abilities to detect changes with statistical rigor and to understand what improvements are needed.

Group 2: Developing a Low-cost Air Quality Sensor to Assess Household Air Pollution.

Group 2 will support research to identify gaps and challenges in low-cost sensor technology, develop a new low-cost air quality sensor, and validate it in the indoor environment. The objective is to support development of a low-cost, consumer-facing air quality sensor suitable for household deployment, with performance improvements over currently available low-cost indoor air quality sensors.

The successful applicant for this group must, at a minimum, propose a project that will:

Identify pollutant[s] of concern (e.g., PM2.5, NO2) for developing the low-cost air quality sensor. The applicant must justify its choice of pollutant[s] of concern.

Identify key performance challenges in the ability of existing low-cost sensors to adequately quantify the pollutant[s] of concerns based on scientific studies, including the peer-reviewed literature.

Develop an improved low-cost air quality sensor addressing the identified challenges. The applicant must describe its approach to developing the improved low-cost air quality sensor. The new sensor will comply to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 (validated in relevant environment).

Validate the improved low-cost air quality sensor. The proposal must describe the approach to validating the new sensor.

It is desirable that funded research include development of:

Wearable air quality sensors to advance research for dynamic and real-time measurements of environmental exposures.

A compact, low-cost NO2 sensor that can be deployed inside homes for monitoring exposure to NO2, especially during cooking activities.

Methods to link population-based air quality-related health data back into the healthcare system.

Validation approaches that demonstrate integration of the improved low-cost air quality sensor into energy-consuming household systems (e.g., kitchen range hoods or other building infrastructure) in a relevant indoor residential environment. The applicant must clearly describe the methodology for system integration, performance evaluation under real-world operating conditions, and how the integration supports effective household deployment and validation.

Additional background for Group 2

Indoor air quality (IAQ) monitoring provides crucial data to support the health and comfort of building occupants. In recent years, revised energy efficiency requirements for buildings have led to tightening of building envelopes to reduce infiltration of pollution from outdoors. This has, however, exacerbated concerns about health effects from exposures to air pollutants that are generated indoors (e.g., cooking-associated pollutants). On the other hand, in older buildings, where new building standards are not applicable, indoor air can be degraded from increasing high outdoor pollution events such as wildfires. Also, building decarbonization interventions such as cooking electrification can have varying impacts on residents' exposure to pollutants based on home size and availability of mechanical ventilation. There is a need to fill data gaps on IAQ in homes to understand air quality-related health consequences of clean energy and energy efficiency interventions, identify disparities in air quality impacts, and track progress of non-energy benefits from interventions.

To date, efforts to collect such data are limited by the costs of instrumentation and sample analysis. Low-cost sensors can reduce the hardware costs associated with acquiring time-resolved pollutant concentration data. For example, Clark et al. (2020) designed a specialized 3D-printed passive air quality sampler by combining low-cost methods (passive sample collection; digital image-based analysis). Tryner et al. (2021) assembled small "Home Health Boxes" (HHBs) to measure indoor PM2.5, NO2, and O3 concentrations using filter samplers and low-cost sensors.

While the above-mentioned advancements in low-cost sensors are promising, it is important to note that low-cost sensor data must be interpreted with care. Relative to reference instruments, low-cost sensors are still lagging in accuracy. A number of prior studies have assessed the performance of low-cost sensors and documented limitations or inaccuracies in their measurements.,, These studies suggest that the low-cost sensors tested are not yet ready to replace more established exposure assessment methods in long-term household air pollution epidemiologic studies. A recently published California Air Resources Board (CARB) white paper, "Low-Cost Sensors for Healthier Indoor Air Quality in Impacted Communities," recommends continuous validation of low-cost sensor performance, especially for gas pollutants such as NO2, O3, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). It also emphasizes the need for ongoing research and development to advance low-cost sensor technology, as well as the need to adapt sensor features to emerging IAQ issues and trends.

Wearable air quality sensors have recently gained attention for their potential role in facilitating citizen science research on exposure and advancing understanding of precision environmental health. These sensors can be pivotal in promoting clean energy solutions by providing quantitative information that facilitates management of indoor conditions for improved wellbeing. These sensors track real-time data on pollutants like particulates and VOCs while also monitoring the pollutants' impact on stress, mobility, and sleep quality. This data can guide parameters important for energy efficiency strategies-such as optimizing air filtration, ventilation, humidity, or temperature control-and ultimately help modify indoor environments (e.g., adjusting air filtration rate or capture efficiency of kitchen ventilation system) to enhance individuals' health and comfort.

An improved low-cost air quality sensor could help California residents confidently track their exposures to health-damaging pollutants such as NO2 and PM2.5. This is especially timely, as the CARB is working to update the California 2005 IAQ guidelines for NO2. Additionally, the research may help inform the efforts of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's program, Air Quality Sensor Performance Evaluation Center, which aims to evaluate commercially available low-cost air quality sensors for measuring criteria pollutants.

Funding

Amount Available and Minimum/ Maximum Funding Amounts

There is up to $6,000,000 available for grants awarded under this solicitation. The total, minimum, and maximum funding amounts for each project group are listed below.

Match Funding Requirement

Applications for groups 1 and 2 must include a minimum 5% total match share percentage for this solicitation.

Total match share percentage is calculated by dividing the total match share contributions by the total CEC funds requested plus total match share contributions:

X 100 = Total Match Share percentage

For the definition of match funding see Section I K.

Change in Funding Amount

Along with any other rights and remedies available to it, the CEC reserves the right to:

Increase or decrease the available funding and the minimum/maximum grant award amounts described in this section.

Allocate any additional or unawarded funds to passing applications, in rank order.

Reallocate funding between any of the groups

Aggregate funds from multiple groups to fully fund the highest ranked passing applications, regardless of group.

Reduce funding to an appropriate amount if the budgeted funds do not provide full funding for agreements. In this event, the proposed grant recipient and Commission Agreement Manager (CAM) will attempt to reach agreement on a reduced Scope of Work commensurate with available funding.

Key Activities Schedule

Key activities, dates, and times for this solicitation and for agreements resulting from this solicitation are presented below. An addendum will be released if the dates change for activities that appear in bold.

Notice of Pre-Application Workshop

CEC staff will hold one Pre-Application Workshop to discuss this solicitation with potential applicants. Participation is optional but encouraged. The Pre-Application Workshop will be held remotely. Applicants may attend the workshop via the internet (Zoom, see instructions below), or via conference call on the date and at the time and location listed below. Please refer to the CEC's website at www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/index.html to confirm the date and time. Please be aware that the meeting will be recorded.

Date and time: February 10, 2026, 10:00 AM Pacific Time

Zoom Instructions:

To join the Zoom meeting, go to https://zoom.us/joinand enter the Meeting ID below and select "join from your browser." Participants will then enter the meeting password listed below and their name. Participants will select the "Join" button.:

Meeting ID: 865 3759 2878

Meeting Password: 728478

Topic: GFO-25-304 Pre-Application Workshop

Telephone Access Only:

Call 1-888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 1-877 853 5257 (Toll Free). When prompted, enter the meeting number above. International callers may select a number from the Zoom International Dial-in Number List at: https://energy.zoom.us/u/adjzKUXvoy. To comment, dial *9 to "raise your hand" and *6 to mute/unmute your phone line.

Access by Mobile Device:

Download the application from the Zoom Download Center, https://energy.zoom.us/download.

Technical Support for Pre-Application Workshop:

For assistance with problems or questions about joining or attending the meeting,

please call Zoom Technical Support at 1-888-799-9666 ext. 2. You may also contact the CEC's Public Advisor's Office at publicadvisor@energy.ca.gov, or (916) 957-7910.

System Requirements: To determine whether your computer is compatible, visit:

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362023-System-requirements-for-Windows-macOS-and-Linux.

If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate, please Erica Rodriguez by e-mail at Erica.Rodriguez@energy.ca.gov or (916) 764-5705 at least five days in advance.

Questions

During the solicitation process, for questions only related to submission of application in the new ECAMS system, please contact . Through that email address applicants will be able to access a team of technical assistants who can answer questions about application submission. Please also see Section III.B for additional information about the ECAMS system.

For all other questions, including all technical and administrative questions that are not related to submission of applications in the ECAMS system, please contact the Commission Agreement Officer listed below:

Natalie Johnson, Commission Agreement Officer

California Energy Commission

715 P, MS-18

Sacramento, California 95814

E-mail:

Applicants may ask questions at the Pre-Application Workshop and may submit written questions via email. However, all technical questions must be received by the deadline listed in the "Key Activities Schedule" above. Questions received after the deadline may be answered at the CEC's discretion. Non-technical questions (e.g., administrative questions concerning application format requirements or attachment instructions) may be submitted to the CAO at any time prior to 5:00 p.m. of the application deadline date. Similarly, questions related to submission of applications in the ECAMS system may be submitted to ECAMS.SalesforceSupport@energy.ca.gov at any time prior to 5:00 p.m. of the application deadline date.

The questions and answers will also be posted on the CEC's website at: .

If an applicant discovers a conflict, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the solicitation at any time prior 5:00 p.m. of the application deadline date, the applicant may notify the CAO in writing and request modification or clarification of the solicitation. The CEC, at its discretion will provide modifications or clarifications by either an addendum to the solicitation or by written notice to all entities that requested the solicitation. At its discretion, the CEC may, in addition to any other actions it may choose, re-open the question/answer period to provide all applicants the opportunity to seek any further clarification required.

Any verbal communication with a CEC employee or anyone else concerning this solicitation is not binding on the State and will in no way alter a specification, term, or condition of the solicitation. Therefore, all communication should be directed in writing to the assigned CAO.

Applicants' Admonishment

This solicitation contains application requirements and instructions. Applicants are responsible for carefully reading the entire solicitation, asking appropriate questions in a timely manner, ensuring that all solicitation requirements are met, submitting all required responses in a complete manner by the required date and time, and carefully rereading the solicitation before submitting an application. In particular, please carefully read the Screening and Scoring Criteria and Grounds to Reject an Application or Cancel an Award in Part IV, and the relevant EPIC Grant terms and conditions located at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding-opportunities/funding-resources.

Applicants are solely responsible for the cost of developing applications. This cost cannot be charged to the State. All submitted documents will become publicly available records and property of the State after the CEC posts the Notice of Proposed Award or the solicitation is cancelled. Only submit information you want made public. Applicants shall not submit any confidential information as part of their applications. No portion of your application will be considered confidential.

Additional Requirements regarding environmental review

Time is of the essence. CEC funds available under this solicitation have encumbrance deadlines as early as June 30, 2027. This means that the CEC must approve proposed awards at a business meeting (usually held monthly) prior to June 30, 2027, to avoid expiration of the funds.

Environmental Review. Prior to approval and encumbrance, the CEC must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other requirements. To comply with CEQA, the CEC must have CEQA-related information from applicants and sometimes other entities, such as local governments, in a timely manner. Unfortunately, even with this information, the CEC may not be able to complete its CEQA review prior to the encumbrance deadline for every project. For example, if a project requires an Environmental Impact Report, the process to complete it can take many months. For these reasons, it is critical that applicants organize applications in a manner that minimizes the time required for the CEC to comply with CEQA and provide all CEQA-related information to the CEC in a timely manner such that the CEC is able to complete its review in time for it to meet its encumbrance deadline.

Reservation of right to cancel proposed award. In addition to any other right reserved to it under this solicitation or that it otherwise has, if the CEC determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the CEQA review associated with a proposed project would not likely be completed prior to the encumbrance deadline referenced above, and that the CEC's ability to meet its encumbrance deadline may thereby be jeopardized, the CEC may cancel a proposed award and award funds to the next highest scoring applicant, regardless of the originally proposed applicant's diligence in submitting information and materials for CEQA review. Examples of situations that may arise related to CEQA review include but are not limited to:

Example 1: If another state agency or local jurisdiction, such as a city or county, has taken the role of lead agency under CEQA, the CEC's review may be delayed while waiting for a determination from the lead agency.

Example 2: If the proposed work is part of a larger project for which a detailed environmental analysis has been or will be prepared by another state agency or local jurisdiction, the CEC's review may be delayed as a result of waiting for a supplemental or initial analysis, respectively, from the other agency.

Example 3: If the nature of the proposed work is such that a project is not categorically or otherwise exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and an Initial Study or other detailed environmental analysis appears to be necessary, the CEC's review, or the lead agency's review, may take longer than the time available to encumber the funds. If an Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, or similar document has already been completed by another state agency or a local jurisdiction, serving as the lead agency, the applicant must ensure that such an analysis covers the work in the proposed project, or must obtain a revised analysis and determination from the lead agency reviewing the proposed project.

Example 4: If the proposed project clearly falls under a statutory or categorical exemption, or is project for which another state agency or local jurisdiction has already completed its environmental review and adopted CEQA findings that the project will cause no significant effect on the environment, the project will likely have greater success in attaining rapid completion of CEQA requirements.

The above examples are not exhaustive of instances in which the CEC may or may not be able to comply with CEQA within the encumbrance deadline and are only provided as further clarification for potential applicants. Applicants are encouraged to contact potential lead and responsible agencies under CEQA as early as possible. Please plan applications accordingly.

Background

Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) Program

This solicitation will award projects funded by the EPIC, an electricity ratepayer surcharge established by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in December 2011. The purpose of the EPIC program is to benefit the ratepayers of three investor-owned utilities (IOUs), including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Diego Gas and Electric Co., and Southern California Edison Co. The EPIC funds clean energy technology projects that meet the guiding principles of (1) improving safety, (2) increasing reliability, (3) increasing affordability, (4) improving environmental sustainability, and (5) improving equity, all as related to California's electric system. In addition to providing IOU ratepayer benefits, funded projects must lead to technological advancement and breakthroughs to overcome the barriers that prevent the achievement of the state's statutory energy goals. The EPIC program is administered by the CEC and the IOUs.

Program Areas, Strategic Objectives, and Funding Initiatives

EPIC projects must fall within the following program areas identified by the CPUC:

Applied research and development;

Technology demonstration and deployment; and

Market facilitation.

In addition, projects must fall within one of the general focus areas ("strategic objectives") identified in the CEC's EPIC Investment Plans and within one or more specific focus areas ("funding initiatives") identified in the plan. This solicitation targets the following program area, strategic objective, and funding initiative:

Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) 2021-2025 Investment Plan

Program Area: Applied Research and Development

Strategic Objective: Inform California's Transition to an Equitable, Zero-Carbon Energy System that is Climate-Resilient and Meets Environmental Goals

Funding Initiative: Environmental Sustainability

Applicable Laws, Policies, and Background Documents

This solicitation addresses the energy goals described in the following laws, policies, and background documents.

Laws/Regulations

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

AB 32 created a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. GHG reduction strategies include a reduction mandate of 1990 levels by 2020 and a cap-and-trade program. AB 32 also designates the CARB as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHG emissions and requires CARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce GHGs. CARB must update the plan at least once every five years.

Additional information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB32http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_32_bill_20160908_chaptered.htm;

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan

Applicable Law: California Health and Safety Code 38500 et. seq.

SB 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit

SB 32 expands on AB 32 by requiring that CARB ensure statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 further requires that these emission reductions are achieved in a manner that benefits the state's most disadvantaged communities and is transparent and accountable to the public and the Legislature.

Additional information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32

Applicable Law: California Health and Safety Code 38566.

SB X1-2 - Renewables Portfolio Standard,

SB X1-2 expanded California's Renewables Portfolio Standard goals and requires retail sellers of electricity and local publicly owned electric utilities to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020.

Applicable Law: CPUC Code 399.11 et seq.

AB 758, Building Efficiency

AB 758 directs CEC to collaborate with the CPUC and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy and water savings in existing residential and nonresidential buildings. This resulted in the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan, adopted in 2015 and updated in 2016 and 2019, which provided a framework for state and local governments, building industries, and other stakeholders, to increase energy efficiency in existing residential, commercial, and public buildings.

Additional information:

Applicable Law: California Public Resources Code 25943, CPUC Code 381.2 and 385.2

AB 3232 Zero-Emissions Buildings and Sources of Heat Energy,

AB 3232 requires the CEC by January 1, 2021, to evaluate the possibility of the state to reduce GHG emissions from the state's residential and commercial building stock by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by January 1, 2030. It also requires the CEC to include in the 2021 edition of the integrated energy policy report and all subsequent integrated energy policy reports a report on the emissions of GHGs associated with the supply of energy to residential and commercial buildings.

Additional information:

SB 1477, Low-emissions Buildings and Sources of Heat Energy

SB 1477 requires the CPUC to develop, in consultation with the CEC, two programs (Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development and Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating) aimed at reducing GHG emissions associated with buildings.

Additional information: ,

SB 350 - Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015

SB 350, among other directives, expanded on AB 758 by directing CEC to establish annual targets to achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers by January 1, 2030. This resulted in the SB 350 Doubling of Energy Efficiency by 2030 (Doubling Report), which expanded the focus of the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan from existing buildings to include agriculture, industry, newly constructed buildings, conservation voltage reduction, and fuel substitution. CEC subsequently consolidated the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan, Doubling Report, and energy efficiency equity efforts to form a comprehensive roadmap to achieving the state's energy efficiency and building decarbonization goals in the 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan.

SB 350 also requires retail sellers of electricity and local publicly owned electricity increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources and provided for the transformation of the Independent System Operator into a regional organization.

Additional information: ;

SB 100 - The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018

SB 100 requires that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. The bill requires the CPUC and the CEC, in consultation with CARB to ensure that California's transition to a zero-carbon electric system does not cause or contribute to GHG emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid.

Additional information:

SB 1020 - Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022

SB 1020 revises state policy to provide that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90 percentof all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040, 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035, as specified.

Additional information:

Applicable Law: California Health and Safety Code 38561 et. Seq.

California Energy Code

The Energy Code is a component of the California Building Standards Code and is published every three years through the collaborative efforts of state agencies including the California Building Standards Commission and the CEC. The Code ensures that new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality through use of the most energy efficient technologies and construction.

Additional information: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/

Applicable Law: California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 and associated administrative regulations in Part 1

AB 209 Energy and climate change

AB 209 requires the CEC to administer several clean energy programs aligned with the state's climate objectives, including an Equitable Building Decarbonization program, an Industrial Grid Support and Decarbonization Program, the Food Production Investment Program, a Hydrogen Program, and an Offshore Wind Waterfront Facilities Improvement Program.

Additional information:

Policies/Plans

Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) (Biennial)

California Public Resources Code Section 25302 requires the CEC to release a biennial report that provides an overview of major energy trends and issues facing the state. The IEPR assesses and forecasts all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery, distribution, demand, and pricing. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies and provide recommendations for future research and analysis areas.

Additional information: http://www.energy.ca.gov/energypolicy

Applicable Law: California Public Resources Code 25300 et seq.

CPUC Decision 13-10-040, "Decision Adopting Energy Storage Procurement Framework and Design Program" (2013)

The Decision establishes policies and mechanisms for energy storage procurement, as required by AB 2514 (described above). The IOU procurement target is 1,325 megawatts of energy storage by 2020, with installations required no later than the end of 2024.

Additional information: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M079/K533/79533378.PDF

California's Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan

The Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan provides a 10-year roadmap to activate market forces and transform California's existing residential, commercial, and public building stock into high performing and energy efficient buildings. The Plan provides a comprehensive framework centered on five goals, each with an objective and a series of strategies to achieve it. Each strategy includes industry and/or government implementation partners. Water related items are addressed in several of the strategies from the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan including but not limited to strategies 1.5, 2.2, 4.1, and 5.7 from the plan.

Additional Information:

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/energy-efficiency-existing-buildings

2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan

The Energy Efficiency Action Plan expands on the Existing Buildings Energy Action Plan and includes topics related to existing buildings' energy efficiency, low-income barriers to energy efficiency, and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. The SB 350 Doubling of Energy Efficiency by 2030 report expands beyond existing buildings to include agriculture, industry, newly constructed buildings, conservation voltage reduction, and electrification. This report combines these topics with the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan to create a comprehensive statewide energy efficiency action plan.

Additional information:

Order Instituting Informational Proceeding on Non-Energy Impacts (NEI)

This proceeding requires CEC analyses, policies, and programs to include non-energy benefits and social costs into cost-effectiveness determinations, planning, and decision-making processes.

Additional information:

Reference Documents

Refer to the link below for information about past CEC research projects and activities:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/electric-program-investment-charge-epic-program

https://www.energy.ca.gov/showcase/energize-innovation

Refer to the documents below for information about activities associated with this solicitation:

Staff Workshop: Staff Workshop: Funding to Support Modeling and Monitoring Air Quality and Co-Benefits of Energy Interventions to Inform a Clean and Equitable Energy Transition (MAQCEET) (January 30, 2024)

Staff Workshop information located here:

Docket containing public comments located here:

Match Funding

"Match funds" includes cash or in-kind (non-cash) contributions provided by the applicant, subrecipients, or other parties including pilot testing, demonstration, and/or deployment sites (e.g., test site staff services) that will be used in performance of the proposed project.

"Match funds" do not include: CEC awards, EPIC funds received from other sources, future/contingent awards from other entities (public or private), the cost or value of the project work site, or the cost or value of structures or other improvements affixed to the project work site permanently or for an indefinite period of time (e.g., photovoltaic systems).

Definitions of "match funding" categories are listed below:

"Cash" match means funds that are in the grant recipient's possession or proposed by a match partner and clearly identified in a support letter, and are reserved for the proposed project, meaning that they have not been committed for use or pledged as match for any other project. Cash match can include funding awards earned or received from other agencies for the proposed technologies or study (but not for the identical work). Proof that the funds exist as cash is required. Cash match will be considered more favorably than in-kind contributions during the scoring phase.

"In-Kind" match can be in the form of goods or services that are not reimbursed with CEC funds such as labor (if reasonable and justified), donated space, existing equipment, existing supplies, services provided by a third-party or subrecipient, and other expendable property in support of the project. The value of in-kind match is based on the fair market value of the goods and services provided at the time it is claimed as match. The value of existing equipment must be prorated for its use in the project and depreciated or amortized over the term of the project using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Labor rates for hours donated by non-employees who are not paid for their time must be consistent with those paid for similar work. Cost allocations must be reasonable and allocable to the proposed project. In-kind match share must be included in the agreement budget.

The grant recipient is expected to maintain appropriate documentation to support the fair market value of all in-kind match including match donated by third parties or major subrecipients.

Match funds must be spent only during the agreement term, either before or concurrently with CEC funds or in accordance with an approved Match Fund Spending Plan. Match funds also must be reported in invoices submitted to the CEC.

All applications that include match funds must submit commitment letters, including applicant, subrecipients, sub-subrecipients, and vendors that: (1) identify the source(s) of the funds; (2) justify the dollar value claimed; (3) provide an unqualified (i.e., without reservation or limitation) commitment that guarantees the availability of the funds for the project; and (4) provide a strategy for replacing the funds if they are significantly reduced or lost. Please see Commitment and Support Letters Form Attachment. Commitment and support letters must be submitted with the application to be considered.

Any match pledged in an application must be consistent. For example, in the ECAMS system and in the Budget Attachment applicants will be asked to enter the project's total match funding. The amounts listed in those places should be consistent with the amount or dollar value described in the commitment letter(s) (e.g., if $5,000 "cash in hand" funds are pledged in a commitment letter, the match amounts entered in the ECAMS system and in the Budget must match this amount). If the amounts listed in an application are inconsistent, the total amount pledged in the commitment letter(s) will be considered for match funding points.

Examples of preferred match share:

"Travel" refers to all travel required to complete the tasks identified in the Scope of Work. Travel includes in-state and out-of-state, and travel to conferences. Use of match funds for out-of-state travel is encouraged, as the CEC discourages and may not approve the use of its funds for such travel. If an applicant plans to travel to conferences, including registration fees, they must use match funds.

"Equipment" is an item with a unit cost of at least $5,000 and a useful life of at least one year. Purchasing equipment with match funding is encouraged, as there are no disposition requirements at the end of the agreement for such equipment. Typically, grant recipients may continue to use equipment purchased with CEC funds if the use is consistent with the intent of the original agreement.

"Materials" under Materials and Miscellaneous are items under the agreement that do not meet the definition of Equipment (unit cost of at least $5,000 and a useful life of at least one year). Using match funds for purchasing items such as laptops, notebooks and/or personal tablets is encouraged, as Energy CEC funds for these purchases is not allowed.

Funds Spent in California

Only CEC funds may count towards funds spent in California total.

"Spent in California" means that:

Funds in the "Direct Labor category and all categories calculated based on direct labor (e.g., fringe benefits, indirect costs and profit) are paid to individuals that pay California state income taxes on wages received for work performed under the agreement. Payments made to out-of-state workers do not count as "funds spent in California." However, funds spent by out-of-state workers in California (e.g., hotel and food) can count as "funds spent in California."; AND

Business transactions (e.g., material and equipment purchases, leases, and rentals) are entered into with a business located in California.

Total should include any applicable, subrecipients, sub-subrecipients, and vendors.

Airline ticket purchases for out-of-state travel and payments made to out-of-state workers are not considered funds "spent in California." However, funds spent by out-of-state workers in California (e.g. lodging) and airline travel originating and ending in California are considered funds "spent in California." A business located in California means: 1) businesses registered with Secretary of State AND 2) transaction is with a location in California that is directly related to the grant project (e.g., direct purchase of material and equipment to be used in the grant) and results in the support of California business and jobs.

Example 1: CEC funds will be spent on temperature sensors. The temperature sensors are manufactured in Washington. The grant recipient orders the temperature sensors directly from a CA based supply house. The invoice shows that the transaction occurred with the CA based supply house. This transaction is eligible and can be counted as funds spent in CA.

Example 2: CEC funds will be spent on temperature sensors. The temperature sensors are manufactured in Washington. The grant recipient orders the temperature sensors directly from Washington. The manufacturer has training centers in CA that instructs purchasers on how to use the sensors. The invoice shows that the transaction occurred in Washington. This transaction is not eligible and cannot be counted as funds spent in CA.

CEC's Rights and Remedies

Any process explained in this solicitation is in addition to, and does not restrict, any other rights and remedies available to the CEC.

II. Eligibility Requirements

Applicant Requirements

Eligibility

This solicitation is open to all public and private entities with the exception of local publicly owned electric utilities. In accordance with CPUC Decision 12-05-037, funds administered by the CEC may not be used for any purposes associated with local publicly owned electric utility activities.

Terms and Conditions

Each grant agreement resulting from this solicitation will include terms and conditions that set forth the grant recipient's rights and responsibilities. By submitting an application in the ECAMS system, each applicant agrees to enter into an agreement with the CEC to conduct the proposed project according to the terms and conditions that correspond to its organization, without negotiation: (1) University of California and California State University terms and conditions; (2) U.S. Department of Energy terms and conditions; (3) Special Terms and Conditions for California Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations with Sovereign Immunity in addition to the standard terms and conditions; or (4) standard terms and conditions. All terms and conditions are located at https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding-opportunities/funding-resources. Please refer to the applicable EPIC Grant terms and conditions. Failure to agree to the terms and conditions by taking actions such as failing to provide the required authorizations and certifications or indicating that acceptance is based on modification of the terms may result in rejection of the application. Applicants must read the terms and conditions carefully. The CEC reserves the right to modify the terms and conditions prior to executing grant agreements.

If a California Native American Tribe (Tribe) or California Tribal Organization with sovereign immunity is listed as a proposed awardee in the Notice of Proposed Award, CEC staff must receive the following before bringing the proposed award to a CEC Business Meeting:

1. A resolution or other authorizing document by the governing body of the Tribe or California Tribal Organization authorizing the Tribe or California Tribal Organization to enter into the proposed agreement, including accepting the Special Terms and Conditions for California Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations with Sovereign Immunity.

2. A limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the form and manner required by tribal law; and

3. A resolution or other authorizing document delegating authority to execute the agreement to an appropriate individual.

The above requirements may be provided in one or more documents. The document(s) will be included as an exhibit to the resulting grant agreement.

Delay in award. Any delay in the Tribe or Tribal Organization's ability to provide such documentation may result in delayed award of the grant agreement.

Reservation of right to cancel proposed award. Funds available under this solicitation have encumbrance deadlines which the CEC must meet in order to avoid expiration of the funds. In addition to any other rights reserved to it under this solicitation or that it otherwise has, the CEC reserves the right to cancel a proposed award if it determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the documentation described above would likely not be provided prior to an encumbrance deadline, and that the CEC's ability to meet its encumbrance deadline may thereby be jeopardized. In this instance, the CEC may cancel the proposed award and award funds to the next highest scoring applicant.

California Secretary of State Registration

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 CEC Business Meeting. If not currently registered with the California Secretary of State, applicants and project team members (e.g. subrecipients and even match fund partners) are encouraged to contact the Secretary of State's Office as soon as possible to avoid potential delays in beginning the proposed project(s) (should the application be proposed for funding). Applicants should provide the exact legal names of entities included in their applications, along with any fictitious business names. Fictitious business names must be currently valid, i.e., not expired with the Secretary of State. As part of the CEC's due diligence, particularly during the agreement development phase, CEC staff may request the supporting documentation regarding the above registration requirements.

For more information, contact the Secretary of State's Office via its website at www.sos.ca.gov. Sole proprietors do not have to be registered with the California Secretary of State. However, the local government may require a business license and if using a fictitious business name, registration of the name may be required. Sole proprietors must be able to provide evidence of required licenses and/or registration with the appropriate local government, or evidence that such licenses and/or registration is not required, to the CEC prior to the project being recommended for approval at a CEC Business Meeting.

Russia Sanctions

The budget must NOT identify that CEC funds will be spent outside of the United States or for out-of-country travel. However, match funds may cover these costs if there are no legal restrictions. Recent legal restrictions may include Russian Sanctions as described below:

On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. "Economic Sanctions" refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions.

Accordingly, should the State determine Recipient is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this agreement. The State shall provide Recipient advance written notice of such termination, allowing Recipient at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

Project Requirements

Applied Research and Development Stage

Projects must fall within the "applied research and development" stage, which includes activities that support pre-commercial technologies and approaches that are designed to solve specific problems in the electricity sector. Applied research and development activities include early, pilot-scale testing activities that are necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of pre-commercial technologies. By contrast, the "technology demonstration and deployment" stage involves the installation and operation of pre-commercial technologies or strategies at a scale sufficiently large and in conditions sufficiently reflective of anticipated actual operating environments to enable appraisal of the operational and performance characteristics and the financial risks.

Ratepayer Benefits, Technological Advancements, and Breakthroughs

California Public Resources Code Section 25711.5(a) requires EPIC-funded projects to:

Benefit electricity ratepayers; and

Lead to technological advancement and breakthroughs to overcome the barriers that prevent the achievement of the state's statutory energy goals.

EPIC's mandatory guiding principle are to provide ratepayer benefits, which is defined as (1) improving safety, (2) increasing reliability, (3) increasing affordability, (4) improving environmental sustainability, and (5) improving equity, all as related to California's electric system.

Accordingly, the Project Narrative Form Attachment and the "Goals and Objectives" section of the Scope of Work Template Attachment must describe how the project will: (1) benefit California IOU ratepayers by improving safety, increasing reliability, increasing affordability, improving environmental sustainability, and improving equity, all as related to California's electric system; and (2) lead to technological advancement and breakthroughs to overcome barriers to achieving the state's statutory energy goals. Any estimates of energy and water savings or GHG impacts must be calculated using the References for Calculating Electricity End-Use, Electricity Demand, and GHG Emissions Attachment.

Technology or Knowledge Transfer Expenditures

To maximize the impact of EPIC projects and to promote the further development and deployment of EPIC-funded technologies, a minimum of 5 percent of CEC funds requested should go towards knowledge transfer activities. Appropriate knowledge transfer activities for this solicitation are listed in the Scope of Work Template Attachment. The Budget Forms Attachment should clearly distinguish funds dedicated for knowledge transfer.

III. Application Submission Instructions

Application Format, Page Limits

All items listed below are required as part of the application package. Failure to provide any items may result in disqualification of the application. Attachment requirements are expanded and explained below in this section and in the attachments themselves.

Method For Delivery

The only method of submitting applications to this solicitation is Energy Commission Agreement Management System (ECAMS), available at: https://ecams.energy.ca.gov.

The CEC is providing a team of technical assistants to support applicants with this new process. Please email ECAMS.SalesforceSupport@energy.ca.gov for support.

ECAMS allows applicants to complete and submit their application to the CEC prior to the date and time specified in this solicitation. Files uploaded to the system must be in Microsoft Word XP (.doc format) or newer and Excel Office Suite formats unless originally provided in the solicitation in another format. Attachments requiring signatures, such as match funding commitment letters, may be scanned and submitted in PDF format. Completed Budget Forms, Attachment, must be in Excel format.

The deadline to submit applications through ECAMS system is 11:59 p.m. on the Deadline to Submit Applications date shown in the Key Activities Schedule. ECAMS automatically closes at 11:59 pm. If the full submittal process has not been completed before 11:59 p.m., your application will not be considered.

The CEC strongly encourages Applicants to upload and submit all applications by 5:00 p.m. because CEC staff will not be available after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends to assist with the upload process. And please note that while we endeavor to assist all would-be applicants, we can't guarantee staff will be available for in-person consultation on the due date, so please plan accordingly.

Please give yourself ample time to complete all steps of the submission process: do not wait until right before the deadline to begin the process. Due to factors outside the CEC's control and unrelated to ECAMS, upload times may be much longer than expected. For example, unexpected issues could occur, causing long delays that prevent timely submission. Please plan accordingly. For instructions on how to apply using the ECAMS system, please see the How to Apply document available on the CEC website at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding-opportunities/funding-resources, under General Funding Information, Energy Commission Agreement Management System (ECAMS).

First time users must register as a new user to access the system. There will be two types of user accounts to establish: 1) An organizational account, for the entity applying to the solicitation; and 2) user accounts for individuals who will be submitting the application on behalf of the organization.

Applicants will be required to upload all attachments marked "required" in the system in order for the application to be submitted.

Application Content

Below is a general description of each required section of the application. Please reference each individual attachment for a detailed description of the information requested by that attachment. Completeness in submitting all the information requested in each attachment will be factored into application scoring.

Executive Summary Form (Attachment 1)

The Executive Summary includes: a project description; the project goals and objectives to be achieved; an explanation of how the goals and objectives will be achieved, quantified, and measured; and a description of the project tasks and overall management of the agreement.

Project Narrative Form (Attachment 2)

This form includes the majority of the applicant's responses to the Scoring Criteria in Section IV.

Group Specific Questions

Include required group specific information (see Section I.C.) in the specified sections.

Project Team Form (Attachment 3)

Identify by name all key personnel assigned to the project, including the project manager and principal investigator (if applicable), and individuals employed by any major subrecipient (a major subrecipient is a subrecipient receiving $100,000 or more of Commission funds). Clearly describe their individual areas of responsibility. Include the information required for each individual, including a resume (maximum two pages).

Scope of Work Template (Attachments 4)

Applicants must include a completed Scope of Work for each project, as instructed in the template. The Scope of Work identifies the tasks required to complete the project.

Electronic files for the Scope of Work must be in MS Word file format.

Project Schedule (Attachment 5)

The Project Schedule includes a list of all products, meetings, and due dates. All work must be scheduled for completion by the "Key Dates" section of this solicitation manual.

Electronic files for the Project schedule must be in MS Excel file format.

Budget Forms (Attachment 6)

Because this solicitation is utilizing the new ECAMS system for submitting applications, applicants have two options for uploading a budget:

Option 1: Prime Applicant's budget is both keyed directly into ECAMS and uploaded as an MS Excel attachment; the Prime Major Subrecipient(s) budgets are uploaded as MS Excel attachments. The new ECAMS system allows applicants to build the prime applicant's budget directly into the system. At this time, there is no way to input major subrecipient budgets directly into the system. Instructions for inputting budget items into the ECAMS system are included at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding-opportunities/funding-resources.

Option 2: Upload all budgets (Prime and Major Subrecipients) as MS Excel attachments and leave the ECAMS budget sections blank.

Instructions for completing the budgets can be found in Budget Category Guidance at the ECAMS Resources page. Read the instructions tab on the MS Excel attachments Attachment 6 before completing the worksheets. Complete and submit information on all budget worksheets. The salaries, rates, and other costs entered on the worksheets will become a part of the final agreement.

All project expenditures (match share and reimbursable) must be made within the Anticipated Agreement Start and End dates listed in the "Key Activities Schedule" of this solicitation manual. Match share requirements are discussed in Part I.D and I.K of this solicitation. The entire term of the agreement and projected rate increases must be considered when preparing the budget.

The budget must reflect estimates for actual costs to be incurred during the agreement term. The CEC may only approve and reimburse for actual costs that are properly documented in accordance with the grant agreement terms and conditions. Rates and personnel shown must reflect the rates and personnel the applicant would include if selected as a Recipient.

The rates proposed, except for Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits, are considered capped and may not change during the agreement term. Except for Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits, the grant recipient will only be reimbursed for actual rates and not to exceed the capped rates. The rates proposed for Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits are treated as estimates; a grant recipient can invoice at higher rates as long as it is only invoicing for actual expenditures it has made. If an applicant, by law, cannot agree to Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits rates being treated as estimates, the applicant can request to modify this term. This modification may be negotiated if the applicant is proposed for award. The CEC retains the sole right to refuse to agree to any requested modifications. The budget must NOT include any grant recipient profit from the proposed project, either as a reimbursed item, match share, or as part of overhead or general and administrative expenses (subrecipient profit is allowable, though the maximum percentage allowed is 10% of the total subrecipient rates for labor, and other direct and indirect costs as indicated in the Category Budget tab). Please review the terms and conditions and budget forms for additional restrictions and requirements.

The budget must allow for the expenses of all meetings and products described in the Scope of Work. Meetings may be conducted at the CEC or by conference call, as determined by the CAM.

Applicants must budget for permits and insurance. Permitting costs may be accounted for in match share. Permit costs and the expenses associated with obtaining permits are not reimbursable with CEC funds, with the exception of costs incurred by University of California grant recipients.

The budget must NOT identify that CEC funds will be spent outside of the United States or for out-of-country travel. However, match funds may cover these costs if there are no legal restrictions.

Prevailing wage requirement: Projects that receive an award of public funds from the CEC often involve construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair or maintenance work over $1,000. For this reason, projects that receive an award of public funds from the CEC are likely to be considered public works under the California Labor Code. See Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, commencing with Section 1720 and Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, commencing with Section 16000.

Projects deemed to be public works require among other things the payment of prevailing wages, which can be significantly higher than non-prevailing wages.

By accepting this grant, the grant recipient as a material term of this agreement shall be fully responsible for complying with all California public works requirements including but not limited to payment of prevailing wage. Therefore, as a material term of this grant, the grant recipient must either:

(a) Proceed on the assumption that the project is a public work and ensure that:

prevailing wages are paid; and

the project budget for labor reflects these prevailing wage requirements; and

the project complies with all other requirements of prevailing wage law including but not limited to keeping accurate payroll records, and complying with all working hour requirements and apprenticeship obligations;

or,

(b) Timely obtain a legally binding determination from the Department of Industrial Relations or a court of competent jurisdiction before work begins on the project that the proposed project is not a public work.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Form (Attachment 7)

The CEC requires the information on this form to facilitate its evaluation of proposed activities under CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.), a law that requires state and local agencies in California to assess the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions. The form will also help applicants to determine CEQA compliance obligations by identifying which proposed activities may be exempt from CEQA and which activities may require additional environmental review. If proposed activities are exempt from CEQA (such as paper studies), the worksheet will help to identify and document this. This form must be completed regardless of whether the proposed activities are considered a "project" under CEQA.

Failure to complete the CEQA process in a timely manner after the CEC's Notice of Proposed Award may, in the CEC's sole discretion and without limiting any of the CEC's other rights and remedies, result in the cancellation of a proposed award and allocation of funding elsewhere, such as to the next highest-scoring project.

Past Projects Information (Attachment 8)

The Past Projects Information Form asks for information about the Applicant and its major subrecipients' past agreements with the CEC and other entities.

Commitment and Support Letter Form (Attachment 9)

A commitment letter commits an entity or individual to providing the service or funding described in the letter. A support letter details an entity or individual's support for the project. Commitment and Support Letters must be submitted with the application. Letters that are not submitted by the application deadline will not be reviewed and counted towards meeting the requirement specified in the solicitation.

Commitment Letters

Applicants must submit a match funding commitment letter from each entity that is committing to providing match funding. Each commitment letter must be signed by an authorized representative of the entity or by the individual that is making the commitment. A commitment letter must include all of the following: (1) identification of the source(s) of the funds; (2) a justification of the dollar value claimed; (3) an unqualified (i.e. without reservation or limitation) commitment that guarantees the availability of the funds for the project; and (4) a strategy for replacing the funds if they are significantly reduced or lost.

Project partners that are making contributions other than match funding or a test/demonstration site, and are not receiving CEC funds, must submit a commitment letter signed by an authorized representative that: (1) identifies how the partner will contribute to the project; and (2) unconditionally commits to making the contribution if Recipient is awarded a CEC grant.

Support Letters

All applicants must include at least one support letter from a project stakeholder (i.e., an entity or individual that will benefit from or be involved in the project) that: (1) describes the stakeholder's interest or involvement in the project; (2) indicates the extent to which the project has the support of the relevant industry and/or organizations; and (3) describes any support it intends (but does not necessarily commit) to provide for the project, such as funding or the provision of a test/ demonstration site.

Project Performance Metrics (Attachment 10)

The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify and document performance targets for the project. The performance targets should be a combination of scientific, engineering and techno-economic metrics that provide the most significant indicator of the research or technology's potential success. The metrics should provide constructive targets for the performance of the technology or project and how the metric will be measured and evaluated, during the project and after the project is complete.

Applicant Declaration (Attachment 11)

This form requests the applicant make certain declarations under penalty of perjury. This form must be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant's organization

IV. Evaluation and Award Process

Application Evaluation

Applications will be evaluated and scored based on responses to the information requested in this solicitation and on any other information available, such as past performance of CEC agreements. To evaluate applications, the CEC will organize an Evaluation Committee that consists of primarily, or all CEC staff. The Evaluation Committee may use additional technical expert reviewers to provide an analysis of applications.

Stage One: Application Screening

The Evaluation Committee will screen applications for compliance with the Screening Criteria in Section E of this Part. Applications that fail any of the screening criteria will be rejected.

Stage Two: Application Scoring

Applications that pass Stage One will be submitted to the Evaluation Committee for review and scoring based on the Scoring Criteria in Section F of this Part.

The scores for each application will be the average of the combined scores of all Evaluation Committee members.

A minimum score of 70.0 points is required for criteria 1-7 to be eligible for funding. In addition, the application must receive a minimum score of 52.50 points for criteria 1-4 to be eligible for funding.

Ranking, Notice of Proposed Award, and Agreement Development

Ranking and Notice of Proposed Award

Applications that receive at least the minimum required score for all criteria will be ranked according to their score by group.

CEC staff will post a Notice of Proposed Award (NOPA) that includes: (1) the total proposed funding amount; (2) the rank order of applicants; and (3) the amount of each proposed award. The CEC will post the NOPA on its website and will e-mail it to all entities that submitted an application. Proposed awards must be approved by the CEC at a business meeting.

Debriefings: Applicants may request a debriefing after the release of the NOPA by e-mailing the CAO listed in Part I. A request for debriefing must be received no later than 30 calendar days after the NOPA is released. The purpose of the debriefing is to provide the applicant feedback on contributing factors to their score and opportunities for improvement on future applications. Debriefings are not intended to be a comprehensive examination of all deficiencies within an application.

In addition to any of its other rights, the CEC reserves the right to:

Allocate any additional funds to passing applications, in rank order;

Aggregate funds from multiple groups to fully fund the highest ranked passing application(s), regardless of group. (if applicable); and

Negotiate with successful applicants to modify the project scope, schedule, project team entity that will receive the award, project location and/or level of funding.

Agreements

Applications recommended for funding in a NOPA will be developed into a proposed grant agreement to be considered at a CEC Business Meeting. Grant recipients may begin the project only after full execution of the grant agreement (i.e., approval at a CEC business meeting and signature by the grant recipient and the CEC).

Agreement Development: The Contracts, Grants, and Loans Office will send the grant recipient a grant agreement for approval and signature. The agreement will include the applicable terms and conditions and will incorporate this solicitation and the application by reference. The CEC reserves the right to modify the award documents (including the project scope, level of funding and terms and conditions) prior to executing any agreement.

Performance Evaluation: An applicant receiving an award under this solicitation is subject to evaluation of performance under the resulting agreement. The CEC reserves the right to utilize the performance evaluation to screen and score future funding applications.

Failure to Execute an Agreement: If the CEC is unable to successfully execute an agreement with an applicant in a timely manner, it reserves the right to cancel the pending award and use the funds elsewhere, such as to fund the next highest-ranked, eligible application.

Grounds to Reject an Application or Cancel an Award

Applications that do not pass the screening stage will be rejected. In addition, the CEC reserves the right to reject an application and/or to cancel an award for any reason, including any of the following:

The application contains false or intentionally misleading statements or references that do not support an attribute or condition contended by the applicant.

The application is intended to erroneously and fallaciously mislead the State in any way.

The application does not comply or contains caveats that conflict with the solicitation, and the variation or deviation is material.

The applicant has previously received funding through an EPIC or Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) agreement, has received the royalty review letter (which the CEC annually sends out to remind past award recipients of their obligations to pay royalties), and has not responded to the letter or is otherwise not in compliance with repaying royalties.

The applicant has received unsatisfactory agreement performance evaluations from the CEC or another California state agency.

The applicant is a business entity required to be registered with the California Secretary of State and is not in good standing.

The applicant has not demonstrated that it has the financial capability to complete the project.

The applicant fails to meet CEQA compliance within sufficient time for the CEC to meet its encumbrance deadline or any other deadlines, as the CEC in its sole and absolute discretion may determine.

The applicant has included a statement or otherwise indicated that it will not accept the terms and conditions, or that acceptance is based on modifications to the terms and conditions. If an applicant, by law, cannot agree to certain terms and conditions, the applicant can request a modification. This modification may be negotiated if the applicant is proposed for award. The CEC retains the sole right to refuse to agree to any requested modifications.

Miscellaneous

Solicitation Cancellation and Amendment

It is the policy of the CEC not to solicit applications unless there is a bona fide intention to award an agreement. However, if it is in the State's best interest, the CEC reserves the right, in addition to any other rights it has, to do any of the following:

Cancel this solicitation;

Revise the amount of funds available under this solicitation;

Amend this solicitation as needed; and/or

Reject any or all applications received in response to this solicitation.

If the solicitation is amended, the CEC will post an addendum on CEC's website at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding-opportunities/solicitations. The CEC will not reimburse applicants for application development expenses under any circumstances, including cancellation of the solicitation.

Modification or Withdrawal of Application

Applicants may recall or modify a submitted application within ECAMS before the deadline to submit applications. Applications cannot be changed after that date and time. An application cannot be "timed" to expire on a specific date. For example, a statement such as the following is non-responsive to the solicitation: "This application and the cost estimate are valid for 60 days."."

Confidentiality

Though the entire evaluation process from receipt of applications up to the posting of the NOPA is confidential, all submitted documents will become publicly available records and property of the State after the CEC posts the NOPA or the solicitation is cancelled. The CEC will not accept or retain applications that identify any portion as confidential unless the applicant clarifies in writing that marking the material as confidential was a mistake and the material can be made public.

Solicitation Errors

If an Applicant discovers any ambiguity, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the solicitation at any time prior to 5:00 p.m. of the application deadline date, the Applicant should immediately notify the CEC of the error in writing and request modification or clarification of the solicitation. The CEC will provide modifications or clarifications by written notice to all entities that requested the solicitation. The CEC will not be responsible for failure to correct errors.

Immaterial Defect

The CEC may waive any immaterial defect or deviation contained in an application. The CEC's waiver will not modify the application or excuse an applicant proposed for funding from full compliance with solicitation requirements.

Tiebreakers

If the scores for two or more applications are tied, the application with a higher score in the Technical Approach criterion will be ranked higher. If still tied, an objective tie-breaker (such as a random drawing) will be used.

Clarification Interviews

The Evaluation Committee may conduct optional Clarification Interviews with applicants to clarify and/or verify information submitted in the application. However, these interviews may not be used to change or add to the content of the original application. Applicants will not be reimbursed for time spent answering clarifying questions.

Opportunity to Cure Administrative Errors

The CEC understands and appreciates the significant time and expense applicants spend preparing applications. An administrative error that prevents an applicant from submitting a complete application frustrates both the CEC and applicants. The purpose of this process is to reduce the number of applications screened out or receiving a significantly reduced score for administrative errors while maintaining a fair competition. This process also ensures better competition and thus better projects to benefit California.

After the application deadline, an applicant might identify, or the Evaluation Committee may find what reasonably appears to be, an administrative error. For purposes of this solicitation only, an administrative error is defined as an applicant's inadvertent mistake that prevents materials in existence as of the application deadline from appearing in its submitted application. Examples include, but are not limited to, accidentally:

Scanning and submitting every other page in a document instead of every page.

Submitting the wrong document.

Leaving out a document.

If the Evaluation Committee find what reasonably appears to be an administrative error, they can communicate with the applicant to confirm. If an applicant finds an administrative error in its application, it should immediately contact the Commission Agreement Officer listed in the "Contact Information/Questions" section of this solicitation.

If an administrative error has been identified and communicated to the Commission Agreement Officer, the CEC may, but is not required to, allow the applicant a period of time to provide the missing materials. Reasons why the CEC might NOT allow an applicant to fix an administrative error include, but are not limited to:

The funds have a deadline that does not allow time to fix the error.

The application has been screened out or does not receive a passing score for reasons unrelated to the administrative error, making irrelevant any efforts to fix the error.

The applicant brings the error to the CEC's attention too late in the solicitation process (e.g., after awards have been approved at a Business Meeting).

If the Evaluation Committee allows an applicant the opportunity to fix an administrative error, the Commission Agreement Officer will communicate in writing to the applicant's project manager listed the deadline by which the applicant must provide the missing materials. Reasonable efforts will be made to confirm receipt of the notice, but actual notice cannot be guaranteed, and the obligation is on the applicant to ensure the proper contact(s) are listed and available to respond. The Evaluation Committee will not consider any materials submitted after the deadline.

This process only allows applicants to submit materials in existence as of the application deadline. This process does NOT allow applicants to submit material created or modified after the application deadline. The CEC has sole discretion to determine whether materials submitted are eligible for consideration by the Evaluation Committee under this opportunity to cure.

Applicants must include the following certification along with the materials it submits to fix an administrative error and must explain why the materials were not provided due to an inadvertent administrative error:

"I certify on behalf of the applicant that the materials provided herein existed at the time of the application deadline, have not been modified since, and were not originally provided due to an inadvertent administrative error as described herein."

The Evaluation Committee is not responsible for finding, or communicating with the applicant about, any errors in an application. Applicants remain solely responsible for submitting applications, including any material submitted to fix an administrative error, that meet all solicitation requirements.

Stage One: Application Screening

Screening Criteria for Past Performance

Stage Two: Application Scoring

Applications that pass ALL Stage One Screening Criteria and are not rejected as described in Section IV.C. will be evaluated based on the Scoring Criteria and the Scoring Scale below (with the exception of criteria 6-7, which will be evaluated as described in each criterion). Each criterion has an assigned number of possible points and is divided into multiple sub-criteria. The sub-criteria are not equally weighted. The Project Narrative Attachment must respond to each sub-criterion, unless otherwise indicated.

Scoring Scale

Scoring CRITERIA

The Project Narrative Attachment must respond to each criterion below. The responses must directly relate to the solicitation requirements and focus as stated in the solicitation. Any estimates of energy savings or GHG impacts should be calculated as specified in the References for Calculating Energy End-Use and GHG Emissions Attachment, to the extent that the references apply to the proposed project.