Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “negotiation models”

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.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies in Scenarios of U.S. Decarbonization in Two Types of Models: Comparison of GCAM Modeling and Sector-Specific Modeling

Energy system projections from analytic models inform actions ranging from short-term and local decisions, such as technology and infrastructure deployment, to global and long-term negotiations and targets. Computational limits require the designers of these models to trade off between coverage and resolution. Some models, such as the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), represent all energy sources and uses but at a relatively coarse level of resolution. GCAM balances global supply and demand of all energy carriers by endogenously projecting prices for energy sources and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation while capturing interlinkages between the energy system, water, agriculture and land use, the economy, and the climate. This global model was used to frame the Long-Term Strategy released by the White House in 2021 and has been used to inform national and global economy-wide decarbonization discussions and strategy development for decades. Other models instead focus on a portion of the energy sector with greater detail and resolution. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) electricity-sector model, for example, projects capacity expansion with an emphasis on integration of variable renewable energy into the grid of the future. The Transportation Energy and Mobility Pathway Options (TEMPO) transportation-sector model enables analysis of household choices in adoption, charging, and use of electric vehicles. The Scout buildings-sector model supports detailed consideration of the policies and markets that can accelerate the adoption of energy conservation measures in buildings. Such sector-specific models are instrumental in informing technology research, sectoral planning strategies, and sector-specific aspects of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies in the United States. These global and sector-specific modeling approaches can complement each other. The global approach ensures consistent, endogenous energy pricing and resource allocation, which can substantially diverge from current conditions in transformative scenarios, while the sector-specific approach facilitates representation of granular details across spatial, temporal, technological, and market dimensions that enable exploration of particular interactions and trade-offs. This report presents the results of recent work to explore the differences and tradeoffs between these approaches by comparing GCAM with the sector-specific ReEDS, TEMPO, and Scout models. The report compares both model structures and results, and discusses their potential relevance and applications.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Watching the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam from a distance: Implications for sustainable water management of the Nile water

Increased demands for sustainable water and energy resources in densely populated basins have led to the construction of dams, which impound waters in artificial reservoirs. In many cases, scarce field data led to the development of models that underestimated the seepage losses from reservoirs and ignored the role of extensive fault networks as preferred pathways for groundwater flow. We adopt an integrated approach (remote sensing, hydrologic modeling, and field observations) to assess the magnitude and nature of seepage from such systems using the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Africa's largest hydropower project, as a test site. The dam was constructed on the Blue Nile within steep, highly fractured, and weathered terrain in the western Ethiopian Highlands. The GERD Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Terrestrial Water Storage (GRACETWS), seasonal peak difference product, reveals significant mass accumulation (43 ± 5 BCM) in the reservoir and seepage in its surroundings with progressive south-southwest mass migration along mapped structures between 2019 and 2022. Seepage, but not a decrease in inflow or increase in outflow, could explain, at least in part, the observed drop in the reservoir's water level and volume following each of the three fillings. Using mass balance calculations and GRACETWS observations, we estimate significant seepage (19.8 ± 6 BCM) comparable to the reservoir's impounded waters (19.9 ± 1.2 BCM). Investigating and addressing the seepage from the GERD will ensure sustainable development and promote regional cooperation; overlooking the seepage would compromise hydrological modeling efforts on the Nile Basin and misinform ongoing negotiations on the Nile water management.

GRACE and GRACE-FO↗
DOE OSTI2024

A hierarchical framework for aggregating grid-interactive buildings with thermal and battery energy storage

The behind-the-meter (BTM) thermal and battery energy storage can help improve energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, and enhance energy resilience, particularly in rural areas and for disadvantaged communities. Aggregating numerous BTM energy storage systems can act as a price influencer with a significant source of load shifting and peak demand reduction. An integrated and scalable control mechanism is required to effectively utilize energy storage systems and flexible building loads to maximize the economic benefits, considering various distribution system constraints. Here, this paper presents an innovative hierarchical coordination framework for energy storage and flexible load in buildings, considering various factors such as electricity prices, thermal comfort, and distribution system modeling and constraints. At the upper level, a distribution system operator optimizes the power flow to minimize its power procurement costs from the electricity wholesale market, while at the lower level, aggregators determine the optimal dispatch of battery and thermal energy storage systems in multiple buildings on behalf of end-users to minimize operating costs according to the power prices. These problems are solved using a game-theoretic approach through negotiations between the distribution system operator and aggregators as a bi-level decision model. Simulation case studies have been performed for a test distribution network with a number of building end-users using energy storage systems to quantify the performance of aggregators. The results demonstrate that the proposed strategy can reduce peak load for a reliable electricity distribution network while saving electricity bills for customers.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2026

Demand response event simulator and risk-aware bidding tool for industrial customers

Incentive Based Demand Response (IBDR) program participation delivers financial benefits to the consumers and resiliency benefits to the electricity grid. Effectively participating in these programs as an industrial consumer requires bidding strategies that balance financial risk with operational constraints. Existing bidding tools tend not to fully incorporate stochastic IBDR event modeling, program specific baseline and payment/penalty calculations, or demand reduction process control schemes that account for the cascading impacts of shutdown in complex facilities. Here, this work presents an IBDR event simulator and risk-aware bidding framework tool integrating three key components: a flexible, parameterized demand response event generator that rigorously accounts for program structures and stochasticity, a demand response operational simulation model that generates explicit control strategies for load reduction, and a Monte Carlo simulator to evaluate financial risk for varied capacity bids. A case study at a wastewater treatment plant participating in PG&E's Capacity Bidding Program demonstrates the framework's utility. In the peak capacity price month of August, optimal bidding by the wastewater treatment plant nets a mean IBDR benefit of $101,000 (67% of the August electricity bill) with 0.4% probability of a financial loss. This framework enables industrial operators to make informed bidding decisions, negotiate better program terms with demand response load aggregators, and analyze energy flexibility investments at their facilities. Ultimately, this work reduces participation barriers in IBDR programs and supports the broader goal of enhancing grid reliability and renewable energy integration.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Transactive Energy Network Template Metamodel

While transactive energy, which is defined as an allocation of electricity based on dynamically discovered values or prices, has been extensively studied, its uptake and use has been slow. This report describes a tool, the transactive network template, which should hasten the creation and uptake of transactive energy networks. Some basic principles of transactive energy are familiar from existing wholesale electricity markets. Locational prices are calculated today for zones within bulk electric transmission systems. Locational prices differ while accounting for the locational costs of electricity generation and the losses and constraints incurred when electricity is transmitted from generators and distributed to consumers. A transactive energy network might include these transmission zones. However, current research strives to apply transactive energy also in electricity distribution circuits, buildings, and even for individual generating and consuming devices. At the same time, researchers explore how to apply transactive energy in real time during increasingly shorter time intervals. Automated computational agents become necessary as transactive energy becomes applied to smaller circuit zones and at faster dynamic timescales. A transactive energy network is an example of a multi-agent system. Each zone in the network is represented by its transactive agent, which makes decisions for and acts on behalf of a business entity that is responsible for and manages one of the circuit regions. A transactive energy network is also an example of a decentralized, distributed control system. Control decisions and responsibilities are distributed among the network’s transactive agents. The transactive agents are independent; that is, there typically is no centralized authority or oversight function. Instead, transactive agents exchange transactive signals and thereby negotiate the prices and quantities of electricity that they will exchange. Initially, the circuit regions and responsibilities of transactive agents appear to be very dissimilar. Each circuit region may comprise transmission, distribution, or building-level circuits. Each has a unique position and electrical connectivity within the transactive energy network. Each possesses unique assets that either generate or consume electricity, and these (e.g., renewable energy generator, diesel generator, aggregate utility load, building load, space conditioning, refrigerator, etc.) may further differ in their price flexibility and in their strategies for responding to dynamic electricity prices. Given such diversity, an implementer’s first inclination might be to start from scratch to define all these devices and to engineer their seemingly unique interactions. Given that each implementer’s perspective may be narrow within a transactive energy network, it is unlikely that uniquely engineered systems would interact well. This is where the transactive network template is applicable. The transactive network template is a metamodel that has been developed to guide implementers as they configure their own transactive agent within a network of such agents. The object-oriented design of the transactive network template provides basic code object types that may be used and extended by implementers to represent each of the assets in their circuit region. These objects further facilitate the transactive agent’s necessary computations, which are divided among responsibilities to schedule power usage, balance electric supply and demand, and coordinate the exchange of electricity with the other transactive agents. This report addresses the conceptual transactive network template design. Implementers are directed to more formal design documents and reference implementations. A Python™-based1 reference implementation of the transactive network template has been coded, and three implementations have been configured to represent a national laboratory and two university campuses. Version 2 of the transactive node template generalizes the market class and its methods to facilitate multiple, and more diverse market coordination mechanisms than were facilitated by and demonstrated using Version 1. Version 3 includes new Appendix B, which addresses the designs of methods that would make dynamic prices track approved electricity rates. In the future, the author wishes to make the transactive network template more generally applicable to networks that require more accurate power flow. Development of the transactive network template is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the DOE Office of Electricity. In late 2015, one of the first projects to be funded by the DOE Grid Laboratory Modernization Laboratory Consortium was the Clean Energy and Transactive Campus project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE funds were matched by an investment by the Washington Department of Commerce through its Clean Energy Fund. The transactive network template was developed to guide the implementation of transactive energy networks within this project’s scope.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗