Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Fujita, K. Sydny

Publications and source records attributed to Fujita, K. Sydny.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

A Strategic Condition Framework for Energy Innovation

Building upon previous work in innovation, technology, and economic fields, we propose a conceptual framework to address the interplay dynamics of public policy and the value chains of clean energy technology innovation systems, by focusing on market structural and strategic conditions in relation to the rate and direction of knowledge diffusion within activity-based value chains. Our framework extends beyond socio-technical transition models by considering such nuances as: 1) the implications of geography, 2) the locus of knowledge types, 3) the dynamics of financial and knowledge flow, and 4) emphasizing the importance of both market structure and institutional conditions. At the firm level, we consider dynamics of interactions between suppliers and customers, innovation activities, the competitive environment, and the firm’s broader strategic relationship to governance activities and structures; we allow for the fact that each of these aspects of a firm’s identity may have a strategically relevant geographic dimension (e.g., service territories, locational concentration of input resources, etc.). We provide a proof-of-concept application of the U.S. utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind sectors, including their interactions with the U.S. power market, which we in present in a web-based information platform (Energy I-SPARK, ei-spark.lbl.gov).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2023

Underlying each of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process relying on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate a business’ cost of equity, and by adding a risk adjustment factor to the risk-free rate associated with long-term U.S. Treasury bonds to estimate their cost of debt. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level and sector-level financial data (e.g., Fujita, 2021, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include the following: • Discount rate estimation methods and rationale • Data sources used and data limitations • Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis • Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Georectified polygon database of ground-mounted large-scale solar photovoltaic sites in the United States.

Over 4,400 large-scale solar photovoltaic (LSPV) facilities operate in the United States as of December 2021, representing more than 60 gigawatts of electric energy capacity. Of these, over 3,900 are ground-mounted LSPV facilities with capacities of 1 megawatt direct current (MW dc ) or more. Ground-mounted LSPV installations continue increasing, with more than 400 projects appearing online in 2021 alone; however, a comprehensive, publicly available georectified dataset including spatial footprints of these facilities is lacking. The United States Large-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Database (USPVDB) was developed to fill this gap. Using US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, locations of 3,699 LSPV facilities were verified using high-resolution aerial imagery, polygons were digitized around panel arrays, and attributes were appended. Quality assurance and control were achieved via team peer review and comparison to other US PV datasets. Data are publicly available via an interactive web application and multiple downloadable formats, including: comma-separated value (CSV), application programming interface (API), and GIS shapefile and GeoJSON.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2022

Underlying each of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level and sector-level financial data (e.g., Fujita, 2021, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include the following: -Discount rate estimation methods and rationale -Data sources used and data limitations -Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis -Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis A version of this analysis was most recently released in 2022. Going forward, this report will be updated as data allow and analyses necessitate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2021

Underlying each of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample in order to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level financial data (Fujita, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include: Discount rate estimation methods and rationale; -Data sources used and data limitations; -Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis; -Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis. Going forward, this report will be updated as data allow and analyses necessitate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

Enabling behavior through personal commitment statements: why do they work?

We define and test three main hypotheses each examining a mechanism by which personal commitment statements may influence behavior: future-self continuity, disappointment or regret aversion, and present-biased preferences coupled with sophistication. A set of additional analyses are conducted exploring a personal commitment statement’s role as an enabling device that either increases, or is correlated with, intent to implement the desired behavior. Hypotheses are tested using data from a field experiment regarding public transit ridership. Results indicate that the strongest candidate mechanism for the effectiveness of a commitment statement to induce behavior change is the presence of present-biased preferences coupled with sophistication, or self-awareness of one’s own limitations in following through with effortful behaviors. In addition, results suggest that the preference for one commitment mechanism could indicate a general preference for commitment mechanisms, but the presence of one commitment mechanism may crowd out perceived need for or interest in other enabling steps.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗