Questions Regarding the Following Project Groups

Page 1 of 11GFO-17-305

Contents

Definitions

Clarification Questions

Questions regarding the following project groups

All Groups

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Match Funding Questions

Page 1 of 11GFO-17-305

Definitions

In the solicitation, the term “open-source” is frequently used. This term can be interpreted to have different meanings under different circumstances. For example, sometimes “open-source” is taken to mean “licensed software that is licensed at no cost,” while at other times it means “software that is licensed for a fee, but the source code is made available for inspection by the user”. Yet another variation is “software that if incorporated in another software must use the same license”. Please clarify whether

a specific license (or class of license) is desired, expected, or required and how the choice of license or license clause will affect the scoring;
For those groups that require open source, no specific license is required. Your choice of licensing your software will be considered for scoring under GFO Section IV.F.1 and 2.
Must all the source code of the software be open, or only the source code of the software created by the awardee under the grant funding must be open; and
You need to explain how the software meets the intent of the solicitation and explain for Groups 2, 3, & 4 why the source code is not open source. (There is no requirement for open source in group 1).
Can the open-source version, if licensed free of charge, be the basis for enhanced versions licensed for a fee.
The open-source version, if licensed free of charge, can be the basis for enhanced versions licensed for a fee. An example is Red Hat.

Clarification Questions

What is the maximum number of proposals an organization can submit per group?
There is no maximum. Applicants may submit multiple proposals for each group but each proposal must be for a distinct project. (i.e., no overlap with respect to the tasks described in the Scope of Work, Attachment 6). Applicants may not submit a proposal that addresses more than one group. Example, an organization may submit a proposal to Group 1 another proposal to Group 2 and another proposal to Group 4, but cannot submit one proposal for both Groups 1 & 2. There is no limit to the number of proposals on which an organization can be a subcontractor or team partner.
Can the application be submitted anytime between now and December 1st?
Yes.
Are support letters from IOUs acceptable?
Yes.
Does more than one support letter get us more points?
Yes. Although the letter is not scored directly, it is factored into the score as part of the Scoring Criteria under GFO Section IV.F.4 Team Qualifications, Capabilities, and Resources. What we are typically evaluating is whether the ultimate users or beneficiaries see value in the project. For modeling software, are software users or entities doing modeling interested in your project? Additional letters are helpful to demonstrate product needs and financial or other market support. More than one letter is usually submitted.
Does a support letter meet the minimum requirement for one support letter if it came from a utility from outside of California?
Yes, particularly if it shows the benefit to California and the industry served by the project. Support letters must meet the requirements of GFO Section III.D.11, which reads: All applicants must include at least one support letter from a project stakeholder (i.e., an entity or individual that will benefit from or be involved in the project) that: (1) describes the stakeholder’s interest or involvement in the project; (2) indicates the extent to which the project has the support of the relevant industry and/or organizations; and (3) describes any support it intends (but does not necessarily commit) to provide for the project, such as funding.
Will 98.1% make the cut to receive all the 15 points for funds spent in California? Technically it is >98%
Yes.
Do we have to submit both online and hardcopy?
No. You may use either method of submission.
If a team member organization does not seek funding, and only proposes to provide in-kind contributions to the project, do the following need to be addressed by the unfunded team member:

Must the team member be a registered California entity
No.
Must the team member provide staff information (Form 5)
No. The team will be scored according to Criteria 4. Team Qualifications, Capabilities, and Resources.
Must the team member certify CEQA Compliance (Form 8)
No. Only the applicant needs to certify CEQA compliance.
Must the team member provide references and work products (Form 9)
No. However the team will be scored according to Criteria 4. Team Qualifications, Capabilities, and Resources.
Also, will the participation of an unfunded team member that provides an in-kind contribution affect the score in any way?
Yes. Project team members that provide value to the project will increase the score under the criteria in GFO IV.F.4 Team Qualifications, Capabilities, and Resources. There is no requirement that team members be paid.

There are already a lot of these tools available in the private commercial sector so are we just simply creating open-source versions of all of these tools that are commercially available?
No. Projects awarded under this solicitation will not simply create open-source versions of commercially available tools. This solicitation will advance the science and technology for existing open source tools and create new tools for areas not adequately addressed by the marketplace.

If we are the prime and not a California company but we use a sub that is based in California and the programmers we use are based in California for the sub, does that meet the criterion of using local labor?
There is no criterion/requirement for using local labor. However, there is a scoring criteria for funds spent in California. Please review the criteria under Section IV.F.6 for EPIC Funds Spent in California. Please also review the Eligibility Requirements of Section II.A.1-3 on page 14 of the GFO.
On page 11 of solicitation, section G, the Anticipated Agreement Start Date and Anticipated Agreement End Date are 4.5 years apart. Does it mean that 4.5 years is the agreement term for which the budget should be drafted and the two-year support after the end of agreement cannot be used in the budget?

Questions regarding the following project groups

All Groups

Who do you envision as the user(s) of the product(s) that come out of this?
Descriptions of Groups 1, 2, and 4, describe the users for the products of those groups. For example, users for Group 1 could be people interested in siting and building a microgrid, Governmental users to evaluate the benefits of wider microgrid deployments, and utilities to determine the value streams for microgrids in their system. Group 2 users could be utility planners and grid researchers to quickly move data from one application to another. Group 4 users could be current and future users of Gridlab-D. Group 3 users are envisioned as government agencies, researchers, DER integrators and sellers, along with the large established user base for any proposed comprehensive general purpose distribution system modeling software.
Is there a minimum required user base?
No, there is no minimum requirement for an established user base. You may state the size of your user base in your narrative for scoring purposes.
Could the Energy Commission award more than one proposal per Group as long as the total is less than the available funding?
Yes. In addition, the Energy Commission reserves the right to make additional awards, to add funding to any group, decrease funding to any group, to decline to make an award, and to cancel the solicitation.
A number of narrative questions ask for benefits analysis for the R&D software tools. Can the commission provide an explanation of how one evaluates the benefits of new software capabilities, e.g., data exchange, high-performance computing, or a new user interface? In particular, what are the metrics of performance the commission wishes proposers to consider for Attachment 4 Narrative items 1(d), 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) when discussing the impact of improvements to existing software modeling and simulation tools?
You should answer to the best of your ability the questions in attachment 4 on how the use of your proposed software by the identified users will lead to achieving state goals and objectives and benefit California Ratepayers. For example, suppose that your microgrid valuation tool results in an increase of 40% in the building of renewable based microgrids in California. What would be an estimate for energy saved or greenhouse gas reduction achieved? Or suppose your comprehensive, open source, general purpose distribution system modeling software enhanced in Group 3 is capable of analyzing demand response and conservation voltage reduction and is used to develop policies that increase both by 25% throughout California? What would be the reduced losses? What would be the savings from those reduced losses (dollars and energy)? What would be the greenhouse gas reduction from less fossil fuel use from reducing losses? Benefits will be scored according to GFO Section IV.F.3. Requirements for benefits are explained in GFO Section II.B.3.
Given that some of these tools will be open source, is there any plan or funding in place to maintain them after 2022?
No.
Who is permitted to be a partner and what is the role of any academic partner that may already have tools that are emerging through R&D in this area?
There is no restriction on partners. Academic partners are treated the same as any other partner permitted in this GFO. Any subcontractor or partner may submit code for your proposal. Applicants should fully describe the roles for their teams including subcontractors and partners in their proposals.
We have four streams of work here, how are they linked up? Is there any link between the four projects? Is there any contractual commitment between the four projects?
These are four independent distinct funding groups in this solicitation.
Are there metrics to assess alpha and beta testing for a project?
No. As an experienced software developer, you should offer an approach for how you will perform alpha and beta software testing. This will be competitively scored under GFO Section IV.F.1 and 2.

Group 1

Is Group 1 required to be open-source? If so, what qualifies as open-source?
There is no requirement for software to be open source in Group 1.
Would using a proprietary web-service qualify for open source software? For example, may we use a SAS platform?
There is no requirement for software to be open source in Group 1.
Does the Open Source Tool have to release all development code? In StorageVET, they used a module Analytica Optimizer which is proprietary and developed by another entity.
There is no requirement for software to be open source in Group 1.
Group 1: "The tool must also assess the optimal combination of DER for use within each microgrid." can you explain better this requirement?
The tool should optimize the configuration of the microgrid to provide the greatest benefit to the user. As stated in the GFO on page 16, “Develop, test, and validate a publicly available modeling tool that determines the optimal size of the microgrid, optimal combination of DER in the microgrid for a given location and the maximum benefit to individual customers.”
What was the software package Group 1 was patterned after?
StorageVet
Is there a document that summarizes the lessons learned from StorageVet?
Yes. The final report is published here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-500-2017-016/index.html
We have an existing modeling tool that we sell. It models microgrids in California, but lacks some of the features requested. Would creating an expansion of an existing tool to support the deployment of pre-commercial technologies qualify for this opportunity?
Yes.
Does your use case assume the underlying utility grid characteristic data will be openly available?
Yes.
Modeled load profiles for buildings aren't typically available in terms of both active and reactive power - is there an expectation that load models should include both?
There is no explicit requirement for actually modeling a building load profile. You may explain the advantages and disadvantages of your approach in your narrative.

Group 2

Is Group 2 limited to data translation tools? Is a modeling integration platform that translates different types and scopes of modeling tools (for example, DERMS and planning software, Opal RT and distribution operation/planning software, etc.) acceptable for this group?
Group 2 is not limited or restricted to only providing data translation tools. You may propose a modeling integration platform that translates different types and scopes of modeling tools for this group. Applicants are free to propose a creative approach, or an exceptional solution to meet the requirements of this group. The requirements for Group 2 are explained on page 16 and 17 of the GFO. Your approach to meeting the requirements of Group 2 will be competitively scored under GFO Section IV.F.1 and 2.
If creating a modeling integration platform is not intended for this group, what tool(s) is EPIC envisioning doing the simulations once the data are translated, e.g., is there already a target simulator.
There is no target simulator. The uses for the tool are described on page 16 and 17 of the GFO in Section II.B.2 b, which states that applicants are to determine the various models (such as CYME, GridLab-D, Open DSS, Opal-RT and RTDS) that are used for grid modeling and planning by the three investor owned utilities in California. Applicants’ projects will map the tools information fields into a common information model such as International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard CIM 61968 data fields to quickly provide information exchange across the different applications.

Group 3

The RFP requests dynamic modeling. What is meant by this? For example, does this require a minimum time-step? What specific phenomenon needs to be modeled dynamically?