EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: What is the relative importance of regional haul vs. long haul?
Answer 1: The objective of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to research, develop, and demonstrate a Class 8 long-haul truck that can meet prevailing federal emission standards and applicable safety and regulatory requirements as well as the stated performance goals. Applications should be responsive to the requirements set forth in the FOA.

Question 1: Because it is a part of an end-user’s variable operating cost, much like Fuel, and plays a role in their actual Payback Period, and will vary in response to important design and calibration choices, would the DOE expect applicants to include diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) consumption in the payback assessment of a given proposed solution, and if so, will DOE be specifying a common DEF Price?
Answer 1: Payback period should be calculated using the applicants current modelling and analysis methods for determining viability of commercialization. Assumptions for all calculations used should be provided.

Question 2: If you have to have a class 8 vehicle OEM, that would seem to limit it to 4 awardees.
Answer 2: Per the FOA, team participation by an engine manufacturer, a trailer manufacturer, suppliers, national labs, universities, fleet operators, and other stakeholders is highly encouraged.

Question 3: Is the performance on the GHG cycle intended to be the same level of improvement as the freight ton mile per gallon ?
Answer 3: No. The standard results of the GHG cycle should be reported.

Question 4: 65 mph cruise point for dynamometer testing of 55% BTE may be different than the speed limit regulation soon to be released.
Answer 4: Per the FOA, the engine brake thermal efficiency requirement must be demonstrated in an operational engine at a 65-mph cruise point on a dynamometer regardless of impending speed limit regulations to be enforced on highways.

Question 5: What fuel price and annual vehicle miles travelled should be used by applicants in computing payback period? It seems important that all should use the same basis.
Answer 5: Payback period should be calculated using the applicants current modelling and analysis methods for determining viability of commercialization.

Question 6: What GVW is assumed for weight savings in calcualting the freight efficency improvement?
Answer 6: The GVW of the Super Truck vehicle should be used in calculating the freight efficiency improvement.

Question 7: How do I get a download of your slides?
Answer 7: The webinar presentation is not provided to attendees nor posted to eXCHANGE following the webinar.

Question 8: So, one technology per concept paper is expected to increase the fuel efficiency by >100% and engine efficiency to >55%? Or does this mean a group of technologies as one concept?
Answer 8: There is not a limit on technologies in each concept paper. Concept papers should address all technologies and technical approaches planned for the application.

Question 9: Should the proposals neccesarily address more than one area for freight efficiency? For instance, engine+ tire rolling+ etc.
Answer 9: Applications should address all technologies proposed to meet the objectives of the FOA.

Question 10: When are the projects expected to start?
Answer 10: It is anticipated that the projects will start October 1, 2016 or soon thereafter.

Question 11: Must an applicant do both a 55% BTE engine and do the vehicle development and demonstration, or could a vehicle team acquire a separately demonstrated engine for use in a vehicle program?
Answer 11: Application must address all objectives of the FOA and technologies developed are expected to build-on and not duplicated previously completed work.

Question 12: Should individual questions to the FOA email be submitted separately, or would it be acceptable to combine multiple questions in one email?
Answer 12: All questions should be sent to DE-FOA-0001447@netl.doe.gov. Questions can be combined or separate, however answers will be separate.

Question 13: If the prime recipient is an industry partner, and other partners include FFRDCs and Universities, are there restrictions on the level of funding for FFRDCs and Universities?
Answer 13: The FOA does not include funding restrictions for FFRDCs and Universities.

Question 14: If resources outside the U.S. are utilized, can those costs be considered in the project total, even though the cost would not be eligible for rembursement?
Answer 14: Per the FOA, all work performed under EERE Awards must be performed in the United States (100% of all direct labor, including contract/subrecipient labor). This requirement does not apply to the purchase of supplies and equipment; however, the Prime Recipient should make every effort to purchase supplies and equipment within the United States. The Prime Recipient must flow down this requirement to its Subrecipients. If the Prime Recipient fails to comply with the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, EERE may deny reimbursement for the work conducted outside the United States and such costs may not be recognized as allowable recipient cost share. The Prime Recipient is responsible should any work under this Award be performed outside the United States, absent a waiver, regardless of if the work is performed by the Prime Recipient, Subrecipients, contractors or other project partners. All work required to perform the project scope should be included within the project budget and statement of project objectives.

Question 15: One concept paper per idea? One for predictive cruise and another for waste heat recovery?
Answer 15: There is not a limit on technologies in each concept paper. Concept papers should address all technologies and technical approaches planned for the application.

Question 16: If a concept requires multiple technologies to reach the objective, is a concept paper needed for each technology?
Answer 16: There is not a limit on technologies in each concept paper. Concept papers should address all technologies and technical approaches planned for the application.

Question 17: Will these slides be made available to webinar viewers after the webinar ends?
Answer 17: The webinar presentation is not provided to attendees nor posted to eXCHANGE following the webinar.

Question 18: Where can we find the waiver form for non-US labor participation, and will utilizing a portion of non-US labor be part of the criteria when selecting applicants?
Answer 18: Appendix D lists the necessary information that must be included in a request to waive the Performance of Work in the United States requirement.

Question 19: What is the engine BTE requirement and testing method for non line haul applications (vocational)?
Answer 19: The objectives of this FOA must be met by Class 8 line haul. The FOA does not identify requirements for non long-haul applications.

Question 20: In the concept paper, is the lead organization just referring to the company that may be receiving the funds?
Answer 20: The lead organization is the prime recipient of the financial assistance award. Per the definitions section in the FOA, “Prime Recipient” means the organization, individual, or other entity that receives a Financial Assistance Award from EERE (i.e., is the signatory on the award), is financially accountable for the use of any EERE funds or property provided for the performance of the Project, and is legally responsible for carrying out the terms and condition of the award.

Question 21: Will the responses to reviewers be reviewed by these reviewers again? Or only the program managers will evaluate the responses?
Answer 21: The responses to reviewer comments will be reviewed and considered prior to final recommendations being made to the Selection Official.

Question 22: What is the maximum number of pages for the full application?
Answer 22: Per the FOA, the Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 30 pages, including the cover page, table of contents, and all citations, charts, graphs, maps, photos, or other graphics, and must include all of the information in the table on pages 22-25 of the FOA. The page limitation does not include the Statement of Project Objectives, which is a separate document and not included as part of the technical volume.

Question 23: The FOA does not state the combined Super Truck II vehicle test weight. Can the teams define a vehicle load profile as part of their customer duty cycles to best reflect the targeted application?
Answer 23: The test weight for the freight efficiency calculations should be 65,000 lbs.

Question 24: Section B, Topic Area/Technical Area of Interest (page 7) of the FOA states, “The application focus for SuperTruck II is Class 8 long-haul trucks … to the greatest extent possible, technologies selected to meet the SuperTruck II freight efficiency improvement goal for heavy‐duty Class 8 long‐haul trucks should be applicable to Class 8 regional‐haul trucks as well.” QUESTION: Does this require that the project’s sole focus be on a long-haul truck and drive cycle, and that all regional-haul technologies be demonstrated on the long-haul cycle? Or: Can some technologies be demonstrated on a regional haul truck and drive cycle vs. a relevant MY2009 baseline
Answer 24: The objective of this FOA is to research, develop, and demonstrate a Class 8 long-haul truck that can meet prevailing federal emission standards and applicable safety and regulatory requirements as well as the stated performance goals. Applications should be responsive to the requirements set forth in the FOA. The project goals must be achieved with a class 8 long haul truck.

Question 25: Will a regional-haul truck focused project that meets the 100% improved freight efficiency goal and 55% engine efficiency goal be a fully-compliant and acceptable concept?
Answer 25: The objective of this FOA is to research, develop, and demonstrate a Class 8 long-haul truck that can meet prevailing federal emission standards and applicable safety and regulatory requirements as well as the stated performance goals. Applications should be responsive to the requirements set forth in the FOA. The project goals must be achieved with a class 8 long haul truck.

Question 26: Assuming the long-haul truck freight efficiency and engine efficiency goals are met, would a regional-haul specific concept with specific regional-haul truck developed technologies and demonstration be a fully-compliant and acceptable solution?
Answer 26: The objective of this FOA is to research, develop, and demonstrate a Class 8 long-haul truck that can meet prevailing federal emission standards and applicable safety and regulatory requirements as well as the stated performance goals. Applications should be responsive to the requirements set forth in the FOA. The project goals must be achieved with a class 8 long haul truck.

Question 27: Are chassis dynamometer tests an acceptable demonstration method of the freight efficiency improvement, for both the EPA and customer-tailored drive cycles?
Answer 27: No. Drive cycles to validate freight efficiency must be performed on-road.

Question 28: Is a custom-tailored, real-world, on-road test an acceptable demonstration method of the performance and freight efficiency improvement?
Answer 28: Per the FOA, Demonstration of the overall freight efficiency improvement goal must be performed using several drive cycles and must include a customer-tailored drive cycle that meets the needs of the particular customer application, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG)/fuel efficiency regulatory cycles for the appropriate vocation (Class 8 long-haul or regional-haul).

Question 29: The FOA states (page 6) ” Validation of the 55% engine efficiency goal shall be conducted with the engine system on a dynamometer...”. Please confirm that engine dynamometer testing (i.e., not full chassis dynamometer) can be used for this testing.
Answer 29: Per the FOA, validation of the 55% engine efficiency goal shall be conducted with the engine system on a dynamometer while also demonstrating compliance with existing emissions requirements.

Question 30: Regarding the future commercialization of ST II-developed cost-effective technologies. Does DOE have a maximum/latest year requirement (e.g., 2025) for when cost-competitive technologies must be commercialized by?
Answer 30: No, the FOA does not include a required technology commercialization year.

Question 31: Please provide an outline for the request letter to submit on the 30 of march.
Answer 31:

Regarding submission of the Concept Paper, in the FOA see:

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

Subsection C. Content and Form of the Concept Paper.

Question 32: If resources outside the US are utilized, can those costs be considered in the project total, even though the cost would not be eligible for rembursement?
Answer 32: Per the FOA, all work performed under EERE Awards must be performed in the United States (100% of all direct labor, including contract/subrecipient labor). This requirement does not apply to the purchase of supplies and equipment; however, the Prime Recipient should make every effort to purchase supplies and equipment within the United States. The Prime Recipient must flow down this requirement to its Subrecipients. If the Prime Recipient fails to comply with the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, EERE may deny reimbursement for the work conducted outside the United States and such costs may not be recognized as allowable recipient cost share. The Prime Recipient is responsible should any work under this Award be performed outside the United States, absent a waiver, regardless of if the work is performed by the Prime Recipient, Subrecipients, contractors or other project partners. All work required to perform the project scope should be included within the project budget and statement of project objectives.

Question 33: Would DOE consider a proposal with a period of performance range of 36-48 months that met all other technical criteria? Would a faster period of performance be considered advantageous when evaluating the proposal provided all other criteria are met?
Answer 33: EERE anticipates making awards that will run 48-60 months in length. Project objectives can be met in less time. There is no advantage with regards to application evaluations for a shorter project period.

Question 34: For the purpose of broad comparability of analyses, results, and payback period assessments, will DOE be specifying a common Fuel Price ($/gal), and Annual VMT (vehicle miles travelled) for applicants to use in their proposals and program reporting ?
Answer 34: Payback period should be calculated using the applicants current modelling and analysis methods for determining viability of commercialization. The best available information and projections should be use to determine price of fuel, annual VMT etc. Assumptions for all calculations should be provided.

Question 35: Because it is a part of an end-user’s variable operating cost, much like Fuel, and plays a role in their actual Payback Period, and will vary in response to important design and calibration choices, would the DOE expect applicants to include diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) consumption in the payback assessment of a given proposed solution, and if so, will DOE be specifying a common DEF Price ?
Answer 35: Payback period should be calculated using the applicants current modelling and analysis methods for determining viability of commercialization. Assumptions for all calculations used should be provided.

Question 36: Since the Phase 2 GHG Cycles are not yet finalized, but are still evolving, expected freight efficiency performance versus these cycles is a bit of a moving, indeterminate target. Are applicants expected to propose and deliver results primarily versus their well defined “customer-tailored drive cycle”, and simply report results, as they occur on the Phase 2 GHG cycles, without being bound to the same improvement target, or are the proposed targets to be achieved for both sets of drive cycles, even though Phase 2 GHG cycles are not yet finalized?
Answer 36: Applicants should demonstrate achievement of project goals using their well defined "customer-tailored drive cycle" primarily. It is expected that Phase 2 GHG cycles would show similar improvements but because the Phase 2 GHG cycles have not been finalized some flexibility could be allowed depending on the reason for the disparity.

Question 37: Are we correct in presuming that the Phase 2 greenhouse gas cycle results are to focus on Freight Efficiency improvements (ton-mile/gal of fuel) rather than specific improvements in actual total GHG emissions (CO2e, meaning CO2, CH4, and N2O based)?
Answer 37: Yes. The FOA requires demonstration of greater than 100% improvement in vehicle freight efficiency on a ton-mile-per-gallon basis.

Question 38: Would applicants be allowed (or perhaps encouraged) to utilize their own proprietary high fidelity driver and feature models (vs. GEM defaults) to be able to integrate and demonstrate, via simulation, the value of advanced, novel features?
Answer 38: Validated simulation models may be used to supplement demonstration of the overall freight efficiency improvement goal as stated in the FOA.

Question 39: The FOA says “improvement must be achieved while meeting prevailing Federal emission standards”. Can you confirm that this refers to prevailing “Federal criteria emission standards”, meaning NOx at 0.20 g/bhp-hr, and other current EPA 2010 criteria emissions (PM, CO)?
Answer 39: Applications should be responsive to the requirements set forth in the FOA which in this case is refering to the Federal criteria emission standards.

Question 40: Is automated platooning encouraged or allowed as a technology to be included in the demonstrated improvement, or is it excluded from the list of technologies, since it can be considered as a standalone technology that is evolving independently and doesn’t directly contribute to a vehicle’s intrinsic fuel or freight efficiency attributes?
Answer 40: Platooning can be investigated and be a part of the SuperTruck II program but the results can not be applied to meet the freight efficiency goals.

Question 41: Building further on the stated intent that comparable performance is “needed to ensure that these more efficient trucks will appeal to future truck purchasers”, would DOE consider a requirement to deliver the same, or improved route time in all demonstration results to ensure that not only was comparable performance made available, but that it was effectively utilized in demonstration testing?
Answer 41: The customer drive cycle should reflect the performance requirement that customers would expect. Additionally, the intent of using the standardized EPA Phase 2 GHG cycle is to provide an additional check on reported results thus elimintaing the need for additional testing specifications.

Question 42: I've been trying to get the outline for submitting the letter of intent.
Answer 42:

Letters of intent are not required under DE-FOA-0001447. Concept papers are required, and the guidelines for this document is provided in Section IV.C. in the FOA.

Question 43: In the FOA, Section I.B. Topic Area / Technical Area of Interest, page 7, paragraph 2, it says "Demonstration of the overall freight efficiency improvement goal must be performed using several drive cycles and must include a customer?tailored drive cycle that meets the needs of the particular customer application, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG)/fuel efficiency regulatory cycles for the appropriate vocation (Class 8 long?haul or regional haul)." Yet, in Q&A #3, when asked "Is the performance on the GHG cycle intended to be the same level of improvement as the freight ton mile per gallon ?", it was stated "No. The standard results of the GHG cycle should be reported." However, Q&A #28 asks a similar question, and the answer quotes the FOA and seems to be a different answer. Re-stating the question another way, and being more direct … If an applicant proposes a project with a goal of 1xx% improvement in freight efficiency, must the 1xx% improvement be achieved and demonstrated on all drive cycles, including the Phase 2 EPA GHG / NHTSA Fuel Eff cycles, or is it acceptable to demonstrate the 1xx% improvement target achievement on the customer-tailored drive cycle and report results, at whatever performance level they occur, on the Phase 2 cycles?
Answer 43: Applicants should demonstrate achievement of project goals using their well-defined "customer-tailored drive cycle". It is expected that Phase 2 GHG cycles would show similar improvements. However, acknowledging that there are differences between the two approaches, applicants would be allowed to address the disparity in the results depending upon the reason.

Question 44: Would applicants be allowed to benchmark a more relevant current product (MY2015 or later) versus their 2009 Baseline, against all of the defined Customer and Phase 2 GHG Cycles, and then using sound engineering and mathematical procedures to relate back to MY2009, use the more relevant current product as the basis of all future demonstrations of the proposed technology?
Answer 44: If an intermediate benchmark is used, there must be strong correlation to the 2009 baseline and approval must be granted by DOE prior to proceeding. All reported improvements must be reported in comparison to a 2009 baseline vehicle regardless of which vehicle was actually used as a baseline during any part of the tests and demonstration.

Question 45: If an WHR system with electrical output is used, how would the BTE be measured in the test cell? Is it acceptable to measure electrical output of the WHR and consider that it would be used by the vehicle? Or, does the electrical power output have to be used during the demonstration point in the test cell?
Answer 45: 55% BTE must be domonstrated in a test cell simulating a 65 mph cruise point. Commonly used engineering practices shall be used to determine the BTE value.

Question 46: If an engine has two power output shafts, can the power from each shaft be measured separately and added to calculate the total BTE?
Answer 46: 55% BTE must be domonstrated in a test cell simulating a 65 mph cruise point. Commonly used engineering practices shall be used to determine the BTE value.

Question 47: What is the reasoning and supporting data that determined the 65,000 lb. GCW (Gross Combination Weight) parameter?
Answer 47: 65,000 lbs. was the test weight selected for the SuperTruck I program. To be consistent, 65,000 lbs. will be the test weight for the SuperTruck II program.

Question 48: On page 7 the solicitation states: “The application focus for SuperTruck II is Class 8 long-haul trucks using conventional fuels (diesel or gasoline).” Does the solicitation limit proposed engine efficiency improvement strategies to a single fuel (e.g. diesel or gasoline) or does it permit dual fuel approaches (e.g. RCCI with diesel and gasoline)?
Answer 48: The use of both gasoline and diesel is acceptable.

Frequently Asked Questions