SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
In this document we report the overall accomplishments of the IAC site at ASU. The report is organized in three different areas: conduct industrial assessments; provide training, research, and educational opportunities to IAC students; and other activities. The report includes those assessments made between September 2016 to August 2021.
This report is part of a publication series that focuses on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters." Each report provides commercial and multifamily building characteristic and energy data for a local geography, with the intention of helping policymakers at the city, county and state levels better understand building energy use. Specifically, this report breaks down the building stock in the counties shown in Figure 1 by building type, size, energy consumption, and emissions.
This report is part of a publication series that focuses on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters." Each report provides commercial and multifamily building characteristic and energy data for a local geography, with the intention of helping policymakers at the city, county and state levels better understand building energy use. Specifically, this report breaks down the building stock in the counties shown in Figure 1 by building type, size, energy consumption, and emissions.
This report is part of the second phase of a publication series focusing on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters." Each report provides characteristic features and energy data for commercial buildings in a specific area to help policy makers at the city, county, and state level better understand building energy use and emissions. This report breaks down the energy consumption and emissions of the building stock in the counties shown in Figure 2 by building type, building size, end use, energy consumption, emissions, and segment.
This report is part of the second phase of a publication series focusing on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters." Each report provides characteristic features and energy data for commercial buildings in a specific area to help policy makers at the city, county, and state level better understand building energy use and emissions. This report breaks down the energy consumption and emissions of the building stock in the counties shown in Figure 2 by building type, building size, end use, energy consumption, emissions, and segment.
This report is an addendum to a publication series that focuses on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters". This addendum expands the report series to include large multifamily building characteristics as well as energy and emission data for each local geography. The intention of this addendum is to help policymakers at the city, county, and state levels better understand building energy use and emissions in large multifamily buildings.
This report is an addendum to a publication series that focuses on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters". This addendum expands the report series to include large multifamily building characteristics as well as energy and emission data for each local geography. The intention of this addendum is to help policymakers at the city, county, and state levels better understand building energy use and emissions in large multifamily buildings.
This document provides a concise overview of the analytical capabilities of the TASTI-GRID team. Utilizing additional data and resources, it synthesizes platform insights to present a distinct perspective on investing in grid resilience throughout Mississippi. This document is not intended to influence or direct state- level decisions related to investments in grid resilience and reliability. TASTI-GRID should not be used for real-time monitoring, supporting the ESF #12 emergency response functions, or predicting the restoration times for outages.
This deck contains an update on NRIC activities along with an overview of reactor development in the United States.
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 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 Western-most states of the continental United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. Arizona is unique among this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis, due to technical reasons we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. Due to this, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as the second file azGroundWMAs as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference, although the boundaries were no longer referenced in the analysis (Grogan et al., in review) past a certain point. The columns for both shapefiles are: basinNum: the state provided unique numerical ID 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
Conference paper titled, Comparing microclimate weather conditions from the weather research and forecasting (WRF) model with typical meteorological year (TMY) data for building energy simulations accepted for Building Simulation 2025 Conference in Brisbane, Australia in Aug 2025.
Not provided.
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management 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. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. 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 which data was collected for. 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 third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.
Growing groundwater scarcity requires integrated tools to capture interactions among hydrology, agricultural production, markets, and land use. This study presents an iterative modeling framework that couples hydrologic, crop-yield, and economic models to capture two-way feedback among water availability, agricultural production, and market responses under groundwater constraints. The primary goal of this paper is to describe the methodological development of the coupled framework and demonstrate the significance of iterative model interaction. Applied to the western United States, we evaluated adaptive responses to restricting groundwater use beyond recharge levels, represented through changes in irrigation management and expansion or shrinkage of crop markets through land reallocation. Results demonstrate that the iterative coupling converges to stable equilibrium responses within 10 iterations. At equilibrium, deficit irrigation emerges as the dominant adaptation strategy in California, with irrigation levels stabilizing at approximately 70% of full irrigation demand, while Arizona and New Mexico experience stronger yield sensitivities. Early iterations produce commodity price increases of up to 10% for fruit and vegetable crops; however, these responses moderate as land allocation and production patterns adjust across regions. Deficit irrigation and spatial reallocation of irrigated land partially offset production losses, with variability observed across different states: California maintains yields primarily via deficit irrigation, whereas Arizona and New Mexico will rely mainly on reducing irrigated area to absorb the shock. By capturing feedback between biophysical and economic processes, this approach highlights how irrigation strategies and land-use decisions evolve under water stress and provides a transferable platform for evaluating water management policies.
The goal of the Energy Efficiency Field Study: Influence of Key Measures in Home Rule States project is to empower and support the states of Utah and Arizona in the successful implementation of their building energy codes. Employing the Department of Energy (DOE) Residential Building Energy Code Field Study Data Collection & Methodology, the research team evaluated real-world implementation status against a baseline, with a particular focus on the unique challenges presented by the dry, hot climates of Utah and Arizona.
Root anatomical phenes have important roles in soil resource capture and plant performance; however, their phenotypic plasticity and genetic architecture is poorly understood. We hypothesized that (a) the responses of root anatomical phenes to water deficit (stress plasticity) and different environmental conditions (environmental plasticity) are genetically controlled and (b) stress and environmental plasticity are associated with different genetic loci than those controlling the expression of phenes under water-stress and well-watered conditions. Root anatomy was phenotyped in a large maize (Zea mays L.) association panel in the field with and without water deficit stress in Arizona and without water deficit stress in South Africa. Anatomical phenes displayed stress and environmental plasticity; many phenotypic responses to water deficit were adaptive, and the magnitude of response varied by genotype. We identified 57 candidate genes associated with stress and environmental plasticity and 64 candidate genes associated with phenes under well-watered and water-stress conditions in Arizona and under well-watered conditions in South Africa. Four candidate genes co-localized between plasticity groups or for phenes expressed under each condition. The genetic architecture of phenotypic plasticity is highly quantitative, and many distinct genes control plasticity in response to water deficit and different environments, which poses a challenge for breeding programs.