A techno-economic analysis of distributed energy resources versus wholesale electricity purchases for fueling decarbonized heavy duty vehicles
Not Available
Pham, An T. (ORCID:0000000328721750)↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “fuel purchase”
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.
Data and code from: Multivariate bayesian regression model for predicting disposed ash composition at U.S. coal fired power stations
This dataset contains the code and data files needed for implementation of a Multivariate Bayesian Regression model, described in Jin et al. (2025), for the historical prediction of the chemical composition of disposed coal ash at U.S. coal fired power plants as a function of annualized coal purchase data. The integrated coal supply data file (CoalSupplyDataset.csv) represents a compilation of monthly fuel purchase records for the period 1973-2022 at major U.S. power stations. These records were obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The CSV file also contains, for each coal purchase record, the coal region of the mine as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. Data entry errors and data gaps in the EIA records were corrected as described in Jin et al. This CSV file represents the integrated coal supply data after corrections were made. The model structure and fitting parameters are encoded in pickle file format (Bayesian.pkl). The model was developed with the coal supply data and coal ash composition data, apportioned according to the Stratified Shuffle Split for training and testing subsets. The model was built using Python and the PyMC library. Reference Publication: Jin, Z.; Huang, J.; Hower, J.C.; Hsu-Kim, H.(2025). Predictive Assessment of the Chemical Composition of Coal Ash in Reserve at U.S. Disposal Sites. Environmental Science & Technology.
Coal ash composition↗
Kraft black liquor concentration with graphene oxide membranes: Process simulations and technoeconomic analysis
Abstract Black liquor (BL) dewatering by multi‐effect evaporation in the kraft papermaking process is highly energy‐intensive. It was previously shown that graphene oxide (GO) nanofiltration membranes can remove lignin, other organics, and inorganic salts from BL while exhibiting stability in caustic BL conditions. Here, we design and simulate several candidate dewatering processes and evaluate their technoeconomic characteristics. All processes concentrate BL from 15 to 30 wt% solutes while producing aqueous permeate. Two process options were analyzed—option A including “last‐mile” permeate treatment to reduce solutes to 0.2 wt%, and option B excluding this treatment and producing a 3–4 wt% solutes stream. These processes were simulated in custom‐built ASPEN Plus flowsheets interfaced with Microsoft Excel and MATLAB. All processes deliver large (>40%) energy savings. Detailed technoeconomic analysis showed that option A processes are profitable in mills equipped with condensing turbines, but unprofitable with only purchased fuel savings. Option B processes are profitable in both situations, but require the caustic permeate to be utilized in other kraft process units. They are also profitable with electricity generation when operated at smaller scales matching the requirements of other process units. Monte‐Carlo sensitivity analysis shows that Option A can yield median 20‐year NPVs up to ~$10MM and Option B up to ~$25MM. Overall, GO membrane‐based BL dewatering is economically promising, assuming successful slipstream piloting and scale‐up campaigns. It would have immediate sustainability benefits from large energy savings, and broader implications for biorefinery processes due to the ability to fractionate biomass feedstock components under harsh conditions.
Wang, Zhongzhen↗
Disaggregating Future Retail Electricity Rate Growth [Slides]
Recent Berkeley Lab research found that modest retail rate increases over the past 10 years were mostly driven by large increases in capital expenditures (CapEx) that were offset in part by substantial wholesale price reductions. Decision-makers are increasingly concerned about the potential future rate impacts of a number of policies and industry trends that support rapid decarbonization, electrification, and grid modernization. Using historical FERC Form 1 data and the existing literature on policies and industry trends that are likely to affect utility-incurred costs and retail sales, Berkeley Lab researchers developed ranges of forecasted growth rates for cost-related rate drivers (i.e., fuel and purchased power; transmission, distribution, generation, and other categories of both non-fuel operations & maintenance and CapEx) and non-cost related rate drivers (i.e., retail sales, peak demand, and customers). These were then used as inputs to a pro-forma utility financial model (FINDER) that estimated the growth in retail electric rates between 2020 and 2030 for a prototypical vertically-integrated investor-owned utility in the United States. The analysis produced the following results: 1. Assuming average growth rates in all rate drivers, future retail rate growth is driven by sizable increases in all CapEx costs, where fuel and purchased power costs are replaced by generation CapEx as the largest rate component between 2020 and 2030. 2. Growth in sales/peak demand/customers, generation CapEx costs, and fuel and purchased power (FPP) costs, in isolation, produce the most uncertainty in rate growth. Specifically, a 1% increase in the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of retail sales, coincident peak demand (CP), and customers (Sales-CP-Cust) results in a 0.88-0.93% decrease in the CAGR of rates, in isolation. However, a 1% increase in the CAGR of generation CapEx budgets results in a 0.07-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, while a 1% increase in the CAGR of FPP costs causes a 0.10-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, all else being equal. 3. Taking into account the correlation and variability of the growth in all rate drivers jointly, generation CapEx is expected to be both the largest and most uncertain rate component by 2030 (20-25% share of the retail rate). Transmission and distribution CapEx, along with fuel and purchased power costs are each expected to comprise between 12% and 17% of retail rates.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Assessment of the Effect of Prototypic High-Burnup Operating Conditions of Fuel Fragmentation, Relocation, and Dispersal Susceptibility
The US nuclear energy industry is investigating strategies that further reduce the cost of energy production by using its existing fleet of nuclear generating stations. Most nuclear power plant operating costs are associated with purchasing fresh fuel assemblies or the efficiency of the reactor core design. Material costs are typically beyond the operator’s control; however, the core design optimizations offer potential operational savings. The core design envelope available to operators is constrained by two primary regulatory criteria: an enrichment limit of 5% 235 U and a burnup limit of 62 GWD/tU. These constraints have resulted in renewed efforts by the nuclear industry to pursue extending the peak rod-average burnup beyond 62 GWd/tU. This effort will likely require additional safety analyses beyond what is currently accepted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate a best estimate plus uncertainty pin-by-pin high-burnup loss of coolant accident analysis technique to assess full-core high-burnup fuel fragmentation, relocation, and dispersal (FFRD) and identify approaches for minimizing or potentially mitigating FFRD through core design optimizations.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Market Segmentation Analysis of Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks with a Fuel Cell Emphasis
The medium- and heavy-duty transportation sector is experiencing rapid changes in powertrain technology innovation with recent announcements of battery electric and fuel cell electric trucks being offered. However, the economics of these alternative powertrain vehicles are uncertain and difficult to compare directly. This analysis seeks to bridge the gap of techno-economic analyses for these alternative powertrain vehicles by comparing all of them within the same analytic framework. Specifically, this report evaluates the total cost of ownership (TCO) of six different truck powertrain technologies (diesel, diesel hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid electric, compressed natural gas, battery electric, and fuel cell electric) for three different truck vocations (Class 8 long haul [750 mile range], Class 8 short haul [300 mile range], and Class 4 parcel delivery), for different Department of Energy technology statuses (2018, 2025, and Ultimate). The TCO framework includes direct costs (purchase price, fuel, operating and maintenance), indirect costs (dwell time costs due to refueling/recharging and payload opportunity costs from forgone revenue due to the truck being weight-limited), but excludes general operation costs (driver wages and benefits, insurance, tire replacements, permits, tolls) that are assumed to be the same across powertrains. The TCO was evaluated for four scenarios that reflect typical business operating conditions. The TCO analysis results highlight that each powertrain technology may have an economic advantage on a TCO basis in certain business operating conditions and depending on fuel price realized. For Class 8 long haul trucks when payload opportunity costs are not incurred, battery electric and fuel cell electric powertrains could be cost competitive with diesel if the 2025 targets are achieved and fuel prices are low. If payload opportunity costs are incurred, battery electric powertrains are not estimated to reach TCO parity with diesel even if Ultimate targets and low electricity prices are realized, indicating a need for significant vehicle lightweighting. In Class 8 short haul commercial applications when payload opportunity costs are not incurred, battery electric, fuel cell electric, and compressed natural gas vehicle powertrains have very competitive TCOs with diesel if the 2025 targets are achieved. In Class 8 short haul commercial applications when payload opportunity costs are incurred, the battery electric vehicle powertrains can achieve TCO parity with diesel only if the Ultimate battery prices are met ($80/kWh). In Class 4 parcel delivery truck operating scenarios where there are no dwell time costs incurred, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, battery electric vehicle, and fuel cell electric vehicle could be cost-competitive with diesel and compressed natural gas with current (2018) technology performance and costs. In general, the payload opportunity costs can be a significant driver to TCO for the Class 8 long and short haul commercial vehicle applications while the dwell time costs could be a major TCO cost driver for the Class 4 parcel delivery vehicle if the business scenario realizes those costs.
advanced powertrains↗
Togiak Heat Recovery Project
Togiak is one of hundreds of Alaskan Native, roadless communities only accessible by boat or plane. This project constructed a heat recovery (HR) system which pipes what was previously wasted heat generated at the power plant to four nearby community buildings. The power plant houses diesel fired generators which provide electricity to the community. This project designed and constructed the system that recovers a portion of the heat produced by the generators and pipes it to the end-user buildings. The heat recovery system integrates with each building’s internal heating system. The objective is to significantly reduce the heating costs in these four community facilities. By reducing the energy use and cost in these community facilities, the local economy is strengthened by keeping the funds inside the community that were formerly used to purchase imported fuel, thereby multiplying the impact of the energy cost reduction. Energy independence is enhanced and energy resilience is increased by reducing dependence on long fuel supply chains which are easily interrupted by unpredictable natural and man-made disasters such as earthquakes, climate change, road rail and sea accidents, etc.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Retail Electricity Price and Cost Trends: 2024 Update [Slides]
Berkeley Lab’s "Retail Electricity Price and Cost Trends" summarizes recent trends in retail electricity price levels and price drivers in the United States. This report is intended to serve as a reference document for the diverse set of decision-makers impacted by changes in retail electricity prices and to provide a factual basis for assessing recent changes in retail electricity prices and key underlying drivers. National, regional, and state trends are reported for 2019 through 2023 using publicly-available data for: -Average retail electricity prices, retail sales, and utility revenues -Utility capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, and fuel and purchased power costs -Retail electricity sales impacts from behind-the-meter resources The report also includes qualitative case studies highlighting recent and/or regionally-specific issues contributing significantly to retail electricity price trends
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
History of Ethanol Fuel Adoption in the United States: Policy, Economics, and Logistics
Ethanol has the achieved the greatest market share of all the alternative transportation fuels that have been researched, developed, and deployed in the US. There are multiple lessons to be learned from the history of ethanol adoption that can be applied to future fuels and products. Ethanol has replaced portions of gasoline in three main blend levels, with corresponding vehicles, equipment, benefits, and policies. The first is E10, which has replaced nearly all pure gasoline (E0) sold in the United States today (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2015). This was brought about through generations of policies that were motivated by multiple factors related to engine performance, energy security, health, air quality, and climate protection. Ethanol's high octane has been a consistent driver of the fuel because this enables higher performance engines. Early policies (1973-1979) were largely motivated by the desire to reduce dependence on petroleum sourced from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. Fuel policy in the 1980s was largely in pursuit of promoting octane number enhancers that could replace lead. Criteria pollutant reduction was the overarching goal of actions taken from 1990 to 2005. From 2005 to the present, fuel policy has been largely motivated by energy security and climate protection goals. These policies were usually technology-agnostic and promoted multiple fuels and additives during each period. However, ethanol is the only fuel identified that is cost effective with qualities that enabled it to prosper in the policy environments of all four of these periods.The second market for ethanol is via 85% ethanol (E85). This fuel has the advantage of a greater concentration of ethanol but the disadvantage of not being compatible with regular gasoline vehicles. Instead, it can only be used in flexible-fuel vehicle (FFVs), which can use every blend level from E0 to E85. Therefore, much of the effort to increase E85 consumption has been aimed at incentivizing automakers to manufacture FFVs, drivers to purchase FFVs, and fueling stations to equip themselves to sell E85.The third, and newest, market through which ethanol is consumed is 15% ethanol (E15), which builds upon the E10 market to increase ethanol consumption by common gasoline vehicles. Efforts to create the E15 market consisted largely of testing vehicles and refueling equipment for compatibility, creating waivers to allow the use of E15, placing requirements on E15 retailers, and incentivizing retailers to equip themselves to purchase E15.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Combined Heat and Power Deployment Program
Combined heat and power (CHP) is an efficient and clean approach to generating on-site electric power and useful thermal energy from a single fuel source. Instead of purchasing electricity from the distribution grid and burning fuel in an on-site furnace or boiler to produce thermal energy, CHP provides both energy services to a facility in one energy-efficient step.
CHP↗
MARVEL Reactor Fuel Performance Report (Rev.2)
The Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) project is producing a high temperature liquid metal-cooled nuclear test bed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to ultimately improve the integration of microreactors to end-user applications. This ambitious effort seeks to design, authorize, construct, test, and operate the reactor within five years. In order to construct and operate the MARVEL reactor in a timely manner, the system will utilize materials and component designs which have already been used, qualified, or licensed from previous reactors. The MARVEL reactor will be located at the INL Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility in the north high-bay equipment pit and will use the existing 304 stainless steel-clad U-ZrH1.6 pin-type fuel system developed by General Atomics and purchased from TRIGA International. This fuel has been previously qualified under the United States Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program. Even though the regulator of the MARVEL reactor is the US DOE, the standards and overall approach recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is well-defined and utilized here. Following NUREG-1537 regulatory guidance, this report documents the authorization case for the MARVEL fuel system’s application to MARVEL and establishes stable and predictable fuel performance during the most thermophysically unfavorable conditions achievable in the MARVEL reactor. To that end, this report provides a comprehensive survey of the known thermophysical properties, performance, and quantitative relationships associated with the MARVEL reactor fuel element and uses this information to determine its mechanical integrity and risk of reaching unacceptable conditions during the most extreme accident scenarios predicted for the reactor using the most conservative assumptions available. The information contained herein is compiled from a combination of historical reports and peer reviewed scientific publication manuscripts. Known mechanisms under which the fuel is susceptible to failure are highlighted and compared to conditions that could exist in the MARVEL reactor during an unanticipated transient or accident scenario. The two scenarios considered for analysis in this report are (1) an unprotected loss of flow accident and (2) a hypothetical unprotected loss of coolant accident during the loss of flow accident. Preliminary 2D steady-state analyses herein indicate that both fuel-cladding chemical interactions and fuel-cladding mechanical interactions are negligible throughout the fuel’s operational cycle under both normal and high temperature accident scenario conditions. Although higher fidelity 3D time-dependent modeling and simulations are planned, the following may be concluded presently. The MARVEL fuel element maintains its geometric stability and structural integrity during the most extreme accident scenarios predicted for the MARVEL reactor. The hoop stress during the unprotected loss of flow accident reaches about -1.27 MPa; this negative stress indicates that it is compressive rather than tensile. The compressive stress is a result of the NaK pressure on the outside of the fuel element, caused by the restricted thermal expansion of the NaK coolant, exceeding the internal pressures generated inside of the fuel element. The hoop stress generated in the cladding during the unprotected loss of coolant accident reaches a maximum of about approximately 10 MPa, which is nearly an order of magnitude less than the predicted yield strength of the cladding under high-temperature accident scenario conditions. Calculations were compared with results from high performance computational simulations using BISON and are in very close agreement. A conservative MARVEL fuel meat peak temperature limit of 900 °C is recommended presently, which is about 180 °C higher than the peak fuel temperature predicted to occur during the most extreme accident. Based on the known properties and behavior of the MARVEL fuel element, the fuel successfully meets its design and safety requirements under normal and most extreme accident conditions with a large safety margin.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
MARVEL Reactor Fuel Performance Report
The Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) project is producing a high temperature liquid metal-cooled nuclear test bed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to ultimately improve the integration of microreactors to end-user applications. This ambitious effort seeks to design, authorize, construct, test, and operate the reactor within five years. In order to construct and operate the MARVEL reactor in a timely manner, the system will utilize materials and component designs which have already been used, qualified, or licensed from previous reactors. The MARVEL reactor will be located at the INL Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility in the north high-bay equipment pit and will use the existing 304 stainless steel-clad U-ZrH1.6 pin-type fuel system developed by General Atomics and purchased from TRIGA International. This fuel has been previously qualified under the United States Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program. Even though the regulator of the MARVEL reactor is the US DOE, the standards and overall approach recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is well-defined and utilized here. Following NUREG-1537 regulatory guidance, this report documents the authorization case for the MARVEL fuel system’s application to MARVEL and establishes stable and predictable fuel performance during the most thermophysically unfavorable conditions achievable in the MARVEL reactor. To that end, this report provides a comprehensive survey of the known thermophysical properties, performance, and quantitative relationships associated with the MARVEL reactor fuel element and uses this information to determine its mechanical integrity and risk of reaching unacceptable conditions during the most extreme accident scenarios predicted for the reactor using the most conservative assumptions available. The information contained herein is compiled from a combination of historical reports and peer reviewed scientific publication manuscripts. Known mechanisms under which the fuel is susceptible to failure are highlighted and compared to conditions that could exist in the MARVEL reactor during an unanticipated transient or accident scenario. The two scenarios considered for analysis in this report are (1) an unprotected loss of flow accident and (2) a hypothetical unprotected loss of coolant accident during the loss of flow accident. Preliminary 2D steady-state analyses herein indicate that both fuel-cladding chemical interactions and fuel-cladding mechanical interactions are negligible throughout the fuel’s operational cycle under both normal and high temperature accident scenario conditions. Although higher fidelity 3D time-dependent modeling and simulations are planned, the following may be concluded presently. The MARVEL fuel element maintains its geometric stability and structural integrity during the most extreme accident scenarios predicted for the MARVEL reactor. The hoop stress during the unprotected loss of flow accident reaches about -1.27 MPa; this negative stress indicates that it is compressive rather than tensile. The compressive stress is a result of the NaK pressure on the outside of the fuel element, caused by the restricted thermal expansion of the NaK coolant, exceeding the internal pressures generated inside of the fuel element. The hoop stress generated in the cladding during the unprotected loss of coolant accident reaches a maximum of about approximately 10 MPa, which is nearly an order of magnitude less than the predicted yield strength of the cladding under high-temperature accident scenario conditions. Calculations were compared with results from high performance computational simulations using BISON and are in very close agreement. A conservative MARVEL fuel meat peak temperature limit of 900 °C is recommended presently, which is about 180 °C higher than the peak fuel temperature predicted to occur during the most extreme accident. Based on the known properties and behavior of the MARVEL fuel element, the fuel successfully meets its design and safety requirements under normal and most extreme accident conditions with a large safety margin.
11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Powertrain Performance and Total Cost of Ownership Analysis for Class 8 Yard Tractors and Refuse Trucks
Advanced powertrain technologies, specifically fuel cell electric powertrains, have gained attention as viable alternatives for medium- and heavy-duty (M/HD) vehicles. However, it is unclear how these alternative powertrain vehicles stack up against their diesel counterparts in terms of performance and total cost of ownership (TCO). Furthermore, there are vehicle segments within the M/HD sector that have remained unstudied for fuel cell electric applications. This analysis aims to provide a comparative scoping-level TCO and performance analysis for two heavy-duty vocation vehicles (Class 8 U.S. port-side yard tractor and Class 8 U.S.-based refuse truck) for both conventional diesel and heavy-duty fuel cell electric (HDFC) powertrains. The refuse truck analysis also considered compressed natural gas powertrains (CNG) for comparison. The analysis includes seven timeframes (2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050) for comparison. This simplified TCO analysis includes only direct costs (fuel price, glider purchase price, and operating & maintenance costs) and excludes any associated indirect cost (e.g., dwell time costs and other opportunity based costs). Representative drive cycles for each vehicle were based on on-board GPS logged data and chosen by the analysis team to represent average, non-extreme driving conditions. At the time the analysis was performed, the Inflation Reduction Act was not in effect and therefore any potential subsidies and future cost reductions enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act were not included. Based on the operational setpoints used in this analysis, HDFC powertrains for both yard tractors and refuse trucks have the potential to achieve TCO advantages over conventional diesel powertrains (and CNG for refuse truck applications) in the near- to mid-term future while meeting the necessary duty cycle performance requirements. Yard tractors and refuse trucks spend a significant amount of time operating at low speeds, with long durations of idling, and experience numerous start/stop occurrences. These operational characteristics favor fuel cell performance as fuel cells operate with higher efficiencies at lower percentages of total power output. Conversely, conventional diesel and CNG engines are most efficient at higher percentages of total power output. This helps HDFC powered yard tractors and refuse trucks realize improved fuel economy when compared to their diesel counterparts, which helps reduce total fuel costs and therefore, total TCO. The analysis demonstrates that fuel prices play a significant role in determining TCO for each vehicle and should remain an R&D focus area. Overall, under the analysis' specified conditions, HDFC yard tractors have the potential to achieve cost parity with diesel yard tractors as early as 2025. For refuse trucks, HDFC refuse trucks have the potential to achieve cost parity with diesel and CNG refuse trucks in 2030 and 2040, respectively.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Auto Stop-Start Fuel Consumption Benefits
With increasingly stringent regulations mandating the improvement of vehicle fuel economy, automotive manufacturers face growing pressure to develop and implement technologies that improve overall system efficiency. One such technology is an automatic (auto) stop-start feature. Auto stop-start reduces idle time and reduces fuel use by temporarily shutting the engine off when the vehicle comes to a stop and automatically re-starting it when the brake is released, or the accelerator is pressed. As mandated by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to keep the public informed about fuel saving practices. This is done, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), through the fueleconomy.gov website. The “Fuel-Saving Technologies” and “Gas Mileage Tips” sections of the website are focused on helping the public make informed purchasing decisions and encouraging fuel-saving driving habits. Here, in order to provide users with accurate information about the auto stop-start feature, experiments were conducted to determine its fuel economy effect. Four vehicles were tested both with and without the feature enabled under three test cycles: the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) city fuel economy test, the US06 high acceleration aggressive driving schedule that is often identified as the “Supplemental FTP” driving schedule, and the EPA New York City Cycle (NYCC). The results were compared to measure the fuel economy and consumption effects of using the auto stop-start feature. It was found that the fuel economy improvement varied significantly between drive cycles depending on the amount and percentage of idle time during the test. The largest fuel economy improvements were 7.27% and 26.4% for the FTP and NYCC, respectively.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels
States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
Model Year 2019 Fuel Economy Guide: EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Model Year 2020 Fuel Economy Guide: EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Model Year 2021 Fuel Economy Guide
The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.
2017 EPA fuel economy↗