Review the four criteria that peer reviewers and the evaluation panel will use to score valid applications.
#1 IMPACTFUL (0-5)
Does the proposal present evidence that the solution will decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the building, industry, or transportation sectors in the U.S.? Is the solution sufficiently ambitious to achieve the proposed results, and does it outline a plan to measure and demonstrate results?
Adequate evidence that demonstrates reduction of emissions in one or more key sectors. Limited breadth or depth. Acceptable measuring plan.
#2 FEASIBLE (0-5)
Does the team have the skills, capacity, relationships, and experience to implement the proposed solution or a plan to build the requisite capacity or acquire strategic partners? Do the budget and project plan align with a realistic understanding of the costs and tasks of implementation?
Competent team of experts; enlists some partners; and presents a realistic budget and project plan.
#3 SCALABILITY (0-5)
Can the solution be adapted to other contexts and still retain its effectiveness? Is the proposal replicable and/or well-positioned to become a model for other contexts? Is the organization prepared to scale the solution?
Solution is likely to be adapted to other contexts; is replicable but may not be well-positioned to become a model solution. Organization is likely ready to scale without substantive changes.
#4 DURABLE (0-5)
Will the proposed solution create a lasting reduction in emissions in one or more of the key sectors that extends beyond the five-year grant timeline? Does the proposal outline a mitigation plan for risks associated with changes in key personnel and political, market, or social environments?
Promising approach to sustainably reduce emissions in one or more key sectors with an adequate risk mitigation plan.