4. What size grant would be typical? How many grants will be made in this round?
MassCEC has not determined a minimum or maximum award amount, nor has it made an estimate of how many awards will be made during this round.
5. What types of projects does MassCEC see as most favorable for funding? Guidance for other DOE grants has suggested that projects should not be investments that would be made otherwise but should simultaneously be shovel-ready, which can seem contradictory.
DOE and MassCEC have not issued specific guidance related to this question. As noted in the RFP, all projects must aim to enhance the resilience and/or reliability of the electric grid and must be "eligible activities" as defined by DOE (please see the RFP for a full list of eligible activities). Additionally, as described in the RFP and scoring rubric, applicants can earn "bonus" points for projects that seek to enable or otherwise support microgrid development, with a focus on critical facilities.
6. If an entity generates less than 4,000,000 MWh and does not sell electricity, is that entity eligible as a large entity?
Eligible entities must be one of the following entity types:
a. Electric grid operators;
b. Electricity storage operators;
c. Electricity generators;
d. Transmission owners or operators;
e. Distribution providers;
f. Fuel suppliers; and
g. Any other relevant entity, as determined by the Secretary of DOE.
If an entity is considered eligible, it will be further categorized as "small" or "large". Small entities are those that sell less than 4,000,000 MWh annually, and large entities are those that sell more than 4,000,000 MWh annually OR that do not sell electricity. The size determination is not made based on generation.
All eligible entities that propose eligible project activities are welcome to apply, regardless of designation as "small" or "large".
7. If a public university in Massachusetts applies for this funding as an eligible electric storage operator, would they be considered a Large or Small entity?
The designation between large and small entities is based on electricity sales. Entities that sell less than 4,000,000 MWh annually are considered small entities. Entities that sell more than 4,000,000 MWh annually OR that do not sell electricity are considered large entities. The university should determine whether it sells electricity, and if so, how much electricity it sells to determine its status as large or small. Please contact grid@masscec.com if you wish to seek additional guidance on a small or large determination based on sales.
8. Are there opportunities for EDC meet-ups or networking events with clean tech start-ups to explore potential partnerships that align with the objectives of this program? Alternatively, are EDCs or other eligible entities planning to consider new innovative approaches and engage with start-ups for potential collaborations?
MassCEC has not yet organized networking or meet-up events to facilitate project partnerships. We encourage prospective applicants to share feedback about the types of opportunities that would be helpful. Please get in touch with us at grid@masscec.com if you would like to provide feedback.
9. Would an electricity supplier participating in Community Choice Aggregation be an eligible grantee?
DOE has defined the following entity types as eligible for funding:
• Electric grid operators;
- Electricity storage operators;
- Electricity generators;
- Transmission owners or operators;
- Distribution providers;
- Fuel suppliers; and
- Any other relevant entity, as determined by the Secretary of DOE.
Entities may apply if they believe that they comply with this requirement, or they may contact MassCEC to receive designation as an eligible entity. Please note that eligible entities must also propose eligible project activities to be considered for funding – see the RFP for more detail regarding eligible project activities.
10. Can an entity apply multiple times with different projects?
Yes.
11. Can federal tax credits stemming from IRA be considered as part of the cost match? How does DOE view tax credits that come in after the fact?
See DOE Office of Infrastructure Commercialization and Financing Memo. Specifically, “While project sponsors may generally use the reduction in tax liability provided by tax credits as a means to fulfill their cost share obligations, it remains important for programs to consider all sources of project funding and revenue including tax credits, when determining the appropriate federal cost share, consistent with any cost-sharing legal obligations.” However, per 2 CFR 200.306 Cost sharing or matching, cost share must be verifiable. Further, all project costs under the award (funded by both the DOE share and cost share) must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and incurred during the approved budget period.
12. What constitutes a "sale"? Is there a technical definition?
Sales can be either retail or wholesale electricity sales to ultimate customers. Sales are counted from the operating company (rather than the holding company).
13. Do you have an application form that can be used by the applicants?
Please complete all required and optional application forms (as applicable). Application forms can be accessed above in the "How to Apply" section.. Please see the RFP for further instructions regarding application requirements and selection criteria.
14. Would this provide an incentive to a homeowner who has energy storage? If so, can you give an example as to what the incentive would be for a 10 kW energy storage customer of our solar installation company?
Applicants must be eligible entities as defined by DOE. See Section IV of the RFP for a list of eligible entities.
Additionally, applicants must propose projects defined as eligible by DOE to be considered for funding. Refer to Section IV of the RFP for the list of eligible projects.
Finally, priority will be given to projects that will "generate the greatest community benefit (whether rural or urban) in reducing the likelihood and consequences of disruptive events."
As such, homeowners who have energy storage are likely not good candidates for this funding opportunity.
15. Is this grant under the same umbrella as the Federal SPARK (formerly known as GRIP) grant? If so, is it acceptable to submit an application for a project we already submitted for potential funding under that funding opportunity?
Both opportunities were established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and are administered by the Office of Electricity (OE) within DOE.
Applicants may not submit an application with the same scope to the 40101(d) Resilience Grants program (this funding opportunity) and to the SPARK program in the same program cycle per the BIL. If an application is still under consideration for a SPARK award at the time of application submission to this funding opportunity, it will be considered the same application cycle.
However, if an application was submitted to the SPARK program and was rejected, applicants may submit that project for consideration under this funding opportunity. Additionally, applicants may submit applications with different scopes to both SPARK and this opportunity at the same time. DOE will determine whether project scopes are sufficiently different as part of their application review.
Please see the RFP (Section IV) and application materials for information on disclosure of other DOE applications.
16. Is there any benefit for coordinated/collaborative grid-energy resilience projects at multiple sites within a town or city to apply as one project or as independent projects?
Applicants are encouraged to submit projects that they believe best fulfill the goals of the RFP. Coordinated and independent projects are both allowable project types. MassCEC encourages prospective applicants to consider how projects can be designed to best fulfill RFP goals.
17. Same question as above, but across municipal lines or municipal territories?
Likewise, applicants are encouraged to submit projects that they believe best fulfill the goals of the RFP. Applicants may form "teams", including across municipal lines.
18. Are controllable thermal storage resources to be used with electric HVAC systems (alternative to chemical batteries for HVAC) eligible?
Thermal storage is not excluded from this funding opportunity. Please keep in mind that all projects must focus on grid resilience. If the thermal storage system can measurably improve grid resilience and the project is submitted with that in mind, then a case can be made for its approval. Additionally, it is beneficial if applicants can identify whether a proposed technology aligns with the specified eligible projects, as listed in Section IV of the RFP.
19. Are Virtual Power Plant networks eligible technologies?
Yes, Virtual Power Plants may be considered an eligible project. See Section IV of the RFP for the list of eligible projects. Please keep in mind that all proposed projects must aim to measurably improve grid resilience and/or reliability.
20. In the discussion on scoring, the RFP states (p.7) that "Projects that support public resilience needs that would not otherwise be funded by the private sector (e.g., where the benefits are indirect or distributed in a way that makes funding or investment unlikely)." Will each project be reviewed for these criteria and might a project be rejected based on a judgement that it might be funded by the private sector? How will these criteria be evaluated?
Each project will be scored on a variety of attributes, detailed in the Scoring Rubric provided in the application materials. The above-mentioned criterion is an opportunity for applicants to earn bonus points. Additionally, demonstrated need for funding will be considered for all projects. Please see the scoring rubric for more details regarding scoring.
21. Does the applicant need to have a Community Benefits Agreement in place prior to submitting the application or is an in-progress CBA sufficient for the application?
Community Benefits Agreements are not required to receive funding from this program, but they are strongly encouraged. MassCEC has not defined a preference for completed versus in-progress CBAs.
22. Can an MLP cost-share their Union Labor for the project both for administrative project management & labor tasks (EX. MLP reconductoring circuits, pole installations, transformer upgrades, substation upgrades & Project management, engineering, administrative ETC)
The MLP could cost match its union labor provided that the work performed is allowable under the program and that that it complies with Davis-Bacon Act requirements.
23. If an MLP can cost share their labor, must it be at prevailing wage or will it default to the bill rate of the staff for that particular MLP?
MLPs may utilize their negotiated rates provided that the labor rates comply with the Davis Bacon Act.
24. Can MLPs file joint applications?
Yes.
25. Can one proposal encompass multiple aspects of the "eligible activities" (IE a proposal to replace bare conductor & replace aged transformers ETC)?
Yes.
26. Is there a minimum or maximum to the project size/cost (IE proposals must be over or under a certain value amount).
MassCEC has not determined a minimum or maximum project size or cost. MassCEC encourages applicants to submit proposals that best fulfill the goals of the RFP.
27. Can you walk us through how the amount of funding allocated to each project is determined?
Applicants must submit a requested funding amount specific to their project. If awarded, MassCEC may choose to fund part or all of the project. MassCEC has not determined a minimum or maximum award amount.
28. Will the scoring rubric stay the same for subsequent rounds?
MassCEC has not yet determined how it will score applications for subsequent rounds.
29. Would the following project types be considered eligible activities? 1) Installation of large-scale batteries; 2) Battery energy that can be available to communities during an outage; 3) Broadband; 4) Underground surveying and utility mapping.
Please see section IV of the RFP for a list of eligible project types.
30. Will proposals with building-level resiliency and high level of community partnership/engagement would score higher?
MassCEC has released a full scoring rubric that it will use to evaluate applications. Please see Attachment H in the application materials for further information related to scoring.
31. Do you have a mailing list for this program?
For program updates, please sign up for the Net Zero Grid team mailing list at MassCEC Stay Connected. Under "Announcements About Funding and Collaborations" there is the "Net Zero Grid" team option, and we send updates to this list regularly.
32. When do you expect the next solicitation round to occur?
As noted in section I of the RFP, MassCEC does not currently have plans to conduct future rounds of this program. This remains subject to change and all solicitation rounds will include a 90-day application period.
33 – Would an entity that owns a thermal energy network be considered an eligible entity?
Entities must be able to demonstrate that they are an eligible entity as defined in Section IV – Eligibility of the RFP. It seems likely that an entity that owns a thermal energy network but cannot be otherwise categorized as an eligible entity would not be considered eligible. Entities that are not otherwise eligible may request a designation from the Secretary. Entities interested in pursuing this designation should contact grid@masscec.com before applying.
34 – Does compliance support include pursuing BABA waivers when appropriate?
Yes, MassCEC compliance support for subrecipients includes assistance with BABA waivers when necessary.
35 – Can you provide a list of the battery devices that you consider in compliance with Build America Buy America requirements?
DOE has not provided a list of BABA-compliant BESS products, and MassCEC does not expect such a list to become available. Applicants are encouraged to contact manufacturers for information about BABA compliance of specific products.
36 – Could you please elaborate on the eligibility criteria for entities that operate solar? Is there a threshold size limit, and does the solar need to be operational and actively producing power?
Electricity Generators (which can include entities that own solar) are eligible subrecipients. DOE has not established a threshold for the size of solar and evaluates the eligibility of such applicants on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, if the qualifying generating asset is not currently interconnected and operational, DOE will evaluate eligibility on a case-by-case basis. Please contact grid@masscec.com before applying for additional information.
37 – Can previous grant recipients apply?
Yes, previous round grant recipients can apply under this round.
38 – Is there a specific definition of "critical facilities" to be served by the microgrids applying for these funds?
MassCEC has not provided a definition of "critical facilities" for the priority focus on microgrid projects in this RFP. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has recently used the following definition of a critical facility in the context of microgrid development:
“A facility, building, structure, or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, concerning which the loss of electrical service is likely to jeopardize public safety, public or patient health, or cyber security, as determined by the municipality in which the building, structure, facility, or other infrastructure is located or by the municipal, state, or federal government that owns or controls the real property, building, structure, facility, or other infrastructure; provided, that a critical facility shall include, but not be limited to, hospitals, assisted care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency operations centers, restoration staging areas, 911 dispatch centers, fire and police stations, communications infrastructure, water pumping and sewer treatment stations, and correctional facilities.”
MassCEC encourages applicants to consider this definition as an instructive example but has not limited eligible critical facilities to those that meet this definition. MassCEC encourages interested parties to apply if they can make a good faith justification for the critical or public-serving nature of the facility.
39 – Has there been cross collaboration in the past on applications? For example, we might be working with MLPs in installing energy storage systems for their C&I customers.
MassCEC welcomes applications from individual applicants and from applicant teams. Applicant teams should identify one entity to serve as the “lead applicant.” The lead applicant must be an eligible entity as defined by DOE and will serve as the contracting partner with MassCEC if selected. All project partners other than the lead applicant would be considered subcontractors for the purposes of Attachment E – Budget Justification Workbook.
40 – Would a software reliability platform be eligible in partnership with a distribution utility?
Monitoring and control technologies are considered an eligible project activity. Please see Section IV of the RFP for the full list of eligible entities and activities.
41 – Can other state grant funding qualify for the match?
Yes, other grant funding from state sources can qualify for cost match. Please review page 6 of Attachment K Grant Agreement Template for further details on cost match requirements.
42 – Are thermal energy networks that operate in a similar manner to other DERs eligible projects under this award?
Thermal energy projects that have a grid resilience focus could be allowable projects. DOE would evaluate whether such a project is eligible on an individual basis.
43 – Are there any limitations (or requirements) for participation in a VPP program?
MassCEC has not established any requirements or limitations for BESS systems to participate in aggregations, including virtual power plant (VPP) programs.
44 – Are there minimum or maximum thresholds for award sizes?
MassCEC has not set a minimum or maximum threshold for award size. There is up to $3,003,752 total in available funding this round.
45 – What is the decision-making process for determining who will be an awardee? Is the DOE also involved in that process?
MassCEC first evaluates applications using Attachment H – Scoring Rubric. MassCEC then selects whether to recommend projects for award to DOE. MassCEC will work with the selected applicants to finalize any materials necessary to submit to DOE for project approval. DOE will then review project proposals to ensure they align with all federal award requirements and approve projects for award.
46 – How would "disruptive events" be determined for the required adaptive capacity a DER would need to provide the grid?
DOE has provided the following guidance in its FAQ document:
Question: What is meant by “the use or construction of distributed energy resources for enhancing system adaptive capacity during disruptive events?”
Answer: System adaptive capacity is the ability of the electrical grid to continue to supply electricity where needed during disruptive events. A range of distributed energy resources, including energy storage devices (e.g., batteries) and microgrids, can be used to provide electrical energy during disruptions and, therefore, provide system adaptive capacity.
Additionally, Section 40101 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides the following definition of “disruptive events”:
“The term ‘disruptive event’ means an event in which operations of the electric grid are disrupted, preventively shut off, or cannot operate safely due to extreme weather, wildfire, or a natural disaster.”
47 – If the envisioned project is a battery microgrid for a public facility in the city/town serving the community, can it be at a different site than where the PV is located or does it have to be co-located and served by the PV?
MassCEC has not indicated a preference for microgrids co-located with solar PV versus other configurations. Additionally, if an entity owns solar PV and plans to apply as an “electricity generator,” the location of the solar PV is not used to determine whether an entity is eligible. Rather, the entity must simply be able to demonstrate ownership of generating assets.
48 – If the asset owned by the city/town is located on property under a long-term lease agreement (e.g., 30–100 years), is it still eligible?
If the city/town can demonstrate that they are the owner of the solar or storage asset, they should be considered an eligible entity.
49 – Would an institution of higher education be considered an eligible entity? How do we determine if we fall under the "Any other relevant entity, as determined by the Secretary of DOE" category?
Applicants must be able to demonstrate that they are an eligible entity as defined in Section IV – Eligibility of the RFP. For example, if the institution operates its own electric distribution system, owns electricity-generating assets (including solar), and/or operates energy storage systems, it may be considered an eligible entity. If the institution is not otherwise considered eligible, it may request a designation from the DOE Secretary. Entities interested in pursuing this designation should contact grid@masscec.com before applying.
50 – If we are not considered eligible as a lead applicant, can we apply as a partner with an energy provider?
Eligible entities may partner with other organizations for their application. Please see Question 39 for more information about applying as an applicant team. MassCEC would award the project to the eligible entity, who can subcontract out additional work to partner organizations as necessary. Federal requirements will flow down through the subrecipient to additional subcontractors.
51 – Can you please provide some clarity around the cost match requirements? For example, if we were to apply independently, would we need to match the award by 115%? If we partner with an entity who sells electricity and they served as the lead applicant, would we still need to match the 115% plus that entity would then be responsible for the one-third plus 15% of the subaward value (assuming they sell greater than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity per year)?
Cost match is determined based on grant value and entity size of the lead applicant (as defined by DOE). The total number of applicant partners does not affect cost match requirements.
The lead organization must determine whether they are considered a large or small entity based on the organization's annual sales of electricity. If the lead applicant is large (sells greater than 4,000,000 MWh annually OR sells no electricity), the minimum cost match requirement is 115% of the award. If the lead applicant is small (sells less than 4,000,000 MWh of electricity annually), the minimum cost match requirement is one-third plus 15% of the award. The lead applicant will be responsible for ensuring that cost match requirements are met throughout the project, regardless of additional organizations involved in the project.
52 – Can a municipality that owns solar PV but does not sell electricity be considered a small entity for cost match purposes?
If a municipality can demonstrate financial transactions related to the generating assets it owns (including solar), that entity can qualify as a small utility. Financial transactions can include net metering. If an entity has no financial transactions related to its generating assets and does not sell electricity, it would be considered a large entity and must provide a cost match of 115% of the award.
53 – DOE’s program FAQ (September 17, 2024) states that construction of new solar generation is not an allowable cost for Section 40101 grant funds and may not be paid with the associated cost match, while battery storage used during disruptive events and the equipment required to integrate the battery, including shared equipment the battery needs to operate, may be allowable. Would it be allowable to fund the PV entirely outside the project, with grant funds and match covering the battery system, intertie circuit, microgrid controller, switchgear, and automatic transfer switches?
Yes. Please note that all batteries must comply with the BABA requirements without the use of a waiver. Additionally, all funded upgrades through the program must have demonstrable resilience and reliability benefits that are independent from the new PV system or other new generation.
Q 54 - Would an existing CHP facility potentially be eligible for grant funding for upgrades such as:
- Blackstart capability
- Islanding controls
- Automatic transfer equipment
- Switchgear and protective-relay upgrades
- Critical-load distribution upgrades
- Battery energy storage integrated with the CHP system
- Other controls or electrical modifications needed to enable microgrid operation
We are also curious where MassCEC draws the line between an eligible modification to an existing generation facility and ineligible construction of a new generation facility. For example, if an existing CHP engine needed to be replaced or substantially rebuilt in order to support the facility, could that portion of the project potentially qualify, or would the generation-equipment scope need to be funded separately?
A - The listed upgrades are likely eligible activities under this program. Please see page 4 of the RFP ("Eligible Projects") for the full list of eligible activities. For further details on eligible modifications of existing generating facilities, please see pages 14 through 20 of the Department of Energy FAQ document.
Q 55 - Are companies that are looking to build and install a microgrid system considered eligible entities? We would be an energy storage systems provider and installer, but not the operator.
A - Applicants must demonstrate that they are an eligible entity as defined by DOE. A microgrid provider may be an eligible entity if it can provide a reasonable justification that it could be considered one or more of the defined eligible entity types. For example, if the entity operates storage systems or generates electricity in another part of its business, it could be considered an eligible entity. Please see question 9 for the list of eligible entity types and additional information.
Q 56 - Does MassCEC score projects higher that blend funding, for example from the AMP grant, federal tax incentives and the MassCEC program?
A - MassCEC has not defined a preference. Please see Attachment H - Scoring Rubric for more information about application scoring.
Q 57 - Would a U.S.-organized clean-energy developer that will own and/or operate the proposed BESS or microgrid assets potentially qualify as an "electricity storage operator," even if it does not presently own an operating Massachusetts storage asset?
A - The qualifying asset does not need to be operated in Massachusetts to achieve eligibility. If the applicant does not own a qualifying asset, such as generation or storage, that is currently interconnected and operational, but is in the process of developing such projects, DOE will evaluate eligibility on a case-by-case basis.
Q 58 - Must an Applicant already satisfy the electricity-storage-operator or electricity-generator definition on the application date, or may eligibility arise from the Applicant's contractual ownership or operating role in the proposed project following award?
A - MassCEC's understanding is that applicants must qualify as eligible subrecipients at the time of the application, independent of the proposed project.
Q 59 - If an Applicant does not clearly fall within one of the expressly enumerated eligible-entity categories but believes it qualifies as an "other relevant entity," may MassCEC seek DOE's determination during application review, or must such determination be obtained before the September 21 application deadline?
A - MassCEC requests that entities interested in pursuing an "other relevant entity" designation reach out to grid@masscec.com as soon as possible. If MassCEC decides to move forward with requesting eligible entity status on an entity's behalf, this form would be required. Please see pages 20 and 21 of the Department of Energy FAQ for more information.
Q 60 - May an eligible Applicant lead a project consortium comprising a critical-facility host, BESS/microgrid OEM, EPC contractor, engineering firm, investor/financing partner and other specialized technical partners?
A - Please see question 39 for details on organizations collaborating on a project.
Q 61 - For purposes of evaluating Project Management and Budget, may MassCEC consider the qualifications, experience, references and financial/technical capabilities of committed consortium members, subcontractors and technology/EPC partners in addition to those of the lead Applicant?
A - MassCEC will consider the qualifications of the full applicant team when evaluating applications. Additionally, MassCEC encourages applicants to submit Support Letters (Attachment G) from partner organizations, and those will be included in application evaluations.
Q 62 - Must the Subrecipient own the proposed project site, or may the BESS/microgrid be installed at a third-party critical facility under a lease, site-use agreement, energy-services agreement or similar contractual arrangement? What level of site-control documentation is required with the application—for example, an executed agreement, memorandum of understanding, letter of intent, host commitment letter or other evidence?
A - MassCEC has not specified a preference for projects owned by the site versus those installed via contractual agreements, nor defined specific required documentation to demonstrate site control. Applicants who do not own the site should submit documentation that attests to the organization's relationship with the site and describes a clear path to site control (if the Applicant does not already have site control). If selected, Applicants will be required to demonstrate site control before MassCEC executes an agreement with the selected Applicant.
Q 63 - For a privately owned critical facility providing a demonstrable public resilience benefit, may an eligible electricity-storage operator or project company serve as the Subrecipient while the facility owner serves as project host? The RFP specifically identifies privately owned facilities such as grocery stores, health clinics and cellular/radio towers and recognizes a community-partner support letter as one means of demonstrating public resilience benefits.
A - MassCEC encourages collaborations such as these for applications under this program. Please see question 39 for more details on how to approach the application.
Q 64 - May the required cost match be provided in whole or in part by project partners or third parties—including the facility host, investor, developer, OEM/EPC contractor, storage operator or project-finance provider—rather than entirely from the lead Applicant's balance sheet? May multiple project participants collectively provide the required cost match?
A - Confirming answer with DOE. Will be updated here shortly.
Q 65 - May the required cost match be funded through project financing that closes following conditional selection and DOE approval, provided appropriate evidence of the financing commitment is included with the application?
A - Confirming answer with DOE. Will be updated here shortly.
Q 66 - Please clarify whether third-party in-kind contributions—including eligible equipment, engineering, construction or other project costs—may count toward the required cost match and, if so, what valuation, documentation and federal cost-allowability requirements apply.
A - Confirming answer with DOE. Will be updated here shortly.
Q 67 - May Section 40101(d) funding support the eligible resilience components of a larger microgrid—such as BESS, automatic transfer switches, switchgear, microgrid controls and distribution-system upgrades—while otherwise ineligible generation components are separately financed outside the subaward?
A - Yes. All funded upgrades through the program must have demonstrable resilience and reliability benefits that are independent from the new PV system or other new generation.
Q 68 - Where a critical facility already has solar PV, emergency generation or another distributed-energy resource, may the subaward support BESS, controls, switchgear, automatic transfer switches and distribution upgrades necessary to create or enhance islandable microgrid capability?
A - Yes. Please note that all batteries included in the project, whether funded by the grant or cost match, must comply with the BABA requirements without the use of a waiver.
Q 69 - Does MassCEC have a preferred minimum BESS duration or resilience-duration target, or should Applicants optimize battery power and energy capacity based upon critical-load analysis, anticipated outage conditions and demonstrated resilience benefits?
A - MassCEC has not expressed a preference for specific BESS capabilities. MassCEC encourages applicants to submit projects they feel achieve the goals set out in the RFP.
Q 70 - For a proposed BESS, what documentation does MassCEC expect at the application stage to demonstrate compliance with Build America, Buy America requirements? Would a project-specific certification from the proposed OEM be sufficient at application stage, subject to subsequent verification and supporting documentation? This clarification is important because the RFP states that BESS projects must demonstrate BABA compliance without use of a waiver.
A - MassCEC requests that applicants submit an attestation from any proposed BESS manufacturers that attest to the BESS being BABA compliant. A project-specific certification from the proposed OEM should suffice. MassCEC may request further supporting documentation during the application review period. Please see page 8 of the RFP for more details on the BABA requirements.
Q 71 - We have not identified an application fee, proposal fee, bid bond, proposal security, deposit, letter of credit or similar application-stage financial security requirement in the RFP. Please confirm whether any such requirement applies to submission of an application.
A - There is no application-stage financial security requirement for this program.
Q 72 - Please clarify whether an awarded Subrecipient and/or its EPC/construction contractor will be required to furnish any performance bond, payment bond, letter of credit, parent guarantee, completion guarantee or other project security in connection with grant-agreement execution or project implementation.
A - Confirming answer with DOE. Will be updated here shortly.
Q 73 - Are there minimum ownership, operation, asset-retention or useful-life requirements applicable to BESS, microgrid controls, switchgear or other equipment funded through the subaward, including any restrictions on transfer, sale, refinancing or change of control following project completion?
A - The BIL defined equipment disposition requirements for projects funded by this program. Subrecipients would need to file SF 428 and SF 428B forms to request disposition instructions and report on equipment having a fair market value greater than $10,000 at the end of the grant. Per 2 CFR 200.313 (e), if such equipment is sold, then the subrecipient would need to provide DOE with the percentage of the proceeds based on the percentage of DOE funding used to purchase the equipment. Please see 2 CFR 200.313 for additional information. Additionally, please see Attachment L, Special Terms and Conditions, for full details on the flow down requirements and information regarding transfer, sale, or change of control.
Finally, the benefits derived from the equipment and the potential impact timelines for those benefits will be considered when scoring applications. Please see Attachment H - Scoring Rubric for more details.
Q 74 - The RFP identifies up to $3,003,752 as currently available under this solicitation. Does MassCEC anticipate making multiple subawards from the available funding, and is there a preferred or anticipated range for individual subaward requests?
A - MassCEC has not set a minimum or maximum threshold for award size or the number of awards.
Q 75 - Could grant funding could support upgrades to existing CHP installations such as:
- Controls and modifications to enable islanding or blackstart operation
- Electrical and switchgear upgrades required for resilient operation
- Integration of existing CHP systems into a microgrid configuration
- Any other retrofit work necessary to improve the resilience and operational flexibility of an already-installed CHP unit
To clarify, our question is focused specifically on retrofitting and upgrading existing CHP systems, rather than new CHP installations or full system replacements.
A - Please see question 54 for this answer.
Q 76 - Are community engagement, stakeholder outreach, and related communications services (e.g., community meetings, resident/customer research, and public awareness efforts tied to a funded project) considered allowable project costs under this program when performed by a subcontractor to an eligible lead applicant? If such services are allowable, may they also be counted toward the lead applicant's cost match requirement?
A - Confirming answer with DOE. Will be updated here shortly.
