Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Stakeholders”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

2024 OES-Environmental 2024 State of the Science Report, Chapter 5: Stakeholder Engagement for Marine Renewable Energy

Stakeholder engagement is a critical piece of any new development project that affects public or private interests. Effective, thoughtful engagement and participatory activities early in the planning process of a project can help planners and project developers understand local concerns, adjust designs to avoid negative environmental impacts, select the best site for a project, answer questions, reduce delay, enhance opportunities and benefits, and build support for a project (Cuppen et al. 2016; Portman 2009; Wiersma & DevineWright 2014). On the other hand, cursory or inadequate engagement that is viewed as “checking the box” or tokenism is unlikely to be effective, and can result in project failures, diminished trust, strong opposition, or costly, drawn-out processes (Butcher & MacLennan 2020; Garard & Kowarsch 2017; Gill & Rand 2022; Jolivet & Heiskanen 2010; Pizzi et al. 2021; Sterling et al. 2017).

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2026

Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) (Final Technical Report)

The Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) project advances resilience science and engineering by addressing challenges in rural Kansas communities where aging infrastructure, extreme weather, and socioeconomic disparities heighten vulnerability to energy disruptions. Traditional approaches often focus on technical performance while overlooking community concerns and priorities. SAFER responds by integrating community perspectives with advanced analytical frameworks to create a holistic model for measuring and improving resilience. Project objectives included developing novel resilience metrics, advancing modeling frameworks that capture interdependencies across infrastructures, and embedding community-centric indicators directly into planning processes for distributed energy resources. The key technical innovations included the creation of self-organizing map (SOM)-based indices for objective resilience quantification, hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) models linking power, water, transportation, and community assets, and graph neural network (GNN) tools for identifying critical nodes in complex systems. Community-centric energy planning was demonstrated through optimal siting and sizing of (photovoltaic) PV and battery storage, ensuring resilience enhancements also addressed energy burden and energy insecurity. SAFER engaged community partners in Dodge City and Ford County through surveys, focus groups, and workshops, generating more than 600 responses that established baseline measures of energy burden, financial insecurity, and willingness-to-pay to avoid outages. This data, organized in terms of a community capitals framework, informed the development of weighted reliability indices that better reflect community costs than traditional utility metrics. SAFER’s GNN-based critical node identification framework identified expert-labelled critical nodes with over 99% accuracy, while also uncovering additional functionalities essential for proactive resilience planning. The project’s models demonstrated that optimal PV and storage deployment could improve resilience indices by over 11 percent, with dispatch strategies further enhancing outcomes, confirming both the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of these approaches. Through its combined emphasis on rigorous modeling, community-focused planning, and community engagement, SAFER advances the state of resilience research while delivering direct benefits to rural communities. The project provides tools, guidelines, and resilience heatmaps that help utilities, local governments, and residents better anticipate disruptions, prioritize investments, and strengthen the capacity to withstand and recover from energy-related hazards. Furthermore, the developed HFG and GNN frameworks are designed for transferability, allowing them to be adapted for resilience planning in other communities with minimal retraining. This inductive learning capability provides a scalable pathway to extend the SAFER project’s impact. Thus, creating a foundation for a nationally applicable model of infrastructure resilience. Additionally, the HFG can also be extended to include other FEMA community lifelines.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Navigating Integration: Key Challenges for Data Centers, Nuclear Stakeholders, and Utility Operators

The rapid expansion of data centers, driven by the exponential growth in data-processing and storage needs, presents significant challenges and opportunities for various stakeholders, including data center developers, nuclear energy providers, and utility companies. Data centers are projected to consume 6.7–12% of United States (U.S.) electricity by 2028, driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud-computing demands. Nuclear energy offers reliability and dispatchable baseload power, but data centers need power now while nuclear still needs time to address siting, fast power ramping, and regulatory hurdles. Utilities must keep pace with the unprecedented acceleration of large load interconnection requests and urgently adapt to high-density loads while maintaining grid stability, reliability, and accelerating interconnection timelines. This report dives into these challenges and proposes key collaboration strategies to streamline data center integration that aligns with recent federal initiatives like America’s AI Action Plan and related executive orders that emphasize the importance of data center growth, nuclear energy expansion, and maintaining a competitive edge in the global AI race.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Navigating Integration: Key Challenges for Data Centers, Nuclear Stakeholders, and Utility Operators

he exponential growth of data centers—driven by artificial intelligence and cloud computing—is reshaping the U.S. energy landscape, presenting urgent challenges and transformative opportunities for data center developers, nuclear energy providers, and utility operators. As data centers are projected to consume up to 12% of U.S. electricity by 2028, stakeholders must address rapid deployment needs, grid congestion, and the demand for reliable, high-quality power. This presentation explores the multifaceted barriers to integrating data centers with nuclear and utility infrastructure, including land use constraints, public perception, regulatory complexity, and workforce alignment. It highlights the distinct priorities and operational cultures of each sector, and the friction that arises from misaligned planning horizons and risk tolerances. We examine collaborative strategies such as co-siting, hybrid power-purchase agreements, unified community engagement, and innovative financing models.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

“Which Projections Do I Use?” Strategies for Climate Model Ensemble Subset Selection Based on Regional Stakeholder Needs

Climate model (or earth system model) projections are increasingly used for climate adaptation planning and impact assessments. As part of this process, many end‐users evaluate a subset of downscaled climate projections without being aware of the implications of downscaling methodology for statistics or event outcomes. Approaches for determining a subset of global climate models to use often focus on values from the raw models, rather than from their downscaled counterparts, in other words assuming that the statistical distribution of the multi‐model ensemble does not change post downscaling. This study demonstrates that a downscaled ensemble will typically retain the change distribution as a raw ensemble, but individual models can differ dramatically post‐downscaling. We recommend that subset‐selection methods account for this possibility and that decision‐relevant downscaled climate projections provide proper descriptions of fitness‐for‐purpose and essential caveats, so that non‐specialists can interpret the results with an appropriate level of confidence.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Bridging the Gap on Data, Metrics, and Analyses for Grid Resilience to Weather Events: Information that utilities can provide regulators, state energy offices, and other stakeholders

A growing number of states require regulated utilities to file resilience plans to improve the electric grid’s ability to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from increasingly severe weather events. This report aims to help state regulators identify and request data, metrics, and analyses from utilities and use it in decisions on utility resilience plans and investments. The report reviews state requirements and utility plans focused on overall grid resilience, climate change resilience and vulnerabilities, infrastructure modernization, storm protection, and wildfire mitigation. It details types of data, metrics, and analyses across five categories--and provides examples of each from the utility plans. The first category is vulnerability assessments, or evaluations of the susceptibility of systems, communities, or assets to potential harm from identified hazards. The second is data on hazards and the exposure of utility assets and customers to these hazards. The third is attribute metrics, or system characteristics that contribute to or describe the resilience of a system. The fourth is performance metrics, which are impacts of resilience investments on system performance--typically a reduction of negative impacts from hazard events. Finally, evaluation and prioritization are analyses that utilities conduct to estimate impacts from resilience measures (evaluation) and prioritize measures based on costs and estimated impacts (prioritization). The report concludes with examples of key trends and emerging best practices for states and utilities, and identifies areas for further research.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Engaging with Utilities and Key Stakeholders [Slides]

The Energy to Communities (E2C) peer-learning cohort program provides technical assistance to groups of 15 community entities around a common energy topic over the course of 6 months. Every month, participants join a virtual meeting where they hear from experts and exchange strategies and best practices with their peers. This cohort, "Successful Energy Project Implementation" will explore common challenges in implementing energy projects and learn strategies to turn project plans into reality. Each participant will focus on a local energy project or priority as a cornerstone for their learning throughout the series. This presentation overviews the interconnection process for distributed energy resources and how to engage well with utilities. The workshop will be held on March 25, 2026.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Future Electric Power Industry and Grids—Now What Again is Our Destination?

Having a vision that others agree to support and work toward is highly desirable but hard to achieve. We seem to lack a common and shared understanding of the vision—or worse, multiple visions (vivid mental images or documented statements) with varying areas of focus and details: • some appear to be similar but have differing underlying goals and characteristics, or • some reflect differing viewpoints as to effects on various stakeholders. These desirable and undesirable situations apply to realizing visions for enterprise and industry, including the electricity sector. Multiple industry stakeholder groups have developed goals, industry vision statements, and characterizations of the future. The viewpoints are promoted, discussed, refined by their stakeholder group, and often published to promote broad understanding and to inform or influence others. The GridWise Architecture Council asked itself how well-aligned these characterizations of the future are. If these publications collectively set the overall direction for the industry, it is useful to identify their answers to questions such as, where is the electric industry headed, guided by what objectives, and with what role(s) for the customers, electric utilities, and other stakeholders? Are these goals, visions, and future states moving toward a common vision, do they provide value for the stakeholders, and are they likely to meet the objective stated? This paper addresses these questions via an assessment and characterization of a sampling of stakeholder groups’ publicly available vision and future state reports for the electricity industry. Identified electric power grid architectural topic areas needing further work are described, along with GridWise Architecture Council analysis and observation, potential collaborative work efforts, and suggested next steps.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Architecting the Grid Edge: Ensuring Reliability and Resilience

Changes in technology, customer expectations, and business and regulatory environments are rapidly evolving causing fundamental changes in the nation’s electrical infrastructure. Nowhere is this more apparent that at the “grid edge”, where there is an increasing number of new devices and systems, as well as complex new interactions between them. This is leading to the traditional relationship between the end-use customers and their utilities being expanded by an increasing number of stakeholders, each with their own operational and financial objectives, governed by regulatory policy. While there are concerns about the rapidly increasing complexity negatively impacting reliable and resilience of the electrical infrastructure, these changes are also bringing new resources and opportunities that hold great potential if they can be properly coordinated. This white paper outlines the considerations for the coordination of multi-stakeholder objectives with electric utility requirements using the concept of grid services. Describing a framework that enables new stakeholders to achieve their local technical and economic objectives, while simultaneously delivering operational benefits to the electrical infrastructure. The concepts of grid architecture are presented as a tool to evaluate how stakeholders might participate in, and benefit from, services, and how utilities can make decision on the reliance on services to ensure reliability and resilience, translating abstract concepts into actionable information for utilities and grid edge stakeholders. The end result of proper coordination, informed by grid architecture, will be a range of new devices and systems, operated by new stakeholders, achieving their local objectives while also increasing the reliability, resilience, security, and affordability of the nation’s critical electrical infrastructure.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Architecting the Grid Edge: Ensuring Reliability and Resilience

Changes in technology, customer expectations, and business and regulatory environments are rapidly evolving causing fundamental changes in the nation’s electrical infrastructure. Nowhere is this more apparent that at the “grid edge”, where there is an increasing number of new devices and systems, as well as complex new interactions between them. This is leading to the traditional relationship between the end-use customers and their utilities being expanded by an increasing number of stakeholders, each with their own operational and financial objectives, governed by regulatory policy. While there are concerns about the rapidly increasing complexity negatively impacting reliable and resilience of the electrical infrastructure, these changes are also bringing new resources and opportunities that hold great potential if they can be properly coordinated. This white paper outlines the considerations for the coordination of multi-stakeholder objectives with electric utility requirements using the concept of grid services. Describing a framework that enables new stakeholders to achieve their local technical and economic objectives, while simultaneously delivering operational benefits to the electrical infrastructure. The concepts of grid architecture are presented as a tool to evaluate how stakeholders might participate in, and benefit from, services, and how utilities can make decision on the reliance on services to ensure reliability and resilience, translating abstract concepts into actionable information for utilities and grid edge stakeholders. The end result of proper coordination, informed by grid architecture, will be a range of new devices and systems, operated by new stakeholders, achieving their local objectives while also increasing the reliability, resilience, security, and affordability of the nation’s critical electrical infrastructure.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

CORE-CM in The Greater Green River and Wind River Basins: Transforming and Advancing a National Coal Asset (Final Report)

The following document summarizes project results from “CORE-CM in the Greater Green River and Wind River Basins: Transforming and Advancing a National Coal Asset”. This project is part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (“NETL”) Carbon Ore, Rare Earth Elements, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) Initiative. This report concludes that the Greater Green River and Wind River Basins (GGRB-WRB) Area-of-Interest (AOI 9) is the ideal region for continued research and development in progressing the broader CORE-CM goals outlined by the DOE. Based upon the extensive analyses of technical, social, and community criteria, this report illustrates that the GGRB-WRB hosts numerous potential CORE-CM feedstocks (both coal- and non-coal based), diverse opportunities for utilizing existing industrial waste streams, ample infrastructure and industry to support new CORE-CM-focused technologies, and a highly motivated, well educated, and adaptable workforce to further develop the regional and national CORE-CM supply chain. Additionally, some potential solutions for technological gaps suggest that the GGRB-WRB's diverse resources can play a significant role in achieving the national goal of critical materials independence. With full community participation, meaningful involvement of regional Tribal Nations, and building upon the stakeholder engagement demonstrated here, the GGRB-WRB region presents a unique opportunity for advancing the CORE-CM Initiative. This project was designed to bring together coal-based communities and stakeholders from across the GGRB-WRB to advance new industries for CORE-CM resources. The University of Wyoming (UWyo) School of Energy Resources (SER) led a project team of experts from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), Colorado School of Mines (CSM), Los Alamos National Lab (LANL), and local community colleges. Input from basinal, regional, and national experts bolstered the coalition in order to advance the mission of DOE’s CORE-CM initiative and develop the domestic CORE-CM supply chain. Phase I of this project was designed to address the goal of developing and catalyzing economic growth, job creation, and technology innovation in the GGRB-WRB of Wyoming and Colorado, by increasing the supply of CORE-CM to manufacturers of non-fuel Carbon Based Products (CBP) and products reliant upon CM. The GGRB-WRB CORE-CM project worked toward providing benefit through several avenues of performance and research. • Develop a coalition team to achieve project objectives • Complete detailed assessments, including State-of-the-Art (SOTA) Data acquisition of potential CORE-CM materials across the AOI, and meaningfully contributes to DOE’s CORE-CM goals nationally. • Strategic planning for regional economic growth, job creation, and associated technology innovation around coal materials, including plans to maximize the development of potential CORE-CM resources and technology by creating regional public-private partnerships. • Define regional economic growth potential around existing strengths, energy infrastructure, business and industry, including planning for the leveraging of highly trained workforces, existing and novel coal technologies, and energy infrastructure in development of CORE-CM supply chains. • Develop a preliminary strategic plan for increasing the supply of CORE-CM materials to manufacturers of non-fuel Carbon Based Products (CBP) and products reliant upon CM, focusing on regional strengths that result in an emerging diversified CORE-CM economy. • Assemble a committed network of stakeholders and communities that learn about, accept, and grow new energy technologies within coal regions. Additionally, the project team significantly contributed to the CORE-CM Initiative’s national goals, through cross-regional scoping, collaborating with CORE-CM projects in other AOIs, and including parallel regional project experts. In addition to active inclusion and meaningful engagement and contribution to DOE-led working groups, the project team focused on engaging with regional communities including Tribal Nations, economic development groups, and regional government organizations. The project’s CORE-CM development and commercialization plan identified diverse CORECM feedstocks, potential routes towards integration with existing industries, methods for supply-chain development that leverage existing infrastructure and businesses considering the regional economy, identified entry barriers for incorporating traditional and new technologies in those supply chains, recognized opportunities for public-private partnerships to develop technology innovation centers, identified diverse workforces, and conducted stakeholder outreach and education to build a community of understanding on CORE-CM potential in the GGRB-WRB region. Detailed task descriptions can be found in each chapter.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

High Energy Physics Network Requirements Review: Final Report, July 2024–December 2024

The world-class research infrastructure at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) provides the research community with premier observational, experimental, computational, and network capabilities. Each user facility is designed to provide unique capabilities to advance the core DOE mission in science and technology for its SC program to stimulate rich scientific discoveries and enhance its innovation ecosystem. Research communities gather and flourish around each user facility, bringing together new and enhanced perspectives. The continual reinvention of the practice of science — as users and staff forge novel approaches expressed in research workflows — unlocks new discoveries and propels scientific progress. Within this research ecosystem, the high-performance computing (HPC) and networking user facilities stewarded by the SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program play a dynamic cross-cutting role, enabling complex workflows demanding high-performance data, networking, and computing solutions. The ASCR facilities enterprise seeks to understand and meet the needs and requirements across SC and DOE domain science programs and priority efforts, highlighted by the formal requirements review methodology. Between July and December 2024, the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) of the DOE-SC organized an ESnet requirements review of HEP-supported program activities. Preparation for these events included identification of key stakeholders: program and facility management, research groups, and technology providers. Each stakeholder group was asked to prepare formal case study documents about its relationship to the HEP program to build a complete understanding of the current, near-term, and long-term status, expectations, and processes that will support the science going forward.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Examples of State and Utility Actions on Proactive Planning and Investments

As states across the U.S. confront rising electricity demand, clean energy deployment, grid modernization imperatives, and the integration of large new loads, some regulators and utilities are shifting away from reactive, “just-in-time” investment approaches toward more proactive planning and investment frameworks. This report compiles examples of jurisdictional and utility actions that reshape planning processes, cost recovery mechanisms, and performance oversight to anticipate—rather than simply respond to—future grid needs. Several themes emerge from state actions examined in this report. First, legislatures and commissions are increasingly directing utilities to proactively upgrade their distribution and transmission systems, reflecting a shift toward a forward-looking system that aligns planning with state policy goals. Second, states are establishing long-term, iterative planning frameworks that often feature multi-year horizons, biannual or annual compliance reporting, structured opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and emphasis on collaboration among utilities, regulators, and stakeholders. Third, states are actively investigating innovative cost recovery mechanisms designed to support accelerated electrification and grid modernization, while balancing consumer advocates’ concerns regarding the ratepayer financial risks of premature investments. Fourth, performance metrics and reporting requirements are being developed to ensure transparency and accountability for proactive investments. Fifth, methodological improvements in planning—such as aligning load forecasting assumptions, incorporating sensitivities, and considering load management potential across building, vehicles, storage, and demand response—are recurring areas of stakeholder focus across jurisdictions. Overall, these developments signify a growing recognition among state regulators, utilities, and stakeholders that proactive planning—supported by clear definitions, consistent and transparent methodologies, robust performance metrics, and innovative cost recovery mechanisms—is a tool that can be used to address the scale and urgency of contemporary grid needs.

electricity market↗
DOE OSTI2025

MRCI Task 5: Promoting Regional Technology Transfer Final Summary Report

The goal of the MRCI Task 5 – Promoting Regional Technology Transfer is to leverage existing and new relationships with critical CCUS stakeholders (national and international stakeholders include state geological surveys, universities, industrial partners and advisors, energy production and utilization companies, and NGOs) within the regional initiative and globally and become a key resource for CCUS information, acceptance, and development. Work completed under Task 5 is categorized through four actions: • Promote acceleration of CCUS deployment by providing general support for commercialization and technology transfer • Compile and communicate information from previous tasks to interested stakeholders • Engage with federal and state governments, industry consortia and NGOs • Engage with global institutions

CCUS,Midwest,Midwest Regional Carbon Initiative,Mi↗
DOE OSTI2025

Circularity Futures Workshop Series: Summary Report

The aim of this report is to synthesize key feedback received from the three-part Circularity Futures workshop series held in Spring 2024. The workshop series was conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on behalf of U.S. Department of Energy, Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and was broken into three workshops: Workshop 1 - Circularity Analysis Needs and Priorities; Workshop 2 - Circularity Metrics and Indicators; and Workshop 3 - Circularity Data. Together, the workshops focused on identifying the existing priorities and gaps in the circularity modeling space, understanding different stakeholders' use and interpretation of circularity metrics and indicators, identifying common data gaps and data quality challenges, and assessing the robustness of available solutions. The workshop series brought a diverse group of stakeholders - including representatives from U.S. government offices, national labs, nonprofit organizations, industry, and academia - to collect first-hand feedback on needs, priorities, challenges and opportunities in the circularity modeling and analysis space. The workshop discussions highlighted numerous common needs, priorities and challenges among the interviewed groups. Several topics were frequently discussed, including: 1) Circularity as a pathway for sustainable economic growth: While circularity is generally defined in terms of resource conservation and reducing wasteful disposal of materials, participants agreed that circular strategies should serve broader economic, environmental, and social goals. It is therefore crucial for circularity analysis to look beyond waste reduction and instead evaluate a variety of impact metrics such as cost savings, job creation, air quality, and pollutant emissions. Mutli-criteria decision-making frameworks may be useful for making sense of disparate metrics and evaluating tradeoffs between impact categories.; 2) Economic and social factors are not well understood: Underdevelopment of existing end-of-life (EOL) management infrastructure, inconsistent standardization codes and policy space in reusing recycled content, and suboptimal collection and sorting strategies collectively contribute to uncertainty about the economic potential of circular pathways. The latter observation is consistent among all technologies but more emphasized for renewable energy systems. Social impacts of circularity practices are less understood and less researched than other sustainability aspects.; 3) Inconsistent methods for assessing emerging technologies: LCA and TEA results vary widely depending on the assumptions made with regards to market adoption of new technologies. Emerging technologies suffer limited availability of data needed to conduct a robust circularity analysis. Yet, understanding projected impacts of proposed nascent technology is a key need for different stakeholder groups.; and 4) Lack of temporally and geospatially explicit data: There is a need for open data that represents variations in circularity technologies over time and location. The lack thereof leads to aggregated and potentially misrepresented results in circularity analysis. Sensitivity analyses should be included to verify whether options perceived as more sustainable align with real-world practices.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Phase 1 Engagement Summary: Rural Alabama

An Alabama community coalition received technical assistance through the U.S. Department of Energy's Communities Local Energy Action Program (LEAP) to expand awareness of alternative transportation fuels through stakeholder engagement efforts. Phase 1 of the project centered on outreach, relationship-building, and the identification of community priorities. Through two workshops held in October and December 2024, the coalition engaged over 120 stakeholders - including county commissioners, school district representatives, and public and private fleet operators. These sessions included presentations from technical experts and industry partners, as well as a vehicle showcase and structured discussions to assess stakeholder needs and concerns. This report summarizes these efforts and identifies three key priority areas for Phase 2 of the project.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗