Download Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Research (MOWER)Grant

Maryland
Offshore Wind Energy
Research Challenge Grant Program
(MOWER II)
Technical Assistance Webinar
March 14, 2014
Presented by
Ross Tyler, Maryland Energy Administration
Melinda Vann, Maryland Higher Education Commission
Maryland OSW Energy Research Challenge
Grant Program Background
Governor O’Malley and the legislature introduced and enacted
The Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013
http://governor.maryland.gov/wind.asp
As part of the Exelon and Constellation Energy merger
settlement, Governor Martin O’Malley negotiated $2 million in
OSW research funds for Maryland public higher education
institutions.
Per that agreement, the competitive FY 2013 Maryland Offshore
Wind Energy Challenge Grant Program (MOWER I) was
initiated; four awards were made.
The balance of funds will be issued through the current call for
Proposal – MOWER II.
Approximately $945,000 to be awarded.
Grant Proposal Preparation
Eligibility – Who Can Apply?
 Maryland two- and four-year public
institutions of higher education (IHE)
 Consortia of one or more Maryland public
IHEs
MOWER II at-a-glance
Award Range: $150,000 - $600,000.
# of Awards: Two or more
Grant Period: May 22, 2014 – May 26, 2016
Application Due: April 14, 2014 by 3:00 PM
Awards/Conditional Awards: Announced May 22, 2014
Award Distribution: Two payments, 50% of award each. Approximately
June/July each of 2014 and 2015.
Project Director Meetings: Two mandatory meetings TBD
Annual Progress Reports Due: May 18, 2015 (interim), August 28, 2016
(final)
PROPOSALS DUE
Monday, April 14, 2014
by 3:00 PM
Deliver one hard copy with original signatures, four hard copies
AND one electronic copy (word or PDF) to:
Melinda Vann
Maryland Higher Education Commission
6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
[email protected]
General Format Requirements
12-pt Arial, Times New Roman, Calibri or a similar
Smaller font for tables or formulas OK as long as legible
Single spacing accepted
8-1/2 by 11-inch pages
One-inch margins
Proposal narrative = 18 pages or less
Number the narrative pages
Page limit excludes - cover sheet, abstract, budget, budget
narrative, CVs/resumes, appendices.
All parts of the application must be submitted together,
using appropriate forms indicated in the RFP.
The RFP and application forms are also posted to
http://www.mhec.state.md.us/Grants/index.asp
Application Components & Scoring
Application Cover Sheet (0 points)
Project Abstract (0 points)
Research Question/Problem (25 points)
Personnel & Institutional Resources (15 points)
Technical Approach and Operation Plan (45 points)
Budget & Budget Narrative (15 points)
Assurances (0 points)
Application Cover Sheet & Abstract
Application Cover Sheet – use the form provided
(correct phone numbers and emails please!)
Project Abstract
one page or less single spaced
Research question(s)/ Problem(s) to be Addressed
Methodologies
Projected outcomes
The abstract should be suitable for editing for
possible press releases or publication to MHEC, MEA
or other websites (layman’s terminology
recommended).
Research Question(s) or Problem(s) to be
Addressed (25 points)
Describe the general topic - why it was chosen (e.g. intellectual merit
& practical application).
Summarize current related research w/ citations supporting the topic.
Reference list in appendix.
Specific research question(s) or problem(s) to be addressed – put in
context of current research and Maryland’s OSW issues
Link proposed research - how does the project address the
questions/problems identified
Broader implications – discuss impact of the research for the
implementation of OSW industry in Maryland
Personnel & Institutional Resources (15 points)
Principal Investigator – qualifications, expertise, related
research, publications, and project management experience
Key Project Personnel – roles, responsibilities, qualifications,
related research and publications
CVs and/or resumes for PI and key personnel in appendix
Institutional Resources – describe what if any institutional
resources available to support the research team’s work
Project Management - organizational structure for managing the
project, demonstrate sufficient time to conduct the work within
the grant period
Budget – clear linkages to budget/budget narrative if personnel
funds requested
Technical Approach & Operation Plan
(45 points)
 techniques, procedures, and methodologies used
 data plan - collection, management, analysis
 detailed plan that describes each activity, how it
relates to the project, where and how each activity
will be implemented
 key personnel responsible for each activity
 map activities and expected deliverables to the
budget
The Technical Approach and Operation
(continued)
 establish milestones/benchmarks and a timeline
of all project activities
 means by which project progress and efficacy will
be measured and how often project effectiveness
will be examined
 anticipated results / outcomes
 discuss how project findings will be shared (e.g.
publication, conference presentation,
curriculum/course delivery)
Budget & Budget Narrative (15 points)
 account for all activities in budget
 reasonable costs in relation to project design & activities
 adequacy of support—facilities, equipment, supplies, and
other resources—from lead and other partners
 administrative costs - kept to a minimum
 institutional in kind contribution or matching costs, while
not required, are reported where applicable
 use the budget form provided, cost categories indicated
Indirect costs up to 10% of award may be charged
Priority Funding
(5 bonus points!)
Priority funding consideration for proposals that:
link proposed research with topical subjects that can be
applied in the preparation of, or during the deployment of
Maryland’s offshore wind facility in the near term;
demonstrate the addition of other external funding sources
for sustained effort;
offer institutional in-kind or matching funds; and
provide a direct correlation to lowering the cost of offshore
wind energy generation.
Review Process
 Each application is reviewed by at least three reviewers. However there the
panel is usually comprised of 5-7 reviewers.
 All reviewers sign conflict of interest forms and recuse themselves from
proposals where the appearance of, or actual conflict of interest occurs.
 All reviewers read and score all applications individually (except as noted
above).
 Review Panel meets, discusses each application, determines final scores
 Review panel may include (but not limited to) representative(s) from
energy related:
o Business Associations
o Industry
o Federal, State, and/or Local Government Agencies
o Research Organizations
Research Topics
 Focus on the present or near future phases within an OSW farm
development.
 Focus on cost reduction
Narrower Scope: examples include:
 Topic Area One: Foundation design, materials and manufacturing
 Topic Area Two: Innovative Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance
 Topic Area Three: Design of Cable Array and Substation configuration
with Grid Interconnection and Transmission for OSW growth in the midAtlantic region
 Topic Area Four: Optimizing Maryland’s Logistics, Facilities and
Processes for efficient, cost effective & safe deployment.
Topic Area One: Foundation Design, Materials
and Manufacturing.
 Confront the challenges of using a traditional monopile foundation and
look into alternatives
 What alternatives are available or could be available to Maryland?

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Would the alternatives:
possess the correct physical properties?
require readily available materials?
utilize know manufacturing processes:
require significant investment costs for manufacturing?
create jobs?
reduce environmental concerns during installation?
have application in other states or nations?
contribute to increased turbine size (8-10MW) along with the next
generation of floating platforms?
Topic Area Two: Innovative Offshore Wind
Operations and Maintenance
 O & M is presently estimated to contribute to 28-39% of the OSW lifetime
cost - the true cost is not known
 Challenge: how can this high percentage be decreased?
 Trends in Europe include:
•
•
•
Establishing processes for collecting meaningful data for the
primary components before the end of warranty (EoW) period.
Standardizing O & M across technology types rather than within
regions. Is there a way for open-source and sharing performance
along with O & M practices?
What practices can be applied by offshore wind facility owners to
improve i) the operations and power generated revenue and ii) lower
the real cost of the maintenance over the (extended) lifetime of the
offshore wind facility?
Topic Area Three: Design of Cable Array and
Substation Configuration with Grid Interconnection
and Transmission for OSW growth
in the mid-Atlantic region
 Developers and State ambitions differ: Developers want return on
investment on specific capital expenditures in building a wind facility
including the sub-sea caballing and transmission but the state wants
incremental expansion.
 Challenge: how to optimize the cable array, marine substation, export
cable(s) and grid interconnect to provide the developers and investors
their ROI yet allow for incremental growth.
 What factors should be considered to foster growth within the existing
offshore wind area but avoids ‘stranded assets’ or ‘redundant assets’
caused by subsequent developments?
Topic Area Four: Optimizing Maryland’s Logistics, Facilities and
Processes for Efficient, Cost Effective & Safe Deployment
 Europe continues to experiment with different operational procedures
and logistical configurations to minimize time and cost. Are there best
practices beginning to emerge and practices to avoid?
 What lessons learned could be applied to Maryland’s offshore wind
context? What would be the theoretical optimal deployment solution for
Maryland? How do the Maryland businesses view this?
 What adaptive approaches are required because of unique US
characteristics such as the Jones Act or Maryland characteristics such
as Baltimore being the favored marshaling and lay-down area but inland?
 Is there a guiding tool box that can be generated to help developers
understand the consequences of their deployment approach that utilized
the past and present practices of Europe in the Maryland and US
context?
 Are there innovative suggestions for new approaches?
Results: Three Levels
 Academic Papers that meet peer review for publication and can be
presented at conferences
 Summary posters at offshore wind conferences (AWEA & EWEA)
 Summary articles and presentations for industry practitioners in
publications such as:
✴ offshorewind.biz
✴ workshops organized by WindEnergyUpdate.com
Summary
 Research project that is ‘topical’ and puts Maryland’s Academic
institutions ‘on the offshore wind map’.
 Will advance MD’s Academic Institution’s reputation within OSW
 Contributes to lowering cost
 Has application within Maryland’s offshore wind facilities and others in the
US or internationally
 Has sufficient and broad enough interest to have potential / rapid
partnering with other academic institutions / businesses
 Strong appeal for continuation with new funding streams.
Questions?
Now or Later
Research Topics, Research Question/Problem,
Technical Approach
Ross Tyler
[email protected]
443-694-3077
Grant Proposal General Content & Format/ Submission/
Timetable/ Review Process
Melinda Vann
[email protected]
410-767-3269