[LDES-coremodel] FW: Final Report technical reviewer requested edits

[Sarah Kurtz]

Paty (and all),
The reviewer of the final report requested a rewrite of the Executive summary of the final report.
I was thinking that the guidance was 1,000 to 2,000 words for the Executive summary, but then saw that it said 1,000-1,200 words.  So, then I went back and cut a bunch of it, but it’s still over 1400 words. I’m going to ask him if that’s ok.
Are you ok with it? I wasn’t sure how to turn your part of the study into specific recommendations.
The time line on this is fairly tight, but we can take a week or so – I think he wants it finished on his end before March 31, so we should get it to him before then.
Students, can you please help by checking to see if any of the papers you published recently should be updated with a new foot note?  Thanks!
Please use track changes
Sarah

From: Sunquist, Jeffrey at Energy <jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov>
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 11:28 AM
To: Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu>
Subject: RE: Final Report technical reviewer requested edits
Hi Sarah,

I extracted and attached the page about the executive summary from the final report template.

The suggested length is 1,000-2,000 words.
I think the main issues with the executive summary were not meeting these two requirements:

Please write the Executive Summary for a general audience and in a manner that is accessible to those without technical backgrounds. Readers may include policymakers, community representatives, reporters, as well as potential investors and technology adopters.

Do not use abbreviations, acronyms, figures, tables, or graphs in the abstract or executive summary.

The reviewer’s comments were focused on the Executive Summary and no further changes to the body are requested by the reviewer. However, I suggest minimally updating the body to reflect changes made in the executive summary.

Background and Purpose/Approach sections -> Introduction and Project Approach chapters

Key Results section -> Results chapters.


Jeffrey Sunquist
Mechanical Engineer
jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov<mailto:jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov>
California Energy Commission

From: Sarah Kurtz <skurtz at ucmerced.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:49 PM
To: Sunquist, Jeffrey at Energy <jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Final Report technical reviewer requested edits

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you, Jeff!

It’s clear that I targeted the Executive summary and the rest of the report to the wrong audience.  I was targeting it more for Mike Gravely.
It appears that they want the following sections rewritten:
• Executive Summary
• Background and Purpose/Approach
• Key Results
• Knowledge Transfer

My main question for you: Do you understand that the reviewer had NO comments about the body of the report? The above list appears to be the Executive summary, so I’m thinking that the “ask” is for us to remove the current Executive Summary and replace it with an Executive Summary that is targeted to legislators. Do you have clear guidance on the length? I’m thinking that for that audience, 2-3 pages total is the max, so about a page for the background and purpose/approach. Then, the reviewer asked for 2-3 paragraphs for the key results. and then a part of a page on the knowledge transfer.

If that aligns with your understanding of what is being asked, then I will take a stab at it this weekend and I don’t think we need to schedule a meeting.

For the vehicle to grid discussion. Again, I suggest that I take a stab at the vehicle-to-grid response and you can comment.  Does thet work for you?

Thank you for your help with getting this targeted correctly.

Sarah

On Mar 12, 2024, at 4:15 PM, Sunquist, Jeffrey at Energy <jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov<mailto:jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov>> wrote:

Hi Sarah,

The final report has gone through technical review. We fell short on some of the high expectations for the executive summary.

This is the feedback from the reviewer:

The Ex Summary is a high view of the project, providing clear and condensed narrative aimed for the general reader. The Ex Summary is a stand alone document that might be sent to legislators to understand the research for electricity storage. This was a technically dense, detailed report and most of this technical detail made up the Ex Summary and frankly did not clearly explain what the researchers did and why. My first suggestion is to remove all the figures, they are for the technical audience not the general reader. This report most likely had multiple authors and there was a fair amount of cut and paste from, I would assume, a technical paper. It's fine to cut and past however please make certain the narrative flows and follows the styles.

The report lacks an adequate Background and Purpose/Approach sections. These sections must provide the general reader in clear non-technical terms the project why, what and how. It really doesn't set the stage for the reader to understand why storage with longer duration is necessary to the California industry and electricity users

I found the Key Results more of background information and challenging for the general reader to understand. What was surprising to me was the use of EVs in the testing however no mention of using their batteries in the approach or background as potential storage. This section must also be rewritten into 2-3 clear, condensed paragraphs with the general reader as the audience.

Again the Knowledge Transfer section provides no overview of the presentations or outreach that was done for the industry. This section should contain brief examples of the outreach done. as well as briefly mention there was a TAC.

There is a comment about EVs that I highlighted. A study of vehicle-to-grid would be out of scope and I do not think the reviewer knew that. Since this question may be asked again (as CA is aggressively pushing for EVs), we may need to address it anyway. My suggestions is to very briefly describe why it was not part of the study for technical reasons, such as the fact that EV batteries typically provide vehicle-to-grid in short durations, thus if their impact if meaningful at all at the bulk grid scale, they would have an influence on short duration storage. Check with your team on what explanation makes the most sense.

Let me know if you would like to discuss any of the comments in a call.

Thanks,
Jeff


Jeffrey Sunquist
Mechanical Engineer
jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov<mailto:jeffrey.sunquist at energy.ca.gov>
California Energy Commission

<EPC-19-060FINAL.SG.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20240317/c9bfa75d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 107113395[107122773].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 276697 bytes
Desc: 107113395[107122773].pdf
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20240317/c9bfa75d/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EPC-19-060 Final Report Draft Task  1.6 Mar 16v2reduced.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 6645202 bytes
Desc: EPC-19-060 Final Report Draft Task  1.6 Mar 16v2reduced.docx
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20240317/c9bfa75d/attachment-0001.docx>