Member Initiated Projects Q&A
All member initiated project questions will be posted below. If you need to submit a question please complete the form found on our website.
Regarding Topic #4, what specific motor size/class/frame is targeted in order to apply the NEMA standards?
The benefits of wide bandgap technology are known to be more advantageous with higher power motors, and so the higher the power, the better. With this in mind, a proposal for a 50kW motor (or higher) would be appropriate. Proposals with intended results that are scalable to 100kW or higher after the project is completed would be beneficial.
Related to cooling (Topic #5), as written there is a preference for air-cooled modules. Is it correct that it does not exclude liquid-cooled modules?
Related to the SiC module at >=1200V (Topic #5), I assume this refers to the module rating not the application rating, is this correct?
With respect to Topic #5, please define “nominal rated current?”
Nominal rated current is the total current specification of the paralleled modules. It is the current the paralleled modules conduct under normal operating conditions (non fault). If, for example, three SiC modules of 400 A rating each are paralleled, the nominal current should be 1200 A. Under “nominal rated current” operation of the paralleled modules, the paralleled modules should share current well, ideally each module conducting 400 A in the 3 paralleled module 1200 A conduction rating example (400 A rated modules). “Guarantee” could be specified as the max percentage deviation of each module’s rated current, when operating in parallel with the other modules.
With respect to item F. in the Proposal Format section of the RFP (page 8), do we need to produce the pro-forma contract or purchase order ahead of knowing the outcome (that is, whether the proposal is funded or not)?
Yes. The objective is to ensure that all costs for hardware and services, and contract terms for any subcontract work, are fully understood when the proposal is submitted. In some cases in previous MIP Rounds, PowerAmerica has selected projects for funding in which budget estimates were later found to be inaccurate or certain costs overlooked, or found that contract clauses in subcontracts among team members were not understood by the proposers. These “surprises” caused significant delays in project starts and consumed considerable time to correct, which we want to avoid in the future. With respect to any contract or subcontract anticipated among team members, we advise that contract specialists in the respective organizations review these provisions prior to proposal submission. Changes can be made within reason to budgets and contract terms should a proposal be selected for funding, but there should be “no surprises.” The pro-forma contract refers to any contract anticipated among team members, not the contract with PowerAmerica.
Are the portions of the proposal with respect to the teaming arrangement, gantt chart, and budget included in the 7 pages max? Or is it just the technical project description and SOPO that is restricted to 7 pages?
It is just the technical project description and SOPO that is restricted to 7 pages.
Please clarify how cost share is computed for an MIP project.
As noted in the RFP, cost share is encouraged but not required, and is taken into account when scoring proposals. Past projects that have been funded have included cost share that has averaged 30 percent. Cost share is considered on an overall basis combining the total cost share proposed among all team members and the funding requested among all team members. Some team members can have more cost share, others less or none at all. Cost share is computed as: (cost share proposed by all team members) / (total funding requested by all team members + total cost share proposed by all team members).