SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “federal office”

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 163 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

History of the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program – Volume 2: Lessons Learned (Final Report 2026)

The CSEP Program involved multiple federal agencies, multiple states, and numerous local units of government. The involvement of diverse agencies at different levels of government led to conflict and difficulty in resolving issues. That, in turn, led to slow progress in achieving program goals. Program management was criticized repeatedly by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). After other mechanisms for interagency coordination had failed to give the desired results, FEMA and the Army agreed to form site-specific and national-level IPTs. The IPTs worked well to break the logjam and accelerate implementation of the program. Key elements of the IPTs’ success included constant interagency communication, solving problems at the lowest level, and obtaining buy-in from higher authority. The IPT technique could be applied to other emergency management and homeland security programs that require interagency coordination.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2025

FRMAC Laboratory Analysis Manual Volume 1, Revision 0

The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) is an operational center, available on request by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to nuclear and radiological incidents as described in the National Response Framework (NRF). Under the Federal Interagency Operational Plan for Response and Recovery’s Nuclear/Radiological Annex, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to maintain the operational readiness of the FRMAC during the emergency phase of an event. FRMAC is initially established and managed by the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and serves as an interagency operations center with representatives from various federal, state, and local radiological response organizations. The purpose of the FRMAC is to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) in their mission to protect the health and well-being of their citizens with: • Verified radiation measurements. • Interpretations of radiation distributions based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or local Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs). • Characterization of overall radiological conditions. Once a declaration to respond to a radiological emergency has been made, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters will coordinate the response in consultation with the cognizant NNSA Regional Coordinating Office (RCO). Each of the eight RCOs maintain a 24-hour response capability for radiological emergencies that may occur in states served by its region. When a FRMAC is established, it operates under the parameters of the Incident Command System (ICS), as defined in the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) construct. The Consequence Management Home Team (CMHT) will be activated immediately during normal business hours (Pacific Time Zone), and within two hours otherwise. The Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) is prepared for deployment within six hours after activation. Along with the assets, FRMAC provides an operational framework for coordinating of all federal off-site radiological monitoring and assessment activities during a response to a radiological emergency to support the coordinating agency and SLTT governments. Potential radiological emergencies that fall within FRMAC vary widely in terms of the area affected, the nature of the contamination, and the scope of the government’s response. Detonation of a nuclear device, accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant, and a terrorist threat are just a few of the many possible scenarios FRMAC must be prepared to address. Through all this, supporting the state, local, and tribal organizations in the protection of the public remains the primary goal of the federal response.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Facility Cybersecurity Framework Best Practices

Federal facilities are increasingly adopting automation and connecting to the Internet creating an energy-internet-of-things environment that converges operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT). Today's buildings increasingly weave together networked sensors and cyber and physical systems that enable data to be collected, aggregated, exchanged, stored and monetized in new ways. Building technological advances have created new energy technology, services, markets and value creation opportunities (e.g. transactive energy, two-way grid communications, machine learning, and increased use of renewable and distributed energy resources). But as larger data sets are being exchanged at faster speeds between an increasing number of OT systems, it becomes more difficult to protect the security of the data lifecycle and the physical equipment it interacts with. These challenges are especially difficult to overcome because the economic and environmental gain (interoperability, big data, social networks and ubiquitous information sharing) are driving these prominent trends in the digital age. Often cybersecurity is an afterthought. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) funded the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to develop various cybersecurity tools, trainings, and reports to aid federal facility managers – and other building owners and operators – in better applying frameworks and lessons learned from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), risk management framework (RMF), DOE’s cybersecurity capability maturity model (C2M2), and a wide variety of industry best practices and guidance documents (i.e., NIST 800 series, Department of Defense United Facilities Criteria). This set of tools, collectively known as the FEMP Facility-Related Control System Cyber Toolkit (FRCS Cyber Toolkit)2, is focused on cybersecurity concerns from facility-related control systems and other operational technology (OT), such as industrial control systems (ICS). The FRCS Cyber Toolkit can be applied across six of the sixteen critical infrastructure sectors designated by the Department of Homeland Security, including government facilities, healthcare and public health, commercial facilities (e.g., public assembly, offices, lodging), financial services (e.g., banking and insurance), emergency services (e.g., fire and police stations), and information technology. With increasingly converged IT and OT systems, it is crucial to address OT cybersecurity considerations and assess how the seam of these two systems could impact the overall cybersecurity posture of a facility. The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the best possible method to use FRCS Cyber Toolkit (section 2.0) and distilled cybersecurity best practices for the federal facilities to address growing non-linear cyber threats (section 3.0). Recommendations in this document are aggregated from several NIST and other documents (see Appendix A for additional details).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Evaluation of Building 23-702, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory H-8 Foil Handling Building, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-702, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) H-8 Foil Handling Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15278) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. As part of the modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement Between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-702 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-702 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-702 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Powering America’s Non-Powered Dams, One Byte at a Time

Compared with other hydropower development opportunities, powering underutilized water infrastructure provides an attractive option for expanding clean energy in the 21st century. Research conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) targets hydropower development at non-powered dams (NPD) from several angles and is increasingly looking to new and improved data sources to inform decision-making. Sponsored by the DOE Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), ORNL’s latest efforts build on a decade of work to advance understanding and data access for improved decision-making. Outcomes of the most recent research are geared toward better informing NPD stakeholders across a wide spectrum of interests. Furthermore, these outcomes are paving the way for additional federal investments to power NPDs in the U.S., including investments in innovative new technologies that incorporate ecological and social objectives while achieving cost reductions, commercialization and deployment. Here, this research centers around improving the breadth and accessibility of NPD data. These new digital information tools and associated tools can lead to a better decision-making process and support new hydropower development, helping to power America’s NPDs, one “byte” at a time.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Eastern Interconnection Wide-Area Oscillation Assessment and Study Report

To meet the government mandates such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), conventional synchronous generators with rotating mass are being displaced by inverter-based resources (IBRs), leading to high penetration of renewable energy sources (RES). As a result, the inherent properties and characteristics of the transformed generation mix may significantly impact the grid behaviour, and it is of paramount significance that the impact and the consequences of the resource mix change is thoroughly understood to adopt measures to maintain reliable grid operations. Of great concern is the inter-area low-frequency oscillation, which usually propagates through a large region and has a system-wide impact. Such oscillations may lead to unnecessary or inadvertent tripping of generators, that may be simply reacting to the oscillation originating from geographically remote sites. Such tripping of generators can lead to cascading outages, system split and load loss events. Over the years, several system-wide oscillation events have been observed across all three North American interconnections. This project titled Wide-area Oscillation Assessment and Trending Study, sponsored by the Office of Electricity (OE) of the Department of Energy (DOE), aims to conduct the required research to capture and investigate the potential changes in wide-area oscillatory performance of the system as a result of resource mix transition. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted this research and technical staff of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) served as advisors to the project. The primary objective of this study is to assess whether there are significant trends in the power system wide-area oscillatory behaviours, as a result of the generation-mix changes due to the increased penetration of RES in the U.S. Eastern Interconnection (EI). The analysis presented in this report can serve as reference for future grid planning and operation of the EI system. This research conducted in this project evaluates the wide-area oscillatory behaviour of the EI, using a model-based approach for potential future resource mixes, and the measurement-based analysis with 21-month phasor measurement unit (PMU) time series. The oscillation modes in EI system along with the impact of the changes of the generation mix on the frequency and damping ratio (DR) of the oscillations have been studied.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Geothermal Hydraulic Stimulation: Overview of Methods and Best Practices

This paper outlines important information related to the hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells and considerations for regulators responsible for evaluating applications to conduct these operations. Hydraulic stimulation applied to geothermal wells is an evolving technology that is different from the hydraulic fracturing process widely used to complete unconventional oil and gas wells. Important differences relate to operating pressures, variations in rock and fracture processes, and characteristics and disposal of hydraulic fracture fluids. Hydraulic stimulation is not widely used in the geothermal industry; however, future development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) will require hydraulic stimulation in order to enhance and create fracture permeability to allow wells to deliver sufficient heat and fluid to power plants. Gigawatts of EGS potential have been identified (U.S. Department of Energy 2019), so it is expected that the use of hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells will be more common in the future. At present, there are no formal regulations guiding drilling programs or sundry notices that propose hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells. On federal lands, important constraints and oversight are embedded in the process for obtaining Geothermal Drilling Permits outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR Section 3262.11); in Geothermal Resource Order 2 (GRO 2) guidance for assessment and mitigation of impacts of geothermal operations as well as construction and testing of geothermal wells; and in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Induced Seismicity Instruction Memorandum (BLM 2018). Additionally, local knowledge from BLM field offices and expertise of BLM engineers, or that of state regulators for operations on private and state lands, will be applied to fully assess operator applications to conduct geothermal hydraulic stimulation activities. Significant research effort has been directed toward EGS, so geothermal hydraulic stimulation techniques, impacts, and results are evolving and becoming better understood, including adaptation of decades of oil and gas industry experience with hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs. Recent EGS activities in the United States provide details about hydraulic stimulation with respect to oversight, stimulation design, execution, and results. Based on experience to date, the important issues to address when hydraulically stimulating a geothermal well include the following: 1. Wellbore construction and integrity must be appropriate to protect groundwater and manage stimulation pressures. 2. Understanding of lithology, faults, fractures, and subsurface stress state is necessary to design stimulation plans and predict results. 3. Seismic monitoring allows for observation and mitigation of induced seismicity.

geothermal↗

DOE OSTI2020

Quality Assurance Plan for Federal Guidance Report 16

Federal Guidance Report No. 16 will provide risk coefficients for use in projecting the probability of cancer morbidity or mortality from exposure to environmental radionuclides. The derivation of nuclide-specific risk coefficients involves multiple steps, with each step relying on the accuracy of the previous step as well as the numerical data utilized within each step. Thus, to ensure the quality of the derived risk coefficients, it is necessary to evaluate and confirm the quality and proper implementation of input data at each step of the derivation. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) dosimetry research team currently has two largely independent software codes for deriving radiation dose estimates, dose coefficients, and cancer risk coefficients for internally deposited radionuclides: DCAL and QCAL. The agreement of derived values based on alternate codes is an important step in quality assurance (QA) of the risk coefficients produced in this project. DCAL is an integration of the dosimetric software and numerical databases developed at ORNL over the past 25 years for the EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA). QCAL was developed in 2015 to serve as a substitute for DCAL while DCAL was undergoing revision and to provide QA for the updated version of DCAL. The complex methodology employed in the derivation of cancer risk coefficients presents a challenge for QA, and as such, this report describes the QA steps used by the ORNL dosimetry team in this process as implemented in DCAL and QCAL for Federal Guidance Report No. 16.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding Of Effect, And Mitigation Documentation For Building 23-109, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-109, the Mercury Fire Station/Maintenance/Housing Office (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15235) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-109 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-109 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-109 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains some aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of Building 23-620, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory J-3 Office, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-620, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) J-3 Office Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15283) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-620 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-620 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-620 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Assessing Cost-Optimal Battery Energy and Solar-Plus-Storage Systems for Federal Customers: A Nationwide Assessment: Preprint

Prior research has identified that the financial viability of behind-the-meter battery energy storage systems is heavily dependent on technology cost, utility rate structure, energy consumption patterns, and co-deployment with synergistic technologies like solar photovoltaics (PV), among other factors. This study builds on existing research by comprehensively evaluating the economics of battery energy storage systems (BESS) and solar-plus-storage systems for a reference office building at 755 reference sites under 834 utility rates, and four storage capital cost scenarios. Results indicate that even with dramatic cost reductions, BESS is likely to be cost-effective only under utility rates that include demand charges, and possibly include time-of-use (TOU) pricing as well. Even under these utility rates, BESS systems provide marginal savings, and office building operators are unlikely to deploy the technology for cost savings alone. Solar-plus-storage systems provide more savings than BESS and allow for larger economic storage capacities. Solar-plus-storage provides compelling savings opportunities at baseline prices, and even at capital costs 25% higher than baseline. Solar-plus-storage is most effective where there are demand charges and energy pricing schemes include TOU pricing, or where electricity is expensive (at least $0.30/kWh). Our case studies illustrate that the presence of demand charges, even at similar energy costs, can be the deciding factor in BESS and solar-plus-storage viability. The findings and maps from this assessment may be of use to planners, building owners, and developers looking for potentially economic storage opportunities.

battery energy storage systems↗

DOE OSTI2020

Opportunities and Challenges from Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for the Advancement of Science, Technology, and the Office of Science Missions

In February 2019, the President signed Executive Order 13859, Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. This order launched the American Artificial Intelligence Initiative, a concerted effort to promote and protect AI technology and innovation in the United States. The Initiative implements a government-wide strategy in collaboration and engagement with the private sector, academia, the public, and like-minded international partners. Among other actions, key directives in the Initiative called for Federal agencies to: Prioritize AI research and development investments, Enhance access to high-quality cyberinfrastructure and data, Ensure that the US maintains an international leadership role in the development of technical standards for AI, and Provide education and training opportunities to prepare the American workforce for the new era of AI. The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. In terms of Science and Innovation, the DOE’s mission is to maintain a vibrant US effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity with clear leadership in strategic areas. From July to October in 2019, the Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Berkeley National Laboratories hosted a series of four AI for Science Town Hall meetings in Chicago, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, and Washington DC. The four meetings were attended by over 1300 scientists from the 17 DOE Labs, 39 companies, and over 90 universities. The goal of the Town Hall series was ‘to examine scientific opportunities in the areas of artificial intelligence, Big Data, and high-performance computing (HPC) in the next decade, and to capture the big ideas, grand challenges, and next steps to realizing these.’ The discussions at the meetings were captured in the final report of the AI for Science Town Hall meetings.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2022

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Research Survey and Overview: Preliminary Data Platform Construction for the Nuclear Energy University Program

Since the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy initiated the Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) in 2009, there are 29 NEUP projects focusing on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) research up to July 2022. The resultant research product, either experimental or computational, were published as final NEUP reports, journal articles and conference proceedings. However, these federally funded products have been scattered and sometimes cannot be easily accessed. To improve access to this valuable HTGR validation data and optimize the return on the significant investment made by the Department of Energy, the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) program started a survey of completed and ongoing HTGR NEUP projects to develop a public-access database specific for HTGRs applications that can be used to retrieve computational fluid dynamics and system code validation data. This effort will help guide future NEUP-funded research, define new state of the ART Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT), and promote the usage of this data in the codes validation matrices. This report provides an overview of the NEUP-funded HTGR-related research projects from Fiscal Year (FY) 2009–2021 and identifies validation knowledge gaps still existing in HTGR thermal-fluid research. A preliminary data platform has been developed for the 29 NEUP projects investigating HTGR thermal hydraulics, including their final reports as well as the available scientific publications. As an ultimate goal for this work, the ART-GCR program will create a central database at Idaho National Laboratory to identify, organize, and store these datasets generated by experimental investigations or computational models, experimental facility descriptions, and publicly-available academic products from the HTGR-related NEUP projects and provide future guidance for the storage and transmission of important project documentations for later NEUP projects as well.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Community Solar for All: Key Findings for State Energy Offices and State LIHEAP Agencies from the Inclusive Shared Solar Initiative

Despite the significant potential for community solar to reduce energy burdens and costs, it has largely remained out of reach for low-income households. While the U.S. community solar market has grown considerably over the last decade, as of December 2022 low to moderate-income (LMI) community solar represented just 2% of the overall market. Effective community solar policies and program decisions can help address this dynamic. State laws, policies, and program rules are critical to the development of community solar programs and projects that are affordable for and cater to the needs of LMI utility customers, who often face disproportionately high energy costs relative to their incomes. This report explores how two sets of state agencies in particular — State and Territory Energy Offices and State Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Agencies —can help to streamline and prioritize the delivery of affordable and accessible shared solar. State Energy Offices are often involved in community solar policy and program design from inception, whether by supporting the enactment of enabling legislation or informing the development of program rules and regulations. State Energy Offices may also be charged with administering or overseeing the implementation of statewide community solar programs and, through the U.S. State Energy Program and other sources of funding, can provide resources and loans that enhance community, developer, and utility confidence and capacity to build, host, and derive value from projects. Relatedly, as implementers of federal LIHEAP block grants, State LIHEAP Agencies have a deep understanding of the needs of lower-income households and can help inform the design and delivery of community solar programs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Zero Trust Strategies for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Detection Systems: D.1 Cyber Scenarios

The evolving landscape of cybersecurity necessitates a paradigm shift to a Zero Trust (ZT) model, which assumes breaches and continuously verifies trust. This approach reshapes how trust boundaries are established, focusing on identities, devices, networks, applications, and data, rather than solely relying on perimeter defenses such as firewalls. Central to this transformation is the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Special Publication 800-207, outlining the Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA), along with Executive Order 14028, which mandates federal agencies to adopt ZT principles. Complementary to these efforts, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) developed the Zero Trust Maturity Model (ZTMM), providing a framework with five pillars and three cross-cutting capabilities to guide agencies toward enhanced cybersecurity maturity. In support of these initiatives, the DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) is applying ZT principles to secure Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) detection systems. Recognizing the diverse deployment models and network connectivity of these systems—from stationary, non-networked units to mobile, cloud-connected devices—the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is developing cybersecurity scenarios specifically for CBRN environments. These scenarios examine various configurations and technological capabilities, offering insights into the application of ZTMM pillars in enhancing the security postures of CBRN devices. The cybersecurity scenarios presented by PNNL are hypothetical, crafted to explore theoretical situations and stimulate discussion on the potential use or compromise of CBRN detection systems in varied contexts. These narratives are illustrative and do not reference any real events or actual networks. Instead, they employ generalized reference models to highlight concepts and potential issues within CBRN security, focusing on how Zero Trust strategies can be adapted to address these challenges effectively.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2023

Community Engagement Tips for EV Infrastructure Deployment

This Joint Office of Energy and Transportation help sheet provides tips for conducting community engagement to support electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure planning and deployment. This document is a tool and an informative resource to be used in conjunction with other guidance. It is not intended to set policy or establish or replace any standards under state or federal law applicable to public notice or community engagement.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗

DOE OSTI2025

What Rocks and What's Not So Hot: U.S. Industry Perception of Geothermal Tax Credits

Nationwide, four U.S. federal tax credits promote the adoption of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) and geothermal power plants and were recently updated with enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).1 However, uptake of these geothermal tax credits has lagged behind other eligible technologies.2 With the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Geother- mal Technologies Office, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) engaged with the geothermal industry to determine: 1) how the industry will use the tax credits, 2) remaining challenges to utilizing tax credits, and 3) suggestions on solutions that could help accelerate tax credit uptake. Insights were obtained through two industry question- naires (59 responses)3 and 21 interviews with representatives from geothermal industry groups, project developers, com- ponent manufacturers, and financiers, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. This article synthesizes the industry's perception of these tax credits, i.e., Section 25D (residential GHP), Section 48 (commer- cial GHP), Section 48E (investment tax credit [ITC] for electricity), and Section 45Y (production tax credit [PTC] for electricity).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

National and Regional Initiatives to Promote Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Through State Energy Offices

The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office (WIP) over a ten year period to provide technical assistance, research and analyses, and enhanced coordination between DOE and the State and Territory Energy Offices. Over the life of the agreement, NASEO worked with WIP and the states to provide statewide strategic energy plan analyses and recommendations, including customized technical assistance to the states; peer to peer financing assistance via NASEO’s Financing Committee and supporting activities; training on core energy policies and programs, including dialogues and resources to support energy-air coordination, a training for new State Energy Office Directors, peer to peer exchange via a rural energy taskforce, and support to states to enhance buildings efficiency, home energy labeling, and technology deployment opportunities; support for State Energy Program metrics; and regional coordination via regional coordinators and peer exchange opportunities both in-person and online. Over the life of the project, the position and role of State Energy Offices within state government has changed, with now 80 percent of State Energy Office Directors serving as their Governor’s energy advisor, or reporting directly to their Governor’s energy advisor. This shift in stature has made it ever more crucial for State Energy Offices to receive timely and relevant technical assistance across a range of energy issue areas. NASEO, in collaboration with WIP, was able to deliver this technical assistance, and energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment has accelerated across the country. The State Energy Office Directors and their staff continue to engage in NASEO’s Committees – many of which were supported through this agreement – and have provided formal and informal feedback on the value of the programs supported through this award (e.g., reporting via survey increased understanding of their roles and technical assistance offerings provided by WIP and NASEO following the New Director Trainings). Moreover, resources developed through this award (e.g., Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines, State Energy Loan Fund Database, Rural Data Resources for State Energy Planning and Programs, The Value of Adding home Energy Score to Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs, etc.) have been cited by states as instrumental to their understanding of specific energy issue areas and in many cases led directly to enhanced program design within a state (e.g. Iowa citing their review of NASEO’s Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines as a necessary first step in their planning process, later following may of the steps outlined in the guidelines). The priorities of the states and federal government have evolved over the last decade, with an increasing focus on climate mitigation and adaptation, equity impacts and considerations, energy security and resilience, and enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology deployment, but the roots of these new priorities are based in the state and federal policies and programs, and research and analyses, that were supported in part through this award and other complementary initiatives. NASEO looks forward to continuing to support the states, and collaborate and coordinate with DOE, as we build on this important foundation in the years ahead.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗