STATE ENERGY PROGRAM FY 2002 SPECIAL PROJECTS ANNOUNCEMENT

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 2001

SUBJECT: PROGRAM YEAR 2002 STATE ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GUIDANCE

PURPOSE: To provide guidance and management information for the State
Energy Program Special Projects for program year 2002.

SCOPE: The provisions of this guidance apply to all States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia (hereinafter \"States\"), applying for 2002
Special Projects financial assistance under the Department of Energy\'s
(DOE) State Energy Program (SEP). Much of the information in this
guidance is summarized from the rules applicable to SEP, 10 CFR part 420
and 10 CFR part 600.

ELIGIBILITY: Eligible applicants for purposes of funding under this
program are limited to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, American
Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U. S.
Virgin Islands. Applications must be submitted by the State energy or
other agency responsible for administering the State Energy Program
pursuant to 10 CFR part 420, although States may work in collaboration
with non-State partners. For convenience, the term State in this
Announcement refers to all eligible applicants.

BACKGROUND: In 2002, for the seventh year, DOE is offering States the
opportunity to apply to undertake a variety of Special Projects under
SEP. DOE has reviewed its end-use sector energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs in which State assistance is an implementation strategy.
As a result of this review, DOE is inviting States to submit proposals
to implement specific DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) deployment activities and initiatives as Special Projects
under SEP. States will compete for funding to implement activities
relating to a number of programmatic areas such as building energy codes
and standards, alternative fuels, industrial efficiency, building
efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Approximately
\$18,500,000 million will be available for these projects.

LEGISLATION: SEP is authorized under PL 94-385, PL 94-619, PL 94-580, PL
101-440, and PL 102-486. The end-use sector programs participating in
the SEP Special Projects are covered by their respective statutes. All
financial assistance provided under SEP shall comply with applicable
legislation.

REGULATIONS: SEP is governed by its program regulations (10 CFR part
420) published in the Federal Register on July 8, 1996, and amended in
the Federal Registers dated May 14, 1997, August 24, 1999, and May 1,
2000, and the DOE Financial Assistance Rules (10 CFR part 600).

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number assigned to the SEP Special Projects is 81.119.

1.0: STATE ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS ACTIVITIES

1.1: SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL PROVISIONS: The Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy is funding Special Projects activities
under SEP to accomplish several important goals:

-To directly involve States in activities to accelerate deployment of
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies;

\- To facilitate the commercialization of emerging and underutilized
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies; and

\- To increase the responsiveness of Federally funded technology
development efforts to the needs of the marketplace.

1.2: SEP SPECIAL PROJECTS PROCESS: States are invited to develop and
propose program activities (projects) that respond to the competitive
categories outlined below. Proposed projects will be evaluated and
ranked based on the criteria provided under section six below. States
will be notified as to the projects that were selected for funding.
States are strongly encouraged to submit proposals in the categories
that are best suited to their overall State energy plans. States can
receive information from the respective end-use sector office(s) on
specific projects not selected for funding by contacting their Regional
Office.

(See 10 CFR sections 420.30, 420.31, and 420.32 for more about the
process.)

1.3: COLLABORATION WITH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICES: States are
encouraged to develop and implement their Special Projects activities in
conjunction with, or in collaboration with the State office overseeing
the environment in cases where that is a viable approach. Energy and the
environment are intertwined in many ways, and DOE believes in many
situations Special Projects activities will benefit from interaction
with State environmental offices.

2.0: SEP SPECIAL PROJECTS FUNDING

2.1: SPECIAL PROJECTS FUNDING: A notice of availability of the 2002 SEP
Special Projects financial assistance is expected to be published in the
Federal Register on January 11, 2002. Approximately \$18,500,000 million
will be available to States to implement projects described in section
six below.

States are invited to compete for funds to implement projects under
requirements provided in the instructions included in section six.
Selected projects will be funded individually by means of grants or, in
the case of Industrial Technologies projects certain Power Technologies
projects, cooperative agreements.

In some instances, depending on the overall results of the technical
review and available funding, proposals may be funded at lower levels
than originally proposed. Such cases will be negotiated on a case by
case basis.

2.2A: COST SHARE: The special projects being offered under this
announcement may have cost sharing requirements, which are specified by
the programs in section six. Some programs encourage cost sharing but do
not require it. Where required, cost shares are stated as percentages
(i.e., 20%; 50%, etc.), and represent the part of the total cost of the
project that must be provided by the recipient. For example, if the
total cost of a proposed project is \$100,000 and the required cost
share is 50%, the recipient would be required to provide at least
\$50,000 of the cost and the Federal share would not exceed \$50,000.
(Cost shares as the term is used in this announcement are never based on
a percentage of the Federal financial assistance.)

Funds used to meet recipient cost sharing requirements must comply with
10 CFR part 600.224. They must not, for example, include costs borne by
other Federal financial assistance, unless provided for by statute, or
funds or contributions that have been used to meet cost sharing
requirements of other Federal financial assistance.

Funds included in State SEP formula grants, whatever the source, and
costs covered by SEP formula grants, including salaries of State
employees, may not be used to satisfy SEP Special Projects cost share
requirements.

Petroleum violation escrow (PVE) funds of the Warner and EXXON types may
not be used for cost shares; PVE funds of the Stripper Well and Diamond
Shamrock type may be used as appropriate.

It is most important that sources and amounts of cost shares be clearly
specified in the application. This will facilitate the evaluations of
the proposals and will expedite the final negotiations prior to the
awarding of the financial assistance for projects selected for funding,
helping to avoid delays at crucial steps in the process. To assist in
this effort to obtain clear and consistent information on cost sharing,
we are providing a cost share explanation, and recommended input sheets
in this announcement (see pages 12 and 13 for copies of these.) States
applying for financial assistance are urged to provide cost share
information in this format.

2.2B: COST SHARE USING OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS (IF ALLOWABLE): A number of
the end-use sectors have specified that their cost shares must be from
non-Federal funds, but some are requiring only that the cost shares be
from non-DOE sources. That could provide for the possibility of using
other Federal funds for cost sharing if that is allowable under the
particular circumstances. In such a case, as an example, where the
requirement is for a \"non- DOE\" cost share of 50%, the total cost is
\$100,000, and the DOE share is \$50,000, a cost share from other
Federal funds might be provided, up to any allowable limits on overall
Federal funding of such projects, perhaps \$20,000, and then the
non-Federal cost share would need to be \$30,000.

In such cases, and where a State has identified other Federal funds to
be used in conjunction with DOE funds for the Federal share of the cost,
the agencies contributing those funds must provide letters stipulating
that their Federal funds may be used in conjunction with DOE funds for
the Federal share of the cost of a DOE financial assistance agreement.
Such letters should accompany the application, and all Federal funds
should be listed as such and properly identified as to source in the
appropriate places throughout the application.

(See 10 CFR sections 420.31, 420.32, and 420.33, and 10 CFR part 600.224
for more information.)

3.0: APPLICATIONS FOR SEP SPECIAL PROJECTS

3.1: SPECIAL PROJECTS APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Application packages and
instructions will be provided by DOE\'s Regional Offices. Information
regarding specific instructions for the individual special project
categories can be obtained by contacting the respective DOE Regional
Office end-use sector representatives specified under section six of
this announcement. In addition, States may post questions in a specific
section of the Office of

Building Technology Assistance website. The web-site should be
operational on or about December 31, 2001. The address for that Question
and Answer Forum is as follows:

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/state_energy/corner_cafe/forum/special_projects/

Response postings will be updated as they are received from the
respective end-use sector programs.

Each Special Project proposal must include:

\- An introductory cover page (see sample format on page 11) that
includes:

\- The State\'s name;

\- The State\'s name for the project being applied for;

\- The DOE Special Projects end-use sector program being applied for
(i.e. Rebuild America, etc.), including the particular category if an
end-use sector is offering funding for several types of activities;

\- Other States participating, if any;

\- The amount of Federal funding being applied for;

\- Amounts and sources of cost share, if applicable;

\- Planned completion date;

\- Congressional District of project;

\- A one or two paragraph abstract of the proposed project that
succinctly summarizes what the State intends to do, what it hopes to
achieve, and, where applicable, what partners it plans to use in the
project;

\- The name, address and phone number (and, if available, fax number and
e-mail address) of the person in the State who will be responsible for
programmatic oversight of the project;

The application proper should have page numbers on every page, shall be
structured in accordance with the criteria and requirements in the
detailed instructions below, with the sections assembled in the order
listed below, and must include:

\- A table of contents page listing each section or form, with its
respective page number;

And then, starting with page 1:

\- A detailed Statement of Work that can serve as a stand-alone document
and that is responsive to the technical requirements of this
Announcement, and that includes:

1\) a discussion of the activities to be undertaken, including goals and
objectives, and the approach for implementing the project; and

2\) a schedule of milestones coupled with a timeline of activities or
tasks;

And then, with each of these sections starting on a new page:

\- Personnel resources and subrecipient requirements (if any);

\- Details on cost shares, presented in the format suggested on pages 12
and 13, or equivalent;

\- Other information as specified by the end-use sectors under their
respective entries under section six below; and

\- The State must provide the following application forms:

\- Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance;

\- Federal Assistance Budget Information Form, DOE F 4600.4;

\- Budget Explanation Form, GO-PF20;

\- Pre-Award Information Sheet, GO-PF19;

\- Environmental Checklist, GO-EF1.

\- The following forms are required in the Special Projects financial
assistance files, but if current forms are available, they may be copied
by the ROs from the States\' formula grant documents:

\- US DOE Assurance of Compliance, DOE 1600.5;

\- Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment; Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; and Drug-free Workplace Requirements; FA-Certs;
and

\- Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, SF-LLL.

\- Each non-competitively selected first tier subrecipient must provide
Part 1 of a GO-PF20 Budget Information Page for form DOE F4600.4, which
must be attached to the State\'s application.

\- After a project has been selected for negotiation, the RO Contracting
Officer may require additional information, which might include
information regarding costs, budgets, and possible environmental impacts
of proposed projects.

Copies of the application forms can be downloaded from the Golden Field
Office\'s web site at the following address: http://www.golden.doe.gov/.
Then click on: \"business opportunities\"; and then click on \"proposal
forms\". Please obtain the most current versions of these forms from the
website, rather than relying on old paper copies, as a number of these
forms have been significantly revised. If you do not have access to the
website, please obtain current copies of the forms from your RO.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

3.1A: IMPORTANCE OF INTRODUCTORY COVER PAGE: This is an extremely
important part of the application, as it will be used in reviewing and
evaluating the proposal, and in describing the projects in DOE press
releases, Special Projects Congressional notifications and fact sheets,
and the Special Projects web-site. A sample blank format for this
introductory page is included with this guidance (see page 11).

3.1B: NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: States are encouraged to submit
a signed original and five copies of each application. This is three
copies more than required, but DOE\'s having the additional copies will
speed up the Special Projects review process.

3.1C: PLEA FOR CONCISION: Applicants are encouraged to keep their
applications as concise as possible, with a suggested limit of 10 pages.
The 10 pages should include the introductory cover page and the basic
application information, including the detailed Statement of Work,
personnel resources, subrecipient requirements if any, details on cost
share if any, and additional information that may be required under
section six for a particular sector. This material should always be
placed first in the application packages. Required forms and attachments
such as letters of support would not be included in the 10 page limit,
but applicants should assure that attachments are germane and as brief
as possible.

3.1D: PROJECT PERIOD LIMITS: Project periods must not exceed 24 months
(or less, if specified under section six by the end use sector).

3.1E: EXCESSIVE FUNDING REQUESTS CONSIDERED NON-RESPONSIVE: Proposals
that request Federal funding above any limits on Federal funding
specified for a particular project category (or above the estimated
total funds available for a category) will be considered non-responsive,
and will not be forwarded to the cognizant sector for review.

3.1F: REQUIREMENTS/LIMITATIONS WHERE STATES PROPOSE TO COLLABORATE:
Where a State is proposing to serve as the lead State in collaboration
with a number of other partners, the lead State must specify that it is
willing and able to subgrant or otherwise provide funds as needed to its
partners. Where a group of States wishes to propose a collaboration but
there is no State willing or able to meet the requirements of a lead
State, each State must submit a separate application, with that State\'s
funding needs requested, clearly drafted to spell out the collaborative
nature of the project, and the partners involved. DOE would then
evaluate and rank such groups of proposals as a single entity.

3.1G: NIX ON GLUE, TAPE, OR SPIRAL BINDINGS/PLEA FOR CLIPS: Please do
not glue or tape together the pages of an application or use spiral
bindings. Copies that are clipped together are best.

3.1H: PLEA FOR SINGLE SIDED COPIES: Please make all pages of an
application eithersingle sided copies only, or double sided copies only.
Applications that are single-sided arepreferred.

(See 10 CFR section 420.33 for more detailed application requirements.)

3.2A: STATE APPLICATION DUE DATE: Applications from States for 2002 SEP
Special Projects financial assistance must be received at the State\'s
DOE Regional Office no later than March 15, 2002 in order to compete for
this Special Projects funding.

3.2B: PARTNER AND SUBRECIPIENT DUE DATES: Entities that are proposing to
participate in a State\'s Special Project must contact that State to
determine what deadline the State has established for the receipt of
information it needs to include in its application to DOE, as well as
any other requirements the State may have.

3.3: REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS APPLICATIONS: No
requests for extensions for the submittal of SEP Special Projects
applications will be granted.

3.4: EXPENDITURE PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS: As provided for under the
May 1, 2000 revision to the SEP rule, any special limitations or
prohibitions (other than those inherent in the types of projects being
sought) on the use of Special Projects funding are specified

under the respective program descriptions in this Announcement.

4.0: SEP SPECIAL PROJECTS SELECTION PROCESS

4.1: REGIONAL OFFICE REVIEWS: DOE RO staff will perform an initial
review of all Special Project applications for completeness. This review
will include verifying that all the information required is included in
the application (and obtaining missing information), determining that
cost shares are appropriate and have been correctly calculated, etc.
Applications will be forwarded to DOE Headquarters and to designated
reviewers in the field, for technical evaluation and ranking, with
subsequently received clarifying or originally missing information
forwarded as it is received.

4.2: PROJECT RANKING: Applications will be distributed to the respective
end-use sector offices, and to designated field reviewers, for technical
evaluation and ranking. DOE anticipates that evaluators will primarily
be DOE employees, but where non-DOE evaluators are used, they shall be
required to comply with all applicable DOE rules or directives
concerning the use of outside evaluators. Evaluators shall be selected
on the basis of their professional qualifications and expertise relating
to the particular Special Project activity being evaluated.

4.3: PROGRAM POLICY FACTORS: In addition to the results of the technical
evaluation, program policy factors may be applied in the ranking
process. These factors may include geographic diversity, diversity of
fuels or technologies proposed to be used or demonstrated, and how
particular proposed activities reinforce or enhance the programmatic
priorities of DOE and the end-use sectors.

4.4: PROJECT SELECTION: The end-use sectors will forward their
recommended selections to the Office of Building Technology Assistance
(OBTA) for a final review. Determinations of projects selected for
funding will be made by the Assistant Secretary, EERE.

4.5: ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL PROJECTS SELECTIONS: 2002 SEP Special
Projects selections are expected to be announced by May 2002, with
financial assistance to be awarded by the Regional Offices starting in
July or August 2002. The awarding of the financial assistance is
dependent upon DOE\'s receipt of all required grant documentation.
Delays in receiving required information from applicants will cause
corresponding delays in issuance of financial assistance.

5.0: TRACKING IN WINSAGA DATA SYSTEM, REPORTING, REQUESTS FOR CHANGES

5.1: TRACKING IN WINSAGA: Special Projects financial assistance actions
will be entered into the WinSAGA system once the financial assistance
has been awarded, and the activities will

be tracked through the quarterly reports and other reports or requests
for action that are entered there. In addition, Special Projects
activities are referred to in the SEP formula grant State Plans.

5.2: REPORTING: States are required to provide quarterly progress and
financial status reports for each SEP Special Project, as specified in
the terms and conditions of award. A final progress

report summarizing the results of each project must also be provided.

5.2A: REPORTING BY SUBRECIPIENTS: States must ensure that subrecipients
submit required reports on a timely basis so that the State may, in
turn, get its reports to DOE on time.

5.2B: REQUESTS FOR CHANGES OF SCOPE ONCE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARDED:
Requests for changes of scope should be submitted separately from the
quarterly reports, and will be reviewed by both the Regional Office and
the Headquarters end-use sector liaisons prior to decision and response.
The awardee shall not proceed to assume that the change of scope will be
approved; therefore, any costs accrued against the change prior to
approval is the responsibility of the awardee. Because Special Projects
financial assistance is awarded competitively, a material change in
scope may result in termination of the agreement. However, a logical
change in direction as a result of findings in the performance of the
award may be considered by DOE.

5.2C: REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO COMPLETE SPECIAL PROJECTS AFTER
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARDED: Requests for extension of time to complete
projects should be submitted separately from the quarterly reports, and
will be reviewed by both the Regional Office and the Headquarters
end-use sector liaisons prior to decision and response.

5.2D: PAPER COPIES TO RO\'S AND HQ: States that are not using the
WinSAGA system for reporting must send the required number of copies of
their Special Projects quarterly reports (and any other reports or
requests for DOE action) to their Regional Office, and must also send
one copy to the DOE Headquarters end-use sector liaison specified under
section six of this announcement for the particular project(s) the State
is undertaking.

SAMPLE INTRODUCTORY PAGE FORMAT

2002 State Energy Program Special Projects

End-Use Sector Activity Being Applied For: \[use title from section 6 of
this announcement; add category number or designation if the sector is
offering several types of projects\]

State Special Project Title: \[try to keep to one line\]

State Applying for Grant:

Other States Participating: \[if any, please list here\]

Amount Being Applied for: \[enter the amount being sought from DOE\]

Cost Share: \[enter amount(s) and source(s) of cost share the State will
provide, if applicable\]

Planned Completion Date: \[when project will be completed\]

Congressional District of Project: \[if project is in one or more
districts, please identify; if Statewide, state that\]

Project Description: \[provide one or two paragraphs clearly describing
the proposed project. All information requested on this sheet, including
the project description, should fit on 1 page\]

State contact for more information: Other contacts:

\[provide the name, address, phone and \[provide names, etc. of others
such as

fax number if available, of the staff person Clean Cities contacts\]

to call if information needed\]

STATE ENERGY PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS

RECOMMENDED COST-SHARE EXPLANATION PAGE

(This sample page is provided as a suggested guide for explaining the
State\'s proposed cost share sources and types. The information
indicated here is required wherever cost shares are proposed, and it
facilitates application review if cost shares for all Special Projects
are presented in the same format. Hence, the recommendation that this
format be used for all types of cost share.)

Name of Applicant Title of Project

PROPOSED COST SHARE (AND SOURCES)

(Put each source on a separate line; add lines as necessary if more than
one source)

Cash:

Amount: \$ Source:

State or Third Party In-Kind:

y\)

Amount: \$ Source:

In accordance with the Department of Energy Assistance Regulations,
\"Third party in-kind

contributions\" are defined as: Property or services which benefit a
federally assisted project

or program and which are contributed by non-Federal third parties
without charge to the

financial assistance recipient or a cost-type contractor under the
financial assistance agreement.

Cost-sharing must meet the following requirements of the Assistance
Regulations:

It must be verifiable from the financial assistance recipient\'s
records;

It must not be included as a contribution for any other
federally-assisted project or

program;

It must be necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient
accomplishment of the

project or program objectives;

It must be allowable under the applicable cost principles;

It must not be paid by the Federal government under another award,
except where

authorized by Federal statute; and

It must be provided for in the proposed budget.

Please note any special end-use sector cost-share requirements/options
specified under section

six.

In order for the Department of Energy to properly evaluate the proposed
cost-sharing

contributions, each applicant for State Energy Program Special Projects
funding shall

provide the information specified on this worksheet FOR EACH SOURCE of
cost share

funds, whether cash or in-kind contributions, and whether the source is
the State itself, or a

third party.

Name and Address of Contributor

Nature of

Contribution Estimated

Value of

Contribution Basis of Valuation

Personnel

Fringe Benefits

Travel

Equipment

Supplies

Contractual

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

Other (Specify)

Indirect

TOTAL

6.0 SPECIAL PROJECTS END-USE SECTOR PARTICIPANTS FOR 2002:

\-\-\-- 6.1 Transportation Technologies: Clean Cities/Alternative Fuels
(page 15)

\-\-\-- 6.2 Industrial Technologies (page 22)

\-\-\-- 6.3 Building Technologies:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.31 Codes and Standards (page 33)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.32 Rebuild America (page 37)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.33 Building America (page 43)

\-\-\-- 6.4 Federal Energy Management Program (page 48)

\-\-\-- 6.5 Power Technologies:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.51 Uninterrupted Power Source (page 52)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.52 Power Park (page 54)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.53 Compressors, Storage and Dispensers (page 57)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.54 Solar Powered Security (page 59)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.55 Solar Schools Demonstration (page 61)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.56 Zero Energy Homes (page 63)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.57 Million Solar Roofs, Small Grant Program for State
Partnerships (page 65)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.58 State Wind Energy Support (page 76)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.59 Distributed Energy Resources Electrical
Interconnection (page 80)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.60 Distributed Energy Resources Technologies (page 82)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.61 Superconductivity (page 88)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.62 State Geothermal Energy Support (page 91)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.63 Energy Storage for Transmission (page 95)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6.64 Biomass Power (page 98)

6.1 TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES: CLEAN CITIES/ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Legislation: The Clean Cities/Alternative Fuels program is authorized
under Section 505 of

EPACT, under the title Voluntary Supply Commitments.

Estimated Funds Available: \$4.5 million

Estimated Number of Projects: See section below on Projects Requested in
2002.

Funding Ceilings: See project descriptions below in Projects Requested
in

2002 for any project funding ceilings.

Cost Share: A 33 1/3% non-DOE cost share is required for categories 1a

and 2. A 20% non-DOE cost share is required for category

3 and 4, and a 50% non-DOE cost share is required for

categories 1b and 5.

For example, where a 33 1/3% cost share is required, and the

total cost of the project is \$150,000, DOE\'s share would

not exceed \$100,000 and the grantee\'s cost share would be

at least \$50,000. Where 20% cost share is required, and the

total cost of the project is \$100,000, DOE\'s share would

not exceed \$80,000, and the grantee\'s cost share would be

at least \$20,000 and the grantee\'s cost share would be at

least \$20,000. When cost share specifies a cash

contribution, it cannot be in-kind.

Background

The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy\'s (DOE) Clean Cities program
is to accelerate the

development of a sustainable alternative fuels market through
public/private Clean Cities

partnerships formed around the country. The program will continue to
provide funds to State

Energy Offices for Special Projects to support Clean Cities\'
alternative fuels and alternative fuel

vehicles (AFV) through the development of infrastructure, niche markets,
and strategic alliances

between the Federal, State and local government partners and private
sector Clean Cities

stakeholders.

For the 2002 Special Projects, the Clean Cities program is offering
funding in five categories

listed below to help ensure that local Clean Cities coalitions are
vibrant, active coalitions

enabling fleet customers to increase their use of AFVs:

1\) projects that promote acquisition of commercially-available AFVs
that maximize

alternative fuel use, especially when those vehicles support AFV niche
market activity

center or niche deployment strategy; and projects that promote the
development of AFV

platforms;

2\) projects that promote AFV infrastructure development;

3\) projects that promote the acquisition of AFV school buses;

4\) projects that promote AFV visibility with vehicle signage; and

5\) projects that provide cost sharing toward the salary of a Clean
Cities Coordinator.

Procedural Guidelines

In all cases, letters of commitment (not support) must accompany the
proposal to

substantiate cost share. Without letters of commitment, cost-share will
be assumed to be

not met, and the proposal cannot be considered.

Fuel provider fleets covered by EPAct are not eligible to receive funds
to purchase

vehicles for their own fleets under the Niche Market category. Fuel
providers, as

participating private-sector partners, must be in compliance with the
EPAct alternative

fuel vehicle acquisition rule in order to be eligible to receive Clean
Cities funding under

any other category.

States must submit special project proposals for alternative fuel
transportation projects in

partnership with their local, officially-designated Clean Cities
coalition.

Only projects located in active, designated (or approved for
designation) Clean Cities are

eligible for funding. The primary proposer must be a coalition
stakeholder. An \"active\"

coalition is one with a valid and approved Memorandum of Understanding
with DOE.

\"Approved for designation\" means that DOE has authorized a designation
ceremony for a

coalition, making the coalition eligible to complete.

Projects are evaluated on the value of cost share, and the type of
in-kind services being

offered, not necessarily the total declared value of the contribution in
the proposal,

although the minimum requirement must be met. For instance, services
such as general

office costs, which would be paid regardless of SEP funding, are valued
much lower than

a strictly financial contribution tied directly to the project.

Funds for categories 1-3 are intended to pay for hardware. However, DOE
recognizes that

project management costs may be necessary. If project management costs
are included in

the budget, the project manager must be identified and his/her
responsibilities described

(project management costs are not the same as administration costs). If
a Clean Cities

Coordinator has received a grant award to support a full-time
coordinator position, that

coordinator cannot claim project management costs on another grant under
section 6.1.

DOE grant money cannot be used to cover the incremental cost of any
vehicle which has

also received (or will receive) DOE rebate money.

Proposals must be adequately documented. If hardware is to be purchased,
bids

identifying hardware cost should be included.

If the proposer requests funding from more than one special project
category, a separate

proposal for each category must be submitted for evaluation. For
example, projects that

entail funding for both vehicle acquisition, and infrastructure
development to fuel those

vehicles, must be submitted as two separate proposals addressing the
criteria identified in

the Niche Markets and Infrastructure categories, respectively.

A final report including the following pertinent information must be
submitted:

Niche Markets (Category 1) and School Buses (Category 3) - Vehicle

procurement schedule or anticipated delivery dates, copies of vehicle
purchase

orders placed with dealer or invoices clearly indicating alternative
fuel options

and costs. Lists of applicable rebates or other non-DOE incentives
applied for or

received..

Infrastructure (Category 2) - Site identification, project construction
schedule,

permit verification, equipment selection with itemized costs or final
bid

information, and final list of fleet participants and key partners.

Signage (Category 4) - A description of the vehicles in service, a photo
of the

vehicle (s) with signage, the number of vehicles and the length of time
the

vehicles will be in service.

· The performance track record of prospective grantees which have
received previous

grants will be taken into account. Applicants must describe the status
and results of

previous grants in the application.

· Applicants should be aware that permits may be required for many
infrastructure projects.

If the applicant does not have the required permits within one year of
the grant

negotiation date, funds for the grant will be de-obligated.

Projects Requested in 2002

Category 1a: Niche Markets - Projects that promote acquisition of AFVs
in \"Niche

Market\" Fleets. Funding is available for the incremental costs of
dedicated highway-certified

AFVs and AFVs that will maximize alternative fuel use. DOE has
particular interest in funding

medium and heavy duty vehicles, for use on roads and highways. Priority
will be given to

\"Niche Market\" fleets (such as airport shuttle buses and vans, taxi
fleets, cargo delivery vehicles,

and local government fleets of refuse haulers, motor pools, and support
operations) that

demonstrate a strategy which concentrates AFVs in activity centers that
maximize infrastructure

utilization. Proposals that include bi-fuel or dual fuel AFV
technologies must submit a fuel use

data collection and reporting plan that will be used for the duration of
the project to document

and verify maximum alternative fuel usage. In addition, bi-fuel or dual
fuel AFV proposals must

describe what refueling infrastructure is available and how the
applicant will ensure maximum

alternative fuel use. Incremental costs for AFV projects must be
calculated on the net price

difference between the proposed AFV and a similarly equipped,
conventionally-fueled vehicle

after all other applicable manufacture and local/State rebates and cash
equivalent incentives are

applied. Documentation supporting the cost of the vehicles to be
acquired must accompany the

proposal. Any vehicles which are acquired with SEP funds must display a
Clean Cities decal

provided by DOE. In this category, the Clean Cities program is
interested in funding

approximately nine (9) to fourteen (14) projects not to exceed \$100,000
per project on light duty

vehicles, and \$200,000 per project on medium and heavy duty vehicles. A
cost share of 33 1/3%

is required.

Category 1b: Niche Markets - Platform development. Clean Cities will
also consider a

limited number (1-2) of proposals for AFV platform development. We
recognize that it is

becoming increasingly difficult to expect one entity to undertake the
risk to develop an AFV

engine/platform, especially for speciality or niche markets. Proposals
are limited to medium and

heavy duty on-road alternative fuel vehicles. Only total vehicle
integration projects will be

considered (not conversion kits or components for individual engine
families or fuel systems).

We are particularly interested in proposals for a front-engine Type C
school bus. Proposals must

identify the vehicle platform and fuel type to be developed, project
partners, and the cost-share

contribution of each. The proposal must also contain a development time
line that includes

adequate field-test and shakedown activities. The project must have a
major auto, truck or

engine manufacturer as part of the development team. The project manager
and his time

commitment must be identified. The proposal must include documentation
to describe a

potential market large enough to offset development costs, and a brief
description on the

marketing strategy to be employed to sell the vehicle. The end result
should be a product that is

commercially available within 2 years or less of grant award date. The
proposed engine/fuel

system must be emissions certified to meet EPA standards for the period
when the vehicle will be

commercialized, and any vehicle chassis/platform modifications must
comply with applicable

Federal highway safety standards for that period of time. In this
category, the Clean Cities

program is interested in funding approximately 1-2 projects not to
exceed \$200,000 per project.

A cost share of 50% is required.

Category 2: Projects that develop AFV refueling infrastructure.
Infrastructure projects can

include new facilities or upgrades and improvements to existing AFV
fueling sites. Project

proposals should include the fuel type, estimated fuel use sales (i.e.
fuel quantity based on fleet

commitments, not the total capacity of the station), and the projected
number of AFVs that will

use the facility. Whenever possible, identify actual fleets that have
pledged to use the site and

include letters of commitment to that effect. Projects that include
fleet commitments for fuel

purchases at the fueling site will be of particular interest. Extra
consideration will be given to

fueling sites that have public access provisions. Projects that include
card lock systems must

utilize a universal reader technology and, whenever possible, support
station networking

protocols already established in the region. Refueling sites that
contribute to an infrastructure

corridor development plan or strategy are desirable and should be
clearly noted. Also

desirable are refueling stations which will provide alternative fuels to
EPAct-covered (Federal,

State, and fuel provider) fleets. These fleets should be identified.
Each fueling site location

must be identified ( a sketch or simplified site layout drawing is
desirable), and applicants must

submit a project implementation plan that includes a proposed
construction schedule, a

discussion of permitting requirements, and environmental assessment
needs. The applicant has

one (1) year after the award date to complete local permitting
requirements or DOE funds will

be de-obligated. In this category, the Clean Cities is interested in
funding approximately seven

\(7\) to ten (10) projects not to exceed \$150,000 per project in this
category. Clean Cities will

also fund three (3) to four (4) \"cluster\" projects not to exceed
\$250,000 per project. A

\"cluster\" project contains a minimum of three refueling sites in a
specific geographic area to

offer greater fuel use options by fleets. A cost share of 33 1/3%, with
50% of this amount in

cash, is required.

Category 3: Projects that deploy alternative fuel school buses. Funding
is available to

support DOE=s Energy Smart Schools initiative, by paying for the
incremental costs of

alternative fuel school buses. No projects involving the use
experimental vehicle technologies

will be funded. Proposers are encouraged to coordinate/partner with bus
OEMs and other

school bus fleets interested in similar vehicle platforms in an effort
to maximize factory orders

for specific vehicle types. Priority will be given to projects that are
identified as being part of

this type of industry consortium partnership. Alternative fuel school
buses in this category

must use emissions certified engines from original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs). DOE

has particular interest in funding larger projects (which include 5 or
more new alternative fuel

buses going to one location), as well as expansion projects where
additional AFV buses are

being acquired to grow existing AFV fleets. Any vehicles which are
purchased with DOE

funds must display a Clean Cities decal, provided by DOE. In this
category, the Clean Cities

program is interested in funding approximately five (5) projects not to
exceed the range of

\$100,000 to \$200,000 per project. A cost share of 20%, with 25% of
this amount in cash, is

required.

Category 4: Projects that promote awareness of AFVs by using prominent
permanent

vehicle signage (e.g.; transit buses, shuttle vans, delivery trucks,
etc.). Funding is

available for prominent signage permanently affixed to vehicles that
clearly identifies them as

AFVs (e.g.; APowered by Clean Natural Gas@, AElectric Powered Vehicle@,
etc.). Proposals

in this category should include a design or sketch of the proposed
signage layout clearly

indicating the size of the print/graphics, the proposed location on the
vehicle, and a description

of the anticipated audience or public exposure potential. Projects will
not be considered if they

are part of commercial advertising campaigns or involve the
lease/purchase of temporary

advertising space or are for special events or short periods of time.
Signage must include the

Clean Cities logo in some form. Fleets that cannot display the Clean
Cities logo due to pre-

existing contractual or legal reasons must request a waiver from this
provision as part of the

proposal. DOE retains the right to approve/disapprove the final design.
In this category, the

Clean Cities program intends to fund between three (3) and six (6)
projects not to exceed

\$25,000 per project. A cost share of 20% is required.

Category 5: Clean Cities Coordinator positions. The Clean Cities
Coordinator is critical to

coalition success. Coordinator responsibilities include, but are not
limited to: organizing and

holding AAdvancing the AFV Choice@ events; developing fund-raising
strategies and/or writing

grant proposals; holding public education and outreach campaigns;
developing legislative

strategies; and developing and promoting training programs on the
maintenance of AFVs.

Although DOE prefers to fund full-time coordinators at \$25,000 per
project, we recognize that

not all coalitions are large enough to support a full-time coordinator.
Therefore, DOE will

consider funding a limited number of part-time coordinators at \$15,000
per project. Applications

must specify the percentage of time the coordinator will spend in the
position. DOE funding for

a coordinator position is intended to enhance the sustainability of the
coalition. Therefore,

coordinators funded by DOE must be employed by the coalition host
organization, and must not

be contractor personnel. DOE will fund approximately sixteen (16)
projects in this category. A

cost share of 50%, with 50% of this amount in cash, is required. DOE
assistance in this category

is intended to be a temporary mechanism to help coalitions become more
self-sustaining.

Therefore, coalitions that have not received coordinator funding in the
past two years under SEP

Special Projects will receive priority.

Evaluation Criteria for Niche Markets, Infrastructure, and School
Buses - Categories 1, 2,

and 3 respectively

Proposals submitted in categories 1, 2, and 3 will be evaluated and
ranked by the following

criteria:

1\) Probability of project success based on the technical feasibility of
the project, thoroughness of

project implementation plan, identification and qualifications of
appropriate team members, and

quality of supporting documentation (i.e. letters of commitment,
equipment bids, etc.).

(40 points)

2\) Energy security benefits as indicated by the estimated amount of
fuel dispensed at alternative

fuel refueling stations introduced as a result of this project and/or by
the estimated alternative

fuel used in vehicles purchased in categories one (1) and three (3). (20
points)

3\) Probability of project success, as indicated by coalition and
partner(s) past performance as

reflected in the final report and WinSaga data base. The proposal should
demonstrate that the

team has sufficient expertise and experience to bring the project to a
successful conclusion.

Grading factors will include: successful prior project management
experience with significant

AFV and infrastructure deployment results, prior AFV related grant
implementation success; and

consistency with previously documented coalition goals, and completeness
of 2001 Clean Cities

Annual Survey. (10 points)

4\) Extent to which project will contribute to a sustainable alternative
fuel market and potential

for future growth without additional Federal funding. (10 points)

5\) Visibility of project activities - probability of increasing
awareness and acceptance of

alternative fuels and AFVs among target sectors in the local community
including, but not

limited to, current stakeholders, fleet operators, media, and the
general public. (10 points)

6\) Greater cost share participation or cash equivalent contribution
than is required. Financial

investment and active participation from other coalition stakeholders
and partners are strongly

encouraged. (10 points)

Evaluation Criteria for Vehicle Signage - Category (4)

Proposals submitted in Category 4 will be evaluated by the following
criteria:

1\) Prominent signage layout and easy to understand message theme. (30
points)

2\) Potential for public exposure or high impact visibility. (30 points)

3\) Length of time signage will be displayed. (25 points)

4\) Discussion of public information or outreach plan or activities that
will complement signage.

(15 points)

Evaluation Criteria for Coordinators - Category 5

Proposals submitted in Category 5 will be evaluated by the following
criteria:

1\) Ability to strengthen the Clean Cities coalition to help meet its
Program Plan/Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) goals for (a) alternative fuel vehicle and
infrastructure deployment; (b)

fleet operator recruitment and outreach; (c) and public education and
information. (35 points)

2\) Probability of success, as indicated by the past performance of the
coalition. If there is no

record of past performance, the proposal can be evaluated on future
potential. Grading factors

will include: successful prior project deployment and grant
implementation; coordination and

consistency with previously documented coalition goals; progress
accelerating the deployment of

AFVs; and quality and quantity of participating stakeholders and
partners. Potential leveraging

of future resources may also be considered, if applicable. (30 points)

3\) Visibility of coordinator activities - probability of increasing
awareness and acceptance of

alternative fuels and AFVs among target sectors in the local community
including, but not

limited to: current stakeholders, fleet operators, media, and general
public. (20 points)

4\) Greater than a 50% cost share participation or greater than 50% of
the cost share in cash.

Leveraging and active participation from other coalition stakeholders
and partners are strongly

encouraged. (15 points)

Program Policy Factors

The DOE Clean Cities program will apply program policy factors. The
following factors will not

be point scored but will be assessed: geographic location of applicant,
diversity of alternative

fuels, and demonstrated need for Federal funding.

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Dorothy Wormley (202) 586-7028

Regional Offices:

Atlanta: David Dunagan (404) 562-0561

Boston: Michael Scarpino (617) 565-9716

Chicago: Melinda Latimer (312) 886-8582

Denver: Ernie Oakes (303) 275-4817

Dallas area: Dan Deaton (972) 491-7276

Philadelphia: Patricia Passarella (215) 656-6966

Seattle Roxanne Dempsey (206) 553-2155

California area: Julia Oliver (510) 637-1952

6.2 INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES

Legislation: Industrial Technologies activities are authorized under the
Energy Policy Act of

1992 (P.L. 102-486), Title I, Subtitle D, Section 132.

Estimated Total Funds Available: \$3 million

Estimated Number of Projects: 20 projects with a maximum Federal share
of \$200,000 for

States entirely new to the State Industries of the Future

(SIOF) process and a maximum Federal share of \$100,000

for States continuing in the SIOF process.

Cost Share: Cost share of 20% and up from non-Federal funds is

encouraged.

Cooperative Agreement: Financial assistance resulting from this section
of

the 2002 Special Projects Announcement will be in the

form of cooperative agreements.

Negotiation: Applications that are selected for funding will be subject
to

negotiation for full or reduced funding depending upon the

tasks proposed and/or funding limitations.

Goal

The goal of this section of the 2002 Special Projects Announcement is to
broaden the impact of

investments in advanced industrial technologies and practices for energy
savings and waste

reduction supported through the implementation of the nationally
developed Industries of the

Future (IOF) visions and technology roadmaps. This goal will be
accomplished by the formation

of strong State government/industry/university partnerships working
to: 1) identify key target

industries and their importance to the State economy; 2) facilitate the
formation/involvement of

target industry alliances, including universities; 3) garner the
involvement/support of high level

State officials; 4) coordinate/leverage activities with similar State
initiatives and; 5) identify the

necessary resources from the State, Federal Government, and industry
which can be applied, and

mobilize those resources into action to address pressing energy,
environmental and resource

needs in the industrial manufacturing sector.

Funding

A maximum Federal share of \$200,000 is available for States that have
not previously

participated in State Industries of the Future SEP Special Project
funding. These funds are

available for projects up to 2 years in duration, but might also be for
projects of one year in

duration. It is imperative that the work statement and project duration
are commensurate with

the funding request. States that are continuing in their State IOF
efforts may apply for a

maximum of \$100,000 Federal share for work statements of up to two
years, but the duration

may also be for one year -- the maximum Federal share is \$100,000
regardless of the one or two

year statement of work duration (not \$100,000 per year.) States that
are continuing must also

demonstrate a substantial expansion in work scope from previously funded
work statements

(described in detail under the criteria section of this task statement)
in order to be considered for

continued funding.

Background

The mission of the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) is to improve
energy efficiency,

environmental performance, and productivity of materials and process
industries by developing

and delivering advanced science and technology options that will: (1)
lower raw material and

depletable energy use per unit output; (2) improve labor and capital
productivity; and (3) reduce

the generation of wastes and pollutants. OIT accomplishes its mission
through its IOF strategy,

which focuses on nine energy-intensive and waste-intensive industries in
the industrial

manufacturing sector: Agriculture (limited to bio-based industrial
products), Aluminum,

Chemicals, Forest Products, Glass, Metalcasting, Mining, Petroleum
Refining, and Steel.

The IOF strategy involves three key processes, each carried out by
individual partnerships

between OIT and targeted industries. It begins with bringing an industry
together to

collectively identify issues and develop an industry-wide vision of
where it could be in the next

10 to 20 years. This is followed by developing an industry roadmap(s)
that identifies and

prioritizes the efforts needed to achieve the goals of the industry
vision. The final step involves

implementing a prioritized agenda to develop and deliver technology
solutions to meet the

identified industry needs and thus to accomplish the industry
roadmap(s). OIT\'s initial role is

therefore to act as a facilitator in bringing an industry together and
in assisting the industry in

creating its vision and developing its roadmap(s).

The OIT role then evolves into acting as a collaborator with an industry
on research,

development, deployment and industrial practices, to implement its
technology roadmap(s).

Functioning in this partnership capacity, OIT provides each targeted
industry with integrated

products and services, encompassing such functions as technical and
financial assistance,

information distribution, policy evaluation and support, and market
analysis, all of which are

critical to the successful execution of each of the three key processes
mentioned above.

Information about IOF visions and roadmap and specific OIT products and
services in the areas

of research, development, demonstration, and financial and technical
assistance can be found on

the OIT web site (http://www.oit.doe.gov).

Projects Requested in FY 2002

This section of this announcement seeks projects that specifically
target State implementation of

the IOF. The goal is to broaden the impact of investments and
implementation of industry

visions and technology roadmaps on energy savings and waste reduction.
This goal will be

accomplished through building strong collaborations among, and obtaining
wide participation

from State agencies, related industries and universities within the
States. Building off national

visions and roadmaps, the State implementation will result in a greater
impact because more

companies will become involved in developing and implementing new energy
efficiency and

waste reduction technologies as well as in adopting technological
advances introduced by the

OIT/industry partnerships. The State/industry/university partnerships
will also allow other OIT

products and services, such as financial and technical assistance, to be
delivered in a more

coordinated way to a broader base.

This section of this announcement seeks proposals that would implement
the IOF\* processes in

individual States to establish State government partnerships with one or
more of the industries

listed below, over a maximum duration of two years:

Agriculture (limited to bio-based industrial products)

Aluminum

Chemicals

Forest Products

Glass

Metal Casting

Mining

Petroleum Refining

Steel

\*(For a detailed understanding of the visions and priorities that are
focus areas for each industry,

please visit the OIT website at www.oit.doe.gov. In addition, Attachment
2 to this section

provides a detailed list of National American Industrial Classification
System Codes (NAICS)

that are included in each IOF focus area. It is not sufficient to
consider working with the

identified target industries alone. It is imperative that the proposer
understands what elements of

that industry are addressed in the national visions and roadmaps, and
that the targeting of those

priority areas is considered in the proposed work. The proposal should
include the appropriate

NAICS code for each industry area targeted.)

A State may desire to implement the industries of the future strategy
with segments of their local

economies that are not included in the Office of Industrial Technologies
portfolio (the nine

industries visions and roadmaps identified above.) We encourage these
efforts, but they will not

be funded under this section of this announcement or via other OIT
funds.

Successful applicants under this task will be expected to attend a two
day training and

information session in the Washington DC area shortly after awards are
announced. In

addition, successful applicants will be required to participate in a
maximum of two one day

project reviews at the DOE Regional Office serving them during each
calendar year of the

project\'s duration. Applicants are expected to include the costs
associated with transportation

and lodging needed for participation in these events in their proposal
and budget.

New Partnerships

For each new (State not receiving funding for State IOF implementation
in FY99, FY00 or

FY01) State government/industry partnership proposed in response to this
section of this

announcement, proposals must address all of the following task
requirements:

• Identify target industry(ies) in the State and their importance to the
State and/or regional

economy. All of the target industries must be consistent with the nine
key national IOF

target industries. Elements to consider are the economic and employment
impact of the

industry to the State and the energy and environmental impact.

• Identify by name companies in target industries that may be, or have
been, contacted for

participation. Letters of support from participating industry companies
or local and

regional industrial associations are particularly encouraged and will
weigh heavily

in the evaluation of industry commitment. Letters should be on company /
association

letterhead and should be included as attachments to the proposal.

• Facilitate the formation of target industry alliances involving
industrial companies and

other organizations such as State or national industrial associations,
State agencies (the

energy, economic development and State science and technology offices
should be

included), government laboratories and centers, other research
institutions \-- alliance

formation that includes universities with industrial extension services
is particularly

encouraged.

• Deliver information and/or technical and financial assistance on OIT
products and

services, and target appropriate IOF audiences.

• Establish a State IOF strategy, preferably coordinated with other
related State initiatives,

to envision industry-defined goals that address such issues as energy
savings, pollution

prevention, and productivity improvements \-- all aimed at increasing
economic viability

over a time period of five, ten, or more years.

• Develop and implement an action plan describing what State industries,
State agencies

and research partners would do to address the issues identified above.
The plan should

address and provide specifics about each of the key elements below:

defining industry priorities of needs (or roadmaps,) using the
national-level IOF

visions and roadmaps as guidance (these State-level roadmaps / needs
assessments

should become the guiding documents for all further investment and
action

decisions on behalf of that industry in the State. They need not be
solely devoted

to technology or energy issues, but might also contain economic,
environmental,

workforce and regulatory agendas that local industry deem as important
for future

survival);

identify a prioritized agenda defined by State industries;

identify resources necessary to address prioritized needs and identify

organizations (State agencies, companies, research institutions, and
universities)

that would be involved;

identifying how State industries could have better access to and/or be
more

engaged in the national-level IOF visions, roadmaps, and practices; and

defining how State industries could make better use of available
services and

products from DOE/OIT and other Federal, State, and non-governmental

organizations to address prioritized needs; and

• Identifying opportunities for energy fairs, technology expositions or
participation in IOF

national technology showcases. (An energy fair is an event that
showcases near-term

technology opportunities for dealing with urgent energy needs. Energy
fairs can be

industry specific or more generalized, but have the goal of providing
access to energy-

saving 'Best Practice\' solutions that local firms could implement
quickly. A technology

exposition is usually industry specific and involves showcasing and
demonstrating both

near-term 'Best Practices\' and significant energy saving technology
advances / equipment

in operation (on an plant floor) or in conjunction with ongoing
University research. A

national IOF showcase is sponsored by one of the nine IOF vision teams
and hosted by

one or more local industrial facilities.)

• Describe how the State IOF process will become self-sufficient -- how
the process will

continue once the funds from the cooperative agreement have been
expended.

• Develop and deliver training and other information dissemination
activities to facilitate

implementation of IOF at the State level; and

• Describe products, services, and deliverables to be produced under the
cooperative

agreement.

Existing Partnerships/Continuing Work

Several criteria have been established that must be met before a State
will be defined as having

accomplished a true State IOF. Continuation work will be considered for
funding based on the

substantiated achievement of some or all of these criteria. In addition,
continuation work should

explicitly address how the State will proceed to accomplish the State
IOF criteria not yet attained.

Finally, States that have not met deliverables and performance goals
from previous grants, or

who have not expended the resources from previous grants in a timely
fashion, may be down-

graded or not selected for follow-on funding.

States that currently have funds and time remaining from prior year
awards ( are in mid-process)

must identify substantial or substantive deviation from current work
statements in order to be

considered for additional funding prior to the exhaustion of an existing
award. These substantial

or substantive deviations might include the addition of an entirely new
target industry not

currently being pursued, or the conduct of energy fairs, technology
expositions or participation

in national IOF showcases not appearing in earlier work statements.
Applicants must clearlydifferentiate new efforts from work in progress.
Preference will be given to meritorious

applications that are at the end of their funding cycles.

The State IOF criteria for success are as follows:

1\) Defined individual champion(s), either from State agencies,
universities or local industry

2)State Industry Profiles

\- Significant State-level energy or environmental impact in at least
one IOF (with the goal

to expand to more, if applicable)

3\) Demonstrated industry leadership and involvement including key
industry participation on

implementation team.

4\) Defined, committed implementation team and fully supported
implementation plan.

5\) Signed Memorandum of Understanding (DOE with senior State official).

6\) Commitment to monitor accomplishments and report results through an
annual symposium.

7\) The conduct of energy fairs, technology expositions or participation
in national IOF

showcases.

8\) Development of state-level industry specific needs assessments or
\"roadmaps\" (these state-

level roadmaps should derive from the national roadmaps for that
industry and not re-create the

wheel. These roadmaps should become the driving documents for future
investments and

actions.)

9\) Identification of research projects relevant to identified
state-level needs or roadmaps and

participation in national R&D solicitations.

10\) Opportunities and strategies to leverage State and /or other
funding to match Federal

resources.

11\) Exit strategy, demonstrate ability to sustain efforts once Federal
funds are expended.

Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1\. Viability of approach for achieving desired outcomes in the State.
This includes

assessment of the extent of industry involvement in the project as
demonstrated through

letters of commitment, identification of a champion, identification of
an approach for

attaining senior State government involvement and commitment (MOU
signing,)

participation by more than one State agency \-- likely the State
Economic Development

and Science and Technology organizations, a well documented
implementation plan, the

identification of key research partners such as universities and
national laboratories, a

plan for self sufficiency, and proposed measures of success for
assessing attainment of the

goals. (25 points)

2\. Understanding of the national IOF strategy and processes, and
maximized use of national-

level visions, roadmaps and OIT products and services to guide and
facilitate State

implementation. A substantial amount of the consideration in this
section will be

given to States that consider and identify the coordination of the State
IOF efforts

with other OIT industrial activities in the State (if they exist),
including but not

limited to the Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program; various
BestPractices

efforts such as Plant Wide Assessments and industrial process system
training

programs, national level Showcase events, etc. (20 points)

3\. Clearly stated project deliverables and measures of success
identified and tied to the

stated goal for this section of this Announcement. Each application must
contain a

completely filled out milestone table containing the following
information: milestone,

planned start and completion dates, responsible organization (who is
performing the

work) and dollars required to complete each milestone \-- both Federal
dollars and the

cost share dollars for that milestone if applicable (See Attachment 1
for example). (20

points)

4\. Clear understanding of the State\'s industry profile, focusing on
the target industries

selected for inclusion in the State IOF. (15 points)

5\. For continued State/industry partnership: achievement of any or all
of the identified

criteria for success and plans for accomplishing those criteria not yet
attained. Success at

meeting milestones and expending funds from previous awards will also be
considered.

(15 points. For continuation projects, 5 points will be deleted from
each of the following

criteria - #2, #4 and #7 - to account for additional points in this
area.)

6\. Cost sharing and resource sharing of State/industries/other
organizations. (10 points)

7\. Qualifications and ability of the project team, including State,
industry, and subcontractor

(if any) personnel to complete the work successfully. A key element is
the \"robust\"

nature of the team, including participation from multiple State
agencies, universities and

industry. (10 points)

A responsive application shall contain the following information and use
the following format.

Where appropriate, identify who the anticipated participants for each
activity will be, in

particular, for those activities where you would anticipate
participation from DOE Headquarters

or Field personnel.

1\. Viability of approach for achieving desired outcomes. (This section
should address the

items below.)

• The proposed process that you will use to initiate or employ to
develop or

continue the development of your State IOF. This section should include
key

activities and events, expected timing of events and key participants.

• A discussion of what industries you will focus on, and why.

• Industry involvement \-- who have you contacted and involved, or are
you

planning to contact and involve in the process, including letters of
commitment

from industry, industry associations, universities, laboratories and
other State

agencies. Selection priority will be given to proposals that involve
multiple

implementation partners, in particular universities, laboratories and

importantly State agencies such as, Economic Development/Trade and State

Science and Technology organizations, in partnership with the State
Energy

Offices. Concrete examples of participation by these multiple parties is

important.

• Identified champion -- individual or organization, who you expect can
lead this

effort. (This champion is often not the proposer, but rather someone
from

industry, academia or a national laboratory who stands to benefit from
these

activities and would subsequently be motivated to lead the effort even
after

cooperative agreement funding is complete.)

• Approach for engaging senior level State government officials,
including the

Governor\'s Office. What level of State involvement do you expect to
garner, and

what roles will be played by State agencies and State officials. Buy-in
by the

Governor\'s Office is usually considered a critical element to a
successful State

IOF and should be included in this discussion. (Multiple State agency

participation can help with this element.)

• Key research players, including industry participants and industry
associations,

State agencies other than the proposer, universities, laboratories and
others who

are expected to participate.

• Proposed measures of success and methods of evaluation.

2\. Industries of the Future Approach: demonstrated understanding of the
national IOF

program and how the State efforts will relate to these efforts. (This
section should address

the items below.)

• Familiarity with national program, the process and the industry
visions and

roadmaps and where the \"fits\" are with State industrial participants.

• Identification of participants in the national program within the
State who can

assist with the State effort.

• Familiarity with OIT products and services, what is offered and how
industries in

the State might benefit from participation in these products and
services.

3\. Deliverables and Milestone Chart: the proposed deliverables should
be clearly

described and should relate in a meaningful way to the statement of
work. A milestone

chart should be included that contains:

• A line by line breakdown of each significant milestone that will be
accomplished

as part of the proposed statement of work including:

start and end date of each milestone;

the Federal and cost share dollars anticipated to accomplish each

milestone; and

who will perform the work. (See Attachment 1 for example.)

4\. Industry Profile: the importance of the target IOF industries in the
State. (This section

should address the items below.)

• Process for collecting economic, energy and waste data for target
industries (those

that the State is proposing to include in their State IOF efforts.)

• A discussion of why programs to help these industries are important to
the State

and will garner support from senior State officials.

5\. Continuation Efforts: proposals that are continuations from
previously funded State

Industries of the Future awards (FY01, FY00 or FY99.) For continuation
efforts less

emphasis need be put on addressing items #1, #2 and #3 for a greater
focus on this item.

• Discuss the status of, or completion of, the criteria identified above
for a

successful State IOF. Discuss the steps that will be taken under this
award to

move forward on the not yet completed criteria.

• Discuss in detail what has been accomplished as a result of the prior
awards,

including all milestone completions. This section should relate prior

accomplishments to measures of success.

• Discuss in detail plans for energy fairs, technology expositions or
participation in

a national IOF showcase. Be as specific as possible including proposed
locations,

timing and participants.

6\. Cost Share: what is the financial contribution from the applicant,
both in-kind and cash?

7\. Applicant/Team Qualifications. Please identify who will be leading
each task and what

their qualifications are. This section should include a discussion of
the entire team that

you anticipate will be implementing your State Industries of the Future
effort and

associated qualifications. More robust teams involving industry
participants, multiple

State agencies, universities and laboratories will be given higher
scores.

If the application does not follow the established format and the
reviewers are unable to find the

pertinent information expeditiously, a lower evaluation may result. All
of the criteria and

application sub points must be addressed.

Program Contacts

Headquarters: Yolanda Frinks (202) 586-0597

Regional Offices: Atlanta David Godfrey (404) 562-0568

Boston Scott Hutchins (617) 565-9765

Chicago Brian Olsen (312) 886-8579

Denver Jack Jenkins (303) 275-4824

Philadelphia Joseph Barrett (215) 656-6957

Seattle Chris Cockrill (816) 873-3299

SEE ATTACHMENTS ON FOLLOWING PAGES

Attachment 1

STATE IOF STATEMENT OF WORK REQUIREMENTS

1\. State the task or milestone in a narrative form and clearly indicate
what the applicant will

achieve with the project funds (including federal and cost share funds).

2\. Include an organized list of tasks \-- see below, with estimated
time frames, responsible

individual/organization, and projected cost, which supports the project
objective.

Task/Milestone Table

Task

Number Task/Milestone

Title Estimated

Time

frames

(Months

from

Award) Responsible

Individual/Organizatio

n and Expected

Participants Projected Cost

(Federal/Cost Share

Funds)

Federal Cost-

Share

Task 1

Task 2

Task x

Include for each task a detailed description and expected results in
narrative form and correlate

with projected costs per task. Discuss roles and responsibilities of
each team member, and

identify expected participants, especially for events such as kick-off
meetings and showcases.

An example might look as follows:

Task 1: Identify and recruit industry participants. The State of
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Energy Office will

utilize local trade associations in the steel industry to identify the
key steel companies in the

State. Once identified, each company will be invited to a opening
workshop, expected to last

about 6 hours, to discuss their key needs to address energy,
environmental and resource

efficiency issues. The invitations will first be done by mail, and then
followed up by individual

phone calls. Key State government representatives will be on the agenda
to better ensure

participation. The State will also use Mr./Ms. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ who has
been an active participant in

the national IOF Steel program to help invite his/her industry to this
meeting. Mr./Ms.\_\_\_\_\_\_

will help add needed credibility and will be able to clearly address the
benefits of the IOF

program to these new participants. Participation includes State
agencies, our university partners,

the local steel industry association and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ steel
companies. A technical team

representative from DOE would be helpful at this event.

Attachment 2

OIT NAICS Codes

Agriculture:

OIT\'s IOF Agriculture initiative with U.S. industry focuses on the use
of crops, trees, and their

waste residues to manufacture industrial chemicals and related consumer
goods. NAICS code

designations do not represent the scope of the initiative. For purposes
of understanding the

Agriculture Industries of the Future focus \-- any manufacturing,
industrial or agricultural plant

site or facility which is currently in the process of developing,
designing, or demonstrating any

new technology that addresses the above goals could be considered within
the agriculture IOF

topical area.

Aluminum: 3313 Alumina and Aluminum Production and Processing

Chemicals: 325 Chemical Manufacturing

Forest Products: 113 Forestry and Logging

321 Wood Product Manufacturing

322 Paper Manufacturing

Glass: 3272 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing

Metal Casting: 33151 Ferrous Metal Foundries

33152 Nonferrous Metal Foundries

Mining: 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)

213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining

213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining

213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels)

327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing

33141 Nonferrous Metal (Except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining

331423 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Allowing of Copper

331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Allowing of Nonferrous

Metal (except copper and aluminum)

Petroleum: 32411 Petroleum Refineries

324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing

Steel: 331111 Iron and Steel Mills

3312 Steel Product Manufacturing from Purchased Steel

6.3 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

6.31 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES: CODES AND STANDARDS

Legislation: This Codes and Standards program is authorized under Title
III of the Energy

Conservation and Production Act, as amended. See Section 304(2)(B)(e),
Availability of

Incentive Funding (for States), under Section 304.

Estimated Funds Available: \$1,800,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 9 to 15, not to exceed \$200,000 total
Federal funds per

State

Cost Share: At least a 25% non-Federal cost share is required. For

example, where the total cost of the project is \$100,000, the

Federal share would not exceed \$75,000, and the grantee\'s

cost share would be at least \$25,000.

Background

Section 304 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended,
requires States to

update their commercial building energy codes to meet or exceed the
American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers and the
Illuminating Engineering Society

of North America (ASHRAE/IESNA) Standard 90.1-1989, or its successor(s)
that DOE has

determined would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
States are also required to

consider whether to meet or exceed the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC) or
its successor(s) that

DOE determined would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings.
On January 4, 2001,

the Department issued a determination that the 1998 and 2000 editions of
the International

Energy Conservation Code (IECC) will improve energy efficiency in
residential buildings. Each

state is required to certify to DOE by January 10, 2003, that it has
reviewed the provisions of its

residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made a
determination as to whether it is

appropriate for a State to revise its residential building code to meet
or exceed the 2000 IECC.

Projects Requested in 2002

The Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs is
providing incentive

funding to support State actions to adopt, update, implement, enforce
and evaluate the

effectiveness of their residential and commercial building energy codes.
These actions will

enhance the energy efficiency of residential and commercial building
stock in the United States.

States that have adopted energy codes that meet or exceed the 1995 Model
Energy Code and

Standard 90.1-1989 and are encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness of
their programs, refine

them, and work toward the adoption of the next generation building
codes, such as Standard

90.1-1999 or future editions of the International Energy Conservation
Code (formerly the Model

Energy Code), that achieve even higher levels of cost-effective
efficiency. States are encouraged

to submit one year proposals and to partner with other States and
interested entities to make

maximum use of resources and share expertise. Letters of commitment from
third parties must

be attached.

Proposals

Each proposal must include a detailed description, a time line and a
budget, itemized by task.

Proposals should be formatted to make the following required items easy
to locate and the

evaluation criteria, related to those requirements, easy to apply. The
proposal should be

formatted in 12 point font and not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding
the required forms. All

pages must be numbered.

Proposals must include:

1\. Technical Narrative. Address how the lead or coordinating agency
intends to update their

State and local building codes or if codes have already been adopted,
how it intends to improve

code compliance, through training, technical assistance, etc. Include
the adoption process for

energy codes at both the legislative and administrative level, as well
as by the local building

community. Fully describe the methodology for implementation of new
energy codes including

training and information transfer elements. Identify building community
partners and their role

in the process. Include government, local code officials, builders,
architects, and energy

technology suppliers, and utilities and environmental or other public
interest allies, if appropriate.

Identify the need for the project, desired outcome, results and
benefits. Describe the steps to be

taken to achieve the desired goals. In addition, all deliverables should
be identified, such as

training manuals, brochures, graphics, videos, etc. Indicate if these
will be delivered in an

electronic format and be reproducible.

2\. Workplan and Milestones. Describe how the proposed project will be
developed and

implemented. Identify goals using measurable results and provide a
schedule for completion.

Identify facilities, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary
for this project. Explain

the relationship (if any) to any prior year grant received.

3\. Qualifications and Accomplishments. Identify and describe lead
agency, key personnel and

other partners, including their qualifications, experience and expertise
as it relates to successfully

carrying out this project. If previous DOE grants to update, implement,
or enforce the State\'s

codes have been received, describe the progress and accomplishments to
date in meeting the

goals established for the previous grant(s).

4\. Innovative, Technology Transfer and Advanced Code Elements. Describe
any unique or

innovative components of this project. Describe any components of the
program that will

expedite the adoption and implementation of improved energy codes in
other States or regions or

the transfer of information or techniques to other States or regions.
Describe any components of

the program that will hasten the adoption of codes which exceed the
requirements of ASHRAE

90.1-1989 or the 1995 MEC.

Special Conditions

The grantee is required to complete a final report and provide an annual
presentation of its

objectives and accomplishments of the project at the \"Annual DOE
National Workshop on State

Building Energy Codes.\" The grantee must budget funds to attend the
2003 and 2004 National

Workshops on State Building Energy Codes. The dates and locations of the
2003 and 2004

National Workshops on State Building Energy Codes will be announced at a
later date.

Each State is required to submit a final report summarizing all work
completed under this

project. Include in the report the dates of significant events, number
of people affected, number

of training sessions, estimated energy savings, and other benefits of
the project, and key products

produced.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals will be ranked according to the following criteria:

1\. APPROACH: (35 points) Ability of the project to significantly
contribute to the adoption,

implementation, or enforcement of building energy codes which exceed
Standard 90.1-1989 and

the 1995 MEC, or to significantly contribute to the evaluation of
building energy code

implementation and enforcement.

2\. QUALIFICATIONS: (25 points) Ability of the project team to complete
the work

successfully, including qualifications of key agencies and personnel.
Experience and past

success in adopting or updating, implementing, and evaluating building
energy codes are key.

Performance on prior year grants will be considered.

3\. POTENTIAL IMPACT: (20 points) Anticipated benefit of project
activities. The number and

percentage of buildings (or square feet constructed) impacted and
estimates of potential and

quantifiable energy, economic, and environmental benefits. Estimated
number and percentage of

jurisdictions adopting/enforcing energy codes and the estimated number
of people trained will

also be considered. Long-term commitment of State and partners after
Federal funding expires.

The ability of the project to introduce innovation, transfer
information/techniques to other States

or regions resulting in wider adoption, implementation and enforcement
of building energy

codes, or introduce more advanced energy codes.

4\. COST SHARE: (20 points) Cash or in-kind contribution over the
required 25% cost share. If

cost share is from an organization other than the applicant, letters of
commitment must be

attached to be considered.

Expenditure limitations

The purchase of land, buildings, vehicles, energy efficiency or
renewable energy equipment;

construction; capital improvements or equipment; or building retrofits
are examples of

expenditures that are not allowed.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list of what cannot be done under one of
these grants; it is an

attempt to point out major items that are not allowed.

Points of Contact

Headquarters (for technical information): Margo Appel (202) 586-9495

Regional Offices

(for additional information): Atlanta Timothy Eastling (404) 562-0575

Boston Daniel Strout (617) 565-9707

Chicago John Devine (312) 886-8581

Denver Doug Seiter (303) 275-4810

Philadelphia Darren Stevenson (215) 656-6970

Seattle Molly Dwyer (206) 553-7837

6.32 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES: REBUILD AMERICA

Legislation: Rebuild America activities are authorized under the
Department of Energy

Organization Act, P.L. 95-91.

Estimated Funds Available: Up to \$2,500,000

Estimated Number of Projects: The number of proposals awarded will
depend on the

quality of the proposals received.

Funding Ceiling: A \$150,000 cap is placed on Federal funds awarded to

successful individual State proposals.

A cap of \$100,000 per State will be placed on Federal funds

for joint proposals (submitted by one State on behalf of

other States).

It is expected that awards of Federal funds will range from

approximately \$50,000 to \$150,000 each.

Cost Share: A 20% cost share is required, but a higher cost share is

strongly encouraged. For example, where the total cost of

the project is \$100,000, the Federal share would not exceed

\$80,000, and the grantee\'s cost share would be at least

\$20,000. Please also see Sections below on General

Guidance and Evaluation Criteria.

A. Background

Rebuild America began with the mission to accelerate energy efficiency
improvements for

existing commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential
buildings through private-public

partnerships created at the community level. While this focus remains
its primary emphasis,

Rebuild America\'s expanded vision and mission recognize that many
Community Partnerships

are seeking energy solutions to community needs that extend well beyond
just building retrofits:

many Community Partnerships are addressing issues related to new
building construction and

sustainability, land use planning, water and waste water treatment,
transportation systems, and

restructuring of electricity and natural gas markets.

Using a nationwide network of community leaders, energy experts, and
providers of efficient

products and services, Rebuild America helps Community Partnerships
form, design, finance,

promote, and carry out energy solutions that improve building
performance. Rebuild America

also serves as a gateway to link communities with resources and services
to assist them in using

energy efficiency and renewable energy to address community-wide needs.
DOE is an active

member of each Community Partnership.

Rebuild America\'s Vision is one of communities across America that use
energy efficiency and

renewable energy to improve their lives at work, at home, and at play.

Rebuild America\'s Mission is to build partnerships among communities,
states, and the private

sector to improve building performance, and connect people, resources,
ideas and practices for

energy solutions to community needs.

Rebuild America has two Fundamental Goals:

I. Increase the number of high performance buildings, and

II\. Help Community Partnerships implement community-wide energy
efficiency and

renewable energy improvements.

Major Objectives for Rebuild America include:

1\. By 2005, Rebuild America partnerships will be involved collectively
in at least 3 billion

square feet of building renovations, increasing to at least 6 billion
square feet by 2010;

2\. By 2005, at least 500 buildings of diverse types within Rebuild
America partnerships will

have EnergyStar® labels, increasing to at least 1,000 labeled buildings
by 2010;

3\. By 2005, at least 50% of all partnerships will have completed a
minimum of one major

building renovation project, with this proportion growing to 75% by
2010;

4\. By 2005, at least 50% of all partnerships will be involved in a
range of energy efficiency

and renewable energy activities extending well beyond building
improvements, increasing

to least 75% by 2010; and

5\. By 2005, at least 25% of all partnerships will have self-sustaining
community-wide

programs, with this proportion increasing to 50% by 2010.

Major Results Expected By 2005 By 2010

Energy Use Savings \[Annual BTUs\] 64 trillion 128 trillion

Total Cost Savings \[Annual \$\] \$1 billion \$2 billion

Building Renovations \[Total SF\] 3 billion 6 billion

Private Investment Generated \[Total \$\] \$4 billion \$8 billion

As part of Rebuild America\'s objectives regarding partnerships\'
completion of major building

renovation projects, the program will place strong emphasis on and
direct substantial resources to

the K-12 schools sector. In coordination with its Energy Smart Schools
Campaign, Rebuild

America will target its efforts on school districts that are actively
engaged in construction or

rehabilitation cycles to assure at least 50% of all partnerships will be
planning and carrying out

improvements in K-12 schools between 2001 and 2010.

General information regarding Rebuild America may be found at the
program Web site

http://www.rebuild.org . More detailed information regarding Rebuild
America\'s key issues,

strategies, goals, and objectives may be found in the document \"Rebuild
America Strategic Plan

2001-2010\", available for downloading and viewing at:

http:www.Rebuild.org/toolbox/attachment.asp?attachmentID=884

B. Projects Requested in FY 2002

Through the mechanism of this competitive solicitation, Rebuild America
seeks to identify and

assist qualified end-use sector energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects that will be

developed and supported on a voluntary basis by interested State
partners and that will further

Rebuild America\'s ability to achieve the Goals and Objectives described
in the \"Rebuild America

Strategic Plan 2001-2010\".

Applications in response to this competitive solicitation may address
any or all aspect(s) of

Rebuild America\'s Vision, Mission, Situation and Key Issues, and may
focus on any or all of

Rebuild America\'s Goals and Objectives. Applications may propose the
use of any relevant

legal means, activities and procedures not otherwise prohibited by
regulation or the provisions,

requirements, prohibitions and limitations of this Announcement.

To a large degree, Rebuild America is a \"people program\".
Historically, Rebuild America has

worked on a voluntary basis with local organizations to develop
comprehensive, sustainable,

high performance solutions to \"demand side\" energy problems in five
sectors: K-12 education,

colleges and universities, state and local governments, multifamily
housing, and commercial

buildings. Through the mechanism of a Community Partnership, Rebuild
America provides

access to expertise, training, tools and public visibility, and creates
a credible and effective

platform for acquiring and leveraging resources from third parties.

DOE welcomes applications that represent robust, durable, transformative
and transferable

approaches to enhancing Rebuild America\'s ability to achieve its Goals
and Objectives.

C. General Guidance

No more than one proposal per State may be submitted. Example: Two
agencies in the same State may

not submit separate proposals. This does not preclude a State from also
participating in a joint proposal

with other States.

Joint proposals, submitted by one State on behalf of other States, are
acceptable. A cap of

\$100,000 per State is placed on the amount of Federal funds that can be
awarded to successful

joint proposals.

DOE reserves the right to fund partial proposals.

The mandatory cost-share is 20%; however, you are encouraged to provide
a larger cost-share.

The cost share must be comprised of costs associated with the scope of
the project being

proposed. For example, if the scope of a proposed project involves the
marketing of Rebuild

America benefits to potential community based partnerships, the cost
share (the applicant\'s

contribution toward the project budget) cannot come from building
efficiency investments made

in other, existing partnerships. The cost share would have to be
comprised of costs associated

with the proposed marketing activity.

There are certain restrictions on what types of costs can be included as
contributing to an

applicant\'s cost share. If other (non-DOE) Federal funds are proposed,
the agencies contributing

those funds must provide letters stipulating that their Federal funds
may be used in conjunction

with DOE funds for the Federal share of the cost of a DOE financial
assistance agreement.

While they cannot be used to satisfy the cost-share requirement, we
encourage States to use their

SEP formula grant funds to supplement Rebuild funds available through
this section by

reinforcing the funding and support for ongoing Rebuild activities in
SEP formula grant State

Plans, or initiating new ones, and continuing (or initiating) support of
partnerships. Where a State

wants to get credit for doing this in the context of its FY 2002 Special
Projects application,

evidence shall be demonstrated by attaching to the application a copy of
the SEP formula grant

State Plan language for the relevant Rebuild America activity.

If you are unclear regarding any aspect of the cost share requirement,
you should check with your

regional point of contact prior to submission of your Application.

All States and territories are eligible.

Period of Performance: Up to 2 years

D. Application Preparation

Applications must include the following mandatory minimum content
regarding the proposed

project:

I. A description of the rationale for the project. What is the
opportunity?

II\. A general description of the project. What types of activities,
tasks, etc. will be

conducted?

III\. A description of the forecast outcomes of the project. What will
be accomplished?

IV\. A description of the people involved in the project, their roles,
and their qualifications.

Who will be doing what?

V. A description of the sources, uses and amounts of funds, and proposed
supporting and

logistical resources, required for the project. What will it take to get
this done?

VI\. A description of the proposed timing and schedule of activities,
milestones, outcomes,

and cash flows for the project. When will this be done?

VII\. A description of the critical risks, potential problems &
contingencies associated with the

project and how they are or will be addressed. What problems are
foreseeable, and how

can they be addressed?

The Application must include the telephone (voice and/or TDD) and fax
numbers and e-mail

addresses for the director of the sponsoring State energy office, and
for the individual within that

office designated as the project director or manager.

E. Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated and ranked according to the following
criteria:

Evaluation Criterion Maximum

Criterion

Point Score

Relevance of Opportunity To Be Addressed By Project & Attractiveness

of Forecast Project Outcomes By Reference To Rebuild America\'s

Strategic Goals & Objectives

40

Relevance, Adequacy & Robustness Of Proposed Project Organization,

Management & Staffing Strategy, And Overall Resource Levels

35

Quantity & Quality Of Non-Rebuild America Funding & Logistical

Resources Dedicated To Project

25

All

100

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

F. Expenditure Limitations

EXAMPLES OF USES NOT ALLOWED: Purchases of land, buildings, vehicles, or
energy

efficiency or renewable energy equipment; payment of direct costs of
construction; payments for

capital improvements or equipment; payments for building retrofits.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list of what cannot be done under one of
these grants; it is solely

an attempt to point out major categories items that are not allowed. If
you are unclear regarding

any aspect of expenditure limitations requirements, prospective
applicants are strongly urged to

direct questions to your regional point of contact prior to submission
of your Application.

G. Program Contacts: Headquarters: Dan Sze (202) 586-2621

Regional Offices:

Atlanta Greg Andrews (404) 347-1046

Boston Greg Davoren (617) 565-9706

Chicago John Devine (312) 886-8581

Denver Dave Waltzman (303) 275-4821

Philadelphia Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle Richard Putnam (206) 553-2165

6.33 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES: BUILDING AMERICA: Applying Building

America\'s Strategies to Existing Buildings

Legislation: Building America activities are authorized under the
Department of Energy

Organization Act, P.L. 95-91.

Estimated Funds Available: \$300,000

Estimated Number of Projects: Up to six

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost for any individual
project will

not exceed \$100,000.

Cost Share: Cost share of 50% and up from non-DOE funds (State

governments, regional organizations, industries, industry

organizations, and other) is encouraged. For example,

where a 50% cost share is proposed, and the total cost of

the project is \$50,000, the DOE share would not exceed

\$25,000, and the grantee\'s cost share would be at least

\$25,000. Extra consideration will be given for higher

levels of cost sharing.

BACKGROUND

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Building America Program is
a continuing R&D

process, cost-shared, in cooperation with the home construction
industry, to develop system

engineered, sustainable, innovative building methods, and cost-effective
integration of

technologies that can save builders and homeowners millions of dollars
in construction and

energy costs. Technical support and research implementation are provided
by the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL).

The objective of the Building America Program is to apply systems
engineering approaches to

the development of advanced residential buildings, including production
techniques, products,

and technologies that result in higher quality, energy-efficient
housing. The initial primary

market sector for this effort has been new residential buildings that
are single-family detached

houses and attached town homes. In addition, for this Fiscal Year 2002
Request For Proposal,

the Building America program also seeks cost-effective systems
approaches to improve the

energy performance of existing residential buildings.

The goals of the Building America Program include:

-Accelerate implementation of advanced building energy systems in new
residential construction

through development and application of systems engineering approaches
with cross-cutting

industry teams;

-Develop innovative technologies and strategies that enable the U.S.
housing industry to deliver

environmentally sensitive, quality housing on a community-scale while
maintaining profitability

and competitiveness of homebuilders and product suppliers.

-Deliver 50% reduction in energy consumption (on average, depending on
climate), 50%

reduction in construction site waste, 25% increase in use of recycled
materials, increased labor

productivity, and reduced construction cycle time.

-Develop cost effective methods of improving the energy performance of
existing buildings by

30%.

The Building America Program advocates a systems engineering approach to
home building and

community improvement. Such a systems approach unites segments of the
building industry that

traditionally work independently of one another. It forms teams of
architects, engineers, builders,

equipment manufacturers, material suppliers, community planners,
mortgage lenders, and

contractor trades. Currently, there are five teams comprised of more
than 250 different

companies.

Names and principal contacts of each of the five Building America teams
follow:

Building Science Consortium

Betsy Petit, Building Science Consortium, 70 Main Street Westford, MA
01866

\(978\) 589-5100 fax: (978) 589-5103 e-mail: Betsy@buildingscience.com

world wide web: www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/building_america/bsc.shtml

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings

Steven Winter, Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings, 50
Washington Street, Norwalk

CT 06854 (203) 852-0110 fax: (203) 852- 0741 e-mail swinter@snet.net

world wide web: www.carb-swa.com

Hickory Consortium

Mark Kelley, Hickory Consortium, 85 Depot Road, Harvard, MA 01451 (617)
491-1888

Fax: (617) 491-6004 e-mail: dragon@world.std.com world wide web:

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/building_america/hickory.shtml

Integrated Building and Construction Solutions

Brad Oberg, IBACOS Consortium, 2214 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 765-3664

Fax: (412) 765-3738 e-mail: boberg@ibacos.com world wide web:

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/building_america/ibacos.shtml

Industrialized Housing Partnership

Subrato Chandra, Florida Solar Energy Center, 1679 Clearlake Road,
Cocoa, FL 32922 (321)

638-1412 fax: (321) 638-1439 e-mail: subrato@ucf.edu world wide web:
www.baihp.org

The Building America teams work in 26 States to design cost-effective,
energy-efficient single-

family homes for each of the four major U.S. climate types. Builder
partners have adopted

Building America concepts to construct over 8000 new homes and many
renovation projects.

Results from homes tested for a year at Prairie Crossing in Grayslake,
Illinois, confirm that their

techniques allow for 50% to 60% energy savings over the regional
standard construction practice

at a small incremental cost over the builder\'s standard practice.

The program achieves its goals in new homes through an iterative systems
engineering process to

identify and implement successful cost/performance trade offs based on
use of innovative

systems that improve building performance without increasing cost.

Experience has proven that America\'s new homes can be cost-effective to
build as well as

energy-efficient to live in. Building America\'s systems engineering
approach unites segments of

the building industry that have traditionally worked independently of
one another: By forming

teams of architects, engineers, builders, equipment manufacturers,
material suppliers, community

planners, mortgage lenders, and contractor trades, new designs can be
created, tested and

analyzed that lead to continuing improvement in energy efficiency and
other desirable attributes

with little or no increase in first cost.

Most of the effort of the five Building America teams to date has been
on new homes. However,

all the teams are also involved in working with owners of existing
buildings. Therefore, this

Request For Proposal adds the category of existing buildings: The
respondents may, if they wish,

explain how, in cooperation with one or more of the five teams, they
would get owners of

existing buildings to make energy efficiency improvements of 30%; what
those improvements

would be; and how a particular package of improvements came to be
selected.

Projects Requested in FY 2002

A new and additional goal of Building America SEP Special Projects in FY
2002 is to develop

linkages between the States, the Building America teams and
regionally-based innovative

housing technology programs to develop cost effective and energy saving
strategies for changing

the existing home retrofit and repair market. The strategies will focus
on typical repair and

replacement events that occur throughout the life of a home. The
strategies for improving the

resource efficiency of existing housing may be disseminated through
regionally-based fact

sheets, case studies, builder handbooks and through web-based
information exchange.

Strong State and regional support is essential for the success of these
existing building projects.

Under the Special Projects grants, working with DOE, the Building
America Teams, NREL,

ORNL, the State program representatives for Building America will be
responsible for

distribution of Building America program information, development of
State case study

materials, development of regional Building America workshops, and
identification of State

projects that may provide opportunities to serve as a test bed for
industry team projects.

In order to successfully develop and expand the regional impacts of
Building America existing

building projects, proposals should include, but are not limited to, one
or more of the following

deliverables and activities:

• Develop an action plan that outlines how systems engineering retrofit
strategies of

existing homes can be expanded on a State by State basis.

• Provide engineering details of systems engineering retrofit
strategies.

• Develop retrofit or replacement efficiency improvements that are
applicable to

types of homes well represented in the building stock of the particular
region or

state.

• Develop a dissemination plan to ensure widespread adoption that
addresses

financing options, contractor, installer or technician training and
consumer

motivation.

• Identify State projects that can act as showcases for the Building
America

Existing Building Technologies.

• Develop plans for State training programs to expand use of successful
systems

that improve the resource efficiency of existing housing.

Evaluation Criteria Scoring

1\. Past history of successful involvement with cost-shared industry
partnership projects

(10 points);

2\. Understanding of building and retrofit industries needs and clear
statement of project

goals and objectives (10 points);

3\. Demonstrated match of proposal focus with activities of one or more
Building America

industry teams (20 points);

4\. Capabilities of proposal team including educational, State, industry
and subcontractor

personnel required to complete the work successfully (15 points);

5\. Extent of building industry involvement in the proposal (15 points);

6\. Viability of approach for achieving State and regional retrofit and
new residential

objectives (10 points);

7\. Clearly stated deliverables and measures of success tied to goals of
solicitation (10 points)

and;

8\. Level of cost sharing included in the proposal (10 points).

Expenditure Limitations: Funding under this project may not be used to
cover the costs of

building materials, construction or labor used in construction or

renovation.

Program Contacts

Headquarters: George James (202) 586-9472

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Traci Leath (404) 562-0570

Boston: Sapaleto Seymour (617) 565-9704

Chicago: John Devine (312) 886-8581

Denver: Jamey Evans (303) 275-4813

Philadelphia: Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle: Richard Putnam (206) 553-2165

6.4 FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FEMP)

Estimated Funds Available: Up to \$500,000

Estimated Number of Projects: The number and size of awards depends on
the scope,

quality, and competitiveness of the received proposals.

Awards since FY 96 have ranged from \$10,000 to \$275,000

Cost Share: Provision of funding from non-DOE sources is desired and

will improve a proposal\'s competitiveness.

Background (http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/aboutfemp.html)

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) works to reduce the cost
and environmental

impact of government by advancing energy efficiency and water
conservation, promoting the use

of distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management
decisions at Federal

sites.

FEMP is the central government office responsible for providing
leadership, coordination,

technical guidance, assistance, and reporting on Federal energy
management activities and

progress toward these goals. With FEMP\'s combined financial, technical,
outreach, and policy

assistance, Federal agencies can effectively undertake smart energy
projects and lead by

example, as well as respond more quickly to urgent energy concerns, such
as the electricity

shortfalls experienced in California.

As the lead Federal agency in support of achievement of legislated
Federal energy goals as well

as related Executive Order objectives, FEMP\'s goals are derived from
the goals established in the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 and subsequent executive orders:

o Reduce Energy Consumption

o Standard buildings/facilities: A reduction in gross square foot energy

consumption by 30% by 2005 and 35% by 2010, relative to a 1985 base.

o Industrial, laboratory, research, and other energy-intensive
buildings: a

20% reduction by 2005, and 25% by 2010, relative to a 1990 base.

o Expand use of renewable energy

o 2.5% of Federal facility electricity consumption by 2005

o 2,000 solar roofs by 2000: 20,000 by 2010

o Implement best management practices for water conservation in 80% of
Federal

Facilities by 2010

o Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 compared to 1990

Major Program Areas

Project Financing (http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/financealt)

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) allow Federal agencies to
leverage private

sector funds to implement energy improvements without relying on
Congressional

appropriations. With an ESPC, a non-utility energy service company
(ESCO) arranges for the

capital financing to develop projects. The ESCO guarantees that the
upgrades, retrofits, and

performance improvements will result in a specified level of savings.
After the contract term

ends, all additional cost savings accrue to the agency.

Federal facility managers face a number of new energy challenges -
restructuring of electric

utilities, volatile fuel prices and supplies, grid reliability, and
mergers and acquisitions of utility

providers. At the same time, Federal funding for energy improvement
projects is limited. To

deal with these challenges, FEMP is helping Federal agencies use Utility
Energy Service

Contracts (UESCs) to finance energy and water efficiency upgrades. Since
1995, 45 utilities

from around the country have invested over \$600 million in UESC
projects that are now paying

for themselves from a share of energy cost savings.

Technical Assistance (http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/techassist)

Technical assistance, training, and information are at the heart of
FEMP\'s mission. FEMP

provides a comprehensive approach to help Federal agencies increase
energy efficiency, expand

the use of renewable energy, conserve water, and ensure reliable power.
FEMP assists energy

managers in identifying energy-efficient and cost-effective products and
opportunities. FEMP

also helps federal managers design and implement effective facility
improvement projects that

incorporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, distributed energy
technologies, sustainable

design practices, state-of-the-art lighting technologies, and
water-saving techniques.

Policy

FEMP develops and disseminates policy guidance to assist Federal
agencies in meeting

legislative and Executive Order energy management requirements. FEMP
also manages a

number of committees to facilitate interagency coordination and inform
energy management

efforts.

Outreach

FEMP spreads the word about energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
water saving strategies

through a wide variety of publications, on-line resources, recognition
and award programs, and

conferences.

Special funding requirements or limitations

States are encouraged to obtain matching and/or in-kind resources for
their proposals.

FEMP funds shall not be used for the purchase of land, buildings, and
vehicles.

Instructions for Proposals

Projects must relate to one or more FEMP programs and/or priorities, and
target at least one

Federal facility. Each proposal should be formatted so that the
evaluation criteria is easily

applied, and include a detailed narrative, work plan, milestones, and
budget. Letters of support

are encouraged. Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals that
promote and facilitate:

o sustainable design and construction

o energy efficient operations and maintenance

o building measurement, verification and commissioning

o distributed and renewable energy

o renewable power purchases

o renewable technologies and the siting of renewable power on Federal
sites

o biomass, geothermal, distributed energy, combined heat & power
technologies

o assessment of load and energy reduction techniques - especially in
resource constrained

areas

o enhanced use of energy-efficient procurement and bulk purchase
guidelines/specifications

o incorporation of energy reliability and security plans

o coordination and integration of Federal, State, and local government
efforts in cost-

effective energy, utility, security, procurement, and communication
activities

o Federal/state/local outreach on any of the above

Evaluation Criteria

• How well and clearly the proposal supports FEMP mission and
priorities. 30

• Overall merit, impact and significance of benefits of the proposed
activities. 20

• Clearly stated objectives, measures of success, deliverables,
schedules. 10

• Viability of approach; probability of successful project completion.
10

• Capabilities and dedication of proposer\'s team (State staff and
partners) as 20

shown by education, experience and/or past performance.

• Level of cost-sharing partnerships. 10

Program Contacts

FEMP Representative at HQ: Beverly Dyer 202-586-7241
beverly.dyer@ee.doe.gov

FEMP Representatives at the Regional Offices:

Atlanta: Lisa Hollingsworth (404) 562-0569 lisa.hollingsworth@ee.doe.gov

Boston: Paul King (617) 565-9712 paul.king@ee.doe.gov

Chicago: Sharon Gill (312) 886-8573 sharon.gill@ee.doe.gov

Denver: Randy Jones (303) 275-4814 randy.jones@ee.doe.gov

Philadelphia: Claudia Marchione (215) 656-6967
claudia.marchione@ee.doe.gov

Seattle: Arun Jhaveri (206) 553-2152 arun.jhaveri@ee.doe.gov

6.5 POWER TECHNOLOGIES

6.51 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: UNINTERRUPTED POWER SOURCE (UPS)

Estimated Funds Available: \$200,000 - FY2002 (\$800,000 for
multi-years)

Estimated Number of Projects: 2 (NTE \$200,000 per year per awardee)

Anticipated Project Period: 2 years

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is required. For

example, where the total cost of the project is \$100,000, the

Federal share would not exceed \$50,000, and the awardee\'s

cost share would be at least \$50,000.

Cooperative Agreements/

Incremental Funding: Financial assistance resulting from this section of
the 2002

Special Projects Announcement will be in the form of

cooperative agreements. Projects will be incrementally

funded based on quarterly estimates provided by recipients

in their budgets.

Background:

The Hydrogen Program works with U.S. industry to develop hydrogen
technologies which will

improve our nation\'s energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and create business

opportunities for U.S. industry. The Program is directed by the Hydrogen
Future Act of 1996,

(Pub. L. 104-271), which requires the Department to ensure that research
and development

activities to bring hydrogen systems into the marketplace.

Due to the concern for grid reliability coupled with society\'s reliance
on a digital infrastructure,

there is a growing need for uninterruptible power sources (UPS) and
technology enabling peak

shaving for operation less than 240 hours per year. Distributed
generation sites utilizing

hydrogen fuel cells have the potential to fill this niche market. The
intention of these cooperative

agreements would be to fund a fuel cell 1-5 kilowatts in size with a
storage capacity of 50 hours.

The Department seeks to engage in collaborative efforts with the States
and the territories in the

siting and operation of such systems to better understand the
performance, maintenance,

operation and economic viability of these systems.

Objective

Cooperative agreements are available for the testing and evaluation of
fuel cells of approximately

1-5 kilowatts to provide power as an uninterruptible source and/or as a
peak shaving plant. This

system should be capable of beginning operation instantaneously during a
blackout or grid power

interruption. The system should be capable of maintaining digital
equipment with continuous

electrical supply. The systems\' safety considerations and operational
performance are an

important part of the evaluation process.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals will be ranked according to the following criteria:

Technical documentation that relates to achieving fuel cell systems
which are suitable for

UPS applications as described above and which can meet future cost
targets for 1-5 kilowatt

fuel cells at 10,000 units per year as a competitive uninterruptible
power source or peak

shaver. The discussion should include design considerations for a range
of loading times.(25

points).

Knowledge of building code requirements. (15 points)

Technical quality of plans for system design, operation and maintenance,
and safety.(30

points).

Market assessments, business plans and development of educational
material (15 points).

Cost sharing above 50% and costs of 2nd and 3rd units (15 points).

Program Contacts

Headquarters: Wash, DC Christopher Bordeaux (202) 586-3070

Regional Offices: Atlanta Warren Zurn (404) 347-1047

Boston Michael Scarpino (617) 565-9716

Chicago Mark Burger (312) 886-8583

Denver Gibson Asuquo (303) 275-4841

Philadelphia Maryanne Daniel (215) 656-6964

Seattle Roxanne Dempsey (206) 553-2155

6.52 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: POWER PARK

Estimated Funds Available: \$450,000 - FY2002 (\$3,000,000 for
multi-years)

Estimated Number of Projects: 1-3

Anticipated Project Period: 3 years

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is required. For

example, where the total cost of the project is \$100,000, the

Federal share would not exceed \$50,000, and the awardee\'s

cost share would be at least \$50,000.

Cooperative Agreements/

Incremental Funding: Financial assistance resulting from this section of
the 2002

Special Projects Announcement will be in the form of

cooperative agreements. Projects will be incrementally

funded based on quarterly estimates provided by recipients

in their budgets.

Background:

The Hydrogen Program works with U.S. industry to develop hydrogen
technologies which will

improve our nation\'s energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and create business

opportunities for U.S. industry. The Program is directed by the Hydrogen
Future Act of 1996,

(Pub. L. 104-271), which requires the Department to ensure that research
and development

activities to bring hydrogen systems into the marketplace.

Distributed power generation is increasingly viewed as an important
component of the future

electrical energy supply in the United States. As hydrogen technologies
become competitive

with conventional energy technologies, the hydrogen power park concept
is an important step

toward viability. The hydrogen 'power park\' concept is anticipated to
contribute to the mid-term

(from 5-10 years in the future) and long-term use of hydrogen as an
energy carrier. The power

park begins with natural gas reforming, municipal solid waste reforming,

or renewable electricity such as hydro power, wind, geothermal or solar
for the generation of

electricity and hydrogen to be stored. The purpose of this project is to
determine if the power

park concept of hydrogen production from natural gas or municipal solid
waste reforming

(continental U.S.) or renewable resources for islands, villages, and
remote areas is economically

viable as a clean technology that can co-produce hydrogen fuel for
hydrogen fuel cell cars.

The Department is particularly interested in the relevant codes, safety
standards and engineering

data that would be required to construct a power park. The Department
seeks to engage in

collaborative efforts with the states and the territories in the siting
and operation of such systems

to better understand the performance, maintenance, operation and
economic viability of these

systems.

Objective:

Demonstrate a power park that uses hydrogen as an energy carrier, where
an electrolyzer would

supply hydrogen for islands, villages or remote areas using electricity
(from renewable energy

power sources such as hydropower, wind, or geothermal), or natural gas
would supply hydrogen

in the continental U.S. The hydrogen would then be used in a 25-75 kW
fuel cell or an

environmentally acceptable hydrogen or hydrogen/natural gas internal
combustion engine (ICE)

to generate electricity which would power a building complex or
industrial facility. On off peak

hours the electrolyzer could also produce hydrogen and store it for use
in automobiles equipped

with fuel cells or hydrogen internal combustion engines. The envisioned
facility would be

capable of providing electric power and heat to a building complex or
industrial facility by

means a fuel cell or ICE and delivered hydrogen compressed and stored
for fueling of vehicles.

This project could also analyze the system design of fuel cells for the
power park versus the

automobile fuel cells to determine the design differences and life cycle
cost of the automotive

fuel cell system. Explanation of the differences should also examine the
mission of the

automotive fuel cells as uninterruptible power sources (UPS) or peaking
power sources (e.g., 1

hour per day).

The Department is particularly interested in the cost benefit analysis
vis a vis pollution non

attainment areas and the economic incentives to meet attainment goals.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals will be ranked according to the following criteria:

Technical documentation that relates to future cost targets for fuel
cells or hydrogen ICE

systems that are competitive with future distributed energy generation
applications with

consideration to non-attainment areas (35 points).

Technical quality of plans for system design, operation, maintenance and
safety performance

in relation to building codes and standards (35 points).

Market assessments, business plans and development of educational
materials (15 points).

Cost sharing above 50% (10 points).

Analysis of design differences for a regenerative fuel cell system (25
and 75 kW) between

stationary plant and automotive fuel cells (5 points).

Program Contacts

Headquarters: Wash, DC Christopher Bordeaux (202) 586-3070

Regional Offices: Atlanta Warren Zurn (404) 347-1047

Boston Michael Scarpino (617) 565-9716

Chicago Mark Burger (312) 886-8583

Denver Gibson Asuquo (303) 275-4841

Philadelphia Maryanne Daniel (215) 656-6964

Seattle Roxanne Dempsey (206) 553-2155

6.53 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: COMPRESSORS, STORAGE AND DISPENSERS

Estimated Funds Available: \$350,000 - FY2002 (\$1,500,000 for
multi-years)

Estimated Number of Projects: 2-3

Anticipated Project Period: 2 years

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is required. For

example, where the total cost of the project is \$100,000, the

Federal share would not exceed \$50,000, and the awardee\'s

cost share would be at least \$50,000.

Cooperative Agreements/

Incremental Funding: Financial assistance resulting from this section of
the 2002

Special Projects Announcement will be in the form of

cooperative agreements. Projects will be incrementally

funded based on quarterly estimates provided by recipients

in their budgets.

Background:

The Hydrogen Program works with U.S. industry to develop hydrogen
technologies which will

improve our nation\'s energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and create business

opportunities for U.S. industry. The Program is directed by the Hydrogen
Future Act of 1996,

(Pub. L. 104-271), which requires the Department to ensure that research
and development

activities to bring hydrogen systems into the marketplace.

The interface between a hydrogen generation system and the storage and
delivery mechanismneeds to be demonstrated to collect valuable
experience for safety considerations and public

education purposes. Such an integrated system would fill fuel cell or
internal combustion engine

vehicles, (for example 3 buses or 10 to 30 automobiles) at a facility
where operation and

maintenance can be monitored and recorded. Cascaded tanks should be
given consideration.

The Department seeks to engage in collaborative efforts with the states
and the territories in the

siting and operation of such systems to better understand the
performance, maintenance,

operation and economic viability of these systems.

Objective:

Test the ability of a hydrogen generation system to fill busses and or
light and heavy duty vehicle

storage tanks. The system shall include a compressor from a Pressure
Swing Absorption (PSA)

unit from a reformer with hydrogen gas at 250 psi, to a set of storage
tanks and compressors that

are capable of refueling up to 3 buses with 40 kg of hydrogen each at
5,000 psi. The dispenser

shall be able to fill each bus in 15 minutes or each automobile in 3-5
minutes and be user

friendly.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals will be ranked according to the following criteria:

Technical documentation as it relates to the design to achieve
compressor technology as

described. The discussion should include efficiency paralytic power and
partial load

consideration.(20 points).

Technical quality of plans for system design, operation, maintenance,
and safety performance

(35 points).

A design rationale that properly balances capital cost versus operating
cost to fill 3 buses per

day (20 points).

Market assessments, business plans and development of educational
materials (10 points).

Cost sharing above 50% (10 points).

Previously demonstrated compressor technology (5 points)

Program Contacts

Headquarters: Christopher Bordeaux (202) 586-3070

Regional Offices: Atlanta Warren Zurn (404) 347-1047

Boston Michael Scarpino (617) 565-9716

Chicago Mark Burger (312) 886-8583

Denver Gibson Asuquo (303) 275-4841

Philadelphia Maryanne Daniel (215) 656-6964

Seattle Roxanne Dempsey (206) 553-2155

6.54 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: SOLAR POWERED SECURITY

Estimated Funds Available: \$200,000

Estimated Number of Projects: Up to 4

Geographical Limitation: None

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is

encouraged.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project

shall not exceed \$100,000.

Background:

Sensors and controls have become a very important and timely technology
in our war against

terrorism today. Sensing and early detection of security penetration is
now an utmost priority in

every facet of our daily lives. Photovoltaics (PV), by its very nature,
can add unlimited

versatility to such protection and must be included in this project.
Application should focus on

protecting and safeguarding our power delivery infrastructure.

Projects Requested in 2002

Under this category, grants are available to focus on developing
PV-powered application

hardware for protecting our power delivery systems (e.g. pipelines, and
national grid). Selection

of technical protection methodology is not narrowed to a specific area
of application and is open

for proposer\'s suggestion. The protective devices should be
integratable and function as a

system deployment with full inter/intra communication capabilities.

Evaluation Criteria:

1\. Partnerships with utilities are encouraged in order to ensure their
buy-in into the technology.

(20 pts)

2\. Experience of the project team, including knowledge of sensors,
controls and photovoltaics.

(20 pts)

3\. Opportunity for replication: projects that can be readily replicated
nationwide.(20 pts)

4\. Security benefits: projects should address the national impacts
resulting from integrated

technology deployments (40 pts)

Points of Contact:

Headquarters: Dan Ton (202) 586-4618

Office of Solar Energy Technology

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Dwight Bailey (404) 562-0564

Boston: Richard Michaud (617) 565-9713

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle: Heather Mulligan (206) 553-7693

6.55 POWER TECHNOLOGIES:

SOLAR SCHOOLS DEMONSTRATION and EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH

Estimated Funds Available: \$300,000

Estimated Number of Projects: Up to 6

Geographical Limitation: None

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is

required.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project

shall not exceed \$100,000.

Background:

There are hundreds of schools with solar energy systems (usually solar
hot water systems or

solar electricity in the form of photovoltaics) all across the country.
Some of these systems are

visible and are used as teaching tools and incorporated into the
curriculum. More of them are

less visible, quietly generating hot water or electricity for the
school, unnoticed by the students

and staff.

Projects Requested in 2002

Under this category, grants are available for \"Schools Going Solar\" by
incorporating new solar

energy generation into their schools energy mix and incorporating
learning about solar and

renewables into the curriculum in the State. States are encouraged to
coordinate with the Million

Solar Roofs partnership(s) and the electric utilities in their State and
visit the schools going solar

(www.schoolsgoingsolar.org) website to learn what teaching tools others
have already

developed.

Evaluation Criteria:

Demonstrated partnership with State and/or local Million Solar Roofs
partnerships, local

solar installers, utility, university, or state research center. (30%)

Demonstration of incorporation of lessons learned and tools developed
during prior

projects into project planning. (30%)

Opportunity for replication: solar outreach program designs that can be
readily replicated

statewide, regionally or nationwide. (20%)

Feasibility of the project, relevance of the project objectives, and a
reasonable method

outlined to objectively measure the results of the project. (20%)

Points of Contact:

Headquarters: Lynne Gillette (202) 586-1495

Office of Solar Energy Technology

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Dwight Bailey (404) 562-0564

Boston: Richard Michaud (617) 565-9713

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle: Heather Mulligan (206) 553-7693

6.56 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: ZERO ENERGY HOMES

Estimated Funds Available: \$200,000

Estimated Number of Projects Up to 4

Geographical Limitation None

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is required.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project shall not

exceed \$100,000

Background

The Office of Solar Energy Technology works with designers and
homebuilders to introduce the

Zero Energy Home (ZEH) concept to the new home construction industry and
to meet the State

or local commitments to the Million Solar Roofs initiative. The goal of
the Zero Energy Home

program is to optimize high performance energy-efficient buildings,
appliances, advanced

controls, and renewable energy technologies to build a new generation of
cost-effective buildings

that have a zero net need for offsite energy by 2010. Today\'s
marketable Zero Energy Homes

will more than cut the annual utility bill by 50 percent and include
solar electric, passive solar,

and solar water heaters.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has selected four Zero
Energy Teams,

which are assisting production homebuilders to design and build
marketable Zero Energy

Homes. In addition, many States now provide net metering, renewable
portfolio standards, or

solar tax credits that may assist in developing a ZEH project.

Projects Requested in 2002

Under this category, grants are available to design, build and showcase
one or more currently

marketable Zero Energy Homes in conjunction with a local homebuilder,
and/or local

homebuilder association, university, utility, Million Solar Roofs
partnership, State research

center; develop regional designs and/or provide design assistance for
Zero Energy Homes;

provide State outreach activities on ZEH projects designed for
production builders; or provide

ZEH outreach or technical assistance at regional or national homebuilder
meetings.

States and builders should consider best practices in energy efficient
home design combined with

passive solar, solar water heaters and solar electric. These Zero Energy
Homes would be

expected to reduce utility bills by at least 50 percent of the local
norm.

Evaluation Criteria:

1\. Partnership with Million Solar Roofs partnership, homebuilder(s),
homebuilder

association, utility, university, or state research center. (30%)

2\. Partnership with NREL Zero Energy Home design team or experience of
project team,

including knowledge of energy efficient building practices and solar
designs. (30%)

3\. Opportunity for replication: designs that can be readily replicated
statewide, regionally or

nationwide. (20%)

4\. Projected percent energy savings vs standard building code
requirements. (20%)

Points of Contact:

Headquarters: Glenn Strahs (202) 586-2305 Office of Solar Energy
Technology

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Dwight Bailey (404) 562-0564

Boston: Richard Michaud (617) 565-9713

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle: Heather Mulligan (206) 553-7693

6.57 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: MILLION SOLAR ROOFS INITIATIVE:

SMALL GRANT PROGRAM FOR STATE PARTNERSHIPS

Estimated Funds Available: \$500,000

Estimated Number of Projects: Up to 15

Geographical Limitation: None

Cost Share: Cost share is encouraged, but not required.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project

shall not exceed \$50,000.

Background:

In this section DOE, is soliciting Applications for Million Solar Roofs
Initiative State Partnerships. The

goal of DOE through this Solicitation is to assist Million Solar Roofs
Initiative (MSR) State Partnerships

in developing and implementing programs to further the use of solar
energy on buildings. DOE intends

to provide financial support to identified Partnerships to eliminate
barriers and implement programs to

further the use of solar energy systems on buildings under provisions of
the Solar Photovoltaic Energy

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978, as amended, and
the Energy Policy Act of 1992

(EPAct): Public Law 102-486. This is not a solicitation for research,
development or demonstration.

DOE will only consider proposals from interested State Partnerships to
help fund their MSR program

development and implementation activities.

\[Note: Million Solar Roofs Local Partnerships are invited to submit
proposals to DOE

SOLICITATION NUMBER DE-PS36-02GO92005 - see http://e-center.doe.gov/ for
details.\]

The Department of Energy\'s MSR Initiative is an initiative to support
State and Local Partnerships that

agree to install solar energy systems on one million buildings in the
United States (U.S.) by 2010. This

effort includes two types of solar energy technology: 1) solar electric
(photovoltaic) systems that produce

electricity from sunlight, and 2) solar thermal systems panels that
produce heat for domestic hot water,

for space heating or for heating swimming pools.

The overall goal of this solicitation is to assist State Partnerships in
contributing to the installation of one

million solar energy systems on U.S. rooftops by the year 2010. These
Partnerships bring together

business, government and community organizations at the regional level
with a commitment to install a

pre-determined number (at least 500) of solar energy systems.

There were fifty-seven such existing partnerships under the MSR
Initiative, as of October 1, 2001. They

received their MSR Partnership designation by writing a letter of
commitment to DOE with their goal for

actual installations by 2010. In return, DOE provides access to:
training and technical assistance from

DOE; recognition, outreach tools, support; and opportunities to
interface with other partnerships, solar

energy businesses, associations and related industries that can provide
assistance (via national and

regional Million Solar Roofs meetings). New MSR Partnerships can declare
their intent to join the

Initiative by including such a letter with their application for this
solicitation. A complete description of

partnerships and their representative activities can be found in
Appendix A and on the MSR website at

http://www.MillionSolarRoofs.org

The DOE Regional Offices will manage the resultant projects. (Refer to
Appendix B). DOE intends to

allocate a portion of total available funding to each of the six DOE
regions based on a formula that

considers number of applications, and a balanced regional distribution.

The project or activity must be conducted in a designated MSR State
Partnership area. Each partnership

may submit only one application. There is no cost sharing requirement
for these grants, although cost

sharing will be one of the criteria considered.

Projects Requested in 2002

Proposals under this solicitation must further the work of State
Partnerships, including partners in the

building industry, state and local governments, utilities, the solar
energy industry, financial institutions

and non-governmental organizations, to remove market barriers to solar
energy use and to develop and

strengthen local demand for solar energy products and applications.

Successful applications shall demonstrate the potential for catalyzing
market demand in local areas

through the elimination of market barriers to the use of solar energy
systems. Applicants shall have

established or formed State Partnerships to conduct their MSR program
development and

implementation activities. Viability of the partnership to eliminate
market barriers for the use of solar

energy systems on buildings will be a major factor in selecting projects
for award under this solicitation.

Applicants should propose a viable plan for addressing barriers, which
inhibit local market penetration

and a strategy for strengthening local demand for solar energy products
and applications. For Applicants

to become an MSR Partnership and be considered for award under this
solicitation, they must possess the

capabilities and resources to install a minimum of 500 solar energy
systems by 2010.

There are two types of grants available. Phase 1 - New Partnership
grants and Phase 2 - Meeting the

Commitment grants. Only one application may be submitted per partnership
in one or the other of the

categories, but not both. Partnerships that have been awarded prior MSR
partnership grants in the past

may not apply for a Phase 1 - New Partnership grant. Newly formed or
existing partnerships that have

not received prior MSR grants may apply for a Phase 1 - New Partnership
grant. Any partnership with

the prerequisites may apply for a Phase 2 - Meeting the Commitment
grant.

Funds from this solicitation may not be used to purchase solar energy
systems hardware.

Under either type of grant, if an Applicant plans to enter into a
relationship with a DOE National

Laboratory, the work scope must be identified as a separate task on the
Statement of Work and related

cost must be specifically identified in the budget (refer to Section
II.M).

Phase 1 - New Partnership Grant

Each collaborative project shall involve, as a minimum, the development
and implementation of a

strategy for addressing barriers, which inhibit local market
penetration, and development of an

implementation plan for the installation of solar energy technology in
their local communities.

During the grant period, each Partnership awarded a grant will develop
and/or complete an

implementation plan for solar energy installations under the MSR
Initiative and will implement a process

to track solar energy systems installed. The implementation plan will
outline the process they will

follow to meet their pre-determined goals for solar energy installations
in their community. The

implementation plan might include steps that must be taken to remove
existing barriers, educate citizens,

establish a supporting infrastructure, etc. The implementation plan will
be the final product of the Phase

1 grants.

The following noncomprehensive list provides examples of types of
activities a Partnership may consider

including in their application for a new grant:

1\) Address the Localized Barriers to Solar Energy Applications

Barriers can include restrictive codes and standards, lack of public
awareness and education, prohibitive

interconnection standards applied by energy service providers, lack of
adequate financing options, and

more. A community may choose to address one, or any combination of these
issues depending on their

local situation.

2\) Develop Education or Outreach Tools

Some partnerships find that in order to get broad based community
support, they need education and or

outreach tools or materials that don\'t currently exist. A partnership
may choose to develop new tools

(such as working solar house models, displays, interactive exhibits,
websites, publications, videos, media

packets) in order to meet Partnership objectives.

3\) Develop And/Or Modify Codes and Covenants That Affect Solar Energy
Installations

Many communities or developments have adopted restrictions that make it
difficult or impossible for a

homeowner to install solar energy systems on their roof. A partnership
may choose to work with

community groups, local governments, and/or developers to address these
unnecessary restrictions.

4\) Outreach or Training for the Building Community

Providing information and education on the solar energy technologies,
and how efficiency measures

enhance the use of solar making it possible for buildings to be zero
(net) consumers of externally

supplied energy, can be an effective way to earn the support of building
related businesses and officials.

A partnership may identify one or more groups of professionals as a
priority for training and education.

Phase 2 - Meeting the Commitment Grant

The following list of prerequisites for Phase 2 grants must be provided
with the application:

1\) Completed Implementation Plan;

2\) Description of the process for tracking solar energy systems
installed in the partnership area;

3\) Recent accounting of the number of systems installed in the
partnership area by year, system

type and size; and

4\) Copy of all past partnership summary reports submitted to the
project manager in the DOE

Regional Office.

The focus for Phase 2 grants is on driving progress toward installation
goals. During the grant

period, each Partnership awarded a grant will implement a set of
activities specifically designed to

stimulate increases in solar installations in their area. The case
should be made in the application that the

project would increase the number of solar installations. A concrete
method or process for measuring the

success or results of the activity should be fully described in the
application. The final product of the

Phase 2 grants will be an implementation report describing the
activities and assessing the degree of

success. This report will include an accounting of the number of systems
by year, system type and size

at the end of the grant period.

The following noncomprehensive list provides examples of types of
activities a Partnership may

consider including in their application for either type of grant:

1\) Address the Localized Barriers to Solar Energy Applications

Barriers can include restrictive codes and standards, lack of public
awareness and education, prohibitive

interconnection standards applied by energy service providers, lack of
adequate financing options, and

more. A community may choose to address one, or any combination of these
issues depending on their

local situation.

2\) Support Net Metering for Photovoltaics (PV)

Net metering improves the economics of PV generation by allowing
customers to capture the retail value

of electricity for most or all of their PV generation. It is already an
option in many states. States and

communities might identify implementation of net metering as a critical
issue to address in order to

improve the economics of PV in their area.

3\) Develop Education or Outreach Tools

Some partnerships find that in order to get broad based community
support, they need education and or

outreach tools or materials that don\'t currently exist. A partnership
may choose to develop new tools

(such as working solar house models, displays, interactive exhibits,
websites, publications, videos, media

packets) in order to meet Partnership objectives.

4\) Develop And/Or Modify Codes and Covenants That Affect Solar Energy
Installations

Many communities or developments have adopted restrictions that make it
difficult or impossible for a

homeowner to install solar energy systems on their roof. A partnership
may choose to work with

community groups, local governments, and/or developers to address these
unnecessary restrictions.

5\) Outreach or Training for the Building Community

Providing information and education on the solar energy technologies,
and how efficiency measures

enhance the use of solar making it possible for buildings to be zero
(net) consumers of externally

supplied energy, can be an effective way to earn the support of building
related businesses and officials.

A partnership may identify one or more groups of professionals as a
priority for training and education.

6\) Local Zero or Near Zero Energy Home or Building Initiative

Partnerships in communities experiencing high rates of growth may wish
to focus on encouraging local

builders to offer a zero or near zero energy homes or buildings to their
customers. The combination of

energy efficient building design (including passive solar design),
lighting, appliances, insulation with

solar energy systems for electricity, heat and hot water, leads to a
home or building that on average uses

little or no more energy than the home generated for its own use.

Special Eligibility Requirements

Eligibility for award of a MSR/SEP Special Projects grant is restricted
to MSR State Partnerships

recognized as such by the U.S. Department of Energy at the time of
submission of application. A

description of these partnerships and the process for receiving DOE
recognition is included in Appendix

A. Applicants who are currently not recognized as a MSR State and
Community Partnership must attach

a letter to the Application in accordance with Attachment A in order to
be considered for evaluation. All

applicants submitting letters that meet the minimum requirements in
Appendix A to establish

partnerships will be reviewed by DOE to determine eligibility to receive
an award.

Evaluation Criteria:

Phase 1 - New Partnership grants: The following is a listing of the
factors which will be considered in

evaluation and award of Phase 1 - New Partnership grants.

Criteria 1: Relevance to the Million Solar Roofs Initiative Objectives
Weight 20%

Evaluation of this section will be based on the relevance of the
proposed project: 1) to meet the

community\'s stated MSR goal, and 2) to meet the overall objectives and
development of MSR

nationwide.

Criteria 2: Evidence of Million Solar Roofs Leadership and Commitment
and Public Participation

Weight 30%

Evaluation of this section will be based on the: 1) evidence of strong
leadership, public involvement and

community commitment, 2) level of participation and commitments by
project partners, and 3) extent of

integration with other DOE and other Federal agency community
activities.

Criteria 3: Applicant and Participant Roles, Capabilities and
Organization Weight 30%

Evaluation of this section will be based on: 1) adequacy of the project
management plan, with respect to

proposed tasks and organizational structure, to achieve project
objectives; 2) capabilities of the Applicant

and Participants to comprehensively address all aspects of proposed
project; 3) adequacy of resources to

accommodate the proposed project; and 4) qualifications and experience
of key personnel.

Criteria 4: Statement of Work Weight 20%

Evaluation of this section will be based on: 1) adequacy and
completeness of the Statement of Work, and

2\) adequacy of the information presented for achieving project
objectives through realistic milestones

and logical task structure.

Phase 2 - Meeting the Commitment grants: The following is a listing of
the factors, which will be

considered in evaluation and award of Phase 2 Partnership grants.

Criteria 1: Existing Implementation Plan Quality and Relevance to the
Million Solar Roofs

Initiative Objectives Weight 20%

Evaluation of this section will be based on the quality and relevance of
the Partnership implementation

plan completed prior to application for this grant. Quality will be
judged by the following criteria:

clarity, completeness, adequacy of the planned activities to meet the
community\'s stated MSR goal, and

to meet the overall objectives and development of MSR nationwide.

Criteria 2: Evidence of Million Solar Roofs Leadership and Commitment
and Public Participation

Weight 10%

Evaluation of this section will be based on the: 1) evidence of strong
leadership, public involvement and

community commitment, 2) level of participation and commitments by
project partners, and 3) extent of

integration (and familiarity) with other DOE and other Federal agency
community activities.

Criteria 3: Potential to Benefit Other Million Solar Roofs Partnerships
Weight 10%

Evaluation of this section will be based on the 1) extent to which
future Partnerships can learn from and

model their actions after the community, and 2) quality of the project
plan section outlining how results

of the project will be shared with other partnerships.

Criteria 4: Potential Benefits and Plan for Measuring Benefits Weight
30%

Evaluation of this section will be based on: 1) the quality of the plan
for measuring and evaluating

success of the project, 2) the potential for the project to lead to
additional solar energy system

installations, and 3) the likelihood that project will be successful.

Criteria 5: Applicant and Participant Roles, Capabilities, Performance
and Organization

Weight 10%

Evaluation of this section will be based on: 1) adequacy of the project
management plan, with respect to

proposed tasks and organizational structure, to achieve project
objectives; 2) capabilities of the Applicant

and Participants to comprehensively address all aspects of proposed
project; 3) adequacy of resources to

accommodate the proposed project; 4) qualifications and experience of
key personnel, and 5) evidence of

past MSR grant performance (prior summary reports submitted to the
Regional Million Solar Roofs

Program Manager would suffice as evidence.)

Criteria 6: Statement of Work Weight 20%

Evaluation of this section will be based on: 1) adequacy and
completeness of the Statement of Work, and

2\) adequacy of the information presented for achieving project
objectives through realistic milestones

and logical task structure.

Program Policy Factors

After the comprehensive evaluations are completed for all competing
Applications, DOE will apply

Program Policy Factors. The purpose of considering these factors is to
maximize the effective use of

available Government funding. These factors will be considered by the
Selection Official to ensure that

the program, as a whole, meets the goals of the issuing Program Office
and is consistent with EERE\'s

mission. The factors to be applied are:

· Geographical Diversity

· Project Diversity

· Cost-Share

· Economic and community development benefits, including the
facilitation of energy efficiency

and renewable energy use: (1) in \"empowerment zones\" (those areas
identified by the Department of

Commerce as \"historically underutilized business zones\"); (2) in
brownfields (abandoned, idled, or

under-used industrial and commercial sites where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or

perceived environmental contamination); (3) in \"brightfields\" (the
application of solar technologies on

brownfields); or (4) in American Heritage River communities; and

· Availability of Funds

Points of Contact:

Headquarters: Lynne Gillette (202) 586-1495

Office of Solar Energy Technology

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Dwight Bailey (404) 562-0564

Boston: Richard Michaud (617) 565-9713

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Susan Guard (215) 656-6965

Seattle: Heather Mulligan (206) 553-7693

APPENDIX A - STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIP DESCRIPTION

Million Solar Roofs State and Local Partnerships

What is a State and Local Partnership. The Million Solar Roofs (MSR)
Initiative is designed to support

states and local communities as they develop a strong commitment to the
sustained deployment of solar

energy technologies. In order to insure positive and productive results,
the MSR resources are focused

on those areas which have formed strong state or local partnerships
which serve as the focal point for

solar activity in that area. Million Solar Roofs State and Local
Partnerships are collaborative ventures

that bring together business, government, the energy industry and
community organizations \-- each

individual entity being recognized as a member and partner \-- with a
commitment to install a set number

of solar energy systems. Examples of state and local partners who could
participate in a State and Local

Partnership include the following:

o Builders

o Energy service providers

o Utilities

o Non-governmental organizations

o Local governments

o State governments

Becoming a State and Local Partnership. To become a MSR State and Local
Partnership, any

state or local entity, on behalf of a specific Partnership, must send a
letter to the MSR Coordinator,

expressing their commitment to the Initiative\'s objectives, describing
the general nature of the partnership

and its membership and indicating their goal for the specific number of
qualified solar energy systems to

be installed on buildings in their community by 2010. As a minimum,
partnerships must commit to

installing 500 solar energy systems by 2010.

In addition, Partnerships are asked to develop a draft plan for meeting
their installation goals

under the Initiative. Partnerships are encouraged to base their plans
for deployment on local values in

relation to the technologies\' unique applications and operational
attributes. Examples of activities the

MSR State and Local Partnerships may undertake as part of their plan
include the following:

o Committing state and local government actions to overcome barriers to
solar energy and energy

efficiency applications in buildings;

o Identifying financial incentives for solar energy installations;

o Establishing net metering for photovoltaics;

o Developing and/or modifying codes and standards that affect solar
energy installations;

o Implementing training programs for building officials, the
construction industry, solar energy

system installers, and utility personnel;

o Providing outreach support for solar energy and energy efficiency;

o Taking part in national information sharing, peer-to-peer exchanges,
and cooperative research

and training projects;

o Connecting the MSR Initiative with other sustainable community
initiatives.

Partnership Support. In return for their commitment, the Department of
Energy, through its

network of Regional Offices will coordinate and provide support for the
State and Local Partnerships in

their area. This might include the following:

o Access to the MSR Small Grants program for State and Local
Partnerships;

o Training, technical assistance, outreach tools and information from
DOE\'s Regional Offices; the

program staffs of DOE\'s Offices of Power Technologies and Building
Technology, State and Community

Programs; the DOE Federal Energy Management Program; and the DOE
national laboratories;

o Recognition and support on a national, regional, and local basis;

o Linkage with other partnerships, solar energy businesses,
associations, and related industries that

can provide assistance to local partnerships and others interested in
solar energy applications.

APPENDIX B - MILLION SOLAR ROOFS REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACTS

For general information on the MSR Initiative, contact the Regional
Office contact listed in Appendix B

or visit the MSR website at http://www.MillionSolarRoofs.org for
additional information on the

Initiative.

Atlanta Regional Office

Dwight Bailey

75 Spring Street, Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30303-3308

phone: (404) 562-0564

fax: (404) 562-0537

email: dwight.bailey@ee.doe.gov

Southeast Region: FL, GA, SC, NC, AL, MS, KY, TN, AR, USVI, PR

Boston Regional Office

Richard Michaud

JFK Federal Building

Room 675

Boston, MA 02203-0002

phone: (617) 565-9713

fax: (617) 565-9723

email: richard.michaud@ee.doe.gov

Northeast Region: CT, ME, MA, NH, NY, VT, RI

Chicago Regional Office

Bill Hui

One South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

phone: (312) 886-8586 - Hui

fax: (312) 886-8561

email: william.hui@ee.doe.gov

Region: IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI

Denver Regional Office

Jamey Evans

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-2266

phone: (303) 275-4813

fax: (303) 275-4830

email: jamey.evans@ee.doe.gov

Region: CO, KS, LA, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, UT, WY

Philadelphia Regional Office

Susan Guard

1880 John F. Kennedy Blvd.

Suite 501

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7483

phone: (215) 656-6965

fax: (215) 656-6981

email: susan.guard@ee.doe.gov

Region: DE, DC, MD, NJ, PA, VA, WV

Seattle Regional Office

Heather Mulligan

800 Fifth Ave., Suite 3950

Seattle, Washington 98104-3122

phone: (206) 553-7693

fax: (206) 553-2200

email: heather.mulligan@ee.doe.gov

Northwest Region: AK, WA, ID, OR, CA, NV, AZ, HI, Pacific Territories

6.58 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: STATE WIND ENERGY SUPPORT

Legislation: Wind Energy activities are authorized under the Renewable
Energy and Energy

Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, P.L. 101-218; and the
Energy Policy Act of

1992, P.L. 102-486, Title XII.

Estimated Funds Available: \$770,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 12-15

Geographical Limitation: None.

Cost Share: At least a 25% non-Federal cost share is required; 50

percent is desired.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project shall not
exceed

\$75,000.

Background:

State Wind Resource Assessment

Knowledge of the wind resource is the first and often most important
step toward wind

development. Wind resource information helps not only landowners and
developers, but also

helps elected and appointed officials recognize the significant economic
benefit potential of their

state\'s wind resources. While a U.S. Wind Resource Atlas published
in1987 provides some

broad estimate of wind resources, modern methods and new meteorological
databases now

enable analysts to develop more accurate and detailed regional wind
maps. In addition, new

geographic information system (GIS) technologies enable producing maps
with transmission

grids, roads, county boundaries, federal/state/Native American lands,
and geographical features.

Tall Tower Wind Assessment

A significant uncertainty affecting wind power development is wind
resource behavior with

increasing height, as successive generations of wind turbines become
larger. Typical hub-heights

of large utility-scale wind turbines are now in the range of 70 to 90 m.
Researchers are now

using meso-scale numerical weather modeling techniques to estimate wind
speeds at heights in

this range, but at present there is little measurement data available
from heights above 40 to 50 m

that can be used to validate these higher level estimates. Tall tower
data is needed for this

validation, as well as for examining the wind shear (i.e., variation of
the wind resource with

height) between low levels and increasing hub-heights of large wind
turbines. Tall tower data

from the Great Plains would also be useful in determining the effect of
low-level jets on the wind

resource throughout this area. The low-level jet phenomena consists of a
layer of strong winds

centered a few hundred meters above ground level. It reaches its maximum
strength at night and

occurs from Texas to the Canadian border. Further data is needed to
understand how far down

jets extend toward the surface during the night, and how that affects
wind resource

characterizations.

Small Wind System Support

There is an important opportunity for homeowners, ranchers, farmers, and
some institutions to

install small wind (100kW or less) systems for a wide range of
applications. Some States have

recognized the value of small wind systems and have developed
incentives, including net

metering, buy-downs, and tax credits. The DOE Wind Program has developed
a small wind

guidebook to help the users evaluate the opportunity for small wind
applications, and has worked

with state energy officials to customize the guide for state-specific
wind resources, incentives,

and contact information. However, additional barriers confront the
broader use of small wind

systems, including lack of support mechanisms in many States, local
zoning and permitting

requirements, grid interconnect requirements, and general knowledge of
small wind system costs,

benefits, and applicability.

Projects Requested in 2002

Proposals are sought in States suitable for wind development to
undertake the above activities

aimed at wind resource assessment and small wind system support.
Proposals are being sought

generally from States that have little wind development and good wind
resources. Proposals

from all States will be considered based on ranking according to the
evaluation criteria below and

availability of funds. Wind energy staff at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL)

will be available to provide further information related to the
activities detailed above.

For wind resource assessment activities, States are encouraged to work
with appropriate

consulting and/or educational institutions to ensure quality of data
collection, analysis, and

reporting. Resources such as the \"Wind Resource Assessment Handbook\"
that is available on

the NWTC web site (www.nrel.gov/wind) can be useful in aiding these
institutions with their

tasks. The raw and quality-assured data should be provided to NREL so
that data can be

archived and available to the larger wind community. Data may be kept
confidential for one

year, if requested.

State Wind Resource Assessment

Proposal are sought to increase the knowledge of the wind resource at
the state level. States

should form partnerships with universities, colleges, industry,
utilities, landowners and

renewable energy advocates as appropriate to develop a plan for
implementation of a wind

resource assessment program, including solicitation of participants and
sites, site visits and

selection, installation, data collection, analyses and reporting. The
program should be undertaken

with the aim of using the data to produce a wind resource map for the
state that can include

overlay with existing transmission grids, roads, county boundaries,
federal/state/Native American

lands, and geographical features. (Estimated DOE funding: \$300,000)

Tall Tower Wind Assessment

The Department seeks better information on the U.S. wind resource at
levels above normal

measurements, often capped at 60 meters. States are requested to propose
instrumentation of

existing tall towers (100 meters or taller preferred) for one year of
measurements at three heights,

using duplicate anemometers at each location to avoid tower shadow.
Proposals are sought in

areas suitable for potential wind development with trees and/or rolling
type terrain, or other areas

where wind shear is a consideration, such as in Great Plains States
where the low-level jet is

expected to be a significant factor. Areas of the first type include the
Northeast and upper

Midwest regions of the United States. Key States in these regions
include New York,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Iowa and Missouri.

States in the latter type of areas include Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Minnesota, Nebraska, and

North and South Dakota. Proposals from other States are permitted, and
may be supported based

on ranking according to the evaluation criteria below and availability
of funds.

Meteorological staff at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will be
available for technical

assistance in selection of instrumentation, siting and subsequent data
processing. The cost of

instrumenting, retrieving, and analyzing data from a single existing
tall tower, such as

communication tower, is estimated to be about \$20,000-\$25,000 for one
year. This cost includes

redundant wind measurement equipment at three levels. (Estimated DOE
funding: \$300,000)

Small Wind System Support

Proposals are sought to undertake activities to support increased use of
small wind systems

(100kW or less) and associated applications. Proposals should focus on
activities to identify and

address barriers to installation of small wind systems, including lack
of state support

mechanisms, local zoning and permitting requirements, grid interconnect
requirements, and

general knowledge of small wind system costs and benefits; on new
applications for small wind

systems, including irrigation and pumping, peak shaving, and on-site
generation for federal

facilities and parks; and on incorporation of small wind systems into
utility programs to meet

increasing electricity demand. (Estimated DOE funding: \$170,000)

Proposals

Each proposal must include a detailed description, a time line and a
budget, itemized by task.

Proposals should be formatted to make the following required items easy
to locate and the

evaluation criteria, related to those requirements, easy to apply. The
proposal should be

formatted in 12 point font and not exceed 10 pages in length. All pages
must be numbered.

Proposals must include:

1\. Technical Narrative. Describe the project, including how information
resources will be

selected, reviewed, and evaluated, and how the final results will be
presented. Identify the desired

outcome, results and benefits. Describe the steps to be taken to achieve
the desired goals. In

addition, all deliverables should be identified.

2\. Workplan and Milestones. Describe how the proposed project will be
developed and

implemented. Identify goals using measurable results and provide a
schedule for completion.

Identify facilities, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary
for this project. Explain

the relationship (if any) to any DOE financial assistance previously
received.

3\. Qualifications and Accomplishments. Identify and describe lead
agency, key personnel and

other partners, including their qualifications, experience and expertise
as it relates to successfully

carrying out this project. If the applicant has received previous
financial assistance from DOE

relating to wind energy support activities, describe the progress and
accomplishments to date in

meeting the goals established for any such previous awards.

4\. Innovative and Technology Transfer Elements. Describe any unique or
innovative

components of this project. Describe any components of the program that
will expedite the

development and sharing of information about wind energy in other States
or regions or the

transfer of information or techniques to other States or regions.

Special Conditions

The grantee is required to submit a final report summarizing all work
completed under this

project. Include in the final report the dates of significant events,
major accomplishments and

benefits of the project, and key products produced.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals in each category will be ranked according to the
following criteria:

1\. Expected project contribution to improved understanding and outreach
regarding wind

energy resources, applications, and benefits, and overcoming barriers to
wind

development. (30 points)

2\. Technical quality of proposed work plan for the project (30 points)

3\. Capabilities and experience of the project team for completing
proposed work plan

(20 points)

4\. Cost sharing above 25 percent (20 points).

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Phil Dougherty (202) 586-4780

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Dwight Bailey (404) 347-0234

Boston: Richard Michaud (617) 565-9713

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Steve Palomo (303) 275-4838

Philadelphia: Maryanne Daniel (215) 656-6964

Seattle: Curtis Framel: (206) 553-7841

6.59 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: Distributed Energy Resources Electrical

Interconnection

Legislation: Distributed Energy Resources activities are authorized
under the Department of

Energy Organization Act, P.L. 95-91.

Estimated Funds Available: \$55,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 1-2

Cost Share: At least 50% of project costs must be from non-Federal

funds. For example, where the total cost of the project is

\$110,000, the DOE share would not exceed \$55,000, and

the grantee\'s cost share would be at least \$55,000.

Funding Ceiling Per Project: The Federal share of the cost of a project
shall not exceed

\$55,000

Background:

Distributed Energy Resources

The Distributed Energy Resources (DER) program directs and coordinates a
diverse portfolio of

research and development. Activities consist of investments in natural
gas and renewable

technologies including advanced turbines and microturbines, natural gas
engines, fuels cells, and

cooling, heating and power systems (CHP). The program conducts
supporting RD&D in

enabling technologies such as advanced combustion systems, advanced
materials, and

communication and control systems. Additional efforts focus on energy
generation and delivery

systems and architectures for distributed energy resources to strengthen
grid reliability in

electricity transmission and distribution technologies, energy storage
systems, grid

interconnection technologies, power parks, mini grids, and district
energy. Outreach and

implementation activities address infrastructure, institutional and
regulatory needs in utility

restructuring, environmental siting and permitting, uniform
interconnection standards, tax

provisions, and state initiatives.

A number of technical barriers need to be addressed to achieve the
vision, mission, and goals for

cleaner and more efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed energy
resource technologies.

There are regulatory and institutional barriers that interfere with
market development. For

example, the existing regulatory framework for energy generation,
delivery, and use favors

incumbent suppliers. Environmental siting and permitting requirements
are different from state-

to-state. Output-based emissions standards and pre-certification of
certain types of systems are

being considered but further analysis is needed. Siting difficulties
along with a lack of uniform

interconnection standards across utility service territories often leads
to costly delays in project

schedules. Effectively addressing these technology, policy, and market
barriers will accelerate the

implementation of DER.

Projects Requested in 2002:

Regulatory Education and Outreach: Electrical Interconnection of DG
Systems

Cost shared proposals are sought for the development of education and/or
training materials

(video tapes with hard copy manuals), on the process of interconnecting
new DG systems with

the electrical grid (distribution and transmission levels), and
permitting such installations. The

target audience for these training modules includes local building code
and electrical inspectors,

fire safety inspectors, city and county planning personnel, and state
energy regulators. In

addition, regional or multi-state efforts are desirable.

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE - The ability of the project team to
successfully

complete the work will be evaluated. (30 points)

• TEAM - State and/or regional involvement in the project, including
prospective

permitting and other decision making agents, local government, and
community leaders.

Teams that are more comprehensive and include those participants needed
to ensure

project becomes a reality will receive higher rankings. Teams that will
allow the project

to have a more widespread impact will also receive higher rankings. (30
points)

• DESCRIPTION OF WORK - The overall clarity of the proposed work
including work

description, time line, deliverables, and responsibilities of
performers. (20 points)

• IMPACT - The benefits of the proposed activities will be evaluated
with higher rankings

given to proposals that are anticipated to have more widespread
benefits.

Activities/projects that are replicable will be evaluated more
favorably. (20 points)

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Joseph Galdo (202) 586-0518

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Steve Horton (404) 347-0239

Boston: Al Benson (617) 565-9734

Scott Hutchins (617) 565-9765

Chicago: Gary Nowakowski (312) 886-8575

Brian Oleson (312) 886-8579

Denver: Cathy Ghandehari (303) 275-4805

Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Joseph Barrett (215) 636-6957

Seattle: Curtis Framel (206) 553-7841

Jeff James (206) 553-2079

6.60 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES

TECHNOLOGIES

Legislation: Distributed Energy Resources activities are authorized
under the Department of

Energy Organization Act, P.L. 95-91.

Estimated Funds Available: \$1,240,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 15

Cost Share: At least 20% of project costs must be from non-Federal

funds. For example, where the total cost of the project is

\$125,000, the DOE share would not exceed \$100,000, and

the grantee\'s cost share would be at least \$25,000.

Funding Ceiling Per Project: The Federal share of the cost of a project
shall not exceed

\$100,000

Background:

Distributed Energy Resources

The Distributed Energy Resources (DER) program directs and coordinates a
diverse portfolio of

research and development. Activities consist of investments in natural
gas and renewable

technologies including advanced turbines and microturbines, natural gas
engines, fuels cells, and

cooling, heating and power systems (CHP). The program conducts
supporting RD&D in

enabling technologies such as advanced combustion systems, advanced
materials, and

communication and control systems. Additional efforts focus on energy
generation and delivery

systems and architectures for distributed energy resources to strengthen
grid reliability in

electricity transmission and distribution technologies, energy storage
systems, grid

interconnection technologies, power parks, mini grids, and district
energy. Outreach and

implementation activities address infrastructure, institutional and
regulatory needs in utility

restructuring, environmental siting and permitting, uniform
interconnection standards, tax

provisions, and state initiatives.

A number of technical barriers need to be addressed to achieve the
vision, mission, and goals for

cleaner and more efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed energy
resource technologies.

There are regulatory and institutional barriers that interfere with
market development. For

example, the existing regulatory framework for energy generation,
delivery, and use favors

incumbent suppliers. Environmental siting and permitting requirements
are different from state-

to-state. Output-based emissions standards and pre-certification of
certain types of systems are

being considered but further analysis is needed. Siting difficulties
along with a lack of uniform

interconnection standards across utility service territories often leads
to costly delays in project

schedules. Effectively addressing these technology, policy, and market
barriers will accelerate

the implementation of DER.

Combined Heat and Power

Two-thirds of the energy required to make electricity in the United
States never reaches its

destination. This two-thirds is the heat that is vented in conventional
power plants, which is why

average efficiency of power generation in the United States has held
steady at 33% since 1960.

The thermal losses in power plants total approximately 23 quadrillion
Btus of energy,

representing one-quarter of total energy consumption in the United
States, enough energy to fuel

the nation\'s entire transportation fleet. Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
systems utilize this

waste heat for productive purposes. This typically means heating and
cooling buildings, or heat,

mechanical power, dehumidifying systems, or compressed air for
industrial and building

applications. By making productive use of this waste energy, CHP can
achieve overall efficiency

levels of 70% or greater, which in turn decreases overall energy
consumption, pollutant

emissions or fossil fuel imports.

Unfortunately formidable market and regulatory barriers are impeding the
installation of CHP

systems. Siting and permitting requirements that vary by state are one
such barrier. Building

codes are not well developed to install new generation technologies such
as fuel cells (i.e. fire

codes). This lack of standardization results in costly custom
engineering efforts to make the

CHP system compatible with the local grid. It also makes it difficult
for equipment manufactures

to design and produce modular CHP packages.

Brownfields

Brownfields are defined as abandoned or contaminated, idled, or
under-used properties where

expansion or re-development is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination.

These properties present an active potential for reuse. Brownfields
and/or Brightfields can foster

economic activity, improve local air quality, enhance electric system
reliability, and create new

energy markets.

There are over 450,000 potential Brownfield sites, in all states and
virtually every city. Many

provide and excellent opportunity for distributed power generation
(on-site generation).

Examples of on-site generation could include turbines and microturbines,
reciprocating engines,

fuel cells, solar, and wind.

The National Energy Plan directs us to work with local and state
governments to promote the use

of combined heat and power and other clean power generation including
renewable energy at

Brownfield sites, consistent with local community interests.

Brownfield sites often are excellent locations for industry. Generally,
the industrial sector is an

ideal candidate for distributed generation and combined heat and power.
Their power needs and

thermal loads are well suited to theses systems. The revitalization of
Brownfield sites can have a

positive impact on the surrounding community. New development and new
industries can mean

new, local jobs. Power generation on site could be set up as a district
energy system that could

supply heating and cooling to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Brownfield sites provide excellent locations for new energy activities
that revitalize

communities, improve the environment and enhance energy security and
reliability.

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells are rapidly emerging as the energy technology for the future,
with the potential to

provide electrical power and heat to the industrial and buildings
sectors, as well as replace

batteries in small portable electronic devices. The benefits of fuel
cell power systems are well

known and include inherently high efficiency, very low to zero
environmental emissions, high

quality power, and fuel flexibility. While the fuel cell operates on
hydrogen fuel, existing liquid

and gaseous fuels such as gasoline, natural gas, and propane (as well as
alternative fuels such

methanol and ethanol) can be processed in a fuel reformer to extract the
hydrogen from the

primary fuel. A fuel cell system operating on renewable hydrogen is
truly a zero emission energy

system with no carbon dioxide emissions with global warming potential,
no smog-forming

pollutants, no toxic chemical emissions, and no hydrocarbons from
evaporated fuel.

A fuel cells\' \"fuel\" is hydrogen which is typically isolated or
\"reformed\" from a hydrocarbon

source, such as natural gas, propane, methanol, or even gasoline. The
necessary oxygen is

extracted from ambient air. Fuel cells are categorized by the kind of
electrolyte they use.

Electrolyte types used in the building sector include phosphoric acid,
molten carbonate, solid

oxide, and proton exchange membrane (PEM).

There are currently many issues still to be addressed before fuel cells
are widely available

commercially. In general, there is very little long-term data collected
on fuel cells or fuel cell

systems that are operating in commercial buildings, residential or
industrial settings. Some other

general issues include integration into a building or system, connection
to the grid, codes and

standards, and technical issues such as durability, costs, reforming,
and membranes.

Communication and Control Systems

Communication and control systems for DER encompass software and
hardware components

(e.g., sensors, data acquisition systems, remote monitoring systems,
real-time metering, local and

wide area networks, smart controls, site/enterprise energy management
systems, and integration

of electricity price). The primary objective of these systems is to
allow interoperability and

integrated operation of large numbers of DER from varying suppliers to
achieve optimization in

power quality, power reliability, and economic performance. The
optimization enabled by

communication and control systems is aimed at three aggregation levels:
DER subsystems (such

as hybrid and combined cooling, heat, and power systems); DER systems to
meet customer

requirements for facility operations (residential, commercial,
industrial, manufacturing, etc.); and

DER systems as resource options for electricity and natural gas
utilities. Through the use of

communication and control systems, real-time operational management of
large numbers of DER

will also be achieved to allow remote monitoring, dispatch, controls,
and responses to

contingencies and disturbances.

The ability to aggregate large numbers of DER is important to reach the
mass of scale in power

supply to meet customer needs in the following application areas: sale
into wholesale and

ancillary services markets; peak shaving; power parks; mini-grids;
remote and/or rural areas;

premium power and other power quality requirements; and back-up power.
This mass-of-scale

production and aggregation of DER, which is induced by application
demand, will, in turn,

develop a viable market for DER to reach the goal described in the DOE
Strategic Plan for DER;

namely, by 2010, 20 percent of the nation\'s new electricity generation
will be supplied by DER.

Projects Requested in 2002:

Distributed Generation

Cost shared proposals are sought for distributed generation (DG)
projects that will support

Regional and/or State restructuring activities as well as accelerating
the installation of new DG

facilities. The specific topic areas for this work include streamlining
siting and permitting

processes, development of pre certification technology protocols, and
development of building

codes and standards for distributed generation equipment. Distributed
generation outreach and

educational efforts (including workshops) and evaluation and analysis of
regional opportunities

and/or barriers to DG are also sought. Additional consideration will be
given to more efficient

systems, such as combined cooling, heating, and power. In addition,
regional or multi-state

efforts are desirable.

Combined Heat and Power and Brownfields

Cost shared proposals are sought for Combined Heat and Power projects
including but not

limited to those located at Brownfields. These proposals will support
Regional, State and/or

community activities that will accelerate the installation of CHP
facilities including but not

limited to Brownfields (or Brightfields).

Work would include feasibility studies/engineering support for
redeveloping Brownfields (sites

designated as Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, EPA-listed
Brownfield, or other

category) and must include combined heat and power systems as part of
the re-development

solution. The study can include the site and the surrounding community
(for example a district

energy system that would include cooling and heating for the Brownfield
site and the

surrounding community). Engineer support would also be available to
demonstrate a repeatable

combined heat and power system (which includes cooling and power) that
involves a consortium

of participants from the same industry (e.g., merchant stores, grocery
stores, metal casting

facilities, hospitals).

Fuel Cells

Cost shared proposals are sought for Fuel Cell Projects to support long
term testing and/or

engineering/system design and support. Systems that are installed in
industrial, commercial or

residential settings will be given the highest priority for funding. In
addition, fuel cells that are,

or will be part of an integrated system (packaged system including
capturing and using waste

heat in a combined heating, cooling, and power system) will also given
preference to stand alone

fuel cells. Funding is not to include primary equipment such as the fuel
cell or equipment that

would be used in a package system such as the thermally activated
equipment.

Communication and Control Systems

Cost-shared proposals are sought involving use of real-time metering in
peak-shaving

applications. Blackouts, brownouts, and rolling blackouts that occurred
recently during peak-

demand periods prompted trial use of real-time electricity meters in
selected localities to effect

reduction in electricity use. One notable example was announced by the
Los Angeles

Department of Power and Water, which planned the installation of
\"smart\" meters for 3,400 of

its large business customers to allow end-user management and forecast
of electricity use in real

time, with an estimated reduction in electricity bills by 15 percent and
enough freed-up energy to

power 240,000 households. Other smaller-scale trial uses of real-time
meters with similar

beneficial effects were reported in San Diego, CA, and in Philadelphia,
PA.

Specifically, proposals are sought in the following areas:

Assess the impact of real-time metering on peak shaving. Statewide
assessment is

preferred, with grouping of areas in accordance with their relative
impact on electricity

use reduction. Methodologies that will be used to predict the reduction
amount must be

clearly presented, as must barriers (technical, institutional, economic,
etc.) for

installation.

Jointly with utilities and energy service companies, promote use of
and/or install real-

time meters in selected, high-impact areas. A detailed plan to reach out
to end-use

community(ies) to promote acceptance of and educate in the use of such
meters must be

presented in the case of promotional efforts; whereas, in the case of
installation, the merit

of the selected vendor products and numbers of installation with end-use
facilities

(residential, commercial, industrial, and state-owned) must be
presented.

Preference will be given to proposals that will implement the use of, or
have an implementation

plan for the use of, real-time meters, with a predicted high reduction
in electricity use. However,

assessment that substantiates a large reduction in electricity use will
also be considered, as will

promotional efforts.

For all topic areas, demonstrations will also be allowable if they will
lead to improvements

and/or validation of the topic areas listed.

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1\. APPROACH - The overall merit of the proposed approach will be
evaluated as well as

the overall quality of the proposed work. (30 points)

2\. DESCRIPTION OF WORK - The overall clarity of the proposed work
including work

description, time line, deliverables, and responsibilities of
performers. (20 points)

3\. IMPACT - The benefits of the proposed activities will be evaluated
with higher rankings

given to proposals that are anticipated to have more wide spread the
benefits.

Activities/projects that are replicable will be evaluated more
favorably. (20 points)

Examples might include (but are not limited to):

-- Benefits to the brownfield site and surrounding community including
such

things as jobs created and other economic benefits, environmental gains,

and possibility of replication at other sites.

-- Projects that address and overcome issues that hinder the wider
spread use

of fuel cells. Higher rankings will also be given to those systems that,

after proving out and collecting data, will be easily replicable.

4\. TEAM - State and/or regional involvement in the project, including
prospective

permitting and other decision making agents, local government, and
community leaders.

Teams that are more comprehensive and include those participants needed
to ensure

project becomes a reality will receive higher rankings. Teams that will
allow the project

to have a more widespread impact will also receive higher rankings. (20
points)

5\. QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE - The ability of the project team to
successfully

complete the work will be evaluated. (10 points)

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Merrill Smith (202) 586-3646

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Steve Horton (404) 347-0239

Boston: Al Benson (617) 565-9734

Scott Hutchins (617) 565-9765

Chicago: Gary Nowakowski (312) 886-8575

Brian Oleson (312) 886-8579

Denver: Cathy Ghandehari (303) 275-4805

Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Joseph Barrett (215) 636-6957

Seattle: Curtis Framel (206) 553-7841

6.61 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: Superconductivity Program Information
Dissemination

and Outreach Activities to State Agencies

Estimated Funds Available: \$435,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 5-9 total (see breakouts by activity
below)

Anticipated Project Period: As indicated by activity below.

Cost Share: 20 % desired for Activity One cited in first

paragraph of \"Area of Interest\" section.

Background and Objectives

The DOE Superconductivity Program for Electric Power Systems supports
national energy,

economic, environmental and educational interests by providing
leadership in developing high

temperature superconducting (HTS) electric power devices and
facilitating their adoption by the

utility industry and the private sector. Although it will be another
three years before the first

commercially viable HTS power products are available, HTS technologies
promise to improve

almost every aspect of how electricity is generated, delivered, and
used. HTS, when

commercialized on a large scale, should provide significant
environmental and economic

benefits. Prototype HTS power equipment is being designed and tested in
key applications,

including transformers, current controllers, cables, motors and
generators. HTS technology is

potentially an entirely new form of power equipment that will have to be
integrated into an

existing system. Utilities and state agencies and regulators are not
familiar with HTS devices

and the effect they will have on the grid. The program\'s
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative

(SPI) prototype demonstration projects team utilities with HTS industry
stakeholders in an effort

to prove the technology under real-world conditions. Experience from the
SPI projects provides

a basis for informing power companies, industry stakeholders, and
federal and state agencies,

legislators, and regulators of HTS technology potential.

The Superconductivity Program is now interested in encouraging
activities to broaden the

national effort and deliver the accomplishments of the program to the
state and local level. State

organizations include, but are not limited to: state energy offices;
public utility commissions;

departments of environmental protection, natural resources, consumer
advocates, and community

and economic development; legislators; state environmental and economic
commissions; and

business roundtables.

Across the country, utility infrastructure is aging. Power equipment
will need replacement.

There is an unprecedented opportunity for rapid market penetration of
HTS power equipment in

the coming years. State governments need to be aware and make the most
of this opportunity.

State governments are concerned with issues of ensuring that a
competitive electric utility

industry is in place that can deliver adequate and affordable supplies
with reduced environmental

impacts. Regulators and other state-based officials are tackling energy
efficiency and renewable

technology market transformation issues and mechanisms and policy
options to enable their

states to meet their energy policy goals. State-based officials,
legislators, regulators, and others

need increased awareness and education of HTS technologies, issues, and
benefits in order to

achieve the general acceptance of HTS power equipment and the resulting
modernization of our

national electric system.

Area of Interest

Applications for cost-shared funding are requested from state government
agencies addressing

one or more of the following activities:

• Analysis of benefits to state electrical systems that
superconductivity could potentially

provide and draft plans for implementation. This research includes
identification of

bottlenecks in electrical delivery systems, upgrading of distribution
systems in urban

areas, and supporting growth in distributed power or renewable power
systems. This also

would include identification of barriers to implementation and
approaches to eliminating

barriers. (2 projects, up to \$250,000 total funding. Cost sharing of at
least 20% is desired.

Projects should be completed within 18 months.)

• Development and facilitation of state meetings and workshops that are
designed to

disseminate information on the technical, economic, and environmental
feasibility,

benefits, and effectiveness of HTS technologies and that emphasize a
technology and

systems integration approach. Outreach meetings should also discuss
policy issues and

how energy policy decision makers address complex issues. To facilitate
the adoption of

HTS technologies by non-Federal users, information on these technologies
and their cost-

effective applications in the marketplace needs to be provided to key
state stakeholders.

The information and discussion should include technology development
efforts, the needs

of users and consumers, and associated state and local issues concerning
the siting and

use of these technologies. (2 projects, up to \$250,000 total funding.
Projects should be

completed by the end of calendar year 2002.)

• Assistance in the development of state(s) plans to facilitate
investment in and the

implementation of HTS power technologies, especially those supported by
DOE, through

the establishment of partnerships, including state government(s),
industry, and

universities. (1 - 4 projects, up to \$75,000 total funding. Projects
should be completed

by the end of calendar year 2002.)

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1\. APPROACH - the overall merit of the proposed approach will be
evaluated as well as the

likelihood of goals and schedule being met. Cost-sharing will also be
considered. (20

points)

DESCRIPTION OF WORK - The overall clarity of the proposed work including
goals,

schedule, deliverables and responsibilities of performers, (20 points)

IMPACT - The outputs, outcomes, relevance to National Energy Policy will
be evaluated

with higher rankings given to proposals that are anticipated to have
greater benefits. (30

points)

TEAM - State and/or regional involvement in the project, including
regulatory and other

decision making agents. Research teams should include the competencies
needed to

successfully accomplish the proposed work. (20 points)

QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE - The ability of the project team to
successfully

complete the work will be evaluated. (10 points)

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Marshall Reed 202-586-8076

James Daley 202-586-1165

Regional Offices: Atlanta Jim Powell 404-347-0239

Boston Scott Hutchins 627-565-9765

Chicago Peter Dreyfuss 312-886-8575

Denver Cathy Ghandehari 303-275-4805

Philadelphia Joseph Barrett 215-636-6957

Seattle Jeff James 206-553-2079

6.62 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: State Geothermal Energy Support

Legislation: Geothermal activities are authorized under the Renewable
Energy and Energy

Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, P.L. 101-218; and the
Energy Policy Act of

1992, P.L. 102-486, Title XII.

Estimated Funds Available: \$475,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 6

Cost share: At least 25% of project costs must be from non-Federal

funds but 50% cost-share is desired. For example, where

the total cost of the project is \$50,000, the DOE share

would not exceed \$38,500, and the grantee\'s cost share

would be at least \$12,500, but it is preferable if the

grantee\'s cost share were \$25,000.

Geographical Limitation: Proposals are restricted to States in the
Denver and Seattle

Regions.

Funding Ceiling per Project: The Federal share of the cost of a project
shall not exceed

\$100,000.

Background:

Current applications of geothermal energy include generation of electric
power, space heating,

crop processing, aquaculture, and industrial processes. Geothermal
energy is already a

significant supplier of electricity to the western grid, with 2800 MWe
installed in California,

Nevada, Utah, and Hawaii. Existing and improved technology for
geothermal heat reservoir

discovery and recovery will allow a broadening to the entire West.
Studies have identified nearly

300 western communities in ten States with potentially usable geothermal
resources within five

miles. From Albuquerque to Seattle, the potential for expansion clearly
exists.

A major problem that hinders geothermal development is that most State
and local governments

are unfamiliar with geothermal energy, have little experience with
geothermal development, and

have not considered the benefits in providing local jobs for resource
development, construction,

and operation of facilities.

While the use of high-temperature geothermal resources is an established
technology in

California, Nevada, Utah, and Hawaii, the benefits of geothermal energy
are not as fully

appreciated in other States where the majority of resources exist at
lower temperatures more

appropriate for heating than for electric power generation. Provision of
information about use of

geothermal energy for direct applications and electric power generation
will help increase its use

across the West.

Projects Requested in FY 2002:

The goal of this project is to expand the use of geothermal energy in
the western United States.

To achieve this goal, DOE is seeking proposals from States for two types
of projects:

Benefit/Cost Analyses

Proposals are sought for projects that will involve case studies of the
benefits and costs of

deployment of geothermal direct use or electric generation projects in
one or more States in the

western United States (i.e., those in the Denver and Seattle Regions).
The projects should review

available information related to geothermal development, develop nominal
project parameters,

identify good geothermal project locations, analyze the economics of
state-of-the-art projects at

those sites, and develop a plan to promote the economic benefits to
industry and the associated

communities and the tax benefits to State, local, and Federal entities.
The economic analysis

should consider the revenues from sale of the heat, electric power, or
other products; cost and tax

flows associated with construction, operations and maintenance; salaries
and multipliers; and

royalties to Federal and State governments and to resource owners.
Studies of existing or

potential projects would be acceptable.

Information Clearinghouses

Proposals are sought for projects that will involve providing public
access to information about

geothermal energy resources, technologies, economics, projects, etc. The
projects may provide a

well-known, credible and objective clearinghouse of available geothermal
energy information,

including a website with links to and coordination with other DOE-funded
geothermal websites

and a toll-free hotline for individuals searching for data on geothermal
energy, points of contact,

references, and technical assistance. The resources should address
regional needs, including

potential and existing project-specific data so that information among
the many communities

examining geothermal energy is well-coordinated and development of this
information is not

duplicated.

State Trade Missions

This area involves the creation of expert teams to conduct \"trade
missions\" designed to inform

community leaders of the potential for geothermal development in their
area of the state. The

teams would consist of members from relevant state agencies (e.g.,
resources, economic

development), industry, and academia. \"Missions\" would involve
presentations and other forms

of information exchange by the teams at workshops, town meetings, and
other important public

gatherings. The teams would educate decision makers about the extent of
their nearby

geothermal resource, the potential for development, and the benefits to
be derived from

development. Additional followup missions may be conducted to advise
community leaders on

appropriate next steps and assist with feasibility studies.

Proposals

Each proposal must include a detailed description, a time line and a
budget, itemized by task.

Proposals should be formatted to make the following required items easy
to locate and the

evaluation criteria, related to those requirements, easy to apply. The
proposal should be

formatted in 12 point font and not exceed 10 pages in length. All pages
must be numbered.

Proposals must include:

1\. Technical Narrative. Describe the project, including how information
resources will be

selected, reviewed, and evaluated, and how the final results will be
presented. Identify the desired

outcome, results and benefits. Describe the steps to be taken to achieve
the desired goals. In

addition, all deliverables should be identified.

2\. Workplan and Milestones. Describe how the proposed project will be
developed and

implemented. Identify goals using measurable results and provide a
schedule for completion.

Identify facilities, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary
for this project. Explain

the relationship (if any) to any DOE financial assistance previously
received.

3\. Qualifications and Accomplishments. Identify and describe lead
agency, key personnel and

other partners, including their qualifications, experience and expertise
as it relates to successfully

carrying out this project. If the applicant has received previous
financial assistance from DOE

relating to economic analysis or outreach activities, describe the
progress and accomplishments

to date in meeting the goals established for any such previous awards.

4\. Innovative and Technology Transfer Elements. Describe any unique or
innovative

components of this project. Describe any components of the program that
will expedite the

development and sharing of information about geothermal energy in other
States or regions or the

transfer of information or techniques to other States or regions.

Special Conditions

The grantee is required to submit a final report summarizing all work
completed under this

project. Include in the final report the dates of significant events,
major accomplishments and

benefits of the project, and key products produced.

Evaluation Criteria

State proposals will be ranked according to the following criteria:

1\. POTENTIAL IMPACT: (40 points) The anticipated benefits of the
project activities will be

evaluated. The desired benefits are the expansion of the use of
geothermal energy in the western

United States, especially lower-temperature geothermal resources best
suited for direct use, and

the transfer of information to industry, State and local governments,
and the general public.

2\. APPROACH: (25 points) The overall merit of the proposed approach
will be evaluated. The

approach should support the activities of reviewing available
information on geothermal

development and use, evaluating that information to determine the most
appropriate

characterization of geothermal development in a given State or region of
the western United

States, and transferring that information to the target audience.

3\. QUALIFICATIONS: (25 points) The ability of the project team to
successfully complete the

work, including qualifications of key personnel, will be evaluated.
Experience and past success

in reviewing, synthesizing, and evaluating information on energy
resource development and use

will be considered.

4\. COST SHARE: (10 points) Cash or in-kind contributions over the
required 25% cost share

will be given positive consideration.

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Raymond LaSala (202) 586-4198

Regional Offices: Denver: Steve Palomo (303) 275-4838

Seattle: Curtis Framel (206) 553-7841

6.63 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: ENERGY STORAGE for TRANSMISSION

CONGESTION RELIEF, PRICE RESPONSE, and SYSTEM SECURITY

Legislation: Distributed Energy Resources activities are authorized
under the Department of

Energy Organization Act, P.L. 95-91.

Estimated Funds Available: \$125,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 1-2

Cost Share: At least 20% of project costs must be from non-Federal

funds. For example, where the total cost of the project is

\$87,500, the DOE share would not exceed \$70,000, and the

grantee\'s cost share would be at least \$17,500.

Funding Ceiling Per Project: The Federal share of the cost of a project
shall not exceed

\$70,000

Background:

Energy Storage

Because of increases in system electrical power loads and the reluctance
and/or inability of

utilities to upgrade or build new power transmission systems, many aging
transmission systems

are near their original design capacities and are unable to reliably
support existing load

requirements. The consequences of this lack of transmission capacity
subjects many customers

to power brown-outs and in some cases black-outs as power systems are
unable to respond to

load requirements. The real impact of the overloads is not constant but
periodical, infrequent and

somewhat seasonal in many parts of the country. However, the currently
perceived solution is to

upgrade or build new transmission capabilities to support these
infrequent overloads. A more

cost effective and immediate solution to these periodic transmission
overloads could be to move

power down the transmission lines during low load periods, such as
overnight, and store the

energy in an electricity storage device until it is needed. This storage
could offset the infrequent

future overload situations, and in addition, be dispatched on other
occasions in response to high

spot market energy prices, or to provide operating reserves or dynamic
stability to support grid

operations. Advances in energy storage appear to make this option more
viable. Modern energy

storage technologies are now available in the form of advanced
batteries, as well as improved

lead-acid batteries, to implement the deferral of transmission system
upgrades at a fraction of the

cost of such upgrades and to eliminate the brown-outs and black-outs
which are caused by

overloaded transmission

systems.

Projects Requested in 2002:

Cost shared proposals are sought to evaluate the feasibility and
potential economic advantages of

deferring power transmission system upgrades using modern electricity
storage technologies.

The elements of the work would include addressing the costs associated
with upgrading or

augmenting existing power transmission systems that are near capacity or
that are periodically at

their design limits, evaluating anticipated load growth for the
transmission system for up to 20

years, and evaluating the type and size of a modern technology,
electrical energy storage device,

that would provide for the required periodic peak energy demands above
the design capacity of

the existing transmission line for an anticipated 20 year growth period.
Based on the gathered

information, the potential economic advantage, if any, of the deferral
of the transmission system

upgrade against the acquisition and operating costs of the storage
system over the 20 year life of

the system shall be compared. In addition to determining the economic
benefit of the deferral of

the transmission system upgrade, if any, the study should also consider
and evaluate economic

benefits associated with ancillary services that could be performed by
the storage system to

include spot market support, peak shaving, area frequency and voltage
regulation, and VAR

compensation services. The outcome of this work should be a report that
evaluates the economic

benefit, if any, of deferring transmission system upgrades through the
implementation of modern

technology electrical energy storage devices on the transmission system.

Evaluation Criteria:

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• APPROACH - The overall merit of the proposed approach will be
evaluated as well as

the overall quality of the proposed work. (30 points)

• DESCRIPTION OF WORK - The overall clarity of the proposed work
including work

description, time line, deliverables, and responsibilities of
performers. (20 points)

• IMPACT - The benefits of the proposed activities will be evaluated
with higher rankings

given to proposals that are anticipated to have more wide spread the
benefits. (20 points)

• TEAM - State and/or regional involvement in the project, including
prospective

permitting and other decision making agents, local government, and
community leaders.

Teams that are more comprehensive and include those participants needed
to ensure

project becomes a reality will receive higher rankings. (20 points)

• QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE - The ability of the project team to
successfully

complete the work will be evaluated. (10 points)

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Imre Gyuk (202) 586-1482

Phil Overholt (202) 586-8110

Regional Offices: Atlanta: Steve Horton (404) 347-0239

Boston: Al Benson (617) 565-9734

Scott Hutchins (617) 565-9765

Chicago: Gary Nowakowski (312) 886-8575

Brian Oleson (312) 886-8579

Denver: Cathy Ghandehari (303) 275-4805

Steve Sargent (303) 275-4820

Philadelphia: Joseph Barrett (215) 636-6957

Seattle: Curtis Framel (206) 553-7841

6.64 POWER TECHNOLOGIES: BIOFUELS FOR POWER GENERATION

Legislation: Biomass activities are authorized under the Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency

Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, P.L. 101-218; and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-

486, Title XII.

Estimated Funds Available: \$600,000

Estimated Number of Projects: 8 to 12 (\$50,000-\$75,000 in Federal
funds per project)

Cost Share: At least a 50% non-Federal cost share is required, and a
higher

percentage is encouraged. For example, where the total cost of

the project is \$100,000, the Federal share would not exceed

\$50,000, and the grantee\'s cost share would be at least \$50,000.

Funding Ceiling: The Federal share of the cost of a project shall not
exceed

\$100,000.

Background:

The Biomass Power Program under the Office of Power Technologies is
seeking State and local

partners to identify opportunities to use biofuels to generate power.
Diesel and spark ignition

engines are used for power generation in remote sites, in industrial
cogeneration applications, for

providing peaking power, and for emergency backup. The use of renewable
fuels or biofuels

(e.g., biodiesel, bio-oils, ethanol, and ethanol/diesel blends) in
biopower applications reduces our

dependency on fossil fuels, provides a secure, domestically produced
fuel, and reduces harmful

exhaust emissions; and in many cases biofuels can be produced from waste
resources, thus

providing an additional environmental benefit.

Projects Requested in FY 2002:

In the context of the potential applications, cost-shared proposals are
sought:

• to assess the feasibility of site-specific power projects using
biofuels, or

• to implement actual site-specific biopower projects based on biofuels

Feasibility studies would address economic, energy, and environmental
aspects. Implementation

projects would demonstrate the feasibility and document technical and
economic performance of

biofuels for power generation applications for at least six months.
Proposals are especially sought

for applications that show a high level of cost effectiveness,
significant reductions in NOx

emissions, and are readily replicable.

Evaluation Criteria:

1\. Scientific soundness and completeness of proposal. (Yes or No)

2\. Qualifications and resources of the project team (education and
experience relative to

proposal and resources available to perform work) (25 points)

3\. Diversity of project partnerships (e.g, state government agencies,
private sector) as

evidenced by letters of cooperation attached to proposal. (20 points)

4\. Projected economic and environmental benefits of project. (25
points)

5\. Opportunity for replication: projects that can be readily replicated
either within the State

or in other parts of the country. (15 points)

6\. Cost-sharing: amount of non-federal cost-sharing in excess of 50%.
Must at a minimum

match dollar for dollar. (15 points)

Program Contacts:

Headquarters: Sam Tagore (202) 586-9210

Regional offices: Atlanta: Warren Zurn (404) 562-0567

Boston: David Mark (617) 565-9711

Chicago: Bill Hui (312) 886-8586

Denver: Dave Waltzman (303) 275-4821

Philadelphia: Maryanne Daniel (215) 656-6964

Seattle: Jeffrey James (206) 553-2079

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Gail McKinley, Director

Office of Building Technology Assistance

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy