SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “federal”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 361 records · Page 20

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

PCAST: Report to the President and to Congress on the Seventh Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is the sole body of advisors from outside the federal government charged with making science, technology, and innovation policy recommendations to the President and the White House. Established by Executive Order, it is an independent Federal Advisory Committee comprised of distinguished individuals from industry, academia, and non-profit organizations with a range of perspectives and expertise. On August 18, 2023, PCAST sent a report to the President and Congress with recommendations for updating federal government coordination and support for nanotechnology that reflect the success of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the maturity and broad relevance of the field.

77 NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

EV Champion Training Webinar 1: ZEV and EV Charging Fundamentals [Slides]

The Electric Vehicle (EV) Champion Training Series, hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), is tailored for fleet managers, facility managers, and other stakeholders involved in the deployment of EVs and charging stations. This series equips participants with the skills and knowledge necessary to become subject matter experts in EV implementation. This is the first training in a four-part series and serves as an introductory training. This training covers fundamental topics such as EV and charging technology, utility basics, and financial considerations for EVs. Additionally, this session introduces the Federal Fleet ZEV Ready Center framework, a one-stop location for federal fleet electrification resources. Participants will gain a solid foundation to support the effective deployment and management of EVs and their infrastructure. Visit the Federal Fleet ZEV Ready Center website to learn more about the ZEV Ready Center process. EV Champion Training Webinar 1: ZEV and EV Charging Fundamentals will enable attendees to: Identify EV and EV charging technology fundamentals; Recognize EV market and GSA Schedule options; Identify utility basics, incentives, and rates as they relate to EV charging; and Identify methods to calculate life cycle costs for EVs and gasoline vehicles.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Environmental Impacts of Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Electric Vehicle Charging Analytics and Reporting Tool (EV-ChART): Data Format and Preparation Guidance (V.5.0)

The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation maintains the Electric Vehicle Charging Analytics and Reporting Tool (EV-ChART), which provides a centralized hub for submitting electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure data directed by the Federal Highway Administration (23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). EV-ChART provides a streamlined data submission process and an integrated set of analytic tools, connects to other data sources, and empowers data sharing and access across stakeholders, including the public. Any data shared publicly will be aggregated and anonymized to stay in accordance with 23 CFR 680. This EV-ChART Data Format and Preparation Guidance provides a comprehensive overview of the data reporting requirements as authorized under 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). The guidance is intended to be used alongside the EV-ChART Data Input Template, which defines the tabular data structure that these data submissions must follow. Per 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c), the annual and quarterly data submissions are required of all National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program projects, as well as projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded with funds made available under Title 23, United States Code, including any EV charging infrastructure project funded with federal funds that is treated as a project on a federal-aid highway. One-time data submissions are required of both the NEVI Formula Program projects and grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. 151(f) for projects that are for EV charging stations located along and designed to serve the users of designated Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). Other information and data required in 23 CFR 680, such as 23 CFR 680.112(d), 23 CFR 680.116(c), and 23 CFR 680.106(a), are not discussed in this guidance.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Alaska Liquid Natural Gas Pipeline Front-End Engineering & Design (Final Technical Report)

The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) is Alaska’s natural gas infrastructure development corporation established in 2013. AGDC’s mission is to maximize the benefit of Alaska’s vast North Slope natural gas resources for Alaskans through the development of infrastructure necessary to move the gas into local and international markets. AGDC was identified for a Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) project for funding in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023 under the heading: “Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects.” The CDS included $\$$4,000,000 of direct funding, with required match funds, to move the project forward. Alaska’s North Slope holds America’s largest proven and conventional natural gas supply. The integrated Alaska LNG Project will deliver 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Alaska’s North Slope gas fields to Alaskans as well as to a marine terminal located at tidewater in Cook Inlet. Alaska LNG is an integrated gas infrastructure project with three major components: a gas treatment plant (GTP) located at Prudhoe Bay, an 807-mile (1,287 km) gas pipeline (Mainline Pipeline) to Southcentral Alaska with interconnections for in-state gas use, and a natural gas liquefaction facility (LNG Facility) in Nikiski, Alaska. The integrated Alaska LNG Project has several strategic advantages including proven gas resources, existing upstream infrastructure, an advantageous arctic climate for LNG production, proximity to LNG markets, a track record of reliability from a state that first began exporting LNG to Japan in 1969, and broad support from Alaskans. North Slope natural gas is a conventional resource and can be produced with minimal drilling at a fraction of the carbon dioxide emissions of shale gas from the Lower 48 states. Through the development of the Alaska LNG Project, Alaska can provide energy security to Alaskans and a stable source of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region for generations. The Alaska LNG Project has been progressed through Pre-Front-End Engineering Design (Pre-FEED) and has obtained all major federal and State of Alaska permits and authorizations to construct the project, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Granting Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. On September 5, 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) awarded Project No. DE-FE0032307 to AGDC with the objective to progress the project to Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) entry for the Alaska LNG Project Phase 1 Pipeline. The award Start Date was made effective July 1, 2023, with a Period of Performance through June 30, 2025. On March 27, 2025, AGDC announced the execution of definitive commercial agreements with Glenfarne Alaska LNG, LLC, an affiliate of Glenfarne Group, LLC, (together as “Glenfarne”), to lead the development of the Alaska LNG Project and enter FEED for the Phase 1 Pipeline. Project activities are now funded and directed by this private sector partner who holds a 75% interest in 8 Star Alaska, LLC (8 Star). 8 Star holds the assets of the Alaska LNG Project. As planned, AGDC continues to hold 25% minority interest in 8 Star and will play a governance role moving forward with Alaska LNG. This definitive commercial agreement milestone led to the successful completion of AGDC’s Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) for FEED entry and led to the completion of DOE Project No. DE-FE0032307. At conclusion of the SOPO, AGDC also reached the award’s maximum federal cost share of $\$$4,000,000. AGDC is, therefore, providing Final Technical Report to close out DOE Project No. DE-FE0032307.

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2025

5G integrated edge computing platform for efficient component monitoring in coal-fired power plants

This project developed a cutting-edge 5G-integrated edge computing framework to enhance operational efficiency and reliability in coal-fired power plants through real-time component monitoring and anomaly detection. The initiative focused on leveraging distributed machine learning, federated learning, and 5G-based dynamic network slicing to support scalable, fault-tolerant monitoring environments to meet the operational requirements in industrial control systems. With a Distributed Edge Computing Service (DECS) orchestration, this project enabled federated learning at edge for condition monitoring and introduced adaptive client selection strategies to minimize communication overhead. Scalable distributed training was achieved using the Horovod framework, thus enhancing performance across edge nodes. In the realm of 5G networking, the project designed and deployed reconfigurable, QoS-aware network slicing tailored for operational technology (OT) environments, integrating software-defined networks to bolster cyber-resilience and enabling dynamic slicing for federated learning workloads. A significant milestone was the development of a virtualized ICS environment with 5G core integration—which allowed elastic and fault tolerant distributed training on real-world datasets such as NASA Bearings, Hydraulic Systems, and TEP. To broaden the impact of the project, a TRL-3 virtualized ICS testbed for research and education was designed. This project engaged several graduate and undergraduate students to conduct research on the cutting-edge technology, and it resulted in one PhD dissertation, one MS thesis, and over 14 peer-reviewed publications. With the support of this project students also participated in national cybersecurity competitions to improve their professional development skills.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Summary of Analytical Services for the Hanford Site Radionuclide NESHAP Program

This document is a summary of the point source analytical requirements used to demonstrate compliance for the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site operations with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (NESHAP) Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,” and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247, “Radiation Protection – Air Emissions.” This reference collects information from multiple source documents and is not intended to create, supersede, replace or over-ride any existing contractual, DOE, federal or state statutes, regulations, compliance agreements, orders, permits, licenses or other requirements. The requirement source document governs where any difference may exist. The Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) Environmental organization has been contracted by DOE to manage and report data collected from the sampling and monitoring of radioactive air emissions point sources, colloquially called stacks. The Environmental organization coordinates the analyses and reporting of samples collected at various facilities across the Hanford Site. These facilities operate approximately 52 stacks that require sampling, monitoring or estimating radioactive air emissions. The stacks are operated by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), Central Plateau Cleanup Company (CPCCo), Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure (H2C), Hanford Laboratory Management and Integration (HLMI), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Stack samples from CPCCo, HLMI and H2C facilities are collected by the operating contractor staff, delivered to HMIS, and then shipped to an offsite contracted laboratory for analyses. The field and laboratory sample data uploaded into the Sample Management and Analytical Results Tracking (SMART) database are used to calculate sample volumes and concentrations. Sample concentrations are evaluated for compliance with federal and state regulations, permits, and license requirements. The SMART database also calculates total curies released for sampled point sources and stacks. Point source effluent concentrations and releases are published annually in publicly available reports. The BNI and PNNL operate several DOE-Hanford Field Office (HFO) stacks subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 61, Subpart H and WAC 246-247. The concentrations, curies released and dose modeling evaluation for these stacks are included in the DOE-HFO annual radionuclide NESHAP report. The sample collection, analyses and emissions estimates for these stacks are outside the scope of HMIS contracted responsibilities and not addressed further in this document.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Basin-Scale Relicensing Opportunity

This dataset contains 1,261 hydropower facilities with associated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing metrics. Anticipated FERC license renewal dates are summarized by river reach for observing areas of opportunities for basin-wide collaboration on environmental mitigations. Identifying rivers and basins with facilities that have similar anticipated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing dates may be one potential indicator that multiple licensees within the same basin may be willing to collaborate on a basin-scale relicensing effort. The hydropower relicensing process requires long-term resource allocation by agencies, hydropower owner/operators, non-governmental organizations, and tribal, state, and federal governments. Basin-scale hydropower relicensing has begun to receive attention as a potential solution for reducing licensing timelines, costs, and uncertainty which can provide benefits to a broad spectrum of participants in the licensing process. This dataset contains one a data file in comma separated (*.csv) format, a data dictionary in *.csv format, and a user guide in *.pdf format. These data are also available as an interactive web map available at:

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling: Development of a National Capability

Water is one of our most important natural resources and is essential to our national economy and security. Multiple federal government agencies have mission elements that address national needs related to water. Each water-related agency champions a unique science and/or operational mission focused on advancing a portion of the nation’s ability to meet our water-related challenges. These diverse mission needs have engendered a rich and extensive base of water-related data and modeling capabilities. While useful for their intended purposes, these capabilities are not well integrated to address complex regional problems and overarching national problems. These major investments by a number of federal agencies, however, lay the foundation for an integrated hydro-terrestrial modeling and data infrastructure that will enhance knowledge, understanding, prediction, and management of the nation’s diverse water challenges. Creating a more seamless national hydro-terrestrial modeling and data capacity presents an enormous opportunity to advance operational as well as research capabilities leading to more effective water management. Advances are necessary not only in operational tools for forecasting but also in research to identify and resolve knowledge and data gaps that lead to unacceptable uncertainties in forecast outcomes. As such, close coordination across scientific, operational, and resource management communities is required. To this end, an interagency workshop on “Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling: Development of a National Capacity” was held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia in September 2019, led jointly by the NSF, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and with broader interagency support provided through an interagency steering committee. This workshop provided a venue to bring together representatives of water-related agencies and their scientific partners (including university researchers) to initiate and refine a vision for a national Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling (IHTM) and data infrastructure and advance ideas towards its development. The workshop was designed to address three critical foci to advance the development of a national IHTM capacity: “Priority Water Challenges” around which to motivate and initiate development; Technical and methodological obstacles related to data and modeling; Organizational, structural, and cultural barriers that heretofore have impeded integration of capabilities across the federal and research landscapes. The following “Priority Water Challenge” domain areas represent targets for initiating development of the IHTM and were identified and selected in alignment with priorities of the administration’s Water Sub-Cabinet: (1) Nutrient loading, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms; (2) Water availability in the western United States; and (3) Extreme weather-related water hazards. These water challenges span agency mission boundaries and encompass a broad range of geographies, complex system dynamics and feedbacks, and critical processes spanning hydrological, climatic, and biophysical systems as well as land-use/land-cover, agricultural, built infrastructure, societal, economic, and decisional environments. These three Priority Water Challenges cannot be fully addressed without leveraging complementary and synergistic capabilities across multiple agencies.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Making a Water Data System Responsive to Information Needs of Decision Makers

Evidence-based environmental management requires data that are sufficient, accessible, useful and used. A mismatch between data, data systems, and data needs for decision making can result in inefficient and inequitable capital investments, resource allocations, environmental protection, hazard mitigation, and quality of life. In this paper, we examine the relationship between data and decision making in environmental management, with a focus on water management. We focus on the concept of decision-driven data systems —data systems that incorporate an assessment of decision-makers' data needs into their design. The aim of the research was to examine the process of translating data into effective decision making by engaging stakeholders in the development of a water data system. Using California's legislative mandate for state agencies to integrate existing water and other environmental data as a case study, we developed and applied a participatory approach to inform data-system design and identify unmet data needs. Using workshops and focused stakeholder meetings, we developed 20 diverse use cases to assess data sources, availability, characteristics, gaps, and other attributes of data used for representative decisions. Federal and state agencies made up about 90% of the data sources, and could readily adapt to a federated data system, our recommended model for the state. The remaining 10% of more-specialized data, central to important decisions across multiple use cases, would require additional investment or incentives to achieve data consistency, interoperability, and compatibility with a federated system. Based on this assessment, we propose a typology of different types of data limitations and gaps described by stakeholders. We also propose technical, governance, and stakeholder engagement evaluation criteria to guide planning and building environmental data systems. Data-system governance involving both producers and users of data was seen as essential to achieving workable standards, stable funding, convenient data availability, resilience to institutional change, and long-term buy-in by stakeholders. Our work provides a replicable lesson for using decision-maker and stakeholder engagement to shape the design of an environmental data system, and inform a technical design that addresses both user and producer needs.

Cantor, Alida↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2026

SuperLab 2.0 Showcase: Connecting Five Labs to Tackle Grid Complexity and Unlock Unique Grid Asset Potential

SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) is a collaborative, national-scale experiment showcasing the coordination of geographically distributed energy assets in real time. The demonstration integrates 25 physical and digital assets, spanning wind, PV, batteries, electrolyzers, DC fast chargers, microgrid controllers, building automation systems, small modular reactor (SMR), control centers, and gas turbines, across five DOE national laboratories-NLR, INL, NETL, LBNL, and SNL. These assets are unified using Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), a low-latency, high-performance U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) network, and controlled via a centralized energy controller hosted at NLR's ARIES facility. The demonstration validates the ability to stress-test hybrid energy systems under dynamic scenarios to de-risk advanced control strategies for greater resilience and flexibility. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) showcased a major advancement in federated national laboratory collaboration, enabling real-time, cross-laboratory experimentation to coordinate geographically dispersed distributed energy resources (DERs) using various communication protocols and networks. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) built on previous demonstrations conducted between NLR-PNNL and NLR-INL connecting diverse assets including distant protection devices, a SMR simulator, and a high temperature electrolyzer (HTE). Previous demos were based on a single connection between two labs with minimal coordination challenges. The 5-Lab demo with a centralized controller, distributed testbeds across different geographical locations, and use of protocols-based communication represents a scenario closer to real-world grid operations that coordinate resources across a region to meet system needs. This experiment studied how local DER controllers interact with a centralized energy controller during normal and abnormal events to maintain reliability. The SuperLab team across the five labs implemented a notional power system model equivalent of transmission and distribution lines, represented by the data networks interconnecting the labs. Each lab continuously exchanged local parameters (such as P and Q) from its Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and Power Hardware-In-Loop (PHIL) assets through centralized energy controller at NLR, enabling real-time interaction and coordination across sites. By leveraging ESnet as the communication backbone, the team successfully operated the distributed assets as a unified power system, with each bus represented by a different laboratory. This setup mirrors how assets interact in real-world power systems across dispersed locations with various protocols and latencies. At each lab site, assets were operated using their own local controllers which were coordinated through an overarching operation and control layer of centralized energy controller, equivalent to how an energy management system (EMS) orchestrates assets across a regional or national grid. SuperLab's federated connectivity utilized a Digital Real-Time Simulators (DRTS)-type gateway to connect Controller Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and PHIL assets between labs. To enable this federated connection through ESnet, a deterministic network was established where latency variations were consistent. This consistency allowed the development of digital filters for the power system assets across CHIL and PHIL interfaces to avoid unstable and unreliable grid conditions. This report provides an overview of the cross-laboratory configuration and offers insights into interconnecting geographically distributed research assets to test them as if they were co-located. This experiment represents a step toward linking nine DOE national laboratories, enabling nation-wide simulations that can address utility-driven challenges with grid resilience, flexibility, and modernization.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Predictive performance of multi-model ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 across European nations

Background: Short-term forecasts of infectious disease burden can contribute to situational awareness and aid capacity planning. Based on best practice in other fields and recent insights in infectious disease epidemiology, one can maximise the predictive performance of such forecasts if multiple models are combined into an ensemble. Here, we report on the performance of ensembles in predicting COVID-19 cases and deaths across Europe between 08 March 2021 and 07 March 2022. Methods: We used open-source tools to develop a public European COVID-19 Forecast Hub. We invited groups globally to contribute weekly forecasts for COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by a standardised source for 32 countries over the next 1–4 weeks. Teams submitted forecasts from March 2021 using standardised quantiles of the predictive distribution. Each week we created an ensemble forecast, where each predictive quantile was calculated as the equally-weighted average (initially the mean and then from 26th July the median) of all individual models’ predictive quantiles. We measured the performance of each model using the relative Weighted Interval Score (WIS), comparing models’ forecast accuracy relative to all other models. We retrospectively explored alternative methods for ensemble forecasts, including weighted averages based on models’ past predictive performance. Results: Over 52 weeks, we collected forecasts from 48 unique models. We evaluated 29 models’ forecast scores in comparison to the ensemble model. We found a weekly ensemble had a consistently strong performance across countries over time. Across all horizons and locations, the ensemble performed better on relative WIS than 83% of participating models’ forecasts of incident cases (with a total N=886 predictions from 23 unique models), and 91% of participating models’ forecasts of deaths (N=763 predictions from 20 models). Across a 1–4 week time horizon, ensemble performance declined with longer forecast periods when forecasting cases, but remained stable over 4 weeks for incident death forecasts. In every forecast across 32 countries, the ensemble outperformed most contributing models when forecasting either cases or deaths, frequently outperforming all of its individual component models. Among several choices of ensemble methods we found that the most influential and best choice was to use a median average of models instead of using the mean, regardless of methods of weighting component forecast models. Conclusions: Our results support the use of combining forecasts from individual models into an ensemble in order to improve predictive performance across epidemiological targets and populations during infectious disease epidemics. Our findings further suggest that median ensemble methods yield better predictive performance more than ones based on means. Our findings also highlight that forecast consumers should place more weight on incident death forecasts than incident case forecasts at forecast horizons greater than 2 weeks. Funding: AA, BH, BL, LWa, MMa, PP, SV funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1R01GM109718, NSF BIG DATA Grant IIS-1633028, NSF Grant No.: OAC-1916805, NSF Expeditions in Computing Grant CCF-1918656, CCF-1917819, NSF RAPID CNS-2028004, NSF RAPID OAC-2027541, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 75D30119C05935, a grant from Google, University of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund award number SIF160, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under Contract No. HDTRA1-19-D-0007, and respectively Virginia Dept of Health Grant VDH-21-501-0141, VDH-21-501-0143, VDH-21-501-0147, VDH-21-501-0145, VDH-21-501-0146, VDH-21-501-0142, VDH-21-501-0148. AF, AMa, GL funded by SMIGE - Modelli statistici inferenziali per governare l'epidemia, FISR 2020-Covid-19 I Fase, FISR2020IP-00156, Codice Progetto: PRJ-0695. AM, BK, FD, FR, JK, JN, JZ, KN, MG, MR, MS, RB funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland with grant 28/WFSN/2021 to the University of Warsaw. BRe, CPe, JLAz funded by Ministerio de Sanidad/ISCIII. BT, PG funded by PERISCOPE European H2020 project, contract number 101016233. CP, DL, EA, MC, SA funded by European Commission - Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology through the contract LC-01485746, and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades and FEDER, with the project PGC2018-095456-B-I00. DE., MGu funded by Spanish Ministry of Health / REACT-UE (FEDER). DO, GF, IMi, LC funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under project number 20200700ER. DS, ELR, GG, NGR, NW, YW funded by National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health). FB, FP funded by InPresa, Lombardy Region, Italy. HG, KS funded by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. IV funded by Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitaries de Catalunya (AQuAS) through contract 2021-021OE. JDe, SMo, VP funded by Netzwerk Universitatsmedizin (NUM) project egePan (01KX2021). JPB, SH, TH funded by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 05M18SIA). KH, MSc, YKh funded by Project SaxoCOV, funded by the German Free State of Saxony. Presentation of data, model results and simulations also funded by the NFDI4Health Task Force COVID-19 ( https://www.nfdi4health.de/task-force-covid-19-2 ) within the framework of a DFG-project (LO-342/17-1). LP, VE funded by Mathematical and Statistical modelling project (MUNI/A/1615/2020), Online platform for real-time monitoring, analysis and management of epidemic situations (MUNI/11/02202001/2020); VE also supported by RECETOX research infrastructure (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic: LM2018121), the CETOCOEN EXCELLENCE (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17-043/0009632), RECETOX RI project (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16-013/0001761). NIB funded by Health Protection Research Unit (grant code NIHR200908). SAb, SF funded by Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Best Practices for Energy Management Information Systems Metadata Schemas

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) promotes best practices for impactful utilization of Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS) at federal facilities. This best practice document is part of a series of fact sheets created to help accelerate the market adoption and use of EMIS in the federal sector. The use of standard naming conventions and a metadata schema, which may be referred to as 'data tags,' improves the ability of the EMIS to consistently analyze, visualize, and derive value from operational data. To help address these issues, this fact sheet highlights best practices for use of metadata in an EMIS stack, which can significantly reduce the initial time required to deploy an EMIS.

EMIS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Energy Management Information Systems Cybersecurity Best Practices

Energy management information systems (EMIS) are a broad and rapidly evolving family of tools that monitor, analyze, and control building energy use and system performance. Critical systems are often integrated with or operate on the same networks as EMIS scope systems, necessitating stable, continuous, and secure communication. When connecting EMIS to building automation and utility control systems, there are also many physical assets that could cause harm to the building and its occupants if a malicious act or human error were introduced. It is imperative to ensure all EMIS scope systems are connected securely to the EMIS and do not open vulnerable pathways to other facility networks and operations. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) promotes best practices for impactful utilization of EMIS at federal facilities. This best practice document is part of a series of fact sheets created to help accelerate the market adoption and use of EMIS in the federal sector. It provides an overview of required EMIS cybersecurity standards for compliance and authority to operate along with additional recommendations.

cybersecurity↗

DOE OSTI2022

Energy Management Information Systems Cybersecurity Best Practices

Cybersecurity↗

DOE OSTI2023

Recommended vs. Actual Escalation Rates For ESPCs: Is the Guidance Good?

Escalation rates applied to the savings from energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and related financed energy projects play a large role in their scope and costs. The U.S. Department of Energy’sFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP) employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to package projections of real (uninflated) energy prices and general inflation forecasts developed by two other federal government entities. The main output from this exercise is NIST’s Energy Escalation Rate Calculator (EERC), which is strongly recommended by FEMP for use in performance contracts and relied on by federal agencies and others conducting performance contracts as an objective source for their projects’ escalation rates. This study investigated whether the rates prescribed by EERC (and a coarser NIST tool that preceded it) have provided users with estimates that approximate actual changes in energy prices over the years. The results are encouraging: the NIST tools slightly under-estimated actual electricity prices and somewhat over-estimated those for natural gas. Concern regarding the latter is mitigated, however, because a) it is seen as due primarily to the increasing surplus of natural gas from the “fracking revolution” in the 2010s, and b) natural gas savings were found to account for only 14.4% of the total savings from the largest population of federal ESPCs (FEMP’s indefinite quantity ESPC contract, representing roughly 430 projects), compared to almost four times that (56.8%) for electricity savings. Consequently, reliance on EERC appears to be a sound policy.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Incorporating climate change into risk-informed resilience planning

In response to the development of portfolio-wide Climate Action Plans by federal agencies, federal sites are working to incorporate the impacts of climate change into their resilience assessments. However, it can be challenging to incorporate climate change scenarios into resilience assessments given the uncertainty inherent in climate change modeling. Incorporating these factors into a resilience plan requires an understanding of what the different climate scenarios mean, as well as how to estimate potential impacts of climate change on hazard occurrence on a regional, or even local, scale under different scenarios. We discuss approaches to incorporating this data into risk-informed resilience assessment processes, such as those implemented in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program’s (FEMP) Technical Resilience Navigator (TRN) and the Sustainability Performance Division’s (SPD) Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Plan (VARP) Risk Assessment Tool. We also describe the climate scenarios and the availability of hazard data for site resilience planning, based on modeling included in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Climate Assessment (NCA), and state-level reports. We present examples from the TRN risk assessment and the VARP Risk Assessment Tool to illustrate how sensitivity analysis can be used to incorporate climate change projections into the resilience planning process.

Rabinowitz, Hannah S.↗