Eligibility - California Energy Commission · Web viewYes, fuel cells using renewable energy as...

Questions & AnswersFood Production Investment Program

GFO-18-903

ContentsEligibility......................................................................................................................................................2

Project Eligibility......................................................................................................................................2

Applicant and Facility Eligibility.............................................................................................................11

Cost Eligibility........................................................................................................................................13

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................18

Proposal Evaluation, Reporting, and Other Information...........................................................................20

Agreement Term and Terms and Conditions.............................................................................................23

Formatting and Submissions......................................................................................................................24

Subcontractors..........................................................................................................................................28

1


GFO-18-903

EligibilityProject Eligibility

Project Eligibility

Q.1 Our project was funded by ARPA-E under the FOCUS program; we developed a hybrid solar converter with dual electric (photovoltaic) and thermal (user-configurable heat streams with 70-250 C outlet temperatures). We validated the technology through full-scale prototype/pilot unit testing both in-lab and on the roof of the University of San Diego. We are pursing partnerships with CA customers for commercial installations - including food processors. Would this technology and development status qualify for Tier II?

A.1 A technology that has only been prototype tested will not qualify as a technology to be eligible under Tier II.

A hybrid solar thermal/PV system would be eligible under Tier II as a “solar thermal” project if the applicant can show that the technology has been proven to reduce GHG emissions. Include in the project narrative the following:

The scale and location of demonstration; Length of demonstration (e.g., number of months); Actual operating data (e.g., annual energy use and greenhouse gas emissions); and Results of previous testing.

Evaluators will use this information to determine if the technology meets the requirements of a Tier II technology as described previously above in bold.

Q.2 Will turbo blowers be eligible for consideration under Tier I or II? Turbo blowers are more energy efficient than traditional blowers and can potentially reduce plant GHG emissions as a replacement/upgrade to traditional blowers.

A.2 Turbo blowers may be eligible for Tier I funding if they result in energy and GHG emission reductions and included in a technology listed in Tier I. When filling out the application form, please select the Tier I technology which best fits where the blowers would be implemented. For example, if the blowers will be implemented as part of a drying process, select “drying equipment”, if the blowers will be implemented as part of the air supply for a boiler, select “boilers, economizers”, etc.

Q.3 Will a microbial fuel cell (MFC) technology be eligible for consideration in Tier II? The technology is able to convert the high concentration organic content typically found in food and beverage production wastewater into direct electric energy, and achieve potential energy saving and GHG emission reduction.

A.3 Yes, if it meets the requirements of Section II.B, such as proven to reduce GHG emissions, the MFC technology is located at an eligible food processing facility where the energy generated is being used to reduce GHG emissions. In the project narrative, include the information identified in the response to question 1.

Q.4 There are "membrane based dewatering processes" that could effectively separate water content from solids-water mixtures or sludge, thus reducing energy and GHG emission associated with dewatering process. Will these technologies/processes be eligible for consideration as mechanical dewatering processes in Tier I or Tier II?

A.4 Yes, this technology/process is eligible for Tier I if it occurs at an eligible food processing facility and

2


GFO-18-903

GHG reductions can be quantified. Wastewater treatment projects are not eligible for FPIP unless associated with biogas production and energy generation for use by the food processing plant.

Q.5 In some Food & Beverage (F&B) facilities, lagoons are utilized to store or passively treat the wastewater. Over time these lagoons will emit significant amount of GHG (e.g., methane) due to biological activity. Our team can replace these lagoon-type of system with a wastewater treatment system, which can reduce or eliminate the GHG emission associated with the lagoon. Does this count as GHG reduction as considered by CEC?

A.5 No. Based on the current scenario, this type of project would not be eligible for FPIP. Wastewater treatment projects are only eligible for FPIP if they are associated with biogas production and energy generation for use by the food processing plant.

Q.6 Wastewater treatment processes in F&B consumes a lot of energy. Will efficient wastewater treatment system upgrade/replacement that reduce energy consumption, i.e., membrane bioreactor, be eligible for consideration in Tier I or Tier II?

A.6 Reducing the organic load of wastewater for off-site treatment, such as at a wastewater treatment plant, is not eligible for FPIP funding.

Q.7 Will Fuel Cells on Natural Gas be considered under Tier 2 “fossil fueled cogeneration” – thereby considered to be: (a) cutting edge technology and (b) part of a microgird?

A.7 Yes, natural gas-fueled fuel cells would be eligible under Tier II if is an emerging technology not widely used in California and it is part of a larger microgrid project. Please refer to the solicitation manual, Section I.B “Key Words/Terms”, for the definition of a microgrid.

Q.8 Would a behind-the-meter Fuel Cell that is capable of operating grid independent fit into the definition‐ of the CEC FPIP microgrid?

A.8 No, a behind-the-meter fuel cell only capable of operating grid independent, also known as island-mode, would not fit the definition of a microgrid as described in the GFO. However, a behind-the-meter fuel cell coupled with a microgrid controller capable of performing the following functions would be eligible under Tier II: manage the facility’s critical resources, be able to act as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid, and provide customers, utilities, and grid system operators with different levels of critical services and support as needed. Please refer to the solicitation manual, Section I.B “Key Words/Terms”, for the definition of a microgrid.

Q.9 In terms of biogas production – would a grant application for enhancing a specific process of an existing digester be considered? For example (a) adding a substrate treatment component at the front end to improve gas quality / digester performance – and (b) adding a drying component to help reduce moisture of the outgoing digestates?

A.9 The digester enhancements described would not be eligible for funding because it is not clear that it would result in on-site energy and GHG emission reductions. Hardware and controls which increase the output of biogas (i.e., to displace on-site natural gas use) as part of a larger renewable energy project would be eligible for funding.

Q.10 Is using waste heat to drive an absorption chiller considered Tier I under “Waste Heat to Power”?A.10 Yes, using waste heat to drive an absorption chiller would be eligible under Tier I as a heat recovery

project (select “steam traps, condensate return, heat recovery” in the application form).Q.11 To qualify as a “Waste Heat to Power” project, are you required to use existing waste heat?A.11 Yes, “Waste Heat to Power” projects must use existing waste heat.Q.12 Can you submit a non microgrid cogeneration project with an absorption chiller as a Tier I “Waste Heat ‐

to Power” project and capture the GHG emission reductions from both the natural gas generator and the absorption chiller (or other waste heat to power technologies)? Or would you only be able to

3


GFO-18-903

capture the GHG emissions reductions from the absorption chiller?A.12 No. Natural gas cogeneration is only eligible under Tier II if it is cutting edge, part of a larger microgrid

project, and can demonstrate measurable on-site GHG emission reduction.Q.13 We are a beet sugar manufacturer and one of the early steps in the process is the removal of the sugar

from the beet with the diffusion process in the diffuser. Beet slices, referred to as “cossettes”, are put into the diffuser with hot water. Out from the diffuser comes nearly exhausted cossettes (pulp) and diffusion juice, which contains most of the sugar from the cossettes. This juice is then purified, filtered, and evaporated down in order to have concentrated sugar in the juice (or “high brix” juice). We currently use two type of diffusers, a R.T. (looks like a rotary kiln or dryer) and a Slope (looks like two screw conveyors on an angle). Outside of California, tower diffusers are used and they require significantly less water to be added to remove the sugar. Because there is less water used in the tower diffuser, there is less water needing to be evaporated which results in less energy (natural gas therms) and less GHG emissions. We would like to replace the two diffusers we currently use with one tower. Can the tower diffuser be considered either Tier I or Tier II technology?

A.13 All equipment installed for Tier I must be a drop-in replacement, result in higher efficiency, and lower GHG emissions. If the diffuser itself does not reduce energy use, the applicant must demonstrate in the project narrative that the downstream energy use (in this case for evaporators) is significantly reduced and that this reduction can be measured and verified. If the above criteria are met, the tower diffuser may be eligible under Tier I as an “evaporator” project.

Q.14 Under Tier I, there is an eligibility for internal metering and software to manage and control electricity, natural gas and/or fossil fuel use if part of a project that reduces energy usage. Is that “if part of” referring to being part of a larger project proposed to the CEC or if part of a larger project conceived at the corporate level as campus-wide energy efficiency enhancement program?

A.14 No, “if part of” does not refer to being part of a corporate level or campus-wide project. Internal metering must be part of a larger project that involves other energy efficiency measures; otherwise, there would not be any measurable GHG emission reductions. Thus, an internal metering project must be combined with another Tier I technology in the application form and the energy savings and GHG emission reductions of this combined project discussed in the project narrative..

Q.15 For a stand-alone solar application that not only eliminates our GHG emissions, but also reduces utilities GHG emission, how would this fit into FPIP program?

A.15 A project which installs standalone solar PV is not eligible for funding. It may be eligible if part of a larger microgrid project (Tier II), such as one which installs solar PV, energy storage, and other advanced energy technologies in a microgrid configuration.Please refer to the solicitation manual, section I.B. Key Words/Terms for the definition of the microgrid.

Q.16 If there is exiting solar on-site and is 10 years old, if we replace that solar to improve efficiency, would that qualify?

A.16 No, replacing existing solar PV with new solar PV would not be eligible for funding. It may be eligible if part of a larger microgrid project (Tier II), such as one which installs solar PV, energy storage, and other advanced energy technologies in a microgrid configuration. Please refer to the solicitation manual, section I.B. Key Words/Terms for the definition of the microgrid.

Q.17 For steam traps, is only replacement of failed open steam traps eligible or is upgrade to higher efficiency (advanced technology) steam traps eligible too?

A.17 Yes, upgrading existing, operating steam traps to higher efficiency steam traps is eligible for funding. Retrofit and replacement of existing equipment is eligible for funding if it fits within the technologies

4


GFO-18-903

listed in the solicitation manual, Section II.B.1 Project Focus.Q.18 Are direct onsite emission reductions by reducing or eliminating HFC refrigerant a qualifying

technology? Would this be considered Tier I or Tier II?A.18 Yes, replacement of high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants to low-GWP refrigerants is an

eligible technology under Tier I, “refrigeration optimization”.Q.19 Would biogas production from food production wastes that would otherwise be landfilled be eligible for

funding?A.19 Biogas production from on-site food production waste would be eligible for funding if the biogas

produced is used as part of a renewable energy project which reduces on-site GHG emissions (i.e., to produce heat, power, or both of on-site use).

Q.20 Would a data analytics software innovation applied to adjusting operations to reduce GHG emissions attributed to the site's grid-purchased power, be eligible for tier 2 funding?

A.20 No, the above described project would not be eligible for funding. All projects must be able to identify a technology listed in either Tier I or Tier II to be eligible for funding.

Q.21 Will the CEC favorably consider a proposal that factors-in onsite emissions, and also shows additional GHG reduction achievable from grid-purchased power, wherein the strategy for achieving additional GHG reduction and computational approach can be documented from a reliable source?

A.21 No, the above described project would not be eligible for funding. All projects must be able to identify a technology listed in either Tier I or Tier II to be eligible for funding.

Q.22 Would hydrogenation of food products like vegetable oils using renewable hydrogen from electrolysis be eligible for this grant?

A.22 From the information provided, we cannot determine if the project would be eligible. All projects must identify a technology listed in either Tier I or Tier II to be eligible funding.

The following questions were submitted to the previous FPIP solicitation, GFO-18-901, and have been included here. Some responses have been modified as they apply to this solicitation, GFO-18-903.

Project Eligibility

Q.23 a. Do you consider GHG emissions from biomass waste that is leaving a food processing site?b. If the project utilizes a biomass waste stream from a food processor that would otherwise go to

a landfill, or was able to calculate that biomass would have emitted more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 to CEC satisfaction would this project be eligible for 100% of section 4 points?

A.23 a. No, the Energy Commission does not consider offsite GHG emissions from biomass that leaves the food processing site.

b. No, the biomass from a food processing facility would not be eligible if used offsite. Section IV.F, Scoring Criterion 5 provides points for capped and uncapped facilities. These points will be allocated based on food processing facilities listed in the California Air Resources Board’s mandatory report list located at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data.

Q.24 Most of these food processing facilities have fleets transferring products; does CEC consider hydrogen based EVs for transportation?

A.24 No, the Energy Commission does not consider transportation emissions.

5

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data


GFO-18-903

Q.25 Is there a ban on fossil-fueled cogeneration?A.25 Fossil fueled cogeneration, such as those using natural gas, falls under Tier II and is allowed if the

following conditions are met: 1) it is a cutting-edge and emerging technology that is not widely used in California and 2) must be part of a microgrid project and GHG emissions reductions can be definitively shown. Please refer to the solicitation manual, Section I.B “Key Words/Terms”, for the definition of a microgrid. Note that by 2030, half of the state’s electricity will come from renewable energy and this will reduce GHG emissions from grid-sourced electricity.

Q.26 Let’s say you’ve got a boiler and put in a CHP plant that’s natural gas or biogas powered and you are increasing efficiency of the overall plant, because you’re using the waste heat. Do you have to get rid of the old boiler or can you use it as backup for integrity of operations, when intending to use CHP plant majority of time—can you keep as backup but not as primary use anymore?

A.26 See response to Question Q.25 regarding cogeneration. We do not want continued use of the boiler, such as for expansion, in which case there will not be measurable GHG reductions. However, if you use the old boiler as back-up, then this must be included in your greenhouse gas emission calculations and indicate the percentage of time you plan to use the boiler as backup and the associated natural gas use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Q.27 Can onsite truck refrigeration be considered under either Tier–for example, truck docking stations?A.27 This will be a Tier II project if the following conditions are met: a) it is a cutting edge and emerging

technology that is not widely used in California, and b) If the project is at a food processing facility, onsite truck refrigeration would be eligible if you are switching from diesel to electric. However, switching from diesel to electric could increase electric costs.

Q.28 Use of our technology can reduce GHG emissions, but the site that integrates our technology is not typically the location where the energy savings and GHG emission reductions are realized. Would a technology like ours, that would require GHG accounting at multiple facilities, be eligible for implementation under the FPIP program?

A.28 No. It would not be eligible because the GHG emissions have to be onsite and not in the supply chain.Q.29 Attachment 2 mentions that installations require greater GHG reductions than best practice or industry

standard. If there’s a situation where a site is bringing installations up to best practice but still demonstrating GHG reductions, does that still qualify?

A.29 No. To qualify for funding, the technology implemented must go beyond standard best practice or industry standard. The premise of this program is to install equipment that is better than industry standard and not just bring the facility up to current standards. This is a requirement for Tier I projects as discussed in section II.B.1.a and is also considered in scoring criterion 1.a as discussed in section IV.F. See response to Question Q.112 for definition of industry standard practice.

Q.30 For solar thermal technology does that include thermal energy storage or is that separate? I’m talking solar used for steam, which is running 24 hours a day.

A.30 Thermal energy storage with solar thermal technology would be eligible for Tier II if you justify the GHG reductions and the energy savings to the food production plant and the technology meets the requirements for Tier II. Thermal energy storage for the purpose of demand response or deferring usage to non-peak periods is not eligible.

Q.31 If we have a project that eliminates 1,200,000 road miles from CA highways, are we able to provide that emission reduction calculation as part of the project?

A.31 No. The emissions reductions must be from the facility. This program is for on-site reductions for food processing facilities. Therefore, emissions from transportation are not eligible.

Q.32 If a food processor were to create biogas CNG fuel for various vehicles that service its facility (forklifts,

6


GFO-18-903

product hauling trucks) would it qualify, even if those vehicles are owned by others? That is, many food processors lease or contract this hauling, but supplying these vehicles on site with biogas CNG would greatly reduce the food processor’s carbon intensity. Would that make the project eligible?

A.32 No, any type of alternative transportation fuel is not eligible for funding.Q.33 We are not quite sure which category we fit, Tier I or Tier II. While we fall directly under the subtitle of

"Compressor Control & System Optimization", we are not yet a commercially viable tech. We are emerging tech. Are we eligible for either tier?

A.33 No. Because the technology is not commercially available or viable, it would not fall under Tier I. Your technology may be too early stage to meet the Tier II requirements of being proven elsewhere to reduce GHG emissions.

Q.34 My question is regarding process equipment pumps that use compressed air. Graco has developed a process pump for liquid handling ingredients and chemicals that replaces a traditional air operated diaphragm pump with an electric operated design. Traditional air pumps use a compressor which is very inefficient. The electric design saves between 5-7 times the energy consumption. I would assume the product fits a category? So, where and how do I relay the grant information to my clients.

A.34 This equipment would be a Tier I project under the category of Compressor controls and system optimization. As we do not promote one technology over another, it is your responsibility to inform your clients.

Q.35 If we build a solar farm remote from our facility to offset the power we use in our facility, is this eligible?A.35 No, that project would not be eligible as described. The project would have to be onsite and it cannot

just be a standalone solar PV system. Q.36 Would bio filtro technology (which could reduce the need to truck in compost) be eligible for the grant?A.36 No, the GHG reductions have to occur onsite at an eligible food processing facility as defined in Section

II.A of the Solicitation Manual.Q.37 a. Can we do battery-electric conversions instead of providing new tractors? (Old tractors were

really durable if cared for.)

b. When do the batteries need to be ready to use?

c. What is the definition of commercialized, is it flexible, and when must it be met? If a battery is in beta yet ready to be sold to some market segments, is that sufficient? We can probably do the other parts of the drive train before the battery is commercialized.

d. Is the objective to do one demonstration (tractor), or a multi-unit pilot? If the latter, how many units are required?

e. Can solar PV, stationary batteries, trenching, charging stations, energy management systems, and solar canopies where roof space is inadequate and the land needs to be used for something other than ground-mounted solar, be covered by the funding?

A.37 a. No, electric conversions for mobile sources is not eligible for FPIP.

b. Battery storage is not eligible for FPIP unless it is part of a microgrid project.

c. For a technology to be commercialized, it must be available for sale from a business for the purposes of making profit. The technology must also meet the requirements for Tiers I or II.

7


GFO-18-903

d. It is not necessary to do the same project repeated at multiple locations. If multiple installations, the applicant must explain in Attachment 2, under Technical Approach, why doing multiple installations are needed.

e. Solar PV and energy storage will only be eligible if packaged as a microgrid project under Tier II. Refer to Section I.B and Addendum 2 for the definition of a microgrid.

Q.38 a. We understand that E100 ethanol cannot be sold for transportation fuel but it is available for internal combustion engine (ICE) power generation. However, I don’t believe there is a category on the application to select E100 fuel?

b. The application doesn’t appear to provide the proper GHG conversion rate for operating ICE on E100 ethanol fuel? The USDA released earlier this year their GHG calculation, mentioned above, which was 22gms GHG/kw. Obviously, that GHG number is very important to us against other competitive bids. We can utilize the USDA numbers and calculate Taylor’s last 12 months of GHG emissions (obtained by PGE) to provide the total GHG reduction based on that number. Please advise?

c. Last, can E-Fuel submit the application under its own name on behalf of Taylor Farms?A.38 a. Ethanol fuel is not eligible under this solicitation.

b. Refer to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfsfinalregorder.pdf

c. No. The applicant must be an eligible food processing facility as identified in Section II of the Solicitation Manual.

Q.39 For Tier I, are you required to replace or retire existing equipment?A.39 No, but you must discuss how the replaced or existing equipment will be used and the estimated annual

operating times, the increased energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. These additions will need to be included in your calculations of overall energy savings and GHG emission reductions from your project. See response to Question 4.

Q.40 Are Selective Catalytic Reducers a Tier I or Tier II equipment? A.40 Selective Catalytic Reducers (SCR) are eligible for reimbursement ONLY IF it is a required component to

the GHG reducing technology being installed. NOx reductions will be considered as a co-benefit and would not count towards GHG reductions.

Q.41 Is the following an eligible technology? Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) to replace conventional clarifiers or solids separation to increase the solids concentration in the sludge for disposal or further processing. This higher solids content with the DAF will reduce the NG costs for sludge dryers and reduce hauling related GHG emissions.

A.41 No, technologies which focus on wastewater treatment facilities are not eligible for funding. Wastewater treatment projects are not eligible for FPIP unless associated with biogas production and energy generation for use by the food processing plant. Any technologies focused on reduction in vehicle miles traveled is not eligible for FPIP.

Q.42 If the technology has been proven in pilot scale, is it Tier II eligible?

A.42 Please refer to Question Q.1 clarification on Tier II requirements.

Q.43 Can you expand on Tier II fuel switching? Is natural gas to electrical acceptable? A.43 Yes. Natural gas to electric and diesel to electric are acceptable. Fuel switching from other fossil fuels to

8

https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfsfinalregorder.pdf


GFO-18-903

electric or lower carbon are also acceptable. Fuel switching projects must result in GHG reductions.Q.44 As part of a larger Tier II microgrid project, are solar PV and battery energy storage equipment costs

allowable?A.44 Yes, solar PV and energy storage equipment costs are allowable as part of the Tier II microgrid project.

See definition of microgrid in Section I.B. and in Addendum 2. However, as individual technologies, such as solar PV only, those costs are not eligible for FPIP.

Q.45 Will the Energy Commission consider Fuel Cells as an eligible technology for Tier II projects?

A.45 Yes, fuel cells using renewable energy as energy generation will be considered under Tier II. Fuel cell generation and storage using natural gas blends will have to fall under microgrid projects in Tier II. All projects must meet local air pollution control district requirements.

Q.46 Does Tier II require that technology be used outside of CA?A.46 No. There is no requirement on where the technology has been used but Tier II technologies must meet

the requirements listed in Section II.B. Q.47 How do you show that Tier II technology has been proven elsewhere?A.47 To justify that a technology has been proven elsewhere for Tier II, applicants must submit information

on locations and facilities where the technology has been used, the scale at which it has been used, performance data, equipment specifications, reasonable justification for GHG emission reductions and examples of previous successful implementations. Only technologies that are currently on the Tier II list in the Solicitation Manual or subsequently added as a result of an addendum will be considered.

Q.48 Would a bioenergy project that produces electricity and biochar from biomass qualify for a Tier II submission?

A.48 Yes, this project would be eligible if the bioenergy project is located at an eligible food processing facility and the electricity is directly used to reduce the facility’s energy use and GHG emissions. The main focus of the project must be on renewable energy generation and not on the biochar production.

Q.49 Does CHP/Cogen fall into the category of microgrids under Tier II?A.49 Yes, CHP and Cogen can fall under microgrids if it meets the definition of microgrids as indicated in

Section I.B of the Solicitation Manual in Addendum 2. You will have to emphasize the microgrid concept as the focus of your project rather than CHP/Cogen. CHP/Cogen cannot be standalone projects.

Q.50 Does a project that utilizes the dry byproducts from food production for renewable energy production via a thermochemical process meet eligibility as a "Renewable energy generation"?

A.50 Yes, this project would be eligible for Tier II under renewable energy generation. The Project Narrative, Attachment 2 of the Solicitation, must justify that it meets the requirements of Tier II, such as, proven elsewhere to reduce GHG emissions. Byproducts must be produced on-site and must be used to produce energy on-site.

Q.51 Does a project that produces renewable electricity from food production byproducts for sale to the utility grid via the BioMAT tariff qualify as "Renewable energy generation"?

A.51 No. This type of project is not eligible. The purpose of FPIP is to reduce on-site GHG emissions at eligible food processing plants.

Q.52 Would a solar-driven cooling system be eligible for funding under Tier II?

A.52 Assuming the cooling system is powered by solar-thermal, this technology would be eligible under Solar Thermal for Tier II. Solar PV would have to be a component to a microgrid project to be eligible for Tier II funding.

9


GFO-18-903

Q.53 A natural gas heat pump for water heating that would be approximately twice as efficient as a conventional hot water heater/boiler. Is this an eligible technology?

A.53 Although the NG heat pump has the potential of being more efficient than conventional gas heating technology, this technology is not commercially available and most research focuses on residential or small commercial applications. Thus, this is not an eligible technology.

The Energy Commission is currently evaluating the technical feasibility and performance of natural gas heat pumps under its Natural Gas R&D program and research results will be available in 2020.

Q.54 A Combined Heat and Power system that would be fueled by a biogas and natural gas mixture. If this is acceptable please advise what the minimum percentage of biogas needs to be.

A.54 Yes, a CHP fueled by a mix of biogas and natural gas would be eligible as part of a Tier II – microgrid. The technology must meet the requirements in Section II.B, such as being a cutting edge technology compared to similar systems on the market, proven to reduce GHG emissions, and the power and process heat is used at an eligible food processing facility, and offsets, replaces or retires an existing boiler. There is no current requirement for minimum biogas percentage, but the system must meet local air pollution control district requirements. However, estimates on GHG emission reductions and energy savings must be provided in the application (Attachment 2) and justify the basis for the percentages of biogas/NG to be used versus the baseline conditions.

Q.55 I was hoping to get Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR) added as a Tier II qualified project type. MVR’s are large systems that require site specific designs (therefore not “drop-in ready”).

A.55 This technology would be considered a Tier I project under heat recovery. GHG emission reductions must be shown.

Q.56 Can reduced GHG emissions resulting from elimination of transportation energy use count towards the 25,000 MT/y?

A.56 No, GHG reductions from transportation do not count. Q.57 Regarding the fuel cell technology: We are assuming this technology falls under “Renewable Energy

Generation”. However, if CEC determines this technology has to be added separately to the list of acceptable technologies for Tier II, I’d like the opportunity to provide enough information to have it reviewed. Can you please advise as the definition of “Renewable Energy Generation” in the GFO was not clear to us?

A.57 Any renewable energy source that meets the requirements for Tier II, except photovoltaics, is considered eligible under “renewable energy generation”. The generated energy must be used at an eligible food processing plant, such as to offset boiler fuel that currently consumes natural gas.

Q.58 Does Heat recovery under Tier I technology include liquid and/or air heat exchangers? A.58 Yes, liquid and air heat exchangers are eligible under Tier I - heat recovery projects.

10


GFO-18-903

Applicant and Facility EligibilityApplicant and Facility Eligibility

Q.59 If you have an existing facility that generates Greenhouse Gases but is landlocked and you need to move to a larger facility to install new equipment, would new equipment to reduce Greenhouse Gases be eligible at the new location if the old equipment is eliminated/destroyed and not moved?

A.59 No, all projects must be located at existing food processing facilities and must result in reducing GHG emissions at the existing facility.

Q.60 Regarding measure and monitoring; we are moving into a new location and we will not have three months’ worth of utility history. Can we apply to FPIP funding?

A.60 No, the project described is ineligible for funding. The program is for existing facilities which have known GHG emission values where projects can provide a measurable reduction in GHG emissions.

Q.61 We are retrofitting a brownfield site that has been out of commission for some time, access to the previous businesses records are not available. What would be an acceptable strategy for determining GHG?

A.61 No, the project described is ineligible for FPIP. Only existing, operating facilities qualify for funding. Expansion of existing facilities and re-opening of closed facilities are not eligible.

Q.62 Does a capped facility included in a bundle need to have GHG emissions?A.62 Yes, the capped facility included in the bundle must implement projects that reduce GHG emissions if it

wants to receive points under Criteria 5 (Section IV.F of the Solicitation Manual).


Applicant and Facility Eligibility

Q.63 In the eligibility requirements, it says applicant must own or operate one or more food processing facilities. If host partner that is capped applies and receives the grant but project goes to sister site that’s not capped, would that be eligible?

A.63 All food processing facilities, under NAICS codes starting with 311 and 3121, are eligible to apply. Refer to Section IV.F Scoring Criterion 5 of the application manual; projects must also be located in the capped facility to obtain full possible points. For example, if a capped facility applies for projects to be implemented at its facility and that of a sister facility (not capped), and this application is awarded a grant, then both projects will be funded. However, if the capped facility later decides to only implement the project at its sister facility, this could result in cancellation of the entire grant award.

Q.64 Can a Tier II technology vendor build, own, and operate a project with a host food processing partner who will be the applicant to the RFP? In other words, the host partner will apply for and receive the grant, but we will build, own, and operate the facility in partnership with the host facility.

A.64 The food processing facility must hold title to the equipment purchased with the FPIP grant. However, the food processing facility can hire a firm to build and operate the project—but these costs are not covered by the grant. All projects must meet the requirements of the solicitation and Section 14 of the FPIP terms and conditions. According to Section 14 of the Terms and Conditions for the FPIP, “Title to equipment acquired by the Recipient with grant funds will vest in the Recipient”. Any transfer of ownership during the term of the grant must be approved by the Energy Commission. The Terms and Conditions

11


GFO-18-903

can be found at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf. Q.65 a. Can a Tier II project qualify for funding if used in an uncapped facility?

b. If the same company has multiple facilities and is also applying for funds for Tier I projects in a capped (host) facility, is this acceptable?

All projects (Tier I & Tier II) are shown to reduce GHG emissionsA.65 a. Yes. The Tier II project can qualify for funding. However, the Tier II project will not receive

capped facility points for criterion 5 (Section IV.F of the Solicitation Manual) because the project will be in an uncapped facility.

b. Yes. One entity can apply to both Tiers.Q.66 Can facilities emitting less than 10,000 metric tons annually be considered for funding?A.66 Yes, they can be eligible. You would get zero points for Criteria 5 (Section IV.F of the Solicitation

Manual) for that criterion if the facility emits less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e .Q.67 a. Would refurbishment or upgrade of a facility, for Tier II, be eligible? Does it have to be brand

new?b. If a refurbishment or upgrade of an existing renewable energy generation facility results in an

increase in biogas production or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions relative to the baseline system, would such a system be eligible?

A.67 a. Yes, if the existing facility is operational, then refurbishment or upgrading of this facility would be eligible for Tier II. The installed equipment must be new and result in greater GHG emission reductions than current industry standard.

b. Yes, if the existing biogas to energy facility is currently operational and all the produced energy is used within that same facility and if the calculations shown in Attachment 4 of the Solicitation Manual show GHG emission reductions compared to the baseline for this facility. If the project meets these requirements, then this would fall under a Tier II renewable energy generation project.

Q.68 The solicitation manual references already built projects. Could this grant apply to new projects?A.68 No. This solicitation focuses on existing processing plants and it does not fund new construction

projects. Projects must be upgrades/replacements of existing equipment, or additions to existing equipment, that will result in GHG reductions in order to be eligible for funding. New facilities do not have a history of GHG emissions yet.

Q.69 NAICS code 311 classifies food manufacturing plants as transforming agricultural products into products for immediate or final consumption. Could this project be considered a food processing facility if agriculture was grown and also cooked/prepared in this facility?

A.69 No, the facility has to fall under NAICS codes starting with 311 and 3121. A restaurant or other food service facility (e.g., cafeteria, food court) is not eligible.

Q.70 I work for a dairy farm that also has a creamery. We are technically NAICS code 3115 dairy production, but are interested in implementing funding on the farm side where the cows and fodder acreage are located. The plan is to utilize the funding for a Tier II project that utilizes emerging thermal technologies to convert the dairy manure from the corrals into renewable electricity, transportation fuels, and organic biochar. GHG reductions would be through mitigation via the thermal conversion of the dairy manure feedstock as well as GHG sequestration in the biochar produced. GHG measurements will be made and measured utilizing GREET 2017 carbon intensity modeling software as well as a local land grant university air pollution research team field measurements and modeling.

12

http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf


GFO-18-903

a. Would funding be eligible for a project described as above? b. Or is funding focused for mainly the production side, e.g., creamery?

A.70 a. No. The purpose of the solicitation is to target the food production facilities in Section II of the Solicitation Manual and the focus is to reduce the facility’s GHG emissions. The renewable waste products that are used for energy generation must be produced at the food processing facility. Energy products associated with the farm side are not eligible. There are other programs that may be helpful on the farm side including: California Department of Food and Agriculture has a Dairy Digester Research and

Development Program that is also funded with funding from California Climate Investments.-https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/ddrdp/

California Energy Commission, Renewable Energy for Agriculture Program (REAP)- http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/18-MISC-03/

b. FPIP funding is only available to food processing facilities defined by NAICS codes 311 or 3121. NAICS code 3115 would qualify as an eligible classification.

Q.71 Can Tier I funding be used for a planned expansion? For example, to put in energy efficient equipment in a new expansion?

A.71 No, expansion projects are not eligible for funding. Q.72 If I’m setting up facility for first time using drying tech would that be Tier I?A.72 No, if you are starting a new facility or new production line to incorporate this drying technology, this is

an ineligible project (see response to question 59). However, if the technology is incorporated into an existing production line with the potential to save the system energy, and can show GHG emissions reductions, then it would be eligible under Tier I.

Q.73 Can you bundle in Tier II?A.73 Only bundling of technologies is allowed in Tier II. No bundling of sites is allowed in Tier II.

Cost EligibilityCost Eligibility

Q.74 Can we utilize surplus equipment, which we would remove and transfer to the target facility, as part of the FPIP project?We’ve got surplus equipment (a boiler) that’s required for our FPIP project, currently installed at a different factory. With normal maintenance, it probably will be able to operate for another 30 years.

A.74 Yes, existing equipment may be used as cost share if the applicant can adequately verify the value of using that equipment for the project and include the following in the project narrative:

Description of the equipment, including type, manufacturer, energy efficiency, nameplate and specifications.

Calculations and assumptions on depreciating the equipment value based on the age; Documentation on what it would cost to rent a similar piece of equipment for the project

timeframe. Calculations and assumptions showing how the equipment’s value is being discounted based on

the projected percentage of time it will be used over the course of the project. For example if the equipment will only be used 50% of the time then only 50% of its value should be attributed

13

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/18-MISC-03/

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/ddrdp/


GFO-18-903

to the project. Calculations and assumptions showing estimated energy use and greenhouse gas emissions

associated with the surplus equipment and the projected savings and reductions, including the percentage of time it is expected to be in-use.

It should be noted that other sources of match are encouraged due to the difficulty in quantifying and verifying the value of surplus equipment.

Q.75 As part of our tier 2 project, can we make a small investment in a tier 1 technology (a boiler), which is critical to the success of the tier 2 technology in an industrial setting?Our Tier 2 FPIP project will be a solar powered boiler for our tomato processing plant. Every solar boiler will require a back up steam source to maintain plant production when solar steam drops off. So, to ‐properly adapt the solar boiler to our operation also requires implementation of a Tier 1 technology as part of the same project. Specifically, a small, automatic recycling firetube boiler must be added.

A.75 Yes, a backup boiler is allowed as part of a larger Tier II solar-driven boiler project. The backup boiler must be included in the GHG emission calculations including the percentage of time the boiler is expected to be in-use and technical specifications for the boiler.

Q.76 Would a capital lease model be allowed under the program?A.76

No, this would not comply with Section 14 of the Terms and Condotions that requires title to the equipment acquired with grant funds to vest with the Recipient. The Recipient may not sell, lease or encumber the property during the term of the Agreement without prior approval. Additionally, rental fees are not an eligible cost. (See Questions Q.85 and Q.87)

Please refer to the terms and conditions, section 8 Payment of Funds, for requirements of reimbursable costs: https://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf

Q.77 We understand no labor costs are allowable from CEC funding or cost share? What types of non ‐installation labor costs can be included? (e.g., meetings to develop strategies for enhanced controls, implementing new control strategies, equipment configuration to operate under enhanced controls, site audit for optimizing operations and capturing more savings, and developing plans for deployment).

A.77 The labor costs described would not be eligible if incurred by the prime recipient.The labor costs described would be eligible for funding if:

1. They are incurred by a subcontractor and not in-house staff; and2. They are related to project engineering design (Tier II only) or measurement and verification

(Tier I and II).Q.78 Could the 3rd party M&V request funds for test and measure equipment and sensors?A.78 No, 3rd party measurement and verification subcontractors cannot include costs for equipment and

sensors. Eligible costs for subcontractors is limited to the following categories: Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits, Travel, Subcontractors, and Indirect Costs.

The prime recipient may purchase instrumentation and controls equipment if the following conditions are met: the equipment is required for the system to function properly; and is intended to be a permanent component of the system (i.e., not removed after the project is complete).

Please refer to the budget instructions in Attachment 4A, Tier I & II Prime Budget Form, and Attachment 4B, Tier I & II Major Subcontractor Budget Form.

Q.79 Is a tank built for a digester "equipment cost" and therefore an eligible cost? Is an entire digester (tank,

14

https://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf


GFO-18-903

piping, heating, roofing, etc.) considered "equipment cost" and therefore eligible?A.79 Yes, both costs described above are eligible for equipment costs if part of a larger biogas project which

generates renewable energy for use at an eligible food processing facility.Q.80 If funds are expended through borrowing (debt), can they be reimbursed through grant proceeds?A.80 There is insufficient information regarding how the debt is incurred to respond to this question.

If the debt was incurred during the Agreement term, the answer is “no”. For example, funds borrowed to perform a project now cannot be reimbursed after a grant is awarded. All expenses must be incurred during the agreement term in order to be considered reimbursable.If debt was incurred during the agreement term, the answer may be “yes”. For example, if a short term loan is taken to pay for equipment this would be considered reimbursable because the equipment has been paid for.Under Section 8.d, the recipient must pay all incurred costs for which it has invoiced the Energy Commission within 14 calendar days of receiving payment. Incurred costs means an expense for which the recipient has become legally obligated to pay. Please refer to the terms and conditions, section 8 Payment of Funds, for requirements of reimbursable costs:https://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf


Cost Eligibility

Q.81 If eligible equipment has already been ordered is it eligible for reimbursement?A.81 No. Equipment can only be purchased during the agreement term.Q.82 For Tier II, labor costs are ineligible. a) Do you mean the applicant’s labor costs? b) Are the

subcontractor’s labor costs eligible?A.82 a. Yes, the owners of the facility must be the applicant and the facility’s labor costs are ineligible.

b. Yes, the labor associated with M&V and Engineering Design is eligible if these costs are performed by a subcontractor. Installation costs are not eligible along with labor costs from the applicant.

Q.83 Qualifying M&V costs will be shown in Attachment 2. If the application is accepted then those are the acceptable M&V costs?

A.83 If selected for an award, the measurement and verification costs shown in your application in Attachment 4B may be negotiated.

Q.84 If the project has no equipment that was purchased from CA based vendor, would it still qualify?A.84 Yes, the project is still eligible for funding but it will not receive preference points for California Based

Vendors, Criterion 7 (Section IV.F, Solicitation Manual). Q.85 If a cap and trade facility has a vendor that is going to install equipment and the vendor will own 80%

and the equipment we will own 20% of the joint venture, will the facility portion be eligible for the FPIP funding?

A.85 Yes, if the 20% covers the cost of the equipment to be purchased by the Energy Commission grant and meets the requirements of the solicitation and Section 14 of the FPIP terms and conditions. See response to Question Q.64. Equipment rights will be given to the recipient and the Energy Commission

15

https://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf


GFO-18-903

is not responsible for any agreement with a third party. Rental fees are not an eligible cost.Q.86 If a qualified, capped CA food processor has just purchased generating equipment from us (in the last

month) but now would like to apply for grant money per FPIP, and the equipment would not be delivered until July 2019 and commissioned 3 months later, will that be acceptable?

A.86 No, in order to be eligible for reimbursement, equipment must be purchased during the term of the agreement. See response to Question Q.63.

Q.87 A California Food Processor has a covered entity facility. The covered entity facility would like to do a Joint Venture with a vendor, where significant GHG reduction would occur, and the covered entity is minority partner 80/20.

a. Would the covered entity be eligible to submit for FPIP funding for a portion of their investment if the joint venture project was on the covered entities land?

b. If the answer to the above is yes should the application include the full project cost and disclose that the majority partner will be providing 80% investment for the project and we, the covered entity, list our 20% investment in the project? Or do we only list our 20% as the total project cost given that we will only apply for funds against this 20%?

A.87 a. If the food processing facility will take title to 20% of the equipment, then the facility would be eligible to submit for FPIP funding for that 20% of equipment costs. Equipment rights must be held by the recipient and the Energy Commission is not responsible for any agreement with a third party. Rental fees are not an eligible cost.

b. The 80% investment by the applicant’s partner is eligible as match only for eligible costs as defined in Section I.F.2 of the Solicitation Manual, but would have to show the match funding in the Prime’s budget.

Q.88 Would the cost of the delivery of the components be covered under grant funds? A.88 Yes, delivery costs are eligible under this solicitation. Q.89 Would the cost of components such as electrical wire, electrical conduit, and plumbing be covered

under the grant funds? A.89 Yes, those costs are eligible under equipment costs.Q.90 Could infrastructure improvements made to secure a Tier II project be considered for grant and/or

matching funds? A.90 Infrastructure improvements can be eligible costs only if directly related to the equipment reducing

GHG emissions.Q.91 Are the following expenses incurred for equipment considered eligible costs?

a. CA sales taxb. Equipment shipping & deliveryc. Equipment customs clearance chargesd. Equipment Installation supervision & start-up support provided by equipment suppliere. Training provided by equipment supplier

A.91 a., b., c.: Eligible equipment costs include the following: CA sales tax, equipment shipping & delivery, and equipment customs clearance charges. d., e.: Ineligible costs: Equipment Installation supervision & start-up support provided by equipment supplier and training provided by equipment supplier.

Q.92 a. Will we be able to use grant funds for purchases made during the application process if awarded for Tier I?

b. Please explain the parameters / requirements for the M&V study.A.92 a. No, expenditures made before the agreement term will not be reimbursed by the grant funds

16


GFO-18-903

(Exhibit C-Terms and Conditions, Section 8.e).b. The M&V requirements are explained in the solicitation manual, section II.B.2 Measurement

and Verification Plan.Q.93 Under Tier I project funding, Can the applicant apply construction costs to meet the match funding

requirement?For example: If the equipment cost is $3,000,000 and construction costs are $2,000,000, Can the $2,000,000 in construction costs be applied as match funding to meet the 35% match requirement of the grant award.

A.93 No, construction costs cannot be used as match funding because it is not an eligible cost. Q.94 For a proposed FPIP project that includes fuel switching to electricity generation produced by a solar

power plant, can the land costs for a solar field be considered as part of the match funds?A.94 No, according to Section I.F.2 of the Solicitation Manual, “Match funds” do not include: Energy

Commission awards, future/contingent awards, or, the cost or value of all non-eligible project costs such as labor, permitting, overhead, etc. Land costs is a non-eligible project costs.

Q.95 What is considered eligible cost share?A.95 Section I.F describes the eligible costs under each Tier. The eligible cost share would be match funding

provided for those categories (Equipment and M&V for Tiers I and II, and Engineering Design for Tier II). Q.96 Tier I equipment often requires installation by vendor, and is often quoted as an installed price.

Commissioning that is sometimes legally required, and that would also in price quote. a. Are all those meant to be stripped away from the equipment price and is that really the

objective?b. Would a price quote that included commissioning costs, etc. be thrown out?

A.96 a. Yes, only equipment and M&V can be funded under Tier I. Other costs such as permits, installation, etc. are not included.

b. Yes, applicants must separate the various line item costs and the grant only covers equipment cost which includes delivery costs and taxes, along with M&V for Tiers I and II and engineering design for Tier II only.

Q.97 Does direct labor include payroll taxes?A.97 Those are generally under indirect overhead, but it depends on your organization’s payroll structure.Q.98 Clarification on matching—would installation, permitting, etc. qualify as matching funds or does it have

to be matching for share of equipment?A.98 No. Installation and permitting are not eligible for match funding. Match funding for equipment is

eligible. Q.99 If a piece of equipment from a supplier has a total flat cost that includes delivery and installation (think

purchasing a refrigerator from Home Depot), can an applicant seek reimbursement for that total flat cost?

A.99 No, the applicant must separate the equipment and delivery, which are eligible costs, and invoice the Energy Commission for only for these two costs. Installation is not an eligible cost. See response to Question Q.96.

Q.100 a. Can incentive money from utilities such as PGE count as matching? We are working on some on some incentives and would it be double dipping to get an incentive and a grant?

b. Would you be willing to consider open farm land, a nursery, and/or or greenhouse as a food production facility?

A.100 a. Rebates from utilities would count towards match funding if they provide a commitment letter as described in Attachment 7 and Addendum 2. It would not be double dipping.

17


GFO-18-903

b. The FPIP solicitation specifically targets food production facilities under NAICS codes 311 and 3121. Your facility must fall under one of these classifications to be eligible for FPIP.

Q.101 Is Tier II funding considered taxable income? Is Tier I funding considered taxable income?

A.101 The applicant should consult their accountant or legal adviser to determine if grant funding is subject to Federal or State taxes.

DefinitionsThe following questions were submitted to the previous FPIP solicitation, GFO-18-901, and have been included here. Some responses have been modified as they apply to this solicitation, GFO-18-903.

Definitions

Q.102 How do you define “proven” for emerging technology? A.102 You must explain where it has been used before and provide justification, in the form of links and data,

to show that the technology has been operated at commercial scale in an industrial setting and shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Q.103 Clarify equipment vs installation. Typically, installation has a core piece of equipment and periphery equipment (pumps, motor starters). Would the periphery be considered equipment?

A.103 Yes, pumps and motor starters are considered equipment. Installation is not an eligible cost. Q.104 Regarding Attachment 2A parts I/J: does operating cost include energy and maintenance cost? What is

relevance of that number?A.104 For the purposes of Attachment 2A, operating costs only includes energy costs. These numbers helps us

assess energy cost savings post-installation.Q.105 What is the baseline electricity grid GHG emissions factor that we will be benchmarked against?A.105 See Attachment 8, and use the Emission Factor Database to determine pre-baselines. For the specific

electricity grid GHG factor, use the 2015 factor.Q.106 Tier I has a list of specific technologies. If something is not in Tier I but can demonstrate GHG

reductions, would it be safe to say it is Tier II?A.106 No. Only technologies listed in the Solicitation Manual, Section II.B, or added as a result of an

addendum, are eligible for consideration in FPIP. The deadline to submit technology eligibility suggestions was July 23, 2018.

Q.107 What sorts of activities specifically around M&V count? A.107 Refer to “Measurement and Verification”, Section II.B.2, of the Solicitation Manual. Part A refers to

providing estimates, not actual monitoring, and is not reimbursable. Post-award is where M&V actually comes in; it is used to verify whether your estimates in your application are accurate. When calculating GHG emissions, use the emission factors found in the link on Attachment 8.CARB is developing a quantification methodology, which will be used to calculate GHG emission reductions from FPIP funded projects. When the methodology becomes available, it can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reporting-materials

Q.108 Related to installation, there’s some statements on prevailing wages. The facility is paying for installation—would that have to undergo the prevailing wages requirement?

A.108 Projects that receive an award of public funds from the Energy Commission involve construction,

18

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reporting-materials


GFO-18-903

alteration, demolition, installation, repair or maintenance work over $1,000. For this reason, projects that receive an award from the Energy Commission are likely to be considered public works under the California Labor Code. If you accept an Energy Commission grant, the entire project is covered by prevailing wage unless you get a determination from the Department of Industrial Relations as described in Section III.D.4.5, page 20 of the Solicitation Manual.

Q.109 Any single facility or company might have multiple NAICS codes used in the past. One person’s compost facility is another’s food processing. So how does an entity assert—is the agency going to check that and by what protocol does CEC check that?

A.109 Applications are limited to only the portions of the applicant’s facility with NAICS codes starting with 311 (food processing) and 3121 (beverage manufacturing). NAICS designations falling under the general “Manufacturing” category even though other manufacturing or non-manufacturing activities having different NAICS codes might be occurring there. The NAICS code indicated by the applicant in Attachment 1 will be used to determine eligibility and this will be checked by the Energy Commission during its prescreening of applications.

Q.110 On page 31, it suggests that GHG emissions are added together.a. Are facilities added together that are all similarly regulated?b. What if they are the same company?

A.110 a. No, the GHG emissions identified in Criteria 5 are based on one facility. For instance, to get the full 20 points for Tier 1, you must have one facility that emits more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. CARB has a list of mandatory reporting facilities (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mandatory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reporting). We are using this list to determine whether it is a capped (>25,000 metric tons of CO2/year) or a mandatory reporting facility (10,000 to 25,000 metric tons of CO2/year). The GHG emissions are not additive (e.g., adding GHG emissions from multiple facilities). So if you and a sister facility are applying, and you generate 45,000 metric tons and a sister facility generates less than 10,000 metric tons, then you will get the full 20 points for Criteria 5.

b. If you’re a capped facility emitting 45,000 metric tons of GHG and a sister facility owned by the same company is emitting less than 10,000 metric tons, you are allowed to “bundle” both facilities under Tier I into a single funding application. Projects in a capped facility, bundled along with any facilities under the same ownership, are awarded 20 points in the scoring criteria for Tier I. Tier II does not allow for bundling of sites.

Q.111 When switching from natural gas to electricity, the GHG emissions on site will be zero. However, are we looking at just site? Or offsite as well?

A.111 Refer to Attachment 8. For electricity saving projects, both onsite and source GHG emissions resulting from electricity generation will be counted. Use the link to the emission factors in Attachment 8 to estimate GHG emissions from electricity generation from utilities and other sources. These are the factors you must use to calculate your baseline for Attachment 2A and when you’re estimating GHG reductions for your project.

Q.112 Will the term “Industry Standard Practice” be held to the same level of scrutiny as the IOU energy efficiency programs by the CPUC? Or is this a less strict definition for the sake of the success of this program?

A.112 For the purposes of FPIP, industry standard practice is defined as typical equipment, technology or process commonly used in current practice. Standard practice is meeting current standards, such as meeting current Title 24 or other code or standards requirements (e.g., energy). To be eligible for FPIP, grant funded equipment must exceed these current industry standards.

19

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mandatory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reporting

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mandatory-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reporting


GFO-18-903

Proposal Evaluation, Reporting, and Other Information


Q.113 The GFO is titled “Food Production Investment Program”. However, under the heading “II. Eligibility Requirements” at the top of page 11 is the statement “Applicants to the FPIP are limited to food processing facilities located in California.”I understand the California requirement, but not why the food production program is constrained to food processing facilities. Will there be future programs with a more encompassing focus? Or is growing not part of production?

A.113 The legislation which authorized the Food Production Investment Program, Assembly Bill 109, specifically restricts funding to food processing facilities.The Energy Commission has another California Climate Investments program, the Renewable Energy for Agriculture Program (REAP), which supports on-site renewable energy projects in the agricultural sector with the primary goal of reducing GHG emissions. Please see the REAP webpage for more information: https://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/18-MISC-03/

Q.114 Will a recording of the session be available?A.114 A recording is available on the GFO webpage:

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/other_research.html#GFO-18-903Q.115 For determining capped and uncapped, etc. status of the pilot site, what emission sources are included

in the calculation of emissions (e.g., the emissions associated with just onsite emissions or also attributed to grid purchased power that site uses)?Or another way of saying this is…Are onsite emissions only considered for this solicitation versus grid power connected/purchased emissions?

A.115 Yes, emissions from grid-purchased electricity are included in calculating a facility’s GHG emission status.Capped and mandatory-reporting facilities are identified by the California Air Resources Board through the Cap and Trade program. For a complete list of capped facilities and the methodology to determine facility GHG emissions, please see: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data

20

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data

https://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/other_research.html#GFO-18-903

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy.ca.gov%2Frenewables%2F18-MISC-03%2F&data=01%7C01%7C%7C2fbc065657e44ac9d03508d65664e49a%7Cac3a124413f44ef68d1bbaa27148194e%7C0&sdata=6o72%2FIfbJDLNM6JvDQjvrwsPLdGw8Fdk903WpVirpF4%3D&reserved=0


GFO-18-903



Q.116 Regarding bundling, priority is given to capped facilities—if some facilities are capped and some not, how are the scoring criteria applied?

A.116 As long as your application has a capped facility or has one that has to do mandatory reporting, you will receive points for Criterion 5 (Section IV.F.). The capped facility must be one of the sites implementing the project. Facilities need to be under same ownership.

Q.117 Can we count VOC reductions as a benefit?A.117 The grant pays for projects that reduce GHG emissions. If it is a part of the overall project, reduction in

VOCs can be a co-benefit. Q.118 What is the GHG emission reduction goal or requirement for each project?A.118 No requirement, but the project needs to show reductions. The more reductions per Energy

Commission dollar spent the more points you’ll get. See Section IV.F Criteria 3 of the Scoring Criteria.Q.119 Will CARB’s Quantification Methodology take into account where the power supply comes from?

Example: In CARB’s GREET modeling for Carbon Intensity our Facility is in the AZ/NM power supply region.

A.119 Yes, it does take in consideration imported power from other states. This is factored into the emission factors in Attachment 8.

Q.120 When scoring conversion technology, and how efficiently they convert into GHG reducing electricity, are you using internal CARB metrics?

A.120 CARB is in the process of developing a quantification methodology for FPIP but it is not available at this point. Because it is not yet available, engineering estimates along with best available information, such as equipment cut sheets or specification sheets can be used to provide justification and assumptions for energy savings and GHG emissions. Once the quantification methodology is released, the methodology will be applied to the grant awardees and the estimates of GHG emissions will be recalculated. When available, the quantification methodology can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reporting-materials

Q.121 When will CARB’s Industrial Energy Efficiency, Food Production Advanced Technology Quantification Methodology be ready? In order to properly budget for 3rd-party completion of M&V, applicants need to understand what is entailed.

A.121 CARB’s methodology will only apply to the awardees resulting from this solicitation. This methodology is used for calculating purposes and does not provide guidance on the M&V requirements. Please see CARB’s website for quantification methodology here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reporting-materials

Q.122 If we have multiple uncapped facilities that have mandatory reporting but are only performing the project at one facility, do you count combined emissions or individual facility by that ownership?

A.122 Only facilities that are actually participating in FPIP (e.g., implementing a Tier I or II technology) count. Do not combine CO2 emissions from multiple facilities.

Q.123 In the GFO scoring, there are 40 points allocated to impacts. When evaluating, how does that work? Do more GHG reductions lead to more points?

A.123 There are three parts to Scoring Criteria 3 and we want justification for the GHG savings and benefits you claim on your project and then compare the reasonableness of the claimed savings to the overall

21





GFO-18-903

grant amount you are requesting. For part A, we are reviewing the reasonableness of the estimates of energy savings, GHG reductions and co-benefits. Part B focuses on calculating the ratio of Energy Commission funds to GHG reductions. This is an automatic calculation this is done in Attachment 2A in row 5.N. In Part C, you provide the actual calculations, timeframe within which the projects will be built, and explains the reasonableness and justification of all assumptions used in the calculation. Thus, a project that provides more GHG reductions relative to the amount of grant funds requested could get more points under this criteria.

Q.124 Does higher cost sharing receive any preferential points?A.124 No. However, it is to your benefit to provide more cost sharing. The more funds you put into your

project, the amount of grant funds requested could be less. This could be beneficial under Scoring Criteria 3 in which Part B compares Energy Commission dollars requested to the estimated amount of GHG emissions reductions. It is to your advantage to ask for less, to be more competitive. The match numbers are minimums, so feel free to provide more than the 15% or 35% match indicated in Table 1 (Section I.F of the Solicitation Manual).

Q.125 When you say other segments can take advantage (market potential points), are you referring to those NAICS codes you mention or related to other industries, say the chemical industry?

A.125 Compatibility of the technology in other food processing facilities is preferred. We want to see that the technology has the potential for broad application. Technologies with limited application may not score as well as those with greater potential.

Q.126 Regarding priority populations, can an applicant only receive 0 or 10 points, even if bundling facilities?A.126 Yes, if you bundle them in order to get 10 points for priority populations, all of facilities in your bundle

must meet all requirements in Section III.D.8. Q.127 Would it negatively impact an application if more than one company applies with the same technology

or same subcontractor?A.127 No. It won’t negatively impact your application. Multiple applications from one entity must be for

distinct projects with no overlap with respect to the tasks in the scope of work. Using the same subcontractor is allowed.

Q.128 If we move to electric refrigeration charging while on-site of our capped facility, this will significantly reduce emissions but will increase our electricity usage. How will that be scored?

A.128 The main criterion is GHG emission reductions. You will also need to consider GHG emissions from the increased electric load. If you’re electrifying and your bill goes up, it can impact the market potential of the technology—obviously a project that reduces GHG emissions but doubles your operating cost may not have a lot of market potential.

Q.129 Are savings associated with added load as a result of a proposed project allowed to be accounted for by normalizing baseline energy usage to reflect that of the post installation load thus resulting in greater GHG emission reductions as a result of the project?

A.129 No, adding electrical or thermal load would increase GHG emissions regardless of whether efficiency measures are installed or not. The facility total emissions output would still be higher than it was before the load was added.

Q.130 Can CEC help connect technology vendors and companies with food processing facilities? A.130 You can use the resources provided, such as the LinkedIn California Energy Commission Networking

Hub, to find potential partners: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6925861/profileQ.131 Also, in the RFP, the "Documentation of Benefits to Priority Populations" is listed as item #8 on page 21.

Should that be included as a separate attachment or just covered in the Narrative?A.131 Benefits to Priority Populations must be discussed in the project narrative, Attachment 2, item 6. It is

22

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6925861/profile


GFO-18-903

important that the applicant address each of the three steps outlined in Section III.D.8 of the Solicitation Manual. If multiple sites are proposed, the three steps must be addressed for each site.

Agreement Term and Terms and ConditionsThe following questions were submitted to the previous FPIP solicitation, GFO-18-901, and have been included here. Some responses have been modified as they apply to this solicitation, GFO-18-903.

Agreement Term and Terms and Conditions

Q.132 During earlier meetings, the question of confidentiality was raised. How do you determine whether your narrative or calculations are confidential or not?

A.132 As indicated in Section IV.D.3, Information received by the Commission in response to a solicitation shall be kept confidential before the posting of the NOPA. However, with few exceptions, all project documents submitted to the Energy Commission are considered public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Information on grant awards must be reported to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), as indicated in Chapter 5 of the Food Production Investment Program Guidelines (http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/fpip/documents/).If you’re submitting something you believe is confidential, there is a process that is described in Section IV.D.3.

Q.133 What are the terms and conditions?A.133 The terms and conditions describe the responsibilities of the grant recipient if it receives a grant award.

The terms and conditions are posted at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf .

Q.134 To confirm, proposed projects must complete the CEQA process before they can enter into a contract with the Energy Commission, correct?

A.134 Yes, the CEQA process must be completed in a timely manner prior to approval of the grant at an Energy Commission business meeting.

Q.135 How long will The Energy Commission reserve the right to conduct and audit to verify assumptions and estimates of energy savings and GHG emission reduction after equipment is installed?

A.135 The Energy Commission reserves the right to audit and verify savings for up to three years after the project term ends.

23

http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/documents/FPIP_Grant_TCs.pdf

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


GFO-18-903

Formatting and Submissions


Q.136 From our perspective, the match funding commitment in the letter of commitment is firm and final. The processor must complete any and all internal decision making prior to the 2/11/19 grant request ‐deadline. Afterwards, the processor will not have any further opportunity to opt out of the project. Is your perspective the same?

A.136 All applicants must submit a match fund commitment letter that: (1) identifies the source of funds; (2) justifies the dollar value claimed; (3) provides an unqualified (i.e., without reservation or limitation) commitment that guarantees the availability of the funds for the project; and (4) provides a strategy for replacing the funds if they are significantly lost or reduced. Failure to submit this letter will result in application rejection based on the screening criteria.

Internal decision-making and processes required to secure the match funds commitment letter are the responsibility of the applicant. If a grant is awarded and executed, it is expected that the match funds committed in the application will be available for the project. Ultimately, the recipient is responsible for the match funding. If, during the course of the project, the match funds are significantly lost or reduced without replacement, the grant award may be terminated (mutual or at the sole discretion of the Energy Commission).

Q.137 For support letters, your talks to industry representatives (e.g., CLFP) as well as local community based organization; does this include local agencies, such as air districts, irrigation districts, city councils, etc.?

A.137 Yes, support letters can be from any entity or individual.Q.138 Is an equipment vendor required to submit a major subcontractor budget?A.138 No, equipment vendors are not required to submit a major subcontractor budget. Equipment must be

included in the budget of the prime in Attachment 4A, Tier I & II Prime Budget Form.Q.139 The RFP states that a budget needs to be developed for all of the tasks, even the ones that are not

reimbursable. Where is that presented? Because budgets are set up to show reimbursable CEC and eligible cost share, where does the overall budget get presented? Is it in the narrative?

A.139 Budgets for each individual task are not required. However, the budget breakdown by category only pertains to eligible expenditures and match and these costs must be provided in the budget document. Please refer to the budget instructions in Attachment 4A, Tier I & II Prime Budget Form, and Attachment 4B, Tier I & II Major Subcontractor Budget Form.

Q.140 Can you please confirm that the caps for each entity receiving awards is per round of FPIP so customers awarded in round 1 are eligible to receive full funding in round 2?

A.140 Yes, funding caps as described in the solicitation manual, Section II.B.3 are reset. If an entity was awarded funding through the previous FPIP solicitation (GFO-18-901), it will not count toward the entity’s maximum award cap of $6 million in Tier I and $8 million in Tier II.

Q.141 Is there a max limit on support letters?A.141 No, there is no maximum limit on support letters.Q.142 Please describe how you define "distinct" projects. Do they have to be different measures or just

operate independently of each other?

24


GFO-18-903

A.142 Distinct projects must have no overlap with another project that is also being requested for funding. In addition a distinct project is one that can be performed independent of other projects. If an applicant submits two applications, both projects may be at the same facility but each must be able to be executed without the other. For example, if an applicant is requesting funds for an economizer project and also submits an application for a boiler project involving the same economizer, the two projects are not distinct and will be rejected based on application screening criteria. Another example is two submissions which are variations of the same project, involving the same equipment at the same facility but implementing different retrofit measures. These projects are not distinct and will be rejected based on application screening criteria.



Q.143 The solicitation indicates bundling within same plant. If a Tier I project needs $6 million but contains multiple technologies, can it be one application?

A.143 No, there is a cap of $3 million per award under Tier I. You must submit at least two applications for two distinct projects. Duplicating or splitting the same project within the same plant into two projects is not acceptable and will fail the Stage One Application Screening (Section IV.E.).

Q.144 In regards to Measurement & Verification Plans, are all IPMVP Options A-D eligible?A.144 Only options A-C.It is up to the applicant to choose the M&V method. It can be a recognized protocol

like IPMVP or another protocol or methodology. Whatever is used must be robust enough to evaluate and validate energy saving GHG emissions at the equipment level and the system or facility level. FPIP will only fund M&V conducted by independent third-party contractors.

Q.145 a. If we are applying for Tier I technology (Drop in ready) and replacing existing permitted equipment that does not require any construction/engineering/etc. Do we need to have the local authority still sign off on an exclusion from CEQA?

b. Could we provide case-law as evidence of exclusion from CEQA for Tier I (Drop in ready Technology) from previous projects in local authority jurisdiction as evidence of CEQA exemption?

c. To qualify for Tier II project, does the project have to go through a full CEQA process or could it qualify if it went through a Mitigated CEQA or Administrative Review process with the local authority? In order for a project to qualify for Tier II Funding does it have to go through a Full CEQA process?

A.145 a. Not at the time of application submission. However, you must complete Attachment 5, CEQA Compliance Form and provide us with the information requested, including any backup information to justify your responses.

b. If a previous project has received a notice of exemption and shows the specific exemption under CEQA, include this information as backup.

c. No, not at the time of application. The Energy Commission will evaluate all projects to determine whether it is a project under CEQA. Completing Attachment 5 will help with that determination. If a project is determined to be a project under CEQA and is not covered by one of the exemptions, then it will need to go through the review process as described in CEQA. If a project is not exempt,

25


GFO-18-903

and the project is selected for an award, then all the CEQA requirements must be met before the Energy Commission can approve the project. This would be taken into consideration.

Additionally, the Energy Commission is not responsible for any permits required to complete the project, but will require status letters on obtaining the required permits.

Q.146 Could a project that receives approval by the local authority through a Mitigated CEQA or Administrative Review process be approved for Tier II funding?

A.146 Yes, the Mitigated CEQA documents must be provided either with the proposal or in a timely manner to meet the business meeting deadline. The Energy Commission will use those findings to make a CEQA determination for the proposed project.

Q.147 Tier I is standard technology that is widely available. a. Is it still necessary to include the section on market potential?b. What is the format of the market potential plan? Calculations?

A.147 a. Yes. It is required. We want you to explain that the technology has market potential beyond your site and for you to identify where else it can be used and how this information can be disseminated to these other markets. Sharing information with others is significant—even if Energy Commission can’t fund everyone, the results will show the potential elsewhere, so someone else can do that project themselves.

b. No calculations, provide the information in narrative format.Q.148 When you register online, can multiple people from your company login to your application? Is there a

way to give them that access?A.148 Yes, you can have multiple people with different accounts work on the same application. They just have

to be granted permission by the originator. Q.149 Energy and GHG savings are a critical part of the evaluation. What kind of depth is required—how

complete and accurate do these need to be?A.149 You will be estimating energy savings based on information about your existing equipment and

comparing it with your proposed replacement equipment. You will also need to estimate energy savings from the installed equipment at either the system level or the facility level. Please provide all assumptions used in the calculations. To determine GHG savings, use the emission factors provided by CARB in Attachment 8. We realize that these are estimates and the scoring committee will verify that the calculations are robust.

Q.150 Can I bundle multiple projects from a single facility into a single application or do I need multiple applications for each project at that facility?

A.150 For both Tier I and II, you can bundle multiple projects from one facility into a single application subject to the following limits:

Tier I, you can bundle up to $3 million Tier II, you can bundle up to $8 million

Q.151 Are you looking for a letter from the utility saying that they’ll commit to an incentive?A.151 If utility incentives are being used as match funding, the letter from the utility should indicate the

potential incentive amount and any qualifications or contingency regarding these funds. If the funding is contingent, the applicant must provide a strategy for replacing these funds if they are significantly reduced or lost. This includes rebates/incentives from IOUs/POUs.

Q.152 What signatures are required?A.152 Signatures are required for the following:

Attachment 1, Application Form Attachment 7, all commitment letters must be signed and scanned. If electronic, PDF format.

26


GFO-18-903

Q.153 If technology is not listed on one of the checkboxes, do we put in “other”?A.153 Technologies that are added to the list of eligible technologies via an addendum would qualify as

“other.” Check addendums for additional technologies.Q.154 In Attachment 2, how much detail do we have to go into to describe existing systems?A.154 The narrative needs to provide sufficient detail on the technology and the application at each of the

food processing plants and how the technology impacts energy savings and GHG emissions at the project’s equipment level, and either at the system level or the facility level.

Q.155 For Tier II, should measuring the baseline be included in the M&V budget? Otherwise it will be hard to see companies pay for baseline data before they know if the projects get funded?

A.155 Your application baseline will be estimated based on current equipment type and operations and using the emissions factors from Attachment 8. The establishment of this baseline as part of the application is not reimbursable by the grant. Funding for post application M&V for baseline and post retrofit can be funded by the grant, if a third party subcontractor is used for this M&V (refer to Section II.B.2 of the Solicitation Manual). There are 3 M&V phases: Phase I M&V will be conducted before application submittal and is not reimbursable by the grant. Phase II M&V will happen before equipment is installed to obtain a more accurate baseline. Phase III will be post implementation. Phase II and Phase III are reimbursable expenses under the M&V category if the work is done by a third party subcontractor. See responses to Question 198 and Question 181.

Q.156 As a food plant, should we apply directly for the grant or should we work with an energy firm to apply? We would hire the subcontractor so almost all of the funds would go to the subcontractor to perform the work for our technology.

A.156 Food processing facilities must apply directly and sign the application form (Attachment 1). However, if you hire a separate party to prepare your application and perform the work identified in your grant proposal, the Energy Commission grant will only apply to the cost associated with equipment, and subcontractor cost associated with M&V (Tiers I and III) and engineering design (Tier II only).

Q.157 a. What level of detail will we have to go into to get the grant? b. Do we need to be so granular that we select the company and the exact product type or can it

be a touch vaguer in certain circumstances?A.157 a. Be as specific as possible. You need to state all your assumptions. For example, if you want to do

a compressor replacement but haven’t chosen the exact product yet, just include the efficiency rating, costs, and as much information and specifications as you can give us.

b. During the application phase, it is not necessary to specify the company from whom you will be buying energy efficient technologies from or the specific product type, but please be as accurate as you can in estimating the cost of the equipment to be purchased as this cost will weigh into the cost-benefit criterion of the project.

Q.158 We have technology that falls under the Tier I category but I have multiple clients in the Central Valley that can take advantage of our drying system. Each client will have a different sized system but the system will operate the same in each facility.Do I put all the applications under one umbrella for my company but have the separate clients sign the applications or do I make separate applications with logins for each client?The only reason that I ask is that each facility is hauling their sludge to East Bay Mud so the narrative will be the same for all clients although the GHG emission reduction will vary per facility based on volume.

A.158 Applications must come from individual, eligible food processing plants per Section II.A of the Solicitation Manual, and not the technology company/vendor. If the same technology is used in multiple

27


GFO-18-903

food processing plants of different ownership, then each of these plants must submit an application. If a food processing plant has multiple sister sites that will be using the same technology, they can be bundled into one application if they are under the same ownership and meet the bundling requirements and application maximums as stated in the response to Question 171. GHG emissions associated with transporting and hauling sludge cannot be counted towards the overall GHG emission reductions for the project. Transportation project are not eligible for the FPIP solicitation.

Q.159 Are project team resumes required for the proposal? If so, should they be a separate attachment or combined with another required element?

A.159 No, they are not required.Q.160 Are Letters of Support (as opposed to Letters of Commitment) required or recommended?A.160 Letters of Support are not required. However, Letters of Commitment are required. Q.161 The budget form instructions state that “applicants must budget for all cost not covered by the grant,

such as installation….”, however there is no place on the budget form to show these costs. Does the CEC mean that applicants should budget on their own for these costs? Where, if anywhere, should we discuss this information?

A.161 Yes, you should budget on your own for these costs to ensure that you can complete the project but they do not need to be included in the budget. You do not need to submit a budget for non-eligible costs.

Q.162 If applicant were personally financing a Tier I or Tier II project, would applicant be able to use an “unqualified commitment” of 2 times the matching funds as a way to illustrate a strategy for replacing significantly reduced or lost matching funds?

A.162 Yes, if the applicant provides the requested commitment letter (Attachment 7) indicating that they will use its own funds to cover any match funds lost or reduced.

Q.163 Do we need to outline labor cost associated with project if they are not covered under the grant funds and cannot be used as matching funds?

A.163 No, you do not need to include any costs not covered by the grant. You do not need to submit a budget for non-eligible costs.

Subcontractors

Subcontractors

Q.164 How difficult would it be for us (the contractor) to fill the paperwork out on behalf of the client? How much work can we, the contractor, do on behalf of the client and how much do they have to do?

A.164 Applicants may utilize subcontractors to assist them in grant application preparation, however the application package must be reviewed and signed by the applicant prior to submission. Please note section IV.D.1 of the solicitation manual which states “The Energy Commission will not reimburse applicants for application development expenses under any circumstances, including cancellation of the solicitation.” Costs must be incurred during the agreement term to be reimbursable or counted as match funds.

Q.165 Can a major subcontractor contract a subcontractor for over $100,000.00?A.165 Yes, a major subcontractor can contract with a subcontractor for over $100,000. Both subcontractors

must provide a full budget breakdown using Attachment 4B, Tier I & II Major Subcontractor Budget Form.

28


GFO-18-903


Subcontractors

Q.166 If I’m doing a construction project, the subcontractor won’t do a fixed price.A.166 As installation costs are ineligible for FPIP, the price for equipment must be separated from the overall

project cost. Only subcontractors associated with M&V (Tiers I and II) and engineering design (Tier II only) are eligible for reimbursement by the grant. For minor subcontractors (<$100,000), full budget details are not required. For major subcontractors (>$100,000), you will have to break down the various budget categories in Attachment 4B.

Q.167 Regarding Attachment 4B, I thought you are not paying for labor?A.167 Attachment 4B is applicable if you are hiring an M&V (Tiers I and II) and/or Engineering Design (Tier II

only) major subcontractors (over $100k or 25% of Energy Commission reimbursable amount). Q.168 Can you explain why the subcontractor can only be used for M&V and engineering purposes?A.168 For M&V we are interested in independent analysis and verification of the energy savings. The FPIP

grant is used to supplement project funding for the project and not supplant funds. Paying in-house staff for M&V and engineering design is supplanting funds since these staff are already paid by your organization.

Q.169 You mentioned that there’s no grant matching for labor, but then you went over labor, can you clarify?A.169 Attachment 4B only applies to subcontractors. If you’re hiring a subcontractor to do M&V or

Engineering Design, you need to fill out Attachment 4B if costs are more than $100,000 or 25% of Energy Commission grant. Direct labor match funding can be provided by subcontractors. Installation labor, administration, accounting, permitting, or project management are not eligible costs. See response to Question Q.167.

Q.170 Can subcontractor cost for grant application assistance be included? If not, why? A.170 No. Grant application assistance is not an eligible cost per Section II.B of the Solicitation Manual. Q.171 Can you please provide clarification on the allowed M&V costs for Tier I and Tier II proposals?

Specifically, are equipment, M&S, and Travel as well as labor costs allowable for a M&V subcontractor?A.171 Direct labor, fringe benefits, travel, subcontractors, indirect costs, and profits are the only eligible costs

for M&V subcontractors. Q.172 If a have a contractor that’s doing the M&V for the project and their cost is $110,000, can I pay them

$100,000 from the FPIP grant (budget that in the application) and count the $10,000 profit they’re making on this deal towards the match?

A.172 Yes, you can provide profit as match as long as the minimum match requirement is met.

29

Eligibility - California Energy Commission · Web viewYes, fuel cells using renewable energy as...

Documents

Transcript of Eligibility - California Energy Commission · Web viewYes, fuel cells using renewable energy as...