 |
Inaugural Workshop
Breakout Sessions
This section summarizes the activities resulting from the topic-specific breakout sessions, including the goals, current related activities, next steps identified, the lead and the other participants. Additional details on topic activities can be accessed by linking on the session title below.
Session attendees:
Bobi Garrett (NREL)
Jeff Harris (LBNL)
Audrey Lee (DOE-Policy)
Andrew Nicholls (PNNL)
Mark Sinclair (CESA)
Elaine Sison-Lebrilla (CEC)
Maria Vargas (NETL)
Topic clarification:
- CEC (PIER) research - two of the scoring criteria are availability of partners and benefits to California. (but often hard to verify). Need "Market Transformation R&D." Tension between near-term time frames and desire for significant MT.
- DOE tends to think of R&D as the answer, rather than a portfolio (roadmap) that includes R&D, demonstration, deployment, standards, etc.
Important Decision Makers Identified:
- Utilities,
- R&D programs (program managers, team leads, senior management),
- Folks stressed that upper management relies on expert judgment, and the analysis needs to be synthesized,
- Someone commented there is currently a gap in DOE in synthesizing/integrating analysis findings.
- States, because they manage energy funds.
- Regulators
- Consumers
- Manufacturers
Data needs for industry-government partnerships
- One key analytical need is better technology characterization, especially distinguishing between production costs and sales prices. Also, need to understand balance-of-system costs (and performance). But cost is not the only constraint.
- Compile and share information to prevent reinventing the wheel.
- Identify Best Practices — get DOE and state program to identify one or more most successful models for (linking R&D and deployment?).
- Identify significant deployment risks; ask states (and utilities, industry, others) to validate that these are the right gaps — and identify what's being done or what's needed.
- Develop a "checklist of deployment mechanisms (policies, programs) to consider" as part of the R&D multiyear planning process. Who-does-what; who are potential partners?
Performing analysis to support industry-government partnerships
- What would it take for a major manufacturer to pick up this technology and really push it, as a strategy for bringing down costs — in other words, better market analysis.
- Retrospective evaluation of RD&D solicitation/procurement choices — did we end up with the right partners? If not, how could criteria or processes be improves?
Collaboration process
- Lots of organically formed "communities of practice" seem to exist (Consortium for Energy Efficiency, State/Regional Working Groups, Wind Powering America, Building America), but often these do not inform or benefit from R&D activities or analysis.
- A specific example is lack of analytical and R&D effort linked to deployment of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with CO2 sequestration.
- DOE-EERE is trying to implement "stage-gate" R&D: Make the business case by going to the customer and the market to get their views. If a market barrier is later discovered, cut off research/pursue another path. Trade-off: prematurely cutting off promising ideas.
- Disconnect: "stage-gate" R&D and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) process, which assumes complete technical success and projects.
- At both the state and federal level, it has been very difficult to engage the financial community in any partnerships/collaboration.
- Perhaps DOE can form their own venture capital firm (Ray Orbach's proposal).
- Laboratory Working Group was formed to link basic and applied research; maybe reconstitute that (or a parallel group) to address research/deployment links.
Activities decided by the group:
Activity No.1 — Evaluation
- What? Evaluate successful (icon) program models for collaboration that links R&D and deployment — state and DOE, including Lab tech-transfer and STAC/ASERTTI.
- Who? CESA (lead?), CEC, DOE/PI, PNNL, NREL (lead?), NETL.
- How? Scoping paper (brief inventory of programs, issues, approaches), then discussion by committee, then consider workshop.
Activity No. 2 — Analysis methods and tools
- What? Share examples and best practices in technology characterizations (including GPRA) and market assessments. Develop checklist on deployment methods (barriers) and decision tools for use in R&D multiyear planning.
- Who? NREL, EPRI, CEC, NETL, CESA.
- How? Draw on best practices from No. 1 to develop checklist(s); EERE could offer to pilot-test the checklist(s) in its own budget process (PAE could tie this into guidelines for multiyear plans). Note: Checklist of deployment paths to consider should include government's own policy mechanisms: standards, tax incentives, voluntary programs, etc. Need to cross-link this idea with the Portfolio Planning breakout group.
Activity No. 3 — Policy Mechanisms
- What? DOE invitation to states to participate in front-end of RD&D planning (pay travel and time), and to send appropriate staff to participate in state RD&D planning. Support demo projects on deployment by DOE and states. [What's new here? Is this part of today's analysis topic?]
- Who? CEC, CESA, NREL (invite NASEO, ASERTTI).
- How? ...
Activity No. 4 — Communications
- What? Get feedback from intended users of info — does the info make sense to them? Accessible? Consistent (etc.)? Narrow the scope, to start (by audience preferably, not by energy topic). How much effort/$ spent to create this information; is there avoidable duplication of effort?
- Develop common definitions (of zero-energy buildings; others?).
- Who? (in definitions task)
- How? Surveys, interviews, focus groups. Explore Web site and Hotline use data. Look at where there is a need for clearer definitions and terminology (zero energy, demand response).
|
|
