Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Program Plan”

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.

699 records · Page 39
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Advancing Grid Resilience through Smart Charge Management: Findings from Maryland’s Pilot

This report presents research findings from a four-year Smart Charge Management (SCM) pilot program conducted by Maryland’s largest electric utilities—Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), and Delmarva Power & Light (DPL)—to evaluate strategies for optimizing electric vehicle (EV) charging loads and enhancing grid stability. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Argonne National Laboratory collaborated with all project partners and examined the effectiveness of Time-of-Use (TOU) and Load Balancing (LB) strategies in managing peak demand, deferring costly infrastructure upgrades, and reducing grid constraints at the feeder level. Using charging data from over 4,600 EV drivers, the study analyzed SCM’s impact on the distribution systems of BGE and Pepco, which consists of over 2000 feeders. Unlike prior research that focused on system-wide trends or synthetic feeders, this analysis offers granular, feeder-level insights based on real-world operational data. It highlights how transformer density, load profiles, and infrastructure constraints influence smart charging performance. Results show feeder-level conditions play a crucial role in SCM effectiveness, with most feeders benefiting more from LB, while TOU-based SCM may be sufficient for others. By 2035, LB reduced peak charging loads by 27% on average, compared to 23% under TOU-based SCM, though some feeders saw reductions exceeding 35%, while others experienced minimal impact. Feeders with higher transformer utilization and limited capacity benefited more from LB, which more effectively distributed charging demand during off-peak hours. Beyond reducing grid constraints, SCM offers long-term operational and financial benefits. By shifting EV charging demand strategically, utilities can optimize asset utilization, delay infrastructure investments, and enhance grid performance. In terms of infrastructure upgrade deferrals, at the feeder level, LB consistently reduced peak charging loads and resulting infrastructure upgrade costs, particularly in high EV enrollment areas, decreasing the number of overloaded transformers by up to 35%, while TOU-based SCM achieved 20-30% reductions depending on feeder characteristics. At the system level, LB has the potential to defer total upgrade costs by $\$$186 million for BGE, compared to $\$$159 million under TOU-based SCM. For Pepco, TOU-based SCM performed slightly better, deferring upgrade costs by $\$$30 million, compared to $\$$29 million under LB. Section 4.5 reviews some of the system differences between BGE and Pepco. However, as EV adoption scales, TOU-based SCM will introduce secondary peak charging loads, reinforcing the need for more advanced, adaptive SCM approaches to prevent new grid challenges. As EV adoption continues to grow, feeder-level managed charging strategies will be essential for mitigating grid stress, improving infrastructure efficiency, and maintaining energy affordability for consumers. This report provides critical insights for utilities, Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), and state agencies on the role of feeder-specific smart charging in infrastructure planning, policy development, and grid modernization. The findings underscore the importance of tailored, data-driven SCM solutions that align with local grid conditions, ensuring a resilient, cost-effective transition to increasing EV adoption while safeguarding distribution system performance.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

The CanBikeCO Full Pilot: Long-Term Results and Analysis From an E-Bike Program in Colorado, USA

Personal micromobility devices like bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters are low- or zero-energy alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. However, a lack of data has led to a dearth of data-driven research on personally owned e-bike usage. We present longitudinal findings from the CanBikeCO program, focused on e-bike adoption and use across demographics, trip characteristics, and geographies in the state of Colorado. CanBikeCO recorded travel survey data from low-income individuals provided with personal e-bikes by the Colorado Energy Office in six communities across Colorado from July 2021 to December 2022. The data were collected using a custom instance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory OpenPATH platform, which combines passive data collection with semantic information such as trip mode and purpose labels. To our knowledge, there are no prior travel survey data on personally owned e-bikes with this range and scope. Insights from this unique dataset include: (i) work trips were 17% more likely than average trips to be taken on an e-bike, (ii) e-bikes were most often reported to replace cars (34% of e-bike trips) and other personal micromobility devices (22%), and (iii) participants favored walking for trips less than 1 mile, e-bikes for trips of 1-3 miles, and e-bikes, cars, or shared rides for trips of 3-20 miles. The data used to generate these results have been made available in the Transportation Secure Data Center. We find e-bike use is appealing across age groups and may be related to characteristics of land use, urban form, occupation, income, and car ownership. We conclude for this population that the energy demand added by e-bike use (induced demand and replacing non-motorized modes) is outweighed by the reduction in energy demand from replacement of single-occupancy vehicle trips with e-bike trips. Our findings suggest considerable potential for energy savings from personal e-bike ownership.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

U.S. State Renewables Portfolio & Clean Electricity Standards: 2024 Status Update [Slides]

This report provides an overview and status update on U.S. state renewables portfolio standards (RPS) and has been expanded from previous editions to also cover 100% clean electricity standards (CES) adopted by a growing number of states. The report, published in slide-deck form along with accompanying data files, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on clean electricity development, and compliance costs. The 2023 edition presents historical data through year-end 2023 and projections out to 2050. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: -Evolution of state RPS and CES programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies, often by adopting higher targets and/or broader CES policies. Among the 29 states plus DC with an RPS, 16 have RPS targets of at least 50% of retail sales, and 4 states have a 100% RPS. An additional 16 states have adopted a broader 100% CES. -Historical impacts on renewables development: Almost half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is nominally associated with state RPS requirements. That percentage has declined over time to 35% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2023, though in certain regions RPS policies continue to play a dominant role in driving RE growth. -Future RPS and CES demand and incremental needs: The combined demand for clean electricity from RPS and CES policies will grow from roughly 500 TWh today to 1700 TWh by 2050. Accounting for current supplies—including existing nuclear and hydroelectric generation eligible for CES targets—RPS and CES policies will require 900 TWh of new clean electricity by 2050, equivalent to roughly 3x the historical rate of RPS-buildout. -RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific issues. Most CES targets are not yet in force, and so little compliance experience to-date. -REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs remained at roughly $\$40$/MWh over the past year, just below ACP rates in the larger state markets, while PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise, reaching $\$35$/MWh by year-end 2023 and surpassing ACP levels in some states. Prices for solar RECs remained relatively stable, and continue to exhibit wide variation across states, with the highest prices ($200-450/MWh) in NJ, MA, and DC. -RPS compliance costs: RPS compliance costs average roughly 4% of retail electricity bills across RPS states, though vary widely from state to state, with the highest costs (11-12% of retail bills) in states with solar carve-outs and high SREC prices.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Measuring the neutrino-oxygen neutral current quasielastic cross section using the accelerator neutrino neutron interaction experiment

The Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment (ANNIE) is a 26-ton gadolinium-doped water Cherenkov detector located on-axis to Fermilab’s Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB). ANNIE is uniquely positioned to perform high-statistics measurements of neutrino-nucleus interactions in water, benefiting from a large neutrino flux due to a short (100-meter) baseline. A central focus of ANNIE’s physics program is the measurement of both charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) cross sections on water, including neutral current quasielastic (NCQE) and CC-inclusive channels. The NCQE measurement is particularly critical for constraining uncertainties in rare-event searches such as the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background (DSNB), where atmospheric $\nu$NCQE interactions constitute a significant and poorly constrained background. This dissertation presents a measurement of the flux-averaged neutrino-oxygen neutral current quasielastic ($\nu$NCQE) cross section using $2.573 \times 10^{20}$~POT of BNB exposure from the 2022 and 2023 beam years. The $\nu$NCQE interaction is identified through the primary $\gamma$-rays produced by nuclear de-excitation of the residual $^{15}$N$^*$ or $^{15}$O$^*$ nucleus following nucleon knockout from $^{16}$O. A dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) re-tuning campaign was conducted using an americium-beryllium (AmBe) calibration source, Michel electrons from stopped muons, and throughgoing dirt muons originating upstream of the detector. This multi-sample approach provided a wide-ranging $\mathcal{O}(\text{MeV})$--$\mathcal{O}(\text{GeV})$ dataset for tuning the simulated detector response, which was subsequently validated against AmBe neutron and Michel electron data for use in the $\nu$NCQE analysis. A dedicated laser calibration campaign was carried out to reduce timing uncertainties across the PMT system, enabling reconstruction of the BNB bunch substructure with sufficient resolution to serve as a background rejection tool. By selecting events in-time with individual neutrino bunches, beam-correlated $\nu$NCQE events are separated from diffuse and accelerator-induced backgrounds, notably skyshine neutrons and externally-originating events, that would otherwise dominate traditional charge-based selections within a small-scale, surface-level, short-baseline detector. A data-driven estimation of the skyshine neutron and external background rates was performed and incorporated into the systematic uncertainty budget. The flux-averaged $\nu$NCQE cross section on oxygen is measured to be $1.57 \pm 0.06\,(\text{stat.})$ $^{+0.91}_{-0.67}\,(\text{syst.})$ $\times 10^{-38}\ \text{cm}^{2}$. A full systematic budget is constructed by propagating uncertainties in the secondary hadronic interaction modeling, background cross section normalizations, detector response, neutrino flux, and the primary $\gamma$-ray emission probabilities from oxygen nuclear de-excitation. An idealized de-excitation model, constructed from existing measurements in the literature is developed to benchmark the predictions of the \textsc{GENIE} event generator. A comparison reveals that \textsc{GENIE} systematically overpredicts the primary $\gamma$-ray emission probability from oxygen de-excitation by a factor of $1.49\times$ for $E_\gamma > 6$~MeV and $3.07\times$ in the $3$--$6$~MeV band. This comparison motivates the dominant systematic uncertainty in this analysis, where a conservative uncertainty of $^{+39.9\%}_{-0\%}$ on the primary $\gamma$-ray signal prediction is assigned. The ANNIE result is consistent with and complementary to existing flux-averaged $\nu$NCQE cross section measurements from T2K and Super-Kamiokande, providing an independent measurement with a different detector, neutrino beam, and analysis methodology. Looking ahead, an upgrade to the ANNIE DAQ infrastructure enabling continuous extended readout will allow a complementary $\nu$NCQE neutron multiplicity measurement, directly relevant to constraining the NCQE background in DSNB searches, competitive with the recent T2K measurement at SK-Gd. The planned Super-SANDI upgrade, deploying a large Water-based Liquid Scintillator (WbLS) volume, will further extend ANNIE's reach to hadronic final states and exclusive NC channels, and enable joint measurements with liquid argon detectors sharing the BNB beamline ahead of DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande.

Doran, Steven [Iowa State U.]↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2024

Bringing Alaska's Carbon Ore, Rare Earth, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) into Perspective

The final report outlines the outcomes of the Alaska CORE-CM Program, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy under award DE-FE0032050. Led by the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, with assistance from other organizations, the project assessed Alaska's potential for Carbon Ore, Rare Earth Elements, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM). Leveraging advanced analytical techniques, the project identified high-potential resource basins, evaluated geochemical and satellite data, and conducted targeted field investigations. Findings revealed promising concentrations of critical minerals in legacy samples and newly collected materials. The project also investigated innovative extraction technologies, including BioExtraction and use of supercritical CO2, which show significant promise for sustainable resource recovery. Additionally, the study explored the reuse of waste streams from active mining operations and coal byproducts such as using alkali-activated coal ash to manufacture concrete. Infrastructure and logistical challenges in Alaska’s remote regions are discussed, alongside strategies to establish a Technology Innovation Center aimed at advancing CORE-CM development in Alaska. The report includes actionable insights to support Alaska’s critical role in securing domestic supplies of essential minerals while addressing economic, environmental, and technological challenges.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

CSP Systems Analysis 2022-2024 (Final Technical Report)

The CSP Systems Analysis project estimates the current market cost of CSP subsystems and technologies for use by the DOE Program and within NREL analysis tools. The project addresses upgrades to NREL's System Advisor Model (SAM) related to CSP, as well as development of new modules within SAM to expand the types of CSP systems that can be simulated and new tools for evaluating CSP subsystem performance or optimizing CSP system layouts, for example, SolarPILOT and SolTrace. The project evaluates the potential cost and performance of new CSP-relevant technologies and generally includes assessment of CSP technologies in support of the DOE subprogram. A primary goal of the CSP System Analysis project is to provide timely and accurate cost data to the DOE to assess the current state of CSP technologies as well as predict performance and cost for pre-commercial and emerging technologies that may impact the industry. Prior work in this task has produced technology cost reports and roadmaps for DOE and highlighted promising research paths that could reduce overall CSP cost, such as the supercritical CO2 power cycle and molten-salt trough systems. CSP Systems Analysis produces modeling tools to evaluate the performance of CSP systems, subsystems, or components, and journal articles, conference papers, technical reports and databases to disseminate information to the CSP industry. CSP technology costs are estimated and tracked using these tools as well as analysis of literature and industry sources. The CSP modeling tools and NREL analysis results are used by researchers; government, financial, and industry analysts; and other CSP stakeholders. The purpose of this final technical report is to summarize the key accomplishments of the past three years of this project. The project was divided into seven separate tasks, and in what follows, we describe the background, objectives, key accomplishments, and path forward for each task within the project, with one section of this report summarizing each task.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Value of Nuclear Energy to the Reliability of the North American Power System: Results for Western and Eastern Interconnections

This report documents the fulfillment of a milestone for the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: completing a baseline study of regional impact of nuclear power plants and hydrogen production in maintaining grid services and power quality. Models have been comprehensively demonstrated for the Western Interconnection, or Western Electric Coordinating Council area, and in the Eastern Interconnection for scenarios representative of past extreme events (e.g., drought and heat waves). Understanding the impact on the reliability of the bulk electric system of any reduction in generation capacity from nuclear power, for any reason, is the motivation of this work. Factors that might lead to the premature or unplanned closure of nuclear plants, extended outages, or repurposing of nuclear power include: • Aging infrastructure: Many nuclear power plants in the U.S. are nearing the end of their designed operating lives. Upgrading aging infrastructure can be expensive, and some utilities may choose to retire plants rather than invest in costly upgrades. • Low wholesale electricity prices: The deregulation of the electricity market in many states has led to increased competition and driven down wholesale electricity prices, causing nuclear power operators to seek other revenue sources for their heat and power such as clean hydrogen production. • Renewables growth: The rapid growth of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power is posing a challenge to traditional generation sources like nuclear. While many see renewables as a key part of the clean energy transition, their intermittent nature requires additional grid solutions for reliable power supply. • The potential for regulatory decisions to be in conflict: In its 2021 rulemaking, EPA rule (86 FR 880), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a compliance date for the ban on processing and distribution in commerce of Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE). Since DecaBDE is in many components, particularly wiring, of nuclear power plants which are deemed safety-related or important to safety, three plants would not have been able to restart after their 2023 spring outages, and numerous others would have faced issues in the near future. Fortunately, in this case, the EPA provided relief to the nuclear energy industry. The report provides a summary of the significant role nuclear energy plays in the United States’ power generation mix, supplying around 20% of the nation’s electricity generation, spread across 28 U.S. states. Nuclear power is reliable, mostly unaffected by weather and seasonal changes, and provides a consistent source of baseload power. In terms of capacity, nuclear power plants account for as much as 26% of balancing area power generation capacity. Nuclear power also provides a substantial contribution (e.g., 10% of the inertia in the Eastern Interconnection) of the synchronous spinning mass/inertia that buffers the rate at which frequency changes when a load and generation imbalance occurs (e.g., a large plant trips or a load is suddenly shed due to a transmission outage). This contribution is critical for maintaining grid stability during sudden changes in load or generation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Securing the Modern Grid: Federal Investments, Digitization, and Supply Chain Strategy

Across the United States (U.S.) grid expansion and modernization is underway, paving the way for accelerated load growth and intelligent resource management. Digitization of the grid is supported by several state and federal programs, providing support for utilities installing advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), AI-powered analytics systems, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and distributed energy resource management systems (DERMS) to transform the grid from a one-way power delivery system into an intelligent, responsive network that will enable faster load growth and power expansion of data centers for advanced artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The digital transformation of America's grid presents opportunity for increased efficiency and resiliency but also introduces new digital risks that require careful management. Digital equipment often contains several vulnerabilities such as unencrypted communication protocols, and persistent remote access capabilities that could be exploited to manipulate device settings, coordinate service disruptions, or inject false data into grid operations. These digital risks become particularly important as the grid must rapidly scale to support AI-driven data centers, which the administration has identified as essential for maintaining U.S. technological leadership and economic competitiveness. These vulnerabilities are compounded by supply chain realities: Chinese manufacturers currently produce 70-90% of essential grid components including inverters, batteries, and control systems, with the U.S. lacking domestic manufacturing capacity for critical assets like extra-high voltage transformers. Recent federal legislation has established Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) restrictions to address these risks, requiring projects to achieve escalating thresholds of non-FEOC content to receive tax credits while utilities work to expand sourcing channels for their supply chains and strengthen security measures. These restrictions arrive precisely when utilities face unprecedented electricity demand growth driven by the rapid growth in data centers, creating a considerable challenge: rapidly expanding infrastructure while navigating complex compliance requirements while lacking viable alternatives for many critical components. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and its partners have developed practical approaches to help utilities navigate these intersecting challenges as they leverage federal investment to strengthen and grow the grid. These solutions include Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles that build resilience directly into systems, the Cirrus tool for secure cloud migration, and enhanced procurement guidance that embeds security requirements throughout equipment lifecycles. Federal initiatives, such as the Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance (TADA) project, provide direct support to utilities implementing these approaches while facilitating knowledge sharing across the industry. While these tools and frameworks cannot eliminate all risks inherent in foreign supply chain dependencies, they offer pragmatic pathways for strengthening security posture without sacrificing the deployment momentum essential to meeting surging electricity demand. Ultimately, securing America's digital energy infrastructure demands dedicated coordination across multiple fronts: building domestic supply chains, implementing robust digital assurance practices, and maintaining the aggressive modernization timeline necessary for reliability, resilience, and energy independence.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2024

FORCE Update 2024

The Framework for Optimization of Resources and Economics (FORCE) tool suite is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Integrated Energy Systems (IES) Program flagship tool suite for technoeconomic IES analysis of IES. This tool suite is useful for analysis designed to evaluate and improve the technoeconomics of energy production systems, particularly for systems including nuclear technology. In this report, we document the development activity for the FORCE tool suite to extend its capabilities as performed during fiscal year 2024. In addition to reliability and accessibility, capability is one of the three standards guiding the development of the FORCE tool suite and the software codes that are its constituent parts. Extending the capabilities of the FORCE tool suite allows analysis both within the IES program as well as industry, university, and laboratory partners to perform analysis with more accuracy, insight, and impactful narrative. Four areas of capability development were the focus of activity this year: economic parameter uncertainty quantification, multiresolution analysis, components-to-optimization workflow automation, and statespace construction workflows for real-time optimal control. In economic parameter uncertainty quantification, the ability of HERON to capture risk due to scenarios (weather and energy demand uncertainty) was expanded to also include uncertainties in financial parameters such as capital cost or operation and maintenance costs. By including these sources of uncertainty, which are sometimes very large compared with scenario uncertainty, HERON is better able to capture the risk posed by investment in various IES technology. Because of this, analysts can also consider the reduction in risks that can be realized by choice of some technologies. In multiresolution analysis, development activity extended on work completed previously. In fiscal year 2023, methods for decomposing time series signals, such as demand, solar and wind availability, and price profiles, were analyzed and down-selected to those most effective at splitting signals into different resolutions. These resolutions allow considering the influence of different energy demand and supply behaviors across different time scales. For example, energy demand might be divided into seasonal, weekly, and hourly profiles. In fiscal year 2024, this preliminary work was extended and implemented within the Risk Analysis Virtual Environment (RAVEN) risk and uncertainty analysis platform, which is used throughout the FORCE framework. This development of the “multi-resolution time series analysis” (MR-TSA) module in RAVEN allows training synthetic history generators on complex time series. These synthetic history generators can then be used in HERON for generating scenarios that represent possible market and weather scenarios that can be analyzed on different time scales. We envision completing this work in the future, implementing multiresolution dispatch optimization strategies that can make the most beneficial use of these stratified time histories. In components-to-optimization workflow development, workflows for translating user inputs of components into algorithms for algebraic optimization were selected and implemented. Similar algorithms within the Holistic Energy Resource Optimization Network (HERON) were separated from the main code base of HERON and gathered with the components-to-optimization workflows in the new Dispatch Optimization Variable Engine (DOVE) software library. This modularization allows FORCE users to analyze dispatch optimization and energy system duty cycles independently of HERON, which previously was a burdensome task. Additionally, these dispatch optimization algorithms, set up in an independent library, can now be used across all software applications within FORCE, especially including the real-time optimal control software Optimization of Real-time Capacity Allocation (ORCA). Allowing FORCE software to share dispatch optimization algorithms within a single library allows for improved software maintenance and reliability. In statespace characterization workflow development, alternative workflows for optimizing dispatch with additional technical accuracy was the focus, particularly to improve the real-time optimization decision making in ORCA. Using algorithms and workflows initially developed for the Feasible Actuator Range Modifier (FARM), workflows for determining the statespace representation of IES were identified and demonstrated. The resulting dispatch optimization required a more robust optimization algorithm than that originally used in HERON (and moved to DOVE), which required adding an alternate workflow to DOVE that can more accurately match the behavior of physical systems using a partial differential equation representation. In conclusion, capability developments in the FORCE tool suite in fiscal year 2024 have improved the ability of the FORCE tool suite to perform

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗