SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “battery incentive”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

50 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Addressing the Split Incentive Challenge for Enhanced Solar Adoption in Multifamily Rental Properties [Abstract]

The split incentive problem is particularly pronounced in rental markets, where landlords prioritize investments that directly increase property value or rental income. Since energy savings from solar photovoltaic (PV) systems primarily benefit tenants, landlords may perceive little return on investment unless mechanisms exist to recapture some of the financial gains. The primary objective of this project is to develop a publicly available, web-based tool to analyze the U.S. Department of Energy’s ResStock database, which models the U.S. residential building stock. The tool allows users to filter buildings by location, type, HVAC system, square footage, and other characteristics, and outputs typical electric load profiles. By leveraging location-specific electric load data, Fram Energy aims to advance business strategies that address the split incentive barrier and promote the adoption of solar PV installations in rental properties. In addition, a machine learning model will be developed to weigh the marginal contribution of building features across the dataset in predicting electricity demand, supporting guided decision making in forecasting electric load profiles. Lastly, based on each building’s location, load profile, and utility’s electricity rate, an optimized solar photovoltaic array and battery energy storage system will be sized to provide energy arbitrage opportunities.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Breakdown of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Installation Costs

The plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) market is receiving help from the current political climate, incentives at the federal and state levels, excessive cost of petroleum fuel, growing focus on climate solutions, increasing investment and direction by automobile manufacturers and increased awareness through media reports and advertising. Increasingly, the transportation industry, in both the United States and many other countries, is aimed at electric motive energy where practical. Increased investment in research and development have led to increasing vehicle range and lower battery costs; both of which have been deterrents in the past. The increasing demand for PEVs (consisting of the battery electric vehicle [BEV] and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle [PHEV], is challenged by the need for charging infrastructure to support these vehicles. The BEV relies totally on the on-board battery to supply the motive energy while the PHEV utilizes its battery and an installed internal combustion engine (ICE). The maximum benefit is achieved by using the battery power as much as possible. This arrangement requires the use of battery charging equipment, known as electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Optimizing design and dispatch of a renewable energy system

Renewable energy technologies are becoming increasingly important due to their cost-competitiveness, and because of enhanced climate concerns. We demonstrate the capabilities of an integer-programming optimization model that minimizes capital (investment) and operational costs, and utility charges, while adhering to system sizing constraints, demand requirements, and interoperability characteristics of the systems chosen. Furthermore, the model recommends an optimally sized mix of renewable energy, conventional generation, and energy storage technologies, while simultaneously optimizing the corresponding dispatch strategy. Our case studies explore several venues, i.e., a small campus and a local hospital, with complex utility rate tariffs, multi-technology integration opportunities, and incentives for renewable power production. Using an optimization model, versus applying rules of thumb, can produce millions of dollars in savings over a 25-year time horizon and result in thousands of kilowatts of installed renewable energy.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Scaling Equitable Finance

Driven by dramatic declines in up-front cost, the U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, growing from 1 gigawatt of installed capacity in 2009 to 89 gigawatts in 2020—or enough capacity to power roughly 19 million homes. The industry is expected to double in size over just the next 5 years.1 Much of the growth has been driven by large, utility-scale projects that can produce 5 mega- watts or more of power—enough to power at least 1,000 homes. The cost of electricity produced by these projects has decreased by more than 70 percent since 2010. As of Q3 2020, development costs of large, util- ity-scale solar PV power plants were under $1 per watt, down by more than 70 percent from 2010.2 A robust array of investors has come forward to efficiently deliver capital to these kinds of utility-scale projects including large banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and others. But low- and moderate-income communities, including communities of color, are at risk of being left behind in the transition to clean energy. Mission- driven solar project developers and financial institu- tions have been working alongside energy justice advocates to open up solar access for these communi- ties, using strategies ranging from community solar, to solar installations on affordable multifamily housing, to distributed solar and storage programs, and more. Their goals go beyond simply generating more green energy to advancing social equity by: • empowering communities to control their energy future • stabilizing energy prices, saving money, and build- ing wealth for low-income families • creating quality jobs • improving health by reducing pollution • providing energy resilience for vulnerable communities Mission-driven actors are successfully deploying a wide variety of strategies to meet these goals, from helping low-income homeowners get solar—and some- times battery storage, to developing solar projects serv- ing affordable rental housing and community facilities, to building larger “shared solar” projects to which households from across the community can subscribe. However, the financing ecosystem does not work nearly as well for these “mission driven” solar proj- ects as it does for utility-scale projects. For home rooftop solar, even if low-income consumers have a home and suitable roof, they may fail to qualify for federal tax incentives, lack adequate credit to qualify for a loan—or the mission-driven lenders seeking to serve them may not be adequately capitalized to make long-term loans. For mission-driven commercial or community-scale projects, assembling nearly every component of the project capital stack—whether bridging early-stage costs, attracting tax credit equity investors, securing long-term debt, or coming up with sponsor equity and filling gaps—can present challenges. A variety of obstacles contribute to the scarcity of financing for low-income solar, including small project sizes, lack of developer balance sheet capacity, both real and perceived issues with credit risk, elevated technical assistance needs, and greater subsidy requirements to pursue goals such as deep energy affordability, climate resilience, or job creation. Still other obstacles are regulatory: for example, not all states allow community solar projects or Power Purchase Agreements, common strategies used for providing low-income solar—and the potential for regulations to shift over time creates risks that mission-driven projects can ill afford. This report synthesizes information garnered from 47 key informant interviews, four focus group discus- sions involving 60 stakeholders, and a review of the substantial existing literature on low-income solar finance to assess the current landscape of mission- driven solar development in the United States, examine the roles that community-based financial institutions could play, and recommend public invest- ments and policy changes that could help to scale the provision of equitable solar finance. Key recommen- dations for policymakers and funders in the renew- able energy and community development fields that emerge from this process include the following: • Help to capitalize and support community-based lenders to provide flexible, low-cost, and long- term financing to mission-driven solar projects— including providing guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement. • Provide federal support for equitable solar, including a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit to improve access to this critical government subsidy. • Develop pools of government and philanthropic support that can complement financing from community-based lenders to complete the capi- tal stack for mission-driven projects, as well as to support education and technical assistance to both consumers and potential project sponsors. • Create a national Renewable Energy Credits pro- gram that includes social equity targets to provide a baseline of support for clean energy generation. • Change utility regulations to remove barriers to low-income solar projects; lower permitting costs; provide greater certainty for developers, consumers and owners; and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Modeling distributed energy resource aggregations in security constrained unit commitment and economic dispatch

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently issued Order 2222, which requires all wholesale electricity markets in the US to allow distributed energy resources (DERs) to participate in the market as aggregated resources. These DER aggregations may be composed of many individual resources that are offered and dispatched by the market as a single entity. We present here a model of a distributed energy resource aggregator (DERA) that is scheduled by a market operator’s security constrained unit commitment (SCUC) and security constrained economic dispatch (SCED). The DERA model includes constraints for battery energy storage systems (BESSs), demand response resources (DRRs), and a simple distributed energy resource (DER). This paper describes a model for each resource type and presents two methods for the DERA to generate market offer curves: a profit-maximizing optimization to compute cost curves and a direct cost algorithm to determine dispatch costs for each resource and combine into cost curves. Once all participating DERAs are scheduled in SCUC/SCED, the model is then modified to dispatch individual DERs to maximize profit or minimize schedule deviation of the DERAs. A simulation of a representative day illustrates the DERA offers, the scheduled generation, and the DERA dispatch. Findings show the potential for unavoidable schedule deviations due to internal DER constraints and due to economic incentives to deviate from the SCUC/SCED schedules. This highlights the importance of DERA offer construction on market efficiency and system reliability. Novel aspects of our approach include: (1) We consider the asymmetry of price incentives impacting DERAs from the wholesale market compared to those impacting consumers from the retail market, as imposed by current regulations and laws. (2) We model aggregate consumer response through statistically parameterizable utility functions rather than a potentially impractical approach of modeling each individual consumer. (3) We show how to use the DERA operational dispatch model to create offers into the wholesale electricity market. (4) We show how DERAs may fail to meet their scheduled dispatch because the market offer format may not permit them to fully express their operational features such as intertemporal costs and constraints to the market.

aggregations↗

DOE OSTI2021

Markets and Economic Requirements for Fission Batteries and Other Nuclear Systems

Fission Batteries (FBs) are nuclear reactors defined by five characteristics which enable large-scale deployment: cost competitive, standardized sizes for economic mass production, easy installation and removal, secure and safe unattended operation with high reliability. FBs are not defined by technology or power level. Technical and market considerations suggest that most FBs will produce 20 to 30 MWt. This proceedings reports on the outcomes of two workshops that were held in January 2021 to better define markets and economic challenges for FBs. Three major markets were identified. The largest market is the industrial and commercial heat market. There are about 4000 industrial users (excluding utilities) that require more than one megawatt of heat. The number of customers versus size of heat demand was determined. In a low-carbon world there is the potential for many additional customers—including expanded biofuels production and district heat. The second market is for non-grid electricity. This includes co-generation plants that produce heat and electricity for a single customer. The third market is the maritime market with ~100,000 ships worldwide. In the United States, natural gas is the low-cost energy option today and will remain so unless constraints or taxes impact its use. If restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, the FB competition includes natural gas with carbon capture, biofuels, hydrogen and grid electricity. Natural gas with carbon capture is not economically viable on a small scale. Biofuels may be expensive but may be the economically preferred option for locations with small energy demands of a few megawatts. Hydrogen is a potential competitor with many of the characteristics of natural gas. Grid electricity is not a competitive source of heat. For FBs to be economically competitive, the price of delivered heat must be $20-50/MWh ($6-15/million BTU). The economically competitive range for non-grid electricity is estimated at $70-100/MWh. These electricity prices are competitive with the retail prices of electricity in many parts of the United States for the customer. FBs are not expected to be competitive selling wholesale electricity to the grid. To achieve the aforementioned cost targets for heat and electricity markets, FB designers must (1) maximize the power output within the constraints of a FB (e.g., truck transportability, passive decay heat removal), (2) drastically reduce the size of onsite staff, (3) adopt core designs with low fuel costs (enrichment and fabrication), and (4) develop a system design that is efficiently manufactured in factories. The business case depends upon more than being just a replacement for natural gas. The largest incentives for adoption of FBs is where they create new markets and new sources of revenue. An example is the paper and pulp industry that burns biomass wastes to provide heat and electricity to make paper. An external heat source could meet the demand for heat and electricity by the paper process and enable converting waste biomass into liquid biofuels rather than burning to provide heat. Other markets, such as data centers, are driven by special energy requirements such as extreme reliability. Most customers are not in the energy business but need heat and electricity to produce a product—a manufactured good, education, retail sales (shopping malls), marine transport or some other product. As a consequence, there will be large incentives to lease rather than own FBs. Leasing avoids the regulatory challenges that remain with the owner of the FB. Leasing creates large incentives for FP standardization of sizes and transportability to maintain the value of the FB at the end of the lease—similar to the leasing of jet engines and aircraft. The economic constraints combined with technical constraints suggest competitive FBs will likely have outputs exceeding 10 MWt. There appear to be little incentives for very long-lived reactor cores because such machines require much larger inventories of fuel. Maintenance requirements and the options to provide technology updates may favor shorter lifetimes (~5 years). The assessment is that there is the potential for FBs to be economically viable and play a major role in global decarbonization in three markets: heat, non-grid electricity and maritime applications.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Opportunities for green hydrogen production with land-based wind in the United States

Hydrogen (H 2 ) is an efficient energy carrier and storage mechanism that can supply both stationary and transport energy demand. Rapidly declining renewable energy generation costs; technology innovations in wind, solar, battery storage, and electrolysis; and a global push for more sustainable and secure energy have driven increased interest in green H 2 production. In this study, we develop an H 2 scenario analysis tool to assist in rapid, high-resolution insights into future, green H 2 pathways to achieve policy goals and market competitiveness. Using this tool, we estimate H 2 production and costs for U.S., off-grid scenarios given varying policy and cost scenarios from 2025–2035. Results indicate that achieving economically competitive green H 2 production (below $\$$2/kg) is possible in 2030 with no policy incentives (one site achieves this target), while increasing policy support to include wind and green H 2 production tax credits enables widespread economic viability sooner, with sub-$\$$2/kg LCOH targets achieved by 2025 and 51.7% of sites achieving this target by 2035. Maximizing policy support through prevailing wage and apprenticeship credit multipliers enable widespread economic viability, including sub-$\$$2/kg of green H 2 by 2025 and even negative pricing by 2035. Regions with lowest LCOH values correspond to high wind resource areas and capacity factors. Achieving decarbonization goals with green H 2 depends on technology cost reductions and policy support, with a maximum average LCOH reduction of $\$$23.10 between no and maximum policy support scenarios, and a maximum average LCOH reduction of $\$$25.86 between current, conservative technology costs and 2035 projected technology cost assumptions.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2024

SAE Government-Industry - Heavy-Duty Policy: Panel Discussion (G203)

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are 21% of US transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and a major source of air pollution. In this talk to present some results exploring how the total cost of driving (TCD) of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (EVs and FCEVs), could evolve under alternative scenarios. Results show that with continued improvements in vehicles and fuels, ZEVs can rapidly become viable, potentially reaching TCD parity or better compared to diesel vehicles by 2035 for all market segments. For heavy long-haul trucks, EVs become competitive on a TCD basis at charging costs below $0.18/kWh, while FCEVs become competitive on a TCD basis at hydrogen costs below $5/kg. A full transition to ZEV sales by 2035 results in 65% emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2019 without supportive policies. Incentives such as the Inflation Reduction Act vehicle purchase credits further accelerate ZEV TCD competitiveness with major adoption opportunities over the next five years.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSI↗

DOE OSTI2024

Leveraging Energy Sales Agreements (ESA) Under ESPC ENABLE and DOE's IDIQ Contract

There is an increasing interest in solar photovoltaics, battery energy storage systems, and geothermal heat pumps to help meet decarbonization and resilience goals. However, facility managers may not know that energy sales agreement (ESA) contracting can be an effective, efficient, and lower cost way to procure and install these projects. FEMP, national labs, and agency partners will discuss best practices and examples that attendees may be able to leverage at their own sites.

DOE FEMP↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost targets to achieve commercially viable thermal storage in buildings

To mitigate the variation in demand on the electric grid, thermal energy storage (TES) is an alternative to electric batteries or installing new peaking power plants. Stakeholders and policy makers across the United States have expressed interests in promoting TES, as demonstrated by the US Department of Energy’s Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings program and the efforts of various state legislatures. However, the cost value provided by TES are unclear. If reliable cost benefits were determined, stakeholders would have a clearer picture of the financial returns that can be gained from their investment in TES. In this report, EnergyPlus was used to perform whole-building simulations for two residential buildings in Indianapolis and Atlanta. The HVAC system in both buildings were equipped with phase change material TES. The TES tank was charged in off-peak hours and discharged in peak hours to perform load shifting. First, the economic value implied by existing time-of-use (TOU) rates offered by utility companies was analyzed via whole-building simulation. Second, existing demand reduction (DR) incentives sourced from 3 different electrical grid administrators (i.e., California, Texas, and New England region) were surveyed to determine their implied value. Lastly, the economic value implied by different types of deferred peak power plants were reviewed. The full value of TES to the entire society consists of value to the utility, OEMs, facility installers, and other stakeholders. This report focuses on the value to the utility with emphasis on the deferred capital of peak power plant. The value from the deferred capital of peak power plant is manifested to the customer in the form of demand reduction program and Time-of-Use utility rate program. In this report, an initial proxy of the value of TES is made by assuming the deferred capital cost of power plant is the full value to reduce peak demand. Three levels of financial value of TES systems were assessed. Two are currently available to some residential customers: (1) the benefit from TOU pricing alone and (2) the benefit from TOU pricing in combination with DR incentive programs. The third level was computed as the full cost of deferred capital cost of peaking power plants. This represents the potential value that could be gained by the utilities or conceivably be offered to consumers.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2023

Quantification of Energy Savings and Demand Reduction for a Heat Pump Integrated with Thermal Energy Storage (Final Report)

To mitigate the variation in demand on the electric grid, thermal energy storage (TES) is an alternative to electric batteries or installing new peaking power plants. Stakeholders and policy makers across the United States have expressed interests in promoting TES, as demonstrated by the US Department of Energy’s Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings program and the efforts of various state legislatures. However, the cost value provided by TES are unclear. If reliable cost benefits were determined, stakeholders would have a clearer picture of the financial returns that can be gained from their investment in TES. The study in this report is conducted by ORNL with collaboration with Emerson the Helix Innovation Center. In the first part of this report, EnergyPlus was used to perform whole-building simulations for two residential buildings in Indianapolis and Atlanta. The HVAC system in both buildings were equipped with phase change material TES. The TES tank was charged in off-peak hours and discharged in peak hours to perform load shifting. First, the economic value implied by existing time-of-use (TOU) rates offered by utility companies was analyzed via whole-building simulation. Second, existing demand reduction (DR) incentives sourced from 3 different electrical grid administrators (i.e., California, Texas, and New England region) were surveyed to determine their implied value. The study suggests that the traditional value analysis that focuses on ROI for the building owner significantly undervalues TES technology making economic viability difficult. A more comprehensive value analysis that includes peak demand management and deferred capital for peaking power plants shows that TES should be economically viable but here the value is greater for the utility and requires large market penetration and aggregation to fully realize the benefits. Therefore, to facilitate commercialization, new business models are needed that include a broader range of stakeholders and distribute the value of TES proportionally. In the 2 nd part of this project, the benefits of a novel phase change material (PCM) integrated heat pump configuration were evaluated via detailed component based simulation. A one-dimensional PCM heat exchanger model which discretizes the PCM tank and refrigerant tubes into small control volumes is developed. Each control volume can have different PCM temperatures, PCM properties, and heat transfer coefficients. The PCM tank is charged by a wrapped tank condenser and discharged by an internal refrigerant coil. The PCM heat exchanger model is integrated into DOE/ORNL Heat Pump Design Model for heat pump system simulation. To demonstrate the performance of the PCM integrated heat pump, a case study in Chicago was performed. A Time-of-Use utility structure-based control strategy is implemented to schedule the PCM tank charging and discharging mode switching. Compared with a conventional electric heat pump, the PCM integrated heat pump shows superior performance on load shifting and utility cost reduction. As a result, the proposed system demonstrates 24.6% utility saving for cooling application and 25.8% utility saving for heating application.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2022

Savings in Action: Lessons from Observed and Modeled Residential Solar Plus Storage Systems

The electric grid is rapidly evolving as small-scale, demand-side resources play increasingly important roles in grid operations and decarbonization. Maximizing the potential of demand-side resources involves incentivizing electricity customers to use those resources in ways that benefit the broader electrical grid. These incentives depend largely on the electricity cost savings that customers can realize from demand-side resource adoption. Determining these potential cost savings is a complex task. Cost savings depend on numerous factors, including the characteristics of different technologies, the algorithms that control these devices, system performance, customer behavior, electricity rate structures, and climatic factors. Another challenge is that estimated cost savings are frequently based on modeled rather than observed system performance, particularly in the academic literature. In this study, we begin to fill the gap in empirical research of demand-side resources using data from a new construction residential community equipped with rooftop solar and storage (S+S) in Arizona. We use these data to analyze the factors that determine customer electricity cost savings and emissions impacts of S+S in the real world. We then compare these data to modeled system performance to understand how models deviate from real-world outcomes. Based on these findings, we explore ways to improve such models and, conversely, use modeled results to suggest improvements to actual S+S deployment. The results of these analyses can be summarized in four key findings: 1) rate structures play a central role in the grid and customer value of demand-side resources; 2) certain customers can benefit more from demand-side resource adoption than others; 3) modeled battery dispatch and sizing reveals opportunities for additional cost savings; and 4) optimal dispatches can reduce grid emissions while maximizing bill savings.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Progressing Analysis of Variable Electric Rates (PAVER) Study

The Progressing Analysis of Variable Electric Rates (PAVER) study analyzed the impact of a range of time-varying electric rates on the performance of a regional electric grid and the resulting costs for participating and non-participating customers. This analysis leveraged and extended the work of PNNL’s Distribution System Operator with Transactive (DSO+T) study. Five different rate designs were included: a flat volumetric energy charge, a typical Time of Use (TOU) rate, a dynamic energy (DE) rate (based on wholesale locational marginal prices), a dynamic energy and capacity (DE+C) rate, and, finally, a Block and Swing (B&S) rate that billed customers based on their average load profile at constant pricing, but used the DE+C dynamic price for load deviations from their average profile. These rates were analyzed in a large-scale co-simulation of an entire regional grid with a customer population representative of the current state. A large fraction (80%) of residential and commercial customers were assumed to participate in these time-varying rates with automatically controlled HVAC, water heaters, electric vehicles, and batteries. This study assumed no industrial sector participation. The DE and DE+C rates saw system peak loads reduced by 6-7%, while the large participation in the TOU rate case saw a significant rebound effect and a resulting peak load increase of >5%. The impacts to the annual and peak system demand impacted system wholesale prices and the overall grid operating costs. This cost structure determined the revenue needed to be collected from customers by each rate design. Participating customers on the DE and DE+C rates (located in one of the modeled DSOs) saw reductions in average annual electricity bills of 11-17% with average increases in monthly bill variation of no more than 13%. At such high participation levels, TOU customers saw 10% higher average annual bills (due to system-wide rebound effects) and average increased monthly bill variation of 16%. Residential owners of large flexible loads (such as electric vehicles) saw larger bill savings (17-20%) when on a fully dynamic rate. The presence of on-site generation (such as rooftop solar) did not appear to appreciably change customer outcomes. Customers on the Block and Swing rate did see 6% lower monthly bill variation (as intended) than the flat rate case, but at the expense of appreciable bill savings, which were only 3%, comparable to the savings seen by non-participants. Given this finding we recommend that additional research be conducted into how best various bill protection mechanisms can balance minimizing customer bill variation with providing financial incentives commensurate with the flexibility customers provide. We also recommend that customer outcomes be explored across a range of regions using current actual customer and system cost data.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Federal Workplace Charging Program Guide

The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes the installation, operation, and maintenance of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for the purpose of recharging employees' privately owned vehicles (POVs) under the custody or control of the General Services Administration (GSA) or a Federal agency. It requires the collection of fees to recover the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining this equipment and imposes reporting requirements. This program guide reviews those requirements, excerpts the relevant language in Appendix A, and describes when and how fees may be required to cover costs of electricity, network costs, EVSE units, and installations in various scenarios. This program guide is designed to support Federal agencies developing and refining workplace charging programs for employee POVs. While it provides guidance and best practices, it does not replace agencywide policies or agency-specific legal counsel. It contains a roadmap for agency workplace charging programs and defines roles and responsibilities. This guide explains how to determine the number of POVs likely to charge at a given site and contains a sample employee survey in Appendix B. It reviews EVSE planning, including unit selection and acquisition, charger location(s), accounting for available power capacity, using existing infrastructure, and funding an incentive program. It also discusses the costs associated with EVSE acquisition, installation, and network management. These costs inform the subsequently provided information, which describes how to amortize costs to determine appropriate fees for each charging session. The final two sections of this guide address aspects of ongoing program management that the facility coordinator should consider and the reporting requirements associated with the FAST Act. The insights in this guide are applicable to all agency-owned and GSA-leased buildings or facilities offering the use of EVSE or a 120-volt receptacle for the purpose of recharging an employee's POV. However, the FAST Act requirements typically do not apply to any building or facility operated and maintained by a third-party vendor offering the use of EVSE as part of a commercial building lease unless the agency is managing the station and/or energy on behalf of the building and collecting POV fees.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗