Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Infrastructure”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

EV Charging Infrastructure Energization An Overview of Approaches for Simplifying and Accelerating Timelines to Processing EV Charging Load Service Requests

The United States has seen significant growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, leading to increased demand for EV charging infrastructure. Over the past decade, EV charging infrastructure site developers, site hosts, and electric distribution utilities have navigated the process to integrate chargers onto the electric grid. Site developers and site hosts have raised the alarm that the integration process for high-powered EV charging projects does not meet the needs of the EV market for timeliness or cost. High-powered charging stations typically require a load service request or an agreement with the local utility to connect to the grid. The process of energizing a new high-powered charging site can be complex and time-consuming, often taking up to 2 years. This timeline is the result of current utility energization processes having been designed for construction projects that take longer to build (i.e., buildings). The specific challenges stem from various factors, including compartmentalization in application processes, the integration of EV charging process approvals with other distributed energy resources (DERs), and the need to ensure grid reliability. The energization process needs to evolve to meet the growing demand for high-powered EV charging. This white paper compiles information gathered through various conversations with key stakeholders, including utilities, utility regulators, EV charging operators, site developers, and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as well as through an extensive literature review. This document identifies the challenges and provides potential solutions to streamline the process of connecting EV charging infrastructure to the power grid in the United States, serving as a starting point for future conversations around these solutions. The solutions noted in this white paper require collaborative efforts among utilities, regulators, and EV charging infrastructure developers to streamline the grid connection process for EV charging infrastructure. They are broadly organized into four areas: 1. Increase data access and transparency: Develop automated load service request tools, integrate hosting capacity and load service request analyses, incorporate EV adoption forecasts, and provide transparency on the processing queue. 2. Improve energization processes and timing: Create fast-track options based on prescreening criteria, provide flexibility or phased approvals in the load service request/interconnection process, build internal knowledge within utilities about EV charging technologies, and provide standardized workforce training. 3. Promote economic efficiency: Right size distribution components to accurately reflect the load requirements of EV charging infrastructure, make proactive investments in grid infrastructure based on EV adoption forecasts and growth projections, and consider energy equity and environmental justice factors such as equitable access to EV charging when planning infrastructure. 4. Improve grid reliability and resilience: Use load management/power control systems (PCS) at EV charging stations, adopt and implement harmonized standards for communication protocols and information models between the EV charging and grid control infrastructure, and address cybersecurity considerations by implementing robust security measures and standards for EV charging infrastructure—with particular emphasis on clarifying the security requirements for the interface to the grid. The objective of the solutions proposed in this white paper is to accelerate the timeline and decrease costs associated with connecting EV charging infrastructure to the grid. Electric utilities, utility regulators, EV charging infrastructure developers, and site hosts will first need to understand which solutions are available in their service territory, and if warranted, which combination of solutions would support their specific needs. Through the successful implementations of solutions at scale detailed here, industry will demonstrate a new and innovative ecosystem where timely deployment and energization of EV charging infrastructure with greater grid resiliency and reliability is a reality.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Infrastructure inequality is a characteristic of urbanization

Urbanization can challenge sustainable development if it produces unequal outcomes. Infrastructure is an important urbanization dimension, providing services to support diverse urban activities. However, it can lock in unequal outcomes due to its durable nature. This paper studies inequalities in infrastructure distributions to derive insights into the structure and characteristics of unequal outcomes associated with urbanization. We analyzed infrastructure inequalities in two emerging economies in the Global South: India and South Africa. We developed and applied an inequality measure to understand the structure of inequality in infrastructure provisioning (based on census data) and infrastructure availability (based on satellite nighttime lights [NTLs] data). Consistent with differences in economic inequality, results show greater inequalities in South Africa than in India and greater urban inequalities than rural inequalities. Nevertheless, inequalities in urban infrastructure provisioning and infrastructure availability increase from finer to coarser spatial scales. NTL-based inequality measurements additionally show that inequalities are more concentrated at coarse spatial scales in India than in South Africa. Finally, results show that urban inequalities in infrastructure provisioning covary with urbanization levels conceptualized as a multidimensional phenomenon, including demographic, economic, and infrastructural dimensions. Similarly, inequalities in urban infrastructure availability increase monotonically with infrastructure development levels and urban population size. Together, these findings underscore infrastructure inequalities as a feature of urbanization and suggest that understanding urban inequalities requires applying an inequality lens to urbanization.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Developing Data-Driven Synthetic Infrastructure Models for Resilience Analysis

Research on infrastructure resilience has produced promising methods to simulate and optimize complex networks to improve performance. However, restrictions on sharing infrastructure models and the steep cost of developing and maintaining infrastructure models presents a roadblock to adoption. To overcome this limitation, this research focuses on methods to create data-driven infrastructure models that will help improve infrastructure resilience and security. The analysis couples incomplete utility data, geospatial data, machine learning, and synthetic network generation methods to rapidly develop and update infrastructure models. The methods are validated using realistic utility models and site-specific data, with a focus on Puerto Rico due to its unique infrastructure challenges and available data. This research highlights promising opportunities for the use of synthetic network generation and machine learning to create infrastructure models when very little data is available. Results demonstrate that hybrid methods, which combine sparse utility data with synthetic models, can enhance model accuracy, and machine learning can predict model attributes using training data from other models. However, the complexity of infrastructure systems means that even minor changes in network connectivity can significantly impact simulation results. Resilience analysis using synthetic infrastructure models shows that while some system behaviors are preserved, the magnitude of disruptions may not be accurately represented, indicating the need for more research and validation before using synthetic models for critical infrastructure investment decisions. The framework outlined in this report represents a significant advance to infrastructure model development and could be applied to additional domains and sites. Future research will continue to streamline and validate methods to help reduce roadblocks to resilience analysis.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Transportation Hub Infrastructure Expansion: Decision Support Under Uncertainty

The Athena project (www.athena-mobility.org) has worked to investigate the relationship between the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFW) and the greater Dallas area in order to better understand and therefore better inform future decision-making regarding the critical infrastructure that influence mobility between the airport and the city. Through this work, infrastructure related to curbside pickup and drop-off, parking, public transit, and the road network congestion were identified as critical to the operation of the DFW transportation hub. The infrastructure analysis and expansion aspect of the Athena project is focused on the restructuring of the CTA curb as a hierarchical curb and the building or repurposing of parking infrastructure as the interplay between these two areas. Many sources of uncertainty exist that may impact future airport and transportation hub operations, such as passenger volume growth, population demographic changes over time, electric vehicle (EV) adoption rates, and autonomous vehicle (AV) adoption rates. Due to these sources of uncertainty, we have selected for our research a modeling framework that can capture various types of uncertainty and hedge against those uncertainties in the optimization process. We analyze road network and curb congestion, the rise of transportation networking companies, trends in parking usage, existing policies around this infrastructure, airport revenue streams, and other contributing factors to enable infrastructure decision making with less uncertainty. To accomplish this wholistic analysis, we have developed a novel multi-stage, multi-period stochastic optimization model which considers the airport's decisions from 2025-2045 under different possible future macro trajectories and day-to-day variations in operational conditions captured as "annual representation of operations" scenarios with respective probabilities. This model has also been designed to leverage the outputs of various efforts under the Athena project to create a combined decision framework for infrastructure decisions. These various efforts include the route optimization model, the ASPIRES simulation, the mode choice model, and the SUMO traffic simulation. Our computational experiments of this system at scale have resulted in a working version of our infrastructure model which enables the explicit representation and consideration of various sources of uncertainty in the decision process to enable robust, flexible decision-making. This model has been effectively run on NREL's HPC system, Eagle, with large numbers of stochastic scenarios and shows promise as a scalable tool for robust consideration of uncertainties in airport planning. We have tested our model using 30,240 operational circumstances in total, resulting in a problem with more 200 million variables. This model was solved in several different configurations, and a workflow to simulate the performance of the infrastructure model results was developed and deployed. In general, our results indicate that a combination of remote parking, remote curb infrastructure, and dynamic pricing can generate revenue, reduce emissions, accommodate emerging technologies such as AVs and EVs, and manage airport passenger growth over time. We note the success of the proposed strategy depends on the data collection and forecasting abilities of DFW. We have also seen that the AV adoption by TNCs might necessitate larger amounts of remote curb. The results of this work inform strategies for airport infrastructure decision making, as well as demonstrate the value of an adaptable model, but also indicate that there are avenues remaining where further research would be of value.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

Quantifying the Tangible Value of Public Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

The lack of an extensive public recharging infrastructure is an important barrier to the growth of the plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market. Because charging infrastructure is likely to be underutilized during the early stages of market development, it is difficult for decision makers to decide how much to invest in public charging stations. Quantifying the value of public charging infrastructure to current and potential future owners of PEVs is essential for estimating the benefits of charging stations to current PEV owners and for predicting the impact on future PEV sales. This paper estimates consumers’ willingness to pay for public charging infrastructure in the context of utility maximization. The objective is to provide a method for valuing charging infrastructure that can inform investment decisions and be used in forecasting models to predict the impacts on future PEV sales. A basic theory of the tangible value of charging infrastructure is developed as a function of PEV type, range, recharging time and existing infrastructure. Existing simulation studies provide functional relationships that quantify the ability of charging infrastructure to enable additional miles of electrified travel. The enabled travel functions are used to predict impact of infrastructure deployment on incremental electrified travel for 1) plug-in hybrids and 2) intra-regional and 3) inter-regional travel by all-electric vehicles. The willingness to pay for increased electrified miles is derived from the willingness to pay for increased electric driving range, based on econometric studies of plug-in vehicle choice. The result is a set of three functions that can be used to calculate the marginal willingness-to-pay for public charging infrastructure as a function of vehicle attributes, existing charging infrastructure, energy prices and annual vehicle travel.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Infrastructure and DFLAW Support at Hanford - 20443

Manhattan Project era infrastructure systems are degrading at an accelerated pace across the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management complex. Revitalizing, rejuvenating and right-sizing these systems to ensure reliability for ongoing cleanup missions is a major focus at the 580-square- mile Hanford Site in southeast Washington State. The push to complete construction, commissioning, startup, and operation of facilities and systems in the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) program at Hanford by 2023 requires considerable coordination among site contractors and a significant investment in infrastructure. The passage of time also poses a challenge. It has been about 75 years since facilities were first operated at the site, and approximately 40 years of plutonium production created a legacy of unidentified active and abandoned underground obstacles and waste sites that must be avoided when building and upgrading the infrastructure. Converting infrastructure systems originally built to support plutonium production from the 1940's to the 1980's and upgrading those systems to optimize technology is an ever-changing balance of funding profiles, available resources and execution strategies. The DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) has long recognized the need for increased investment in Hanford Site infrastructure to support the future processing of approximately 56 million gallons of waste currently stored in large underground tanks. When DFLAW is fully operational, safe and reliable infrastructure systems will be needed to ensure continuity of operations around the clock, 365 days a year. These include roadways, water, power, sewer, information technology systems and facilities. To ensure the readiness of Hanford's infrastructure to support treating tank waste in the next three years, 15 projects were identified with a combined value of $133.8 million. Through calendar year 2019, 7 infrastructure projects have been substantially completed and the remaining 8 projects, with a remaining value of $103.8 million, are scheduled to be completed by December 2023. RL and its site services/infrastructure contractor, Mission Support Alliance (MSA), regularly evaluate the needs of the DFLAW program and other Hanford Site missions to ensure the highest priority systems are addressed. In addition to a fast-approaching deadline for round-the-clock treatment operations, RL and MSA face another significant infrastructure challenge. As cleanup is being completed in a 220-square-mile area called the River Corridor, most of the cleanup operations going forward will occur in a 20-square-mile area in the center of the Hanford Site, known as the Central Plateau. Infrastructure systems are becoming more congested in an already overcrowded area. This paper/presentation will outline some of the challenges Hanford faces while executing infrastructure reliability projects. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Functional All-Hazard Approach to Critical Infrastructure Dependency Analysis

The critical infrastructures protection landscape is a vast and varied pattern of independent, but interconnected infrastructure systems that are essential to the function of our modern society. The U.S. policy on critical infrastructure protection has been continually evolving since the “President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection” was published in 1997. In response to these policies, federal, state, and local governments, along with research institutions, have invested a substantial amount of time and effort into identifying and analyzing critical infrastructure, their functions, and dependencies/interdependencies to better understand their vulnerabilities. To date, the ability to assess vulnerabilities, resiliency, and priorities for protecting interdependent critical infrastructure systems from an all-hazards perspective remains a difficult problem. In this paper we introduce the All-Hazards Analysis (AHA) methodology, which provides an integrated functional basis across infrastructure systems, through the implementation of a common language and a scalable level of decomposition to effectively evaluate the resilience of interconnected infrastructure systems. AHA models infrastructure systems as directed multidimensional graphs, which enable the evaluation of cross-sector interdependencies prior to, during, and after disruptive events. Finally, and by design, AHA enables the cross linking of data taxonomies to enable more effective data sharing, such as the National Critical Functions (NCF) and Infrastructure Data Taxonomy (IDT).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2022

Identifying Critical Infrastructure in Imagery Data Using Explainable Convolutional Neural Networks

To date, no method utilizing satellite imagery exists for detailing the locations and functions of critical infrastructure across the United States, making response to natural disasters and other events challenging due to complex infrastructural interdependencies. This paper presents a repeatable, transferable, and explainable method for critical infrastructure analysis and implementation of a robust model for critical infrastructure detection in satellite imagery. This model consists of a DenseNet-161 convolutional neural network, pretrained with the ImageNet database. The model was provided additional training with a custom dataset, containing nine infrastructure classes. The resultant analysis achieved an overall accuracy of 90%, with the highest accuracy for airports (97%), hydroelectric dams (96%), solar farms (94%), substations (91%), potable water tanks (93%), and hospitals (93%). Critical infrastructure types with relatively low accuracy are likely influenced by data commonality between similar infrastructure components for petroleum terminals (86%), water treatment plants (78%), and natural gas generation (78%). Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) was integrated into the overall modeling pipeline to establish trust for users in critical infrastructure applications. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of a convolutional neural network approach for critical infrastructure identification, with higher than 90% accuracy in identifying six of the critical infrastructure facility types.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines (H2SIG)

Infrastructure interacts with major global challenges inclusive of climate change, resilience, equity and social justice, environmental protection and biodiversity, public health, and economic recovery. This effort directly addresses how to apply sustainability assessments to the unique aspects of hydrogen (H2) infrastructure projects using the Envision® sustainability framework developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). Envision is a flexible system of criteria and performance objectives to aid decision makers and help project teams identify sustainable approaches during planning, design and construction of infrastructure projects that will continue throughout the project’s operations, maintenance, and end-of-life phases. The goal of this work is to support those interested in conducting sustainability assessments for hydrogen infrastructure projects. Through this work the team has developed hydrogen-specific guidelines and best practices to assist project developers, investors and regulators in straightforward application of the Envision framework to systematically enhance clarity and increase objectivity across hydrogen projects. Subject matter experts from 20 different organizations (industry, non-profits, municipalities, emissions regulators, national labs) were engaged through 7 focus groups to discuss the H2-prioritized Envision requirements and elements to be included in the guidelines. In addition to these guidelines, the team conducted case studies as a way of demonstrating and informing the guidelines and providing examples or ideas for implementing sustainability in future projects. Through this study, the authors found that hydrogen infrastructure projects can incorporate many sustainable practices including reducing GHG emissions affecting climate change, reducing air pollutant emissions affecting the health of communities, synergistically handling waste byproducts, integrating into existing infrastructure, incorporating renewable energy, and addressing equity and environmental justice. Additionally, hydrogen infrastructure projects could benefit from 2-way communication engagement and collaborative planning with stakeholders, educational awareness of hydrogen technology, tracking and reporting on water use and water quality, and including monetized environmental and social benefits in life-cycle cost estimates. This document is the final technical report for the Hydrogen Sustainability Assessment Methods for Project Development project. While the main focus of the report is to provide guidelines for applying sustainability to hydrogen infrastructure, there are sections within the appendix providing completed project tasks and methodology.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

National-Tribal Critical Infrastructure Protection: Collaboration for Extraordinary National Security Benefit

This paper examines national and tribal collaborative opportunities to get ahead of the critical infrastructure insecurity problem. Recommendations are viewed through the lens of the Sandia Labs Tribal Cyber-Energy initiative and national security projects. Recommendations include 1) Collaboratively address national priority and shared challenges to gain faster and better solutions to national priority problems on a smaller yet comprehensive American Indian and Alaskan Native sovereign single-point of authority scale 2) Utilize newer standards-based technologies to provide scalable, capable, and manageable solutions for greatly expanded and connected national critical infrastructures 3) Employ Cyber-Physical-Resilient design preliminary analysis to define concept- to-disposition design requirements for preemptive critical infrastructure risk mitigation and baked-in security; 4) Develop data-centric protection to provide increased information asset protection as data shifts from data-owner operated on-premises infrastructure to virtual service provider data-steward owned and operated off-premises infrastructure; and 5) Balance shared solutions with the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity and Risk Management frameworks, and the System Security Engineering Guidelines. As yet unallocated federal funding would support research, development, the timely application of National-Tribal critical infrastructure protection, and critical infrastructure Cyber disruption response and recovery with extraordinary mutual benefits for the foreseeable future. The Critical Infrastructure Insecurity Problem: Rapid modernization and expansive connectivity are due to advances in Information and Communications Technologies that have sweeping cyber impact across all critical infrastructure sectors. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition and Industrial Control Systems are particularly impacted as systems long separated from the Internet are now being connected and computerized. Virtualization and mobility create a Data Everywhere-User Anywhere paradigm that has evaporated the enterprise network perimeter. There are multi-front technological challenges at play, where long depended on technologies simply don't scale to current needs resulting in a digital dichotomy of competing old and new standards. New standards-based technologies scale but are not as well-known or as widely deployed, which leaves decision makers, stakeholders, and the workforce in a quandary, caught mid-stream between the technological past and the virtual future. Rapid and expansive cyber threat accompanies disruptive change in connectivity and computational dependencies. A lack of action will exacerbate the problem if new technologies roll out without baked-in security design. The Risk: If National-Tribal CIP collaboration to design in security is not done, then an ongoing state of insufficient bolt-on security and elevated threat exposure will remain for years to come.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Experiences of Member States in Building a Nuclear Security Infrastructure for New Nuclear Power Programmes

A nuclear power programme has many benefits, but it is a major undertaking that requires careful planning and preparation as well as a substantial investment in time. It also necessitates the establishment of a sustainable national infrastructure with committed and sustained financial and human resources. While nuclear power is not unique in this respect, it is different from other sources of energy because of the risks associated with the use of nuclear material, as well as the need for compliance with international legal instruments, internationally accepted nuclear safety standards, nuclear security guidance, and safeguards requirements. The IAEA’s Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1 (Rev. 1), defines a phased approach that identifies 19 infrastructure issues that should be addressed in each of the three phases of the development of a nuclear infrastructure for a nuclear power programme. The publication Evaluation of the Status of National Nuclear Infrastructure Development IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-3.2 (Rev. 2) provides a methodology to determine the status of the infrastructure conditions covering all 19 issues identified in the Milestones Approach. A companion IAEA Implementing Guide, Establishing the Nuclear Security Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 19, provides guidance on the recommended actions to be taken by a State to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme using the Milestones Approach. This publication is intended to provide guidance based on the experiences and good practices of Member States with embarking nuclear power programmes as well as Member States that are expanding their nuclear power programmes. The guidance is in the form of case studies, which highlight challenges, issues, and solutions identified by Member States as lessons learned for new nuclear power programmes. This TECDOC is designed to present the experiences of Member States to assist other Member States in developing a nuclear security programme. It addresses the key actions necessary to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme consistent with the three phases of the IAEA Milestones Approach. The Member States that provided case studies in this document are at different stages in the development of a nuclear power programme.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Toward indicators of the performance of US infrastructures under climate change risks

Built infrastructures are increasingly disrupted by climate-related extreme events. Being able to monitor what climate change implies for US infrastructures is of considerable importance to all levels of decision-makers. A capacity to develop cross-cutting, widely applicable indicators for more than a dozen different kinds of infrastructure, however, is severely limited at present. The development of such indicators must be considered an ongoing activity that will require expansion and refinement. A number of recent consensus reports suggest four priorities for indicators that portray the impacts of climate change, climate-related extreme events, and other driving forces on infrastructure. These are changes in the reliability of infrastructure services and the implications for costs; changes in the resilience of infrastructures to climate and other stresses; impacts due to the interdependencies of infrastructures; and ongoing adaptation in infrastructures.

adaptation, indicators, infrastructure↗
DOE OSTI2020

Modeling charging infrastructure impact on the electric vehicle market in China

The plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) is deemed as a critical technological revolution, and the governments are imposing various vehicle policies to promote its development. Meanwhile, the market success of PEVs depends on many aspects. The study reported herein integrates one’s use of charging infrastructure at home, public place and workplace into the market dynamics analysis tool, New Energy and Oil Consumption Credits (NEOCC) model, to systematically assess the charging infrastructure (home parking ratio, public charging opportunity, and charging costs) impact on PEV ownership costs and analyze how the PEV market shares may be affected by the attributes of the charging infrastructure. Compared to the charging infrastructure, the impact of battery costs is incontrovertibly decisive on PEV market shares, the charging infrastructure is still non-negligible in the PEV market dynamics. The simulation results find that the public charging infrastructure has more effectiveness on promoting the PEV sales in the PEV emerging market than it does in the PEV mature market. However, the improvement of charging infrastructure does not necessarily lead to a larger PEV market if the charging infrastructure incentives do not coordinate well with other PEV policies. Besides, the increase of public charging opportunities has limited motivations on the growth of public PEV fleets, which are highly correlated to the number of public fast charging stations or outlets. It also finds that more home parking spaces can stimulate more sales of personal plug-in hybrid electric vehicles instead of personal battery electric vehicles.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Q2022

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2022 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the ninth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Second Quarter 2022)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2022 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the tenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2023)

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2023 (Q3 2023) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the fifteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth Quarter 2023

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2023 (Q4 2023) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the sixteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2024

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2024 (Q1 2024) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure" (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf). This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the 17th report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗