{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","FOA CONTENT QUESTIONS","Admin Pick List"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":2,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,1],[9,0,9,1]]}
["INSTRUCTIONS"]
[1,"All questions pertaining to this funding opportunity announcement should be emailed to H2Hubs@hq.doe.gov."]
[2,"All questions pertaining to OCED Exchange should be emailed to OCED-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. Include FOA name and number in subject line."]
[3,"All questions and answers pertaining to this FOA will be posted on EERE Exchange within this spreadsheet."]
[4,"DOE will attempt to respond to a question within 3 business days, unless a similar question and answer have already been posted in this spreadsheet. "]
[5,"All questions should be submitted no later than 3 business days prior to the application due date. Questions submitted after this date will not be answered."]
[6,"Questions are assigned a number in accordance with when they are reviewed by DOE.  "]
[7,"Questions are assigned a topic area by DOE when reviewed."]
[]
["TIPS"]
[1,"Applicants may sort questions and answers in the FOA Content Questions tab of this spreadhseet by selecting the drop-down box arrows on the column headers and selecting any of the listed attributes."]
[2,"Applicants may search for questions and/or keywords by holding CTRL+F on the keyboard and typing in a phrase or keyword."]

{"sheet":"FOA CONTENT QUESTIONS","index":1,"n_rows":331,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":331,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,4],[1,0,1,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA-0002779 - Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Additional Clean Hydrogen Programs (Section 40314): Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2022-09-22","OCED Exchange","I’m having trouble opening the PDF with more information about the FOA. Is there another link to that document?","A read-only Word version of the FOA has also been posted on OCED Exchange for applicants who are experiencing issues opening the PDF document."]
[2,"2022-09-22","Other","Can you confirm whether SAM.gov registration needs to be completed in advance of submission of the concept paper or just prior to the full application?","System for Award Management (SAM) registration is not required for Concept Paper submission. Applicants are required to be registered in the SAM at https://www.sam.gov before submitting its full application and provide a valid UEI number in its full application.\n\nNOTE: Due to the high demand of UEI requests and SAM registrations, entity legal business name and address validations are taking longer than expected to process. Applicants should start the UEI and SAM registration process as soon as possible"]
[3,"2022-09-22","Application Content/Format","Is it permissible to submit letters of support with the Concept Paper, and if so, must they count against the 20 page limit?","Although letters of support are not required until the full application stage, applicants may include letters of support with the Concept Paper as supplemental information, but these letters would count toward the maximum page length of 20 pages."]
[4,"2022-09-23","Other","We have submitted information into matchmaker and have begun reaching out to some national laboratories, but believe our inexperience in seeking funding will not allow us to fully participate in the FOA without additional directional guidance. Would it be possible to set up a meeting to discuss how we can be involved hub agnostically? For example, offer the technology to the hub partnerships as a possible pathway?","Upon the issuance of a funding opportunity announcement (FOA), DOE personnel are prohibited from communicating (in writing or otherwise) with applicants regarding the FOA except through the established question and answer process as described in Section VII of the FOA. DOE is also prohibited from endorsing specific companies or products.\n\nAs stated in the FOA: To facilitate H2Hub team formation, DOE launched H2 Matchmaker (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker), a voluntary online tool created to aid in fostering partnerships among key stakeholders by allowing potential partners to identify each other. H2 Matchmaker is an online information resource intended to help foster partnerships by increasing awareness and aligning potential needs in specific regions of the U.S. For more information, see Section I.A.iii (Teaming Partner List – H2 Matchmaker) of the FOA."]
[5,"2022-09-26","Tech Topics","Can building a renewable energy source to power a HUB be counted as non-Federal cost share?  What scenarios will this be acceptable?","Per page 14 of the FOA, “the allocation of funds for … the construction of renewable, nuclear, or fossil facilities needed to power H2Hub technologies is generally not allowable but may be considered in limited scenarios if strong justification is provided and the proposed funding amounts for these activities represent a minor component of the overall H2Hub funding.” Therefore, building a renewable energy source to power a hub may be considered with a strong justification of why that must be funded as part of the H2Hub; however, the primary focus and preponderance of the H2Hub scope and funding (under either federal funding or non-federal cost share) must be related to clean hydrogen production, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumption."]
[6,"2022-09-26","Tech Topics","This opportunity seems focused on centralized hydrogen production. However, we believe that is not the best way forward for all hydrogen applications (notably transportation). Our business model focuses on decentralized hydrogen production. If our business plan matches the production minimums outlined in your announcement, but is spread out across many production sites throughout a region, can we still qualify for the award? If not, is there an intention of the DOE to satisfy this area of hydrogen development in a future funding opportunity? ","The FOA does not require the hydrogen production to be centralized. Per page 9 of the FOA, “Production can be centralized or decentralized, grid-connected or off-grid, offering scalability, versatility, and regionality” provided that applicants demonstrate that the proposed H2Hub meets the full vision described in the FOA, connecting large-scale clean hydrogen production to end-users in the targeted geographic region."]
[7,"2022-09-26","Tech Topics","In the announcement, it states that \"Applicants are encouraged to focus on integrated system technologies that have completed TRL 6 or higher, DOE may consider individual components with lower TRLs, but they will be considered higher risk deployments\".  The award timeline extends to winter 2023-2024, with the multi-phase implementation starting after that. So -- if a company has technology that is at TRL 6 by phase 2 is that good enough to be included in the application even if it's at a lower TRL at the point of submission? Or, at what point should the technology be TRL-6 to be included in a successful bid?","As stated on page 29 of the FOA, H2Hubs must be able to achieve a technology readiness level of 8 or higher (Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration) by the completion of Phase 4. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to focus on integrated system technologies that have completed TRL 6 or higher at the time of application submission. \n\nHowever, per the FOA, DOE may consider individual components with lower TRLs, but they will be considered higher risk deployments and will require corresponding mitigations which may require development activities outside of the H2Hub scope and funding (i.e., H2Hub award funding may not be used for pilot-scale or earlier activities, such as research and development). Applications should include a description of all technology maturation needs and corresponding maturation plans, described by phase as well as detailed justification for any integrated systems or components at a TRL lower than 6."]
[8,"2022-09-27","Other","Is an applicant required to have a UEI to submit a Concept Paper?","See Question #2."]
[9,"2022-09-27","Subrecipients","Per the FOA: The FFRDC effort, in aggregate, shall not exceed 10% of the total estimated cost of the project, including the applicant’s and the FFRDC’s portions of the effort. If there are multiple FFRDCs participating in a proposal, can each FFRDC receive 10% of the total estimated cost? ","The limit on FFRDC effort is \"in aggregate\", meaning the combined total for all FFRDCs participating in a proposal may not exceed 10% of the total estimated cost of the project."]
[10,"2022-09-27","Other","From my reading of the H2Hub opportunity announcement, I understand the full applications require a certain amount of preliminary engineering complete to support a Class 4 EPC estimate, general arrangement/plot plan, etc. which will need an EPC company, or at minimum an engineering company, to be involved prior to the full application submittals. To best understand, however, when an EPC company should get involved in the process, I have the following questions:\n•\tDo EPC companies need to be named in the Concept Papers due Nov. 7, 2022? \n•\tWill the EPC Contractor need to be named in the full application due April 7, 2023? \n•\tDoes the FOA specify the contractual strategy for the full applications? \n•\tWill lump sum EPC be a requirement for the EPC Phase? ","It is up to each applicant to formulate their Project Team with capabilities needed to complete all of the proposed H2Hub activities including engineering, design, and construction. At the concept paper stage, applicants should succinctly describe the qualifications, experience, and capabilities of the proposed Project Team. See Section IV.C.i of the FOA for Concept Paper content requirements. At the full application stage, the Management Plan should describe in detail the unique capabilities and expertise of the prime recipient and any major project partners or subrecipients, debt or equity sponsors, contractors/vendors (if known), and every other counterparty that the prime recipient believes will enable the H2Hub to be successful. See Section IV.D.i of the FOA for Full Application content requirements.\n\nThe FOA does not specify the type of contractual strategy or mechanism to be used between an awardee and EPC companies or other vendors/contractors, although financial assistance recipients must follow procurement standards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317-327. "]
[11,"2022-09-27","Subrecipients","The submission portal (OCED Funding Opportunity Exchange) for the concept paper requests that the hubs indicate the team members (company name, address and project leader name, phone number, address...) and key participants.\n\n1) Can you confirm submitting team members & key participants information is a requirement for all projects comprising the hub?\n2) Is the answer to 1 different if our project is mostly not R&D? (our projects are H2 production, pipeline, storage and end-users)\n3) The list of team members & key participants will likely not be final. Can you confirm that we will be allowed to add or remove some organizations between the concept paper and the final proposal\n4) Can you confirm that the project leader personal information (name, phone, number email) will be kept confidential by DOE or that we will have an opportunity to redact it in case of FOIA requests","1) Yes, applicants are required to submit team member and key participant information.\n2) The requirement to submit team member and key participant information is for H2Hub demonstration projects. Per Section I.C of the FOA, applications including research, development, and pilot-scale activities are specifically not of interest and will be deemed nonresponsive. \n3) Yes, team members and key participants may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application.\n4) Applicants should not include business sensitive information (e.g., commercial or financial information that is privilege or confidential), trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information in their application. Per FOA Section VIII.D (Treatment of Application Information), \"if an application includes trade secrets or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or privileged, it is furnished to the Government in confidence with the understanding that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, DOE will seek to limit disclosure of such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when necessary for merit review of the application or as otherwise authorized by law.\" In addition, per Section VIII.Q of the FOA, all information provided by the applicant must to the greatest extent possible exclude Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The term “PII” refers to information which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as their name, social security number, biometric records, alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth or mother’s maiden name. "]
[12,"2022-09-27","Eligibility","Could you please clarify if the participation of small businesses is desirable or allowed and if so, how do you expect them to participate, otherwise please provide an advise for those who are not clear if they can or not apply. ","Small businesses are eligible to participate as a prime recipient or subrecipient of this FOA. See Section III of the FOA for Eligibility Information. \n\nTo facilitate H2Hub team formation, DOE launched H2 Matchmaker (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker), a voluntary online tool created to aid in fostering partnerships among key stakeholders by allowing potential partners to identify each other. H2 Matchmaker is an online information resource intended to help foster partnerships by increasing awareness and aligning potential needs in specific regions of the U.S. For more information, see Section I.A.iii (Teaming Partner List – H2 Matchmaker) of the FOA. "]
[13,"2022-09-28","Other","For applications which are a coalition applying as a single entity, should that LLC create their own login to submit, or can that group submit under one of the company's account?","The Concept Paper and Full Application must be submitted under the prime applicant's OCED Exchange account. Therefore, if the coalition is applying under the LLC entity, that LLC should create their own login to submit the application. Each applicant must also be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and provide a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number in its application. See Section IV.G of the FOA for more information. "]
[14,"2022-09-28","Cost Sharing","As a follow-up to question #5, would a newly built renewable power source qualify for the type of cost share as describe below in the FOA?\n1.\tValuing recipient's property or services of recipient's employees. Values are established in accordance with the applicable cost principles, which mean that amounts chargeable to the project are determined on the basis of costs incurred. For real property or equipment used on the project, the cost principles authorize depreciation or use charges. The full value of the item may be applied when the item will be consumed in the performance of the award or fully depreciated by the end of the award. In cases where the full value of a donated capital asset is to be applied as cost sharing or matching, that full value must be the lesser of the following:\na)\tThe certified value of the remaining life of the property recorded in the recipient's accounting records at the time of donation; or\nb)\tThe current fair market value. If there is sufficient justification, the Contracting Officer may approve the use of the current fair market value of the donated property, even if it exceeds the certified value at the time of donation to the project. The Contracting Officer may accept the use of any reasonable basis for determining the fair market value of the property.","If building a renewable energy source to power a hub is authorized (this is generally not allowable under this FOA but may be considered in very limited scenarios), then those costs may be allocable to the project and depreciation or use charges could be counted as cost share as described in the FOA. See Section III.B for more information on Cost Sharing contributions. "]
[15,"2022-09-28","Budget/Costs","End-use investments - can you please confirm if investment in hydrogen vehicles (trucks, buses and ports equipment such as drayage trucks, yard tractors, forklifts, top handlers, RTG cranes etc...) will be allowables costs ?","Per Section I.B.i of the FOA end-use applications for hydrogen may include transportation applications (e.g., on-road and off-road fuel cell vehicles, marine, rail, aviation, cargo handling). As such, investment in hydrogen vehicles may be allowable project costs, subject to the Buy America Requirement for Infrastructure Projects (see FOA Section IV.J.vi for more info) and other FOA requirements."]
[16,"2022-09-28","Tech Topics","I am interested in learning more about some of the requirements needed for a project to be considered an H2 Hub. I saw under the website considerations will be for projects using clean hydrogen to replace carbon intensive projects. I am curious as to whether or not the production of blue hydrogen (w/ CCS) is part of what is being considered clean hydrogen? Or is this aimed more towards green hydrogen?\n\nAdditionally, on the demand side, is the idea to find projects which plan to use the clean hydrogen as an energy provider directly, or simply use clean or low carbon hydrogen to help decarbonize process that already use hydrogen (i.e. ammonia production and refinery activities)?","Please see Section I.B of the FOA for the Topic Area Description including the H2Hub Definition. The BIL requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, at least one H2Hub demonstrate the production of clean hydrogen from fossil fuels, one H2Hub from renewable energy, and one H2Hub from nuclear energy. Regardless of the energy source, DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies and best practices to mitigate emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) throughout the H2Hub, and the proposed H2Hubs will be evaluated by the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle. See the \"Hydrogen Production\" section for more information including examples of hydrogen production technologies of interest.\n\nDOE envisions H2Hubs will include various end-uses for hydrogen in multiple sectors that align with existing or anticipated regional demand. See the \"Hydrogen End-Uses\" section for more information including examples of end-use applications."]
[17,"2022-09-28","Eligibility","Regarding DE-FOA-0002779, if a group goes after a federal grant, such as a hydrogen hub grant, the group or consortium needs a Prime Contractor or Prime Recipient to handle the federal funds and coordinate necessary reporting. Are there instances where a group of larger companies have formed a ‘joint venture’ of sorts and created an umbrella organization that sits atop all of those companies, which would be subcontractors under this joint venture umbrella, in pursuing federal funds?","Please see Section III of the FOA for Eligibility Information. Sections III.A.iii and III.A.iv specifically discuss Incorporated Consortia and Unincorporated Consortia.\n\nNote: Per Section II.B.i of the FOA, DOE generally uses cooperative agreements (vs. grants) to provide financial and other support to prime recipients."]
[18,"2022-09-29","Other","The FOA mentions that a Community Benefits Plan guidance will be provided at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/. When do you anticipate having it posted?","DOE anticipates that the Community Benefits Plan guidance will be posted in the next several weeks."]
[19,"2022-09-29","Eligibility","Our hub involves a number of private corporations, universities, non-profit organization and other government organizations.  We have been working with the legal counsel for our partners on the organizational and legal structure of the hub and its lead applicant (possibilities include a joint venture, one industry lead, or not-for-profit corporation).  Is it possible for the lead applicant for our hub in the April full application to be different from the lead applicant as submitted in the concept paper, even though the major hub partners will essentially be the same?","If there is a change to the lead organization listed on the Concept Paper, the Full Application must include documentation from both the transferor and the transferee that shows they both voluntarily agree to transfer the OCED Exchange control number and the concept paper. This documentation must be included as an Appendix to the Technical Volume.\n\nNote: The OCED Exchange account associated with the Concept Paper control number does not need to be transferred to the new lead organization. Within Exchange, Applicants may share their submissions with other team members / Exchange users using the Share Submission feature. Sharing a submission with another user will give that user access to edit, view submission decisions, and view reviewer comments for all stages of a FOA (Concept Paper and Full Application). See the OCED eXCHANGE Applicant Guide located at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/Manuals.aspx for instructions."]
[20,"2022-09-29","Cost Sharing","Can cost share begin accruing with Notice of Award or Execution of DOE contract? \n\nCan expenses eligible for DOE reimbursement be incurred upon Execution of a DOE contract, if early deployments of vehicle are a first stage in large scale deployments during Phases 3 or 4?","Per Section IV.J.ii of the FOA, if applicants want to incur costs prior to the execution of the DOE Cooperative Agreement, applicants selected for award negotiations (selectee) must request prior written approval to charge pre-award costs. Pre-award costs are those incurred prior to the effective date of the federal award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the federal award where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the federal award and only with the written approval of the federal awarding agency through the DOE Contracting Officer.\n\nEarly purchases, such as vehicles or other equipment, can be front-loaded as cost share. In other words, the minimum cost share contribution may be exceeded early in the project. The cumulative cost share percentage provided must remain, at a minimum, 50% of total project costs throughout all phases of the project.\n\nWhile this FOA is soliciting plans for all 4 phases of H2Hub projects, DOE will only initially commit to funding Phase 1 activities and authorize funding for Phase 1. Additional funding for subsequent phases will require successful completion of a Go/No-Go review at the end of each phase. That said, as stated on page 20 of the FOA, long-lead procurement activities may be started in Phase 2 with prior DOE approval. "]
[21,"2022-09-29","Tech Topics","Can a region with existing hydrogen fuel supply and infrastructure take advantange of this availability to begin deployment within the transportation sector prior to Phase 3 with these deployments being considered as part of H2Hub activites? Allowing this approach will support a more robust deployment scenario.","Per page 14 of the FOA, \"To maximize the impact of available funding, each H2Hub, to the extent possible, should utilize energy resources prevalent in its region and leverage existing facilities and infrastructure for hydrogen production, storage, delivery, and end-uses.\"\n\nBefore DOE authorizes Phase 3 activities awardees will need to successfully complete Phase 1 and 2, which can be expedited accordingly, during award negotiations. Specific project structure details for each awardee will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis to produce the best possible balance between project outcomes and DOE risk exposure. During award negotiations and go/no-go reviews, DOE may approve moving certain parts or technologies of the H2Hub along faster through the phases depending on project progress, technology TRL level, etc."]
[22,"2022-09-29","Budget/Costs","Can DOE provide a list of eligiblie expenditures that qualify for DOE reimburesement and project cost share?","Per Section IV.J.i of the FOA, all expenditures (both DOE share and cost share) must be allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the applicable federal cost principles. Pursuant to 2 CFR 910.352, the cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Part 31.2) apply to for-profit entities. The cost principles contained in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E apply to all entities other than for-profits. "]
[23,"2022-09-29","Other","How does DOE define the number of vehicles in a \"pilot-scale\" projects, as referenced on page 29 of the FOA?","\"Pilot scale\" is not defined based on the number of vehicles included in a demonstration. Pilot scale refers to the technology readiness level where representative engineering scale models or prototype systems are being tested/validated. The H2Hubs are targeting the demonstration of full-scale systems within relevant environments and expected conditions."]
[24,"2022-09-29","Other","Can vehicles deployed under the H2 Hub program utilize fuel from production facilities built and commissioned prior to execution of a DOE contract?","Yes, H2Hubs may leverage fuel from production facilities built and commissioned prior to execution of a DOE contract. Per page 14 of the FOA, \"To maximize the impact of available funding, each H2Hub, to the extent possible, should ... leverage existing facilities and infrastructure for hydrogen production, storage, delivery, and end-uses.\" "]
[25,"2022-09-29","Cost Sharing","Would work performed and equipment manufactured outside of the United States be eligible for cost share?","Per Section IV.J.iii of the FOA, all work performed under awards issued under this FOA must be performed in the United States unless a foreign work waiver is approved. Appendix E lists the information that must be included in a foreign work waiver request.\n\nFor Buy America Requirements for Infrastructure Projects, see Section IV.J.vi and Appendix F of the FOA."]
[26,"2022-09-29","Budget/Costs","We are working on a renewable biomass gasification project that will produce RNG that we will convert to hydrogen and distribute for use in the Hub region as part of the overall Hub project. We intend to use a DOE Loan Guarantee for obtaining the debt for the gasification portion of the project. We will need to put up some portion of the cost as equity for the gasification to RNG plant. Can we use the equity portion of a DOE Loan Guarantee as a contribution to the hydrogen Hub development to be counted as cost share? We understand the DOE Loan Guarantee cannot be counted.  \n  \nIf the gasification facility is $500 million and we put up $200 million in equity then how do we treat the $300 million of the loan that we have an obligation to pay back over time in the overall project cost? Does the $ total for this part of the Hub include the $300 million of loan Guarantee or just the equity as included in the total project cost? If loan value gets added into the total project cost then the equity does not help meet the 50% project costs at all since it is less than 50% of the gasification plant cost. \n  \nBesides the gasification plant there are projected to be over $500 million in other costs associated with conversion to hydrogen and distribution of hydrogen and part of that $500 million will have State funding of an estimated $200 million in cost sharing for that. If the equity is only added into the project cost determination to maintain the 50% or greater level of cost sharing would the Federal level funding would only be held to a maximum of $400 million (equal to the $200 + $200 million). \n  \nThen under that same assumption and we needed to get to the $1 billion project cost level (without the debt on the gasification system included as part of the total project cost) would we need to find an additional $100 million in cost share to get up to the $500 million level ($200 equity contribution + $200 million State + $100 million other = $500 million) to match against the Federal share at $500 million?  ","Per the FOA, “Federal financing, such as DOE Loan Guarantees, cannot be leveraged by applicants to provide the required H2Hub cost share or to otherwise support the same scope that is proposed under the H2Hub.” Therefore, applicants cannot use any part of the project funded under a DOE Loan Guarantee as cost share, including the equity portion (since that is required to guarantee the loan). Therefore, while the output of the gasification facility (i.e., RNG produced) can be used by the H2Hub to produce hydrogen, the entire cost of constructing the gasification facility should be excluded from the project budget. However, the costs associated with conversion to hydrogen and distribution of hydrogen can be counted as a H2Hub project cost assuming they are outside of the scope funded by the DOE Loan Guarantee.\n\nRegarding cost share levels, each H2Hub is required to provide a non-federal cost share of at least 50% of the total project costs (e.g. If the total project cost is $1 billion, the non-federal cost share must be a minimum of $500 million)."]
[27,"2022-09-30","Eligibility","Working with a team who has uncertainty around the Prime Contracting Entity in building our response to DE-FOA-0002779, specifically:\n•\tWhat is DOE's view on the relative duration/depth of the balance sheet/asset base for the prime contracting entity as it relates to mitigating financial risk for the hub? \n•\tDoes DOE see it as necessary for the entity to have a long, established track record with a deep balance sheet or is a newly-formed, fit for purpose entity acceptable (created specifically for this hub but with a shallower, newer balance sheet/asset base)? \n•\tIf we do purpose-build a new entity, how will DOE evaluate indirect cost rates of a newly formed entity? Can the new entity rely on historic rates of the corporate partners/subrecipients?\n•\tWill DOE also translate corporate experience/qualifications and past performance from corporate partners/subrecipients into new entity?\n•\tWill any of these issues be scored evaluation factors?","•\tThe financial and market viability of the proposed H2Hub will be evaluated based on, but not limited to, the degree to which the applicant addresses each key participating organization's financial commitment to the proposed H2Hub including overall financial strength and financial capability to implement the proposed H2Hub.\n•\tForming a new entity to act as the prime applicant/recipient is acceptable, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements outlined in Section III of the of the FOA. The application should discuss how the prime recipient, along with the proposed team, will be able to successfully carry out the proposed work. \n•\tIf a new entity is selected for award negotiations, they would either need to 1) develop and submit an indirect cost proposal and work with the cognizant federal agency to establish a rate agreement or 2) opt to utilize a 10% de minimis rate assuming the entity selected is a newly formed entity and has never had a rate agreement negotiated and approved by a federal agency. Use of the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate is subject to 2 CFR.414 (f).\n•\tPer Section I.B.iii of the FOA, the Management Plan section of the Technical Volume should describe 1) the prime applicant’s and project partners’ organizational structure, capabilities, and operations plan; 2) the financial strength of the prime recipient and any major project partners in the H2Hub; and 3) prior experience of the senior/key personnel in similar or related undertakings to the proposed H2Hub. The organizational chart and related description should show the prime recipient and any major project partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, parent organizations, or joint ventures associated with the H2Hub as well as an explanation of the legal structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, LLC). The application should describe the prime recipient and any major project partners’ business relationship(s) and the various roles and responsibilities held by each organization. The plan should summarize the prior experience of the prime recipient and any major project partners in similar undertakings to the proposed H2Hub (in both technical scope and financial size) and current or previous energy infrastructure projects. In line with the Management Plan section, the Financial Plan should describe the financial relationship of the prime recipient to major project partners, including any Foreign Owned Entities, who are contributing cost share and/or performing work. \n•\tYes, the team's technical and financial capabilities, qualifications, and experience will be evaluated and scored during the merit review process. See the Technical Review Criteria listed in FOA Section V.A for more information."]
[28,"2022-09-30","Other","Per pg. 85 of the FOA “…the Buy-America requirements of the BIL do not apply to DOE projects in which the prime recipient is a for-profit entity; the requirements only apply to projects whose prime recipient is a “non-Federal entity,” e.g., a State, local government, Indian Tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization. Subawards should conform to the terms of the prime award from which they flow; in other words, for-profit prime recipients are not required to flow down these Buy American requirements to subrecipients, even if those subrecipients are non-Federal entities as defined above.” \n\nThis was confirmed in Appendix F and the OMB guidance issued by the WH on April 18, 2022. A number of hub administrators responding as a prime recipient were anticipated to be special purpose public entities.  Significantly advantaging private company administration of hubs will be challenging and not in the best interest of the public. Will this provision be reconsidered to either apply to all applicants or none?","Based on OBM guidance, the Buy-America requirements of the BIL do not apply to DOE projects in which the prime recipient is a for-profit entity. However, per page 85 of the FOA, for all applicants—both non-Federal entities and for-profit entities—DOE is including a Program Policy Factor that the Selection Official may consider in determining which Full Applications to select for award negotiations that considers whether the applicant has made a commitment to procure U.S. iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials in its project. OMB Memorandum M-22-11 can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf"]
[29,"2022-10-03",null,"We wanted to clarify that national laboratories/FFRDCs would need to execute either a SPP or CRADA to receive funding through the lead recipient if awarded: “The funding for the FFRDC will flow through the prime recipient.”\n\nWe wanted to double check as the solicitation also requires a WP, which is usually only requested when DOE will fund national laboratories/FFRDCs directly. ","Since the funding for the FFRDC will flow through the prime recipient, a DOE work proposal is not required (not applicable). The national laboratory/FFRDC would have to establish a work-for-others agreement or a Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA) with the awardee, if selected for award."]
[30,"2022-10-04","Eligibility","My company is in discussions with several other companies to create a legal non-profit 501(c)(6) entity in order to bid on the FOA.  My company will submit the concept paper and proposal on behalf of the non-profit entity.  If the non-profit entity gets registered in sam.gov after concept paper submittal but before the proposal is due, can my company use my company’s UEI to submit the concept paper as the prime applicant and then change the prime applicant to the non-profit entity by submitting the proposal under the non-profit entity’s UEI?  In other words, will the non-profit entity’s proposal be eligible for award if it did not submit the concept paper?","Per Section IV of the FOA, only applicants who have submitted an eligible Concept Paper by the specified due date and time will be eligible to submit a Full Application. Note: System for Award Management (SAM) registration is not required for Concept Paper submission. Applicants are required to be registered in the SAM at https://www.sam.gov before submitting its full application and provide a valid UEI number in its full application. See response to question #2 above for more information.\n\nIf there is a change to the lead organization listed on the Concept Paper, please see response to question #19 above."]
[31,"2022-10-04","Other","I am working with a group of Northeast States on a submission.  We would like to include a Native American Nation in the proposal but due to sovereignty issues they do not take grant money from the state. If they are part of a funded proposal can their fund come directly from the DOE?","Each project team is free to determine how best to allocate both the federal funding and the cost share requirement among the team members. However, under the DOE Cooperative Agreement all federal funding would flow through the prime recipient. DOE does not fund subrecipients directly.\n\nIf the Tribe does not accept funding based on the type of prime applicant (e.g. a State governmental entity), they could potentially participate as a second-tier subrecipient (i.e. a subrecipient to a subrecipient) to an entity from which they will accept funding. In other words, the subrecipient, instead of the Prime entity, would pass funding through to the Tribe. Alternatively, the project team could designate a different entity (other than a State government) to serve as the prime applicant/recipient to resolve the issue. DOE encourages Tribal participation in the H2Hubs projects and encourages flexibility in finding solutions to overcome potential barriers to Tribal participation."]
[32,"2022-10-05","Other","I am writing to you regarding 2 documents that we are not able to open following site instructions:\n1.\tSF-424_Application_for_Federal_Assistance\n2.\tSF-LLL_Disclosure_of_Lobbying_Activities\n\nAfter following instructions and opening the document, it mentions error downloading and corrupt document.\n\nCould you please send me both file in an email or explain a different way to download it? ","If you are having trouble downloading the SF-424 and SF-LLL from the OCED Exchange website, the forms are also available at grants.gov:\n\nSF-424: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html\nSF-LLL: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html\n\nNote: The SF-424 and SF-LLL documents require Adobe Reader 8 or higher. You may not have the Adobe Reader installed or your viewing environment may not be properly configured to use Adobe Reader. For information on how to install Adobe Reader and configure your viewing environment please see http://www.adobe.com/go/pdf_forms_configure"]
[33,"2022-10-05","Other","Can a proposed subrecipient submit the concept paper on behalf of the prime (for example, if the prime can't get a UEI in time)? Can the prime then ultimately submit the full application associated with that concept paper? Or does the prime need to submit both?","Please see responses to question #2 and question #19 above. "]
[34,"2022-10-05","Other","We are requesting a 60-day extension of the deadline to submit concept papers.\n\nExtending the deadline for concept papers will allow each group to prepare responsive and quality concept papers, which will be necessary for the Department as it evaluates the papers to determine which hubs to invite to submit a full application. Given the number of stakeholders involved in each hub and the novel nature of the program, additional time is necessary to ensure that the concept papers are as responsible as possible. \n \nAdditionally, many stakeholders are preparing responses to other guidance issued by the Department related to hubs, including the Clean Hydrogen Production Standard. An extension would provide those stakeholders with adequate time to respond to each of these important matters. \n \nWe appreciate your consideration of this request.","At this time, DOE is not considering an extension to the Concept Paper submission deadline.\n\nNote: While applicants must submit an eligible Concept Paper by the specified due date and time to be eligible to submit a Full Application, the Concept Paper encourage/discourage determinations are non-binding. In other words, applicants may submit a Full Application even if they receive a notification discouraging them from doing so. See Section VI.A.ii for more information on Concept Paper Notifications."]
[35,"2022-10-05","Other","For this FOA, can any projects such as weatherization, roof top solar, storage and micro-grids; and clean non-hydrogen transportation (transit and school buses, public fleets) be used to meet Justice40 requirements or do the benefits need to be directly tied to hydrogen hub only related activity, i.e. creating jobs, work force development, hydrogen fueled vehicles, air pollution mitigation, contracting with underrepresented business to provide services to the hub.","Activities such as weatherization, roof top solar, storage (other than hydrogen storage) and micro-grids, and clean non-hydrogen transportation that do not contribute to H2Hub activities or technologies would likely not be considered in scope under this FOA. Per page 14 of the FOA, \"The H2Hub scope and funding should be focused on technologies within the three areas outlined in Figure 2: clean hydrogen producers, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumers. The allocation of funds for activities outside of these areas, such as the construction of renewable, nuclear, or fossil facilities needed to power H2Hub technologies is generally not allowable but may be considered in limited scenarios if strong justification is provided and the proposed funding amounts for these activities represent a minor component of the overall H2Hub funding.\"\n\nThe Community Benefits Plan included with the application should describe plans to address energy and environmental justice (EEJ) concerns and described how the H2Hub related activities contribute to the Justice40 Initiative goals. More information about the Justice40 Initiative can be found at https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative."]
[36,"2022-10-06","Application Content/Format","Just wanted to inquire how to apply for this grant.  We just initiated a green hydrogen project in CA.","See Section IV (Application and Submission Information) of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for information about the application process.\n\nNote: Per Section II.B.i of the FOA, DOE generally uses cooperative agreements (vs. grants) to provide financial and other support to prime recipients."]
[37,"2022-10-06","Budget/Costs","The FOA indicates that 2-4 years of operations will be included in the award period. Could you clarify if costs of feedstock (e.g. NG) and electricity are allowed as costs of operations? Any other variable costs such as costs of amine solvents and water allowed?","Yes, variable operating expenses for energy, feedstocks and other consumables/supplies required to produce clean hydrogen during Phased 4 (Ramp-Up and Sustained Operations) would be allowable project costs. That said, as stated in the FOA, H2Hubs are expected to achieve continuous financial and operational viability during the award and be sustainable (continue to operate) well beyond the DOE funding period. Therefore, H2Hubs should have a clear plan/path to transition to sustainable operations without relying on the DOE funding."]
[38,"2022-10-07","Application Content/Format","•\tWhat is the definition of “concept” as defined by DOE?  \n•\tApplicants are eligible to select multiple categories for energy feedstock and end-uses, can these categories be mutually exclusive? \n•\tAre energy feedstocks or end-uses determinative of the concept paper? \n•\tHow will DOE determine if concepts are interrelated or distinct? ","•\tAt the Concept Paper stage, applicants should clearly describe the proposed scope of the integrated H2Hub including the key clean hydrogen production through end-use technologies and systems, total cost of the project, and how the proposed H2Hub would ultimately facilitate a national clean hydrogen network in the United States. The Concept Paper may include a higher-level description, which is then further defined in the Full Application. See Section IV.C and IV.D of the for the content requirements for Concept Papers and Full Applications. \n•\tAs stated on page 14 and 16 of the FOA, H2Hubs may feature hydrogen produced using more than one energy resource and DOE envisions H2Hubs will include various end-uses for hydrogen in multiple sectors that align with existing or anticipated regional demand; however, one end-use may be dominant and DOE is placing no minimum or maximum on the number or scale of end-users that must be part of an application. The FOA does not require that the energy feedstock and end uses be in the same sector (e.g., clean hydrogen produced from nuclear energy does not necessarily have to be consumed in an end-use at the nuclear facility).\n•\tConcept Papers are evaluated based on the criterion listed in Section V.A.i of the FOA, which includes considering key clean hydrogen production through end-use technologies and systems. While Concept Papers should clearly describe the proposed scope of the integrated H2Hub including the key clean hydrogen production through end-use technologies and systems, applicants may further develop their H2Hub concept and design between the Concept Paper and Full Application, including adding or changing energy feedstocks or end-uses.\n•\tDOE will consider the overall scope, geographic region, project partners, etc. in determining if concepts are a unique, distinct project. A single Concept Paper should be submitted for each proposed H2Hub, which covers all aspects of that H2Hub."]
[39,"2022-10-07","Cost Sharing","Can a project use a third-party funding/financing received prior to the selection for award negotiation to meet the cost share?","Yes, third-party funding/financing received prior to the selection for award negotiations may be used to meet the cost share requirement provided it comes from non-federal sources, is not being used as cost share on another federal program, and meets the other requirements specified in Section III.B (Cost Sharing) of the FOA. "]
[40,"2022-10-07","Other","Section VI.B(vi.) of FOA DE-FOA-0002779 states that, “DOE’s decision whether and how to distribute federal funds under this FOA is subject to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.)”. Please clarify:\n1.\tWhen will DOE initiate the NEPA review process? Is it after selection of a Prime Recipient for award or after DOE and the Prime Recipient execute the Funding Agreement?\n2.\tIf a hydrogen hub is comprised of multiple projects, as is expected, will DOE treat each subrecipient project as a separate, or individual, NEPA action or will all projects under a Prime Recipient be studied by DOE under a single NEPA review?","1. DOE will complete the NEPA review process for proposed Phase 1 activities after selection and prior to executing a funding agreement. As stated on pages 37-38 of the FOA, \"engagement with the DOE NEPA team to develop environmental plans and analyses will be a significant component of the first two phases of the H2Hubs. If selected for award negotiation, the H2Hub team will complete an Environmental Information Volume (EIV) during Phase 1 that will support the NEPA reviews and determination for Phase 2. The EIV will also gather information to help inform the completion of federal agency NEPA process(es), including any required EAs or EISs that will be conducted during Phase 2 before advancement to Phase 3 construction activities. Completion of all NEPA-related activities will be a required component of Phase 2 to 3 Go/No-Go metrics”.\n\n2. The scope of DOE’s NEPA review will include all elements of the proposed project, any connected actions, and reasonable alternatives. DOE anticipates that all proposed project elements will be evaluated in a single NEPA document. Should additional project elements be proposed later in the project, DOE will complete supplemental NEPA reviews as appropriate."]
[41,"2022-10-10","Application Content/Format","I'm filling out the cover page for the Concept Paper. \na.\tFor an H2 Hub in Texas, do I fill in 'South' for Geographic Region? Is there a map showing the Geographic Regions?\nb.\tThe Selected site for this application is based on renewable - solar power. However we may run the electrolyzers at night on a mix of nuclear, wind renewables and natural gas. Do I select renewables, or check all electrical power options that may apply?","a. The FOA does not pre-define the regions. Each applicant may use their discretion on how to define their specific region (e.g., metropolitan area, state, or several states in close proximity) provided it meets the intent of the BIL which defines the term “regional clean hydrogen hub” as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity”.\nb. H2Hubs may feature hydrogen produced using more than one energy resource. If the clean hydrogen production is using more than one energy feedstock, please select all that apply on the cover page."]
[42,"2022-10-10","Application Content/Format","The FOA p68/153 shows the following: Each Concept Paper must be limited to  single H2Hub concept. Do not consolidate unrelated concepts into a single Concept Paper.\n\nWe intend to bring several phases of hydrogen production online from the selected H2 Hub site. Each phase has some unique features due integration of utilities and clean hydrogen production units. Considering the content requirements above, would I submit a Concept Paper for each phase of the project? Only the initial phase? ","A single concept paper should be submitted for each proposed H2Hub. As stated on page 14 of the FOA, H2Hub concepts \"may feature hydrogen produced using more than one energy resource.\" The Concept Paper should describe the proposed scope of the integrated H2Hub including the key clean hydrogen production through end-use technologies and systems, which may include bringing multiple hydrogen production sites online at different stages/timeframes (within the project phases identified in Figure 3 of the FOA) ."]
[43,"2022-10-11","OCED Exchange","I see that the concepts are due November 7th, and I wanted to make sure I understand what credentials I may need in order to submit my documents. Is it enough to register with the site?","Yes, to submit a concept paper, you only need to be registered on OCED Exchange at: https://oced-Exchange.energy.gov, OCED’s online application portal.\n\nNOTE: before submitting a Full Application each applicant is required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov and provide a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number in its application.\n\nSee Section IV (Application and Submission Information) of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for more information about the application process."]
[44,"2022-10-11","Other","•\tIf two parties are looking at hydrogen hub facilities/opportunities in the same geographic region, can they submit separate concept papers by different entities with different prime contractors but then later combine the proposals into one for purposes of a full application?\n•\t If the geographic areas of the proposed projects are overlapping (i.e., one set of facilities is a subset of a larger hub concept) at the concept paper stage, can a project in the smaller geographic area both be included in its own concept paper and as part of a larger concept submitted by a different entity?","Original answer:\n•\tSeparate Concept Papers may be submitted by different entities in the same geographic region, but per Section III.F of the FOA each Concept Paper must describe a unique, distinct project. While applicants may further develop their H2Hub concept between the Concept Paper and Full Application stage (including adding project partners), DOE prefers that the overall H2Hub concept and teams be defined in the Concept Paper. Therefore, combining Concept Paper proposals into a single Full Application would generally be discouraged. \n•\tAgain, each Concept Paper must describe a unique, distinct project. Therefore, the proposals should not be overlapping; and in general, facilities proposed in one Concept Paper should not also be included in another Concept Paper.\n\nUpdated response (11/3/2022): Parties may be part of multiple Concept Papers that are later merged into one Full Application. There are no restrictions on Concept Paper proposals overlapping geographically. Note, that if a party is part of multiple Full Applications, the applications should include an explanation discussing how the entity or facility will support each H2Hub."]
[45,"2022-10-13","Tech Topics","I have a question about this grant/other grants, the question is does this grant cover the construction of liquefied hydrogen based LH2 carriers designed to store liquefied hydrogen, for transport/delivery to US and global based customers all around the world. that's the part that's confusing me is that you say infrastructure and that's infrastructure that's designed to transport hydrogen so could you please explain to me a little more on what this grant does for my specific industry if any if you can. thank you for your time.","Yes, the \"connective infrastructure\" within proposed H2Hubs may include any necessary infrastructure to move/transport/store hydrogen (compression, liquefaction, carriers, pipelines, storage, etc.). See pages 15-16 of the FOA for other examples of \"connective infrastructure\".\n\nNote: Per Section II.B.i of the FOA, DOE generally uses cooperative agreements (vs. grants) to provide financial and other support to prime recipients."]
[46,"2022-10-13","Budget/Costs","My question is related to the extent of detail required by the concept paper regarding project costs. What level of detail is DOE expecting the breakdown of costs for the concept paper? Is it sufficient to follow SF-424 categories for construction projects, or are applicants expected to supply more/less detail for the cost breakdown? ","Concept Papers do not need to include a detailed cost breakdown, but should include an estimate for the total cost of the project including the total DOE funding request and total non-federal cost share contribution. If available, Concept Papers should also include an estimate of the cost by phase in their preliminary development plan and timeline. Detailed budget information (e.g., SF-424 and Budget Justification Workbooks) are not due until the Full Application submission. For more information about Concept Paper Content Requirements, see Section IV.C of the FOA."]
[47,"2022-10-13","Other","Will the FOA for regional clean hydrogen hubs adopt the same definitions as the Clean Hydrogen Production Standard (https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/clean-hydrogen-production-standard.pdf) and is there any color that can be provided regarding the source of clean energy as outlined in question 3.c of this document?","Per pages 14-15 of the FOA, H2Hubs must demonstrably aid achievement of, but do not necessarily need to meet, the clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS). The FOA language governs the requirements for the regional clean hydrogen hubs; the FOA does not rely on the definitions in the CHPS Draft Guidance, which is not a regulatory standard. DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies and best practices to mitigate emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) throughout the H2Hub. Applicants will be evaluated on the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle, and not necessarily based on whether they achieve the CHPS target."]
[48,"2022-10-13","Budget/Costs","Could you clarify if costs related to operations/maintenance fees paid towards an owner or operator of a pipeline are allowed as costs of operations? ","The allowability of operations/maintenance fees would depend on whether the pipeline owner/operator is considered a subrecipient or a vendor/contractor. Operations and maintenance expenses paid to subrecipient organizations are allowable provided they are based on actual project costs (i.e., fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs). However, vendors/contractors may also charge fee/profit.\n\nDefinitions of subrecipients and vendors are provided below - all characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. vendor status:\nSubrecipients (partners, sub-awardees): A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization.\nVendors (including contractors): A vendor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program.\n\nFor more information about allowable costs, see the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities."]
[49,"2022-10-13","Other","From DE-FOA-0002779, section I,B, i, paragraph 2.\n\n“Each H2Hub should focus on commercial-scale demonstrations of clean hydrogen that include production, delivery, storage, and end-uses in a specific geographic region (e.g., metropolitan area, state, or several states in close proximity) within the U.S.”\n\nIs it strictly required that all elements of the hub system be located within the US?  We are working on a novel process for production and distribution of hydrogen, however, this process (or parts of it) must occur offshore in deep water.  We feel that this system can serve as a hub and embodies the spirit of the FOA, in that it is a carbon negative process, which potentially produces lower cost hydrogen than SMR, however we recognize that with the way it is written, the hub may be required to be fully onshore within the US.","Work performed offshore in State or Federal waters would still be considered performance of work in the United States. For information on State and Federal jurisdictions, see https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/outer-continental-shelf. \n\nAny work performed in international waters would require a waiver for Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver). See Sections IV.J.iii and Appendix E of the FOA for more information about Performance of Work in the United States requirements and waivers."]
[50,"2022-10-13","Other","Question 1: In Section IV.C.i, p. 68, and cover page template provided by DOE: Under the heading “Connective Infrastructure,” can DOE provide a definition of “H2 Carriers?”  For example, would H2 Carriers include over-the-road trucking, rail, intra-coastal barges, and ocean-going vessels?\n\nQuestion 2: In Section IV.C.i, p. 68, and cover page template provided by DOE: Under the heading “Connective Infrastructure,” can DOE provide a definition of “H2 Fueling Stations?”  For example, would such a team include bunkering facilities for H2 and NH3, including in connection with marine transportation loading and fueling?\n\nQuestion 3: In Section I.B.ii: This section of the FOA includes the statement: “Each H2Hub is required to provide a minimum of 50% non-federal cost share (50% of the total \nproject cost including both DOE share and recipient cost share, for a total project cost of at least $800 million to $2.5 billion), to be executed over approximately 8-12 years (or faster) depending on the size and complexity of the H2Hub,” emphasis added.  \nRelated: How will OCED evaluate shorter execution periods in Concept Papers?  \n\nQuestion 4: Under Phase 4 – Ramp-Up and Sustained Operations, what does DOE consider as the end point of the Period of Performance?  What are the criteria that must be met to exit Phase 4 and terminate DOE’s involvement in the project?\n\nQuestion 5: Does a table or graphic on 11” X 17” count as one page?","Question 1: \"H2 Carriers\" store hydrogen in some other chemical state rather than as free hydrogen molecules. Carriers are a unique way to increase volumetric capacity and store / deliver hydrogen by hydriding a chemical compound at the site of production and then dehydriding it at the point of delivery.\n\nQuestion 2: \"H2 Fueling Stations\" can include the delivery of hydrogen fuel to any kind of transportation application (e.g., on-road and off-road vehicles, marine, rail, aviation, cargo handling). While ammonia production is a valid industrial end-use sector, funding of new downstream ammonia storage and distribution facilities and infrastructure is not the primary focus of the H2Hub FOA and would therefore be out of scope.\n\nQuestion 3: All Concept Papers, including those with shorter execution periods, will be evaluated based on the criterion listed in Section V.A.i of the FOA. This criterion includes evaluating the applicant's preliminary project development plan and timeline, including a finance plan, any key risks, challenges, and possible mitigation strategies, and the impact that DOE funding and the proposed project would have on developing a national clean hydrogen network and supporting decarbonization goals. Per page 20 of the FOA, \"DOE anticipates that some H2Hub teams will have already performed extensive analysis, planning, design, and community engagement as required in Phase 1, and therefore some H2Hub projects may advance to Phase 2 in under 12 months\".\n\nQuestion 4: Phase 4 (Ramp-Up and Sustained Operations) is intended to demonstrate full commercial-scale design operations over an extended period (2-4 years). Figure 3 on page 19 of the FOA indicates the type and scope of activities applicants should plan to execute/complete in each phase if continued into that phase of funding. These activities will also be further defined during award negotiations and subsequent negotiations between phases.\n\nQuestion 5: Per Section IV.A of the FOA, for the Concept Paper, Full Application, and Reply to Reviewer Comments, all pages must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper."]
[51,"2022-10-16","Eligibility","Is it possible for a foreign company to receive a grant regarding:\nFunding Opportunity Number:\tDE-FOA-0002779","In limited circumstances, DOE may approve a waiver to allow a foreign entity to participate as a prime recipient or subrecipient. A foreign entity may submit a full application to this FOA but the full application must be accompanied by an explicit written waiver request. Likewise, if the applicant seeks to include a foreign entity as a subrecipient, the applicant must submit a separate explicit written waiver request in the full application for each proposed foreign subrecipient. See Section III.A of the FOA for more information on eligibility requirements and Appendix E for information on waiver requests.\n\nNote: Per Section II.B.i of the FOA, DOE generally uses cooperative agreements (vs. grants) to provide financial and other support to prime recipients."]
[52,"2022-10-17","Foreign Entities/Work","1.\tThe FOA states that \"all work performed under awards issued under this FOA must be performed in the United States.\" Any work performed outside of the United States is considered \"foreign work\" and requires a waiver. Could the DOE please provide further definition on what kind of work would be considered \"foreign work\" (i.e. operations, manufacturing, remote meetings, etc)?\n2.\tOur proposed project involves leadership individuals who reside abroad. The success of the project requires their involvement due to their extensive knowledge on hydrogen and hydrogen hub development. It is not cost-effective nor efficient to bring them to the US every time their knowledge is needed. In addition, foreign travel is not permitted in this FOA. Thus, would meetings conducted in a hybrid or remote manner in a non-US country be considered foreign work and require a Foreign Work Waiver to be submitted? ","1. The requirement that \"all work performed under awards issued under this FOA must be performed in the United States\" applies to any work that is supported by the project budget, including both the DOE funding and non-federal cost share. To seek a waiver of the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, the applicant must submit an explicit waiver request in the Full Application. See Appendix E for more information on waiver requests. \n2. Meetings conducted in a hybrid or remote manner in a non-US country would be considered foreign work and would require a Foreign Work Waiver to be submitted if the personnel located outside the U.S. are being compensated with project funds (either DOE funding or non-federal cost share)."]
[53,"2022-10-17","Other","Will proposals submitted to this FOA be subject to FOIA requests? Additionally, will concept papers be available for public review?","Concept Papers and Full Applications are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, DOE will not make Concept Papers and Full Applications available for public review during the merit review process because the information is part of the Department’s deliberative process. In response to a FOIA request, DOE may release Concept Papers and Full Applications after making financial assistance awards, with any necessary redactions based on FOIA exemptions and exclusions (https://www.energy.gov/management/foia-frequently-asked-questions-faqs).\n\nTherefore, applicants should not include business sensitive information (e.g., commercial or financial information that is privilege or confidential), trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information in their application unless such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project or to comply with a requirement in the FOA. Applicants are advised to not include any critically sensitive proprietary detail.\n\nIf an application includes trade secrets or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or privileged, it is furnished to the Government in confidence with the understanding that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. Full Applications, and other submissions containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked as described in Section VIII.D (Treatment of Application Information) of the FOA."]
[54,"2022-10-17","OCED Exchange","I am requesting clarification on the OCED-Exchange process regarding generation of the control number necessary for Concept Paper submission. \n\nPer FOA-0002779 applicants must include a control number on all submission materials including the Concept Paper. However, it is unclear at what point this control number will be generated. Are we correct in assuming that the control number is generated during the OCED-Exchange account creation phase prior to submitting the Concept Paper? \n\nFOA-0002779 states “Applicants will receive a control number upon clicking the “Create Concept Paper” button in OCED Exchange and should include that control number in the file name of their Full Application submission.” This passage lends itself to two interpretations:\n\n(1)\tthat the “Create Concept Paper” button leads to the submission of the Concept Paper (in which case the control number would not be generated in time to be included on the Concept Paper); or \n(2)\tthat the “Create Concept Paper” button initiates a process which can be held open while an applicant works to develop and finalize a Concept Paper and during which a control number will be generated. \n\nIf #2 above is correct, can you confirm that an applicant is safe to click the “Create Concept Paper” button prior to its Concept Paper truly being ready for submission simply so that the control number may be generated? Thank you in advance for your assistance. ","A Control Number will be issued when an applicant begins the OCED Exchange application process. The “Create Concept Paper” button initiates this application process and will generate the Control Number that must be included with all application documents. Applicants may continue to update their Concept Papers until the submission deadline. Once applicants have finished entering all the required information, they can navigate to the “Upload and Submit” tab to certify and submit their Concept Paper. For more information, see the OCED eXCHANGE Applicant Guide located at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/Manuals.aspx. "]
[55,"2022-10-17","Application Content/Format","Is it okay to use 11x17 pages for large graphics, tables, and charts? If so, do they count one page or two (DOE does it both ways)?","Per Section IV.A of the FOA, for the Concept Paper, Full Application, and Reply to Reviewer Comments, all pages must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper."]
[56,"2022-10-18","Other","DOE’s response to Question #44 represents a fundamental change to the FOA, places new restrictions that will negatively impact the quality of proposals that DOE receives, and represents a significant deviation from all other DOE RD&D programs.  We seek clarification from DOE on these points: \n \n1) The first half of Response #44 cites III.F. as, “each Concept Paper must describe a unique, distinct project,” regardless of the submitting entity.  However III.F. only addresses the circumstance of the same entity submitting multiple Concept Papers and is completely silent on Concept Papers submitted by distinct entities.  III.F. very explicitly begins, “An entity,…”.  DOE’s Response #44 is more restrictive than the FOA, and will dramatically impact teaming.  With its response, is DOE saying that a labor union, community organization, workforce development organization, or others (e.g.,  even National Laboratories?) cannot be part of multiple Concept Papers because they may be using the same resources with similar objectives/tasks (i.e., not unique)?  As long as they are in compliance with FAR cost principles, organizations should have the opportunity to partner on multiple teams.  Nothing in III.F. suggests this should be disallowed.\n\n2) The second half of Response #44 goes even further to suggest that facilities should not be part of multiple Concept Papers, regardless of the submitting entity.  Nothing in III.F. or elsewhere in the FOA restricted such participation.  If other organizations can be part of multiple Concept Papers submitted by distinct applicants and using similar resources to accomplish similar objectives/tasks, a facility should not be treated any differently (subject to complying with FAR).  Unnecessarily making the Concept Papers more restrictive and forcing facilities to pick only one team to join while team’s are still in the early stages of forming will yield weaker teams and proposals.  Should this not be left to the Full Application stage or even Phase I?\n\n3) If DOE holds to these new restrictions, is it DOE’s intent to automatically discourage Concept Papers submitted by different entities if there may be some similar elements partners?\n \n4) It is common in industry for multi-user facilities to be established so the full resources of a facility, including its infrastructure, can be utilized. Even EERE’s Sustainable Transportation suite of programs such as biorefineries encourage and fund multiple-use facilities. Q&A 44 strongly discourages two Hub teams from using the same facility. Recognizing how difficult achieving H2@Scale’s goals have been, what benefits result by disallowing the dual and optimized use of existing infrastructure and facilities?\n \n5) In a global economy, and post-Covid business environment where supply chain disruptions are crashing our economy why would DOE, through Q&A #44 not encourage multiple supply streams, including facilities and infrastructure from being fully subscribed? It is common for corporations to transport goods to facilities globally to meet quality and cost requirements. DOE’s strong discouragement of the dual-use of facilities, especially those regionally-based, is inconsistent with DOE’s regionally diverse national laboratories and AMO’s Hub infrastructure. Multi-use facilities are proven to work, consider Southern Company’s National Carbon Capture Center?\n \n6) In order to make the most effective use of limited and expensive facilities, particularly in urban communities, one facility can serve as a hub for hundreds of students proudly attending HBCUs or taking STEM classes. A single facility can serve as a national showcase for Minority Serving Institutions to learn in a communal environment with peers. Even in Justice40 programs the multiple use of showcase facilities exponentially advances learning, production, and intellectual success. An example is the Propel Center in Atlanta.  This is one of the reasons Venture Capitalists often encourage their portfolio companies to co-locate. Accordingly, how can Q&A #44’s strong disposition against the multiple use of facilities stand?\n \n7) Hydrogen, like many clean fuels, requires financial flexibility and openness, such as using and encouraging dual- or multi-use facilities. The success and failure of alternative fuels traditionally rises and falls with the price of oil.  Q&A #44 somehow misses the economics of supply and demand. Companies must have the flexibility to mitigate financial risk such as having the flexibility to use dual- and multi-use facilities, and to build facilities anywhere in the country offering the best conditions for financial success.","Per the response to question 44, each Concept Paper must describe a unique, distinct H2Hub. In other words, one H2Hub should not be a subset of a larger H2Hub, as described in question 44. DOE's response to this question and to question 44 focus on the H2Hub facilities, which include key production to connective infrastructure to hydrogen end-use technologies and systems to be deployed. DOE recognizes that management teams, community partners, labor, and other non-facility/non-equipment elements are integral to implementing a H2Hub and may overlap across some proposals and leverage common resources and capabilities. \n\nResponse #44 does not preclude organizations from partnering on multiple H2Hub teams. Also, per Q&A #11, team members and key participants may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application. Per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will also emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may also be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval. \n\nDOE will not automatically discourage Concept Papers submitted by different entities if there may be some similar elements or partners. Each Concept Paper will be evaluated based on the criterion in Section V.A.i of the FOA. Note: DOE will notify applicants of its determination to encourage or discourage the submission of a Full Application, but applicants may submit a Full Application even if they receive a notification discouraging them from doing so.\n\nAs stated in the response to question 44, in general, facilities proposed in one Concept Paper should not also be included in another Concept Paper. However, DOE acknowledges that there may be unique scenarios where a facility could be leveraged to support two separate H2Hubs. This is allowable provided that each proposed H2Hub is still a unique/distinct commercial-scale demonstration, a facility supporting multiple H2Hubs is not over-subscribed (i.e., if multiple H2Hub applications are selected with a common/shared facility, then that facility must be capable of supporting both H2Hubs as proposed), the proposed H2Hub includes “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity” as defined in Section 813(a) of the BIL, and the H2Hub meets the other requirements stated in the FOA. While the long-term vision is that the H2Hubs can be developed into a national clean hydrogen network, H2Hubs must be able to operate independent of each other and are expected to be economically viable on their own (i.e., one H2Hub should not be reliant on DOE selecting and funding another H2Hub). If a facility is included in more than one H2Hub, applicants should provide an explanation/justification in their application discussing how the facility will support each H2Hub."]
[57,"2022-10-18","Other","1)\tReferring to the answer given for Question #11 stating that team members and key participants may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application, can DOE confirm that this answer also applies to the substitution of senior and key personnel on the Project Team?\n2)\tIs DOE able to offer any further guidance or give examples of specific positions it would consider “senior/key personnel” in the Project Team Description?","1) Yes, team members and key participants (including senior/key personnel) may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application.\n2) Per page 26 of the FOA, \"Senior/key personnel includes the H2Hub leadership/management team and other project personnel who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the successful execution of the H2Hub (e.g., H2Hub Program/Project Manager).\""]
[58,"2022-10-18","Other","Per question 18, the FOA mentions that a Community Benefits Plan guidance will be provided at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/. When do you anticipate having it posted?","The guidance on creating each section of the Community Benefits Plan is now available at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/ under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section of the FOA."]
[59,"2022-10-20","Other","Based on DOE’s response to Question #40, that ‘The scope of DOE’s NEPA review will include all elements of the proposed project, any connected actions, and reasonable alternatives’, please clarify if:\n•\tThe ‘proposed project’ would include hub components beyond production of green H2, such as consumers? \n•\tFor example, if a green H2 hub includes consumers who would incorporate green H2 into their daily operations, would those operations be considered ‘connected actions’? or would DOE consider them to be outside the scope of its NEPA analysis because they could occur irrespective of using green H2? \n•\tSimilarly would DOE’s NEPA analysis consider other hub participant’s transportation, storage, fueling stations, or other pre-existing facilities that share, but are not wholly-dependent on green H2?\n•\tWhat is the expected duration of the DOE NEPA process assuming an applicant provides a robust and complete EIV?","The required level of NEPA review and scope of analyses will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The NEPA document would analyze all the proposed project elements for the H2hub including connected actions. Depending on the details of the specific proposal, the analysis of existing facilities and/or other hub participants including end users or consumers may be required in the NEPA document. The NEPA document would incorporate by reference available information where applicable.\n1.\tAll activities funded (including both federal or cost share funds) under the award, and any activities determined by DOE to be connected actions (as defined at 40 CFR 1501.9 (e)(1)), are subject to NEPA review. This includes, but is not limited to, hydrogen production, connective infrastructure, hydrogen end-use technologies, and systems to be deployed. \n2.\tIf existing end-users of hydrogen are being proposed as off-takers (consumers) of the clean hydrogen produced by the H2Hub, any retrofits or modifications of infrastructure and/or facilities needed to accept the clean hydrogen would be subject to NEPA review. Additionally, any changes in emissions resulting from the change in the hydrogen source would be evaluated in the NEPA review. The NEPA review would consider existing infrastructure, facilities, and operations part of the baseline environmental conditions against which impacts would be evaluated. \n3.\tAll activities funded under the award and any connected actions would be subject to NEPA review. Existing infrastructure, facilities, and operations would be considered part of the baseline environmental conditions against which impacts would be evaluated. \n4.\tThe level of NEPA review required and associated timeframe of the DOE NEPA process will depend on the size and complexity of the H2Hub, and stage of the project, among other factors. The length of time to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) depends on the project proposal and the completeness of information provided to DOE prior to starting the NEPA process. Based on the current CEQ NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR § 1501.10), an EA must be completed within one year from the date the agency decides to begin an EA through a finding of no significant impact and an EIS must be completed within two years from the issuance of the notice of intent through the record of decision, unless a new time limit is established and approved by a DOE senior agency official."]
[60,"2022-10-21","Other","Please clarify that a H2Hub “project” can be “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity.”","Yes, the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) adopts the definition in the BIL that defines the term “regional clean hydrogen hub” (referred to as “H2Hub” in the FOA) as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity”. The FOA uses the terms \"regional clean hydrogen hub\", \"H2Hub\", \"H2Hub project\", and \"project\" synonymously."]
[61,"2022-10-25","Subrecipients","On the submission page within OCED, the “Team Members” tab asks for listing of “Team Members” and “Key Participants”, as well as details on technical leads from each organization, % of contribution by team member, points of contact, etc.    Are completing these Team Member and Key Participants sections of OCED required at the Concept Paper stage?, or can we allocate 100% to the submitting Lead Organization, and provide the team and participant details at the time of full application?","Per response to question #11, while team members and key participants may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application, Applicants are encouraged to submit team member and key participant information (to the extent known) with the Concept Paper submission. This information is used to evaluate the whether \"the applicant and proposed team have the qualifications, experience, capabilities, and other resources necessary to design, develop, build, and operate the proposed H2Hub.\" The Team Member and Key Participants sections in OCED Exchange are also used to help identify and mitigate potential reviewer conflicts of interest."]
[62,"2022-10-26","Budget/Costs","The FOA indicates that H2Hubs that propose a DOE share between $1 and $1.25 billion should provide “additional justification” to explain why the extra funding over the preferred maximum is critical to realize the goals of the overall effort. Would that justification be sufficient based on a larger volume of hydrogen in the hub ecosystem, with the subsequent higher cost of the hub? If not, what would be a good metric to justify going over $1billion federal assuming minimum of 50% non-federal cost share?","Per page 17 of the FOA, \"H2Hubs that propose a DOE share between $1 and $1.25 billion should provide additional justification to explain why the extra funding over the preferred maximum is critical to realize the goals of the overall effort.\" It is ultimately up to the applicant to determine the required budget for their proposed hub and provide a strong justification for the proposed DOE funding. Per Section VII of FOA, DOE will not provide feedback on individual projects (or specific justifications) through the Q&A process."]
[63,"2022-10-26","OCED Exchange","I’ve created an account on your portal, but still cannot find the control number for DE-FOA-0002779.  Page 66 of the FOA states that a control number will be issued when an applicant begins the OCED Exchange application process.\n\nDoes this mean when I submit the concept paper?  Because from the instructions on the FOA, this control number needs to displayed on the upper corner of every page.  Please explain.  Thank you.","See response to question #54. A Control Number will be issued when an applicant begins the OCED Exchange application process. OCED Exchange users must click the “Create Concept Paper” button to initiate the application process. This will generate a Control Number that is specific to your application and that must be included with all application documents. Applicants may continue to update their Concept Papers until the submission deadline. Once applicants have finished entering all the required information, they can navigate to the “Upload and Submit” tab to certify and submit their Concept Paper. For more information, see the OCED eXCHANGE Applicant Guide located at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/Manuals.aspx. "]
[64,"2022-10-26","Other","1) Could you please provide clear information and if possible elaborate on examples about how to find partners with the H2 Matchmaker. Even when it seems trivial we would like to see how this tool, in your own words, can be used in a simulated case. Please notice that the video in the H2 Matchmaker website does not really explain how Partners can find and/or connect each other.\n2) Also, what everyone should be doing to find partners to cover all the requirements regarding not only to Diverse Technologies, Producers, Infrastructure and Consumers, but also regarding the Community Benefits, Jobs and Equity.  \n3) How a Small Business can approach a big company. \n4) How a Big and stablished company is approaching a Small Business. \n5) How about if big companies join only other big companies, \n6) and what about if Small Businesses join other small businesses only. ","DOE encourages the creation of diverse, committed, and capable teams to collaborate on H2Hub projects. To help facilitate H2Hub team formation, DOE launched H2 Matchmaker, a voluntary online tool created to aid in fostering partnerships among key stakeholders by allowing potential partners to identify each other, but it is ultimately up to applicants and their partners to formulate teams that have the qualifications, experience, capabilities, and other resources necessary to design, develop, build, and operate the proposed H2Hub. A H2 Matchmaker Map User Guide is available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker-map-user-guide. In addition, a demonstration on how the H2 Matchmaker tool can help identify potential partners, including opportunities in disadvantaged communities, was provided during the August 31, 2022 H2IQ hour webinar. The H2 Matchmaker demonstration starts at minute 14:40 of the webinar recording, which is available at: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2iq-hour-exploring-hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-projects-disadvantaged-communities. \n\nRegarding what types of entities partner, that is up to individual teams, but both small and large domestic businesses are eligible to participate. See Section III of the FOA for Eligibility Information. "]
[65,"2022-10-27","Application Content/Format","A small but significant question:  The concept paper submission states 20 pages, but I cannot determine if there is a required font, or if it can be single spaced. Can you advise?","Per Section IV.A of the FOA, the Concept Paper, Full Application, and Reply to Reviewer Comments must conform to the following requirements:\n•\tEach must be submitted in Adobe PDF format unless stated otherwise;\n•\tEach must be written in English;\n•\tAll pages must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with margins not less than one inch on every side. Use Calibri typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 12 point or larger (except in figures or tables, which may be 10 point font). A symbol font may be used to insert Greek letters or special characters, but the font size requirement still applies. References must be included as footnotes or endnotes in a font size of 10 or larger. Footnotes and endnotes are counted toward the maximum page requirement;\n•\tThe Control Number must be prominently displayed on the upper right corner of the header of every page. Page numbers must be included in the footer of every page; and\n•\tEach submission must not exceed the specified maximum page limit, including cover page, charts, graphs, maps, and photographs when printed using the formatting requirements set forth above and single spaced. If applicants exceed the maximum page lengths indicated, DOE will review only the authorized number of pages and disregard any additional pages."]
[66,"2022-10-27","Tech Topics","In regards to “Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: DE-FOA-0002779”, with submission deadline for Concept Papers: 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET (file:///C:/Users/nma234/Downloads/DE-FOA-0002779_Regional_Clean_Hydrogen_Hubs_Funding_Opportunity_Announcement_FINAL.pdf), would you please let me know if this FOA supports a lab scale research project in application of cold plasma for hydrogen production? ","Per Section I.C of the FOA, Applications including research, development, and pilot-scale activities are specifically not of interest and would be deemed nonresponsive. "]
[67,"2022-10-31","Other","I would like to connect with a project H2 Hubs coordinator or someone who has a list of all the coalitions / organizations that plan to apply for the H2 hub FOA. My company is looking for Hub partners to demonstrate and deploy decentralized SOEC systems to support the hydrogen economy & a decarbonized society.  Do you have a list of organizations we could contact and potentially partner with? We are using matchmaker to identify potential partners, but the Hub coalitions are not easily identifiable. ","Please see responses to questions #4 and #64."]
[68,"2022-10-31","Other","My colleagues and I are trying to figure out if the 2kg \"Clean Hydrogen\" definition includes scope 2 emissions (electricity) or just scope 1 emissions. It is unclear in the documents that only say \"at the site of production.\" \nAm I correct in assuming that the 4kg CHPS is inclusive of full cradle to grave lifecycle emissions?\nIf there is a guidance document for carbon intensity calculation for both of these thresholds, I would be very appreciative if you could point me in the right direction.","Please see response to question #47: Per pages 14-15 of the FOA, H2Hubs must demonstrably aid achievement of, but do not necessarily need to meet, the clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS). The FOA language governs the requirements for the regional clean hydrogen hubs; the FOA does not rely on the definitions in the CHPS Draft Guidance, which is not a regulatory standard. Therefore, the FOA is not necessarily tied to the definitions in the CHPS Draft Guidance. DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies and best practices to mitigate emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) throughout the H2Hub. Applicants will be evaluated on the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle, and not necessarily based on whether they achieve the CHPS target."]
[69,"2022-10-31","Other","How is confidential information to be handled in the concept paper? In addition to the confidentiality statement on the cover page, may applicants place a message in the footer of each page that clearly states that the information on the page is proprietary to the members of the hub project team?","Please see responses to question #53. In addition, Section VIII.D (Treatment of Application Information) of the FOA specifies how confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked, including on the cover page and on the header and footer of every page that contains confidential, proprietary, or privileged information, as well as each line or paragraph containing proprietary, privileged, or trade secret information."]
[70,"2022-11-01","Application Content/Format","Does the text in photos or figures have to comply with a 10 point font size? ","Per Section IV.A of the FOA, the font size in figures or tables should be 10 point font (or larger). To the extent practicable, text in photos should also conform to this requirement."]
[71,"2022-11-01","OCED Exchange","I am finding that the listing for DE-FOA-0002779 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Additional Clean Hydrogen Programs (Section 40314): Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement is no longer visible in EERE Exchange. It is not present in the listing on the home page or in searching.","DE-FOA-0002779 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Additional Clean Hydrogen Programs (Section 40314): Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement was issued by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). The FOA is available in the OCED Exchange system (https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/), not the EERE Exchange system."]
[72,"2022-11-01","Other","Please clarify in which phase major procurement activities are allowed to start?  Within Figure 3, “Procurement” is mentioned on the row title, however not described in any of the phase summary text.  It is noted on pg 20 of the FOA, that “long-lead procurement activities may be started in Phase 2 with prior approval”, however in many cases overall engineering design activities can not be completed until procurement of equipment and subsequent design details (certified drawings, etc) are provided by vendors.  Can these procurement activities in support of ‘Engineering & Design (~90%)’ be initiated in Phase 2?\n\nThere will in many cases of equipment purchase requiring progress payments.  This to may occur across phases.","Procurement of long lead items or other critical path procurements will be considered on a case-by-case basis during award negotiations and/or subsequent phase negotiations. Per page 32 of the FOA, applications should include a description of the proposed procurement plan that includes long lead items, procurement timelines and/or critical path procurements."]
[73,"2022-11-01","Other","Are H2H concept papers submitted on November 7th able to be amended/revised post-submission but prior to DOE making an encourage/discourage determination? What if the change is of a significantly material nature, such as signing a new partner MOU post-submission of the concept paper on Nov 7?","Concept Papers can not be amended or updated after the submission deadline, but team members (project partners) may be added or removed between the Concept Paper and Full Application."]
[74,"2022-11-02","Other","Is there a description or resource I can be directed toward regarding what the format will be for the feedback to the concept papers? Or possibly any other relative guidance.","Concept Paper notifications and any feedback will be posted in OCED Exchange. An email from OCED Exchange will be sent to both the technical and administrative points of contact designated by the applicant when the Concept Paper notifications are published."]
[75,"2022-11-03","Other","In response to 56, DOE has said it is acceptable for facilities to be part of multiple concept papers and applications, provided they give a plan for what they will do if they are part of more than one selected application.  This appears to reverse the response to question 44.  If this is the intent, can DOE revise the response to Q44 to remove any uncertainty on this point?","Yes, the response to question 44 has been revised. "]
[76,"2022-11-03","Other","I am reaching out regarding possible future funding cycles for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Additional Clean Hydrogen Programs (Section 40314): Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity. The program funding announcement mentions that “for this initial FOA launch, DOE envisions selecting six (6) to ten (10) H2Hubs for a combined total of up to $6-7 billion in federal funding. DOE may issue a second launch of this FOA to solicit additional H2Hubs beyond those selected in the initial launch.” \n\nI am wondering if you have any additional information regarding the possibility of DOE issuing a second funding round. Are there particular situations where DOE would choose to issue a second funding round? Is it likely that DOE will host a second funding round? Is there a timeframe for when a second funding round would be held and/or a timeframe for DOE making a decision regarding a second funding round?","At this time, there is no additional information regarding a second launch of this FOA. As stated in the FOA, other FOA launches or use of Other Transaction Authorities may also be used to solicit new technologies, capabilities, end-uses, or partners."]
[77,"2022-11-04","Other","I am doing my best for my application on the OCED portal be made on time for Monday for: \n•\tCONCEPT PAPER DETAILS FOR FOA #DE-FOA-0002779 BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW: ADDITIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN PROGRAMS (SECTION 40,314): REGIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN HUB-FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT\n\nI submitted a request last week on SAM.gov for the ID attribution to be provided in time for this document to be delivered to the portal. It looks like the process is still processing.\n\nI hope that the identification and related and related technical aspects will be resolved to give me the ability to put this document on the OCED account. ","System for Award Management (SAM) registration is not required for Concept Paper submission. Applicants are required to be registered in the SAM at https://www.sam.gov before submitting a full application and provide a valid UEI number in the full application. See response to question #2 above for more information."]
[78,"2022-11-04","Other","We have submitted a Concept Paper on behalf of several states. Each of our States has information release requirements under state sunshine laws that will require the release of our Concept Paper independent of any requirements or limitations under FOIA.  As a result, we would like to know if DOE has any general guidance on what types of information in a concept paper can or cannot be released because it should be considered confidential. ","See response to question #53."]
[79,"2022-11-04","Budget/Costs","When submitting the concept paper for the above referenced FOA, the OCED Portal asks for the “Total Project Costs” which is defined as the “sum of the government share, including FFRDC costs if applicable, and the recipient share of project costs.” However, upon submission, the Printable Version of the submission receipt shows a table under “Funds and Cost” that references Phase 1 costs only.  Can the DOE please confirm that the dollar values entered on the “Funds and Cost” Tab of the application are to be the Total Project Costs, including all phases? ","Yes, the amounts entered on the “Funds and Cost” tab of the application should be the Total Project Costs, including all phases. For the time being, please disregard the data labels in the Printable Version of the submission receipt."]
[80,"2022-11-07","Other","On behalf of Company [X], we kindly submit our proposal for the H2 Hubs.  We thank DOE for your engagement and are very excited about our creative approach and commitment to Net Zero Carbon by 2050.  Company X has proudly worked and achieved many milestones of progress and looks forward to being your partner and leader into the foreseeable future. We would kindly appreciate if you could confirm receipt of our submission and if you have any questions.","To apply to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), applicants must register with and submit application materials through OCED Exchange at https://oced-Exchange.energy.gov, OCED’s online application portal. Applications submitted via email will not be accepted. For more information about the application process, see Section IV.A of the FOA."]
[81,"2022-11-05","Other","The goals of this solicitation are important and need to be accomplished.  However, the requirements of the solicitation seems to indicate that proposals where the DOE cost share is under $400M and/or can reasonably be accomplished in under 8 years, would (or might) not be considered responsive.  Was that the intention, even if the specific goals of the solicitation and of the authorizing BIL, including greater than 50,000 kg/day production capacities, can be considerably less expensive and/or reasonably accomplished by a proposed project over a shorter period of time?  A regional clean hydrogen hub becomes progressively more valuable as it is built out.  Delaying the build out delays the opportunity to reach tipping points and positive feedback loops which would accelerate \"market liftoff\", encouraging private financing and the demand for hydrogen.  This is particularly appropriate for the transportation sector where the market adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles will be delayed by insufficient number of stations and/or H2 supply.  This in turn limits hardware production volumes and the accomplishment of lower costs through economies of hardware mass production.  All of which could prevent the DOE from accomplishing its important goals.","Per Section II.A.ii of the FOA, while DOE anticipates making awards that will run from 8 years up to 12 years in length, projects may propose a shorter period of performance based on their level of readiness to proceed into each phase. For example, as stated in page 20 of the FOA, DOE anticipates that some H2Hub teams will have already performed extensive analysis, planning, design, and community engagement as required in Phase 1, and therefore some H2Hub projects may advance from Phase 1 to Phase 2 in under 12 months. \n\nTo achieve the desired scale and impact, per Section II.A.i of the FOA, the anticipated minimum award size for any one individual award (Fed Share) is $400 Million with a non-federal cost share of at least 50% of the total project costs."]
[82,"2022-11-08","Other","We are located in Florida and we have lost couple of weeks due to Hurricane Ian impact (no power for a week, pre and post storm matters, etc.). We have been preparing a concept paper for this FOA and wondering if an extension is possible. Some federal agencies (including DOE) has done this previously. Thank you","The submission deadline for Concept Papers has passed and will not be extended."]
[83,"2022-11-08","Other","Will you make a list of submittals of concept paper available? If so, when do you anticipate doing that?","No, DOE will not publish a list of submitted concept papers. See response to question #53 for more information."]
[84,"2022-11-08","Application Content/Format","In other FOAs the workplan is outside of the technical volume page limit. Please confirm that this is outside the 100-page limit.","The Workplan should be submitted as part of the Technical Volume of the application and counts toward the 100 page limit. See Section IV.D.ii of the FOA for more information."]
[85,"2022-11-09","Other","Unfortunately we missed the deadline for DE-FOA-0002779 (Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement) which was 11/7/2022 5:00pm. We would like to respectfully request a one-week extension from the due date (11/7) which is 11/14 5PM.  ","See response to question #82."]
[86,"2022-11-10","Application Content/Format","From the FOA deliverables, could you clarify the expectation of finalized community consent mechanisms (i.e., a CBA) inline with the DOE phase gates. It is our interpretation that in the application submission, a plan and initial outreach is conducted, but a legal outcome such a CBA is formalized in Phase 2 to line up with permitting and financing. Is that accurate?","Per page 50 of the FOA, the application should include a statement describing any plans to negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), Good Neighbor Agreement, Project Labor Agreement, Community Workforce Agreement, and/or other collective bargaining agreements. CBAs or similar legally-binding agreements do not need to be fully negotiated or formalized at application, but they would need to be finalized and executed sufficiently early to impact project outcomes. The exact timelines can depend on project details and type of agreement. "]
[87,"2022-11-10","Application Content/Format","The font restriction in the FOA specifies black ink. We assume that graphics can use color or reversed out text. Please confirm.","Correct, there is not a font color restriction for graphics or figures."]
[88,"2022-11-14","Other","Hello – We are interested in tracking the progress of the FOA for regional clean hydrogen hubs.  Our understanding is that concept papers were due to be submitted by 11/7 and that applicants were required to submit a public summary description of their proposals as part of their application.  Is it safe to assume those summary descriptions will be made public?  Is there a timeline for when those will be released? \n\nAlso, if there is a distribution list for announcements related to this FOA could I please be added to it? ","Concept Papers do not include a summary for public release and DOE does not plan to publish information about submitted concept papers. See response to question #53 for more information.\n\nFor announcements related to this and other Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations FOAs, you may sign up for the OCED \"Newsletter and Breaking News\" at https://www.energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations "]
[89,"2022-11-15","Other","How can I obtain copies of the H2Hubs concept papers that were due by 11/7/2022?","See response to question #53 and #83."]
[90,"2022-11-15","Other","I am inquiring about the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: DE-FOA-0002779.  I note that the deadline for the Concept Paper was 7 November 2022.  Would it be possible to submit a paper by 21 November 2022?  I just came across this FOA recently thus my company was not prepared.\n\nCan we still apply and if so what should we do? We have technology in the US to contribute to this program as well.","No, the submission deadline for Concept Papers has passed. Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application."]
[91,"2022-11-16","Application Content/Format","1)\tSince the evaluation criteria required in the FOA are quite extensive, would DOE allow the offeror to provide a cross-reference matrix of the location within the document where evaluation criteria are included? We would request that the pages for this cross-reference matrix not be included in the allocated DOE page count. \n2)\tThe FOA requirements are heavily focused on producers; however, is it permissible for a HUB to request Federal match allocation to an end-user or connective infrastructure project?","1) Applicants may include a matrix referencing where the evaluation criteria are addressed, but this matrix would count toward the page limits stated in Section IV.D of the FOA. Please note that Full Applications should follow the content and form requirements listed in Section IV.D of the FOA. For example, the Technical Volume content requirements (i.e., required sections) are outlined in Section IV.D.ii of the FOA.\n2) Yes, federal funding, as well as non-federal cost share, may be allocated to connective infrastructure and/or end-uses. Per page 14 of the FOA, the H2Hub scope and funding should be focused on technologies within the three areas outlined in Figure 2: clean hydrogen producers, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumers.    "]
[92,"2022-11-07","Eligibility","If a prime applicant is a USA incorporated company that is wholly owned by another USA incorporated entity that is owned by a company listed on a foreign stock exchange (and incorporated there), how do we go about proving our qualification as majority domestic ownership?\n\nAnd, should we not ultimately qualify, can we submit a request for a waiver ahead of the full application deadline? In the scenario where our waiver is rejected (and we note that we would have no right to appeal) we would have time to assign our concept over to a company that does qualify without a waiver.  ","Please follow the instructions given in Appendix E – Waiver Requests of the FOA.  Applicants may submit a waiver request pertaining to foreign entity participation, if applicable.\n\nDOE will not consider a waiver request prior to the full application deadline. Note: Per Section III.G of the FOA, DOE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applicants prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. The decision whether to submit an application in response to this FOA lies solely with the applicant."]
[93,"2022-11-12","Application Content/Format","The Community Partnership Documentations has a page limitation of 10 pages.  Are Memorandum of Understanding or similar agreements also to be one page?  If these documents are to be one page, what if we exceed 10 community partnerships?","DOE encourages H2Hubs to partner with community entities. Therefore, DOE will issue a FOA modification to eliminate the total page limit for Community Partnership Documentation and increase the page limit for each letter/submission in Section IV.D.viii of the FOA. While the total page limit for partnership documentation is being removed, each letter/submission from community partners must still not exceed 3 pages. \n\nNote: This Community Partnership Documentation is intended for letters outlining planned partnerships, Memorandum of Understanding, or other similar agreements (i.e., existing or planned partnerships with community entities) and therefore, should not include general letters of support. "]
[94,"2022-11-18","Tech Topics","Could you please let me know if this FOA support lab scale research (e.g., TRL =3 level) in new technology of hydrogen production through potentially (at least close to) carbon negative approach. If not, would it be possible to guide us for an appropriate solicitation?","Please see response to question #66: Per Section I.C of the FOA, Applications including research, development, and pilot-scale activities are specifically not of interest and would be deemed nonresponsive.\n\nSeveral agencies support research and development of hydrogen technologies. For example, current Funding Opportunity Announcements from the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office supporting hydrogen R&D can be found here: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-technologies-office-funding-opportunities"]
[95,"2022-11-22","Other","I understand that the office has recently closed applications for H2Hubs concept papers. I was wondering if it would be possible to publicly share any further information on how many concept papers were received and which regions have submitted concept papers?","Original Response: DOE does not plan to publish information about submitted concept papers.\n\nUpdated response (1/5/2023): A recent announcement posted on https://www.energy.gov/oced/regional-clean-hydrogen-hubs-notifications includes some \"Frequently Asked Questions\" with information about Concept Papers. See Q&A #117 for the number of Concept Papers received and Q&A #126 regarding which regions submitted Concept Papers."]
[96,"2022-11-30","Other","When we applied to be a sub in the matchmaker program for DE-FOA-0002779, we were alerted that our application would be public information. Would this mean there is a list somewhere of all applicants to DE-FOA-0002779? If so, where can this be found? ","The message you received when filling out the H2 Matchmaker Self-Identification Form indicates that the information gathered would be used to populate the public H2 Matchmaker tool, and by submitting the form you consent to the publication of the supplied information as part of the H2 Matchmaker tool.  That information can be found on the H2 Matchmaker website: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker.  \n\nH2 Matchmaker is a voluntary tool to help the formation of H2Hub teams, but is separate from the formal DE-FOA-0002779 application process.  Per questions #53 and 83, DOE will not publish a list of applicants to the FOA."]
[97,"2022-11-30",null,"V.A.ii of the FOA requires significant amounts of proprietary information that commercial entities consider business sensitive or confidential, which these hub members are required to protect. For example, in the Business Plan requirement, applicants are required to submit offtake agreements (letters of commitment, power purchase agreements, etc.); in the Financial Plan requirement, applicants are required to submit financing information; and in the EPC and Operations requirements, applicants are required to submit details about technologies, facilities, and sites that may be proprietary. \n\nOn similar commercial projects like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project, the DOE has provided mechanisms that enabled commercial entities to submit this type of information under separate cover. Will DOE please consider allowing applicants to submit proprietary information from commercial entities under separate cover from the full application content and please advise how hub members should submit protected information?","The information requested in Section IV.D of the FOA must be included with the Full Application and submitted through OCED Exchange at https://oced-Exchange.energy.gov. However, applicants may break Full Application components (e.g., the Technical Volume) into multiple parts and clearly mark which parts contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. For example:\nTechnicalVolume_Part_1\nTechnicalVolume_Part_2_Confidential \n\nEach submission containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must also be marked as described in Section VIII.D of the FOA (Treatment of Application Information). Per FOA Section VIII.D, \"if an application includes trade secrets or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or privileged, it is furnished to the Government in confidence with the understanding that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, DOE will seek to limit disclosure of such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when necessary for merit review of the application or as otherwise authorized by law.\""]
[98,"2022-11-30","Other","We have been following carefully the steps DOE has taken to implement the H2Hubs program.  As part of our work we are attempting to obtain concept notes and are reaching out to many groups to see if they are willing to share them.  In addition, although we recognize that CNs would not be released by DOE at this time, we nevertheless are interested in whether any higher level information gleaned from these notes could be released, e.g., the number of CNs received, who from, total and per CN funds requested, and any other details that do not violate confidentiality requirements.","Original Response: DOE has no plans to publish the number of Concept Papers received, a list of applicants, funding requested, or other details about the Concept Papers because the information is part of the Department’s deliberative process and is considered to be procurement sensitive.\n\nUpdated response (1/5/2023): A recent announcement posted on https://www.energy.gov/oced/regional-clean-hydrogen-hubs-notifications includes some \"Frequently Asked Questions\" with information about Concept Papers. See Q&A #117 for the number of Concept Papers received and Q&A #131 for the total federal funds requested."]
[99,"2022-12-01","Other","Can you please accept this revision of our Concept Paper and enable us to modify the teaming information submitted in the portal accordingly?","Concept Papers may not be updated or amended after the submission deadline. "]
[100,"2022-12-02","Application Content/Format","The FOA does not offer an option for password protected files or sealed packages for costing and other proprietary information. Subrecipients, in particular, may not want to disclose cost buildup outside of the government. Will DOE please modify the FOA to allow for password protected Excel Workbooks for those who do not want to share rate structures, etc., with potential competitors?","Application files may not be password protected, but subrecipients may submit their budget justifications directly to DOE if they do not want to share rate structures and other financial data with the prime applicant. Subrecipients may email their budget information to the FOA mailbox (H2Hubs@hq.doe.gov), noting the application Control Number in the subject line of the email.    \n\nAlso see response to question 97 for an alternate way to separate proprietary and non-proprietary submissions.  "]
[101,"2022-12-02","Application Content/Format","The FOA stipulates that all documents are to be submitted as pdfs using Calibri as the font and with specific point sizes. However, the cost workbooks, the TEA/LCA projections, and the site locations are all forms that use Excel. Is it acceptable to complete the Workbooks and submit them as Workbooks rather than as pdfs? Also can different fonts and point sizes be used in the Workbooks?","Per FOA Section IV.D.i (Full Application Content Requirements), the file format for H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections, Budget Justification Workbooks, and Locations of Work submissions should all be in MS Excel. Applicants may use different fonts and point sizes and in the Excel Workbooks (e.g., the font type and size in the forms and templates provided under the application documents section on the OCED Exchange website), provided it is legible."]
[102,"2022-12-02","Application Content/Format","The FOA stipulates how proprietary information is to be marked (page indications on the bottom of the pages and brackets around proprietary information). However, with some information being included as Excel Workbooks, use of brackets in this manner is problematic. May we instead indicate in the file name and on each Workbook spreadsheet that the information on that spreadsheet is proprietary? Or is there some other method DOE desires?","Yes, if the MS Excel Workbook submissions contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information, the file name and individual worksheets can be labeled to indicate that the workbook contains proprietary information.  In addition, the \"Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data\" in Section VIII.D of the FOA should be included within the Workbook, indicating which pages/worksheets contain trade secrets, confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. Double brackets are not required, but each line/cell containing proprietary, privileged, or trade secret information must be clearly marked with highlighting.  "]
[103,"2022-12-02","Other","DOE, through the FOA and elsewhere, has not indicated whether pre-award audits will be conducted using DOE contracted auditing services. If such audits will occur, what information should we maintain beyond that in the Cost Workbook for those auditors? In particular:\na) Basis of Estimate information is not requested, including assumptions that lead to types of labor, number of hours, build up of indirects, etc. Should such documentation be produced and maintained for auditing?\nb) Clip sheets for all quotes used in the Workbook are not requested (though some are). Should we be maintaining clip sheets of online catalogue prices, estimates from suppliers, etc.?\nc) Engineering estimate documentation is not fully requested. While some information is requested, we are concerned that auditors will request details on who did the estimate, what the capabilities of those engineers were, how the estimate was conducted, assumptions used, and review processes. Should this information be fully developed and maintained?\nd) A full cost narrative describing how the numbers in the Workbook were derived is not fully requested. While some narrative is suggested, none of the deliverables for the full application state that a full narrative is required and nowhere does DOE explain where the requested narrative is to be included. Does DOE or its auditors require such a narrative?\ne) While an integrated schedule is requested several times, the FOA does not say that such a schedule should be resource loaded. Is a resource loaded schedule required or desired by either DOE or its auditors?","a) Other than the information requested in the budget justification workbook, DOE does not require additional information at the time of application.  However, if your organization is selected for award negotiations, you will be required to provide additional documentation and details of the basis of estimate used for the proposal budget.   \nb) Quotes, catalog pages, etc.  that are used for the basis of estimate for a proposed cost should be maintained and must be made available to DOE upon request. (This request will be made at a later stage, should the proposal be selected for award negotiations.)\nc) Yes, the documentation should be produced and maintained, as it must be provided to DOE upon request.  (This request will be made at a later stage, should the proposal be selected for award negotiations.)\nd) A full cost narrative describing how the numbers were derived should be developed and available to DOE upon request.  (This request will be made at a later stage, should the proposal be selected for award negotiations.)\ne) As described on page 33-34 of the FOA, the initial Integrated Project Schedule (IPS) submitted with the application should be a minimum Level 1 IPS for the full project and a minimum Level 2 IPS for proposed Phase 1 activities. See Appendix C of the FOA for a description of IPS Levels. This IPS will be revised, expanded, and updated in future H2Hub phases. By the end of Phase 2 it is expected that the IPS will be execution ready (i.e., Level 4 IPS that is resource loaded). "]
[104,"2022-12-02","Budget/Costs","A standard rate of annual escalation is usually included in DOE procurements to ensure all those seeking DOE funding use a similar basis for escalation. Given recent inflation, will DOE please provide a standard rate of escalation.","Per page 33 of the FOA, DOE is not requiring specific escalation assumptions be used for the total project cost estimate included in the application, but cost estimate narratives should explain what assumptions were used by the applicant and why they were deemed appropriate.  "]
[105,"2022-12-02","Other","The FOA does not include a standard start date for the schedule. The FOA states that the expected selection date is Fall 2023 with negotiations in the Winter of 2023-2024. Please provide a standard start date so that the schedules of all those submitting an application can be easily compared. Also, the FOA does not indicate whether we are to use Federal fiscal years or calendar years. Please offer guidance on which is desired.","The start date of each selected H2Hub may vary and will be dependent on how long award negotiations take to complete. The start date for each H2Hub will be based on the period of performance of that H2Hub (i.e., project year) and is not tied to Federal fiscal years or calendar years. For consistency, applicants may assume a 1/1/2024 start date in their application, although the actual project start date will be adjusted to reflect when the DOE Cooperative Agreement is issued/executed."]
[106,"2022-12-02","Other","Do you have any information of the second launch of the DE-FOA-0002779: BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW: ADDITIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN PROGRAMS (SECTION 40314): REGIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN HUBS FUNDING OPPORTUNITY? \n\nIf this were to occur, do you happen to have a timeline of when the next opportunity will be?","See response to question #76."]
[107,"2022-12-12","Other","Is DOE still planning to notify applicants in December of its determination to encourage or discourage submitting a Full Application? If DOE cannot provide this notification in December, do you plan to extend the April 7, 2023, Full Application due date? ","Yes, DOE still anticipates notifying applicants of its Concept Paper encourage/discourage determination in December 2022.  DOE does not intend to extend the submission deadline for Full Applications."]
[108,"2022-12-13","Other","Does DOE expect to make the recipients of “encourage” letters public?","DOE does not plan to publish or share the names of applicants that receive either an encourage or a discourage notification, but applicants are free to make such announcements themselves. "]
[109,"2022-12-15","Other","Our hub is quite complex, involving many different hydrogen producers, end users, and connective infrastructure providers. The projects being developed by these project participants vary widely in scope, scale, and cost. In the absence of DOE funding, these projects would proceed on equally varied timelines, with some projects able to advance relatively quickly through the DOE-defined phases while others might take many years. In the interest of jumpstarting a clean hydrogen economy, we believe it is important to allow projects to proceed through the DOE phases at their own pace. Our question:\n\nMust the entire portfolio of projects in a hub complete phase 1 activities and deliverables before any of the projects can advance to phase 2? Would it be possible, for example, for a hydrogen fueling station to begin construction during phase 1 or 2 if it is ready and the hub receives permission from DOE?","The phased approach is designed to ensure that each H2Hub meets a standard level of maturity, employs a robust execution approach, and that technical and non-technical project risks are adequately and appropriately managed throughout DOE’s award. However, specific project structure details for each awardee will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis to produce the best possible balance between project outcomes and DOE risk exposure. During award negotiations and go/no-go reviews, DOE may approve moving certain parts or facilities of the H2Hub along faster through the phases depending on project progress, technology TRL level, etc."]
[110,"2022-12-18","Budget/Costs","The FOA references four phases of execution and also states that each phase may have “one or more budget periods” (Transition Between Phases, Page 22).  The FOA provided Budget Justification Workbook (Excel spreadsheet) has columns for Budget Periods 1-5. Please clarify if applicants must use the 5-Budget Period structure as shown in the provided Budget Justification Excel spreadsheet or if applicants can add or subtract Budget Periods so long as we have at least one Budget Period for each phase and may potentially have two or more Budget Periods for longer phases?","In the Budget Justification workbook submitted with the Full Application, the Budget Period columns should correspond to the four phases described in Section I.B.ii of the FOA. For example, Budget Period 1 in the Budget Justification Workbook should reflect the estimated costs for Phase 1 (Detailed Project Planning), Budget Period 2 should reflect the estimated costs for Phase 2 (Project Development, Permitting, and Financing), etc. Since H2Hubs will adhere to the four-phased structure described in the FOA, the Budget Period 5 column should be left blank. During award negotiations and/or subsequent phase negotiations, DOE may require that the costs for each phase be further broken down into more than one budget period."]
[111,"2022-12-18","Budget/Costs","Section xiii Subrecipient Budget Justification states: “Applicants must provide a separate budget justification for each subrecipient (including FFRDCs) that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $10,000,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). The Budget Justification Workbook indicates that the threshold for a subrecipient is $250,000.  Please clarify that applicants are to use the FOA-stated $10,000,000 threshold for subrecipients and not information contained in the heading note on Tab f of the Budget Justification Workbook (Excel spreadsheet) which may not have been updated to reflect the nuances of this particular FOA.","Per Section IV.D.xiii of the FOA, Applicants must provide a separate budget justification for each subrecipient (including FFRDCs) that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $10,000,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). Please disregard the $250,000 subrecipient threshold in the EERE T 540.132 02 Budget Justification Workbook template. "]
[112,"2022-12-18","Application Content/Format","The FOA requires the Integrated Project Schedule to be submitted as part of the Work Plan (Technical Volume Contract Requirements, pages 71-74). Is the Integrated Project Schedule excluded from the 100-page limit for the Technical Volume? ","The Integrated Project Schedule, included with the Workplan, should be submitted as part of the Technical Volume of the application and counts toward the 100 page limit."]
[113,"2022-12-19","Other","Can you please let me know if the DOE has notified the applicants who submitted concept papers as part of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (# DE-FOA-0002779) for the clean hydrogen hubs program to submit a full application? I believe the DOE was scheduled to let interested parties know sometime this month whether they would be encouraged or discouraged from submitting additional information pertaining to their concept papers. \n\nIf the DOE has not yet asked for additional information to encourage or discourage applicants, when will it do so?","Concept Paper notifications have not been issued yet, but DOE still anticipates notifying applicants of its Concept Paper encourage/discourage determination in December 2022. "]
[114,"2022-12-21","Other","I saw on the OCED website that the deadline to submit a concept paper for this funding opportunity has already passed (Nov. 7, it seems). I'd like to sneak in a late entry, if at all possible. Am I too late, or are you willing to make an exception? If so, I can send it in by January 31.\n\nI only recently became aware of this funding opportunity, but have been actively exploring hydrogen business opportunities with a small team of like-minded individuals for some time. Having researched the topic extensively, I'm confident that we could put together a proposal which addresses all of the program's stated goals.","Please see response to question #90 above."]
[115,"2022-12-23","Other","We are writing to be included in any RFI/RfPs for relevant funding and incentive programs. We were notified about this particular program: DE-FOA-0002779: BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW: ADDITIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN PROGRAMS (SECTION 40314): REGIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN HUBS FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT\n\nBut we would love to understand the process + others which could be relevant for us to evaluate. Would we be able to schedule a call perhaps in the New Year on 4th, 5th or 6th January morning your time?  ","DOE personnel are restricted from communicating with applicants regarding open funding opportunities. Please see response to question #4 above for more information.\n\nThere are a variety of funding opportunities at DOE for hydrogen and hydrogen ecosystem technologies, including in OCED and EERE.  Please visit www.hydrogen.energy.gov to stay apprised of future announcements. To be notified of future funding opportunities, including requests for information, you can sign-up for email notifications at each program. For example, you can register for OCED notifications at https://www.energy.gov/oced/office-clean-energy-demonstrations. In addition, for OCED general inquiries, you can email dl-oced-engagement@hq.doe.gov."]
[116,"2022-12-27","Other","This is our project scope below,  who can we speak to for help and guidance to submit a request for funding?\n\nThe scope of the project is to…","Please see response to question #80 above. Note: the submission deadline for Concept Papers has passed. Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application."]
[117,"2022-12-27","Other","HOW MANY CONCEPT PAPERS WERE SUBMITTED?","The Department of Energy (DOE) received 79 Concept Papers. "]
[118,"2022-12-27","Other","WHY DID DOE REQUIRE CONCEPT PAPERS TO BE SUBMITTED?","Concept Papers allow DOE to provide feedback to potential applicants to ensure they can produce the best applications possible and to better understand and prepare for the types of Full Applications DOE might receive. The encourage or discourage notifications also serve to caution applicants from expending considerable resources to develop a Full Application on a concept that is unlikely to meet the goals of the hydrogen hubs (H2Hubs) program. "]
[119,"2022-12-27","Other","HOW DID DOE DETERMINE WHICH CONCEPT PAPERS TO ENCOURAGE AND DISCOURAGE AND WHAT WERE THESE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON?","Multiple reviewers independently scored each Concept Paper based on evaluation criteria listed in the Funding Opportunity Announcement that included qualifications, experience, and capabilities; expected contributions toward a national hydrogen network; plans to develop production, end-use, and connective facilities; and the community benefits plan component. A DOE panel then reviewed scores and made final decisions on which papers to encourage and discourage, resulting in 33 encouraged and 46 discouraged.  \n\nThe encouraged Concept Papers plan to develop all elements critical to a H2Hub: comprising production, end-uses, and connective infrastructure; demonstrating capabilities to execute a project plan or to attract and hire such capabilities; planning to deploy proven technologies; and indicating commitments to clean hydrogen and meaningful community benefits.  \n\nThe 46 Concept Papers were discouraged for many reasons, but one of the most common reasons was papers that described concepts focused on only one element of the hub. Concept Papers were also discouraged that would depend on technologies unready for commercial scale demonstrations and projects whose elements were not readily suited to help catalyze a national clean hydrogen network. "]
[120,"2022-12-27","Other","WILL DOE PUBLISH OR SHARE THE CONCEPT PAPERS AND/OR ENCOURAGE/DISCOURAGE NOTIFICATIONS?","DOE will not publish or share the names of applicants that received an encourage or discourage notification on their H2Hubs Concept Papers. However, applicants who submitted Concept Papers are free to publicize their H2Hub Concept Papers and/or DOE’s response. To receive future news alerts from the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), including any updates on the H2Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement, such as project selections, sign up at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOEOCED/signup/35032. "]
[121,"2022-12-27","Other","CAN APPLICANTS SHARE THEIR CONCEPT PAPERS AND DOE’S RESPONSE?","Yes, applicants may share their Concept Papers and DOE’s response.  "]
[122,"2022-12-27","Eligibility","IF DOE DISCOURAGES A CONCEPT PAPER, CAN THE ENTITY/PROJECT STILL SUBMIT A FULL APPLICATION?","Yes, an encourage/discourage notification does not preclude any entity that submitted a Concept Paper from submitting a Full Application, nor does it preclude further coordination among potential applicants. "]
[123,"2022-12-27","Other","DOES AN ENCOURAGE NOTIFICATION MEAN THAT THE ENTITY/H2HUB WILL BE SELECTED IF THEY SUBMIT A FULL APPLICATION?","No, an encourage notification simply means that the proposal is on the right path towards submitting a Full Application. DOE expects significant competition amongst applicants, even if only encouraged applicants proceed."]
[124,"2022-12-27","Other","DOES A DISCOURAGE NOTIFICATION MEAN THAT THE ENTITY/H2HUB WILL NOT BE AWARDED IF THEY SUBMIT A FULL APPLICATION?","No, a discourage notification means that DOE deemed that the applicant’s prospect for success may not justify the resources required to complete a thorough and responsive Full Application. "]
[125,"2022-12-27","Other","WILL DOE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO CONCEPT PAPER SUBMITTERS PRIOR TO THE FULL APPLICATION DEADLINE ON APRIL 7, 2023?","Yes, DOE is planning to hold a webinar for those who submitted Concept Papers to provide common themes and points of information to inform Full Applications. The webinar will take place on January 12, 2023; specific details will be provided directly to applicants and will be posted to https://www.energy.gov/oced/h2hubs-applicant-informational-webinar.  "]
[126,"2022-12-27","Other","WHAT AREAS/REGIONS SUBMITTED CONCEPT PAPERS? OF THESE, WHICH WERE ENCOURAGED?","DOE received Concept Papers from all regions of the country. Encouraged Concept Papers propose H2Hubs in most regions of the country."]
[127,"2022-12-27","Eligibility","CAN APPLICANTS WHO SUBMITTED CONCEPT PAPERS IN THE SAME REGION COMBINE PROJECTS FOR THE FINAL APPLICATION?","Parties of multiple Concept Papers may later merge into one Full Application. If a party is part of multiple Full Applications, the applications should explain how the entity or facility will support each H2Hub. "]
[128,"2022-12-27","Eligibility","CAN MORE THAN ONE APPLICANT IN A REGION BE SELECTED TO RECEIVED FUNDING?","Yes, however, the statute requires that “to the maximum extent practicable, each regional clean hydrogen hub…shall be located in a different region of the United States.” Applicants are encouraged to communicate and coordinate with each other, and even partner where appropriate, particularly where multiple H2Hubs have been proposed in the same region.  "]
[129,"2022-12-27","Other","ARE END USERS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING IN THE H2HUBS?","Yes, end uses, such as transportation, residential and commercial heating, electric power generation, and industrial uses, are eligible for funding as part of a H2Hub. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Announcement for specific exclusions.  "]
[130,"2022-12-27","Other","HOW MUCH PROPOSED INVESTMENT WAS INCLUDED BY APPLICANTS IN THE CONCEPT PAPERS?","Applicants proposed investments, in aggregate, of more than $150 billion of their own capital alongside the DOE’s federal investment. \n\nApplicant Cost Share Proposed (approximately $157.1 billion) \nEncouraged: $96 billion \nDiscouraged: $61.1 billion "]
[131,"2022-12-27","Other","HOW MUCH WAS THE REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDS IN THE CONCEPT PAPERS?","The request for federal funds was approximately $60 billion—roughly eight to nine times the size of DOE’s $6-7 billion solicitation—including approximately $33.5 billion from the 33 applicants who have been encouraged to submit Full Applications.  \n\nDOE Cost Share Requested (approximately $61.3 billion) \nEncouraged: $33.5 billion \nDiscouraged: $27.8 billion "]
[132,"2022-12-27","Other","HOW WILL H2HUBS WORK WITH COMMUNITIES?","The success of an H2Hub depends on engagement with and support from host communities, relevant labor partners and workforces, and other impacted groups. Applicants are required to include a Community Benefits Plan describing the steps applicants will take to engage with community and labor groups; invest in America’s workforce; advance Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility; and support the Justice40 Initiative; as well as the resources that are allocated to implementing the Community Benefits Plan. Additional information is available through our “Community Benefits Plan Guidance” under “APPLICATION FORMS AND TEMPLATES” in eXCHANGE. DOE will support successful applicants and host communities in ongoing community engagement as reflected in the Community Benefits Plans throughout the full project scope. "]
[133,"2022-12-27","Tech Topics","HOW WILL DOE ENSURE THAT SELECTED H2HUBS ARE PRODUCING CLEAN HYDROGEN?","H2Hubs will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposed H2Hub reduces emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants across the full life cycle compared to current and conventional technologies and processes. H2Hubs also must demonstrably aid achievement of, but do not necessarily need to meet, the clean hydrogen production standard, which has its own statutory criteria and is currently under development. The clean hydrogen production standard target is not a regulatory requirement or barrier to H2Hubs funding. "]
[134,"2022-12-27","Tech Topics","WHAT IS A H2HUB?","The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law defines the term “regional clean hydrogen hub” as “a network of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity.” "]
[135,"2022-12-27","Tech Topics","WILL THE H2HUBS HELP REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS?","Yes, H2Hubs are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to current and conventional technologies and processes. DOE is requiring H2Hubs to conduct a detailed Life Cycle Analysis to determine the carbon intensity of all project elements over the lifetime of the H2Hub—including, for example, emissions intensities of supply chains and input materials. However, emissions associated with equipment manufacturing are not included in the system boundary. \n\nWe also know that different methods of hydrogen production and use can impact the extent of non-greenhouse gas emissions including NOx. DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies to mitigate criteria air pollution emissions, and criteria air pollution emissions will also factor into the Life Cycle Analysis of the H2Hub.  "]
[136,"2022-12-27","Other","IS AN H2HUB THAT CAN BECOME OPERATIONAL SOONER THAN ANOTHER COMPETITIVELY FAVORED?","Yes, all other factors being equal, and this is reflected in the evaluation criteria: the speed at which the H2Hub can achieve its proposed production rate and build out the related infrastructure to expand end use markets for clean hydrogen. "]
[137,"2022-12-27","Budget/Costs","IS AN H2HUB THAT SEEKS LESS THAN 50% OF THE FEDERAL DOE COST SHARE COMPETITIVELY FAVORED OVER ONE WHICH SEEKS THE ENTIRE 50%?","Yes, all other factors being equal. It is included as one of 16 program policy factors that may help determine which Full Application to select: the degree to which the proposed project, including proposed cost share, optimizes the use of available DOE funding to achieve programmatic objectives. "]
[138,"2022-12-27","Other","WHAT IS THE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR FULL APPLICATIONS?","Full Applications are due by April 7, 2023, 5 p.m., ET. "]
[139,"2022-12-27","Other","WHERE CAN APPLICANTS FIND MORE INFORMATION?","Additional information is available on OCED Exchange. In particular, applicants can review the Funding Opportunity Announcement Q&A log under the H2Hubs section of the page. "]
[140,"2022-12-27","Other","Our Concept Paper was discouraged.  Please provide us with feedback on why our proposed Hydrogen Hub application was \"discouraged\".  What were specifically the reasons that the concepts provided fell short of the reviewers expectations?  Are we still able to apply if these concerns are addressed?","Feedback on individual projects will not be provided. However, please see Q&A #119 above for common reasons Concept Papers were discouraged.  \n\nReceiving a discourage response on a Concept Paper does not prohibit you from submitting a Full Application."]
[141,"2022-12-28","Other","We have received our notice regarding encouragement/discouragement of our H2Hub concept. Will there be additional communication from DOE regarding our hub concept such as fuller discussion of what was liked or disliked? Or will the communication be limited to what we have already received?","Additional feedback on individual Concept Papers will not be provided, but the encourage/discourage notifications identified common themes and points of feedback to keep in mind when developing Full Applications. In addition, DOE is planning on hosting a webinar for those who submitted Concept Papers to help inform Full Applications.  See Q&A #125 for more information."]
[142,"2022-12-30","Other","I run a political news service. I am writing a piece about a public/private partnership that is seeking funding for a hydrogen hub.  I am trying to explain this idea in a way that is very simple to understand. Is there someone from the agency that can help lay this out for me in simple terms. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.","In addition to the information in the Funding Opportunity Announcement and this Q&A log, the recent announcement posted on https://www.energy.gov/oced/regional-clean-hydrogen-hubs-notifications includes some \"Frequently Asked Questions\" that may be helpful. Some high-level information about the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs is also available at https://www.energy.gov/oced/regional-clean-hydrogen-hubs"]
[143,"2023-01-04","Other","Can we still apply for hydrogen hub zone grants? If so, what is the deadline and please provide a contact name and number for the grant. ","The submission deadline for Concept Papers has passed. Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application."]
[144,"2023-01-06","Other","Will teams that submitted concept papers be given detailed information regarding where their specific concept fell short, similar to a debrief given after a win or loss of a major DOE procurement?  This information is invaluable for future applications and also for exploring future uses for our hydrogen solutions.  ","Please see the response to Q&A #141 above."]
[145,"2023-01-07","Other","Please let me know the process of getting funding for production of Green Hydrogen.","Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application to the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement.\n\nPlease see the response to Q&A #115 above for information about how to find additional funding opportunities."]
[146,"2023-01-10","Other","Some of our Consortium partners asked to attend the informational webinar taking place this Thursday at 1/12, but noted they needed the Control Number to register. \n\nCould you confirm, if we share our control number with our partners, they will not be able to access our Concept Paper or Full application submissions on OCED Exchange unless those authorized in our office manually go into our OCED accounts and grant them access? ","That is correct.  Using the Control Number to register for the webinar does not automatically provide project partners access to the Concept Paper or Full Application submissions in OCED Exchange.  \n\nNote: The registration page was recently updated so that the control number is not required to register. "]
[147,"2023-01-09","Other","The FOA document uses the terms applicant, subrecipient, project partner, and major project partner to indicate members of the applicant’s team. While the definition of applicant and subrecipient seem relatively clear, can DOE provide a definition of what is met by project partner and major project partner? Are these two terms (project partner and major project partner) synonymous with one another? Are they also synonymous with subrecipient? Please advise.","Generally, the terms \"project partner\" and \"subrecipient\" are used synonymously, although there may be cases where a project partner would not be a subrecipient.  For example, an entity (e.g., 3rd parties) may support the H2Hub by providing funding or resources without actually performing work under the DOE award.  In this case, the entity would be considered a project partner, but not a subrecipient.     \n\nThe terms \"project partner\" and \"major project partner\" are used synonymously, although \"major project partners\" are more substantially involved in the H2Hub (i.e., contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the successful execution of the H2Hub)."]
[148,"2023-01-09","Budget/Costs","Please confirm that if an applicant has a team member that will receive federal funding (federal cost share) through this FOA, than that team member is defined as a “subrecipient” and if that subrecipient contributes a project value that is greater than $10 million then that subrecipient must complete a Subrecipient Budget Justification Worksheet. If a Subrecipient has less than $10 million in scope on the H2Hub then it’s portion is captured as a line item in the prime applicant’s Budget Justification Workbook and no further cost documentation is required?","Yes, per Section IV.D.xiii of the FOA, Applicants must provide a separate budget justification for each subrecipient that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $10,000,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less).  If the estimated budget for a subrecipient is below this threshold, then a separate budget justification is not requested and their estimated cost may only be included in the Prime's budget justification under the Contractual tab/worksheet. However, whether above or below the $10,000,000 or 25 percent threshold, subrecipient oversight, including sub budget oversight, is the responsibility of the Prime recipient, and DOE may request additional documentation/information from the Prime and/or subrecipients at any time during negotiation or during the course of the award.\n\nNote: Team members are considered to be subrecipients if they are performing work under the proposed jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share) and are responsible for making programmatic decisions. OCED expects that project partners responsible for developing elements (production plants, end uses, and connective infrastructure) that are vital to the jointly proposed hub would be classified as subrecipients.  "]
[149,"2023-01-11","Other","Will there be flexibility for the timeline estimates for each phase? For example, if a project already has land and permits, can the stages be accelerated and even happen simultaneously?","Yes, projects may propose a shorter period of performance based on their level of readiness to proceed into each phase. See the response to Q&A #81 for more information."]
[150,"2023-01-11","Other","Will the hubs GHG emissions be evaluated / benchmarked in the context of the region that the hub is located in or are the hubs being assessed relative to a single standard benchmark (i.e., various states / regions have higher proportion of thermal / high emitting power generation facilities vs. others, etc.)? Will any specific use cases be given a higher weighting than others (i.e., more emission intensive processes vs. less)?","As described in the “Emissions and Resource Consumption LCA” section of the FOA, DOE will use GREET to consistently evaluate well-to-gate carbon intensity and criteria air pollutant emissions for hydrogen production within each hub. Applicants should provide as much information as possible regarding key aspects of their system design, such as the rate of CCS, expected emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants), and the source of energy supply, into the “H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” spreadsheet. Where data is not provided, DOE will use defaults within GREET to evaluate the carbon intensity and criteria pollutants of the proposed H2Hub. If H2Hubs propose integration with the electricity grid, applicants should identify the corresponding Regional Transmission Organization/Independent System Operator, if one exists. DOE will use GREET defaults to estimate the carbon intensity of that region’s electricity grid. \n\nThe proposed H2Hubs will be evaluated by the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle. H2Hubs that use less emission intensive processes will be considered favorably by DOE. This is just one factor that DOE will use to evaluate applications (See Section V of the FOA for the full list of review criteria and Program Policy Factors). This sub-criteria is part of Criterion 1: Technical Merit and Impact which will be 25% of the overall score."]
[151,"2023-01-11","Other","DOE / OCED identifies “the degree to which existing facilities and/or infrastructure provided by the applicant team are leveraged to support the H2Hub” as one of the elements in criterion #4 for the assessment framework for the full application. Please discuss how leveraging existing facilities will be ranked compared to greenfield facilities.","Applicants are encouraged to leverage existing facilities, infrastructure, and rights-of-way to minimize the environmental impacts and to maximize the impact of the available funding. This is just one factor that DOE will use to evaluate applications (See Section V.A.iii for the full list of review criteria).  This sub-criteria is part of Criterion 4: Management Team and Project Partners which will be 20% of the overall score.  All sub-criteria are of equal weight and will be considered in evaluating the criteria but will not be individually scored."]
[152,"2023-01-11","Other","How will Justice40 impacts and benefits be ranked? Will Justice40 impacts qualify when a subrecipient is involved in projects and does this count under the hub or the specific project under the hub? ","Review Criterion 5 (Community Benefits Plan) includes a sub-criteria that will consider the extent to which the project illustrates the ability to support the overall goal of the Justice40 Initiative that 40% of the benefits of the overall investments flow to disadvantaged communities.  The Justice40 benefits may come from the prime and/or subrecipient activities under the proposed H2Hub. "]
[153,"2023-01-12","Other","The FOA states that “DOE will additionally utilize LCA to evaluate the decarbonization potential of each H2Hub relative to incumbent technologies, given existing defaults within GREET regarding the emissions intensity of end-use technologies using incumbent fuels (e.g., use of diesel in trucks, fossil fuels in industry)”.  However the GREET model platforms only include fuel-cycle and vehicle-cycle end uses; there is no model for fossil fuel use in industry and/or industrial process emissions. What is DOE’s guidance on baseline CO2 and criteria pollutants emission data for other industries such as power production or steel mills? It will be important for the applicants to have a similar baseline in order to accurately compare the emissions reduction potential of each hub.","Baseline CO2 and criteria emissions are available for other industries, such as power production or steel mills, in the GREET1 and GREET2 Excel-based platforms, and also in the .NET GREET platform. As stated in the merit review criteria, applications will be reviewed based on “The degree to which the proposed H2Hub reduces emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) across the full life cycle compared to current/conventional technologies and processes as evaluated by the GREET model.” Accordingly, DOE recommends the use of these GREET platforms to evaluate the emissions intensity of industrial applications."]
[154,"2023-01-12","Tech Topics","In the presentation today by the OCED, there is one major question that is not answered - what is the definition of clean hydrogen? If DOE is talking about blue hydrogen made from methane, how do you account for the carbon emissions that would be created from the supply chain as more fossil fuels are burned? Please see this as just one reference:\nhttps://www.edf.org/climate/methane-studies\n\nThank you in advance for your response to this important matter. Any Community Benefit Agreement must acknowledge the impacts to those communities that will suffer from increased oil and gas development if methane is the feedstock for hydrogen.","Per the FOA, H2Hubs must demonstrably aid achievement of, but do not necessarily need to meet, the clean hydrogen production standard (currently under development). However, DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies and best practices to mitigate emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) throughout the H2Hub. The proposed H2Hubs will be evaluated by the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle. To quantify emission reductions, H2Hubs will be required to conduct a detailed life cycle analysis (LCA) to determine the carbon intensity of all elements over the lifetime of the H2Hub.\n\nDOE will use the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model to consistently evaluate the well-to-gate carbon intensity and criteria air pollutant emissions estimated by the applicant for hydrogen production within each H2Hub. This evaluation will take into account upstream emission sources, including fugitive emissions for methane. "]
[155,"2023-01-12","Other","Can you please send me a link for today’s webinar?  Thank you.","A recording and a transcript of  the H2Hubs Applicant Informational Webinar held on 1/12/2023 is available at: https://www.energy.gov/oced/h2hubs-applicant-informational-webinar "]
[156,"2023-01-13","Application Content/Format","A Project Management Plan (PMP) is mentioned under Phase 1 – Detailed Project Planning as one of the plans that will need to be finalized. However, a PMP is not listed in the Full Application Content Requirement or Technical Volume Requirements tables. Is the PMP referred to as the Management Plan throughout the rest of the FOA, as a requirement within the Business Development and Management section of the Technical Volume?","A separate Project Management Plan (PMP) is not required with the Full Application. A PMP will be developed and finalized during Phase 1.\n\nThe Management Plan requirement in the Business Development and Management section of the Technical Volume is distinct from the PMP and should describe 1) the prime applicant’s and project partners’ organizational structure, capabilities, and operations plan; 2) the financial strength of the prime recipient and any major project partners in the H2Hub; and 3) prior experience of the senior/key personnel in similar or related undertakings to the proposed H2Hub.  See Section I.B.iii of the FOA for more information about the Management Plan.    "]
[157,"2023-01-09","Application Content/Format","If a H2Hub includes affiliated team member projects that are not requesting federal funding (no DOE cost share) because they have sufficient private investment (so are not “subrecipients”), but the affiliated team member will have a project location that will be part of the H2Hub solution and their hydrogen generation contributes toward the success of the hub, should those affiliated projects be included in the TEA, LCA and GREET modeling? We assume yes? Please advise. In addition, should we include summary level only information regarding these affiliated team member projects that are not “subrecipient” projects in our Technical Volume. So not discuss these affiliated projects to the same level of detail as subrecipient projects when addressing the requirements in the 100 pages of the technical volume but only provide a high-level description for the affiliated team member projects that are not requesting any federal cost share? Please advise.","Applications should clearly identify what facilities are included as part of the proposed jointly funded H2Hub and what facilities already exist or will be developed outside of the scope of the DOE award (i.e., not receiving DOE funding nor covered by non-federal cost share). If the team member's project is part of the jointly funded H2Hub, then it should be included in the TEA, LCA/GREET modeling, and be described in detail in the Technical Volume. Peripheral or out of scope activities (i.e., facilities and infrastructure that already exist or are being completely funded outside of the DOE award) that contribute to the success of the H2Hub should be discussed in the application but may be described in less detail. If these peripheral or out of scope activities impact the emissions or economics of the proposed H2Hub, they should be included in the TEA and LCA/GREET modeling. For example, if a H2Hub is planning to sell hydrogen to an existing refueling station, the TEA should account for the agreed upon or expected hydrogen price that the station is going to pay to fully understand the financial viability of the proposed H2Hub.     \n\nNote: The team member may still be considered a subrecipient if they are performing work under the DOE award even if that work is supported by non-federal cost share funding (used to meet the cost share requirement). In other words, if the team member's project is part of the proposed jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share), they would be considered a subrecipient and would need to comply with Federal program requirements.   "]
[158,"2023-01-09","Application Content/Format","With respect to the information requested for the Financial Plan as part of the Technical Volume, please clarify if applicants should only include financial plan information for subrecipient projects and are not required to submit such information for commercially funded projects that are part of the H2Hub, but that are not requesting federal funding (no DOE cost share). Please advise.","Please see response to question #149. If a project/proposed element is part of the jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share), then it should be included in the Financial Plan section of the Technical Volume."]
[159,"2023-01-16","Budget/Costs","I am reviewing the completion requirements for the “Subrecipient Budget Justification” and have noticed a discrepancy between the latest FOA and the “Budget Justification Workbook” provided.\n\nPlease confirm the threshold for subrecipient completion - $250,000 / $10,000,000 / another figure.","Please see response to Q&A #111 above."]
[160,"2023-01-16","Other","If a change in ownership of an eligible applicant submitting a full application is intended, such intention is disclosed in the full application, and an ownership change is effected prior to entry into any subsequent associated cooperative agreement, will DOE consent to such change be required before entering into the cooperative agreement? Will DOE consent to such a change be required if the change in ownership is effected after entering into an assistance agreement? You may assume that all present and future owner(s) are U.S. based corporation(s) that are not banned (debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from participating in federal programs) from doing business with the U.S. Government.","If known at the time, please include all relevant information about the ownership change in the full application. The requirements to transfer a DOE award to a new entity will depend on the legal relationship and organizational structure effected by the ownership change. An ownership change may result in a name change or an award novation. Award transfers (prior to the Cooperative Agreement being issued) and award novations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."]
[161,"2023-01-19","Application Content/Format","Would the DOE allow applicants to submit the Risk Register and Integrated Project Schedule on a 11x17 page(s) to facilitate ease of review and data consolidation?","Please see response to Q&A #55 above."]
[162,"2023-01-19","Application Content/Format","The Environmental Considerations portion of the application requires applicants to attach a map showing the location(s) of the proposed project, and a site layout map showing the proposed facilities and associated infrastructure and to provide a site plan. Project maps, site plans, and layouts are typically done in larger engineering size formats. Can the attachment including these maps and layouts contain large engineering formats?","Yes, the project map and site layout map requested with the Environmental Considerations Summary may be submitted as separate files and may be in larger engineering formats."]
[163,"2023-01-23","Eligibility","Given that the submission deadline for the concept paper has passed, may I please check if I can still submit a full application without having completed the concept paper submission?","Please see response to Q&A #90 above."]
[164,"2023-01-23","Foreign Entities/Work","Are foreign entity waiver and worker waivers applicable to all contractors/vendors or just the prime and sub recipients?","Contractors/vendors are not subject to the same foreign entity participation and foreign work waiver requirements as prime recipients and subrecipients, but all H2Hub projects are subject to Buy America requirements as laid out in the FOA (see Section IV.J.vi and Appendix F of the FOA for more information). If a recipient is seeking a waiver of the Buy America requirements, they may submit a waiver request after they have completed negotiations and an award is made."]
[165,"2023-01-23","Foreign Entities/Work","Does the day-to-day business work of a foreign executive trigger the foreign work waiver requirements, or only project/infrastructure location?","A Waiver for Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver) is required for all work under jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share) that is performed outside of the United States. Therefore, if the executive performing work outside of the United States is being paid with either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share funding, then a Foreign Work Waiver would be required. "]
[166,"2023-01-23","Cost Sharing","The FOA requires a 50% cost share per phase. Are you allowed to have different cost share ratios for different components of the Hub as long as the total project cost share by the private sector meets or exceeds 50% per phase?","Yes, the cost share percentage for different components/elements of the H2Hub may vary, as long as the total non-federal cost share is at least 50% for each phase. Per Section III.B.ii of the FOA, each project team is free to determine how best to allocate the cost share requirement among the team members. The amount contributed by individual project team members may vary, as long as the cost share requirement for the project as a whole is met."]
[167,"2023-01-24","Other","Is the template Cooperative Agreement that will be used for Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub Cooperative Agreements available? ","As referenced in Section VI.B.xiv of the FOA, a “Model Cooperative Agreement\" can be accessed at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/model-cooperative-agreement. However, the actual Cooperative Agreements for the H2Hubs will be tailored based on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and FOA requirements."]
[168,"2023-01-24","Foreign Entities/Work","1.\tOur company is planning on applying to this FOA as a subrecipient under a domestic incorporated consortium that is applying as the prime recipient. The FOA on page 79 requires that all prime and subrecipients \"be organized, chartered, or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a particular state or territory of the United States; have majority domestic ownership and control; and have a physical place of business in the United States.\" Our company is incorporated in the U.S., operated by U.S. employees, and the facilities and equipment that would be part of our H2Hub project are physically in the U.S. However, our U.S. subsidiary is ultimately owned by a publicly traded company based in another North American country. Can the DOE clarify if, in this case, \"ownership and control\" refers to \"direct ownership\" (i.e., the applicant organization must be wholly owned and controlled by a domestic subsidiary) or \"ultimate ownership\" (i.e., the \"ultimate\" or controlling shareholders and other equity ownership must be domestic)? If ultimate ownership, does ultimate ownership need to be a U.S.-owned and controlled company too?\n\n2.\tOur company is incorporated in the U.S. and operated by U.S. employees. However, a few of our senior staff currently dedicated to the H2Hub project’s design and management work remotely and are Canadian citizens (note that their activities are not and will not be directly funded by H2Hubs funds if awarded). Does this mean our company is considered a “Foreign Entity” in the eyes of DOE? Or will this require that we seek approval of a Foreign Work Waiver, submitted alongside the full application, for those individuals?","1. The \"majority domestic ownership and control\" requirement to qualify as a domestic entity refers to the ultimate ownership. For example, if a entity's parent company does not qualify as a domestic entity and has more than 50% ownership and control of the entity, then a Foreign Entity Participation waiver would be required. See Appendix E of the FOA for information about submitting waiver requests.\n \n2. Per Section III.A.i of the FOA, to qualify as a domestic entity, the entity must be organized, chartered, or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a particular state or territory of the United States; have majority domestic ownership and control; and have a physical place of business in the United States. Having employees who are not U.S. citizens or work remotely outside the United States does not mean that DOE considers the company a \"Foreign Entity\".  However, a Waiver for Performance of Work in the United States (Foreign Work Waiver) is required for all work under jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share) that is performed outside of the United States. If activities are not being performed under the jointly funded H2Hub, then those activities would be considered out-of-scope and a Foreign Work Waiver would not be needed."]
[169,"2023-01-24","Cost Sharing","The FOA specified that the non-federal cost share must be at least 50% of the total project costs. It also notes that “Federal financing…cannot be leveraged by applicants to provide the required H2Hub cost share or to otherwise support the same scope that is proposed under the H2Hub.” We would like to ask two clarifying questions:\n1.\tAs a sub-recipient of this funding under a broader consortium, in which we expect to request less than 50% of our Total Project Costs (FOA p.132), could we also use other federal grant or loan funding (i.e., stacking) to fund the same project scope if we still provide the minimum 50% non-federal cost share? For instance, if our project was funded at 20% by H2Hubs, could the same project scope also be funded at up to 30% by other federal funding sources in the future?\n2.\tAppendix D – Cost Share Information specifies that cost sharing is calculated as a percentage of the Total Project Cost. Is it acceptable under this FOA for a subrecipient such as our company to seek other federal funding for project elements related to the H2Hub scope but not included in the H2Hub proposal (as long as the project scope that is included under H2Hubs proposal has >50% non-federal cost share and meets all other FOA criteria)?","1. Other federal funding may not be used to support the same scope of work funded under the H2Hub award regardless of the percentage of cost share. Per Section VI.B.xx of the FOA, if a recipient or project team member receives any other award of federal funds for activities that potentially overlap with the activities funded under the DOE award, the recipient must promptly notify DOE in writing of the potential overlap and state whether project funds from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items under the DOE award. If there are identical cost items, the recipient must promptly notify the DOE Contracting Officer in writing of the potential duplication and eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding.\n\n2. Yes, entities may seek other federal funding for project elements related to the H2Hub scope, but not included in the H2Hub proposal. If activities/projects are not being performed under the jointly funded H2Hub, then those activities would be considered out-of-scope of the DOE award.      "]
[170,"2023-01-24","Application Content/Format","Section 5 of Appendix G on p. 143 of the FOA solicitation document, as clarified by Q&A #162, requires us to provide two large format supplemental files to the Environment Considerations Summary portion of our Application, specifically a map showing the location(s) of the proposed project, and a site layout map showing the proposed facilities and associated infrastructure.  The FOA solicitation instructions also direct us to include three specific graphical pieces of information in the Technical Volume of our Application, as follows:\n•\t“Applicants are encouraged to include a summary schematic (e.g., Process Flow Diagram) that depicts the H2Hub…The applicant should also describe the mass and energy balance of any major supply chain elements or unit operations, relevant system capacities, and projected availabilities.” Section I.B.iii, Hub Summary, p. 25\n•\t“If available, high-level schematic, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information for all technologies, systems, and connective infrastructure should be included in the application…” Section I.B.iii, Engineering, Design, and Procurement, p. 31\n•\t“Applications should include the following: High-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment including storage and connective infrastructure…” Section I.B.iii, Engineering, Design, and Procurement, p. 31\nSuch schematics and process flow diagrams, including those that depict mass and energy balance data, are also typically done in larger engineering size formats. Can our Application also contain large engineering format schematics, process flow diagrams, and mass and energy balance diagrams as separate supplemental files to the Technical Volume?","The response to Q&A #162 stated that the project map and site layout map requested with the Environmental Considerations Summary may be submitted as separate files and may be in larger engineering formats, but submitting large format supplemental files is not a requirement.\n\nThe schematics and process flow diagrams requested as part of the Technical Volume may be created in larger engineering size formats, but should be saved as a PDF file and formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper when incorporated into the Technical Volume."]
[171,"2023-01-24","Other","If an H2Hub team comprising the four sponsoring partners providing all of the non-federal cost share who, upon award, intended to create a limited liability company (LLC) to serve as the prime contractor to DOE, would it be allowable for the LLC’s managing member to submit the proposal on behalf of the proposal team with the expectation that the LLC will be officially formed upon notice of award, and that the award negotiations could occur with the newly formed LLC?","If known at the time, please include all relevant information about the proposed LLC in the full application. The ability to transfer an application from one entity to a newly formed entity (comprised of the original applicants) prior to execution of award will depend on the legal relationship and organizational structure effected by the change. Award transfers (prior to the Cooperative Agreement being issued) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."]
[172,"2023-01-26","Other","For applicants that have multiple partners, is it appropriate to submit a separate TEA/LCA for each production pathway or must the entire hub be presented in a single LCA/TEA?","Applicants are encouraged to submit one H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections sheet (per the template available on OCED Exchange) itemizing all key capital equipment and feedstock within the proposed H2Hub.  In addition to the whole-hub TEA/LCA, applicants may voluntarily submit a separate TEA/LCA for each production pathway if those pathways would operate independently from other elements in the hub. Also, within the Technical Volume narrative, applicants may report the emissions intensity (kgCO2-equivalent/kg-hydrogen) and/or levelized cost of hydrogen production ($/kg-hydrogen) from different technologies/production pathways distinctly if they believe it would provide more clarity about the proposed H2Hub."]
[173,"2023-01-27","Other","Each phase ends with a go-no go decision on the part of DOE. How long does DOE anticipate that the process to determine go-no go will take?","Typically, a \"Continuation Application\" summarizing the Recipient’s progress towards meeting the objectives of the project, including any significant findings, conclusions, or developments is due at least ninety days before the end of each budget period (note: project phases may include more than one budget period). DOE will conduct its go/no-go evaluation during this ninety day period while the recipient completes the planned work. DOE's review will also likely include an in-person Go/No-Go review during this period. See Section VI.B.xv of the FOA for more information about Go/No-Go reviews.\n\nFor later (larger) phases, the Go/No-Go decision process may take additional time, but ideally the H2Hub would continue to perform work during the review period. Specific Go/No-Go criteria and budget periods will be negotiated with each selected H2Hub.  "]
[174,"2023-01-27","Other","NEPA: While we understand the need for National Environmental Policy Act requirements and that DOE will be responsible for all NEPA documentation, there is a wide range of potential documents, each with a different process and each requiring a different anticipated schedule and level of effort on our part. In particular:\n•\tConsidering the range of hubs encouraged, many of which have been reported in the press, does DOE anticipate that the typical hub will require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (EIS)?\n•\tConsidering that DOE is attempting to integrate hubs throughout the nation, does DOE anticipate the need for a nationwide programmatic EIS because the various hubs may be perceived as connected actions? If so how long will such a programmatic EIS take?\n•\tMany of the hubs reported in the press have multiple projects linked by geography? Does DOE anticipate regional NEPA documentation (EISs) that may consider the impacts of multiple hubs that are currently proposed as being independent? If so, how long would such an EIS process (notice of intent, scoping, analysis, documentation in a draft, publication, public meetings, comment response period, modification as a final, comment response document, and record of decision) take?\n•\tAgain, multiple hubs are reported to have multiple projects within them. Will DOE consider separating those projects and evaluating them independently, or because they are all within one hub, will the be considered connective actions and be considered togeteher? Assessing them together may slow projects ready for construction as soon as 2024.\n•\tIf each hub is to be undergo a separate EIS, how long will that process last and what engagement with our hub will be necessary?\nThese questions are being asked not just so we can justify our cost and schedule for the application, but also so we can inform investors and communities about when actual production might occur and when return on investment may be expected.","• Each H2Hub will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. New construction or significant modification of existing facilities and/or infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) will likely trigger an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).\n•  At this time, DOE is not planning to complete a programmatic EIS. \n•  A regional NEPA analysis of nearby multiple H2Hubs is not contemplated at this time. DOE may conduct studies and analyses that may be applicable to multiple hubs; however details are not available at this time. \n•  Per the response to Q&A #40, the scope of DOE’s NEPA review will include all elements of the proposed jointly funded project, any connected actions, and reasonable alternatives. DOE anticipates that all proposed project elements will be evaluated in a single NEPA document. However, for H2Hubs with many elements, DOE could complete NEPA reviews separately for some elements, if DOE determines those elements have independent utility (meaning, those elements can and would operate independently from the other elements in the H2Hub).\n•  Per the response to Q&A #59, the level of NEPA review required and associated timeframe of the DOE NEPA process will depend on the size and complexity of the H2Hub, and stage of the project, among other factors. The length of time to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) depends on the project proposal and the completeness of information provided to DOE prior to starting the NEPA process. Based on the current CEQ NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR § 1501.10), an EA must be completed within one year from the date the agency decides to begin an EA and an EIS must be completed within two years from the issuance of the notice of intent, unless a new time limit is established and approved by a DOE senior agency official."]
[175,"2023-01-30","Budget/Costs","I am writing to inquire about how to represent budget periods 6-10 in the budget justification which only accounts for 5 years in sections A and B?","Please see response to Q&A #110 above."]
[176,"2023-01-30","Other","I believe that we will meet the criteria to apply for the FOA for H2 Hubs. However, I have just been made aware that the Concept Paper Submission Deadline has passed, does this mean it is too late to apply?","Please see response to Q&A #90 above."]
[177,"2023-01-30","Subrecipients","1.\tAs partners in the overall project, various entities (universities, companies, non-profits, etc.) will be responsible for achieving different overall objectives.  For example, the focus of some organizations will be educational in nature (such as training and development of personnel) and other organizations will focus on outreach to the community at large.  Many universities use Modified Total Direct Costs as the indirect cost base and have different federally negotiated rates for various activities (e.g., one rate for Other Sponsored Activities and another rate for Instructional Activities). With that in mind, is it appropriate to use multiple Facilities & Administrative rates that differ for the prime and subrecipients on the project submission?  \n2.\tOn page 14 of the FOA, it says “The allocation of funds for activities outside of these areas, such as the construction of renewable, nuclear, or fossil facilities needed to power H2 technologies is generally not allowable but may be considered in limited scenarios if strong justification is provided and the proposed funding amounts for these activities represent a minor component of the overall H2 hub funding.”  Can the DOE provide any more clarification, explanation, or examples of what may be considered a limited scenario with strong justification? \n3.\tAs a University subrecipient, the work a few FFRDCs would be doing folds into our overall subrecipient scope of work.  We have long-standing working relationships with these national labs.  Can the FFRDCs be included in our overall scope of work (i.e., the funding for the FFRDC subrecipients would not flow through the prime recipient, but through us as a subrecipient)?\n4.\tThere are several entities whose work folds into our overall subrecipient scope of work.  Are second-tier subrecipients permissible (i.e., subrecipients to our organization that is a subrecipient to the prime recipient)?","1. Yes, prime recipients and each subrecipient are expected to have different indirect rates based on their overhead costs, General & Administrative costs, etc.  Entities should use their own federally approved rate agreements to calculate their budgeted indirect costs.  If an entity does not have an approved rate agreement in place, an entity can negotiate one with the their cognizant agency or the entity can opt to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate if they have never utilized a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).\n2. Please see response to Q&A #5 above.\n3. Yes, the funding for FFRDCs (national laboratories) may flow through subrecipients.\n4. Yes, it is permissible to have second-tier subrecipients (i.e. a subrecipient to a subrecipient). If an organization is a sub to both the prime recipient and a sub to a subrecipient, the application should clearly delineate the scope of work that would be performed under each subrecipient agreement."]
[178,"2023-02-01","Other","Section I.A.ii: Can DOE provide guidance and/or methodology for the analysis to support that 40% of the overall benefits of the H2HUB will flow to disadvantaged communities?\n","TheJustice40 Initiative goal that 40% of the benefits flow to disadvantaged communities applies to the overall benefits of federal climate and clean energy investments, not necessarily each individual H2Hub. In other words, the 40% is not on a per-project basis—individual projects may contribute more or less substantially to this goal (i.e., have a higher or lower percentage) based on factors unique to the project. However, successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to act in alignment with the intent of the Justice40 Initiative—by working to maximize benefits flowing to disadvantaged communities in ways that are relevant to that project.\n\nApplicants should submit a Justice40 Initiative section within the Community Benefits Plan that includes an assessment of the project impacts and where they flow, and an implementation strategy which explains what actions the applicants will take to maximize benefits and minimize negative impacts and measure, track, and report project impacts. This should include an assessment of impacted communities and groups, the H2Hub benefits and where they flow, H2Hub negative impacts and where they flow, and barriers to realizing benefits and minimizing negative impacts. See the \"Community Benefits Plan Guidance\" document provided under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section on the OCED Exchange website for detailed guidance and examples on creating each section of the Community Benefits Plan, including conducting assessments of Justice40 benefits.\n\nReview Criterion 5 (Community Benefits Plan) includes a sub-criteria that will consider the extent to which the project illustrates the ability to support the overall goal of the Justice40 Initiative that 40% of the benefits of the overall investments flow to disadvantaged communities."]
[179,"2023-02-01","Other","If a project uses renewable energy credits to offset the use of grid sourced electricity in the production of hydrogen, can that project be considered \"renewable\"? Must the hydrogen production project be co-located with renewable generation to be considered \"green hydrogen\"?","Hydrogen production does not necessarily need to be co-located with the energy source (e.g., renewable generation), but applicants must provide clear evidence that the proposed H2Hub reduces emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) across the full life cycle compared to current/conventional technologies and processes.\n\nApplicants that plan to utilize renewable energy credits or certificates (RECs) or other book-and-claim systems should explain the best practices (e.g., the degree of temporal and regional matching) that they will take to enable the consumption of clean electricity through these certificates. This information should be provided within the Emissions and Resource Consumption LCA section of the Technical Volume. Applicants utilizing electricity within their deployment will be assessed by their ability to demonstrate the use of clean electricity (i.e., the degree to which the proposed H2Hub reduces emissions across the full life cycle).   "]
[180,"2023-02-01","Other","Section I.B.i: Can DOE develop detailed guidance on how hubs can demonstrate that they are aiding in the achievement of the clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS)? The FOA only mentions showing emissions reductions across the full life cycle as technologically and economically feasible, while the CHPS is still under development.","DOE expects H2Hubs to employ state-of-the-art technologies and best practices to mitigate emissions (GHG and criteria pollutants) throughout the H2Hub. Applicants will be evaluated on the degree to which they reduce emissions across the full life cycle, and not necessarily based on whether they achieve the clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS) target. To quantify emission reductions, H2Hubs will be required to conduct a detailed life cycle analysis (LCA) to determine the carbon intensity of all elements over the lifetime of the H2Hub (see emissions and resource consumption LCA portion of Section I.B.iii of the FOA). \n\nThis and other FOA requirements, including merit review criteria and program policy factors (see Section V – Application Review Information), have been developed to ensure that any H2Hub selected by DOE for award will demonstrably aid achievement of the clean hydrogen production standard. H2Hub applications do not need to independently demonstrate that they are aiding in the achievement of the clean hydrogen production standard (CHPS). "]
[181,"2023-02-01","Other","The Build America Buy America Act (BABA) limits the viability of hydrogen production via electrolysis, as electrolyzer components such as anodes, cathodes, membranes, and minerals like platinum and iridium will need to be imported, given current domestic limitations and supply chain disruptions. Would DOE consider a BABA General Applicability waiver for electrolyzers funded under this FOA?","DOE might consider requesting a general applicability waiver for electrolyzers funded under this FOA, but one does not currently exist. Absent a general applicability waiver, if a recipient is seeking a waiver of the Buy America requirements, they may submit a waiver request after they have completed negotiations and an award is made. \n\nNote: Manufactured products, such as electrolyzers, are considered to be \"produced in the United States\" if (i) the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and (ii) the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product."]
[182,"2023-02-01","Other","The company I work for manufactures pressure vessels that are well suited for the transportation and storage of hydrogen in high volumes.  I would like to have the company added to the partnership/team list for the subject FOA if one exists.","To facilitate H2Hub team formation, DOE launched H2 Matchmaker,  a voluntary online tool created to aid in fostering partnerships among key stakeholders by allowing potential partners to identify each other. H2 Matchmaker is an online information resource intended to help foster partnerships by increasing awareness and aligning potential needs in specific regions of the U.S. \n\nAny organization that would like to be included in H2 Matchmaker is encouraged to fill out the H2 Matchmaker Self-Identification form available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker. H2 Matchmaker will be regularly updated to reflect new teaming partners who provide their organization’s information."]
[183,"2023-02-01","Tech Topics","Hello, I have referred to #157 in the Q&A and have further question.\n\nOur funding request will be for a ~2:3 production-to-offtake ratio as the production assets required for the additional third of production volume will be privately funded.  Thus these are out-of-scope elements.  In order to report WTG emissions, etc. we will include feedstock, production, and connective infrastructure Cis in our emissions modeling, but we will not include these out-of-scope elements in any financial modeling or technical designs.  They will be only referenced as part of the larger regional market development, primarily in the BD&M.  They will also not be referenced in timelines or workplans.  Please confirm this is appropriate treatment.","Yes, if a separate production facility already exists or will be developed outside of the scope of the DOE award (i.e., not receiving DOE funding nor covered by non-federal cost share), then the cost of constructing and operating the out-of-scope facility does not need to be included in the financial modeling, and it does not need to be included in the technical designs, integrated project schedule, or workplan."]
[184,"2023-02-03","Subrecipients","Question 1:  Applicant is in discussions with many companies that have vehicle fleets and that are interested in buying a fleet of hydrogen trucks utilizing DOE matching funds as part of the hydrogen hub.  If these fleet companies cannot be subrecipients before the Applicant must submit its application, can the applicant identify a placeholder subrecipient entity that will ultimately become one or more fleet company subrecipients after the DOE award is granted.  \n\nQuestion 2:  Applicant is in discussions with many companies that have vehicle fleets and that are interested in buying a fleet of hydrogen trucks utilizing DOE matching funds as part of the hydrogen hub.  If these fleet companies do not wish to become subrecipients, can they be identified as vendors who would be contracted using matching DOE funds and recipient/subrecipient funds to buy, own and operate hydrogen trucks? ","1: To the extent practicable the Full Application should describe in detail the unique capabilities and expertise of any major project partners or subrecipients that the prime recipient believes will enable the H2Hub to be successful. However, per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may also be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval. If a project partner is still being identified, applicants may include a placeholder for the subrecipient.  \n\n2: An entity can be classified as a vendor if they are being contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provide similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operate in a competitive environment, and provide goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program. See response to Q&A #48 regarding the definitions of subrecipients and vendors. Note: If an entity is classified as a vendor/contractor, they may not provide cost share. "]
[185,"2023-02-06","Other","•\tIs it possible to see a generic DOE encouragement and discouragement?\n•\tDid the letters say why different hubs were encourage or discouraged? ","• DOE notified all applicants that submitted an eligible Concept Paper of its determination to encourage or discourage the submission of a Full Application via OCED Exchange. The notifications are not available publicly, although applicants are free to share DOE's response.  \n• The notifications did not provide specific feedback about each Concept Paper. Rather, the same feedback was provided to all applicants and focused on high-level feedback based on common themes identified through the Concept Paper review process. However, the \"Frequently Asked Questions\" available at https://www.energy.gov/oced/regional-clean-hydrogen-hubs-notifications includes a question about what the encourage and discourage determinations were based on."]
[186,"2023-02-06","Other","Our understanding is that a DOE Community Benefit Scoring Rubric at https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/GRIP%20FOA%20Community%20Benefits%20Plan%20Scoring%20Rubric%20FINAL.pdf has been incorporated into other FOAs, and we are asking if similar guidance or scoring instructions have been created or there are plans to create for DE-FOA-0002779, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Additional Clean Hydrogen Programs (Section 40314): Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement.","This scoring rubric is not relevant to the H2Hubs FOA. DOE will evaluate the H2Hub applications against the review criteria listed in Section V.A.ii of the FOA.  "]
[187,"2023-02-07","Foreign Entities/Work","Section III.A.ii refers to \"foreign entities,\" and the section on Organizational Structure (page 26) states, \" The applicant should also identify any foreign-owned entities involved in the H2Hub and how the applicant will request a waiver, if needed, per Section III.A.ii.\" However, the FOA has no definition for either \"foreign entity\" or \"foreign-owned.\" Under the rules regarding Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) regulations, in cases where firms are the wholly-owned US-based subsidiary of a foreign parent company, they are not treated as foreign-owned. Please provide a definition of \"foreign entity\" and \"foreign-owned.\"","An organization is considered a \"foreign entity\" if they do not qualify as a domestic entity. Per Section III.A.i of the FOA, to qualify as a domestic entity, the entity must be organized, chartered, or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a particular state or territory of the United States; have majority domestic ownership and control; and have a physical place of business in the United States. "]
[188,"2023-02-07","Tech Topics","Since water is a feedstock for electrolytic hydrogen production, will DOE OCED consider projects relating to water feedstock production for electrolysis (i.e., desalination plants) as “out of scope activities” of the hub (i.e., not part of the joint funded scope), given that the focus of federal funding is on hydrogen production facilities and associated infrastructure and not on feedstock? ","Per page 14 of the FOA, \"The H2Hub scope and funding should be focused on technologies within the three areas outlined in Figure 2: clean hydrogen producers, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumers. The allocation of funds for activities outside of these areas...is generally not allowable but may be considered in limited scenarios if strong justification is provided and the proposed funding amounts for these activities represent a minor component of the overall H2Hub funding.\" Therefore, water feedstock production (e.g., building a desalination plant to supply water feedstocks to the H2Hub) may be considered with a strong justification of why that must be funded as part of the H2Hub, but the primary focus and preponderance of the H2Hub scope and funding (under either federal funding or non-federal cost share) must be related to clean hydrogen production, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumption."]
[189,"2023-02-07","Other","In evaluating applications, will DOE OCED preferentially evaluate hydrogen production facilities and associated infrastructure versus feedstock supplies? Please clarify. ","DOE will evaluate applications against the technical review criteria listed in Section V.A.ii of the FOA. These review criteria include evaluating the \"Extent to which the application specifically and convincingly demonstrates how the proposed H2Hub will deploy regional hydrogen infrastructure capable of meeting the technical objectives outlined in the FOA\", as well as \"The degree to which existing facilities and/or infrastructure provided by the applicant team are leveraged to support the H2Hub.\"  For additional context related to feedstocks, please see response to Q&A #188.  "]
[190,"2023-02-07","Other","Does the DOE require open house community meetings as part of the Community Benefits Plan prior to the application submission or can this be part of the plan to commence after full application submission?","While DOE is not requiring any specific type of meetings, such as open house community meetings, prior to the application submission, the Community Benefits Plan (CBP) should include a description of prior and ongoing efforts by the applicant and its project partners to engage communities, Tribes, and labor stakeholders relevant to the H2Hub. DOE strongly encourages early and frequent two-way engagement with impacted communities and groups. Early engagement can support a well-informed CBP. Applicants may also provide letters of support from representative organizations and labor unions reflecting substantive engagement and feedback on applicant’s approach to community benefits as part of the Community Partnership Documentation (see Section IV.D.viii of the FOA).   "]
[191,"2023-02-07","Application Content/Format","Clarification of Q&A #170: Please confirm that the drawings created in larger engineering sizes and later formatted to fit 8.5x11 and incorporated into the Technical Volume do not need to conform to the font size requirements (Calibri 10) when in the 8.5x11 size, only in the large format engineering files. ","The schematics and process flow diagrams created in larger engineering size formats and then converted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper do not need to conform to the font size requirements, but applicants should ensure the text included in the drawings is readable/legible."]
[192,"2023-02-08","Application Content/Format","Section IV.D.vii Letters of Commitment in FOA mentions 2-pg limit per letter.  Is there a limit to number of letters or maximum number of pages for this supplementary submission? ","No, there is not a limit to the number of letters of commitment that may be submitted. "]
[193,"2023-02-08","Budget/Costs","As you brought up in the recent webinar, there can be projects in the H2Hub for which the Prime Applicant is not seeking funding, along with the projects to be funded. Projects that receive DOE funding may get into a situation after the initial award where they no longer qualify for funding or withdraw their project. We have several questions about such a scenario:\n(1) In such a case, some of the projects that were not originally seeking funding might be excellent candidates for receiving the remaining money of the entity that has withdrawn. Is it possible for the H2Hub to reassign funding to another party after the initial award? What process would be required for this happen?\n(2) Again in this case, if the H2Hub believes that there are worthy projects that were not discussed at all in the original application (e.g., new joiners to the hub), can the H2Hub reallocate the freed-up money to such a project? \n(3) If the money that gets freed up when one party withdraws is needed by another funded project, and this does not lower the cost share to below 50%, can the H2Hub reassign the money in this way? What process would be required to do this?\n(4) Does the company that drops out have to return BIL money that was already disbursed to it, either to the H2Hub for reassignment or to DOE? ","Per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge or change during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may be added or changed during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval (under the original funding request). If this occurs after the initial award is issued, the recipient would need to submit a subrecipient change notification request along with a revised budget justification and other supporting documents (e.g., a completed Environmental Questionnaire, if applicable) for DOE's consideration. These types of change requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The project for the new Subrecipient should be within the same general scope as was discussed in the original application.  If the project is not part of the original application and is not within the same scope as the original application, further evaluation, justification, and higher level approvals would be needed, and they are not guaranteed.  \n\nUnder financial assistance, costs incurred and reimbursed by DOE for work authorized and performed under the award would not have to be returned unless they are found to be fraudulent or otherwise unallowable under the DOE award or financial assistance cost principles, or the Recipient or Subrecipient are found to be non-compliant with the terms of the award.    \n\nNote: Projects that are funded through DOE funding, or non-federal cost share funds, or a combination of funds are all treated the same under the DOE award. In other words, if the team member's project is part of the proposed jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share), they would need to comply with Federal program requirements.  "]
[194,"2023-02-08","Tech Topics","Can you clarify the rigor for different levels of LCA analysis needed? The FOA references the need for a full life cycle emissions but also references emissions for transport and consumption as well as emissions for production on-site. Can we use the default values GREET has for each pathway that matches our technology production? For emissions for transportation and consumption is a best estimate based on known offtakers sufficient? Some projects plan to sell into a market place where those factors may not be well-defined. ","As stated in the Emissions and Resource Consumption LCA section of the FOA, “Applicants should provide as much information as possible regarding key aspects of their system design…Where data is not provided, DOE will use defaults within GREET to evaluate the carbon intensity and criteria pollutants of the proposed H2Hub”. Accordingly, applicants may use best estimates and GREET defaults where system-specific information is not available at the proposal stage. As described in the “Phase 1- Detailed Project Planning” section of the FOA, Phase 1 activities for awarded projects will be expected to include “a continuation of analysis activities to refine and update LCA and techno-economic (TEA) data provided in the application”. Applications should describe detailed plans for Phase 1 activities within their H2Hub application (as stated in the “H2Hub Application Requirements” section). In the description of Phase 1 activities, applicants may include an explanation of how uncertainties in TEA and LCA assumptions will be improved in Phase 1.  "]
[195,"2023-02-08","Tech Topics","If we buy RECs, can we count the carbon intensity of the renewable asset whose attributes we are buying to be the carbon intensity of the electricity we use?","Please see response to Q&A #179 above."]
[196,"2023-02-08","Tech Topics","Are we required to produce a GREET pathway model for every scenario? For instance, can we assume (as GREET does) that the carbon intensity of all hydrogen produced by renewable-energy powered electrolysis is zero? Similarly, for blue and gray hydrogen, GREET gives carbon intensities within a small range that we can define using a small number of GREET models -- do we need to model each specific production pathway?","As described in the “Emissions and Resource Consumption LCA” section of the FOA, applicants should clearly state the estimated well-to-gate emissions from hydrogen production within the proposed H2Hub, and the assumptions made to derive these estimates. The well-to-gate emissions should reflect all production pathways (scenarios) proposed by the H2Hub. Applicants should report these assumptions in the “H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” spreadsheet (available under the Application Forms and Templates section on OCED Exchange). While applicants are encouraged to use GREET to generate their well-to-gate emissions values, they are not required to submit the GREET runs themselves (and are also not required to use GREET if a different modeling tool is preferred). GREET’s representation of the well-to-gate emissions of electrolysis powered exclusively by renewables is 0 kgCO2e/kgH2; accordingly, applicants may use this value to represent well-to-gate emissions of renewable electrolysis. For hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, the well-to-gate emissions estimated by GREET depend on several factors, including the rate of CCS and energy consumed at the facility. If using GREET to characterize well-to-gate emissions of these pathways, applicants should modify default assumptions in GREET to reflect values that reflect the system they are proposing. \n\nApplicants can change default assumptions in the GREET1 Series model specified in the FOA. This model has also since been adapted into the “GREET with H2 User Interface” module for user-friendliness (available here: https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=greet_hydrogen) Applicants may use either model to simulate well-to-gate emissions of hydrogen production. A tutorial of the “GREET with H2 User Interface” module is available here: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2iq-hour-greet-model-hydrogen-life-cycle-emissions "]
[197,"2023-02-08","Application Content/Format","For complex hubs that contain multiple value chains it is not possible to fit all requested content at the level of individual project participants into a single 100-page Technical Volume. For the sake of presenting required information within the page limit:\n•\tIn the H2Hub Summary: Should summary schematics be presented for each distinct value chain in the H2Hub or can schematics be presented that are representative of value chains within the H2Hub?\n•\tShould TRLs be listed for each individual component-level technology, or can TRLs be reported at a system level and TRLs called out specifically for key components, components with TRLs that differ from the overall system level, or components that are otherwise important to call out separately?\n•\tShould all EPC design documentation submitted in the application (e.g. technology descriptions, schematics, technical specifications, nameplate capacities, etc.) be submitted and presented as part of the 100 page technical volume? Or can the Technical Volume contain high-level representative information (e.g. high-level process flow diagrams) and more detailed information be provided as-needed on a project or component basis in an attachment or other deliverable?\n•\tIs it expected that design documentation / schematics across the H2Hub will be presented at varying levels of detail - e.g. high-level block diagrams for some project components / sub-systems and more detailed preliminary design schematics for critical components?\n•\tAre high-level narratives sufficient to describe the operating plan and disposition plan in the Full Application, without necessarily detailing asset-specific operations and disposition planning?","•\t The summary schematic requested in the H2Hub Summary section is intended to be a single high-level figure/diagram depicting the overall H2Hub structure/makeup. In the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operations (EPC&O) section, applicants should also include a high-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment including storage and connective infrastructure.  \n• Per page 30 of the FOA, the technology plan within the Technical Volume should include an assessment of both the integrated system and component level TRLs.  \t \n• The information requested in the Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operations section of the FOA should be provided as part of the Technical Volume. Per pages 31-32 of the FOA, the detailed descriptions, high-level schematics, nameplate capacities, etc. is needed for key facilities/systems and major equipment only.   \t \n• Yes, the design documentation / schematics presented in the application should focus on key facilities/systems and major equipment (critical components). \t \n• Yes, per page 34 of the FOA, a high-level description of Operating & Disposition plans should be included with the application. It is expected that this conceptual plan will be developed into a fully implementable Operations & Maintenance (O&M) plan prior to completion of Phase 3.\t "]
[198,"2023-02-08","Application Content/Format","The Experience section states the plan should summarize the prior experience of the prime recipient *and* any major project partners. The bullet list below asks for project examples for the applicant *or* project partners. Please clarify if the requirement is at least two examples in total among all entities and whether examples must be given for both the applicant and project partners.","The 'Experience' section of the Management Plan should describe the capabilities and experience of prime applicant and any major project partners or subrecipients that the prime recipient believes will enable the H2Hub to be successful. However, the list of examples of energy infrastructure projects may be from the prime applicant or from project partners (i.e., at least two examples in total among the project team).     "]
[199,"2023-02-08","Application Content/Format","The Environmental Considerations Summary in Appendix G is highly site-specific (e.g. proposed project location and setting, land administration, etc.). For large H2Hubs spanning a large geographic area with many diverse location settings, AHJs, facilities, etc. it would be extremely difficult to aggregate information across value chains into a single Environmental Considerations Summary document. Should separate Environmental Considerations Summary documents be prepared and submitted for each specific component project or site of interest? ","Yes, separate Environmental Considerations Summary documents may be prepared for each specific project/facility or site, provided that it clearly identifies which proposed H2Hub project the Environmental Considerations Summary is regarding. Per Section IV.D.v of the FOA, the Environmental Considerations Summary documents should be consolidated and saved in a single PDF file before submitting with the Full Application.   "]
[200,"2023-02-08","Application Content/Format","There is a requirement in the FOA section I.B.iii and IV.D.II to provide cost estimates for EPCO discussion.  Please confirm that cost estimates should not be detailed in the technical volume. ","The information requested in the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operations (EPCO) section should be included as part of the Technical Volume. Applications should include a current total project cost (TPC) estimate that covers the entirety of the H2Hub, including construction and 2-4 years of operations. At the application stage, the cost estimates are expected to be at least Class 4 or better (see Table 1 on page 33 of the FOA regarding cost estimate classifications). Subsequent phases will require more refined estimates: Class 3 by end of Phase 1 and Class 1 by end of Phase 2. In addition to discussing the high-level TPC estimates in the Technical Volume, a breakdown by cost category should be included in the applicant and subrecipient budget justification workbooks (per Section IV.D.x and IV.D.xiii of the FOA). "]
[201,"2023-02-09","Other","How Will de fundigs be?\nCredits, cash…?","DOE employs a risk-based approach to determine the payment procedures and the level of supporting documentation required for approving invoice payments. Depending on the payment procedures, requests for reimbursements are made through ACH or the Department of Treasury’s ASAP system. See Section IV.J.x of the FOA for more information about invoice review and approval. "]
[202,"2023-02-09","Application Content/Format","Question 1: From the FOA: Page 31-32, Engineering, Design, and Procurement, 5th para states: \"Applications should include the following:\n•\tHigh-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment including storage and connective infrastructure.\n•\tNameplate capacities (e.g., MW [power generators], MWh [ storage], kg [storage], metric ton/day [production])\n•\tMajor equipment efficiency or energy use rate specifications\"\nCan this requested material (i.e., high-level schematics, nameplate capacities, and equipment efficiency or energy rate specifications) be excluded from the 100-page Technical Volume page count as it penalizes applicants who have technologically mature systems and infrastructure as demonstrated by substantial engineering schematics and specifications.\n \nQuestion 2: From the FOA: Page 31, Engineering, Design, and Procurement, 3rd para, 2nd sentence states: \"If available, high-level schematic, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information for all technologies, systems, and connective infrastructure should be included in the application.\"\nCan this requested material (i.e., high-level schematics, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information for all technologies, systems, and connective infrastructure) be excluded from the 100-page Technical Volume page count as it penalizes applicants who have technologically mature systems and infrastructure as demonstrated by substantial engineering schematics, specifications, and supplier/vendor data sheets. We assume we are not restricted to an equivalent 10 point font on any reduced drawings.","1: The information requested in the Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operations section of the FOA should be provided as part of the Technical Volume. Per pages 31-32 of the FOA, the high-level schematics, nameplate capacities, and equipment efficiency or energy rate specifications is needed for major equipment only.\n\n2: If available, the high-level schematics, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information should be provided as part of the Technical Volume. At the application stage, only high-level relevant summary data is being requested. Detailed engineering schematics and supplier/vendor data sheets are not required to be submitted with the application. Regarding the font size on reduced drawings, please see response to Q&A #191 above."]
[203,"2023-02-10","Application Content/Format","From the FOA: Page 31, Engineering, Design, and Procurement, 3rd para, 3rd sentence states: \"The applicant should also describe the mass and energy balance of any major supply chain elements or unit operations, relevant system capacities, and projected availabilities.\" \n\nCalculating mass and energy balances generally requires consideration of process flow diagrams showing feed streams, power consumption, energy input/output, and component efficiencies that are difficult to convey on letter-sized pages. Are you seeking confirmation of energy and mass balance only or do you require backup supporting our balances? If backup is required, can this requested material be excluded from the 100-page Technical Volume page count?","The Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operations section of the Technical Volume should describe the basis for the mass and energy balances (e.g., how they were derived), but applicants are not required to submit detailed backup documentation with the application. DOE may require more detail during award negotiations or as designs are refined/finalized."]
[204,"2023-02-11","Application Content/Format","Merit Review Criterion 2 evaluates the “adequacy and justification of the proposed H2Hub budget and spend plan covering both DOE funding and non-federal cost share.” This is the only instance where the term, “spend plan,”  appears in the FOA. Spend plans normally are incorporated into Project Management Plans, but none is required for this application.  Where should the spend plan appear? If in the Technical Volume, which section of the Technical Volume?","The term \"spend plan\" in the context of Criterion 2 refers to the allocation of funds to each project phase (i.e., the four-phased structure outlined in Figure 3 of the FOA). A detailed spend plan is not required at the application stage."]
[205,"2023-02-12","Other","I am assisting in the compilation of an H2Hub DOE Funding Request.\n \nMyself and other team members are having issues accessing SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html).\n \nWhen clicking on the form, we get the following: The document you are trying to load requires Adobe Reader 8 or higher. You may not have the Adobe Reader installed or your veiwing environment may not be properly configured to use Adobe Reader.\n  \nPlease advise on path forward or assist by sending across the hardcopy of the form so myself and our stakeholders can assess the form.","Please follow these instructions when downloading the required SF-LLL PDF from OCED Exchange: 1. Click to download the PDF from OCED Exchange. 2. Open Adobe on your computer. 3. Once in Adobe, click File > Open and select the downloaded PDF.\n\nApplicants may also download the form directly from Grants.gov: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html"]
[206,"2023-02-13","Application Content/Format","Our organization is a non-profit 501(c)(6) and will be the prime recipient/applicant per DOE definition. For experience and capability, can the prime recipient refer to or take credit for the major project partners’ experience and capability to address FOA-specific requirements? \n \nExample per the FOA request: \n \nExperience: The plan should describe in detail the unique capabilities and expertise of the prime recipient and any major project partners or subrecipients, debt or equity sponsors, contractors/vendors (if known), and every other counterparty that the prime recipient believes will enable the H2Hub to be successful. In addition, the plan should summarize the prior experience of the prime recipient and any major project partners in similar undertakings to the proposed H2Hub (in both technical scope and financial size) and current or previous energy infrastructure projects.\n \nFinancial Strength: The plan should describe the prime recipient’s and major project partner’s financial strengths, as well as the H2Hub’s strategic significance to the prime recipient and major project partner involved. \n","Yes, the application should discuss how the prime recipient, along with the proposed team, will be able to successfully carry out the proposed work. \n\nPer Section I.B.iii of the FOA, the Management Plan section of the Technical Volume should describe 1) the prime applicant’s and project partners’ organizational structure, capabilities, and operations plan; 2) the financial strength of the prime recipient and any major project partners in the H2Hub; and 3) prior experience of the senior/key personnel in similar or related undertakings to the proposed H2Hub. The organizational chart and related description should show the prime recipient and any major project partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, parent organizations, or joint ventures associated with the H2Hub as well as an explanation of the legal structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, LLC). The application should describe the prime recipient and any major project partners’ business relationship(s) and the various roles and responsibilities held by each organization. The plan should summarize the prior experience of the prime recipient and any major project partners in similar undertakings to the proposed H2Hub (in both technical scope and financial size) and current or previous energy infrastructure projects. In line with the Management Plan section, the Financial Plan should describe the financial relationship of the prime recipient to major project partners, who are contributing cost share and/or performing work. "]
[207,"2023-02-10","Application Content/Format","I am completing the suggested “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections.xlsx” workbook based on H2Hub TEA data and a GAAP analysis conducted using H2Fast.  Cells B61:I63 in the “General” tab of the workbook request rates of return data over 10 and 30 years as well as annual H2Hub revenues.  I am a bit confused about the form of the requested data.  I am used to rates of return being reported as percentages but the table indicates absolute dollars are requested.  I had planned on using the following formula to calculate rates of return on equity investment from the H2Fast report tables:\n \n(Sum of net income over operating period)/(Average cumulative equity (investor contribution)) = rate of return on equity investment (%)\n \nAdditionally, is an average H2Hub revenue being requested? If so, over what period?","Yes, the rate of return should be reported in percentages, not dollars. The units listed in cells J61 and J62 in the “General” tab of the “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections.xlsx” workbook were incorrect. The workbook available under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section of OCED Exchange has been updated with the correct units. The updated workbook also clarifies that the interest rate, return on equity and income tax rate (cells C176:J178 in the \"H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs\" tab of the workbook) should also be reported as a percentage.\n\nThe H2Hub revenue being requested should be the average over the financial analysis period of the hub. Cells B63:G63 in the “General” tab of the updated workbook clarifies that this is the average annual H2Hub revenues. This should include revenues from all H2Hub related activities (e.g., hydrogen, steel, ammonia, transportation, grid services etc.).\n\nThe updated “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections.xlsx” workbook also standardizes all of the financial data fields to be in dollars vs. thousands of dollars or millions of dollars.  All modifications to the original workbook are highlighted in yellow. "]
[208,"2023-02-13","Budget/Costs","•\tIn a Hub Funding proposal for April 7, where funding requests exceed $1.25B, would it be acceptable for the primary recipient to assume and justify some attrition factor for proposed projects between phases and overbuild the slate of projects proposed by that factor? Particularly, could more projects be proposed for Phase Gate 1 than the Hub expects to proceed through all phase gates with complete DOE Hub funding? \n•\tWould DOE be the ultimate decision-making party on the proportional allocation of funds in phases 2 through 4 and would these determinations be made during the Cooperative Agreement phase, despite proposals of the cost sharing proffered by the primary recipient in the Hub funding application?","•\t Applications that propose a DOE share exceeding $1.25 billion would not be considered responsive to this FOA. Full Applications should clearly describe the proposed scope of the integrated H2Hub. However, per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge or change during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may be added or changed during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval (under the original funding request).\n•\t The scope of work and budget for selected H2Hubs will be negotiated between DOE and the prime recipient. While DOE will only initially authorize funding for Phase 1, the DOE Cooperative Agreement will cover all four phases of the H2Hub outlined in Figure 3 of the FOA. Additional funding for subsequent phases will require successful completion of a Go/No-Go review at the end of each phase (or at the end of each budget period within a phase). DOE may redirect or discontinue funding for the H2Hub or individual H2Hub activities/projects at Go/No-Go decision point(s)."]
[209,"2023-02-13","Application Content/Format","The FOA requests a multitude of engineering drawings, specifications, and schematics. For a large Hub, there are multiple projects which could easily be upward of 25 pages. Should we provide these drawings in a separate attachment outside of the 100-page technical volume requirement or should we attach them to the Environmental Considerations Summary. ","Please see response to Q&A #197 above regarding the engineering drawings, specifications, and schematics that are requested as part of the Technical Volume. Per Appendix G of the FOA, the project maps and site layout maps should be submitted as part of the Environmental Considerations Summary.  "]
[210,"2023-02-13","Budget/Costs","•\tFor the application due on April 7, does the DOE require hubs to limit funding requests for the hub projects to $1.25 billion? If so, how is the DOE taking into account the fact that some of the projects that make up the $1.25 billion and are in phase 1 may not make it to phase 2 after the go/no-go decision of phase 1?\n•\tIf the DOE determines funding a project in the hub for only phase 1, will the DOE reserve funding for future phases of that project as well? Let’s say 10 projects make up $1.25 billion funding request for the hub application and the DOE determines that these 10 projects are all in phase 1 and that they should not receive the entire $1.25 billion request this time around but only $10m per project to complete feasibility studies and go through go/no go decision. Will the DOE reserve funding for the remaining phases for these projects or will funding for the subsequent phases become available only if the DOE has not exhausted its $8 billion cap?\n•\tWill the DOE allocate a funding pool to the entire hub and will the hub governing board have oversight on how the funding gets allocated towards various projects that get presented over time or will the DOE decide on funding projects on an individual project by project basis in the context of the broader hub? The fundamental question to us is whether the DOE will determine which project gets ultimately selected or does the governing board of the hub have a say in determining which project gets funding from the hub?\n•\tDoes DOE give more weighting to projects that create new industries such as heavy-duty transportation over projects that are focused on decarbonizing existing grey hydrogen operations with green hydrogen?","•\t Per Section II.A.i of the FOA, the maximum award size is $1.25 billion (DOE share) per H2Hub. Applications that propose a DOE share exceeding $1.25 billion would not be considered responsive to this FOA. Full Applications should clearly describe the proposed scope of the integrated H2Hub and the funding request. With that said, per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge or change during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may be added or changed during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval (under the original funding request).\n•\t If individual H2Hub activities/projects are discontinued after the Phase 1 detailed project planning and analysis phase, the subsequent funding budgeted for those activities may potentially be redirected to other projects within the H2Hub with DOE approval, or the funding may be deobligated and redirected by DOE to support another H2Hub. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.    \n•\t The scope of work and budget for selected H2Hubs will be negotiated between DOE and the prime recipient. The DOE Cooperative Agreement will only authorize funding for one phase at a time. Funding for subsequent phases will require successful completion of a Go/No-Go review at the end of each phase (or at the end of each budget period within a phase). At these Go/No-Go reviews, DOE may continue, redirect, or discontinue the entire H2Hub and/or individual H2Hub activities/projects.\n•\t The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires that the selected H2Hubs include end-use diversity. To the maximum extent practicable, at least one H2Hub shall demonstrate the end-use of clean hydrogen in the electric power generation sector, one in the industrial sector, one in the residential and commercial heating sector, and one in the transportation sector. The FOA does not give more weighting to specific end-uses. The proposed H2Hubs will be evaluated against the technical review criteria and policy factors listed in the FOA (See Section V of the FOA for the full list of review criteria and Program Policy Factors)."]
[211,"2023-02-14","Other","I was trying to figure out who I would speak to about where the Hydrogen Hubs may be looking to be located. Any information will be helpful.","The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, each H2Hub shall be located in a different region of the United States, including at least two H2Hubs in regions of the United States with the greatest natural gas resources. Examples of geographic regions within the U.S. may include metropolitan areas, states, or several states in close proximity.\n\nDOE does not plan to publish or share information included in the Concept Papers received, but some H2Hub applicants have made public announcements themselves. "]
[212,"2023-02-14","Application Content/Format","To be compliant with Full Application submission protocol, is it necessary to follow the FOA exactly as it laid out—in the same order, with the same headings and sub-headings?","Per Section III.C.i of the FOA (Compliance Criteria), Full Applications must conform to the content and form requirements in Section IV.D of the FOA. The Technical Volume must also conform to the content requirements listed in Section IV.D.ii. While the application doesn't have to be in the same order and use the same headings/sub-headings, applicants are strongly encouraged to follow the outline provided in the Technical Volume Content Requirements table."]
[213,"2023-02-15","OCED Exchange","Good morning, can you please direct me to where we can see that actual application as submitted by the prime recipients for this FOA? ","Applicants will submit application materials through OCED Exchange at https://oced-Exchange.energy.gov, OCED’s online application portal.\n\nWithin OCED Exchange, Applicants may share their submissions with other team members / Exchange users using the Share Submission feature. Sharing a submission with another user will give that user access to edit, view submission decisions, and view reviewer comments for all stages of a FOA (Concept Paper and Full Application). See the OCED eXCHANGE Applicant Guide located at https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/Manuals.aspx for instructions."]
[214,"2023-02-15","Application Content/Format","1.\tIn the “H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections” excel workbook – General Tab, cells N44:O53, include a formula that sums the Total Overnight capital cost, DOE share, and non-DOE incentives to calculate the Total installed costs. Wouldn’t the overnight capital cost include the DOE cost share (and therefore these items should not be added)? Alternatively, the DOE share and Non-DOE incentives could be entered as negative dollars, in order to sum to the total installed capital cost, net of incentives. However, the examples provided in the file do not show negative (-) incentives.  Please advise. \n2.\tIn the “H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections” excel workbook – General Tab, cells L44:M53, Non-DOE incentives – please confirm these should include ITC, PTC, and Hydrogen 45V as incentives available through the IRS. \n3.\tIn the “H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections” excel workbook – General Tab cell H7 the information bubble requests the “provision of capex, variable opex, fixed opex, financing costs.” The TEA and LCA section of the FOA PDF indicates that financing costs should be excluded (“Fixed and Other Variable Operating Expenses: H2Hub operation will incur operating expenses such as O&M labor, land rental, property taxes, and insurance. Applicants should estimate these annual expenses with the highest fidelity possible (e.g., % of total CapEx/year). Note that expenses associated with the cost of financing should be kept separate from operating expense projections”. Please advise which is correct. ","1. In the 'H2Hub Connected Infrastructure' table in the General tab, column H is intended to encompass all applicant (non-federal) capital expenditures and column J covers the DOE share of the capital expenditures. The total installed capital (column N) is the sum of the non-federal costs, DOE costs and non-DOE incentives. The workbook available under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section of OCED Exchange has been updated to clarify that column H is the “Applicant share of total overnight capital cost” and column J is the “DOE share of total overnight capital cost”.\n2. The 'H2Hub Connected Infrastructure' table in the General tab is intended to capture capital costs (CapEx) only.  The \"Non-DOE incentives\" may include capital grants or investment tax credits, but should not include production tax credit incentives (e.g., PTC / 45V). Production tax credit incentives are captured in the 'Clean Hydrogen Production' table instead.\n3. Column heading H7 in the General tab signifies the expected levelized cost of hydrogen in 2030, which should include financing. This represents applicant’s view of the price of hydrogen (including financing costs) they would need to realize to cover all expenses. The language quoted from the FOA refers to the “Hu2Hub TEA & LCA inputs” tab which is asking for itemized costs – including capital structure to inform DOE internal evaluation of overall hub financials."]
[215,"2023-02-15","Other","In DOE FOA-0002779, with regards to Hub interaction with the Hydrogen Safety Panel (HSP), it is stated that:\n \n“H2Hubs will be required to collect and submit safety related data (e.g., component failure) during the period of DOE project funding.”\n \nDo you have any additional information about this, such as to what information will need to be collected and submitted, at what frequency, what will be the process for Hubs interacting with the HSP, etc.?","The H2Hubs will be required to collect and report many types of data, including safety related data such as information about component failures, safety incidents, etc. Per page 36 of the FOA, H2Hubs will be required to notify DOE of any safety event (e.g., leak events, fires) within 14 days and submit a report which includes a root cause analysis and steps taken to prevent future events within 60 days of the event.     \n\nSpecific Data collection requirements will be negotiated with the selected H2Hubs and DOE will provide more specifics regarding data collection and the reporting format as H2Hubs progress through Phases 1-4.\n\nThe Hydrogen Safety Panel (HSP) will be directly funded by DOE (outside of the H2Hub awards) to perform reviews of all hydrogen-related activities within the H2Hub's Safety Program at the direction of DOE and their interaction with the H2Hubs will be coordinated by DOE.  Additional background on the HSP's focus areas and activities can be found at https://h2tools.org/hsp.  "]
[216,"2023-02-16","Other","The FOA criteria for professional experience on resumes focuses on large construction experience. As construction is only one aspect of a successful hub, and likely an EPC contractor would lead that effort, would DOE want to evaluate other capabilities like experience with hydrogen technology, commercialization of a new technology that leads to market growth, technical expertise with the types of energy technologies being used to produce hydrogen, and planning for the work being proposed in Phases 1 and 2? Would DOE consider adding this type of experience to the evaluation criteria?","Per review criterion 4 (Management Team and Project Partners) in Section V.A.2 of the FOA, DOE will evaluate the capability of the prime recipient, the proposed team, and key personnel to manage and address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success, and qualifications and relevant experience...of the key project participants in performing similar projects."]
[217,"2023-02-16","Application Content/Format","Do each of the subrecipients need to register with PAMS and have a UEI, or just the prime applicant?","Subrecipients are not required to register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and subrecipient Unique Entity Identifiers (UEIs) are not required at the application stage; however, if selected for award, the subrecipient would be required to provide a valid UEI number prior to the prime recipient making a subaward to the subrecipient.\n   \nIf the UEI of the Subrecipient is known at the time of application, it can be provided in the Budget Justification workbook and is helpful, but it is not required until the prime recipient and subrecipient enter into a subaward/subcontract."]
[218,"2023-02-16","Other","On the SF-LLL Disclosure, if applicants do not have lobbying activities to disclose, what should be listed for items 10? Not Applicable?","Yes, if an applicant does not have any lobbying activities to report, items 10 on the SF-LLL disclosure can be marked not applicable (N/A). "]
[219,"2023-02-17","Cost Sharing","Can non-federal (state or local) tax credits be used as matching funds for the non-federal cost share?","Per Section III.B of the FOA, in general, deferred or avoided costs such as tax credits may not be used as cost share. "]
[220,"2023-02-17","Other","How will the DOE measure and monitor that 40% of benefits flow to DACs? Is there a standardization of metrics that each project will be required to meet to verify this requirement? ","Please see response to Q&A #178 above."]
[221,"2023-02-19","Application Content/Format","Hello! On pgs. 11 & 48 of the FOA it states that applicants are “encouraged to submit letters of support” and “may also provide letters of support” for the community benefits plan. Pg. 48 even references that these should be submitted under the Community Partnership Documentation. However, on pg. 76 under Community Partnership Documentation it specifically states that these letters “must not be general letters of support.” \n\nPlease clarify if and where in the application letters of support are acceptable to include? Or are only letters of commitment acceptable?","The Community Partnership Documentation may include letters of support from community entities, trade associations, worker organizations, and other community-based or representative organizations reflecting substantive engagement and/or feedback on applicant’s approach to community benefits. These letters must state the specific nature of the partnership (e.g., relationship of the community entity with the applicant and/or H2Hub team).\n\nGeneral letters of support or commitment from other project partners may be provided as part of the Letters of Commitment submission.    "]
[222,"2023-02-20","Application Content/Format","As part of the overall Management Plan (Section B.iii, page 26), DOE has asked applicants to describe “the financial strength of the prime recipient and any major project partners in the H2Hub.”  Will the DOE please clarify whether it would like to receive documentation such as Financial Statement(s) (to be provided outside of the page count), or would DOE prefer a textual description of financial strength? If the latter, what metrics would DOE like to see?  ","The prime recipient’s and major project partner’s financial strengths should be described as part of the Management Plan's narrative which could include a discussion of earnings, net worth, and net cash flows as well as any relevant sector specific facts or metrics. If rated by one of the major credit rating agencies, the ratings may be included in the narrative. Full financial statements (e.g., balance sheets, income statements, and cash flows) are not required at the application stage but a high-level summary of financial statements showing at least three years can be included to support your narrative. Indicate whether financials are audited or unaudited. Other metrics/indicators of financial strength may include, but are not limited to, the various profitability, liquidity, and solvency ratios.  "]
[223,"2023-02-18","Cost Sharing","Is it possible to stack DOE funds from this FOA with DOT funds from FTA, if non-federal sources of funds are used to match DOE funds at 50%, and FTA funds at 20%? As an example, if the total cost of a vehicle were $1 million, would the following allocation of funds be acceptable?\n\n•\t$250,000 from DOE FOA-0002779\n•\t$250,000 from state funds to provide 50% match against DOE funds\n•\t$400,000 from DOT/FTA\n•\t$100,000 from local sources to provide 20% match against FTA funds","Applicants may apply for multiple sources of federal funding; however, federal financing cannot be leveraged by applicants to provide the required H2Hub cost share or to otherwise support the same scope that is proposed for a H2Hub project. Please see response to Q&A #169 above for more information.\n\nIn the example provided, DOE and DOT/FTA funding generally should not be used to cover the same vehicle, unless the funding can be clearly segregated in the applicant's accounting system and the H2Hub funding/scope does not depend on the applicant be selected for other federal funding (i.e., the other federal funding is already secured). The DOT/FTA funding could also be used to cover elements related to the H2Hub scope, but not included in the H2Hub proposal."]
[224,"2023-02-21","Application Content/Format","I’m aware that any subrecipient with a project budget above $10M is required to provide their own separate Budget Justification Document. I want to confirm that any additional BJD that will be attached to our project will be due along with all other materials on the 4/7/2023 deadline, or if we have the option of submitting them at a later date, or possibly within the grant negotiation period. Thank you so much. ","Per Section IV.D.xiii of the FOA, the Full Application must include a separate budget justification for each subrecipient (including FFRDCs) that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $10,000,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). However, per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may also be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval. If the scope/project need is known but a project partner is still being identified, applicants may include a placeholder for the subrecipient in the prime applicant budget justification and the associated subrecipient budget justification can be submitted when the request to add the team member is made.  "]
[225,"2023-02-22","Other","A two-part question regarding a project with time-phased sub-projects:\n\n1. When a production project contains multiple locations on different production timelines, each having its own Phases 1-4, will DoE do a 'go/no-go' decision for each of the sub-project phases? \n\n2. Since the sub-projects are time-phased, Phase 1 activities for the last sub-project will not be started until 6 years into the over-all project, can Phase 1 grant dollars still be used, if all phase 1 activities do not exceed the $20M grant limit for Phase 1 activities?","1. Please see response to Q&A #109 above.\n\n2. Yes, the total funding budgeted for detailed project planning (Phase 1 activities) may be carried over subject to DOE approval and used later if projects are time-phased (i.e., detailed project planning for those sub-projects happens during a later phase). This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  "]
[226,"2023-02-22","Other","In relation to the activities and outcomes in each phase of H2Hub projects, the FOA indicates that 30% Engineering & Design will be required at least by the end of Phase 1, and 90% by the end of Phase 2. Could you provide clarification about the expected deliverables / documents related to Engineering & Design for Phases 1 and 2? ","As described in the \"Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operations\" subsection of Section I.B.iii of the FOA, project documents that will be further developed and refined during the early phases of the project include a (1) technology plan, (2) performance projections, (3) engineering, design, and procurement plans (4) cost estimates, (5) execution schedules, and (6) operating and disposition plans. The engineering, design and procurement documents will include, but are not limited to, engineering studies such as pre-FEED or FEED (Front End Engineering Design) studies, schematics, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information for all technologies, and procurement plans. Specific project deliverables that inform Go/No-Go reviews will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis before each project phase is initiated. "]
[227,"2023-02-22","Budget/Costs","Item 7 of the Budget_Justification_Workbook.xlsx instructions allows the addition of rows to worksheets a through j. Tabs a and c allow the insertion of rows but the remaining tabs do not allow the insertion of additional rows.   Will DOE release a revised version of the Budget Justification spreadsheet?","The Budget Justification Workbook available under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section of OCED Exchange has been updated to allow the insertion of additional rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j, except for tab b (Fringe) and tab i (Indirect). If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. If additional rows are needed to itemize the fringe or indirect costs, applicants may insert a separate worksheet listing the costs and then roll up /summarize those costs on tab b. or i.  "]
[228,"2023-02-22","Cost Sharing","We are looking to drill wells into a known geothermal resource to extract steam as a feedstock for solid oxide electrolysis equipment. Would these steam wells and pipeline connecting steam to the electrolysis plant be eligible for cost share?","Per page 14 of the FOA, \"The H2Hub scope and funding should be focused on technologies within the three areas outlined in Figure 2: clean hydrogen producers, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumers. The allocation of funds for activities outside of these areas...is generally not allowable but may be considered in limited scenarios if strong justification is provided and the proposed funding amounts for these activities represent a minor component of the overall H2Hub funding.\" Therefore, drilling geothermal wells to supply steam as a feedstocks to the H2Hub may be considered with a strong justification of why that must be funded as part of the H2Hub, but the primary focus and preponderance of the H2Hub scope and funding (under either federal funding or non-federal cost share) must be related to clean hydrogen production, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumption."]
[229,"2023-02-22","Tech Topics","Page 44 of the FOA states that emissions associated with manufacturing are not included in the system boundary. Should the transportation emissions of key equipment to the project site be included? Should emissions from the construction of the site be included?","DOE will not include emissions associated with construction of facilities (including those associated with delivery of equipment) in the well-to-gate carbon intensity calculation, or when comparing the decarbonization potential of the H2Hub relative to incumbent technologies. Accordingly, applicants do not need to provide this information in their LCA."]
[230,"2023-02-22","Budget/Costs","\"DOE's budget template is up to 5 budget periods, but the FOA is for a ~ 10-year project, in phases.  What is the guidance for what we all use for BP1, for example, is that calendar year 2023?  2024?  Or the federal fiscal year 2023? 2024?  Do we have a budget period (BP) be 2 years to cover the 10-year period of performance (POP) in a 5 BP budget?\" Can DOE confirm the budget should be based on phases 1-4? ","Please see response to Q&A #110 above."]
[231,"2023-02-23","Budget/Costs","The FOA stipulates that between the Federal contribution and non-federal cost share, the ideal cost of a Hub is $800M to $2.5B. Does this mean that a hub with a total cost over $2.5 is considered unresponsive to the FOA, or will it require additional justification but still be eligible for DOE funding? ","The maximum DOE share is $1.25 Billion per H2Hub, but there is no restriction on the level of non-federal cost share provided it meets the minimum 50% non-federal cost share requirement.  \n\nPer page 17 of the FOA, DOE prefers a funding range from $500 million to $1 billion (DOE Share) for each H2Hub, but applications that propose a DOE share as low as $400 million or as high as $1.25 billion will be considered responsive to this FOA. H2Hubs that propose a DOE share between $400 and $500 million should provide significant justification to explain why the project is smaller than the preferred size and demonstrate that the proposed H2Hub meets the full vision described in the FOA. Similarly, H2Hubs that propose a DOE share between $1 and $1.25 billion should provide additional justification to explain why the extra funding over the preferred maximum is critical to realize the goals of the overall effort."]
[232,"2023-02-23","Other","I’m trying to download all of the docs associated with this funding but I’m getting an error message when I try to open the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance. I followed the instructions to download it, then open Adobe and open the PDF from there but I receive the following error message. Will you please assist?","Please see response to Q&A #32 above."]
[233,"2023-02-23","Budget/Costs","In the “i. Indirect Costs” tab of the Budget Justification form, applicants are asked to select from one of three options for justifying indirect rates. Are these justification requirements a flow-down to subrecipients who will be filling out the form? If so, is the guidance given on this tab valid and are subrecipients expected to submit a rate proposal per the website link or choose to apply a 10%, or less, de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f)? No specific requirement for indirect rates for applicants and subrecipients is addressed in the FOA.","The prime applicant's indirect rate, or option selected for the indirect rate, do not flow down to the subrecipients.  Per Q&A #177 above, prime recipients and each subrecipient are expected to have different indirect rates based on their overhead costs, General & Administrative costs, etc.  Entities should use their own federally approved rate agreements to calculate their budgeted indirect costs.  If an entity does not have an approved rate agreement in place, an entity can negotiate one with the their cognizant agency or the entity can opt to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate if they have never utilized a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA)."]
[234,"2023-02-23","Application Content/Format","In a hub with multiple projects, do we need to submit a separate environmental considerations summary for each? Since that document appears to be project focused.","One Environmental Considerations Summary may be populated for the entire H2Hub or applicants may prepare a separate Environmental Considerations Summary for each specific project/facility or site. Please see response to Q&A #199 above for more information."]
[235,"2023-02-23","Application Content/Format","The Emissions and Resource Consumption LCA instructions on page 44 of the FOA direct that \"Applicants should clearly state the estimated well-to-gate emissions from hydrogen production within each H2Hub, and the assumptions made to derive these estimates. These values should be reported in the“H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” spreadsheet under the “General” tab.\" However, the spreadsheet does not appear to have a specific location for this estimate. Please advise where applicants should provide the well-to-gate emissions estimates.","The estimated well-to-gate emissions from hydrogen production would be captured in the “Total GHG emissions” column in the Clean Hydrogen Production table in the \"General\" tab of the H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections workbook."]
[236,"2023-02-24","Tech Topics","In trying to interpret the following sentence in the FOA Hydrogen End-Uses pg.17, \"Any emissions or criteria pollutants associated with hydrogen consumption\" there are scenarios in which hydrogen is feedstock into an industrial process and there is no apparent way to isolate just the hydrogen impact. In addition, these processes already use hydrogen so there is no net increase in hydrogen as a result of the H2Hub production, so characterizing  the impact of the hydrogen hub really only involves identifying the reduction of emissions related to hydrogen upstream of the consumption. What is DOE looking for applicants to do for these kinds of consumption?","Applicants are only required to conduct a life cycle analysis (LCA) of the well-to-gate emissions of hydrogen production, and the emissions associated with storage and distribution to end uses. The term “well-to-gate” emissions refers to those associated with feedstock extraction (e.g., natural gas drilling), generation of electricity (used in numerous steps associated with hydrogen production), feedstock delivery (e.g., natural gas compression, natural gas leakage), hydrogen production (e.g., reforming, electrolysis, gasification, pyrolysis), and delivery and sequestration of CO2 (e.g., fuel combustion for compression, leakage).  \n\nDOE will independently conduct an analysis of the emissions associated with the proposed end-uses. Per page 45 of the FOA, “DOE will additionally utilize LCA to evaluate the decarbonization potential of each H2Hub relative to incumbent technologies, given existing defaults within GREET regarding the emissions intensity of end-use technologies using incumbent fuels (e.g., use of diesel in trucks, fossil fuels in industry).”"]
[237,"2023-02-24","Tech Topics","In various places in the FOA, ammonia is discussed in multiple contexts, including it being: (a) a result of hydrogen consumption and (b) an H2Hub product, per se. These two different perspectives imply different ways of treating the value chain, so we are not clear as to which way of viewing ammonia is correct. Here are examples of the inconsistencies that can arise from the different perspectives:\n1.\tHow the markets of H2Hub products are addressed would be different for each case; e.g., can ammonia be viewed as the demand for hydrogen, or must it be treated as its own product that needs to have its demand analyzed? \n2.\tHow the LCA is performed also depends on how ammonia is treated. For instance, if we treat green ammonia as an end-use the total LCA would be zero because H2 and ammonia production are co-located; however, if we see ammonia as a product, then we need to include its distribution and consumption of ammonia, which would increase the emissions. ","1. Ammonia production may be a hydrogen end-use (i.e., a demand for the clean hydrogen). As described on pages 41 and 42 of the FOA, if ammonia is produced, key metrics regarding its revenue should be accounted for in the techno-economic analysis (TEA). These metrics are further described in the Preliminary TEA section.\n2. As described on page 45 of the FOA, DOE will conduct a LCA to compare the end use(s) proposed in a hub with incumbent technologies/processes that the end use is displacing. DOE’s LCA of ammonia as an end use would not include downstream emissions from the distribution and consumption of ammonia. "]
[238,"2023-02-24","Application Content/Format","What is required from subrecipients / sub-contractors for the application in terms of documentation? (i.e., letter of commitment from all colleges, universities, CBOs, MSIs, trade associations, labor unions, etc.) \nSince Community Organizations may receive funding from the DOE, is a financial justification workbook or other documentation required from these organizations or other colleges/schools? ","Application documentation required from subrecipients includes resumes for senior/key personnel, letters of commitment from all subrecipient and third-party cost share providers, a subrecipient budget justification for each subrecipient (including FFRDCs) that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $10,000,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less), authorization for non-DOE/NNSA or DOE/NNSA FFRDCs (if applicable), and a SF-LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Section IV.D of the FOA outlines the Full Application requirements."]
[239,"2023-02-24","Application Content/Format","Letters of Support: Who should these letters be addressed to? (HUB group, prime applicant, industry partners involved, etc.) and how much detail is required in these letters while still protecting confidential information (such as cost and volumes)? ","Letters of support and commitment may be addressed to DOE or the Prime Applicant, and should be two-page maximum per letter. If the letter is committing cost share, it should clearly state the amount and type of non-federal cost share being provided and any terms associated with the cost share commitment. Applicants should not include business sensitive information (e.g., commercial or financial information that is privilege or confidential), trade secrets, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information in their application unless such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project or to comply with a requirement in the FOA.  See Section VIII.D for more information.   "]
[240,"2023-02-24","Application Content/Format","Does DOE require specific letters of commitment/support (non-commercial) to the hub between all companies involved in the H2Hub such as sub-recipients and third parties, including privately funded partners?","Per Section IV.D.vii of the FOA, applicants must submit letters of commitment from all subrecipient and third-party cost share providers. If applicable, also include any letters of commitment from suppliers, partners, end-users, future customers, labor unions, and community-based organizations.\n\nIn addition to the letters of commitment/support, per page 26 of the FOA, the Management Plan section of the Technical Volume should also describe the prime recipient and any major project partners’ business relationship(s) and the various roles and responsibilities held by each organization."]
[241,"2023-02-27","Other","Are there any requirements that will be placed on subrecipients that receive funding for distinct projects from multiple hubs. For example, if a subrecipient/partner receives funds for distinct projects across multiple hydrogen hubs, does the subrecipient/partner need to establish separate business entities for each project, in order to keep funds from overlapping? Or, if there are accurate accounting processes and tracking measures in place, can DOE hydrogen hub funding flow from the primes of each hub to the subrecipient/partner for allocation to the respective projects. Relatedly, should primes proactively indicate in their application that a subrecipient has distinct projects in other hub applications?","Subrecipients may be involved in multiple H2Hubs, and they do not need to establish separate business entities for each project. Entities that are receiving federal funding or providing cost share need a GAAP-compliant accounting system that is able to segregate direct and indirect costs, identify and segregate costs by project, etc. Funding will flow from the Prime recipient to its subrecipients and, as such, the Prime recipient is responsible for Subrecipient Monitoring and Management, per 2 CFR 200.331-333.\n\nPer Q&A #44 above, if a party is part of multiple Full Applications, the applications should include an explanation discussing how the entity or facility will support each H2Hub.  "]
[242,"2023-02-27","Application Content/Format","Please provide additional guidance on what lobbying activities need to be disclosed on the SF-LLL.\n\nIf an entity does not have a registrant/individual performing lobbying activities for this FOA but does have lobbyists performing activities on other federal actions, does that entity respond N/A, or provide all registrants/individuals performing such work on more than one form?","Original Response: The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) form should disclose all lobbying activities, not only those related to this funding opportunity.  If more room is needed to list all registrants/individuals performing such work, then a list may be attached to the SF-LLL submission.\n\nUpdated Response (3/30/3023): The SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities should be completed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. Under 31 USC § 1352, applicants must disclose the name of any registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person with respect to the Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, and must file a certification that the person making the declaration has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by 31 USC 1352(a). Applicants must determine for themselves whether they trigger the requirements of that statute.  \n\nIf more room is needed to list all registrants/individuals performing such work, then a list may be attached to the SF-LLL submission."]
[243,"2023-02-28","Other","Can I speak to someone about U.S. content requirements for electrolyzers deployed on projects that will benefit from Clean Hydrogen Hub funding (part of IIJA/BIL)?  I believe that the U.S. content rules remain undefined at this moment in time.  If that is the case, when will they become more defined?  This is a question our sales teams are facing in the marketplace, and we just want to ensure that we are 100% compliant with the U.S. content rules for this program.","The Buy America requirements, including content requirements, are outlined in Appendix F of the FOA. Since the FOA is open, we are unable to set up a call at this time, but if you have additional specific questions about the requirements please submit them to: H2Hubs@hq.doe.gov."]
[244,"2023-02-23","Tech Topics","Can the necessary electric transmission upgrades needed to bring hydrogen production/consumption projects online be accounted for in the overall ask? Or are these considered outside the realm of projects or connective infrastructure and thus ineligible for matching funds through the hub? ","Electric transmission upgrades, such as electrical connections needed to bring hydrogen production/consumption projects online, may be considered with a strong justification of why that must be funded as part of the H2Hub, but the primary focus and preponderance of the H2Hub scope and funding (under either federal funding or non-federal cost share) must be related to clean hydrogen production, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumption.\n\nDOE will allow reasonable transmission upgrades to be included as part of a project, but DOE will review such requests on a case-by-case basis.  "]
[245,"2023-02-24","Other","Can DOE confirm whether the DOE General Guidance for Implementation of Justice40 [https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Final%20DOE%20Justice40%20General%20Guidance%20072522.pdf] is applicable to the Regional Clean Hydrogen FOA, including the answer to question 2 on page 8 regarding when states can rely on their own tools for identifying disadvantaged communities?","Pursuant to E.O. 14008 and the Office of Management and Budget’s Interim Justice40 Implementation Guidance M-21-28, DOE has developed a definition and tools to locate and identify disadvantaged communities. These resources can be located at https://energyjustice.egs.anl.gov/. Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget’s Memorandum M-23-09, DOE recognizes disadvantaged communities as defined and identified by the White House Council of Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) Version 1.0, which can be located at https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/. \n\nAs noted in the “Community Benefits Plan” Guidance document for this FOA (https://oced-exchange.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=9c024599-7d5c-4e84-9029-d307d7621ab7), DOE would prefer that funding recipients use either DOE or CEJST definitions and tools to identify disadvantaged communities, which would allow for more streamlined reporting and consistent comparative analyses across all regions. However, DOE recognizes some states have dedicated significant time and resources towards identifying communities of concern in their jurisdictions and may desire to use their own tools and definitions. If state tools are used to identify disadvantaged communities in funding applications, DOE would prefer that state tools and definitions are aligned with the criteria pursuant to the interim implementation guidance; for information on these criteria please see DOE’s General Guidance for Justice40 Implementation (https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Final%20DOE%20Justice40%20General%20Guidance%20072522.pdf). H2Hub applications should note what standard was used to identify disadvantaged communities and why. Finally, in some unique circumstances it may be more appropriate to classify disadvantaged communities pursuant to OMB’s second definition: “a geographically dispersed set of individuals… [that] experience a common set of conditions.” "]
[246,"2023-02-28","Application Content/Format","To thoroughly address FOA CBP requirements and criterion including addressing the CBP guidance, would DOE increase the page count to 50 pages?","No, per Section IV.D.iv of the FOA, the Community Benefits Plan for the Full Application may not be more than 25 pages.  In support of the Community Benefits Plan, applicants also may submit Community Partnership Documentation that does not count toward the Community Benefits Plan page limit.  See Section IV.D.viii for more information.   "]
[247,"2023-02-28","Other","We have the following questions regarding FOA 2779. Thank you in advance for any clarity you can provide.\n•\t If the hydrogen production assets are funded from the private sector by a regional stakeholder, but not categorized as cost share, what are the expected business connections between the H2Hub and the hydrogen Producer?\n•\t If the hydrogen production technologies (ISBL) are funded from the private sector by a regional stakeholder, but not categorized as cost share, will the site planning and preparation (OSBL) be allowable for inclusion in the H2Hub program as federal and/or cost share?\n•\t If the hydrogen production assets are funded from the private sector by a regional stakeholder, but not categorized as cost share, will the Buy America requirements apply to the private asset as a requirement to participate as a partner in the H2Hub?\n•\tIf a Hub investment that has received grant funding is in operation and is eligible for the IRA PTC does the DOE view this as duplicate funding support?\n•\tDoes the DOE intend to cede their reversionary interest to their share of real property and materials under the H2Hubs and vest to the Recipient and Subrecipients?  “ 2 CFR 910.360(c)(5)“...Unless a statute and the award terms expressly provide for the vesting of unconditional title to real property or equipment with the recipient.”","•\t If hydrogen production assets are wholly funded by the private sector and not counted as a cost share contribution, those assets would be considered outside of the scope of the DOE award. Peripheral or out of scope activities (i.e., facilities and infrastructure that already exist or are being completely funded outside of the DOE award) that contribute to the success of the H2Hub may be discussed in the application, including the expected business connections, but may be described in less detail than in-scope activities. See response to Q&A #157 for related information.\n•\t Site planning and preparation for privately funded facilities that contribute to the success of the H2Hub may be proposed as part of the H2Hub award, but this may trigger the facility to be considered in-scope and it may be subject to federal requirements (e.g., NEPA reviews).\n•\t If an asset or facility is being developed outside of the scope of the DOE award, then the Buy America requirements would not apply to that activity.\n•\t Hydrogen production facilities that are funded under this FOA may still pursue federal or state tax incentives (e.g., Section 45V “Credit for Production of Clean Hydrogen” in the Inflation Reduction Act). Applicants should consult their own tax advisors regarding their particular tax situation.\n•\t See Section VIII.H for information about how title to Real Property and Equipment purchased with project funds will be handled."]
[248,"2023-02-28","Cost Sharing","Per page 14 of the FOA, \"The H2Hub scope and funding should be focused on technologies within the three areas outlined in Figure 2: clean hydrogen producers, connective infrastructure, and clean hydrogen consumers. The allocation of funds for activities outside of these areas, such as the construction of renewable, nuclear, or fossil facilities needed to power H2Hub technologies is generally not allowable…” But, can the cost of solar panels and construction for these electrical generation technologies serve as an in-kind matching fund? ","Please see response to Q&A #5 above."]
[249,"2023-03-01","Eligibility","We are a firm representing a Clean Hydrogen (green) project and would like to know more about this opportunity. Do you know if a concept paper was required in 4Q 2022 to qualify for this opportunity?  ","Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application to the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Funding Opportunity Announcement.\n\nPlease see the response to Q&A #115 above for information about how to find additional funding opportunities."]
[250,"2023-03-01","Application Content/Format","In the “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections.xlsx” workbook cell G33 in the “H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs\" tab displays days as the time unit, but when you click on the pull-down, it includes other types of units.  Can you please clarify what units are correct?","The “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections.xlsx” workbook available under the \"Application Forms and Templates\" section of OCED Exchange has been updated with the correct time units (i.e., year, day, hour min, sec).\n\nThe updated workbook also adjusts the formulas in row 15 of the \"H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs\" tab to make the installation & construction cost equal to the Total overnight capital cost in the \"General\" tab."]
[251,"2023-03-01","Budget/Costs","Can costs needed to cover community benefit plan work be included in the overall ask? For example, one project in the hub identifies specific activities to meet the requirements of the community benefit plan that would cost $10M to implement – could $5M of that be requested in the overall ask? ","Yes, the costs needed to implement the H2Hub Community Benefits Plan should be included in the funding request. As evaluated under Criterion 5 (Section V.A.ii of the FOA), the proposed H2Hub should include the team and resources--including staff, facilities, capabilities, and budget-- capable of adequately implementing plans outlined in the Community Benefits Plan."]
[252,"2023-03-02","Application Content/Format","Clarification of Q&A #238: With respect to senior/key personnel resumes, is a resume required from each subrecipient or is it only required based on a bidder’s organizational approach for those positions within the hub organization determined to be key to the overall hub success.","Resumes are not necessarily required from each subrecipient. Resumes are only required for each senior/key personnel within the H2Hub organization determined to be key to the overall hub success. Per page 26 of the FOA, Senior/key personnel includes the H2Hub leadership/management team and other project personnel who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the successful execution of the H2Hub (e.g., H2Hub Program/Project Manager)."]
[253,"2023-03-02","Other","Are the concept papers submitted on or before November 7, 2022, public documents available for review?  If so, how can I find them in respect to this funding opportunity?  Thanks.","No, the Concept Papers submitted to this FOA are not public documents. Please see response to Q&A #53 and Q&A #120 above for more information."]
[254,"2023-03-02","Foreign Entities/Work","Section III. A. i. paragraph 2 states that all prime and subrecipients \"be organized, chartered, or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a particular state or territory of the United States; have majority domestic ownership and control; and have a physical place of business in the United States.\" However, DOE’s answer to question #168 in the Q&A log states “….if an entity's parent company does not qualify as a domestic entity and has more than 50% ownership and control of the entity, then a Foreign Entity Participation waiver would be required.”  Is a Foreign Entity Participation wavier required if an entity is 50% owned/controlled by a foreign entity and 50% owned/controlled by a domestic entity? ","In order to meet the requirement to have “majority domestic ownership and control”, an entity must have more than 50% domestic ownership. A Foreign Entity Participation waiver would be required for an entity that is exactly 50% owned/controlled by a foreign entity and 50% owned/controlled by a domestic entity."]
[255,"2023-03-02","Application Content/Format","To further clarify Q&A #202, the answer states “2: If available, the high-level schematics, technical specifications, equipment supplier and vendor information should be provided as part of the Technical Volume.” \n \nEach project within the Hub has high-level schematics that provide details on how major equipment is interconnected and interfaces with the common infrastructure. As such, our hub has high-level schematics for 10-20 projects available, but due to page count limitations specified in the FOA for the Technical Volume, we cannot see how such details can be provided within the 100-page limit.    \n \nCan you offer a solution that allows our Hub to show the conceptual design maturity for each project?  For example, allowing attachments outside the 100-page limit for additional schematics and drawings outside of the required high-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment. ","Applicants should use their judgement/discretion in how to best present the requested information within the page limits specified in the FOA.  For example, applicants may combine individual project schematics into a single high-level schematic to illustrate how the major equipment/technologies, systems, and connective infrastructure are designed to form an integrated H2Hub. As stated in the response to Q&A #202 above, detailed engineering schematics are not required to be submitted with the application. "]
[256,"2023-03-03","Other","In relation to the distribution of the phases, there might be projects in a hub that progress quicker than others. Could you clarify if the go/no-go decision gates will apply to each project individually (therefore a hub could potentially have projects in different phases) or if the projects would have to go through the phases at the same time? In the first scenario, how the go/no-go decision of a project would affect others that could potentially be in a more or less advanced phase, particularly from a financial point of view?","Please see responses to Q&A #21 and Q&A #109 above."]
[257,"2023-03-03","Subrecipients","If a company provides a letter of commitment to be a customer/recipients of the hydrogen at certain quantities, would DOE consider the letter of commitment a subaward and the company as a subrecipient?","Per Q&A #148 above, team members are considered to be subrecipients if they are performing work under the proposed jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share) and are responsible for making programmatic decisions. OCED expects that project partners responsible for developing elements (production plants, end uses, and connective infrastructure) that are vital to the jointly proposed hub would be classified as subrecipients and would need to comply with Federal program requirements. However, if a company has an existing end-use or is developing the end-use outside of the scope of the DOE award, and is only acting as a customer or offtaker of the hydrogen, they would not necessarily be classified as a subrecipient.     "]
[258,"2023-03-03","Budget/Costs","According to Q&A#110 “the Budget Period columns should correspond to the four phases described in Section I.B.ii of the FOA”. However the FOA indicates “At a minimum, each project must have at least one project-wide Go/No-Go decision point for each budget period (12 to 18-month period) of the project.” Could you clarify if for the application it is required to break down phases into budget periods if the duration of a phase exceeds 18 months?","Per Q&A #110 above, the Budget Justification workbook submitted with the Full Application should estimate the costs by project phase. It is not necessary to break down the costs for each budget period at the application stage; during award negotiations and/or subsequent phase negotiations, DOE may require that the costs for each phase be further broken down into more than one budget period.\n\nThat said, the Workplan submitted with the Full Application should include a Work Breakdown Structure that breaks down the project phases into logical budget periods (12 to 18-month periods). Per Page 22 and Section IV.D.ii of the FOA, applicants should include at least one project-wide Go/No-Go decision point for each budget period of the project and propose quantitative Go/No-Go criteria for each budget period as part of the Workplan."]
[259,"2023-03-03","Application Content/Format","Can you please confirm that an SF-LLL is only required for the prime and any first-tier subrecipients and subcontractors. Also, please advise if a first-tier sub is a state-run agency or part of a state agency, do they need to provide the SF-LLL?","The SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities requirement is not limited to the prime and first-tier subs, but applies to the prime and all subrecipients.  State-run agencies are not exempted from the requirement."]
[260,"2023-03-03","Application Content/Format","What documentation is required from community-based organizations, non-profits, or other colleges/schools (for third-tier subcontractors of subrecipients) who may be receiving Community Benefit funds? (Resumes, Budget Justification, Lobbying activities disclosures, etc.).  If funding is routed to a Project Management Office, with distribution to specific local colleges or organizations to be determined after the Community Assessment, are the supporting documents only required (at this point in the application process) of the entity directly receiving funds to oversee and further allocate?  ","Any entity which is performing work under the proposed jointly funded H2Hub (i.e., using either the DOE funding and/or non-federal cost share) and is responsible for making programmatic decisions would be considered to be a subrecipient.  See response to Q&A #238 and follow-up Q&A #252 above regarding application documentation required from subrecipients.\n\nPer pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval. If the scope/project needed is known but a project partner is still being identified, at the application stage applicants may include a placeholder in the prime applicant budget justification (or in the subrecipient budget justification in the case of second-tier subs). "]
[261,"2023-03-03","Application Content/Format","For the Community Benefit Plan Application, what are the restrictions on order of presenting material?  FOA states (p.75), \"Community Benefits Plan must conform to the following content and form requirements\" Does the CBP need to be broken out into each of the 4 sections with associated headers listed? Or can each of the projects be presented in order with sub-headers of the 4 components within each project-specific location listed? ","Per Section III.C.i of the FOA (Compliance Criteria), Full Applications must conform to the content and form requirements in Section IV.D of the FOA. The Community Benefits Plan must also conform to the content requirements listed in Section IV.D.iv of the FOA. While the Community Benefits Plan doesn't have to be in the same order and use the same headings/sub-headings, applicants are strongly encouraged to follow the outline provided in the Community Benefits Plan Content Requirements table."]
[262,"2023-03-03","Budget/Costs","For the Budget Justification Workbook, is the Budget Period by \"Phases\" as shown by Fig 3 on pg 19 of the FOA, or is the Budget Period by Year of the project life? ","Please see response to Q&A #110 above."]
[263,"2023-03-03","Budget/Costs","Can the Hub determine allocation of funding to each partner across each phase of the project, or is equal distribution required? For example, can a University receive a higher percentage of funding in Phase I, and less in Phase IV in order to ramp-up workforce programs?  Also, any clarity on potential percent split of DOE funding across Phase 3 & 4 of the project? ","Each project team is free to determine how best to allocate both the federal funding and the cost share requirement among the team members, as long as the cost share requirement for the project as a whole is met.\n\nThe FOA does not prescribe the DOE funding percent split across Phase 3 and 4, although we anticipate that the majority of the DOE funding will be spent on Phase 3 (Installation, Integration, and Construction) activities.  "]
[264,"2023-03-05","Application Content/Format","Due to the number details required to be provided in the Technical Volume in addition to other required elements (such as multiple schedules, org charts, maps, and schematics), would the DOE consider increasing the page limitation from 100 to 125?","No, per Section IV.D.ii of the FOA, the Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 100 pages."]
[265,"2023-03-06","Tech Topics","In calculating the life-cycle production of carbon in an electrolysis process using grid power to produce Hydrogen, should the carbon intensity of the grid be included in the calculation?","Yes, the upstream emissions of the electricity generation (e.g., the carbon intensity of the grid) must be included in the life cycle analysis.  Per page 45 of the FOA, Upstream emission sources, such as the generation mix for electricity supply and fugitive emissions for natural gas, can be highly influential on LCA, but often have high uncertainty. If proposed H2Hubs include direct integration with a power generator (e.g., direct connection to renewables) or a power purchase agreement (PPA), applicants should list the generator type(s) and respective estimated energy consumption by year. If proposed H2Hubs include integration with the electricity grid, applicants should identify the corresponding Regional Transmission Organization/Independent System Operator, if one exists. DOE will use GREET defaults to estimate the carbon intensity of that region’s electricity grid. "]
[266,"2023-03-06","Tech Topics","For a Hydrogen Hub producing Hydrogen mostly using the electrolysis process, would an investment in the electrical grid qualify as enabling infrastructure, if the production of clean Hydrogen is contingent upon such investment in the grid?","Please see response to Q&A #244 above."]
[267,"2023-03-06","Eligibility","Are other countries eligible to participate in this program? and is concept paper necessary for those who missed the deadline and want to submit full application?","Per Section III of the FOA, unless a Waiver for Foreign Entity Participation is granted, the proposed prime recipient and subrecipient(s) must be domestic entities. See Appendix E of the FOA for more information. \n\nApplicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application."]
[268,"2023-03-02","Application Content/Format","FOA Section B.iii, Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operations states, “Applications should include the following:  \nHigh-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment including storage and connective infrastructure.” \n \nIn addition, Q&A #197, first bullet states: \nQ:\"For complex hubs that contain multiple value chains it is not possible to fit all requested content at the level of individual project participants into a single 100-page Technical Volume. For the sake of presenting required information within the page limit: \n•          In the H2Hub Summary: Should summary schematics be presented for each distinct value chain in the H2Hub or can schematics be presented that are representative of value chains within the H2Hub?”\n \nA: “The summary schematic requested in the H2Hub Summary section is intended to be a single high-level figure/diagram depicting the overall H2Hub structure/makeup. In the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Operations (EPC&O) section, applicants should also include a high-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment including storage and connective infrastructure” (emphasis added)   \n \nNew, clarifying question:\nWhile we have project-specific schematics, due to the scope and scale of our hub (numerous projects over a large geographic region), our high-level schematic is best represented by a map that shows how different projects are interconnected by common infrastructure and storage as opposed to how equipment within the given project is interconnected.     \n \nPlease confirm that a map showing how different projects are interconnected by common infrastructure and storage satisfies DOE’s notion of a “high-level schematic of interconnection of major equipment”. ","Yes, for a H2Hub that includes numerous projects or facilities over the targeted geographic region, the high-level schematic requested in Section I.B.iii of the FOA may be a map showing how different projects are interconnected by common infrastructure and storage, but per footnote 36, the schematic should also include technical information (e.g., nameplate capacities of major equipment/systems, efficiency or energy use rate specifications, etc.).  If this information is too much to fit into a single schematic, it can be included in footnotes or in a table included along with the high-level schematic."]
[269,"2023-03-08","Application Content/Format","The table on page 70, and on page 77 of the FOA states that Community Partnership Documentation letters must not exceed 3 pages, and the disparate letters are to be compiled into a single PDF. The FOA also does not say there is a limit to the number of letters we can include.\n\nOCED-Exchange application instructions: Community Partnership Documentation - 10 pages maximum; Letters from proposed partners must not exceed 1 page each. \n\nPlease clarify.","FOA Modification 000001 updated Section IV.D.i and Section IV.D.viii of the FOA to eliminate the total page limit for Community Partnership Documentation and increase the page limit for each letter/submission from community partners 1 page to 3 pages.  See response to Q&A #93 for more information. \n\nThe instructions on OCED Exchange have been updated to reflect the FOA Modification 000001 updates. "]
[270,"2023-03-07","Other","Buy America requirements: Regarding the 55% U.S. content threshold for manufactured products, will that be applied to every single piece of equipment in a project or, alternatively, will it be applied to the system as a whole (or some sub-system(s) within the overall project)?  ","Regarding the Buy America requirements for infrastructure projects, the 55% U.S. content requirement for manufactured products applies to each final manufactured product (e.g., to each piece of equipment purchased for the proposed project).  Per Appendix F of the FOA, “…None of the project funds (includes federal share and recipient cost share) may be used for a project for infrastructure unless:… (2) All manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States—this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product.”\n\nAlso, please note, per the FOA Appendix F, \"the Buy American requirement only applies to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a Buy America preference apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project, but are not an integral part of or permanently affixed to the structure.\"  See Appendix F of the FOA for additional detail."]
[271,"2023-03-08","Cost Sharing","In relation to cost-share requirements, could you clarify if the minimum 50% non-federal cost share only applies to the total project cost, and not to each entity participating in the hub? That is, could some for-profit applicants in a hub (prime or subrecipient) have more than 50% federal cost allocated (potentially 100% federal cost) as long as the non-federal cost share of the total project is higher than 50%? ","Yes, per Section III.B.2 of the FOA (Cost Share Allocation), each project team is free to determine how best to allocate the cost share requirement among the team members. The amount contributed by individual project team members may vary, as long as the cost share requirement for the project as a whole is met."]
[272,"2023-03-08","OCED Exchange","I am having problems accessing the subject grant opportunity.  I do not have the option to apply for this grant.","To apply to this FOA, applicants must register with and submit application materials through OCED Exchange at https://oced-Exchange.energy.gov, OCED’s online application portal.\n\nNote: Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application."]
[273,"2023-03-09","Other","Within the Department of Energy Exchange proposal submission system there is a requirement for each proposal to include a “Summary for Public Release - 3 pages maximum.” Can the Department of Energy clarify if there are any restrictions on the use of this material by the proposal-submitting organization? For example, are the materials to be treated as “embargoed” until the Department of Energy utilizes them in the future public announcement? Are there any other restrictions on the use of the material, timing of use, etc. for proposing organizations to be aware of following the April 7 submission when considering their plans for future public engagement or communications to stakeholders?","There is no restriction on the use of the submitted materials by the submitting organization.  Applicants are free to share or publicize their H2Hub application. "]
[274,"2023-03-10","Application Content/Format","Is there a template or example for the Letters of Commitment required? What if an entity is unable to perform the activities described in its letter of commitment? Does  the Letter of Commitment require the entity to participate in all four phases of the project? And does it bind the organization to any specific performance requirements?","•\t There is not a template for the Letters of Commitment; however, please see response to Q&A #239 above for information about what information should be included in Letters of Commitment. \n•\t Letters of Commitment are not legally binding, but project partners should make commitments in good faith and should make their best effort to meet their specific performance commitments. \n•\t If a project partner is unable to perform the activities described in its letter of commitment or unable to provide their cost share contribution, it is ultimately the prime applicant's/recipient's responsibility to carry out the proposed project and meet the cost share requirements. \n•\t An entity does not necessarily need to participate in all four phases of the project.  "]
[275,"2023-03-10","Application Content/Format","In regards to the Environmental Considerations Summary, should we include activity at the H2 application sites as well? If a hub includes several projects, not necessarily related, is it advisable to submit multiple Environmental Consideration Summary forms?","The Environmental Considerations Summary should cover all activities of the proposed H2Hub. While not all information may be available at the proposal stage, please provide as much detail and information as is currently available. \n\nPer Q&A #199 above, separate Environmental Considerations Summary documents may be prepared for each specific project/facility or site, provided that it clearly identifies which proposed H2Hub project the Environmental Considerations Summary is regarding. Per Section IV.D.v of the FOA, the Environmental Considerations Summary documents should be consolidated and saved in a single PDF file before submitting with the Full Application.   "]
[276,"2023-03-13","Application Content/Format","Does the “H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” excel file need to include revenue (item 4 on General tab) for hydrogen consumers who will be making equipment modifications to operate with hydrogen? These hydrogen consumers (e.g. steel, glass manufacturers) are part of the H2Hub and funding from the DOE will be applied towards these modifications. \n\nIf answer is yes, how should we report the revenue for consumers that are only partially replacing their energy source with hydrogen (for example, 20% of NG replaced by hydrogen). Should we adjust the revenue in proportion to percent of energy source replaced by hydrogen?","The projected \"Average annual H2Hub revenues\" should include revenues from all H2Hub related activities. This includes revenues generated from selling the hydrogen (e.g. transportation fuels, feedstocks), as well as primary commodity products (e.g., steel, ammonia) and co-products produced by H2Hub.\n\nIf the hydrogen produced within the H2Hub is only partially replacing the energy source or feedstock used by the proposed end-use, then the projected average annual H2Hub revenues of the H2Hub should only take into account the portion of the products that are using the clean hydrogen."]
[277,"2023-03-13","Application Content/Format","In FOA Section IV.A, DOE states that applicants “must not exceed the specified maximum page limit, including cover Including cover page, charts, graphs, maps, and photographs when printed using the formatting requirements set forth above and single spaced.” Due to the complexity of the application and the current page limitations in place, we request that DOE allow applicants to provide front matter information that is not page counted. This would include Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, and List of Acronyms for both the Technical Volume and Community Benefits Plan.","No, per Section IV.D of the FOA, the Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 100 pages and the Community Benefits Plan may not be more than 25 pages. If applicants exceed the maximum page lengths indicated, DOE will review only the authorized number of pages and disregard any additional pages.\n\nNote: The FOA does not require applicants to include a Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, or List of Acronyms in the Technical Volume or Community Benefits Plan."]
[278,"2023-03-13","Application Content/Format","In FOA Section IV.A, DOE states that applicants must “Use Calibri typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 12 point or larger (except on the cover page and in figures or tables, which may be 10 point font).”  Assuming we are using Calibri 12 pt black font for our application text, we pose three clarifying questions: (1) are applicants permitted to use other than Calibri typeface in figures and tables?; (2) can applicants use other than black font color for headings, figures, and tables?; and (3) are colors, logos, and 10pt font size permitted in headers and footers?","(1) Applicants may use fonts other than Calibri typeface in figures and tables, but applicants should ensure the text included is readable/legible.\n(2) Applicants may use other than black font color for headings, figures, and tables, but applicants should ensure the text included is legible.\n(3) Headers and footers should use a font size of 10 point or larger. Applicants may use colors and logos in headers and footers, provided they are legible."]
[279,"2023-03-14","Application Content/Format","Please confirm the submittal requirements for the SF-424 forms.  We believe the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance OMB Number 4040-0004, Expiration Date 11/30/2025 and Assurances – Construction Programs OMB 4040-0004 Expiration date 2/28/25 are required.  Is that correct?  SF-424C appears to contain information similar to the budget justification.  Is SF-424C required?","The SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance that applicants should use is OMB form number 4040-0004. Applicants may use the form with expiration date 12/31/2022 that was originally posted with the FOA Application Forms and Templates or the updated form with expiration date 11/30/2025 that is available at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html\n\nPer Section IV.D.ix of the FOA, the list of certifications and assurances in Field 21 can be found at http://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/financial-assistance/financial-assistance-forms, under Certifications and Assurances.\n\nForm SF-424C (Budget Information for Construction Programs) is not required."]
[280,"2023-03-14","Foreign Entities/Work","Clarification kindly requested in relation to Foreign Work Waivers. Our company is domestic but we might need support from our global offices to perform limited tasks. We plan to submit a foreign work waiver request in the Full Application with our best estimation on the performance of work outside of the United States. However, this might slightly change in the future and could involve more or less scope, and different country. Could you clarify if this could be discussed during the negotiation phase if the project is awarded, or if an amendment of the waiver request could be submitted in a later phase of the project?","Applicants must submit Foreign Entity Waiver requests and Foreign Work Waiver requests with the Full Application, but waiver requests may be amended during award negotiations or in a later phase of the H2Hub as the detailed project plan for all activities is further refined. Waiver requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis."]
[281,"2023-03-15","Other","Will the DOE select the same entity as the Prime recipient for more than one award/hub under this FOA? If so, under what circumstances? ","The same entity may submit and be considered for selection for more then one H2Hub proposal, provided they submitted more than one eligible Concept Paper (Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application).\n\nPer Section V.D.v of the FOA, the Selection Official may consider the technical merit, the Federal Merit Review Panel’s recommendations, program policy factors, and the amount of funds available in arriving at selections for this FOA."]
[282,"2023-03-16","Budget/Costs","Are Participant support costs (as defined by 2 CFR §200.75, 200.456, as direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences, or training projects) allowable in the budget?  If so, on what tab of the budget workbook should they be provided?","Participant support costs are allowable with prior approval of the DOE Contracting Officer, provided they are allocable (within the approved scope of the project), reasonable, and necessary to carry out the H2Hub project. If participant support costs are being proposed, they should be included as Other Direct Costs in the Budget Justification Workbook. "]
[283,"2023-03-16","Application Content/Format","Could you please confirm letters of commitment, community partnership documentation, and letters of support must conform to the formatting requirements laid out on pg. 66 of the FOA and cannot deviate from the page and font specifications?","Letters of commitment, community partnership documentation, and letters of support must be submitted in Adobe PDF format, written in English, and must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper. However, they do not have to conform to the other formatting requirements (e.g., font typeface) laid out on page 66 of the FOA, provided they are legible.\n\nSee section IV.D of the FOA for the page limits for each submission type."]
[284,"2023-03-16","Application Content/Format","For letters of support, is the DOE looking for an assortment of support from associations, organizations, companies and governmental entities to include local, state and congressional officials?","Per Section IV.D.vii of the FOA, applicants should submit letters of commitment from all subrecipient and third-party cost share providers. If applicable, letters of commitment can also be submitted from suppliers/partners/end-users/future customers/labor unions/community-based organizations.\n\nAs part of the Community Partnership Documentation (Section IV.D.viii), applicants may also include letters of support from community entities, trade associations, worker organizations, and other community-based or representative organizations reflecting substantive engagement and/or feedback on applicant’s approach to community benefits. See response to Q&A #221 above for more information."]
[285,"2023-03-16","Application Content/Format","Could you please provide clarification regarding lobbying disclosure, as some of the language in the FOA and in the responses to certain submitted questions appear to contravene the relevant statutory provisions of 31 USC § 1352 and DOE regulations at 10 CFR Part 601 and the appendix thereto.  In particular, could you please confirm the following:\n1.\tApplicants should submit the “Certification Regarding Lobbying” in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 601.\n2.\tNon-federal funds may permissibly be used to pay persons lobbying in connection with this FOA.\n3.\tSubmission of OMB Form LLL is only required if the applicant has paid or agreed to pay a person to conduct lobbying activities in connection with “covered federal actions” as defined in 10 CFR § 601.105.","1. 10 CFR 600 was superseded by 2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The current DOE regulation regarding lobbying can be found at 2 CFR § 200.450 Lobbying.   \n\n2. Using non-federal funds to pay persons lobbying in connection with this FOA does not violate 31 USC § 1352, though the costs are not allowable as project costs under the DOE award.\n\n3. All applicants and subrecipients are required to submit an SF-LLL disclosure. If an applicant does not have any lobbying activities to report, items 10a and 10b on the SF-LLL disclosure can be marked not applicable (N/A)."]
[286,"2023-03-16","Application Content/Format","Form SF LLL requires disclosure of the ‘Lobbying Registrant’.  If an applicant conducts direct (not through any registered lobbyists) outreach with Congressional representatives, to educate them on the project would that be viewed as a lobbying activity requiring disclosure on form SF LLL or otherwise?  \n \nIf an applicant engages registered lobbyists to engage with leaders and stakeholders on a state level only with no engagement for lobbying of any federal agency or members of Congress, would that need to be listed on the SF-LLL or otherwise disclosed in the application? Our understanding is that the SF-LLL applies only to lobbying of federal/congressional officials and representatives.","Under 31 USC § 1352, applicants must disclose the name of any registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person with respect to that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, and must file a certification that the person making the declaration has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by 31 USC 1352(a). Applicants must determine for themselves whether they trigger the requirements of that statute.  "]
[287,"2023-03-17","Application Content/Format","In the “H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” excel file, item 1 on General tab asks for “Water Use (gal/kgH2)”. Does this refer to water consumption at the production site or full pathway water usage including usage associated with energy supply (e.g. power generation, NG production)?","Water use (gal/kg H₂) in the General tab of “H2Hub TEA and LCA Projections” workbook refers to net water withdrawals/usage at hydrogen production site."]
[288,"2023-03-17","Eligibility","If we missed submitting the concept paper, can we still proceed with an application or is that a missed oopportunity?","Please see response to Q&A #90 above.\n\nPlease see the response to Q&A #115 above for information about how to find additional funding opportunities."]
[289,"2023-03-20","Application Content/Format","FOA Instructions under Safety in the Technical Volume state that “Applications should include a detailed description of safety culture that includes both the hydrogen and non-hydrogen aspects of safety, including a five-year construction/operations safety performance history (such as an OSHA 300A form or Experience Modification Rating) of the entities and management involved in the H2Hub.” Due to space constraints and the number of entities involved in the Hub, would DOE allow the OSHA forms to be provided as an Attachment to the Technical Volume?","If applicable, applicants should summarize or reference their OSHA performance/ratings in their narrative description about their safety culture. Applicants may, but are not required to, include or attach the actual OSHA forms to the Technical Volume. However, attachments submitted with the Technical Volume would count toward the 100-page limit."]
[290,"2023-03-20","OCED Exchange","If a hub has merged with nearby hubs, as encouraged by DOE, how does the Hub ensure the Control Numbers are also merged within the DOE application system?","If applicants decide to merge hub concepts into a single H2Hub proposal, the resulting Full Application may be submitted under either Exchange Control Number.  \n\nThe Exchange Control Numbers do not need to be merged, but please see response to Q&A #19 above for more information about changing the lead organization listed on the Concept Paper and how to share the submissions with other team members within OCED Exchange."]
[291,"2023-03-21","Other","The FOA clearly states that funding is not to be used for constructing R&D and pilot plant facilities, but can it be used for equipment (e.g. small pipeline and associated metering) to deliver green hydrogen from a DOE-funded hub to a non-DOE-funded end user R&D or pilot plant facility in proximity to the hub?","Per Section I.C of the FOA, applications including research, development, and pilot-scale activities are specifically not of interest and will not be considered. However, funding may be used for equipment and connective infrastructure to deliver clean hydrogen to end users, including R&D or pilot plant facilities that are being funded outside of the DOE award.   "]
[292,"2023-03-21","OCED Exchange","We were encouraged by the DOE to file the final application, but have entered into an\nagreement to merge with another H2Hub applicant, also encouraged by the DOE to file a final application, and to become a Sub-applicant under their final application.  \n\nWhat procedures do we need to follow with the DOE to assign our file and Control Number,  to the other H2Hub?  Your guidance will be greatly appreciated.   ","Please see response to Q&A #290 above."]
[293,"2023-03-21","Application Content/Format","Can inputs be added individually for each producer on the TEA-LCA Spreadsheet?","Each proposed hydrogen production pathway should be listed as a separate row in the 'Clean Hydrogen Production' table in the General tab of the “H2Hub_TEA_LCA_Projections” workbook. Data for major production equipment should also be provided as separate columns in the 'Major Equipment List & Description' table in the H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs tab.    \n\nPer Q&A #172 above, Applicants are encouraged to submit one H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections workbook itemizing all key capital equipment and feedstock within the proposed H2Hub.  In addition to the whole-hub TEA/LCA, applicants may voluntarily submit a separate TEA/LCA for each production pathway if those pathways would operate independently from other elements in the hub. "]
[294,"2023-03-23","Application Content/Format","The clarification for Question #19 states that “If there is a change to the lead organization listed on the Concept Paper, the Full Application must include documentation from both the transferor and the transferee that shows they both voluntarily agree to transfer the OCED Exchange control number and the concept paper. This documentation must be included as an Appendix to the Technical Volume.” Based on Q&A #289 this additionally required documentation counts toward the 100-page limit. \n\nDue to the nature of the Voluntary Transfer documentation/letter, can it be submitted as the first document in the Letter of Commitment submittal?","Per Q&A #19 above, the documentation/letter from the transferor and the transferee must be included as an appendix to the Technical Volume, but this specific appendix will not count toward the 100-page limit."]
[295,"2023-03-23","Budget/Costs","Is DOE expecting the H2Hub prime applicant and/or subrecipient projects to demonstrate Phase 4 operation costs and anticipated revenues in the SF-424 Budget Justification Workbook? ","The Budget Justification Workbook submitted with the Full Application should include the estimated project costs for all four phases of the H2Hub. Per page 33 of the FOA, the expected cost estimate class for the application is Class 4 or better. Please see response to Q&A #110 above regarding how the costs by project phase should be captured in the Budget Justification Workbook. \n\nThe Budget Justification Workbook should not include anticipated revenues (i.e., Program Income). Per Section III.B of the FOA, Program Income should not be included as cost share in the applicant’s budget."]
[296,"2023-03-23","Eligibility","Can applicants include new project elements and/or sub-recipients between the concept paper and application phases and/or between other project phases after awards are made? ","Yes, per Q&A #11, 38 and 73 above, applicants may add or remove project elements and/or sub-recipients (project partners) between the Concept Paper and Full Application. Also, per pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may also be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval."]
[297,"2023-03-24","Other","Is there opportunity to transfer the full application from one entity to another after its submission (or after notice of award) and prior to entry into the DOE cooperative agreement? If so, are there any conditions on doing so?","Award transfers prior to the DOE Cooperative Agreement being issued and award novations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  See Q&A #160 above for more information. "]
[298,"2023-03-24","Eligibility","Given the delays in finalizing SAM.gov registrations, can applicants who have applied for SAM.gov registration and have an assigned UEI submit a full application while awaiting notification of finalization of their registration? ","Given that the SAM registration process is taking longer than usual, applicants may still submit a full application while awaiting validation of their SAM registration. \n\nNote: Per Section IV.G of the FOA, DOE may not make a federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time DOE is ready to make a federal award, the DOE will determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a federal award to another applicant.  "]
[299,"2023-03-25","Application Content/Format","For appendices that are in pdf with finalized signatures, is Calibri 12pt the required font settings, or will the DOE accept signed pdf appendices with other commonly used fonts (e.g., Arial, Times New Roman) or sizes (no smaller than 10pt)?","Please see response to Q&A #283 above."]
[300,"2023-03-27","Application Content/Format","1.\tAre we able to provide a cover table of contents to our Letters of Community and Community Partnership Documentation? We anticipate submitting 100+ such letters. We plan to list a content cover page that lists the letters by type of partner/organization to help with the review process. \n2.\tIf there are multiple (~100+) signatories to a single letter, may the signature pages extend beyond the 2 page limit? We want to avoid submitting the same letter multiple times to accommodate the number of signatures. ","1. Applicants may include a cover page and table of contents with the Letters of Commitment and Community Partnership Documentation submissions.\n2. Per Section IV.D.vii of the FOA, each Letter of Commitment must not exceed two pages. Letters of Commitment should state the specific nature of the partnership/commitment, and therefore letters should be unique to each subrecipient, third-party cost share provider, supplier, partner, end-user/customer, labor union, community-based organizations, etc. Form letters or petitions should not be included with the Letters of Commitment. "]
[301,"2023-03-28","Application Content/Format","Page 62 of the FOA states that “Applicants are required to provide written assurance of their proposed cost share contributions in their full applications.” It further states, “Phase 1 cost share must be verifiable upon submission of the full application.” \n\n1. What documentation is required to provide this “written assurance” for the proposed cost share, e.g., Letter of Intent?  \n2. Is this only required for phase 1? \n3. Please confirm that the contemplated cost share can be provided by a state.","1. The proposed cost share contributions must be specified in the SF424 Application for Federal Assistance and documented in the applicant's Budget Justification Workbook. In addition, the full application should include Letters of Commitment from all subrecipient and third party cost share providers. See Section IV.D.vii of the FOA for more information and response to Q&A #239 above for information about what information should be included in Letters of Commitment. \n2. The full application should identify the amount and source of proposed cost share contributions for all phases, but per Section III.B of the FOA, the cost share verification for Phases 2-4 will be included as part of the Go/No-Go decision for each phase.\n3. Yes, per Section III.B of the FOA, cost share may come from project participants, state or local governments or other third-party financing."]
[302,"2023-03-28","Subrecipients","In all instances in the subject FOA where “all subrecipients” are referenced, does the phrase refer to all tiers of subrecipients (i.e., 2nd tier, 3rd tier, etc.)?","Yes, the term \"subrecipient\" includes all tiers of subrecipients."]
[303,"2023-03-28","Other","In Figure 3 in FOA 2779, the Engineering & Design milestones do not align with the funding levels and schedule outlined in the phases when considering larger projects. For example, The milestones of 30% engineering completed in phase 1 and 90% in phase 2 seems to imply that FEED should be in phase 1 and detailed engineering in phase 2; however, the schedules and budgets imply that Pre-FEED should be in phase 1 and FEED in phase 2 with a detailed design in Phase 3.  Will DOE provide the Hub leadership with authority to modify schedule and budgets to accommodate the milestones in earlier or later phases?","Please see responses to Q&A #21 and Q&A #109 above. DOE will work with sponsors of selected projects to agree on deliverables and budgets for each phase that are justified and reasonable. "]
[304,"2023-03-28","Other","In the H2 Hub TEA and LCA Projections workbook, the information pop-up for cell C110 on the “H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs” worksheet is identical to the information for the cell above it: “How many units of co product are made per unit of primary H2Hub output”. That instruction seems consistent with “[Waste Stream] Generation rate” request in the cell in row 109, but not the cell in row 110 (“Expense in 2025”). Can you clarify what is requested for Waste Streams Expense in 2025? Is that the total dollar outlay for all waste streams expected in 2025, or is it the per unit cost in 2025 of the waste stream—or something else?","Row 110 of the “H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs” worksheet, titled “Waste Stream Expense in 2025”, is intended to represent the cost incurred by the H2Hub from disposing a unit of waste product for each of its waste streams. Applicants should itemize each waste stream in a separate column, and include the generation rate of each waste stream (i.e., units of waste product produced per unit of primary H2Hub output) in Row 109, the per-unit cost expected to be incurred due to production of that waste in 2025 in Row 110, and the rate at which cost of waste handling escalates in each subsequent year in Row 111. Note that rows 112 and 113 allow applicants to verify the interpretation of inputs from row 109 and 110 with their explicit units."]
[305,"2023-03-29","Application Content/Format","Based on the Response to Question 233 regarding Indirect Rate Agreement requirements, would the DOE please provide a location on the OCED Exchange for Prime Applicants to upload PDFs of Prime and subrecipient Indirect Rate Agreements as well as the Forward Pricing Rate Agreement?  ","Indirect Rate Agreements and Forward Pricing Rate Agreements do not need to be submitted with the Full Application. If selected for award, indirect cost information and agreements would be requested during award negotiations. See Section IV.F of the FOA regarding Post Selection Information Requests. "]
[306,"2023-03-29","Application Content/Format","The FOA states Prime recipients and subrecipients are required to complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-individual-family.html) to ensure that non-federal funds have not been paid and will not be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any of the following in connection with the application:\n\n•\tAn officer or employee of any federal agency;\n•\tA Member of Congress;\n•\tAn officer or employee of Congress; or\n•\tAn employee of a Member of Congress.\n\nQuestion 242 states that \" The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) form should disclose all lobbying activities, not only those related to this funding opportunity.  If more room is needed to list all registrants/individuals performing such work, then a list may be attached to the SF-LLL submission.\n\nThe line \"in connection with the application\" conflicts with the answer to the question stating \", not only those related to this funding opportunity\" seems to be in conflict. Please clarify.","The SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities should be completed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. Under 31 USC § 1352, applicants must disclose the name of any registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 who has made lobbying contacts on behalf of the person with respect to the Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, and must file a certification that the person making the declaration has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by 31 USC 1352(a). Applicants must determine for themselves whether they trigger the requirements of that statute.  \n\nThe response to Q&A #242 above has been revised accordingly. "]
[307,"2023-03-30","Application Content/Format","Performance of work locations: Page 80 - The applicant must complete the supplied template by listing the city, state, and zip code + 4 for each location where project work will be performed by the prime recipient or subrecipient(s). \n\nHow shall we identified locations when coordinates nor USPS addresses are not yet determined? County? Longitude/Latitude?  What if such locations are estimated or targeted but may change?  How shall we state these within the spreadsheet?","If a USPS address is not assigned to the location, applicants may list the GPS coordinates or the latitude and longitude of the physical location in the Locations of Work template. If a proposed site is still being finalized, applicants should list the targeted location if known, or list TBD.   "]
[308,"2023-03-30","Application Content/Format","Per previous guidance we are working to provide one H2Hub_TEA_and_LCA_Projections for all production pathways in the hub. However, for the H2HUB HYDROGEN-SPECIFIC ENERGY / FEEDSTOCK INPUTS (FOR H₂ LCA) they are specific to each production pathway and total inputs exceed the provided 10 columns, can we add columns to increase the number of feedstocks or insert additional feedstock and energy tables for each pathway to provide clarity on the LCA inputs for each pathway. (Tab H2Hub TEA & LCA inputs, C162:W167) ","In the case of multiple hydrogen production plants with same production technology, please aggregate the same types of feedstock inputs (e.g. renewable electricity, nuclear energy, grid electricity, water, natural gas, etc.).  In the case of multiple and diverse hydrogen production pathways, if there are more than 10 feedstock streams, applicants may add additional columns to the spreadsheet.  Also, please clearly note which feedstock input is responsible for each production pathway in the feedstock rate row (e.g., XX kWh is needed for Production Pathway XX)."]
[309,"2023-03-30","OCED Exchange","In the OCED Team Members section of the portal, do we list each organization in the consortium we anticipate working with over the life of the project or only list subrecipients for Phase 1? \n\nIf we are to list everyone in addition to subrecipients in Phase 1, how do we allocate the percent of project effort is not active at this stage of the project. Must we apply percentages if not active? ","While DOE will only initially authorize funding for Phase 1, this FOA is soliciting plans for all four phases of proposed H2Hub. Therefore, the Team Members section of OCED Exchange should include all proposed (known) project partners and subrecipients.\n\nThe percent of project effort estimate should be based on the entire four phase effort (including the planning, development, and construction of the H2Hub as well as 2-4 years of operations)."]
[310,"2023-03-31","OCED Exchange","We submitted our concept paper our my company’s UEI.  For the full proposal, we are transferring the prime application to the new consortium organization.  The consortium has a UEI and is registered in sam.gov.  Do we, at a minimum, change the UEI number and the Point of Contacts to trigger this change or do we leave our concept paper based UEI and point of contact as is within the online application and then DoE transfers award to the consortium during negotiations?","If there is a change to the lead organization (prime applicant) listed on the Concept Paper, the OCED Exchange record should be updated to reflect the new organization information including the UEI number and the Point of Contacts.  Please see response to Q&A #19 above for more information about changing the lead organization listed on the Concept Paper and how to share the submissions with other team members within OCED Exchange, if needed."]
[311,"2023-04-02","Other","I would like to clarify if the funding announcements will be still in September or push out considering the submission deadline is now April 13,2023 , in stead of Nov 7,2022.\n\nIf it is Sept 2023 still, Is there a plan to pull in the date considering the urgency of hydrogen/clean or just energy need of the country? People need jobs and these funding will create thousands of jobs. ","The schedule published with the Funding Opportunity Announcement has not changed. November 7, 2022 was the submission deadline for Concept Papers.  Full Applications are still due on April 7, 2023, and selection announcements are expected in the Fall 2023."]
[312,"2023-04-03","Foreign Entities/Work","Are prime recipients allowed to submit a Foreign Entity waiver request and a Foreign Work waiver request after the Full Application is submitted if participation by a foreign entity is uncertain at the time of application?","If a foreign entity is included as a team member or work outside the United States is proposed, applicants must submit Foreign Entity Waiver requests and/or Foreign Work Waiver requests with the Full Application. Waiver requests may be amended during award negotiations or in a later phase of the H2Hub as the detailed project plan for all activities is further refined. All waiver requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.\n\nPer pages 23-24 of the FOA, DOE understands that certain partnering agreements will also emerge during the early phases of the H2Hub; therefore, team members may also be added during Phase 1 and 2 with DOE approval. If this involves a foreign entity or work outside the United States, a Foreign Entity Waiver request and/or Foreign Work Waiver request may be submitted with the change request. "]
[313,"2023-04-03","Budget/Costs","Are subrecipients (for-profit entities) of a state governmental entity (prime recipient) allowed to include FCCM (facilities capital cost of money) in their budgets as indirect costs?","As long as the for-profit Subrecipient is following the applicable for-profit cost principles, such as copied below, as well as their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), they may include facilities capital cost of money (FCCM) in their budgets as indirect costs.\n\nPer 48 CFR 31.205 10(b) Cost of money is allowable, provided - \n(1) It is measured, assigned, and allocated to contracts in accordance with 48 CFR 9904.414 or measured and added to the cost of capital assets under construction in accordance with 48 CFR 9904.417, as applicable; \n(2) The requirements of 31.205-52, which limit the allowability of cost of money, are followed; and \n(3) The estimated facilities capital cost of money is specifically identified and proposed in cost proposals relating to the contract under which the cost is to be claimed. \n(c) Actual interest cost in lieu of the calculated imputed cost of money is unallowable."]
[314,"2023-04-03","Other","What is the dollar threshold for Buy America?","There is not a minimum dollar threshold for Buy America. See Appendix F for more information about Buy America requirements for infrastructure projects. "]
[315,"2023-04-03","Other","Will OCED grant any requests for an extension to the deadline for submission of April 7?","The submission deadline for Full Applications is 4/7/2023 at 5:00pm ET.  Per Section IV.A of the FOA, applicants are responsible for meeting each submission deadline. Under normal conditions, applicants should allow at least 1 hour to submit a Full Application and applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their Full Applications at least 48 hours in advance of the submission deadline. Once the Full Application is submitted in OCED Exchange, applicants may revise or update that submission until the expiration of the applicable deadline."]
[316,"2023-04-04","Application Content/Format","The FOA states that LOW will be an excel file for uploading but the OCED website requires individually input for the locations. Do we need to do both?","Per Section IV.D.xix of the FOA, the applicant must complete the supplied Locations of Work template by listing the city, state, and zip code + 4 for each location where project work will be performed by the prime recipient or subrecipient(s). Since this information is being collected with this submission, the applicant may list only the primary location of work (e.g., the prime applicant address) in the \"Location(s) of Work\" tab of the OCED Exchange record. "]
[317,"2023-04-05","Application Content/Format","We are having difficulty adding rows to the excel spreadsheet that is the equipment tab on the budget justification worksheet (the formulas do not seem to be carrying down when we insert new rows to accommodate additional line items). Is there a trick to manipulating those cells to adjust/add formulas?","The worksheets within the Budget Justification Workbook are protected. To make a change to the formulas, you must unprotect the worksheet by clicking \"Unprotect Sheet\" from the Review menu. This will allow you to copy the existing formulas into the added rows. "]
[318,"2023-04-05","Other","I am currently accessing the full application forms that need to be completed for DE-FOA-0002779 and am having difficulties with the below link.\n\nhttps://oced-exchange.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=969b851b-ee46-4d34-8c18-3fc1e8897d92\n\nI have tried to open in several manners.  When I open directly through Adobe, I receive the following error message: There was an error opening this document. The file is damaged and could not be repaired.\n \nPlease supply me with a link of the actual document so that we can submit our application by 04/07/2023 @ 5:00PM","Please see response to Q&A#32 above."]
[319,"2023-04-05","Application Content/Format","In our technical volume and CBP we are using the standard blue font for hyperlinks (same as the FOA font). Does this need to be changed to black? Also, we have color filling in our tables – is this permitted?","Yes, applicants may use blue font for hyperlinks. Color filling in tables is permitted, but applicants should ensure the text included is legible."]
[320,"2023-04-05","Application Content/Format","We have begun uploading files to OCED Exchange. While we carefully formatted each file name to meet FOA requirements, OCED Exchange is renaming our files. In some cases is may not matter. For instance, while we used the acronym for our hub, OCED Exchange is spelling out the full name.\n\nHowever, in the case of the cost workbooks for our subrecipients, OCED Exchange is automatically deleting the subrecipient names and replacing them with a number. \n\nIf this is not what OCED desires, please make changes to the website and let us know ASAP.","The OCED Exchange system has been updated to allow applicants to upload uniquely/individually named Subrecipient Budget Justifications. If Subrecipient Budget Justification submissions have already been uploaded with the numbered file name convention that is also acceptable, but applicants should ensure the subrecipient name is specified in the Budget Justification Workbook itself in the \"Award Recipient\" field."]
[321,"2023-04-05","Application Content/Format","On the SF-424, the congressional code is required for the Prime. The field - “Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed” – does not appear to be required (also attaching it to an attachment would need to be clarified). Please confirm that congressional codes are only required for the Prime.","Correct, the congressional codes are only required for the Prime Applicant."]
[322,"2023-04-06","Eligibility","Our company is attempting to apply for:\n\nDE-FOA-0002779: BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW: ADDITIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN PROGRAMS (SECTION 40314): REGIONAL CLEAN HYDROGEN HUBS FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT\n\nThe apply button isn't showing for this one and the deadline is a day away on 4/7/23.\n\nCould you help point us in the right direction?","Applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 11/7/2022 5:00pm ET to be eligible to submit a Full Application.\n\nTo create a Full Application from an associated Concept Paper, navigate to the “My Submissions”\npage, then click the “Control Number” link for the associated Concept Paper. Then, click the “Create Full Application” button in the Concept Paper Response section to initiate the Full Application."]
[323,"2023-04-06","OCED Exchange","We've encountered a limit of 30 for the number of subrecipient budget justifications OCED exchange will allow us to upload. Our application has over 40 budgeted subrecipients. Please advise on how we can get all of our subrecipient budget justification spreadsheets uploaded. This is for DE-FOA-0002779.","Another entry for “Subrecipient Budget Justification – Additional” has been added to OCED Exchange Upload and Submit page to allow applicants to upload additional Subrecipient Budget Justifications. If applicants have more than 30 Subrecipient Budget Justifications, they can be uploaded under the “Subrecipient Budget Justification – Additional” submission."]
[324,"2023-04-07","Other","Please advise what we should do with letters of commitment and Community Partnership Documentation after the due date has passed.","Full Applications can not be amended or updated after the submission deadline. However, applicants may use the Reply to Reviewer Comments submission to respond to one or more comments or to supplement their Full Application. See Section IV.E of the FOA for more information."]
[325,"2023-05-26","Application Content/Format","We are working with a hub to prepare their response to the H2Hub Q&A that was just released. If the Hub response restates a DOE question or a identified weakness, does that count against the 10 page limit? ","Per Section IV.E of the FOA, the Reply must not exceed ten (10) pages. If a Reply is more than ten (10) pages in length, DOE will review only the first ten (10) pages and disregard any additional pages. Restating a question or identified weakness would count toward the 10 page limit. "]
[326,"2023-05-26","Other","Question about FOA, D. II :: DOE will arrange to meet with the invited applicants in person at DOE’s offices or a mutually agreed upon location. DOE may also arrange site visits to certain applicants’ facilities. Alternatively, DOE may invite certain applicants to participate in a one-on-one conference with DOE via webinar, videoconference, or conference call. \n\nIs OCED leaning towards in person or virtual interviews? Can you offer any clarity on expected number of team members, interview length, or likely date ranges? ","Per FOA Section V.D.ii, as part of the evaluation and selection process, DOE may invite one or more applicants to participate in Pre-Selection Interviews. We anticipate conducting the Pre-Selection Interviews in-person in Washington, DC in late July or early August 2023. Invited applicants will receive more details in early July.  "]
[327,"2023-06-02","Other","Will all full application submissions be selected for an Interview?  If an application is not selected for an interview does this mean that they are no longer being considered?","DOE may invite one or more applicants to participate in Pre-Selection Interviews to provide DOE an opportunity to ask questions regarding the proposed project. We do not anticipate inviting all full application submissions for an interview.\n\nPer FOA Section V.D.ii, DOE may select applications for funding and make awards without Pre-Selection Interviews, and participation in Pre-Selection Interviews with DOE does not signify that an applicant has been selected for award negotiations."]
[328,"2023-06-14","Other","FOA section VI. B.xix states the following:\n“If selected for award negotiations, the selected applicant must submit a list of senior/key\npersonnel who are proposed to work on the project, both at the recipient and subrecipient\nlevel and a list of collaborating organizations within 30 days after the applicant is notified of the selection. Recipients will have an ongoing responsibility to notify DOE of changes to the\nsenior/key personnel and collaborating organizations, and submit updated information during the life of the award.”\n\nWe request further clarification to the effect that does DOE require notification of key personnel changes after full application submission, but prior to selection for award negotiation/pre-selection interview?","If there are any changes to the senior/key personnel or collaborating organizations listed in the full application, they should be disclosed during pre-selection interviews, if invited, and during award negotiations, if selected.  "]

{"sheet":"Admin Pick List","index":2,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":17,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Pick List"]
[]
["Registration Requirements"]
["Webinar"]
["Concept Paper"]
["Eligibility"]
["Labs/FFRDCs"]
["Foreign Entities/Work"]
["Cost Sharing"]
["Due Dates"]
["Application Content/Format"]
["Intellectual Property"]
["Data Management"]
["Other"]
["U.S. Manufacturing Plan"]
["Application Reviews"]
["Technical Topics"]