Natural Gas Engine Improved Efficiency Research and Development

GFO-16-507

Natural Gas Engine Improved Efficiency Research and Development

California Energy Commission

Pre-Application Workshop: December 29, 2016

Pre-Application Questions, Answers, and Clarifications

State of California

California Energy Commission

1. Q: Can the project be fully computational or it has to have experimental demonstration component?

A: The project may involve some computational tasks, but itmust have an experimental demonstration component with a production or production-ready prototype natural gas engine.

1. Q: Can the phrase, “production-ready”, be clarified?

A: For the purposes of this GFO, a “production-ready” engine refers to an engine that may not be currently commercialized or certified, but it has the capabilities to reach production status. The demonstration engine should be relatable to current production natural gas engines to show applicability of the technology and paths to commercialization.

1. Q: Can an institution that is excluded as an applicant, because they have received more than $3M in the last 5 years, be included as a 'supporting' partner that does not receive any CEC funds?

A: Yes, as long as the ineligible entity is not receiving Energy Commission Natural Gas-Related Transportation R&D Funds for the proposed project, the entity can still be included as a supporting partner.

1. Q: If the proposal includes more than one engine displacement and OEM participant, would that be encouraged or discouraged?

A: If one of the main assets of the proposed project is modularity, then it may be argued that testing the proposed technology on different engine displacements with different OEMs is beneficial to highlighting the technology’s modularity and potential paths to commercialization. However, if the technology and tasks involved differ substantially between the two engines, separate applications should be submitted for each engine application.

1. Q: Please explain what measurements to characterize performance are requested besides torque, power, and speed.

A:Emission performance, reliability and consistency, robustness to fuel variability, and other metrics can be tested and measured to show the capabilities of the proposed technology. Applicants should provide detail on their proposed measurement and verification plan to show how they plan to test and verify performance improvements from their proposed technology.

1. Q: The phrases ‘engine efficiency improvement technology’ and ‘engine operational efficiency’ are used on page 13. Do these phrases pertain to fuel efficiency, which is mentioned on page 14 with the phrase, ‘improved fuel efficiency’? For fuel efficiency the EPA regulations for medium and heavy duty engines in on road vehicles (tractor trailers)… define and specify engine fuel efficiency by using the carbon dioxide emission standard with the units of grams CO2 per bhp-hr. For example, for 2017, the HHD Set standard is 460 g/bhp-hr. Is this metric appropriate for characterizing engine efficiency?

A: For this solicitation, efficiency gains measured at the engine level are sufficient. If the proposed project includes an on-road test or demonstration, fuel efficiency gains may be calculated to better characterize the benefits of the technology. Using the EPA regulations to calculate fuel efficiency in terms of grams of CO2 per bhp-hr is acceptable as one metric for characterizing efficiency improvements.

1. Q: The eligibility statement at the top of page 12 excludes applicants who have received funding totaling more than $3,000,000 through Energy Commission … agreements in the of the past five years. Please identify who these entities are. Can one of these entities be used as a subcontractor to an eligible applicant?

A: There are two entities that are ineligible for participating in this solicitation due to receiving of Natural Gas-Related Transportation Research funds beyond $3 million in that past five years: 1. Cummins Westport, Inc. and 2. University of California, Riverside. Ineligible entities cannot receive Energy Commission funds as a subcontractor for the proposed project, but can be included as a project partner not receiving Energy Commission funds.

1. Q: This proposal pertains to on-road natural gas engine development. Is an engine and testing system designed for 450-500 hp appropriate? This would capture engines with displacements of 12 to 15 liters.

A: Yes, this solicitation is aiming to fund efficiency improvement technologies for natural gas engines that are capable of being adapted to heavy-duty on-road natural gas vehicles.

1. Q: Is testing and demonstration of the engine and after-treatment technology in a laboratory environment with an engine dynamometer and US EPA approved emissions measurement protocols for on-road heavy-duty engine emissions testing sufficient? Is on-road testing of a heavy-duty natural gas vehicle such as a tractor trailer equipped with such technology expected or encouraged?

A: Testing at the engine level with an engine dynamometer in a laboratory setting is sufficient for this solicitation. However, on-road vehicle testing is also eligible. Applicants should give details supportingtheir chosen level of testing and demonstration of the proposed technology and provide information on how the testing will lead to commercial products and ratepayer benefits.

1. Q: The Cummins Westport 8.9 liter ISLGhas been certified by the ARB as a near-zero emission engine for 2016 (measured NOx of 0.01 g/bhp-hr). Does the Energy Commission consider this engine an example of good performance, fuel efficiency and emission reduction?

A: The purpose of this solicitation is to improve engine efficiency of natural gas engines suitable for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. The Cummins Westport 8.9L ISL G Near-Zero is an example of a commercialized engine that has been certified at ARB’s lowest optional low NOx standard. Applicants may consider using this engine among other commercialized natural gas or natural gas converted diesel based engines for heavy-duty on-road vehicle applications as a benchmark for comparison or platform for improvement to further improveperformance, efficiency, and emission reduction.

1. Q: Would the development, design engineering and demonstration of a hybrid electrical drive and advance cooling system that allows for throttle-less operation of a current production engine be considered for funding in this solicitation?

A: The focus of this solicitation is efficiency improvements on the engine level. A hybrid electric drive extends the project to a broader drivetrain or vehicle level. However, an advanced cooling system that directly affects engine efficiency that may be coupled with a hybrid electric drive for additional benefits can be considered for funding under this solicitation, but would be evaluated based on quantitative improved efficiency.

1. Q: Is the Energy Commission interested in establishing the maximum theoretical peak brake thermal efficiency in this development effort or an efficiency package that can be implemented practically on a production engine at reasonable cost and meeting reliability and durability expectations?

A: The proposed technology must be capable of providing California ratepayer benefits. Therefore, the technology must be practical, cost-effective, and meet reliability expectations to potentially reach commercialization and deliver benefits.

1. Q: If the proposal team consists of a world class non-US engine manufacturer but the lead applicant is a small business U.S. project developer with California operations, can the proposal be a joint proposal?

A: Yes, there is no requirement for all entities involved in the proposal to be California-Based Entities. The non-US engine manufacturer can be listed as a major subcontractor while the small US project developer with California operations submits the proposal and acts as the primary applicant. However, reduced CBE participation and low amounts of funds spent in California will result in fewer points during proposal evaluation under Criteria 6 and Criteria 10.

1. Q: Is the Energy Commission primarily interested in improvements in peak brake thermal efficiency gains for this natural gas engine development work? Or will the Energy Commission look at Well-to-Wheels life cycle efficiency to measure the natural gas engine improvement efficiency under this engine development work? (For example, the U.S. DOE SuperTruck diesel engines have achieved 50.2 percent peak brake thermal efficiency. We calculate a WTW efficiency of 22.9 percent.)

A: For this solicitation, efficiency gains measured at the engine level such as brake thermal efficiency are sufficient. Measuring metrics such as well-to-wheels life cycle efficiency may be included in the project if they can draw better comparisons with current natural gas engines or diesel engines and quantify ratepayer benefits.

1. Q: Does the Energy Commission desire to have a fleet as part of the proposal/project team?

A: For this solicitation, testing and demonstrating the proposed technology at the engine level is sufficient. However, fleet demonstrations of the engine equipped with the proposed technology are also eligible and may show an accelerated path to commercialization. Applicants should provide details supporting their chosen level of testing and demonstration of the proposed technology and provide information on how their project will lead to commercial products and ratepayer benefits.

1. Q:Is this solicitation limited to 100% spark-ignited natural gas engines? Would naturalgas dual fuel systems be eligible?

A: Dual-fuelengines are eligible under this solicitation.

1. Q: Please clarify that the exception listed in Section II. A. 1. Eligibility (prohibiting an applicant who has received funding totaling more than $3,000,000 through Energy Commission Natural Gas-Related Transportation Research Area agreements as either a prime contractor or subcontractor over the past five years) applies to only the funding received and used by the prime contractor or subcontractor for work performed by them, and not the funding a prime contractor or subcontractor passes through to a lower-tier subcontractor for work the lower-tier subcontractor performs on a project.

A: As stated on Page 12 of the Application Manual for GFO-16-507“This solicitation is open to all entities and individuals with the exception of applicants who have received funding totaling more than $3,000,000 through Energy Commission Natural Gas-Related Transportation Research Area agreements as either a prime contractor or subcontractor over the past five years.” If an entity classified as a lower-tier subcontractor received Energy Commission funds through a Prime or Subcontractor, then those funds would count against the aggregated total. If the lower-tier subcontractor supported a Natural Gas funded project but did not receive compensation from Energy Commission funds, then the funds received would NOT count against the aggregated total.

Page 1GFO-16-507