Marine and Hydrokinetic Device Field Measurements | Apply Online

FAQs: DOE RFI - Marine and Hydrokinetic Device Field Measurements (DE-FOA-0001118)

1) What is DE-FOA-0001118?

DE-FOA-0001118 is a Department of Energy (DOE) Request for Information (RFI) titled "Marine and Hydrokinetic Device Field Measurements." It was issued through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under DOE's Water Power program interests.

2) Is this a grant or funding opportunity?

No. This notice was not a traditional grant solicitation and did not offer funding or accept project applications. It was an RFI intended to gather stakeholder input.

3) What was DOE trying to accomplish with this RFI?

DOE used the RFI to collect detailed input to shape future strategy and to decide whether to release a formal Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) later. The emphasis was on understanding what field measurement data could realistically be collected in the near term and what barriers or constraints exist.

4) What technologies does the RFI focus on?

The RFI focuses on large-scale marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) devices, specifically wave energy converters (WECs) and current energy converters (CECs).

5) Was DOE interested in single prototypes or larger deployments?

DOE emphasized interest in larger deployments, described as arrays or projects involving 15 devices or more, rather than single prototypes.

6) What kind of data was DOE interested in collecting?

The RFI centered on a potential DOE-led effort to gather real-world field measurement data collected on and around operating MHK devices. It also asked about which measurements are missing today, which sensors and metocean observations are most valuable, and what operational constraints could affect data collection.

7) Why did DOE emphasize field measurement data?

DOE highlighted the goal of improving the reliability and credibility of MHK design and performance prediction. The idea is that high-quality, real-world measurement data can reduce uncertainty in modeling, help compare technologies consistently, accelerate engineering learning cycles, and improve confidence among investors and regulators.

8) Did DOE mention numerical design tools or open-source tools?

Yes. DOE specifically asked for perspectives on the benefits of having verified and validated open-source numerical design tools, along with publicly accessible field-measurement datasets that can be used to validate those tools.

9) What is the connection between open datasets and design tool validation in this RFI?

The RFI suggests that publicly accessible field-measurement datasets could be used to verify and validate numerical design tools. DOE was signaling that stronger measurement-and-validation foundations could help designs improve more efficiently and reduce risk as projects scale.

10) Was DOE evaluating whether sites and devices already exist for a measurement campaign?

Yes. A major practical focus was whether suitable devices and pre-permitted sites already exist (or could be made available) to support a field measurement campaign, especially for larger multi-device deployments.

11) What did DOE want to learn about permitting and environmental hurdles?

DOE was trying to understand where devices could be deployed and what environmental and permitting hurdles have already been addressed, to gauge what is realistically deployable in the near term.

12) How was the RFI organized?

DOE requested responses in three categories: (1) data and design-tool gaps and deployment plans; (2) intellectual property (IP) considerations for wave energy converters (WECs); and (3) IP considerations for current energy converters (CECs).

13) What topics were included in Category (1)?

Category (1) covered data and design-tool gaps and deployment plans, including: what measurements are missing today, what modeling capabilities need improvement, what kinds of sensors and metocean observations are most valuable, and what deployment timelines or operational constraints exist for larger-scale arrays.

14) What topics were included in Categories (2) and (3)?

Categories (2) and (3) addressed intellectual property (IP) considerations, separated by device type: Category (2) for WEC IP issues and Category (3) for CEC IP issues.

15) Did DOE expect respondents to answer every category?

No. DOE encouraged respondents to complete Category (1) plus either Category (2) or Category (3), depending on whether their expertise or technology focus was wave or current systems.

16) Why did the RFI separate IP questions by device type?

The structure suggests DOE was balancing the need to expand public datasets and open tools with legitimate IP and competitive concerns, and that those concerns may differ between WEC and CEC technologies.

17) Who was eligible to respond to the RFI?

Eligibility was described as unrestricted, meaning any type of entity could provide input (subject to any clarifications in the full text).

18) What is the CFDA number associated with this opportunity?

The RFI was listed under CFDA number 81.087 (Renewable Energy Research and Development).

19) What activity category was this listed under?

The opportunity was listed under the energy activity category.

20) Were there award amounts, cost share, or a typical grant closing date?

No. Because this was an RFI (not a funding solicitation), there were no award amounts, no cost-sharing requirements, and no closing date in the standard grant sense.

21) What was the deadline for submitting responses?

Responses had to be emailed electronically by 5:00 PM EDT on June 19, 2014.

22) How were responses submitted?

Responses were submitted by email to 1118RFIMHK@go.doe.gov, and DOE stated that only electronic responses would be accepted.

23) What file format was required for submissions?

Submissions were required in Microsoft Word (.docx) format.

24) Were there formatting or length requirements?

Yes. Responses were limited to five pages and required 12-point font with one-inch margins.

25) When was the RFI posted and when was it archived?

The announcement was posted on May 15, 2014, and later archived on September 19, 2014.

26) Where were reference materials made available?

Reference materials were available through the EERE Exchange site.

27) What is the best way to interpret the purpose of this RFI?

It is best understood as DOE testing the readiness of the MHK sector for a large, data-driven field measurement initiative focused on multi-device deployments, and gathering practical input on sites, devices, measurement priorities, modeling gaps, and IP boundaries that affect what data could be shared publicly.

28) Could this RFI lead to a future competitive funding opportunity?

Yes. DOE indicated the information collected was intended to guide strategic planning and potentially shape the requirements and structure of a future competitive funding solicitation (a formal FOA).