unacceptable. The response addresses the criteria. There are one or more omissions, flaws, or defects or the 40-60% Inadequate criteria are addressed in a limited way that results in a low degree of confidence in the proposed solution. The response adequately addresses the criteria. 70% Adequate Any omissions, flaws, or defects are inconsequential and acceptable. The response fully addresses the criteria with a good degree of confidence in the response or Applicant’s proposed solution. 80% Good There are no identified omissions, flaws, or defects. Any identified weaknesses are minimal, inconsequential, and acceptable. The response fully addresses the criteria with a high degree of confidence in the response or Applicant’s 90% Excellent proposed solution. The Applicant offers one or more enhancing features, methods, or approaches that exceed basic expectations. All criteria are addressed with the highest degree of confidence in the response or proposed Applicant’s solution. 100% Exceptional The response exceeds the requirements in providing multiple enhancing features, a creative approach, or an exceptional solution. Scoring CRITERIA The Project Narrative (Attachment 4) must respond to each criterion below, unless otherwise indicated. Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Technical Merit and Need Provides a clear and concise description of the project goals and objectives for advancing development and commercialization support of promising new energy innovations. Explains how the proposed project will support development and commercialization of technological advancements and breakthroughs that overcome barriers to achieving the energy goals. 20 state’s statutory Summarizes the current status of the development and commercialization support available to innovators, and explains how the proposed project will advance, supplement, and/or replace current support systems. Justifies the need for EPIC funding, including an explanation of why the proposed work is not adequately supported by competitive or regulated markets.
unacceptable. 40-60% Inadequate The response addresses the criteria. There are one or more omissions, flaws, or defects or the criteria are addressed in a limited way that results in a low degree of confidence in the proposed solution. 70% Adequate The response adequately addresses the criteria. Any omissions, flaws, or defects are inconsequential and acceptable. 80% Good The response fully addresses the criteria with a good degree of confidence in the Applicant’s response or proposed solution. There are no identified omissions, flaws, or defects. Any identified weaknesses are minimal, inconsequential, and acceptable. 90% Excellent The response fully addresses the criteria with a high degree of confidence in the Applicant’s response or proposed solution. The Applicant offers one or more enhancing features, methods, or approaches that exceed basic expectations. 100% Exceptional All criteria are addressed with the highest degree of confidence in the Applicant’s response or proposed solution. The response exceeds the requirements in providing multiple enhancing features, a creative approach, or an exceptional solution. Scoring CRITERIA The Project Narrative (Attachment 4) must respond to each criterion below, unless otherwise indicated. Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Technical Merit and Need Provides a clear and concise description of the project goals and objectives for advancing development and commercialization support of promising new energy innovations. Explains how the proposed project will support development and commercialization of technological advancements and breakthroughs that overcome barriers to achieving the state’s statutory energy goals. Summarizes the current status of the development and commercialization support available to innovators, and explains how the proposed project will advance, supplement, and/or replace current support systems. Justifies the need for EPIC funding, including an explanation of why the proposed work is not adequately supported by competitive or regulated markets. 20