Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “contractors”

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.

At least 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Townsend's Ground Squirrel Conservation on the Hanford Site for Calendar Year 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Hanford Field Office (HFO) conducts ecological monitoring on the DOE-managed portion of Hanford Site (hereby referred to as Central Hanford) to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing HFO activities. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under HFO stewardship on the Hanford Site, which is required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that HFO, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement. HFO places priority on monitoring plant and animal species or habitats that have specific regulatory protections or requirements; that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or are of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or to the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mechanical Solution for Existing Conductors

The rapid growth in energy demand, driven by advancements in AI technology, renewable energy integration, and increased industrial activity, highlights the need for innovative solutions to improve the resiliency and efficiency of the power grid. This report details the fire testing of GridWrap’s Composite WiRe Wrap, to evaluate the wrap's ability to enhance conductor performance under wildfire-simulated conditions. Conductors were prepared and tested in a controlled environment at 400°C for 18 minutes, during which sag and temperature data were recorded. The results demonstrated that the unwrapped conductor sagged 3/16ths of an inch, while the WiRe Wrapped conductor sagged only 1/16th of an inch under identical conditions, indicating a significant improvement in mechanical performance. This project, conducted as part of a collaborative effort between BEA (Idaho National Laboratory’s managing contractor) and GridWrap, Inc., demonstrates the potential of grid-enhancing technologies like WiRe Wrap to reduce sag, increase grid resiliency, and support the future energy landscape. By validating the performance of such technologies in real-world scenarios, this work provides critical insights for industry adoption, benefiting both grid operators and U.S. taxpayers through improved reliability, reduced emissions, and enhanced energy delivery.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reported Energy and Cost Savings from the DOE ESPC IDIQ Program: FY 2024

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)are a contractual mechanism that allow a federal agency to procure energy savings and facility improvements without upfront capital costs to reduce costs and resiliency. ESPCs are covered under FAR Part 23.2, and 42 USC § 8287. Section 8287(a)(2)(A) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code requires that each energy savings performance contract (ESPC) undergo an annual energy audit, resulting in a separate audit report for every project. The objective of the present report is to compile and analyze all annual ESPC audit reports issued between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, for projects awarded under Generations 1, 2, and 3 of DOE’s ESPC IDIQ contracts. During this period, 205 measurement and verification (M&V) reports were produced for 200 projects; the total number of reports exceeds the number of projects because some projects generated more than one report(for example, a few projects measure savings twice per year and produce two audit reports annually, each covering a different six-month period). By aggregating the results from these individual audits, the report determines the portfolio-wide realization rate of energy and cost savings for all active ESPC projects awarded under DOE’s IDIQ program. For all 205audit reports, sufficient information was available to compare project-level estimated, reported, and guaranteed cost savings. Reported cost savings accounted for ESCO verified savings per each project’s M&V plan. The total reported cost savings for the period addressed were $\$$647.8million,compared with the total guaranteed cost savings of $\$$601.6million. On average across the reported projects: •ESPC contractors guaranteed 92.8% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 100.0% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 107.7% of the guaranteed cost savings. The M&V performed for the period indicated adjustments for government operations and maintenance impacts to savings amount to$\$$43.9millionandcould be restored with the original operational parameters for impacted projects. Accounting for this potential cost savings impact, these projects still realized 100.4% of the guaranteed cost savings. The information on estimated and reported energy savings was collected and compared for all 205of the reports examined. Based on site energy, estimated savings totaled 14.88million MMBtu, and reported savings were 15.33million MMBtu; 3.1% greater than the estimated energy savings. All of the reports examined contained sufficient information to calculate source energy savings. Based on site-adjusted source energy, total estimated energy savings were 20.90 million MMBtu, and reported savings were 21.22million MMBtu, 101.5% of the estimated energy savings. For water savings, the estimated savings were 11,539,055 kGal and the reported savings were 13,315,930 kGal. This means 1,776,875 kGal more water was saved than estimated, which is about 15% higher than the estimate. These results indicate that, overall, the reported energy savings slightly exceeded the estimated values, while estimated water savings significantly exceeded estimated values, suggesting that the projects achieved greater cost savings than originally projected. The total annual expense for the ESCOs to perform annual M&V audits and reporting was $\$$10.02million. Through this effort, $\$$647.8 million in annual cost savings was verified. The M&V results indicated that $\$$43.9 million of these verified savings reflected adjustments due to government operations A-6and maintenance impacts, which could be restored under the original operational parameters for the affected projects. These findings show the value of M&V that only costs 1.7%of the guaranteed cost savings to ensure guarantees are met.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Memorial Pools Energy Efficiency Retrofits

The National September 11 Memorial & Museum completed a retrofit of the submergible LED lighting fixtures in its North and South Memorial Pools, located at the World Trade Center site in New York City. The two one-acre pools are illuminated nightly by custom LED fixtures set into their base, and the original lights — in place since 2011 — had begun reaching the end of their useful life, leaving sections of the pools dim or dark. Rather than fully replacing the fixtures, the project team worked with the original manufacturer, Acuity Brands, to retrofit and reuse existing components across all eight pool walls (34 fixtures per wall), reducing cost and waste. Fixtures were shipped in custom crates to Minnesota for retrofitting, then reinstalled onsite by Memorial & Museum staff and contractor ABM. The team addressed two key technical challenges during the project: early leakage in retrofitted fixtures, resolved by introducing vacuum-sealing and nitrogen-fill testing before shipment; and chord damage during transit, resolved with custom-designed shipping crates. All eight pool walls were successfully retrofitted and reinstalled by August 27, 2025, ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Sitewide electrical consumption in September 2025 reflected an approximate 7% reduction, contributing to the institution's broader net-zero and LEED Gold sustainability goals.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Solar Training and Education Partnership for Underserved Populations

Solar Landscape’s STEP-UP program provided high quality solar installation training in partnership with community-based organizations (CBOs) in various regions within the U.S. Solar Landscape leveraged internal subject matter experts (SME’s) industry guidance and regional training assessments to provide customized training designed to support the growing solar and broader energy sector. Upon completion of the program, the team assisted trainees and nonprofit partners with connections to Solar Landscape contractors as well as local and National residential solar installation companies to facilitate placement into careers and apprenticeships.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Ductless Heat Pump Program

The Verde Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) Program expanded access to high-efficiency electric heating and cooling technologies for households in priority communities within the Portland Metro area. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office (DE-EE0010132), the program combined residential ductless heat pump deployment with community-based outreach, participant support, contractor partnerships, and system development to improve program delivery.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

National Laboratories for Environmental Management and Stewardship (NNLEMS) National Lab Capabilities in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) (Revision 1)

The Network of National Laboratories for Environmental Management and Stewardship (NNLEMS) formed an Unoccupied Aircraft Systems (UAS) topical team in spring 2025 for the purpose of documenting the capabilities of the National Laboratories relevant to the goals and needs of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM). The team was comprised of representatives from eight National Laboratories (Table 1), thereby bringing diverse skillsets from across the DOE complex. Recognizing that LM has extensive experience working with UAS contractors and using data collected from UAS, the topical team focused on the National Laboratories’ unique capabilities and types of scientific investigations that are not yet commercially available or easily contracted as services.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Large Scale Granulator Development Designed to Process Reclaimed Feedstock for Sustainable Additive Manufacturing Applications

This CRADA between UT-Battelle, LLC (Contractor) and re:3D Inc. (Participant) aims to develop an affordable large-scale granulator system designed to process reclaimed plastic feedstock suitable for additive manufacturing applications. The 24-month project will focus on testing, prototyping, and optimizing a shredder/granulator system. This project also focuses on the processing steps (e.g. washing and sorting) that can convert waste plastics, like discarded water bottles, into flake/granules which can be 3D printed using re:3D’s Fused Granular Fabrication (FGF) 3D printers. If successful, this could enable more localized 3D printing using recycled plastics, reducing waste and feedstock costs.

Wang, Peter [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),↗
DOE OSTI2025

Challenge of Fielding Experiments at the Annular Core Research Reactor

Conference is the annual Test, Research &Training Reactors (TRTR) meeting. Typically attended by dozens of research reactor operators, educators, trainers, maintenance & service contractors Also, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) attend. Presentation highlights ACRRs capability and the process used to submit and approve experimental activities. This presentation is adapted from my previous presentation to the Material Test and Research conference, SAND2025-1775526.

Martin, Lonnie E. [Sandia National Laboratories (S↗
DOE OSTI2026

Developing a Lightning All-Clear Signal for the Savannah River Site

Lightning safety is a major concern at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Notifications are provided when 3-strikes occur onsite within a 15-minute period. It is generally left up to individual contractors at SRS to determine when it is safe for workers to return to outside work, generally following a 3-hour period of no lightning, after the last lightning strike occurs. This work tries to improve safe return to work decisions by developing a reliable all-clear signal using an electric field mill. The best signal used thresholds from multiple electric field values to provide an average delay for return to work of 2 hours and 13 minutes. This average was heavily influenced by lingering storms in the area or missing data from power or network outages. One event out of 98 signaled the all-clear prior to another event occurring less than 60 minutes later. Regardless, 62% of the all clear signals had delay times less than the mean and 72% had delay times less than the current 3-hour delay after the last strike. This provides better worker safety for returning to work than 30 minutes after the last lightning strike (e.g. OSHA Lightning Safety) and improves the delay time from the current 3-hour delay.

Noble, Stephen [Savannah River National Laboratory↗
DOE OSTI1968

Nuclear Physics Made Very, Very Easy

The fundamental approach to nuclear physics was prepared to introduce basic reactor principles to various groups of non-nuclear technical personnel associated with NERVA Test Operations. NERVA Test Operations functions as the field test group for the Nuclear Rocket Engine Program. Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) program is the combined efforts of Aerojet-General Corporation as prime contractor, and Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory as the major subcontractor, for the assembly and testing of nuclear rocket engines. Development of the NERVA Program is under the direction of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office, a joint agency of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This report is being reprinted for use in the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and National Aeronautics and Space Administration educational and technology utilization programs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Home Energy Upgrades as a Pathway to Home Decarbonization in the US: A Literature Review

This work aims to characterize how home energy upgrade projects and programs in the US have evolved over the past decade. It also identifies what changes are needed to drive expansion of the US energy retrofit market in such a way that addresses carbon emissions from buildings, improves resilience and upgrades the housing stock. This review focuses on whole-home energy upgrades, targeting deep energy retrofit savings of >30%. The topics we cover include trends in home electrification, US and European home energy upgrade programs, energy upgrade measure costs, business economics, and health effects. Key changes in project design noted in this review include: (1) the electrification of dwellings with rapidly improving heat pump systems and low-cost solar photovoltaic technology; and (2) a shift away from high-cost building envelope strategies and towards more traditional home performance/weatherization envelope upgrades. Promising program design strategies covered include: (1) end-use electrification programs; (2) novel financing approaches; (3) the use of carbon-based program and project metrics; and (4) “one-stop shop” programs. Based on the existing market barriers, we suggest that the industry should adopt new project performance metrics. Additionally, market drivers are needed to spur widespread energy upgrades in the US housing stock. Costs must be reduced, and projects designed to appeal to homeowners and contractors.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Repurposing Offshore Infrastructure for Clean Energy (ROICE) vs. Decommissioning – Commercial Considerations

Abstract The Repurposing Offshore Infrastructure for Clean Energy (ROICE) Program, a collaboration of the energy industry and University of Houston, proposes extending the life of up to 1,500 oil and gas platforms in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, USA. Rather than decommissioning or converting them to underwater reefs at the end of their oil and gas production phase, the platforms could be transformed for 10–20+ years of renewable energy development, such as green hydrogen production or carbon dioxide injection and storage, resulting in significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. ROICE has already published papers on the technical and regulatory considerations for such repurposing projects. This paper focuses on the commercial considerations needed to ensure ROICE projects are economically viable and sustainable for all involved. There are potentially many entities that can come together to progress a repurposing project, including oil and gas asset owners, operators, investors, developers, contractors, manufacturers, and regulators. This paper looks at possible combinations of these entities in a ROICE project team and the various commercial agreements that will be needed to ensure a mutually successful outcome. The paper proposes adapting existing industry agreements and templates to suit, including asset transfer agreements (ATA), asset purchase agreements (APA) and joint purchasing agreements (JOA). An ATA or APA can be drafted to address the obligations and issues involved in the sale or transfer of an existing oil and gas facility to the developer, operator, non-operating interests, and financial investors in a ROICE project, while a JOA can be drafted to govern the rights, obligations, and financial requirements of the parties involved in the development and operation.

Legge, G. [Endeavor Management, USA]↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗