Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data prioritization”

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 OSTI2024

Integration of equitable resilience metrics into climate-informed electric utility planning processes: phase one

Working together, Sandia National Laboratories, Southern California Edison (SCE) - an Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) - and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are studying how electric utilities can use equity and resilience metrics to help inform the prioritization and sequencing of resilience-driven infrastructure investments. To this end, this project evaluated “Social Burden,” an equitable resilience metric which measures the potential impact of disruptions in access to non-electric critical services on people and estimates community resilience to these disruptions. The Social Burden was expanded to incorporate SCE’s existing equity metric and applied to evaluate the potential impacts from a range of climate-informed hypothetical outage scenarios developed under SCE’s 2022 Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment. One baseline (“blue-sky”) state and eight different outage scenarios were evaluated to measure the potential impacts of the outages on non-electric infrastructure, critical services, and people. Key findings include: 1) the Social Burden framework is flexible enough to adapt to and build upon existing utility equity and/or resilience metrics, 2) Social Burden results highlight the high degree of non-electric service redundancy within the SCE service area with most (6/8) hypothetical outage scenarios predicted to increase people’s Social Burden by less than 10%; however, 3) access to critical services and people’s ability to obtain them is unequal and spatially clustered, meaning that there are some hypothetical outage scenarios (2/8) that will exert a higher toll on communities directly experiencing the outage as well as some nearby communities with pre-existing vulnerabilities. The report concludes with recommendations for potential use cases of the expanded Social Burden metric and identifies priority follow-on work. Potential use cases may include incorporating equity into IOU’s prioritization of climate resilience investments. Additionally, Social Burden analysis may provide additional data and insights to augment grid planning, potentially by identifying additional needs and/or prioritizing previously identified needs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Comparative Multi-System Approach to Characterizing Bioactivity of Commonly Occurring Chemicals

A 2019 retrospective study analyzed wristband personal samplers from fourteen different communities across three different continents for over 1530 organic chemicals. Investigators identified fourteen chemicals (G14) detected in over 50% of personal samplers. The G14 represent a group of chemicals that individuals are commonly exposed to, and are mainly associated with consumer products including plasticizers, fragrances, flame retardants, and pesticides. The high frequency of exposure to these chemicals raises questions of their potential adverse human health effects. Additionally, the possibility of exposure to mixtures of these chemicals is likely due to their co-occurrence; thus, the potential for mixtures to induce differential bioactivity warrants further investigation. This study describes a novel approach to broadly evaluate the hazards of personal chemical exposures by coupling data from personal sampling devices with high-throughput bioactivity screenings using in vitro and non-mammalian in vivo models. To account for species and sensitivity differences, screening was conducted using primary normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells and early life-stage zebrafish. Mixtures of the G14 and most potent G14 chemicals were created to assess potential mixture effects. Chemical bioactivity was dependent on the model system, with five and eleven chemicals deemed bioactive in NHBE and zebrafish, respectively, supporting the use of a multi-system approach for bioactivity testing and highlighting sensitivity differences between the models. In both NHBE and zebrafish, mixture effects were observed when screening mixtures of the most potent chemicals. Observations of BMC-based mixtures in NHBE (NHBE BMC Mix) and zebrafish (ZF BMC Mix) suggested antagonistic effects. In this study, consumer product-related chemicals were prioritized for bioactivity screening using personal exposure data. High-throughput high-content screening was utilized to assess the chemical bioactivity and mixture effects of the most potent chemicals.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quality Assurance of the Irradiated EBR-II Metallic Fuels Data

The U.S. DOE-NE’s Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Fast Reactor Program (FRP) and the NE-4 Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) have jointly undertaken efforts to qualify post-irradiation examination (PIE) data for Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) and Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) metallic fuels. Among the thousands of PIE datasets in the Metallic Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD), data from selected EBR-II experiments have been prioritized as the most valuable to the U.S. nuclear industry for licensing activities related to metallic fuel-based advanced fast reactors. This report summarizes the general data qualification progress of the EBR-II and FFTF experiments, with focus on the selected EBR-II experiments.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cognitive analysis of metabolomics data for systems biology

Cognitive computing is revolutionizing the way big data are processed and integrated, with artificial intelligence (AI) natural language processing (NLP) platforms helping researchers to efficiently search and digest the vast scientific literature. Most available platforms have been developed for biomedical researchers, but new NLP tools are emerging for biologists in other fields and an important example is metabolomics. NLP provides literature-based contextualization of metabolic features that decreases the time and expert-level subject knowledge required during the prioritization, identification and interpretation steps in the metabolomics data analysis pipeline. Here, we describe and demonstrate four workflows that combine metabolomics data with NLP-based literature searches of scientific databases to aid in the analysis of metabolomics data and their biological interpretation. Additionally, the four procedures can be used in isolation or consecutively, depending on the research questions. The first, used for initial metabolite annotation and prioritization, creates a list of metabolites that would be interesting for follow-up. The second workflow finds literature evidence of the activity of metabolites and metabolic pathways in governing the biological condition on a systems biology level. The third is used to identify candidate biomarkers, and the fourth looks for metabolic conditions or drug-repurposing targets that the two diseases have in common. The protocol can take 1–4 h or more to complete, depending on the processing time of the various software used.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys

# 2019 and 2022 Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory Surveys To help local and regional planning agencies understand shifting demographics and travel patterns, surveys were conducted in Minnesota’s greater Twin Cities region in 2019 and 2022. Survey results aided the Metropolitan Council in proposing practical transportation investments, preparing competitive grant applications, and prioritizing improvements to best fit regional needs. ## Data Collection Agency RSG conducted the surveys for the Metropolitan Council. ## Survey Methodology These mixed-mode surveys focused on bus, rail, car, micromobility, ride-hailing, and walking. Designed as household travel surveys, they were carried out in English, Spanish, Karen, Oromo, Somali, and Hmong during two timeframes: Oct. 1, 2018—Sept. 30, 2019 and June 22, 2021—Feb. 5, 2022. Participants accessed the surveys using a smartphone-based app, website, or call center. A questionnaire captured data about demographics, daily travel activities, and typical transportation patterns to inform model updates and gain information about emerging behavioral changes such as electric vehicle adoption and teleworking frequency. It also addressed the impacts of COVID-19 on participants’ typical travel behavior. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation Survey records include a total of 31,251 participants—16,152 participants from 7,837 households during the 2019 survey and 15,099 participants from 7,952 households during the 2022 survey.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Control Room of the Future Testbed Workshop – After-Action Report

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity is supporting a one-year, multi-laboratory effort to define the needs and requirements for a Control Room of the Future testbed, or CROFT. The effort responds to increasing grid complexity driven by large new loads, dynamic generation resources, and the growing adoption of advanced technologies and tools, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). To support safe, secure, and effective grid modernization, CROFT will focus on how emerging technologies and tools can be rigorously evaluated in realistic operational settings, with attention to human-machine interaction, cognitive load, and workforce readiness. The project team includes Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, National Laboratory of the Rockies, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. As part of the scoping effort, the team conducted two industry-focused workshops: one at DTECH on February 5, 2026, informed by prior industry interviews, and a second on May 4, 2026, adjacent to IEEE T&D. These engagements brought together utilities, vendors, consultants, national laboratories, academia, and government stakeholders to identify and prioritize use cases, barriers, validation needs, data-sharing constraints, and near- and longer-term requirements. This feedback will directly inform CROFT’s architecture and research focus areas, ensuring the testbed is grounded in real-world operational needs and designed to evaluate emerging technologies and tools in realistic control-room environments.

artificial intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2022

Grid Utility Asset Vulnerability Assessment (GUAVA) Software Tool

Increasing demand and changes in generation portfolios is pushing power grid to operate towards the limit. However, due to lack of analytical tools for understanding various scales of impact on grid, it is becoming more vulnerable to wide scale power outages and blackouts. A vulnerable grid operating at its limit can be easily disrupted by asset failures caused by devastating hurricanes which has been known to damage transmission and distribution lines along its track. In this direction, researchers have focused on determining these assets by conducting Monte Carlo simulations of hurricanes with uncertainties and collected a large set of simulation data. To determine the infrastructure updates necessary for mitigating wide scale impact of hurricanes on the grid, we propose a software tool named “Grid Utility Asset Vulnerability Analysis” (GUAVA) framework. GUAVA presents a novel data-driven probabilistic analytical approach to (1) post-process hurricane failure scenarios, (2) identify/rank assets that are most vulnerable and critical to failing and are associated with highest impact/risk, and (3) to inform system upgrade decisions & prioritization. Based on the observed results and employed data-driven methodology, it is expected GUAVA can be adapted to provide power system planners with a recommendation engine for making informed decisions to improve resilience of grid.

Mahapatra, Kaveri↗