2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Larry Russo November 14, 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
. . . a step-by-step guide to world-class internal auditing
Advertisements

AIAA Task Force on Earth Observations 2 October 2009 AIAA HQ Reston VA.
TAC Position Paper Process Mark Melanson 5 August 2009 Tom Duerr Karen Harwell Mark Melanson Jim Neidhoefer.
California Integrated Waste Management Board November 2009 Agenda Item 12 Discussion Of Waste Tire Market Development Program Evaluation.
Office of the Biomass Program Traci Leath U.S. Department of Energy Atlanta Regional Office Southern Bio-Products Conference Biloxi, MS March 4 th, 2004.
Towards More Effective Board Functioning Fall Lausanne Confidential to CEO-CF and CEO-CF members.
Introduction: Towards an Integrated Reporting System for Marine Protected Areas in the Baja to Bering Sea (B2B) Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Improving how your organisation supports the use of research evidence to inform policymaking.
The Right Issues Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement N/A 1. The Board focuses on activities that will help the Company maximize shareholder.
Contractor Assurance Discussion Forrestal Building Washington, D.C. December 14, 2011.
Syed Zaidi, P.Eng. PM (Stanford), PhD. Director, Strategic Partnerships Alberta Infrastructure. Government of Alberta Canada Richard. B. (Dick) Innes,
CADTH Therapeutic Reviews
IT Strategic Planning Project – Hamilton Campus FY2005.
1 Evaluation Results Independent Review of the USPTO Activity Based Information Program and Methodology Presented to TPAC - August 28, 2009.
Presentation By: Chris Wade, P Eng. Finally … a best practice for selecting an engineering firm.
EEN [Canada] Forum Shelley Borys Director, Evaluation September 30, 2010 Developing Evaluation Capacity.
Re-engineering: Partnerships for Industry, Education and Workforce Indiana Energy Consortium.
Ensuring an Equitable Review AmeriCorps External Review Training.
Budgeting by Priorities Results Team Kickoff January 3, 2014.
© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. © 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied,
Chapter 13: Developing and Implementing Effective Accounting Information Systems
Prepared by Opinion Dynamics Corporation May 2004.
C Coaching for Performance E.S. Tunis and Associates Inc. Welcome to ESTA’s learning design workshop. The ideas developed in this workshop will set the.
How to do Successful Project Management in a Competitive Industry
DNS Symposium June 12-13, 2015 Cindy Hamilton, MS, RD DNS HOD Delegate House of Delegates Report.
BPK Strategic Planning: Briefing for Denpasar Regional Office Leadership Team Craig Anderson Ahmed Fajarprana August 11-12, 2005.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Richard Huffine September 15, 2009 Council for Data Integration Planning Team Summary.
A New Biorefinery Platform Intermediate Principal Investigator: Doug Cameron Project Managers: Jim Millis, Paris Tsobanakis 2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review.
JANUARY 24, 2013 LAUREN GAGE, BPA NICK O’NEIL, RTF ERIKA KOCIOLEK, ETO RTF PAC: Qualitative Survey Options 1.
GOVERNOR’S EARLY CHILDHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL (ECAC) September 9, 2014.
Strengthening Science Supporting Fishery Management  Standards for Best Available Science  Implementation of OMB’s Peer Review Bulletin  Separation.
Project Outline City of Mountain View – need image !
California Energy Commission Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) Part I Jeffrey D. Byron California Energy Commission Energy Action Plan (EAP)
VT School Improvement Coaches Meeting: Instructional Shifts in the Common Core and Standard 5: Building Capacity February 16, :00 pm – 4:30 pm Please.
Date: Sept. 7, 2011 Time: 9am PDT Call in number: Participant code: # 1.
The Role of Peer Review in a Multilateral Framework on Competition Policy Andrea Bruce Investment Trade Policy UNCTAD Regional Seminar for Latin America.
2006 ANNUAL MEETING Arlington, Virginia INDUSTRY / UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTERS PROGRAM Pre-Session: ROLE OF EVALUATOR 8:00 - 9:00 am Thursday,
Chapter 3 Strategic Information Systems Planning.
Next Generation Trnsport Current Development Update Presented by Ian Baldwin, Info Tech, Inc. October 2006.
PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (PPP) FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES Syed M. Ali Zaidi, P.Eng. PM(Stanford), Ph.D. Director, Strategic Partnerships Alberta Infrastructure.
1 Universities Space Research Association Introduction, Charter and Feedback Eric Becklin SSSC 18 Feb 2010.
2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review Feedstock Platform Analysis Shahab Sokhansanj, Bob Perlack, Anthony Turhollow November 14, 2005.
Melon Yeshoalul From bigger to smaller. A little about me.
Implementing Strategy Chapter 7. Objectives Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:  Translate strategic thought to organisational action.
2005 OBP Biennial Peer Review Selective Harvest Kevin L. Kenney, Christopher T. Wright Biomass Feedstock Interface Platform November 14, 2005.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Ensuring Educator Excellence 1 Program Assessment Technical Assistance Meetings December 2009.
TEN-T Executive Agency and Project Management Anna LIVIERATOU-TOLL TEN-T Executive Agency Senior Programme and Policy Coordinator European Economic and.
Analysis in the Hydrogen Program DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Review May 9-11, 2000 Livermore, CA Margaret K. Mann National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
TCRF Strategic Planning Process A Stakeholders’ Consultative Retreat- Morogoro 26 th -27 April 2013.
Management February 20, Annual Review of the Muon Accelerator Program (MAP) Subcommittee members: Ron Prwivo, Ron Lutha, and Jim Kerby.
Housing Resource Specialist Presented by Chicago Continuum of Care and Center for Excellence in Service Organizations (CESO)
2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review Summary of Feed Processing & Handling Effort John Jechura, NREL Thermochemical Platform November 14, 2005.
Preparation Plan. Objectives Describe the role and importance of a preparation plan. Describe the key contents of a preparation plan. Identify and discuss.
2005 OBP Biennial Peer Review Platform Analysis Overview Bob Wallace, NREL Integrated Biorefinery Project Date: November 16, 2005.
1 Lecture 2.4a: SEF SE Planning and the SEP (SEF Ch 16) Dr. John MacCarthy UMBC CMSC 615 Fall, 2006.
Objectives Definition Instructions Mark Melanson 8 January 2012.
Association of Enterprise Architects International Committee on Enterprise Architecture Standards Jan 23, Collaborative Expedition Workshop #57aeajournal.org.
Session 2: Developing a Comprehensive M&E Work Plan.
Transmission Advisory Group NCTPC Process Update Rich Wodyka September 7, 2006.
BioEnergy Sustaining The Future 2 BESTF2 Briefing Event 11 th December 2013 Dr Megan Cooper, BESTF co-ordinator.
Formation of a Market Analysis Subcommittee Charlie Grist and Jennifer Light RTF Policy Advisory Committee February 19, 2016.
AUDIT STAFF TRAINING WORKSHOP 13 TH – 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014, HILTON HOTEL NAIROBI AUDIT PLANNING 1.
Dave Wallace ANDREA CHAPPELL IST September 13, 2012
GUIDELINES Evaluation of National Rural Networks
Research Program Strategic Plan
The London Group Where do we go from here? Joe St. Lawrence
Building Coordinators
Evaluation in the GEF and Training Module on Terminal Evaluations
Title Plans and Assurances Spoke Committee Presentation
IEEE Architecture Council Overview
Presentation transcript:

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Larry Russo November 14, 2005

EERE Program Peer Review Criteria “In-Progress” Review (minimum every 2 years) Project Level: Are Projects being done right? Program Level: Are the right projects being done? Rigorous, Formal and Documented Objective Criteria Qualified and Independent Reviewers (COI disclosure) Reviewer Judgments Relate to Criteria and Associated Questions Program Manager Review and Response Peer Review Report is a Public Document

Why Are We Here ? Why a Peer Review Biennial program reviews are an EERE requirement More Importantly, provides input necessary to keep the program on point and focused Transparent, non-biased evaluation of technical, scientific, and business aspects of the program projects, project results, and program management Opportunity for an outside perspective Results of the review will be used by the program to guide future activities Objectives: Evaluate the Programs’ approach Is there continuity?, Is it functional? Are we working on the right things? Does our structure lead to accomplishing the Program’s, EERE’s and DOE’s goals and objectives? Is our Portfolio balanced? The right mix of core R&D and pre-commercialization efforts Have we identified the right technological barriers and are they being addressed?

Review Scope and Process REVIEW SCOPE 85% of Program spending is required to be reviewed FY 2005 R&D Portfolio worth approximately $80.2 million, including congressionally directed funds All competitively awarded, congressionally directed, and program management projects, active in FY 2005, will be reviewed Each program platform has performed interim project reviews, the results of which will be summarized in each platform session, along with a summary of analysis efforts associated with that platform Some projects will be reviewed via poster sessions The reviewer comments will all be included – consensus opinions and comments are NOT encouraged REVIEWER SELECTION A Steering Committee was selected by the program staff to lead the review effort according to EERE guidelines The Steering Committee has knowledge of the Program BUT have no active projects or affiliations with the Program or projects being reviewed Steering Committee identified non-biased technical reviewers for each portion of the program according to EERE guidelines ALL REVIEWERS HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

OBP Recent Review History Sub- Program or Project Specific Reviews

OBP Goal Hierarchy

OBP Peer Review Structure Feedstock Interface Reviewers Biochemical Conversion Reviewers Thermochemical Conversion Reviewers Products Platform Reviewers Integrated Biorefinery Reviewers Steering Committee Reviewers Select Technical Reviewers Review Entire Program Ensure Program Integration and Connectivity

Role of Reviewers and Audience Steering Committee Independently select technical review teams Review program structure, mgt & portfolio decision making processes, portfolio balance, connectivity to outputs A 30,000 foot view of the portfolio Technical Reviewers Identify technical gaps Evaluate projects for technical soundness and strategic fit Evaluate whether the Technology Elements aligned to the pathways Audience Members Identify potential new areas of interest to the Biomass Program Provide feedback on both the portfolio and program level.

Steering Committee Carol Babb - Amgen Bill Cruickshank - Natural Resources Canada Joe Fagan - Strategic Funding Resources Herb Kosstrin - R.W. Beck

Technical Reviewers Feedstocks David Bransby, Auburn University Mark Stumborg, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada Blair Wright, Transfeeder, Inc. Biochemical Bob Benson, Private Consultant Don Johnson, Grain Processing Corporation (Retired) John Cundiff, VT – Biological Systems Engineering Thermochemical Doug Albertson, Energy Products of Idaho (Retired) Andrew Himmelblau (Geo-Centers) Products Fred Barlow, Eastman Chemical (Retired) Angelo Montanga, Consultant Ron Rosseau, Georgia Tech Integrated Biorefinery Jacqueline Broder, TVA Dave Kelsall, Ethanol Technology Frank Aerstin, Midland Engineering Jim Stewart, Stewart Consulting

Agenda Day 1 Biomass Program Overview8:30 AM2:30 PM Biomass Feedstock Interface2:30 PM4:05 PM Thermochemical Conversion Platform4:05 PM6:00 PM Day 2 Biochemical Conversion Platform8:30 AM11:00 AM Poster Sessions11:00 AM2:00 PM Products Platform2:00 PM4:30 PM Day 3 Integrated Biorefinery8:30 AM5:00 PM Closing5:00 PM5:30 PM