Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Portfolio”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards 2021 Status Update: Early Release

Berkeley Lab’s annual status report on U.S. renewables portfolio standards (RPS) provides an overview of key trends associated with U.S. state RPS policies. The report, published in slide-deck form, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs. The 2021 Early Release, published in lieu of a 2020 edition, presents historical data through year-end 2019, with some limited results for the year 2020. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: Evolution of state RPS programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies. Among other significant changes since the start of 2019, eight states enacted higher RPS targets or created new clean-energy/zero-carbon targets (AZ, DC, MD, NM, NV, VA, WA), in most cases setting targets equal to at least 50% of retail sales. Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, though that percentage has declined in recent years, representing 23% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2019. However, within particular regions-namely, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic-RPS policies continue to serve a central role in motivating RE growth. Future RPS demand and incremental needs: RPS demand growth through 2030 will require roughly 90 GW of new RE capacity and will require total U.S. non-hydro RE generation to reach 17% of electricity sales (compared to 12% in 2019). Relative to EIA projections, this amounts to roughly one-third of projected RE growth over the next decade. 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. REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs rose steeply over 2019, reaching $40/MWh and remaining at roughly that level over 2020. PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise at a modest pace over the course of 2020, reaching $10/MWh by year-end. Prices for solar RECs remained relatively stable over 2020, and continue to exhibit wide variation across states, with the highest prices ($200-450/MWh) in NJ, MA, and DC.RPS compliance costs and cost caps: RPS compliance costs in 2019 averaged roughly 2.6% of retail electricity bills in RPS states, compared to 2.3% in 2018, with costs in most states ranging from 0.5% to 4.5% of retail electricity bills.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Renewable Portfolio Standard Assessment for Alaska's Railbelt

This memorandum for the Governor of Alaska evaluates the technical feasibility of reaching 80% renewable electricity by 2040 in the Railbelt corridor of Alaska, which represents 75% of Alaska's electric load. This analysis was developed to inform renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) legislation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Optimal Portfolio Design of Distributed Energy Resources on Puerto Rico Distribution Feeders with Long Outages after Hurricane Maria

This work details a project to design reliable, resilient, and cost-effective networked microgrids considering grid constraints and resilience metrics focused on Puerto Rico distribution feeder locations with long outages after Hurricane Maria. The project consisted primarily of modeling and simulation tasks that accomplished the following objectives: 1. Selected 10 distribution feeder models in vulnerable areas. The sample feeders are geographically distributed across Puerto Rico and vary in length to capture the wide variety of feeders on the island. 2. Determined the optimal location and sizing of distributed energy resources (DERs) on the identified distribution feeders. The systems considered as part of the microgrid solutions were solar photovoltaic (PV), battery energy storage systems (BESS) and distributed fossil fuel generation (DFFG). 3. Estimated the cost-benefit of the proposed DER portfolios. 4. Provided a set of final recommendations that inform decision making on how to do targeted planning analysis for microgrids that can supply energy to critical infrastructures.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

U.S. State Renewables Portfolio & Clean Electricity Standards: 2023 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 2022 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 states have RPS targets of at least 50% of retail sales, and 17 states have a 100% CES or RPS target. -Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, though that percentage has declined in recent years, representing 30% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2022. Within some regions, particularly the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, RPS policies play a more central role in motivating RE growth. -Future RPS and CES demand and incremental needs: RPS and CES policies will require roughly 300 terawatt-hours (TWh) of additional clean electricity supply by 2030 and 800 TWh by 2050, requiring total U.S. non-hydro RE generation to reach 28% of electricity sales by 2050 (compared to 17% today). This amounts to roughly one-quarter of EIA’s projected RE growth through 2050. -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. -Renewable energy certificate (REC) pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs remained at roughly $\$40$ /MWh over the past year, just below alternative compliance payment (ACP) rates in the larger state markets, while PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise, reaching $\$30$ /MWh by year-end. Prices for solar RECs (or SRECs) 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 3.5% of retail electricity bills across RPS states, though vary widely from state to state, with the highest costs (8-12% of retail bills) in states with solar carve-outs and high SREC prices.

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 OSTI2024

Building Performance Software: Portfolio-Level Capabilities and Applications

Navigating the broad and rapidly evolving market landscape of software solutions is complex whether you are a sustainability leader, building owner, energy manager, or building engineer with energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals for a portfolio of buildings. The Department of Energy’s Better Buildings partners have noted this complexity and the associated lack of publicly available information. In response, this report reviews the ecosystem of environmental, social, and governance (ESG), energy management information systems (EMIS), and decarbonization software with the goal of orienting prospective users to current offerings. Organizations can utilize this guidance to determine the specific capabilities needed to support decarbonization efforts and procure appropriate software to streamline the GHG emissions reduction process. In this paper, we refer to “decarbonization software” as the category of software that meets an organization’s needs for decarbonization planning, implementation, and tracking. This software may have a heritage in ESG or EMIS, or it may be an entirely new product. This report offers a snapshot of today’s rapidly evolving decarbonization software capabilities, along with guidance for procuring and utilizing it that will remain relevant despite any future software changes. Exploratory research was conducted on over 100 software providers, and interviews were held with 28 of them. Note that inclusion in this report does not indicate an endorsement, nor does a product’s absence from this report indicate a lack of suitability

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Framework for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Planning: Building Portfolios

The goal of this Framework for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction planning (ERP) is to provide guidance to organizations seeking to reduce GHG emissions for their building portfolios and vehicle fleets. The process described in this framework helps organizations develop an actionable plan that prioritizes emissions reduction measures, identifies solutions, and lays out a phased pathway to achieve deep emissions reductions The plan aims to result in the achievement of Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions reduction targets, in alignment with goals set within the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Better Climate Challenge, as well as longer term emissions reduction goals.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM) Training [Slides]

This is a presentation developed by the NREL-Alaska team for the Nonprofit Retrofits for Health and Housing (NORTHH) Program. This presentation will be shared with nonprofits and community members in and around the Interior Alaska region to share information about Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM). ESPM is used to track the energy performance of buildings in the United States and was used on the NORTHH Project to understand the performance of nonprofit owned buildings in the program. This presentation will allow users to learn how to leverage the benefits of this tool.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2006

System Architecture Modeling for Technology Portfolio Management using ATLAS

Strategic planners and technology portfolio managers have traditionally relied on consensus-based tools, such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in planning the funding of technology development. While useful to a certain extent, these tools are limited in the ability to fully quantify the impact of a technology choice on system mass, system reliability, project schedule, and lifecycle cost. The Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS) aims to provide strategic planners a decision support tool for analyzing technology selections within a Space Exploration Architecture (SEA). Using ATLAS, strategic planners can select physics-based system models from a library, configure the systems with technologies and performance parameters, and plan the deployment of a SEA. Key parameters for current and future technologies have been collected from subject-matter experts and other documented sources in the Technology Tool Box (TTB). ATLAS can be used to compare the technical feasibility and economic viability of a set of technology choices for one SEA, and compare it against another set of technology choices or another SEA. System architecture modeling in ATLAS is a multi-step process. First, the modeler defines the system level requirements. Second, the modeler identifies technologies of interest whose impact on an SEA. Third, the system modeling team creates models of architecture elements (e.g. launch vehicles, in-space transfer vehicles, crew vehicles) if they are not already in the model library. Finally, the architecture modeler develops a script for the ATLAS tool to run, and the results for comparison are generated.

Thompson, Robert W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Risk Assessment and Integration Team (RAIT) Portfolio Risk Analysis Strategy

Impact at management level: Qualitative assessment of risk criticality in conjunction with risk consequence, likelihood, and severity enable development of an "investment policy" towards managing a portfolio of risks. Impact at research level: Quantitative risk assessments enable researchers to develop risk mitigation strategies with meaningful risk reduction results. Quantitative assessment approach provides useful risk mitigation information.

Edwards, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2005

Portfolio Analysis Tool

Portfolio Analysis Tool (PAT) is a Web-based, client/server computer program that helps managers of multiple projects funded by different customers to make decisions regarding investments in those projects. PAT facilitates analysis on a macroscopic level, without distraction by parochial concerns or tactical details of individual projects, so that managers decisions can reflect the broad strategy of their organization. PAT is accessible via almost any Web-browser software. Experts in specific projects can contribute to a broad database that managers can use in analyzing the costs and benefits of all projects, but do not have access for modifying criteria for analyzing projects: access for modifying criteria is limited to managers according to levels of administrative privilege. PAT affords flexibility for modifying criteria for particular "focus areas" so as to enable standardization of criteria among similar projects, thereby making it possible to improve assessments without need to rewrite computer code or to rehire experts, and thereby further reducing the cost of maintaining and upgrading computer code. Information in the PAT database and results of PAT analyses can be incorporated into a variety of ready-made or customizable tabular or graphical displays.

Barth, Tim↗
NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to TRL 6 development level) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, which will reduce life cycle cost and risk, and will increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product is either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗
NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a NASA Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, to reduce life cycle cost and risk, and to increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product was either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗
NASA NTRS2012

Overview of the NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project's Propulsion Technology Portfolio

The NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project is focused on developing and demonstrating integrated systems technologies to TRL 4-6 by 2020 that enable reduced fuel burn, emissions, and noise for futuristic air vehicles. The specific goals aim to simultaneously reduce fuel burn by 50%, reduce Landing and Take-off Nitrous Oxides emissions by 75% relative to the CAEP 6 guidelines, and reduce cumulative noise by 42 Decibels relative to the Stage 4 guidelines. These goals apply to the integrated vehicle and propulsion system and are based on a reference mission of 3000nm flight of a Boeing 777-200 with GE90 engines. This paper will focus primarily on the ERA propulsion technology portfolio, which consists of advanced combustion, propulsor, and core technologies to enable these integrated air vehicle systems goals. An overview of the ERA propulsion technologies will be described and the status and results to date will be presented.

aircraft engines↗
NASA NTRS2015

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP)

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP) is a method being developed by the Advanced Concepts Office, at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The TAPP method expands on current technology assessment methods by incorporating the technological structure underlying technology development, e.g., organizational structures and resources, institutional policy and strategy, and the factors that motivate technological change. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.

Funaro, Gregory V.↗
NASA NTRS2018

In-Space Manufacturing at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center: A Portfolio of Fabrication and Recycling Technology Development for the International Space Station

The in-space manufacturing project at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center seeks to mature the manufacturing capabilities which will be needed on long duration, long endurance human spaceflight missions. The ability to manufacture materials and parts in space rather than launching them from earth has the potential to reduce logistics requirements and enhance crew safety. The International Space Station serves as a unique orbiting test bed for in-space manufacturing technology development for NASA and its commercial partners. This paper provides an overview of the projects currently in the in-space manufacturing technology portfolio and key technology development efforts in the past year.

Prater, Tracie↗