Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ALLOCATIONS”

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 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Power allocation for visible light communication

A system and method for providing optical multiple input and multiple output data communication using optical signals includes a plurality of light sources, a plurality of photodetectors, and at least one controller. The plurality of light sources are configured to emit optical signals to communicate data. The plurality of photodetectors are configured to sense the optical signals, and are embedded in at least one receiver. At least one of the plurality of photodetectors is configured to receive the optical signals from two or more of the plurality of light sources. The controller is configured to assign a transmit power to at least some of the plurality of light sources based on parameters of the plurality of photodetectors.

Brandt-Pearce, Maite↗
DOE OSTI2023

Investigation and Demonstration of Reliability Target Allocation to Support Reliability and Integrity Management Program

Nuclear energy is the most reliable and environmentally sustainable energy source available today. In the United States (U.S.), nuclear-generated power accounts for approximately 20% of total electricity and over 55% of clean energy. New advanced reactors have enormous potential to help further decarbonize the energy market, enhance grid resiliency, create new jobs, and build a stronger economy. More than 50 new reactors are being developed in the U.S., and the federal government realizes an urgent need to deploy nuclear technologies to meet the country’s energy, environmental, and national security goals. As such, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched multiple programs to support advanced reactor deployment. The research described in this report explores implementation strategies for the Reliability and Integrity Management Program that directly supports the DOE goal to enable the near-term deployment of the advanced reactor technologies. The project is conducted under the Regulatory Development Program for advanced reactors sponsored by the DOE.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

National Spectrum Strategy (NSS): Its Impact on the DOE Spectrum Allocations

A national initiative to allow commercial service to co-exist with the U.S. Government (USG) in spectrum bands previously used only by the Government has started (White House/NTIA/FCC). The INL, in tandem with the DoE OCIO, has begun researching the possible impacts of spectrum interference on critical communications across the energy sector. This session will share research output for the 6 GHz band study and plans for the 7/8 GHz roadmap.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2017

40 Years of Collecting Martian Meteorites

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the first Martian meteorite found in Antarctica by ANSMET, ALH 77005. Since then, an additional 14 Martian meteorites have been found by the ANSMET team making for a total of 15 Martian meteorites in the Antarctic collection at Johnson Space Center. Of the 15 meteorites, some have been paired so the 15 meteorites actually represent a total of approximately 9 separate meteorites. The first Martian meteorite found by ANSMET was ALH 77005 (482.500 g), a lherzolitic shergottite. When collected, this meteorite was split as a part of the joint expedition with the National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) Japan. Originally classified as an "achondrite-unique", it was re-classified as a Martian lherzolitic shergottites in 1982 [1]. This meteorite has been allocated to ~125 scientists for research and there are 181.964 g remaining at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Two years later, one of the most significant Martian meteorites of the collection at JSC was found at Elephant Moraine, EET 79001 (7942.000 g), a shergottite. This meteorite is the largest in the Martian collection at JSC and was the largest stony meteorite sample collected during the 1979 season. In addition to its size, this meteorite is of particular interest because it contains a linear contact separating two different igneous lithologies, basaltic and olivine-phyric. EET 79001 has glass inclusions that contain chemical compositions that are proportionally identical to the Martian atmosphere, as measured by the Viking spacecraft [2]. This discovery helped scientists to identify where the "SNC" meteorite suite had originated, and that we actually possessed Martian samples. This meteorite has been allocated to ~195 scientists for research and there are 5304.770 g of sample is available. Five years later, ANSMET found ALH 84001 (1930.900 g), the only Martian orthopyroxenite. This meteorite was initially classified as a diogenite but was reclassified as being a Martian meteorite in 1993 [3,4]. ALH 84001 is known as the "Life on Mars" meteorite, sparked debate about whether it contained evidence of Martian life [5] and significantly influenced the field of astrobiol-ogy. This sample has been allocated to 173 scientists for research and has 1426.694 g remaining at JSC. In 1988, another lherzolitic shergottite was found, LEW 88516, (13.203 g). This meteorite wasn't recognized in the field as an achondrite until it was broken during processing 2 years later. LEW 88516 has been allocated to 43 scientists for research and 5.351 g of this meteorite remains at JSC. Six years later a basaltic shergottite was found in the Queen Alexandra Range, QUE 94201 (12.020 g). This meteorite was believed to be of terrestrial origin until maskelynite was seen in a thin section. QUE 94201 has been allocated to 57 scientists for research and there are 3.629 g of this meteorite left at JSC. In 2003, the NASA Mars Exploration Program joined the ANSMET team with the hopes of finding another Martian mete-orite. During this expedition, MIL 03346 (715.200 g) was found. This meteorite is a nakhlite. MIL 03346 has been allocated to 98 scientists for research and there are 579.046 g of this sample remaining at JSC. Six years later, 3 more meteorites that have been paired with MIL 03346 were found, MIL 090030 (452.630 g), 090032 (532.190 g ) and 090136 (170.980 g). MIL 090030 has been allocated to 21 scientists for research and has 434.420 g remaining at JSC, MIL 090032 has been allocated to 21 scientists for re-search and has 508.710 g remaining at JSC and MIL 090136 has been allocated to 14 scientists for research and has 156.790 g remaining at JSC. During the 2004 expedition, 2 identical meteorites where found together on the ice, RBT 04261 (78.763 g) and RBT 04262 (204.600 g). These paired meteorites are olivine-phyric shergottites. RBT 04261 has been allocated to 33 scientists for research and has 32.335 g remaining at JSC. RBT 04262 has been allocated to 46 scientists for research and has 171.886 g remaining. In 2006, another olivine-phyric shergottite was found, LAR 06319 (78.572 g). This meteorite has 61.414 g remaining at JSC and has been allocated to 39 scientists for research. During the 2012 season, 3 more olivine-phyric shergottites were found at Larkman Nunatak, LAR 12011 (701.170 g), LAR 12095 (133.132 g) and LAR 12240 (57.596 g). LAR 12011 is paired with LAR 06319 and LAR 12095 and LAR 12240 are paired with each other. LAR 12011 has been allocated to 43 scientists for research and there are 685.778 g of LAR 12011 remaining at JSC. LAR 12095 has been allocated to 18 scientists for research and has 119.744 g remaining at JSC. LAR 12240 has been allocated to 10 scientists for research and has 52.231 g remaining at JSC. Martian meteorites are the only samples available from Mars because no mission has returned samples from there to date. All Martian meteorites are crustal rocks with most of them being crystallized magmas, so they are an important source for under-standing Martian geological history and volcanism. The ANSMET program has greatly contributed to the scientific community by collecting these meteorites

Funk, R. C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Steps Toward Optimal Competitive Scheduling

This paper is concerned with the problem of allocating a unit capacity resource to multiple users within a pre-defined time period. The resource is indivisible, so that at most one user can use it at each time instance. However, different users may use it at different times. The users have independent, se@sh preferences for when and for how long they are allocated this resource. Thus, they value different resource access durations differently, and they value different time slots differently. We seek an optimal allocation schedule for this resource. This problem arises in many institutional settings where, e.g., different departments, agencies, or personal, compete for a single resource. We are particularly motivated by the problem of scheduling NASA's Deep Space Satellite Network (DSN) among different users within NASA. Access to DSN is needed for transmitting data from various space missions to Earth. Each mission has different needs for DSN time, depending on satellite and planetary orbits. Typically, the DSN is over-subscribed, in that not all missions will be allocated as much time as they want. This leads to various inefficiencies - missions spend much time and resource lobbying for their time, often exaggerating their needs. NASA, on the other hand, would like to make optimal use of this resource, ensuring that the good for NASA is maximized. This raises the thorny problem of how to measure the utility to NASA of each allocation. In the typical case, it is difficult for the central agency, NASA in our case, to assess the value of each interval to each user - this is really only known to the users who understand their needs. Thus, our problem is more precisely formulated as follows: find an allocation schedule for the resource that maximizes the sum of users preferences, when the preference values are private information of the users. We bypass this problem by making the assumptions that one can assign money to customers. This assumption is reasonable; a committee is usually in charge of deciding the priority of each mission competing for access to the DSN within a time period while scheduling. Instead, we can assume that the committee assigns a budget to each mission.This paper is concerned with the problem of allocating a unit capacity resource to multiple users within a pre-defined time period. The resource is indivisible, so that at most one user can use it at each time instance. However, different users may use it at different times. The users have independent, se@sh preferences for when and for how long they are allocated this resource. Thus, they value different resource access durations differently, and they value different time slots differently. We seek an optimal allocation schedule for this resource. This problem arises in many institutional settings where, e.g., different departments, agencies, or personal, compete for a single resource. We are particularly motivated by the problem of scheduling NASA's Deep Space Satellite Network (DSN) among different users within NASA. Access to DSN is needed for transmitting data from various space missions to Earth. Each mission has different needs for DSN time, depending on satellite and planetary orbits. Typically, the DSN is over-subscribed, in that not all missions will be allocated as much time as they want. This leads to various inefficiencies - missions spend much time and resource lobbying for their time, often exaggerating their needs. NASA, on the other hand, would like to make optimal use of this resource, ensuring that the good for NASA is maximized. This raises the thorny problem of how to measure the utility to NASA of each allocation. In the typical case, it is difficult for the central agency, NASA in our case, to assess the value of each interval to each user - this is really only known to the users who understand their needs. Thus, our problem is more precisely formulated as follows: find an allocation schedule for the resource that maximizes the sum ofsers preferences, when the preference values are private information of the users. We bypass this problem by making the assumptions that one can assign money to customers. This assumption is reasonable; a committee is usually in charge of deciding the priority of each mission competing for access to the DSN within a time period while scheduling. Instead, we can assume that the committee assigns a budget to each mission.

Frank, Jeremy↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw 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 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

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 Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category 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 This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in the study region. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review)

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review) The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataCumulationCurves.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2022

A System Approach to Deep Heating Savings Through Measurement, Management, and Motivation

Across multi-tenant commercial office and multifamily buildings, centrally metered fuel use represents a substantial fraction of whole-building energy use. Energy audit practitioners understand that improving heating distribution efficiency is typically more of an opportunity than combustion efficiency and that differing thermal comfort preferences between tenants are the bane of operators across these building typologies. There is an unmet market need for retrofit technologies that allow for the delivery of the right amount of heat to the right spaces, at the right time. The Energy Management and Information System (EMIS) package fills this gap through enhanced controls and metering, incorporating low-cost sensors and wireless communication infrastructure to provide a platform for ongoing commissioning and tenant feedback, including heat cost allocation. With support from the US DOE Building Technologies Office, Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA) partnered with Sentient Buildings, E Source, building owners, and utility and policy stakeholders, to demonstrate a market viable EMIS that achieves a reduction in space heating energy use by reducing heating load, improving control, and positively impacting behavior while providing an acceptable financial return. In this study, EMIS packages were implemented in two New York City multifamily rental buildings. Both buildings conducted basic mechanical work (e.g., repairing steam traps) to ensure the heating system was operating well before any tenant feedback was layered in. Heating Energy Use Reports (HEUR) were created to provide tenants with social comparisons and energy savings tips to influence their behavior; these were provided monthly to all tenants in both buildings. Additionally, one building allocated heating costs to a portion of the tenants. Heat cost allocation (HCA) has a long history in the European Union (EU), although it is not common in the US or in steam-heated buildings. SWA leveraged existing EU best practices and stakeholder feedback to develop a Heat Cost Allocation algorithm that was considered equitable and intuitive. Energy use and tenant behavior impacts were tracked throughout the study. The basic mechanical repair work saved between 11-20% of heating energy. Those savings rose to 17-24% with the addition of tenant feedback. While it may not be possible to precisely determine the impact of COVID-19 on research studies like this, there may have been additional savings realized had the study taken place in a period of normal occupancy patterns. These types of central heating systems have been a blind spot for utilities, who have traditionally had little visibility into detailed behind-the-meter gas usage. Heating energy savings stayed consistent during the coldest months, indicating the potential for utilities to utilize EMIS packages for peak gas demand reductions or demand response programs. Tenant comfort was also improved. Post installation, room temperatures more closely matched thermostat set points. Perhaps due to this greater level of control, the vast majority of tenants being billed for heating were accepting of the allocation costs. And tenants receiving heat cost allocations were more likely to reduce their thermostat setpoints than tenants receiving behavioral feedback without financial impacts were. Variation in building specifics makes it difficult to provide precise energy and financial savings estimates. But within the range of expected conditions, the study identified a few key variables that can have the greatest impact on financial returns: the cost of fuel, the ability and willingness to allocate heating costs to tenants, and a well-functioning heating system as a starting point. This study focused on two multifamily buildings, but additional use cases, such as commercial buildings and affordable housing, should be explored to better understand the full market potential. While this type of upgrade has the potential for deep energy reductions and cost savings, future projects should take into account the balance of costs and benefits between owners and tenants, especially in the affordable, regulated, or other low-to-moderate income (LMI) segments of the market. Rent credits, utility allowances, or a shared savings program are possible options to accelerate adoption of this strategy in these market segments.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

California Price Response Potential Study

California's energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the increasing integration of renewable energy sources, the increased adoption of distributed energy resources, the electrification of end-use loads, and the growing need for grid efficiency. To address these challenges, recent revisions to the State’s Load Management Standards (LMS) require all of California’s large utilities and community choice aggregators (CCAs) to offer dynamic electricity pricing options to customers by 2027. Dynamic pricing, which involves varying electricity rates based on real-time supply and demand conditions, offers a promising solution for optimizing grid operations, reducing costs, and incentivizing efficient use of grid capacity. Effective implementation of dynamic pricing requires understanding the potential impacts on customer bills, system load, and the cost-effectiveness of automation technologies. This study aims to evaluate the load response of various end-use devices to hourly dynamic prices. The end-uses studied here are space cooling, space heating, water heating, crop irrigation, pool and spa pumps, and electric vehicle (EV) charging, all for both residential and commercial applications, except for crop irrigation. In 2030, these end uses are forecasted to account for 18% of annual electricity demand in the state, but 40% of demand in the peak net load hour. By modeling possible price-responsive load dispatch algorithms and assessing the resulting impacts on both individual bills and the overall grid, we seek to inform policymakers and utilities about the potential benefits and challenges associated with dynamic pricing, and considerations for the design of dynamic pricing tariffs. Additionally, we will explore the cost effectiveness of adopting automation technologies to enable devices to respond more effectively to real-time price signals. This study considers a range of price profiles, accounting for differences across utilities and customer classes, and presents scenarios for dynamic price design via variation in the percentage of total customer electric costs that are allocated dynamically (versus constituting a fixed portion of the hourly volumetric price). We present results focused primarily on 2030, forecasting electricity prices under both low and high-cost scenarios, to inform longer-term tariff design considerations. We design tariffs by starting with 2019 prices that were calculated according to CalFUSE guidance (CPUC, 2022) and that have been used in recent studies; these prices are all-in volumetric rates that vary by utility and are revenue-neutral to each customer class. They are developed by considering six electricity cost components that are allocated hourly based on system load indicators (gross and net load, and wholesale prices). These prices are forecasted to 2030 for low and high cost scenarios, considering recent trends in total electricity costs with and without years of substantial wildfire mitigation investments. These tariffs, which allocate all costs on an hourly basis, are considered our “Full” dynamic tariff design scenario, while two additional scenarios explore allocating a portion of costs as a flat volumetric charge: the “Medium” scenario allocates 50% of revenue dynamically (and keeps 50% flat), while the “Mild” scenario allocates 20% of revenue dynamically. The 20% dynamic allocation on the Mild scenario aims to represent a case where only the marginal operating costs of the grid are included in the dynamic price.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS1992

Guaranteeing synchronous message deadlines with the timed token medium access control protocol

We study the problem of guaranteeing synchronous message deadlines in token ring networks where the timed token medium access control protocol is employed. Synchronous capacity, defined as the maximum time for which a node can transmit its synchronous messages every time it receives the token, is a key parameter in the control of synchronous message transmission. To ensure the transmission of synchronous messages before their deadlines, synchronous capacities must be properly allocated to individual nodes. We address the issue of appropriate allocation of the synchronous capacities. Several synchronous capacity allocation schemes are analyzed in terms of their ability to satisfy deadline constraints of synchronous messages. We show that an inappropriate allocation of the synchronous capacities could cause message deadlines to be missed even if the synchronous traffic is extremely low. We propose a scheme called the normalized proportional allocation scheme which can guarantee the synchronous message deadlines for synchronous traffic of up to 33 percent of available utilization. To date, no other synchronous capacity allocation scheme has been reported to achieve such substantial performance. Another major contribution of this paper is an extension to the previous work on the bounded token rotation time. We prove that the time elapsed between any consecutive visits to a particular node is bounded by upsilon TTRT, where TTRT is the target token rotation time set up at system initialization time. The previous result by Johnson and Sevcik is a special case where upsilon = 2. We use this result in the analysis of various synchronous allocation schemes. It can also be applied in other similar studies.

Agrawal, Gopal↗
NASA NTRS2011

Linear Quadratic Tracking Design for a Generic Transport Aircraft with Structural Load Constraints

When designing control laws for systems with constraints added to the tracking performance, control allocation methods can be utilized. Control allocations methods are used when there are more command inputs than controlled variables. Constraints that require allocators are such task as; surface saturation limits, structural load limits, drag reduction constraints or actuator failures. Most transport aircraft have many actuated surfaces compared to the three controlled variables (such as angle of attack, roll rate & angle of side slip). To distribute the control effort among the redundant set of actuators a fixed mixer approach can be utilized or online control allocation techniques. The benefit of an online allocator is that constraints can be considered in the design whereas the fixed mixer cannot. However, an online control allocator mixer has a disadvantage of not guaranteeing a surface schedule, which can then produce ill defined loads on the aircraft. The load uncertainty and complexity has prevented some controller designs from using advanced allocation techniques. This paper considers actuator redundancy management for a class of over actuated systems with real-time structural load limits using linear quadratic tracking applied to the generic transport model. A roll maneuver example of an artificial load limit constraint is shown and compared to the same no load limitation maneuver.

Burken, John J.↗