Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI · 3378276

Cyber Labeling for Energy Industrial IoT

Erbes, Robert J. [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)] (ORCID:0000000238721466)·Rapela, Julia [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)]·Amoresano, Katherine [National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)]·Mitchell, Sheri [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)]·Smith, Sara [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)]·Pattanayak, Animesh [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States]·Johnson, Ian [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)]·Scott, Heather [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)]·Drake, Steven [National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)]·Lyttle, Brian [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)]·Smith, Jessica [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)]
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response (CESER), at the request of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies, Anne Neuberger, initiated research in 2023 to develop a cybersecurity labeling proof-of-concept for energy products to expand on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposed U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program. DOE mobilized researchers from six National Laboratories to develop and gather feedback on a proof-of concept label for solar inverters and smart meters, which serve as representative products for market-facing energy sector Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). This report details the research team’s process across two phases and the resulting findings, which include challenges facing cyber labeling programs and recommendations to implement an expanded IIoT cyber labeling program in the U.S.

Explore related subjects

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION42 - ENGINEERING42 ENGINEERING97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTINGCyber LabelingCyber Trust MarkCybersecurityIndustrial Control SystemsInternet of ThingsNIST StandardsSupply Chain Security

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Erbes, Robert J. [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)] (ORCID:0000000238721466), Rapela, Julia [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)], Amoresano, Katherine [National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)], Mitchell, Sheri [Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)], Smith, Sara [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)], Pattanayak, Animesh [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States], Johnson, Ian [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)], Scott, Heather [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)], Drake, Steven [National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)], Lyttle, Brian [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)], Smith, Jessica [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)]. 2026-06-11. Cyber Labeling for Energy Industrial IoT. https://doi.org/10.2172/3378276

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

Equipment Self-Assessment Guide Checklist

This Equipment Self-Assessment Checklist is designed for asset owners and operators (AOOs) responsible for the deployment, operation, maintenance, or cybersecurity oversight of grid systems and digital energy technologies. It provides a structured inspection checklist for evaluating the security, integrity, and operational trustworthiness of equipment across substations, generation sites, distributed energy resources (DERs), and control environments.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗
DOE OSTI2026

Pulsed Electric Field Processing of Apples

Pulsed electric field (PEF) processing is a nonthermal technology that has the potential to improve the efficiency of apple processing, particularly for firm cultivars that are growing in popularity. This study evaluated the effects of PEF pretreatment on the processability and product quality of Cosmic Crisp apples, a modern cultivar known for its firmness. Apples were treated with PEF and assessed for tissue softening, mechanical energy requirements, particle size reduction, browning tendencies, and juice yield. PEF treatment significantly softened the apple tissue, as demonstrated by reduced compression forces in Instron testing, and this softening translated to decreased grinding energy during applesauce production. There were no changes to the particle size distribution of the resulting applesauce. PEF treatment also altered browning behavior and produced higher juice yields following mechanical disruption, suggesting enhanced membrane permeability and mass transfer. Together, these results show that PEF pretreatment can reduce mechanical energy demands and increase extractability without reducing product quality in firm apple varieties. These outcomes highlight the potential of PEF to increase the value recovered from processing-grade apples and to support more efficient and sustainable apple processing operations.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cost of convenience in long-dwell public electric vehicle charging

This paper presents a comprehensive methodology for quantifying trade offs between the cost of charging at public Level-2 charging stations and the inconvenience of using those stations. The paper also includes a methodology for generating synthetic travel itineraries of tens of thousands of drivers and for sizing and placing charging infrastructure to support those itineraries. Inconvenience is quantified by a weighted sum of the time a driver spends traveling between their intended destination and the charging station; weights are derived from the activity interrupted by the driver’s need to move their car. We demonstrate a trade off between cost of charging and inconvenience by varying how far away from their destination drivers are willing to charge. Our results demonstrate the importance of access to stations and suggest that other methods for increasing access, such as increasing the spatial density of stations, could significantly impact charging cost and inconvenience. Moreover, average energy cost may be reduced by introducing managed charging, which also affects inconvenience. The framework presented here can be used to evaluate the overlapping effects of both access and charge management. Furthermore, the framework can be easily extended to include additional factors such as capital costs, enabling thorough evaluation and planning of regional Level-2 charging networks.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗