Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “policy negotiation”

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.

23 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Demand response event simulator and risk-aware bidding tool for industrial customers

Incentive Based Demand Response (IBDR) program participation delivers financial benefits to the consumers and resiliency benefits to the electricity grid. Effectively participating in these programs as an industrial consumer requires bidding strategies that balance financial risk with operational constraints. Existing bidding tools tend not to fully incorporate stochastic IBDR event modeling, program specific baseline and payment/penalty calculations, or demand reduction process control schemes that account for the cascading impacts of shutdown in complex facilities. Here, this work presents an IBDR event simulator and risk-aware bidding framework tool integrating three key components: a flexible, parameterized demand response event generator that rigorously accounts for program structures and stochasticity, a demand response operational simulation model that generates explicit control strategies for load reduction, and a Monte Carlo simulator to evaluate financial risk for varied capacity bids. A case study at a wastewater treatment plant participating in PG&E's Capacity Bidding Program demonstrates the framework's utility. In the peak capacity price month of August, optimal bidding by the wastewater treatment plant nets a mean IBDR benefit of $101,000 (67% of the August electricity bill) with 0.4% probability of a financial loss. This framework enables industrial operators to make informed bidding decisions, negotiate better program terms with demand response load aggregators, and analyze energy flexibility investments at their facilities. Ultimately, this work reduces participation barriers in IBDR programs and supports the broader goal of enhancing grid reliability and renewable energy integration.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS1997

Multiple Hub Network Choice in the Liberalized European Market

A key question that so far has received relatively little attention in the germane literature is that of the changes at various airports as a result of the EU liberalization policies. That is, presently, most major European airports still benefit from the so-called home-carrier phenomenon where the country's publicly or semi-publicly owned carrier uses the country's main airport as its gateway hub and, consequently, the home-carrier is also the principal user of this airport (in terms of proportion of total aircraft movements, number of passengers transported, connections, slots ownership, etc.). The country's main airport has substantially benefited from these monopoly conditions of airline captivity, strongly determined by the bilateral system of international air transport regulation. Therefore, European major airports were used to operate in essentially different markets, compared to the increasingly competitive markets of their home based carriers. This partly explains relative stability of transport volumes and financial results of European major airports compared to the relatively volatile financial results of most European national airlines. However, the liberalization of European aviation is likely to change this situation. Market access is open now to all community carriers, i.e. carriers with majority ownership and effective control in the hands of EU citizens. Ticket prices are free, governments can only intervene in case of dumping or excessive pricing. A community airline can choose its seat in any of the 15 member states. Licensing procedures are harmonized between member states. In the last few months community carriers have had unrestricted route access within the EU. Most probably this development will be extended to countries inside and outside Europe. Last year the European Commission got the mandate to start negotiations with 10 other European countries. In the meantime the EC has also started negotiations with the USA on so-called soft rights. In the meantime, open skies agreements have been concluded between the USA and most of the EU member states to facilitate strategic alliances between airlines of the states involved. As a result of this on-going liberalization the model of the single 'national' carrier using the national home base as its single hub for the designated third, fourth and sixth freedom operations will stepwise disappear. Within the EU the concept of the national carrier has already been replaced by that of the community carrier. State ownership in more and more European carriers is reduced. On the longer run mergers or even bankruptcy will further undermine the "single national carrier - single national hub" model in Europe. In the meantime, strategic alliances between national carriers in Europe will already reduce the airlines' loyalty to a single airport. Profit maximization and accountability to share holders will supersede the loyalty of these newly emerging alliances, probably looking for the opportunities of a multiple hub network to adequately cover the whole European market. As a consequence, some European airports might see a substantial decline in arriving, departing and transfer traffic, thus in revenues and financial solvency, as well as in their connection to other inter-continental and intra-European destinations. At the same time, other airports might realize a significant increase in traffic as they will be sought after by the profit maximizing airlines as their major gateway hubs. Which will be the losing airports and which will be the winning ones? Can airports anticipate the actions of airlines in deregulated markets and utilize policies which will improve their relative position? If so, what should be these anticipatory policies? These questions become the more urgent, since an increasing number of major European airports will be privatized in the near future. Although increasing airport congestion in Europe will also be reflected in a growing demand pressure for airport slots, this is not a guarantee for a stable transport volume growth of individual airports. The more volatile the market is, the more vulnerable privatized airports become. Therefore, the main issue of this study is the analysis of the opportunities of major European airports to become a central hub as a result of the network choices made by the new European airlines in a completely liberalized market. In a previous study (Berechman and de Wit, 1996), we already explored the potential of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol of becoming the major West-European hub, once European aviation markets are deregulated. A major hindrance of that study was the use of a single hub-and-spoke network. For example that model could not analyze the viability of different combinations of European hubs within a multiple hub network of alternative airline alliances. In this study, we have formulated the model of a multi-hub network where two West-European airports are used for inter-continental and intra-European travel to enable a more realistic analysis of hub choice. Like the previous one also this multi-hub model is primarily used to assess the potential ability of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol for becoming a major West-European hub. Thus, in particular, the policy tests focus on this airport in a double hub network.

Berechman, Joseph↗
NASA NTRS1993

US domestic and international regulatory issues

The U.S. domestic and international regulatory and policy milestones since 1982, when NASA filed its petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish the U.S. domestic Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), are described. In 1985, the FCC proposed to establish MSS services and allocate spectrum for such service. In 1986, the FCC allocated L-band spectrum for MSS. In 1987, at the Mobile World Administrative Radio Conference (MOB WARC-87), despite U.S., Canadian, and Mexican efforts, the WARC did not adopt a multi-service, generic MSS allocation. In 1989, the FCC licensed the first MSS system. After two decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the FCC's licensing actions remain intact. The FCC also has permitted Comsat to provide international aeronautical and land MSS via the Inmarsat system. Inmarsat, however, may not serve the domestic U.S. market. In 1991, the FCC accepted applications for MSS systems, most of which were non-geostationary proposals, for operation in the Radiodetermination Satellite Service (RDSS) bands, and the VHF and UHF bands. In 1992, the FCC proposed rules for non-geostationary MSS systems and applied a negotiated rulemaking procedure to each. Also in 1992, the U.S. position for flexibility in existing MSS bands and for additional worldwide MSS allocations was adopted in large part at the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92).

Levin, Lon C.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies in Scenarios of U.S. Decarbonization in Two Types of Models: Comparison of GCAM Modeling and Sector-Specific Modeling

Energy system projections from analytic models inform actions ranging from short-term and local decisions, such as technology and infrastructure deployment, to global and long-term negotiations and targets. Computational limits require the designers of these models to trade off between coverage and resolution. Some models, such as the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), represent all energy sources and uses but at a relatively coarse level of resolution. GCAM balances global supply and demand of all energy carriers by endogenously projecting prices for energy sources and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation while capturing interlinkages between the energy system, water, agriculture and land use, the economy, and the climate. This global model was used to frame the Long-Term Strategy released by the White House in 2021 and has been used to inform national and global economy-wide decarbonization discussions and strategy development for decades. Other models instead focus on a portion of the energy sector with greater detail and resolution. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) electricity-sector model, for example, projects capacity expansion with an emphasis on integration of variable renewable energy into the grid of the future. The Transportation Energy and Mobility Pathway Options (TEMPO) transportation-sector model enables analysis of household choices in adoption, charging, and use of electric vehicles. The Scout buildings-sector model supports detailed consideration of the policies and markets that can accelerate the adoption of energy conservation measures in buildings. Such sector-specific models are instrumental in informing technology research, sectoral planning strategies, and sector-specific aspects of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies in the United States. These global and sector-specific modeling approaches can complement each other. The global approach ensures consistent, endogenous energy pricing and resource allocation, which can substantially diverge from current conditions in transformative scenarios, while the sector-specific approach facilitates representation of granular details across spatial, temporal, technological, and market dimensions that enable exploration of particular interactions and trade-offs. This report presents the results of recent work to explore the differences and tradeoffs between these approaches by comparing GCAM with the sector-specific ReEDS, TEMPO, and Scout models. The report compares both model structures and results, and discusses their potential relevance and applications.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Transactive Energy Network Template Metamodel

While transactive energy, which is defined as an allocation of electricity based on dynamically discovered values or prices, has been extensively studied, its uptake and use has been slow. This report describes a tool, the transactive network template, which should hasten the creation and uptake of transactive energy networks. Some basic principles of transactive energy are familiar from existing wholesale electricity markets. Locational prices are calculated today for zones within bulk electric transmission systems. Locational prices differ while accounting for the locational costs of electricity generation and the losses and constraints incurred when electricity is transmitted from generators and distributed to consumers. A transactive energy network might include these transmission zones. However, current research strives to apply transactive energy also in electricity distribution circuits, buildings, and even for individual generating and consuming devices. At the same time, researchers explore how to apply transactive energy in real time during increasingly shorter time intervals. Automated computational agents become necessary as transactive energy becomes applied to smaller circuit zones and at faster dynamic timescales. A transactive energy network is an example of a multi-agent system. Each zone in the network is represented by its transactive agent, which makes decisions for and acts on behalf of a business entity that is responsible for and manages one of the circuit regions. A transactive energy network is also an example of a decentralized, distributed control system. Control decisions and responsibilities are distributed among the network’s transactive agents. The transactive agents are independent; that is, there typically is no centralized authority or oversight function. Instead, transactive agents exchange transactive signals and thereby negotiate the prices and quantities of electricity that they will exchange. Initially, the circuit regions and responsibilities of transactive agents appear to be very dissimilar. Each circuit region may comprise transmission, distribution, or building-level circuits. Each has a unique position and electrical connectivity within the transactive energy network. Each possesses unique assets that either generate or consume electricity, and these (e.g., renewable energy generator, diesel generator, aggregate utility load, building load, space conditioning, refrigerator, etc.) may further differ in their price flexibility and in their strategies for responding to dynamic electricity prices. Given such diversity, an implementer’s first inclination might be to start from scratch to define all these devices and to engineer their seemingly unique interactions. Given that each implementer’s perspective may be narrow within a transactive energy network, it is unlikely that uniquely engineered systems would interact well. This is where the transactive network template is applicable. The transactive network template is a metamodel that has been developed to guide implementers as they configure their own transactive agent within a network of such agents. The object-oriented design of the transactive network template provides basic code object types that may be used and extended by implementers to represent each of the assets in their circuit region. These objects further facilitate the transactive agent’s necessary computations, which are divided among responsibilities to schedule power usage, balance electric supply and demand, and coordinate the exchange of electricity with the other transactive agents. This report addresses the conceptual transactive network template design. Implementers are directed to more formal design documents and reference implementations. A Python™-based1 reference implementation of the transactive network template has been coded, and three implementations have been configured to represent a national laboratory and two university campuses. Version 2 of the transactive node template generalizes the market class and its methods to facilitate multiple, and more diverse market coordination mechanisms than were facilitated by and demonstrated using Version 1. Version 3 includes new Appendix B, which addresses the designs of methods that would make dynamic prices track approved electricity rates. In the future, the author wishes to make the transactive network template more generally applicable to networks that require more accurate power flow. Development of the transactive network template is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the DOE Office of Electricity. In late 2015, one of the first projects to be funded by the DOE Grid Laboratory Modernization Laboratory Consortium was the Clean Energy and Transactive Campus project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE funds were matched by an investment by the Washington Department of Commerce through its Clean Energy Fund. The transactive network template was developed to guide the implementation of transactive energy networks within this project’s scope.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗