SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Not Available
Abstract not provided.
Report will be submitted to the state of Nevada.
Report will be submitted to the State of Nevada.
Report will be submitted to the State of Nevada.
Report will be submitted to the State of Nevada.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Report is submitted to the State of Nevada.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This report summarizes the policy, regulatory, legal, and permitting requirements to-date for the siting of a CO 2 injection and storage project in the CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin pre-feasibility study area. Where applicable, the East Sub-Basin case study focuses on a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) site location in West Terre Haute, Indiana. Indiana has established the legal mechanisms to obtain rights to the subsurface mineral estate with the expectation to apply to reservoir pore space for CO 2 storage in an analogous manner to storage of natural gas, which is a common practice in Indiana. There is, however, no precedent in Indiana to take liability for stored CO 2 . There are currently no Indiana State incentives for CCS, but at the Federal level, tax credits for carbon capture and storage under 26. U.S. Code § 45Q constitute the greatest incentive targeted at CCS projects. The amendment to these credits put forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act (the FUTURE Act) of 2018 substantially increases the per-ton incentive for CCS—from $22.66 per ton in tax year 2017 up to $50 per ton in tax year 2027, for CO 2 not used as an injectant (i.e. saline storage). Additional economic opportunities may exist for the provision of CO 2 for potential EOR in the Illinois Basin. Policies that may support the development of CO 2 pipelines and/or CCS projects in Indiana include: 1) Title 41 of the FAST Act (2015), which created a new governance structure, procedures, and funding authorities in order to improve and expedite Federal review and authorization of covered infrastructure projects, including pipelines, and 2) the Eminent Domain for Transportation of Carbon Dioxide by Pipeline (IC 14-39, Indiana State, 2011), which declares pipeline transportation of CO 2 exclusively to a carbon management application, including sequestration, enhanced oil recovery, and deep saline injection as a benefit to the welfare of Indiana and the people. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI rule and permit requirements address all components pertaining to CO 2 injection and monitoring for long-term storage, and outline the minimum technical criteria to protect underground sources of drinking water at, and surrounding, injection well sites. The Class VI requirements also address financial responsibility for corrective action, post-injection site care, and site closure. In addition, UIC Program public notice requirements include that the EPA issue notice of the draft permit preparation to key stakeholders, and open a public comment period of not less than 30 days. A public hearing about the permit would also be held, if specifically requested by the public. A potential Class VI CO 2 injection well permit for the East Sub-Basin case study site would be obtained through the US EPA Region 5, because the State of Indiana does not have UIC Class VI primacy. Although no CO 2 injection wells have been permitted in Indiana, the US EPA Region 5 (which covers Illinois and Indiana) and the East Sub-Basin CarbonSAFE team (via the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium [MGSC]) have Class VI permitting experience from several projects located in Illinois. Based on our experience, applying for a Class VI permit can be an intensive and iterative process requiring clear communication and numerous interactions with EPA staff. In addition to gathering and preparing the data/models and documentation necessary for a permit application’s initial submittal, the subsequent public comments, EPA response and review, and answering of any follow-up questions/requests by the EPA could significantly increase the timeframe of draft permit issuance. The US EPA offers guidance documents regarding the specific Class VI permit requirements, and shows a general permitting timeline example from the FutureGen Alliance 2.0 covering one-and-a-half years from permit submittal to issuance. However, the overall permitting process to-date has a high degree of variability, and in MGSC’s project experience we observed a more extended timeline to receive Class VI permits for each of two CO 2 injection wells.
State and local permitting challenges could impede the ability of large-scale solar (LSS) to meet growing electricity demand in the United States. Here, we review research that explores LSS permitting and its impacts on the pace and scale of LSS project development. Research on LSS permitting is relatively scarce, such that we support our review with research in the context of wind permitting, where appropriate. Further, few studies attempt to rigorously quantify the effects of permitting on the pace and scale of LSS project development. The available evidence allows us to identify various hypotheses and identify gaps for further research. Our review suggests that differences in permitting policies, regulations, and ordinances explain relatively little variation in LSS permitting and development outcomes across jurisdictions, except where jurisdictions implement rules designed to impede LSS. The evidence suggests LSS permitting challenges largely accrue during the implementation of permitting processes. Recent research suggests that community opposition to project development is a key driver of LSS permitting challenges, given that project opponents often use permitting processes to translate opposition into legal action. We call on future researchers to more concretely describe the LSS permitting challenge and to identify the specific actors responsible for implementing solutions.
Developers have identified many non-technical barriers to geothermal power development, including permitting. Activities required for permitting, such as the associated environmental reviews, can take a considerable amount of time and delay project development. This paper discusses the impacts to geothermal development timelines due to the permitting challenges, including the regulatory framework, environmental review process, and ancillary permits. We identified barriers that have the potential to prevent geothermal development or delay timelines and defined improvement scenarios that could assist in expediting geothermal development and permitting timelines and lead to the deployment of additional geothermal resources by 2030 and 2050: (1) the creation of a centralized federal geothermal permitting office and utilization of state permit coordination offices as well as (2) an expansion of existing categorical exclusions applicable to geothermal development on Bureau of Land Management public lands to include the oil and gas categorical exclusions passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We utilized the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) and the Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) to forecast baseline geothermal deployment based on previous analysis of geothermal project development and permitting timelines. The model results forecast that reductions in geothermal project timelines can have a significant impact on geothermal deployment. For example, using the ReEDS model, we estimated that reducing timelines by two years, perhaps due to the creation of a centralized federal geothermal permitting office and utilization of state permit coordination offices, could result in deployment of an additional 204 MW by 2030 and 768 MW by 2050 - a 13% improvement when compared to the business as usual scenario. The model results forecast that a timeline improvement of four years - for example with an expansion of existing categorical exclusions coupled with the creation of a centralized federal geothermal permitting office and utilization of state permit coordination offices - could result in deployment of an additional 2,529 MW of geothermal capacity by 2030 and 6,917 MW of geothermal capacity by 2050 - an improvement of 116% when compared to the business as usual scenario. These results suggest that reducing development timelines could be a large driver in the deployment of geothermal resources.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) led a collaborative effort to develop the Solar Automated Permit Processing Plus (SolarAPP+), a no-cost solar permitting software solution to address residential solar photovoltaic (PV) permitting resource constraints and streamline solar adoption processes among authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs). The SolarAPP+ is an online portal that automates permit plan review, enabling an instant permit approval process for code-compliant residential PV systems. Based on national model building, electrical, and fire codes, the SolarAPP+ automatically performs a compliance check of permit inputs against code requirements and produces an inspection checklist that can be used to verify installation practices, workmanship, and adherence to the approved design. NREL conducted a two-phase pilot with five participating AHJs and 16 solar contractors, spanning from November 2020 through December 2021, evaluating the ability of SolarAPP+ to deliver instant permits and its impact on four critical areas within each AHJ: permit review timelines; solar adoption timelines; AHJ time saved; and inspection results. The pilot confirmed that SolarAPP+ reduced permit review times to less than one day, reduced solar adoption timelines by an average of 12 days, saved an estimated 2,067 staff hours, and had comparable inspection results to those found in traditional permitting. The pilot further identified key lessons for improving SolarAPP+, including ways to streamline SolarAPP+ adoption, development of training resources, and expansion of supported products.
The United States has great geothermal power potential; however, only a small fraction of this resource has been utilized for power generation. Various barriers, including technical, financial, and regulatory permit delays, are attributed to the lower penetration of geothermal energy into the national grid. Unpredictable environmental reviews and permitting timelines are some of the non-technical barriers that can cause delays in geothermal exploration and utilization plans. This document provides an assessment of the potential economic impact of permitting costs and timelines on geothermal power in California, Nevada, and Utah. Development of geothermal resources requires multi-layered regulatory permitting by local, state, and federal agencies. In this study, we collected and reviewed permit timelines and associated cost data for several existing geothermal power plants as well as for geothermal projects currently undergoing permitting processes for exploration and development activities in California, Nevada, and Utah. We interviewed several geothermal developers and staff from multiple permitting agencies to obtain insight from both sides (i.e., people applying for permits and people processing those applications for California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] and National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] reviews and other regulatory compliance). The intent of this project was also to identify informative pathways for the geothermal stakeholder community by which the permitting process could be streamlined.
This report summarizes the EMPOWERED Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Permit Accelerator Pilot project. Its primary objective was to streamline the design, installation, permitting, and inspections of targeted Distributed Energy Resource (DER) solutions. Streamlining these processes is critical to strengthening and accelerating the adoption of DER solutions nationwide. Moreover, streamlined processes help expedite the clean energy transition and expand energy resilience by improving understanding and capability among key stakeholders like property owners, code officials, and the general workforce. The project team accomplished this by developing and deploying a set of design and permitting guides for simple DER solutions, which they rolled out via a permitting pilot program. The project team developed nine permitting and inspection guides for simple DER solutions, as follows: 1. Single-Family and Duplex: Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE), and Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 2. Multi-family and Office: EVSE, Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 3. A permitting process guide to support the implementation of the permitting guides. The guides cover key code requirements via plan review and field inspection checklists for code officials and building owners to follow to streamline the permitting and inspections process for DER solutions. Following the development of the initial set of guides, the project team formed two cohorts, each made up of four jurisdictions, to participate in the Permit Accelerator Pilot. Each cohort received training and technical assistance to support them in incorporating the guides into use. The project successfully engaged jurisdictions in two disparate US regions: Chelsea, Somerville, Natick, and Norwood in metro Boston; and Pima County, Town of Gilbert, Flagstaff, and Sedona in Arizona. Feedback gathered from the project was valuable in refining the guides to better address jurisdictional needs. After the pilot period, the project team developed final versions of the guides based on extensive feedback from the cohorts and from external technical peer review. Feedback included needs and barriers related to implementation, as well as detailed technical improvements from external peer review. The final guides were presented in a series of webinars with a national reach, with 192 attendees from 35 states in the live session of the final webinar, and the final guides are posted online and available for use nationwide. Key findings: • The most receptive jurisdictions were those adjacent to other jurisdictions that had already adopted similar initiatives. The least receptive jurisdictions were those in the midst of adopting new code cycles. • The most common barrier to jurisdictional adoption of new guidelines were internal administrative and process delays, more so than technical barriers. • The main technical barrier to adoption proved to be the concern of fire hazard risks posed by energy storage systems. There is some apprehension in the code enforcement community about the safety of the batteries. Education coordinated with fire and safety services will help alleviate concerns and increase confidence in the acceptance of innovative technologies. • Opportunities to further leverage and advance the guides and related resources include outreach, education, and jurisdictional support; updates to the resources to align with code cycle changes and local requirements; and advancements supporting emerging technologies.