Docstoc

Sample Budget Proposal on the Ev

Document Sample
Sample Budget Proposal on the Ev Powered By Docstoc
					          REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS




Project Title: Second Life Applications and Value
         of “Traction” Lithium Batteries




1 of 21
Project Title:    Second Life Applications and Value of
“Traction” Lithium Batteries
The UC Davis Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center (PHEV Research
Center) provides the California Energy Commission (CEC) with the contractual,
administrative, fiscal, and technical management support necessary to ensure successful
completion of projects in fulfillment of the contract for the PHEV Research Center. The
PHEV Research center is funded with PIER funds under the Transportation Research
Area; this research project will be funded and managed by the PHEV Research Center.
The scope of work described in this Exhibit is based on the Work Authorization approved
by the Commission; additional information and requirements are also set forth herein.

Proposal Process and Requirements
Due Date: February 12, 2010
Decision Date: February 26, 2010
Start Date: March 30, 2010
Completion Date: March 30, 2011
Budget: The budget for this research project is not to exceed $1,100,000, and the
         proposed project budget must be completed in the supplied budget spreadsheet.
         Proposals must also include a Budget Justification document explaining the
         proposed budget.
Proposal Requirements: The proposal should include a detailed description of research
         tasks and schedule of deliverables, budget spreadsheet, and budget justification.
         Also recommended is a Letter of Concurrence from the contracting department
         of the proposing entity. Please see the sample contract as an example of the
         terms and conditions that the proposing entity will need to agree to.

        Proposals may be submitted for each of the three tasks individually or for a
project that would include all three tasks (see task list on page 5 and 6 of this work
statement). Contracts may be granted to multiple research organizations based on their
proposals for each research task. Each project task will be scored individually according to
the criteria below, with a maximum of 100 points possible per task.

Proposal Submission: Proposals must be submitted to PHEV Research Center Program
        Manager at:
                University of California, Davis
                Institute of Transportation Studies
                ATTN: Dahlia Garas
                2028 Academic Surge
                Davis, CA 95616
                Phone:       (530) 752-2570
                Fax:         (530) 752-6572
                Email:       dmgaras@ucdavis.edu



2 of 21
                                           Table of Contents

  Proposal Process and Requirements ......................................................................... 2
  1. OVERVIEW........................................................................................................... 4
    Policy Context in California ................................................................................... 4
    Technical Background Information....................................................................... 5
  2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................ 7
  3. WORK STATEMENT .......................................................................................... 7
    Detailed Description of Research Tasks ............................................................... 8
    Task 1: Baseline requirements of potential non-vehicle 2nd life applications 8
    Task 2: Home energy storage appliance for system regulation ........................ 8
    Task 3: Propose a methodology for proving and valuing an optimal
    combined first and second life for batteries ......................................................... 9
  4. DELIVERABLES................................................................................................. 10
  5. BUDGET AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE............................................. 11
    Schedule of Tasks................................................................................................... 11
    Budget...................................................................................................................... 12
  6. KEY PERSONNEL AND LEVEL OF EFFORT............................................... 12
  7. CHANGES .......................................................................................................... 12
  8. PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................................ 12
  9. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 13
  10.    COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL .............. 14
  11.    ELIGIBLE PROJECTS .................................................................................... 14
  12.    ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS .............................................................................. 15
  13.    SELECTION OF PROJECTS AND AWARD PROCESS ........................... 15
  14.    SCHEDULE OF PROPOSAL AND AWARD PROCESS.......................... 15
  15.    PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 16
  16.    PROPOSAL GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 17
  16.    CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION............................................................. 17
  17.    PRE-PROPOSAL WORKSHOP ................................................................... 18
  18.    SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS................................................................. 18
  19.    GROUNDS FOR REJECTION ...................................................................... 18
  20.    AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THIS SOLICITATION ....... 19
  21.    QUESTIONS ................................................................................................... 19
  22.    ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................... 19




3 of 21
1.        OVERVIEW
The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center is soliciting proposals to research
possible second use applications and requirements for used lithium automotive traction
batteries. Applications that can use transportation batteries in complimentary or
secondary applications may help to build the market for electric drive vehicles and
extend the usable life and value of the batteries. This solicitation seeks to fund a research
group, including at minimum an electric utility, and possibly other partners, who will
develop and test a unique application of “spent” traction batteries, a storage device to be
placed in homes, but owned, dispatched and charged by a utility as a smart grid
component.


Policy Context in California
California Public Utilities Code Section 740.3 encourages development and
implementation of electric transportation as part of a business model for California
investor owned utilities. Specifically, CPUC 740.3 states that

740.3. (a) The commission, in cooperation with the State Energy Conservation and
Development Commission, the State Air Resources Board, air quality management
districts and air pollution control districts, regulated electrical and gas corporations, and
the motor vehicle industry, shall evaluate and implement policies to promote the
development of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of electric
power and natural gas to fuel low-emission vehicles. Policies to be considered shall
include both of the following:

(1) The sale-for-resale and the rate-basing of low-emission vehicles and supporting
equipment such as batteries for electric vehicles and compressor stations for natural gas
fueled vehicles.

(2) The development of statewide standards for electric vehicle charger connections and
compressed natural gas vehicle fueling connections, including installation procedures and
technical assistance to installers.

(b) The commission shall hold public hearings as part of its effort to evaluate and
implement the new policies considered in subdivision (a), and shall provide a progress
report to the Legislature by January 30, 1993, and every two years thereafter, concerning
policies on rates, equipment, and infrastructure implemented by the commission and
other state agencies, federal and local governmental agencies, and private industry to
facilitate the use of electric power and natural gas to fuel low-emission vehicles.

(c) The commission's policies authorizing utilities to develop equipment or infrastructure
needed for electric-powered and natural gas-fueled low-emission vehicles shall ensure
that the costs and expenses of those programs are not passed through to electric or gas
ratepayers unless the commission finds and determines that those programs are in the
ratepayers' interest. The commission's policies shall also ensure that utilities do not
unfairly compete with non-utility enterprises.


4 of 21
This solicitation is intended to undertake research that will advance technology and
science of motive battery systems and their prospective electricity ratepayer benefits
through utility application of repurposed, “spent” vehicle battery packs. Advancements in
lithium ion battery technology, vehicle electric drive systems, implementation of the
renewable portfolio standard for electricity supply, the low-carbon fuel standard and
implementation of the smart grid all point to new opportunities to integrate electric
transportation fuel as a supportive element of California’s grid. Use of vehicle battery
packs for strategic utility services in California could establish the important and clear
linkage between transportation electrification and utility ratepayer benefits. However,
research is needed to determine the technical potential and limitations of vehicle battery
packs for this value proposition. Results of the research from this solicitation may inform
both regulatory and policy decisions being contemplated for transportation electrification
in California.

Implementing electric fuel in California will require vehicle charging and associated
power systems that will effectively interact with a “Smart Grid.” A “Smart Grid”
involves the integration of infrastructures to support easily dispatched, distributed
generation and storage technologies with the necessary communication protocols to
coordinate their operation across the grid. Smart grids could include plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and stationary battery systems. Smart grid operators would be able to
charge and discharge these batteries remotely to regulate the grid. This scope of research
will include actual and/or simulated transactions between a home electricity storage
device and the electricity system using real or proposed smart grid protocols.

This solicitation requires applicants either be an electric utility company, or be working
in a research partnership with an electric utility that is attempting to manage “needle
peaks” from air conditioning loads and store energy from excess night time renewables
and a vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), upfitter, battery manufacturer,
vehicle battery pack supplier or other significant supplier in order to provide the
operational knowledge and infrastructure necessary for assessing the potential value of
“spent” vehicle battery packs within the electricity generation, distribution and end-use
system.


Technical Background Information
PHEVs and electric vehicles (EVs) are automotive technologies that may be capable of
shifting a portion of the energy use in transport to the electric sector, and thereby offer
potential reductions in petroleum use, local air pollution and green house gases. In
particular, California’s electrical grid is less carbon intense and polluting than most other
states. Recognizing PHEVs and EVs potential for the previously mentioned
environmental and social benefits and their near term role as a Partial or Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) technology advancing pathway, PHEVs have recently been codified in the
California Air Resources Board’s Zero Emission Vehicle Program as an Enhanced,
Advance Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (EAT-PZEV), and up to 66,000
PHEVs can be included in the program in 2012-2014. PHEVs have also been proposed in



5 of 21
the California State Alternative Fuels Plan as a pathway to carbon reductions in
California transportation.

A primary hurdle to commercialization of PHEVs and EVs is the cost of batteries.
Traction batteries are one of the most expensive components in a hybrid electric vehicle
(HEV), and the battery required for PHEVs is larger and more expensive, and EV
batteries even larger. Currently automotive manufacturers are optimistic that such
batteries are technically at hand, but are cautious that such large batteries are still too
expensive, even in mass production. Moreover, spent automotive lithium batteries will
present a significant recycling challenge. At present, there are no profitable strategies for
recovery of the materials in such batteries.

In order to decrease the cost and risk that auto manufacturer’s take on to produce a PHEV
or EV, and to promote the growth of the battery market, one potential source of value is
to identify and evaluate potential reuse strategies for the battery. The idea behind
secondary battery use or the “second life” of the battery is that the battery will be
removed and resold or repurposed for a second life application after its first life in the
vehicle, either at the end of the vehicle life, or more likely at some prescribed optimal
economic and technical life stage. For example, automotive batteries have much greater
power and energy demands than other applications; automotive batteries may have to be
retired when they still have 70-80% of their capacity. Such a battery has an excellent
chance of having valuable second lives in other applications when it is removed from the
vehicle, whether that is 3, 4, or even 10 years into the life of the vehicle. In addition,
identifying and testing the same vehicle batteries in complimentary stationary
applications for their primary use may help in building the market for vehicle batteries
and thereby reducing costs through scaling up production.

Given current lithium battery prices – around $1000 per kWh, depending on their size –
the battery in a PHEV may cost from $5,000 to as high as $15,000 initially. The PHEV
Research Center is interested to know if a “spent” PHEV battery might still have some
residual value for a second life as a stationary battery for energy back-up systems. Such a
second use of batteries may become a significant added value to automotive lithium
batteries, spread out the initial battery cost, and reduce the recycling demands by
extending the battery lifetime.

One important application of interest is to use stored energy from batteries to regulate the
frequency and voltage of the grid. As the grid becomes more efficient, and includes
greater percentages of renewable energy sources, instability may increase. For example,
the increased use of air conditioning in Western States is leading to “needle” spikes on
the hottest days, due to the poor efficiency of compressors in dry, western climates.
Utilities must go to great lengths to get consumers to let the utilities turn off these units
for short periods. Also, the low volume of electricity at nighttime in non-industrial
regions like California combined with efficiency gains is making the grid increasingly
unstable. These trends point to a greener, but increasing unstable grid.

In the future, “energy” storage may become increasingly essential to growing renewable
energy sources, such as wind and solar electricity, which are intermittent. Distributed
energy storage, particularly batteries, is seen a potential solution, and is specified already

6 of 21
in laws above for a potential rate case to spread the cost of such batteries across
California rate payers. This would mean the cost of a first generation of PHEV & EV
batteries could be spread over a full 1st and 2nd lifetime as well as across the rate payer
base.


2.        GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
     •    This research will identify the battery performance requirements of several
          promising and high value second life applications for (simulated) vehicle battery
          packs. Some of these 2nd life applications already have a market, while others are
          being researched.
     •    This research will work with a utility to develop, test and analyze the practical,
          economic and systems potential of a second life application we are calling a
          Household Electricity Storage Appliance (HESA) in a California utility context.


3.        WORK STATEMENT
     1. Establish baseline requirements of several potential 2nd life applications, in
        particular those with greatest potential to extend value of spent plug-in hybrid and
        electric vehicle batteries and whose application will also benefit the operations of
        and help the integration of renewable energy to the California electric grid
        system. The PHEV Center will work with the contractor to choose a set of 4-5
        reuse applications with most promise.
            a. Voltage, power, energy, operating temperature, operation profile, thermal
                management, calendar and cycle life.
            b. Value and scale of application,
            c. Competing technologies for application.
     2. Development of one specific non-vehicle 2nd life application, what we are calling
        a home energy storage appliance (HESA) which will use spent automotive lithium
        batteries.
            a. Researchers will develop at least 4 prototype devices per battery chemistry
                tested.
            b. Researchers will employ different types of lithium battery chemistries in
                these prototypes, proposals which include more than one battery
                chemistry, such as lithium phosphate, lithium manganese, and lithium
                titanate will be looked upon favorably.
            c. Researchers will use batteries designed for automotive applications and
                deemed “spent” for automotive purposes
            d. Researchers will also develop a baseline with “new batteries”
            e. Development of utility controls, with input from an electrical utility, to
                use HESA for distributed energy buffering in conjunction with household
                air conditioning loads.
            f. Placement of HESA in residences, or simulated residences to test in peak
                and “needle” spike response.
            g. Analysis of suitability of HESA for economic and effective “point of
                consumption” regulation of current frequency and voltage.



7 of 21
   3. Develop a methodology for proving and valuing an optimal combined first and
      second life for batteries-what we will call here an “optimal full-lifetime value.”


Detailed Description of Research Tasks

Task 1: Baseline requirements of potential non-vehicle 2nd life applications

Researchers will describe performance requirements of several (4-5) second life
applications of automotive lithium batteries specified by the PHEV center as high
potential value applications for California’s electrical system. These requirements will in
some case be provided by established applications clients and in some cases will require
exploratory research for applications, which are not yet established (such as the home
energy appliance described in this RFP).

Descriptions will include:
   • Voltage, power, energy, operating temperature, operation profile, thermal
       management, calendar and cycle life.
   • Operation environment
   • Value and scale of application,
   • Competing technologies in application.
   • Any existing testing or use of batteries for energy storage in each applications.


Task 2: Home energy storage appliance for system regulation
Researchers and engineers will develop a home electricity storage appliance (HESA) for
distributed regulation and peak buffering. This home energy device will use “spent”
automotive lithium batteries. The HESA should be suitable for placement in garages,
with a footprint acceptable to homeowners. This research will be conducted within a
power utility grid management context, either by, or in partnership with, a utility that also
has experience dealing with demand “needle spikes”.

Researchers will build multiple HESAs, three (3) each using “retired” modules of the
chosen chemistries, which should include at least two of the following:

1. Lithium phosphate
2. Lithium titanate
3. Lithium manganese cobalt

In addition, HESA devices will use “new” batteries, one HESA for each of the tested
chemistries listed above as a baseline for energy storage and performance. In total, there
will be four (4) HESAs per battery chemistry included in this study.

Researchers will obtain batteries for the HESA which are becoming available as large
format automotive batteries, both in modules and sub-packs, and which are being
proposed for, or are from, actual mass production lines. Batteries that are designed for


8 of 21
consumer electronics and repackaged for traction, purely experimental, or not yet in
production will not be acceptable for evaluation in this study. The optimal battery for this
research would be a battery module or pack which has been developed specifically for
PHEVs or EVs and has been used in real-world demonstration and testing. The batteries
deemed “retired” will retain 70% of their energy capacity and power capabilities.

It is probable that in this initial commercial phase, researchers may not be able to acquire
lithium batteries for automotive purposes that have reached an “optimal retirement”
condition. In fact, researchers may have to use “new” automotive batteries that are
conditioned through accelerated wear and tear. However, there may be some “used”
batteries available, which have been aged under either natural or artificial conditions, and
should be used for this study. Proposals should go into some detail to describe the
origins, chemistry, design, history and “condition” of batteries to be used in the HESA.
These batteries must be benchmarked at the start of the study.

In Phase One of this task, HESAs will be controlled in laboratory settings to test the
utility control methods developed. Phase one should last long enough to establish
reliability of the HESA and demonstrate its response to remote controls for charging and
discharging in service.

For Phase Two, suitable controls will be developed for the HESA so that it is charged
and discharged remotely and in real time by the utility in response to local grid
conditions. The HESA will operate circuits for air conditioner loads- or other similar
circuits in the household deemed useful. In Phase Two of this task, HESAs will be
deployed to be tested in field locations, model or real homes, in hot, dry climates, in
conjunction with real and typical air conditioner loads, for “real world” testing and
demonstration. Control of HESA will be remote, and can be through devices over the
internet, or “smart meters” networks, and should be controlled in response to real world
temperature and grid conditions.

Task 3: Propose a methodology for proving and valuing an optimal combined first and
       second life for batteries

There may indeed be an optimal economic and technical point in the life of a motive
battery with an intended second life, when it should be removed from the vehicle and
directed to a second life application. Additionally, there may be ways to redesign
batteries, modules and packs, and the electronics within battery packs to improve the
overall lifetime and cost effectiveness of lithium motive batteries in conjunction with a
second life application. This research should suggest potential optimization strategies, as
well as a methodology for finding an optimal full lifetime value for lithium motive
batteries.

Based on the findings and discoveries in previous steps, the researchers should develop
and propose a methodology for qualifying, testing, valuing and certifying batteries for a
second life.



9 of 21
The results of the battery testing and evaluation of complimentary and second-life
stationary applications should be included in a report at the conclusion of this step, along
with the proposed method for evaluating the optimal full-lifetime value of the batteries
combined motive and stationary applications.

Evaluation of second life applications must identify ways in which batteries, retired from
a first life, will need to be:
     • Monitored in the first life,
     • Tested and qualified for a second life,
     • Repackaged or refurbished, and
     • Certified for the second life.

The researchers should analyze the optimal “full lifetime” value of the batteries through
the optimal timing of end of first life with the beginning of a second life. This should
include defining how to obtain the maximum full lifetime value derived by ending the
first life as an automotive battery at a certain point before moving on to a secondary
application. For example, the maximum full lifetime value might be to retire the battery
at 2000 cycles, 2 years, or 30,000 miles of use to begin a second life as a backup battery
for telecommunications that will last 5 years.


4.      DELIVERABLES
The following deliverables and milestones for this project are listed below.

     1. Progress Reports: A progress report is required following the end of every
        standard calendar quarter; if a project begins in the middle of a calendar quarter,
        the progress report will cover whatever work has been done during the quarter.
        Progress reports must be delivered within 10 business days of the end of each
        standard calendar quarter. (see Exhibit A-1 and A-2 at
        www.energy.ca.gov/contracts for more information on progress report
        requirements)
     2. Report on top 4 to 5 second life applications: Researchers should present an
        interim report on the top second life applications. This report should include
        performance requirements for secondary applications, as described in the detailed
        task list.
     3. History of the “spent” batteries used in the study.
     4. Analysis of full life-time value of reused automotive lithium batteries.
     5. Final Report: A draft report is to be submitted for review and comments (includes
        abstract, executive summary and main report). This report will discuss the
        information identified on methodologies, protocols, analysis and results. The
        Awardee is responsible for incorporating the recommended changes in the Final
        Report. The Final Report will likely be posted on the Commission website. (see
        Exhibit A-1 and A-3 at www.energy.ca.gov/contracts for more information on
        final report requirements)
     6. Final Project Summary: An initial and final non-proprietary summary description
        of the project is to be submitted for posting on the Commission website. The


10 of 21
        initial project summary should summarize the background, goals and objective of
        the project and will be provided at the start of the contract. Upon the conclusion
        of the project, a final project summary is submitted which will include items in
        the initial summary and also include final results of the project. The description
        should be written at a level that could be understood by the general public with
        sufficient information to stand on its own.
     7. Meeting Participation: The Principal Investigator will present final results at the
        California Energy Commission and may participate in another meeting such as
        the California Energy and Air Quality Conference.

All key deliverables are to be sent to the PHEV Research Center’s Program Manager;
electronic submission is preferred. Payment of Subcontractor’s invoices may be withheld
if the Program Manager does not receive deliverables on a timely basis.

                  University of California, Davis
                  Institute of Transportation Studies
                  ATTN: Dahlia Garas
                  2028 Academic Surge
                  Davis, CA 95616
                  Phone:       (530) 752-2570
                  Fax:         (530) 752-6572
                  Email:       dmgaras@ucdavis.edu

Monthly reports (if any are required) are due no later than 10 working days after the end
of the month. Quarterly status reports are due no later than 10 working days after the end
of the standard calendar quarterly period. The report format to be used is attached.
Progress reports are to be submitted throughout the period of performance of the project,
including extensions, until the final deliverable has been accepted.

Instructions and a format for the Final Report                     can    be    found    at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/pier/contractors/index.html.


5.       BUDGET AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The budget for this subcontract is not to exceed $1,100,000. The proposed budget must
be presented in the provided budget worksheet format. The anticipated period of
performance is March 2010 through March 2011.

Schedule of Tasks
Task 1         2nd      life    application   performance March 2010- June 2010
               requirements
Task 2         Development, demonstration and testing of March 2010-March 2011
               “household energy storage appliance” and
               regulation controls
Task 3         Analysis of full life-time value of reused Sept 2010 – March 2011
               automotive lithium batteries


11 of 21
Budget
Task 1                  2nd life application       performance $100,000
                        requirements

Task 2                  Development, demonstration and $900,000
                        testing of “household energy storage
                        appliance” and regulation controls

Task 3                  Analysis of full life-time value of $100,000
                        reused automotive lithium batteries


Note that, unless specifically approved, funds are not authorized for entertainment or
purchase of general-purpose software or office equipment, including computers,
typewriters, word processors, duplication devices, and telecommunication devices.



6.       KEY PERSONNEL AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
The key personnel, area of expertise, and associated level of effort are identified, such as:

               Principal Investigator,                             Effort Level
               Researcher, expertise in battery testing            Effort Level
               Etc.

Key personnel assigned to this project will not be reassigned or assigned other work
which will interfere with work under this Subcontract without prior written approval
from the University.


7.       CHANGES
Any changes proposed by a Principal Investigator in the period of performance,
deliverable due dates, assignment of key personnel, or budget allocation must be
submitted in advance to the PHEV Center Subcontract Administrator for approval, with a
copy to the PHEV Center Research Coordinator. Prior approval is required for increases
in excess of $5,000 or 15% (whichever is greater) of the total subcontract budget
originally approved. No increase in the total budget amount shall be allowed except by
amendment to this Subcontract.


8.       PUBLICATIONS
All reports and publications based on work funded under this Subcontract shall include
the following statement:


12 of 21
                                    LEGAL NOTICE

       This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California
       Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the University Of
       California (UC). It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy
       Commission, UC, their employees, or the State of California. The Energy
       Commission, the State of California, its employees, and UC make no
       warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the
       information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this
       information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has
       not been approved or disapproved by the Energy Commission or UC, nor
       has the Energy Commission or UC passed upon the accuracy or adequacy
       of the information in this report.

Subcontractor is responsible for maintaining UC/CEC’s right to publish results of this
work; therefore, Subcontractor must convey the following information to any publisher
of material based on this work:

       The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor to The
       Regents of the University of California/California Energy Commission.
       Accordingly, The Regents retains a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to
       publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow
       others to do so, for UC/CEC’s purposes.


9.     PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A.   Principal Investigator: The Principal Investigator is responsible for ensuring the
     timely and satisfactory completion of tasks and deliverables under this Subcontract,
     and staying within approved project budget and effort levels.

B.   UC Davis PHEV Research Center Research Coordinator: The Research
     Coordinator is responsible for monitoring project progress, reviewing deliverables,
     acting as a liaison between CEC and the PI, and reviewing invoices.

C.   UC Davis PHEV Research Center Subcontract Administrator: All matters
     relating to the performance of this Subcontract which are not specifically delegated
     to the University’s Research Coordinator are reserved to the UC Davis Sponsored
     Programs Office, including approval of any changes to the terms of the Subcontract.
     Subcontractor will direct all deliverables, notices, and requests for approval to the
     Research Coordinator.

D.   CEC Project Manager: The CEC Project Manager is responsible for reviewing
     reports and deliverables, providing guidance and feedback to the Principal
     Investigator and UC, and determining whether the project met CEC’s objectives.



13 of 21
10.    COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
A.    Principal Investigator
       INPUTNameAddress
       INPUTInstitution
       INPUT, CA Address
       Phone: INPUT; Fax: INPUT
       e-mail: INPUT

B.    PHEV Research Center Research Coordinator
       University of California, Davis
       Institute of Transportation Studies
       ATTN: Dahlia Garas
       2028 Academic Surge
       Davis, CA 95616
       Phone: (530) 752-2570
       Fax: (530) 752-6572
       Email: dmgaras@ucdavis.edu

C.    PHEV Research Center Subcontract Administrator
       Sponsored Programs Office
       University of California
       1850 Research Park Drive, Suite 300
       Davis, CA 95618
       Phone: (530) 754-7700
       Fax: (530) 754-8229

D.    Contract Officer for Subcontractor
       INPUT NAME
       INPUT Institution
       INPUT Address
       INPUT, CA INPUT
       Phone: INPUT; Fax: INPUT
       e-mail: INPUT



11.    ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Project proposals that demonstrate the highest qualifications and experience with battery
and grid-controlled appliance testing and demonstration, greatest California applicability,
and most effective use of funds will score the highest. Proposals submitted in response to
this grant solicitation will be evaluated, and one project will be selected for funding,
based on each project’s:
        Technical merit and feasibility.
        Relevance and applicability to California conditions.
        Organizational capabilities, project partners, and any co-funding.
        Likelihood of achieving PHEV Center and Energy Commission goals.


14 of 21
12.    ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
This is a competitive solicitation seeking technology developers who have demonstrated
expertise and experience with battery testing and the development of grid-interfaced
devices. To be eligible, applicants must present a team with demonstrated capabilities in
these areas. Both private and public entities may apply under this solicitation.


13.    SELECTION OF PROJECTS AND AWARD PROCESS
The following process will be utilized to recommend project(s) for funding:

   1. Based on the proposals submitted, a scoring committee will score the projects
      using the scoring criteria described in Attachment A. The Scoring Committee
      may seek input from technical reviewers both internal and external to the Energy
      Commission when evaluating proposals.
   2. The scoring committee may conduct optional interviews for clarification
      purposes.
   3. A minimum score of 70 (out of 100) is required to be eligible for funding.

   4. Projects receiving a score of 70 or more will be ranked according to their overall
      score. The highest scored proposal will be awarded the research contract.

   5. If the PHEV Research Center is unable to successfully negotiate and execute a
      funding agreement with an Applicant, the PHEV Research Center, at its sole
      discretion, reserves the right to cancel the pending award and fund the next
      highest ranked eligible project proposal received under this solicitation.

   6. A Notice of Proposed Awards will be released.



14.    SCHEDULE OF PROPOSAL AND AWARD PROCESS

 Release of Request for               January 13, 2010
 proposals
 Pre-proposal Workshop                February 3, 2010
 Location:

 Deadline to submit questions         January 27, 2010


 Response to questions                February 5, 2010




15 of 21
 Deadline to Submit Proposals          February 12, 2010


 Post notice of Awards                 February 26, 2010




15.    PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
It is requested that proposals contain the following elements. Failure to include these
elements WILL result in your proposal receiving a lower overall score and MAY result
in your proposal being rejected and not eligible for funding.

   1. Contact information, including: contact person’s name, title, entity legal name,
      physical address, telephone number, fax number and email address.
   2. Signed certification that all information in the proposal is correct and complete to
      the best of their knowledge.
   3. Estimated start and end dates for the proposed project.
   4. Abstract/summary of the project (one page maximum), which includes the title;
      brief project description; quantitative and measurable goals to be achieved by the
      end of the project; the project duration and date of completion; amount of funding
      requested; and total project budget.
   5. A Work Statement with a task-by-task description of the project. A Work
      Statement should include:
              Problem Statement
              Overall Project Goals
              Technical and Economic Objectives
              Technical Tasks
   For each task include:
          (a) A descriptive task name
          (b) A one-sentence goal of the task
          (c) A list of the activities to be performed (specifically what you will do)
          (d) Results or products produced
          (e) The estimated completion date of the task.
   See Attachment C for detailed instruction for writing the work statement.

   6. Anticipated direct and indirect benefits to California electricity ratepayers if the
       project is successful.
   7. Short biographies for the Principal Investigator and key research partners
       (individuals in your organization or subcontractors), emphasizing experience
       related to activities to be performed in the project.
   8. Show project collaboration and coordination, especially the pathway to wider use
       and commercialization of this technology.
   9. A discussion/explanation of how the proposed project addresses each of the
       scoring criteria as described in Attachment A.
   10. Project budget information, including the source(s) of match funding, a
       justification for the share of match funding, and the reasons why this project is


16 of 21
       not likely to be funded by competitive or regulated markets. Include the budget
       forms in Attachment B:
   11. Any other significant factors to enhance the value of the proposal, including
       highlights of the previous work and innovative features related to the proposed
       project.


16.    PROPOSAL GUIDELINES
Proposals must adhere to the following proposal guidelines. Failure to adhere to these
guidelines MAY result in your proposal being rejected and not eligible for funding.

   1. Please provide one (1) original hard copy and one (1) digital copy of the proposal
      and a CD containing all the documents. The documents do not need to be bound;
      binder clips are acceptable. The original must be signed by an authorized
      representative of your organization.

   2. Limit proposals to a maximum of 45 pages total.

   3. Use a standard 12-point font and 1-inch or larger page margins. Insert one blank
      line between paragraphs. Number the pages.

   4. Project duration cannot continue past March 30, 2011.

   5. All project expenditures must be expended within the approved term of the
      funding agreement.

   6. Maximum funding cannot exceed $1,100,000.

   7. The budgets should allow for the preparation and submission of monthly progress
      reports (2-4 pages each) during the approved term of the agreement, and a final
      report that

   8. The budget must reflect estimates for actual costs to be incurred during the
      approved term of the project. Only expenditures for actual costs that are properly
      documented can be approved and reimbursed.

   9. The budget must NOT include any profit from the proposed project, either as a
      reimbursed item or as match share.


16.    CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
No confidential information will be accepted during the proposal and selection phase of
this solicitation. If any confidential information is submitted, the entire proposal will be
rejected and will not be eligible for funding. Proposals containing confidential
information will be returned to the Applicant.




17 of 21
While discouraged, Applicants may propose to deliver confidential products during the
course of the project if funded. If necessary, instructions on submitting confidential
products will be provided by the Energy Commission prior to executing the Grant
Agreement.


17.    PRE-PROPOSAL WORKSHOP
A Pre-Proposal Workshop will be held at the date, time, and place listed below.
Participation by prospective Applicants is optional. Please call (530)752-2570 or refer to
the PHEV Research Center’s website at www.phev.ucdavis.edu to confirm the date and
time. Please RSVP to Dahlia Garas at (530) 752-2570 or dmgaras@ucdavis.edu if you
plan to attend this workshop.

                           Date: February 3, 2010
                           Time: 10:00 a.m.
                           Location: UC Davis
                                   Specific Location TBD
                           Telephone: (530) 752-2570


Topic: Second Life Applications and Value of “Traction” Lithium Batteries Workshop
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Time: 10:00 am


18.    SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Proposals must be received by the PHEV Research Center by February 12, 2010 at 4:00
p.m. Proposals must be emailed, mailed or delivered to:
                                 PHEV Research Center
                           Institute of Transportation Studies
                                  ATTN: Dahlia Garas
                                  2028 Academic Surge
                                    Davis, CA 95616
                             Email: dmgaras@ucdavis.edu
The PHEV Research Center will reject all proposals not received by the stated due date
and time.


19.    GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
Proposals WILL be rejected and not considered for funding if:
      1. The proposal is not received by the PHEV Research Center by the stated due
      date and time.
      2. The proposal contains any confidential information.
      3. The proposal proposes a project that has already been addressed or is being
      addressed.


18 of 21
       4. The proposal does not use the mandatory Work Statement and Budget
       templates.
       5. The proposal is not for a separate, distinct project from other proposals
       submitted by the same Applicant.

Proposals MAY be rejected and not considered for funding if:
      1. The proposal does not address each element listed under “Proposal
      Requirements.”
      2. The proposal does not adhere to the guidelines listed under “Proposal
      Guidelines.”


20.    AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THIS SOLICITATION
The Energy Commission reserves the right to do any of the following:
      Cancel this solicitation;
      Amend or revise this solicitation as needed; or
      Reject any or all proposals received in response to this solicitation.


21.    QUESTIONS
Additional questions about this solicitation must be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on January
27th, 2010, and may be submitted by email or letter. The questions and answers will be
posted on the PHEV Center’s website by February 5th, 2010. Questions may be directed
to:
        PHEV Research Center
        Institute of Transportation Studies
        ATTN: Dahlia Garas
        2028 Academic Surge
        Davis, CA 95616
        Phone: (530) 752-2570
        Fax: (530) 752-6572
        Email: dmgaras@ucdavis.edu
For those parties without internet access, copies of the questions and answers can be
obtained by contacting the PHEV Research Center at the address and phone number
listed above.


22.    ATTACHMENTS
       A. Scoring Criteria
       B. Budget Forms




19 of 21
                                       Scoring Criteria


Scoring will be based on the merits of the proposed project in addressing each of the following
topics. Each criterion will be scored on a basis of 0 to 10 points and then multiplied by the
corresponding weighting factor. The resulting scores will be summed to provide the overall
project score. A minimum score of 70 (out of 100) is required to be eligible for funding. Each
project task will be scored individually according to the criteria below, with a maximum of 100
points possible per task.

1. Technical Merits
                                                                   Criterion Scoring Range: 0-25
                                                                   Maximum Possible Points: 25

        Demonstration of an understanding of the current status of technologies related to the
        purpose of the Program Opportunity Notice to be adequate and appropriate for further
        development.
        Adequacy of discussion of the novelty, innovation, uniqueness, sustainability, and
        originality of the proposed work and technology advancements to achieve the desirable
        goals of secondary use of vehicle batteries and the scientific and technical principles
        underlying the proposed work, and the manner in which the scientific and engineering
        principles will be applied.
        Validity of the proposed technical approach and likelihood of success based on the
        soundness of scientific principles employed in the proposed work.
        Adequacy of discussion of how the proposed work addresses current barriers and
        knowledge gaps to help advance the state-of-the-art use of spent batteries.
        Demonstration of potential partnership from Automaker or Battery Company or other
        supplier for providing type, quality and quantity of batteries required for the project.
        Experience with battery life cycle and performance testing. Demonstrated track record of
        designing and testing grid-controlled accessories.
        Capability to set up experiment with grid interaction between HESA device using
        batteries and electric grid.

2. Technical Approach
                                                                   Criterion Scoring Range: 0-25
                                                                   Maximum Possible Points: 25
        Degree to which the technical approach is clearly stated, achievable, technically and
        economically feasible in responding to the Second Life Applications and Value of
        “Traction” Lithium Batteries research initiative.
        Extent to which the technical tasks are adequately, clearly and logically presented, with
        appropriate objectives, logical and discrete tasks and subtasks, sequence of activities,
        reasonableness of schedule, and budget.
        Clear statement of quantitative or measurable technical and economic performance goals.
        Adequacy of discussion on the likelihood of both R&D project success and future
        commercial success based upon a sound research methodology and plan.

3. Technical Qualifications, Management and Project Team
                                                                  Criterion Scoring Range: 0-15
                                                                  Maximum Possible Points: 15
        Evidence of organizational experience, knowledge, capabilities and performance records
        that will successfully complete the proposed project.


20 of 21
        Demonstrate ability to complete the project within the available timeframe.
        The Project Manager can successfully manage the project, control cost, maintain the
        schedule, and report results and accomplishments in an effective manner.
        Clear and adequate presentation of team members’ capabilities and experience with
        regard to performance of proposed work.
        Adequacy of facilities or access to facilities in which to perform battery testing required
        for the research initiative.

4. Potential Market Applications and Commercialization Strategies
                                                             Criterion Scoring Range: 0-10
                                                             Maximum Possible Points: 10

        Adequate discussion and analysis of cost competitiveness potential with respect to
        conventional stationary battery applications in near-, mid-, and long-term scenarios.
        Adequate discussion of reasonable paths and strategies towards commercialization.


6. Project Budget
                                                                     Criterion Scoring Range: 0-15
                                                                     Maximum Possible Points: 15

        The project cost is consistent with the work to be performed and is justified.
        The degree to which the project requires funding, rather than being funded from the
        competitive or regulated markets.

7. Other Significant Factors that Increase the Project’s Merit
                                                                     Criterion Scoring Range: 0-10
                                                                      Maximum Possible Points: 10
The following are examples of other significant factors that will be considered by the proposal
evaluation team:
        The proposal shows that the technical approach is innovative or unique.
        The degree to which the project contributes to a balanced PIER portfolio across
        technology types, levels of risk, and/or time to commercialization.
        How well the project supports California energy policy, or may provide a basis for
        informing future energy policy.
        Inclusion of evidence (letter of support, MOU, etc) of in-kind or monetary match funding
        to complete research project.
        Three or more battery chemistries included in project proposal, and the inclusion of
        batteries previously used in PHEV applications.




21 of 21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:34
posted:7/28/2011
language:English
pages:21
Description: Sample Budget Proposal on the Ev document sample