SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Hydropower: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment

The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the federal government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the federal government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. Hydropower is a vital component of the U.S. Energy Sector Industrial Base. The United States has mature conventional hydropower and pumped storage hydropower (PSH) fleets with corresponding mature supply chains. Given the slow pace of new construction over the past few decades, the U.S. hydropower industry primarily supports the existing domestic fleets—the U.S. conventional hydropower fleet (80.3 GW) is the 4 th largest in the world and the U.S. PSH fleet (21.8 GW) is the third largest in the world. Additionally, U.S. hydropower manufacturing facilities export part of their output. This report examines the hydropower supply chain to identify potential bottlenecks, challenges, and opportunities, particularly if the U.S. demand for hydropower components grows significantly to meet decarbonization targets.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear Energy: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Distributed Wind Certification Best Practices Guideline: January 16, 2023 - January 15, 2026

This Distributed Wind (DW) Certification Best Practices Guideline describes the typical approach for certification of distributed wind turbines above and below 150 kilowatts (kW) in size based on the conformity assessment requirements in the United States. The purpose of the guideline is to clarify and consistently describe the path to certification for various systems and components by helping the user navigate the complex path to certification compliance. This is done via clarification of both the required turbine type certification elements, as well as third-party electrical safety listing of turbine system components and subassemblies. In the United States specifically, there is no wind turbine certification scheme that governs or maintains a consistent set of conformity assessment requirements, and this can lead to wide ranging interpretations of the standards and required elements for certifications. This guideline attempts to simplify the path by organizing the information and guiding the user to the applicable set of requirements. Any wind turbine manufacturer or designer of wind turbines used in distributed generation applications in the United States would find value in the conformity assessment guidance in this guideline. Users are expected to be involved in the technical development of the product and supporting documentation, as the details provided are geared towards electrical and mechanical engineering of the system and components.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗

DOE OSTI2024

Observational evidence for groundwater influence on crop yields in the United States

As climate change shifts crop exposure to dry and wet extremes, a better understanding of factors governing crop response is needed. Recent studies identified shallow groundwater—groundwater within or near the crop rooting zone—as influential, yet existing evidence is largely based on theoretical crop model simulations, indirect or static groundwater data, or small-scale field studies. Here, we use observational satellite yield data and dynamic water table simulations from 1999 to 2018 to provide field-scale evidence for shallow groundwater effects on maize yields across the United States Corn Belt. We identify three lines of evidence supporting groundwater influence: 1) crop model simulations better match observed yields after improvements in groundwater representation; 2) machine learning analysis of observed yields and modeled groundwater levels reveals a subsidy zone between 1.1 and 2.5 m depths, with yield penalties at shallower depths and no effect at deeper depths; and 3) locations with groundwater typically in the subsidy zone display higher yield stability across time. We estimate an average 3.4% yield increase when groundwater levels are at optimum depth, and this effect roughly doubles in dry conditions. Groundwater yield subsidies occur ~35% of years on average across locations, with 75% of the region benefitting in at least 10% of years. Overall, we estimate that groundwater-yield interactions had a net monetary contribution of approximately $10 billion from 1999 to 2018. This study provides empirical evidence for region-wide groundwater yield impacts and further underlines the need for better quantification of groundwater levels and their dynamic responses to short- and long-term weather conditions.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Alvin William Trivelpiece

An outstanding leader, physicist, and administrator, Alvin William Trivelpiece died on 7 August 2022 in Rancho Santa Margarita, California.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Net Zero World Initiative’s Preliminary Analysis of Decarbonization Pathways for Five Countries. Executive Summary

Under the Net Zero World Initiative, the United States is marshalling the forces of nine U.S. government agencies, led by the U.S. Department of Energy, to partner with philanthropies and multiple countries to cocreate and implement tailored technical and investment pathways to accelerate the decarbonization of global energy systems. In addition, 10 of the DOE national laboratories have built a consortium housed in the Net Zero World Action Center to implement this vision by providing the deep analysis and modeling required to carry out the vision.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

SolSmart 101 Webinar

SolSmart is a United States Department of Energy funded program assisting local governments across the country to cut red tape and reduce the barriers to solar. This webinar provided information on the SolSmart program, including the types of communities that have received designation from the program, areas where the program provides technical assistance, and the designation/review process.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Competitiveness and Commercialization of Energy Technologies: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment

The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the federal government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the federal government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. Competitive U.S.-based clean energy manufacturers and rapid commercialization of U.S.-developed technologies are critical to secure energy supply chains, generate high quality jobs, and meet the United States’ national security, energy and climate objectives. The February 2021 “Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains” (E.O. 14017) directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate supply chains that encompass the energy industrial base, focusing on technologies that are critical to meet U.S. decarbonization goals by 2050. Understanding and analyzing the end-to-end supply chain through economic analysis is crucial to mitigating risks and identifying opportunities to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the clean energy industry. This insight will allow the Department of Energy (DOE) to leverage its research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) capabilities to most fully realize the objectives of E.O. 14017.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Carbon Capture, Transport, & Storage: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment (Final Report)

The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the federal government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the federal government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. This report was completed by the Department of Energy (DOE) to examine carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture, transport, and storage technologies and associated supply chains that will be required to support the United States (U.S.) decarbonization goals by 2050. Specifically, the analysis sought to understand supply chain bottlenecks to achievingan upper-bound 2.0 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) per year in the United States. A literature review shows that in aggressive infrastructure deployment scenarios, the United States’ likely upper bound of CCS capacity is 1.7 Gigatons per annum (Gtpa) by 2050. This suggests the study design of 2.0 Gtpa capacity by 2050 is more aggressive yet and represents a conservative upper bound for supply chain analyses.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Resilience Lessons From the Southeast United States Woody Pellet Supply Chain Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic†

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) instigated a pandemic that impacted economies, employment, and shipping worldwide. This paper reviews how one international supply chain performed and identifies lessons that may be helpful to improve future resilience. Economic and employment data through November 2020 are used to review the effects of COVID-19 on operations of the bioenergy supply chain in the southeastern United States (SE United States) that utilizes wood fiber to fabricate pellets. Conditions associated with the production of pellets in the SE United States changed with the outbreak of COVID-19. Federal and state government programs and classification of workers in this sector as “essential” during the pandemic helped maintain the woody pellet supply chain and other industries during a period of general shut down in 2020. The availability of personal protective equipment, long-term supply contracts, and established safety cultures are among the factors that enhance supply chain resilience while limited availability of skilled workers, inadequate stakeholder engagement, and dependence on external policies are among factors that reduce resilience. The analysis concludes with recommendations for the SE pellet supply chain, and other biomass supply chains, to improve their resilience to future disturbances. When best practices are implemented, SE United States biomass offers opportunities to contribute to post-pandemic economic recovery while incentivizing better forest resource management.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

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

Lisk, Matthew↗

DOE OSTI2022

Electric Grid Supply Chain Review: Large Power Transformers and High Voltage Direct Current Systems

The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the federal government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the federal government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. The need to modernize and increase the capacity of the U.S. power grid is increasing due to growing population, aging infrastructure, grid resilience requirements, operational flexibility needs, and a growing portfolio of renewable energy. As part of the Paris Climate Agreement the United States has committed to reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030 and has set a goal of 100 percent carbon pollution free electricity by 2035 (The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution, 2021). Meeting these targets will require a significant expansion of the power system to integrate a large amount of new renewable resources (United States Department of State & United States Executive Office of the President, 2021). However, many critical components supporting the power grid have limited to no domestic manufacturing capacity and face complex challenges in supporting a rapid expansion of the grid to meet multiple objectives, including decarbonization goals. This report focuses on two key grid components: large power transformers (LPTs) and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Optimizing Alabama’s CO 2 Storage in Shelby County (Project OASIS) - Deliverable Task 7: Risk Assessment

The “Optimizing Alabama’s CO 2 Storage in Shelby County: Project OASIS” CarbonSAFE Phase II Project seeks to build on regional data sets that demonstrate that the subsurface within Shelby County, Alabama has the potential to store commercial volumes of CO 2 safely, permanently, and economically. The primary target CO 2 Storage Complex is the deep Ketona Dolomite located within a 140 square mile area of the Valley and Ridge Region of Alabama. This deep saline reservoir is beneath a confining system encompassing at least 6,500 ft of shales and other low permeability sediments. Project OASIS drilled a deep stratigraphic test well to confirm the geological properties of the confining system and storage reservoir(s) within the Storage Complex. The geological data was incorporated into numerical models to establish the areal extent of the CO 2 plume and help design the storage site and its monitoring system. The project is managed by the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), an interstate compact organization consisting of governors and state legislative leaders from sixteen southern states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as an appointee by the President of the United States. The organizational compact provides it with access to state government organizations and legislatures. The Board also maintains an Associate Members program comprised of energy resource companies, utilities, trade groups, academic R&D science and technology experts and energy consultants. Further, the SSEB staff is experienced in managing and coordinating complex energy and environmental programs, from research programs to full-scale design and demonstrations of new and innovative technologies. Project OASIS is a public-private partnership of six entities with multiple principal investigators (PIs). SSEB’s Lead PI and Co-PI are responsible for all aspects of project performance in accordance with the DOE-NETL Cooperative Agreement. SSEB has issued subgrants to Advanced Resources International, Inc., Alabama A&M University, Auburn University, Crescent Resource Innovation, and Oklahoma State University. Advanced Resources International, Inc., issued subgrants to Baker Hughes and Loudon Technical Services for field services

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Annual Supply Chain for Photovoltaics (ASC-PV) in the United States: 2024 in Review

This report analyzes U.S. PV and BESS supply chains and costs in 2024, for PV module and battery technologies, structural and electrical balance of system (BOS) components, as well as PV recycling. The report concludes with an analysis of technology installation trends, government support for domestic manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, and the domestic content of PV systems installed in the United States in 2024.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Assessment of Economic Viability of Direct Current Fast Charging Infrastructure Investments for Electric Vehicles in the United States

As the global transportation sector increasingly adopts electric vehicles, the demand for advanced and accessible charging infrastructure is rising. In addition to at-home electric vehicle (EV) charging, there is a growing need for the swift development of commercial direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations to meet on-the-go EV charging demands. While government funds are available to support the expansion of the EV charging network in the United States, the establishment of a robust nationwide EV charging infrastructure requires significant private sector investment. This study was conducted to assess the economic feasibility of various business models for fast charging stations in the U.S. using two case studies and exploring different operational strategies including sole ownership and collaborative ventures with public and private entities. The results indicate that based on the current adoption and utilization rates in the U.S., the business model involving an owner-operator collaborating with a public partner ensures profitability and protects the investment in DCFC stations from financial losses. The study also highlights that demand charges and electricity retail prices are the factors that affect the profitability of a DCFC station.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Fossil Fuel Transitions Framework: Case Studies of the Decision-Making Process for Energy and Economic Development Pathways

Each community is unique, and transitions must be tailored to local and national contexts, with recognition that access to financing is a key differentiator between wealthy and low-to-middle income countries. This analysis examines six community fossil fuel transitions in two different country contexts to provide insights on inclusive processes and decision-making criteria that bring forth positive outcomes for the communities. In both the United States and Chile, a coordination mechanism is established across government agencies and the importance of stakeholder engagement is recognized. In many cases, the government, local community groups, and electric utility or industry players have a critical role in transition planning and support.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗