Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Research Challenge Grant Program (MOWER II)

1. Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Research Challenge Grant Program (MOWER II) Technical Assistance Webinar March 14, 2014 Presented by Ross Tyler, Maryland Energy Administration Melinda Vann, Maryland Higher Education Commission

2. Maryland OSW Energy Research Challenge Grant Program Background • Governor O’Malley and the legislature introduced and enacted The Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 http://governor.maryland.gov/wind.asp • As part of the Exelon and Constellation Energy merger settlement, Governor Martin O’Malley negotiated $2 million in OSW research funds for Maryland public higher education institutions. • Per that agreement, the competitive FY 2013 Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Challenge Grant Program (MOWER I) was initiated; four awards were made. • The balance of funds will be issued through the current call for Proposal – MOWER II. • Approximately $945,000 to be awarded.

3. Grant Proposal Preparation

4. Eligibility – Who Can Apply? • Maryland two- and four-year public institutions of higher education (IHE) • Consortia of one or more Maryland public IHEs

5. MOWER II at-a-glance • Award Range: $150,000 - $600,000. • # of Awards: Two or more • Grant Period: May 22, 2014 – May 26, 2016 • Application Due: April 14, 2014 by 3:00 PM • Awards/Conditional Awards: Announced May 22, 2014 • Award Distribution: Two payments, 50% of award each. Approximately June/July each of 2014 and 2015. • Project Director Meetings: Two mandatory meetings TBD • Annual Progress Reports Due: May 18, 2015 (interim), August 28, 2016 (final)

6. PROPOSALS DUE Monday, April 14, 2014 by 3:00 PM Deliver one hard copy with original signatures, four hard copies AND one electronic copy (word or PDF) to: Melinda Vann Maryland Higher Education Commission 6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 mvann@mhec.state.md.us

7. General Format Requirements • 12-pt Arial, Times New Roman, Calibri or a similar • Smaller font for tables or formulas OK as long as legible • Single spacing accepted • 8-1/2 by 11-inch pages • One-inch margins • Proposal narrative = 18 pages or less • Number the narrative pages • Page limit excludes - cover sheet, abstract, budget, budget narrative, CVs/resumes, appendices. • All parts of the application must be submitted together, using appropriate forms indicated in the RFP. • The RFP and application forms are also posted to • http://www.mhec.state.md.us/Grants/index.asp

8. Application Components & Scoring • Application Cover Sheet (0 points) • Project Abstract (0 points) • Research Question/Problem (25 points) • Personnel & Institutional Resources (15 points) • Technical Approach and Operation Plan (45 points) • Budget & Budget Narrative (15 points) • Assurances(0 points)

9. Application Cover Sheet & Abstract • Application Cover Sheet – use the form provided • (correct phone numbers and emails please!) • Project Abstract • one page or less single spaced • Research question(s)/ Problem(s) to be Addressed • Methodologies • Projected outcomes • The abstract should be suitable for editing for possible press releases or publication to MHEC, MEA or other websites (layman’s terminology recommended).

10. Research Question(s) or Problem(s) to be Addressed (25 points) Describe the general topic - why it was chosen (e.g. intellectual merit & practical application). Summarize current related research w/ citations supporting the topic. Reference list in appendix. Specific research question(s) or problem(s) to be addressed – put in context of current research and Maryland’s OSW issues Link proposed research - how does the project address the questions/problems identified Broader implications – discuss impact of the research for the implementation of OSW industry in Maryland

11. Personnel & Institutional Resources (15 points) Principal Investigator – qualifications, expertise, related research, publications, and project management experience Key Project Personnel – roles, responsibilities, qualifications, related research and publications CVs and/or resumes for PI and key personnel in appendix Institutional Resources – describe what if any institutional resources available to support the research team’s work Project Management - organizational structure for managing the project, demonstrate sufficient time to conduct the work within the grant period Budget – clear linkages to budget/budget narrative if personnel funds requested

12. Technical Approach & Operation Plan(45 points) • techniques, procedures, and methodologies used • data plan - collection, management, analysis • detailed plan that describes each activity, how it relates to the project, where and how each activity will be implemented • key personnel responsible for each activity • map activities and expected deliverables to the budget

13. The Technical Approach and Operation (continued) • establish milestones/benchmarks and a timeline of all project activities • means by which project progress and efficacy will be measured and how often project effectiveness will be examined • anticipated results / outcomes • discuss how project findings will be shared (e.g. publication, conference presentation, curriculum/course delivery)

14. Budget & Budget Narrative (15 points) • account for all activities in budget • reasonable costs in relation to project design & activities • adequacy of support—facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources—from lead and other partners • administrative costs - kept to a minimum • institutional in kind contribution or matching costs, while not required, are reported where applicable • use the budget form provided, cost categories indicated • Indirect costs up to 10% of award may be charged

15. Priority Funding (5 bonus points!) • Priority funding consideration for proposals that: • link proposed research with topical subjects that can be applied in the preparation of, or during the deployment of Maryland’s offshore wind facility in the near term; • demonstrate the addition of other external funding sources for sustained effort; • offer institutional in-kind or matching funds; and • provide a direct correlation to lowering the cost of offshore wind energy generation.

16. Review Process • Each application is reviewed by at least three reviewers. However there the panel is usually comprised of 5-7 reviewers. • All reviewers sign conflict of interest forms and recuse themselves from proposals where the appearance of, or actual conflict of interest occurs. • All reviewers read and score all applications individually (except as noted above). • Review Panel meets, discusses each application, determines final scores • Review panel may include (but not limited to) representative(s) from energy related: • Business Associations • Industry • Federal, State, and/or Local Government Agencies • Research Organizations

17. Research Topics • Focus on the present or near future phases within an OSW farm development. • Focus on cost reduction • Narrower Scope: examples include: • Topic Area One: Foundation design, materials and manufacturing • Topic Area Two: Innovative Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance • Topic Area Three: Design of Cable Array and Substation configuration with Grid Interconnection and Transmission for OSW growth in the mid-Atlantic region • Topic Area Four: Optimizing Maryland’s Logistics, Facilities and Processes for efficient, cost effective & safe deployment.

18. Topic Area One: Foundation Design, Materials and Manufacturing. • Confront the challenges of using a traditional monopile foundation and look into alternatives • What alternatives are available or could be available to Maryland? • Would the alternatives: • possess the correct physical properties? • require readily available materials? • utilize know manufacturing processes: • require significant investment costs for manufacturing? • create jobs? • reduce environmental concerns during installation? • have application in other states or nations? • contribute to increased turbine size (8-10MW) along with the next generation of floating platforms?

19. Topic Area Two: Innovative Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance • O & M is presently estimated to contribute to 28-39% of the OSW lifetime cost - the true cost is not known • Challenge: how can this high percentage be decreased? • Trends in Europe include: • Establishing processes for collecting meaningful data for the primary components before the end of warranty (EoW) period. • Standardizing O & M across technology types rather than within regions. Is there a way for open-source and sharing performance along with O & M practices? • What practices can be applied by offshore wind facility owners to improve i) the operations and power generated revenue and ii) lower the real cost of the maintenance over the (extended) lifetime of the offshore wind facility?

20. Topic Area Three: Design of Cable Array and Substation Configuration with Grid Interconnection and Transmission for OSW growth in the mid-Atlantic region • Developers and State ambitions differ: Developers want return on investment on specific capital expenditures in building a wind facility including the sub-sea caballing and transmission but the state wants incremental expansion. • Challenge: how to optimize the cable array, marine substation, export cable(s) and grid interconnect to provide the developers and investors their ROI yet allow for incremental growth. • What factors should be considered to foster growth within the existing offshore wind area but avoids ‘stranded assets’ or ‘redundant assets’ caused by subsequent developments?

21. Topic Area Four: Optimizing Maryland’s Logistics, Facilities and Processes for Efficient, Cost Effective & Safe Deployment • Europe continues to experiment with different operational procedures and logistical configurations to minimize time and cost. Are there best practices beginning to emerge and practices to avoid? • What lessons learned could be applied to Maryland’s offshore wind context? What would be the theoretical optimal deployment solution for Maryland? How do the Maryland businesses view this? • What adaptive approaches are required because of unique US characteristics such as the Jones Act or Maryland characteristics such as Baltimore being the favored marshaling and lay-down area but inland? • Is there a guiding tool box that can be generated to help developers understand the consequences of their deployment approach that utilized the past and present practices of Europe in the Maryland and US context? • Are there innovative suggestions for new approaches?

22. Results: Three Levels • Academic Papers that meet peer review for publication and can be presented at conferences • Summary posters at offshore wind conferences (AWEA & EWEA) • Summary articles and presentations for industry practitioners in publications such as: • offshorewind.biz • workshops organized by WindEnergyUpdate.com

23. Summary • Research project that is ‘topical’ and puts Maryland’s Academic institutions ‘on the offshore wind map’. • Will advance MD’s Academic Institution’s reputation within OSW • Contributes to lowering cost • Has application within Maryland’s offshore wind facilities and others in the US or internationally • Has sufficient and broad enough interest to have potential / rapid partnering with other academic institutions / businesses • Strong appeal for continuation with new funding streams.

24. Questions? Now or Later Research Topics, Research Question/Problem, Technical Approach Ross Tyler rtyler@energy.state.md.us 443-694-3077 Grant Proposal General Content & Format/ Submission/ Timetable/ Review Process Melinda Vann mvann@mhec.state.md.us 410-767-3269