SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This fact sheet summarizes some of the key needs, barriers, and opportunities related to data center management and operations in the state and local government sector.
This resource summary is for state, local, and K-12 energy professionals and non-finance experts seeking to understand how bonds can be used to pay for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and initiatives. The objective of the resource summary is to inform energy professionals, so they can more confidently and efficiently discuss bond financing with public finance officers and executive leadership as an option for supporting energy goals.
This report describes grid-interactive efficient buildings in the context of state and local government interests; highlights trends, challenges and opportunities for demand flexibility; provides an overview of valuation and performance assessments for demand flexibility; and outlines actions that state and local governments can take, in concert with utilities, regional grid operators, and building owners, to advance demand flexibility.
This resource is for state, local government, and K-12 school staff managing small- and medium-sized facilities. Readers will learn to address the unique challenges of smaller energy-saving projects and make informed decisions about financing. Section 1 provides tools for obtaining the information required to prioritize potential energy upgrades. Section 2 presents financing options for energy upgrades, as well as insights that will help decision makers select the right financing model for their project and jurisdiction. Section 3 summarizes key takeaways and highlights additional resources for small- and medium-sized public facilities.
The State Government Revenue Vulnerability Index (SGRVI) and Local Government Revenue Vulnerability Index (LGRVI) measure the vulnerability of government revenues by estimating monthly changes relative to a January 2020 baseline. Revenues included in both indices include: taxes on products and sales, transportation and housing revenues, individual income taxes, severance taxes and royalties, and property taxes. Local government revenues also include a local revenue from state revenue sharing component. In addition, the main index for the LGRVI for county-level governments includes revenue estimates for sub-county government units, including municipalities, school districts, and special districts. This revenue data is aggregated to produce the indices.
During this workshop, attendees will suggest how local home improvement contractors can be encouraged to support the roll out of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provisions with behavioral insights. Workshop sponsor, NREL, and workshop moderator, Dr. Sussman, will compile audience suggestions for states, local governments, and the US Department of Energy to inform their rollout of the IRA.
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.
The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, which is developed by the ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1, and is the model energy standard for all commercial buildings and multifamily residential buildings over three floors. PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1-2019, compared to the previous 90.1-2016 edition, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. In reviewing proposed changes to Standard 90.1, the SSPC considers the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda). Due to the continuous nature of the development process, however, ASHRAE does not evaluate the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting state and local governments. Providing states with an analysis of cost-effectiveness facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts associated with updated model energy codes, informs the state decision-making process and its authorities, and ultimately encourages greater adoption of updated of energy codes. This information also informs the development of future editions of Standard 90.1.
The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2016 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 2016). Standard 90.1 is developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. It is the model energy standard for commercial and multi-family residential buildings over three floors (42 USC 6833). PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1 from 90.1-2013 to 90.1-2016, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. During the development of new editions of Standard 90.1, the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda) is often calculated to support the deliberations of ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. The ASHRAE process, however, does not include analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting State and local governments. Providing States with an analysis of cost-effectiveness may encourage more rapid adoption of newer editions of energy codes based on Standard 90.1. This information may also inform the development of future editions of Standard 90.1. To establish the cost-effectiveness of Standard 90.1-2016, three main tasks were addressed: (1) Identification of building elements impacted by the updated standard; (2) Allocation of associated installation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and (3) Cost-effectiveness analysis of required changes In addition to installation, maintenance, and replacement costs, energy cost differences were needed to determine cost-effectiveness. The energy costs for each edition of Standard 90.1 were determined previously under the development of Standard 90.1-2016, as described below. The current analysis builds on the previous PNNL analysis (as outlined in Section 5.2) of the energy use and energy cost saving impacts of Standard 90.1-2016 compared to previous editions. The overall energy savings analysis of Standard 90.1 utilized a suite of 16 prototype EnergyPlus building models in 15 climate locations representing all eight U.S. climate zones. Detailed methodology and overall energy saving results from Standard 90.1-2016 are documented in the DOE technical report titled Energy Savings Analysis: ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (DOE. 2018b).
The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2022 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, which is developed by the ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1 and is the model energy standard for all commercial buildings and multifamily residential buildings over three floors. PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1-2022, compared to the previous 90.1-2019 edition, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. In reviewing proposed changes to Standard 90.1, the SSPC considers the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda). Due to the continuous nature of the development process, however, ASHRAE does not evaluate the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting state and local governments. Providing states with an analysis of cost-effectiveness facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts associated with updated model energy codes, informs the state decision-making process and its authorities, and ultimately encourages greater adoption of updated energy codes. This information also informs the development of future editions of Standard 90.1.
State Energy Offices and Public Utility Commissions rely on timely, accurate, and actionable information to perform their energy emergency response duties and execute their roles as state energy security planners. In support of this need, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions (NARUC) hosted an Energy Security and Data Analysis Workshop in Washington, DC to identify energy security response and planning data sources; and to share successful methods of data use and integration in state, federal, and private sector tools. Following the workshop, NASEO and NARUC hosted two topical data-centric webinars based on state priorities to identify best practices in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Crisis Communications programs leveraged in energy assurance planning and response. The Crisis Communications webinar covered best practice tactics for how states can respond during energy emergencies and other crises. Based on the workshop and webinars, this document summarizes commonly used data sources and includes frequently asked questions which may be used by state energy officials (i.e., consisting of staff from Public Utility Commissions and Governor-designated State Energy Offices) to help guide them in developing or improving their Crisis Communications capabilities. A strong public information program is a key crisis management tool. Timely and accurate information helps prevent confusion and uncertainty and encourages public support and cooperation. As energy subject matter experts, state energy officials are vital in the distilling, clarifying, and conveying energy sector information and implications to decision-makers and the public. Other participants in an effective public information program include the Governor’s Office, other state agencies, local governments, energy providers, local businesses, state legislature, and the federal government. It is essential to provide stakeholders and the public with information about the nature, severity, and duration of an emergency because inadequate understanding and awareness can lead to undesirable actions that could further exacerbate the situation. Before a state government can provide information to the public, it must gather information, describe the emergency accurately, and develop recommendations to manage the situation.
Electronic waste, or e-waste, encompasses end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment, including computers, monitors, televisions, printers, cell phones, household appliances with electronic components, and small consumer devices containing batteries or circuitry. E-waste is one of the fastest-growing components of the U.S. waste stream, with nearly 8 million tons generated in 2022. E-waste presents two related public-interest considerations. First, e-waste contains economically and strategically important materials: base metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), precious metals (gold, silver, platinum group metals), and critical materials such as rare earth elements, gallium, and indium that appear on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 2025 List of Critical Minerals. Second, many electronic devices contain hazardous constituents - including lead, mercury, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants - as well as rechargeable batteries that can pose fire risks during handling. Effective management of these constituents helps protect workers, communities, and the environment. In the United States, it is estimated that less than 20% of e-waste is formally collected and recycled, leaving over 6 million tons landfilled or otherwise unrecovered. This fact sheet provides state and local decision-makers an overview of (1) e-waste composition and recoverable materials, (2) technology pathways used to recover those materials, and (3) examples of operational and partnership structures used to provide e-waste recycling capacity in the United States. It is intended to complement existing collection-program guidance available through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other sources.
The electrification of U.S. federal, state, and municipal fleets is accelerating rapidly, driven by an increased availability of competitive electric vehicle (EV) options and supportive policies and targets. The dataset described in this report, accessible at data.nrel.gov/submissions/280, provides a critical foundation for identifying fleet electricity demand, projecting these future demands, and developing actionable strategies to support the widespread electrification of government fleets. The dataset incorporates available fleet data, including 54% of federal agency vehicles approved for analysis (notably, the U.S. Postal Service is absent). Additionally, it includes data from 50,000 state government vehicles and 94,000 local government vehicles. While this represents a small fraction of the 4.4 million vehicles owned by state and local governments reported by the Federal Highway Administration (2022), the framework supports future expansion as more fleet inventory data become available.
Many energy efficiency financing programs could achieve greater uptake and impact by more effectively recruiting participants. This report examines some of the primary factors that have contributed to high participant uptake among successful financing programs. We review best practices in partnerships (Chapter 2), direct marketing (Chapter 3), and program design (Chapter 4) that facilitate robust participation. This report is primarily designed for state and local governments that have established energy efficiency financing programs or are considering doing so and are seeking insight into how they can ramp up program participation. In disseminating lessons learned from well-established programs that have experienced success in their target markets, the objective is to help scale up the large number of energy efficiency financing programs that seek to replicate these successes. This report can inform states, local governments, and other entities that will establish or expand clean energy financing programs with funding made available under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Buildings generate data throughout their lifecycle – about ownership & taxation, usage, zoning, code compliance, energy use, and retrofits. State and local governments collect this data after it flows through growing networks of people and systems. But collecting data is only half the battle; what’s really needed is information – the actionable insights that lead to successful policy outcomes.
Sandia Materials Science Investment Area contributed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 disease which represent the most significant pandemic threat in over 100 years. We completed a series of 7, short duration projects to provide innovative materials science research and development in analytical techniques to aid the neutralization of COVID-19 on multiple surfaces, approaches to rapidly decontaminate personal protective equipment, and pareto assessment of construction materials for manufacturing personal protective equipment. The developed capabilities and processes through this research can help US medical personnel, government installations and assets, first responders, state and local governments, and multiple federal agencies address the COVID-19 Pandemic.
This technical memorandum (TM) presents an overview of the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), a collection of web-based tools designed to assist with the environmental risk assessment process. The objective of the RAIS is to be a single resource for the risk assessment process, providing guidance when planning and performing the steps: data assessment, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The RAIS evolved as a result of the initial remediation efforts at various United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The goal was to increase the efficiency and transparency of the human health and ecological assessments being performed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) office by providing a repository for toxicity information, physicochemical data, risk assessment procedures, standardized risk calculation methods, and web-based tools. Since the initial launch in 1996, the RAIS has expanded its user base outside of the federal government and now has users from over 100 countries, universities, states, and local governments. What sets the RAIS apart from other risk assessment sites are the publicly available, searchable toxicity and physicochemical databases and the wide range of chemical and radionuclide risk calculation tools. The purpose of this TM is to present the RAIS tools in order of the website menus and explain how they fit in the risk assessment process. In addition, this TM describes differences between the chemical and radionuclide tools of the RAIS. Screening level equations, chronic daily intake equations, and default exposure factors used in the chemical and radionuclide calculators are included in the appendices of this TM. This TM is not intended to be a detailed guide to risk assessment or the RAIS tools. The tools on the RAIS can be used to comply with procedures from multiple agencies, including but not limited to DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and many state governments. Further information on the RAIS tools can be found in the user guides and tutorials available on the webpage.
This issue brief is for state and local governments that want to track the energy impacts and performance of a Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing program. C-PACE programs provide a mechanism for commercial property owners to finance energy improvements and can provide a variety of both private and public benefits.