Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “tariffs”

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 55 records · Page 3

Heat Pumps with Phase Change Thermal Storage: Flexible, Efficient, and Electrification Friendly

As we continue to electrify space- and water-heating, the electricity demand profile of many buildings will change significantly, and periods of high electricity demand will likely not align with renewable energy generation. We expect electricity demands will increase substantially in the winter, annual maximum electricity demands will increase, and more regions will experience annual peak electrical demands – and higher wholesale electricity prices – in the winter. This is especially important for cold climates where 60% of site energy use in buildings is for heating, and where heat pumps perform least efficiently. This paper focuses on one promising solution among the many paths to electrification: the use of phase change materials (PCM) for compact low-cost thermal energy storage (TES). We present the design and simulation of a combi heat pump and phase change thermal storage system used for space- and water-heating in a multifamily residence in a cold climate. To assess the benefits of this technology, we compare its annual performance to that of a current state-of-the-art air-to-air heat pump and separate heat pump water heater. Simulation results for IECC Climate Zone 6A reveal that the combi heat pump with phase change thermal storage can reduce the design size for heat pumps by 40-60%, reduce maximum electric demand by 30-50%, reduce electricity use during 4-12-hour load shed periods by 50%, and avoid the need for auxiliary electric resistance for both space- and water-heating. Tariff structures are highly varied between different utilities and currently reflect higher wholesale market prices for electricity during summer days. Consequently, although this system design provides large electric demand reductions during hypothetical 4-12-hour load shed periods, it does not provide energy cost reductions with current winter residential time-of-use tariffs.

Helmns, Dre↗

Regulatory Mechanisms to Enable Investments in Electric Utility Resilience

In 2019, Sandia National Laboratories contracted Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to research the integration of community and electric utility resilience investment planning as part of the Designing Resilient Communities: A Consequence-Based Approach for Grid Investment (DRC) project. Synapse produced a series of reports to explore the challenges and opportunities in several key areas, including benefit-cost analysis, performance metrics, microgrids, and regulatory mechanisms to promote investments in electric system resilience. This report focuses on regulatory mechanisms to improve resilience. Regulatory mechanisms that improve resilience are approaches that electric utility regulators can use to align utility, customer, and third-party investments with regulatory, ratepayer, community, and other important stakeholder interests and priorities for resilience. Cost-of-service regulation may fail to provide utilities with adequate guidance or incentives regarding community priorities for infrastructure hardening and disaster recovery. The application of other types of regulatory mechanisms to resilience investments can help. This report: characterizes regulatory objective as they apply to resilience; identifies several regulatory mechanisms that are used or can be adapted to improve the resilience of the electric system--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization; provides a case study of each regulatory mechanism; summarizes findings across the case studies; and suggests how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward. In this report, we assess the effectiveness of a range of utility regulatory mechanisms at evaluating and prioritizing utility investments in grid resilience. First, we characterize regulatory objectives which underly all regulatory mechanisms. We then describe seven types of regulatory mechanisms that can be used to improve resilience--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization--and provide a case study for each one. We summarize our findings on the extent to which these regulatory mechanisms have supported resilience to date. We conclude with suggestions on how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Combined Cycle Integrated Thermal Energy Storage “CiTES” (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Phase I of this project confirmed the technical feasibility of a Combined Cycle integrated Thermal Energy Storage “CiTES” system, calculated the key performance parameters like power efficiency and costs, and proved its commercial value with full-year simulations for several US electricity markets with high degree of variable renewable generation and volatile hourly electricity prices. The core element of this project is the Electro Thermal Energy Storage (ETES) technology from Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy GmbH, using thermally stable and inexpensive volcanic rocks as storage material and air as heat transfer medium. This technology is backed by more than 10 years of experience and a 440MMBTU (130MWh-th) pilot plant in Hamburg, Germany, which is in operation since 2019. The integration of this thermal storage in an existing combined cycle power plant (CCPP) is typical power plant technology without any major technology risks. It allows the storage of inexpensive renewable energy during times of surplus renewable generation and the discharge of this energy in times of high energy demand when the fossil plant is in operation. This supplements the fossil power generation with CO2-emission-free energy. The secondary effect of the CiTES system is that a small part of the stored thermal energy is used to keep the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and steam turbine (ST) of the combined cycle power plant in hot and ready-to-start condition. This enables the plant to start rapidly when fossil generation is required to satisfy demand as soon variable generation drops off in the evenings or during cloud cover and calm wind periods. Without pre-warming of the HRSG and ST, the CCPP would need several hours for a cold or warm start, burn a lot of gas and release high NOx emissions during start and wouldn’t be able to use the short times of high energy prices in an efficient or economical manner. The economic parameters of CiTES were determined by a full year “8760” simulation using a data set calculation for each of the hours of the year, and historical electricity and gas prices. For consistency, the simulations were focused on the pre-COVID year 2019. The financially most attractive markets were in the Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region, which allowed substantial value generation with arbitrage (charge with cheap energy during renewable surplus times and discharge when energy is needed and expensive). The improvement of flexibility with the CiTES system by pre-heating and warm-keeping of the CCPP allowed for additional power generation during short time periods when demand is high but renewable generation is down; when the hourly energy prices are highest in these markets. The simulations are based on 2019 data, when ERCOT had 27GW of installed photovoltaic (PV) and wind generation. They showed that the created revenue with the prototypically sized CiTES system of 1,000MMBTU (300MWh-th) falls a little bit short of what is expected from a commercially viable investment. The system has optimization opportunities for cost reduction and increased effectiveness which will be realized during a potential Phase II Pre-FEED study following this project. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that a lot of renewable generation capacity will be added all over the US in the coming years. As an example, ERCOT is predicting to more than double its renewable generation from 27GW in 2019 to a forecasted 63GW in 2023. This will increase the amount of renewable overproduction exponentially. This rapid increase of local overproduction and the need to curtail renewable generation is well documented by the California ISO (www.CAISO.com / managing oversupply). However, the simulations also revealed a weakness in the structure of the electricity markets in the US. More specifically, when electricity prices are very low and approaching negative levels, the owners of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) will curtail a part of their facility to stabilize the price by reducing supply. This results in a situation in which storage facilities, which are integrated in existing fossil assets and don’t have the behind-the-meter benefit of a VRE, won’t be able to purchase low cost – otherwise curtailed – renewable energy off the grid. A special tariff, which motivates VRE owners to sell otherwise curtailed renewable energy to storage facilities (Hydrogen, thermal, pumped hydro, etc.) can solve this issue. The implementation of such a regulating tariff by Independent System Operators, thus avoiding renewable curtailment, is a pre condition for successful commercialization for renewable energy storage technologies. With this advancement of design and technology and improvements in the market environment, it can be expected that the Combined Cycle integrated Thermal Energy Storage proves itself as an important innovation to keep highly efficient, natural gas-based power generation economically successful and relevant for the power industry in the United States of America.

Wolf, Thorsten↗

Near-Term Electricity Requirement and Emission Implications for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Production with CO 2 -to-Fuels Technologies

Aviation contributed approximately 10% of the U.S. transportation sector's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and about 3% of the nation's total GHG production before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (EPA 2022). Unlike the ground transportation sector, which can be decarbonized by using batteries and hydrogen fuel cell powertrain technologies, the technical and economic challenges of aviation electrification open the opportunity for CO 2 utilization (CO2U) using clean power sources. The U.S. government set a goal to produce 3 billion gallons per year of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) by 2030 and scale up the production to 35 billion gallons per year by 2050 (Bioenergy Technologies Office 2022). In this report, we examine three potential locations, in California, Iowa, and Louisiana, for SAF production using two production pathways that are expected to be available by 2030. We analyze the electricity cost to satisfy 10% of the SAF production potential for the select locations. Specifically, we consider (1) retail electricity cost from the default local utility in each location; (2) physical power purchase agreement (PPA) for renewable power and battery storage hybrid systems with preset prices; (3) financial PPA from a dedicated renewable plant; and (4) estimated real-time pricing (RTP) from the wholesale power market with utility delivery adders. Retail rates are available for the three potential locations; however, the developer should negotiate with the local utility in Iowa for new tariff riders, because the load of the proposed SAF plant (1.4 GW) is significantly higher than the current industrial tariff structure requirement (200 kW). The developers are not able to claim federal credits (i.e., the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) when sourcing electricity from local utilities. Developers could consider prioritizing physical and financial PPAs as purchase options. While physical PPAs can be imported out of state, this structure imposes availability issues as developers must locate in the same electricity grid regions. Financial PPAs do not have the same location restrictions and provide the same cost savings as physical PPAs, but financial PPAs impose financial risks in the event of system curtailment and grid interruption. RTPs are available for customers in California with flexible load and hourly load management capability; however, utilities in our studied regions in Louisiana and Iowa only offer time-of-use and curtailment programs to incentivize lower energy usage in peak hours. These utilities do not currently offer RTP programs, and the developer may need to have further negotiations with the local utilities to access RTP programs. The results show that purchased electricity prices may range from 2.6 cents/kWh to 7.1 cents/kWh for the three studied plants.

02 PETROLEUM↗

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Bill Savings vs. Backup Power: Evaluating operational tradeoffs for home solar+storage systems [Slides]

This study explores tradeoffs between the use of home solar+storage systems for backup power versus day-to-day utility bill savings. The study focuses specifically on the “reserve setting” available with most home battery storage systems, which allow the customer to maintain some minimum level of storage in reserve in case of an unforeseen power interruption. The more capacity that is held in reserve, the greater the customer’s ability to ride-through possible power interruptions, but less capacity is then available to manage utility bills on a day-to-day basis. This study evaluates this operational tradeoff across a diverse set of locations and residential electricity tariff structures, relying on Berkeley Lab’s PRESTO model to stochastically simulate power interruption events, and exploring a range of sensitivities, including variations in customer value of lost load (VoLL), interruption frequency, and other key drivers. The results show that, in most circumstances, the opportunity cost of holding storage capacity in reserve, in terms of foregone bill saving, tends to outweigh any gains in reliability value associated with mitigated power interruptions. This finding is robust across tariff structures and across most of the sensitivities considered, including those related to rate level, customer load level, and storage sizing. There are a limited set of circumstances where raising the reserve setting improves the overall customer value (comprised of bill savings plus reliability value). Specifically, that exception occurs when all of the following conditions apply: (a) the customer resides in a location with exceptionally poor reliability, (b) the customer has exceptionally high VoLL; (c) the customer is on a net billing rate or on a TOU rate that allows grid discharging but not grid charging; and (d), depending on the location, the price arbitrage differential on that rate is relatively small. In all other circumstances analyzed, total customer value declines with reserve level.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Modeling Distributed Generation in California

In support of analysis for the biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report, the California Energy Commission and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have partnered to study the growth of distributed energy resources in California. This study involves the use of National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Distributed Generation Market Demand model, available at https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/dgen/, to project statewide adoption of distributed photovoltaics and paired storage. Key outcomes of the collaboration include: • Improved representation of California building stock, load profiles, historical adoption, and tariffs, including the net billing tariff, in the dGen model; • Trained CEC staff members to use and adapt the dGen model for their specific needs; • Developed a methodology for representing emerging consumer segments to potentially adopt distributed energy resources, including low-income, multifamily, and renter-occupied buildings; • Forecasted solar photovoltaic and paired storage growth in California using a common set of modeling parameters. This report describes the multiyear effort, which includes a discussion of: • Methodology and data employed in adapting the Distributed Generation Market Demand model for California to forecast solar photovoltaic and storage statewide through 2040; • Steps taken to modify the base model to forecast solar photovoltaic adoption in emerging market segments such as multifamily or renter-occupied homes or both; • Future enhancements of the model.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

A Review of Value of Solar Studies In Theory and In Practice

This brief summarizes a collection of state- and utility-commissioned value-of-solar (VoS) studies and related literature, with a focus on who commissioned the study, which value and cost categories were discussed and/or quantified, and the methods used. Our objective is to compile information on prior VoS studies to inform state regulators and other stakeholders that may pursue related studies or integrate findings into rate design. The brief is organized into three parts: 1) an introduction to distributed solar photovoltaic (DPV) compensation; 2) a review of theoretical research on VoS; and 3) a review of VoS studies. The vast majority of VoS studies have served an informational role of quantifying the net benefits of PV. Three studies were commissioned in states or utility service territories that subsequently implemented VoS tariffs in California, New York, and Austin, Texas. When applied as a tariff, VoS aims to compensate PV output as efficiently as possible by doing so at rates that reflect the marginal benefits and costs of PV through value and cost categories that may vary temporally and/or geographically. This could lead to higher compensation in locations and times where more PV output is more valuable and consequently drive adoption in those locations to provide more societal benefits. Value and cost factors can be broadly grouped into five categories: generation, transmission, distribution, other utility, and other social categories. Those conducting VoS studies must weigh various tradeoffs when deciding which categories to include and quantify. Tradeoffs include prioritizing values based on their magnitude of value or cost impact, as well as taking into account the feasibility of data collection and accurate quantification. Values of higher magnitude and estimation feasibility are quantified in the majority of studies, including the earliest of studies conducted in the 2000s and 2010s. Additionally, some values of higher magnitude but low feasibility in the earliest of studies have become quantifiable in recent years. There are some values with low average system-wide levels but very high magnitude in specific locations or hours. The value magnitude in some cases can be tied to DPV penetration with low value in areas with little congestion and/or low penetration and vice versa. In these cases, values that are easier to quantify are often incorporated, while those that are more difficult are often addressed via a placeholder value. The placeholder value is paired with a discussion around data needs and methods to improve future estimates, as well as a conversation about when these value categories may increase in magnitude and necessitate more rigorous quantification. This brief summarizes findings from two meta-analyses of VoS studies that took place between 2005 and 2018, as well as findings from four additional studies published from 2018 to 2023. Table ES-1 summarizes the various value and cost categories included in each respective study and whether they were quantified, discussed, or omitted. Values such as avoided energy, capacity, transmission capacity, line losses, and avoided environmental costs are quantified in every study. Some categories were deemed harder to quantify and less impactful at the time of the study, so they were discussed but not quantified (e.g., ancillary services). Other categories, including many at the distribution level, were very locationally and/or temporally specific and dependent on high DPV penetration. These were sometimes quantified and at other times discussed. Notably, when it came to utility costs, integration costs were discussed in all cases, though they were deemed to have a small impact. Other utility costs were omitted for the most part; however, the utility-commissioned study (by NorthWestern Energy in Montana) included both lost utility revenue and programmatic/administrative cost categories. While there are some similarities across studies, each had fairly unique methods that are detailed in the body of this brief.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities 2026 Update

Electricity demand from large-load customers such as data centers is projected to grow significantly in the near term. While these large loads play an important role in advancing technology innovation and economic growth in the United States, meeting their energy needs requires utilities and regulators to consider important operational and financial risks, such as insufficient energy supply or underutilized investments, that can impact all customers. This paper builds on similar research published in January 2025, providing an overview of how utilities and regulators are managing these risks through different tariffs, including rate structures and electric service agreements. Regulators, utilities, customers, and other stakeholders can use this paper as a foundation when discussing issues and sharing perspectives on developing or reviewing large-load tariffs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Opening Up Transactive Systems: Introducing TESS and Specification in a Field Deployment

Transactive energy systems (TS) use automated device bidding to access (residential) demand flexibility and coordinate supply and demand on the distribution system level through market processes. In this work, we present TESS, a modularized platform for the implementation of TS, which enables the deployment of adjusted market mechanisms, economic bidding, and the potential entry of third parties. TESS thereby opens up current integrated closed-system TS, allows for the better adaptation of TS to power systems with high shares of renewable energies, and lays the foundations for a smart grid with a variety of stakeholders. Furthermore, despite positive experiences in various pilot projects, one hurdle in introducing TS is their integration with existing tariff structures and (legal) requirements. In this paper, we therefore describe TESS as we have modified it for a field implementation within the service territory of Holy Cross Energy in Colorado. Importantly, our specification addresses challenges of implementing TS in existing electric retail systems, for instance, the design of bidding strategies when a (non-transactive) tariff system is already in place. We conclude with a general discussion of the challenges associated with “brownfield” implementation of TS, such as incentive problems of baseline approaches or long-term efficiency.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Q1-2024 Solar Cost Benchmarks

Each year, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) and its national laboratory partners develop cost benchmarks for U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. These benchmarks track progress toward reducing solar costs and guide R&D priorities. Unlike typical studies that report only $/W, SETO uses intrinsic units (e.g., $/m² for mounting structures) to better capture how technology improvements such as module efficiency would impact system costs. This allows flexible modeling where inputs can vary significantly to assess cost sensitivity. Costs are reported in two ways: Minimum Sustainable Price (MSP): Long term, financially viable price under stable market conditions. Modeled Market Price (MMP): Actual market price, influenced by short term distortions such as tariffs or subsidies. Three national labs collect cost data from industry stakeholders, ensuring no duplication in outreach to stakeholders. Data reflects real transactions (primarily from Q1) and is weighted based on the number of sources per cost element. The PV System Cost Model (PVSCM) divides total installed system cost into eight categories: 1. Module (PV) 2. Inverter 3. Energy Storage System (ESS) 4. Structural BOS (SBOS) 5. Electrical BOS (EBOS) 6. Fieldwork 7. Office work 8. Other (developer/EPC costs) The first five are hardware costs, while the last three are soft costs. Each category includes fixed and variable cost components, where “size” depends on context (e.g., manufacturing capacity for modules vs. system capacity for installation costs). Variable costs are expressed using appropriate intrinsic units. The model reflects the owner’s upfront overnight capital cost, excluding tax credits. Tariffs and subsidies are treated as temporary market distortions affecting MMP but not MSP. PVSCM is implemented in Excel, where cost elements are aggregated into total system cost. Additional sheets handle unit conversions and operation & maintenance (O&M), with O&M costs levelized over the system’s lifetime.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Equity-driven Planning of Distributed Solar PV using Optimal Transport

Typically, distribution system planning processes do not explicitly incorporate energy equity considerations, such as identifying consumers most affected by energy costs and determining how investments in the distribution system can address existing energy burden imbalances. This paper proposes a novel optimal transport (OT)-based method to improve the energy burden distribution of consumers. The approach involves the strategic siting and sizing of solar PV in order to assist customers with high energy burden and improve the overall energy burden distribution of the community. The desired energy burden distribution is defined using the equal distribution equivalent (EDE) concept. The OT-based method is then used to estimate the distributed solar PV capacity to be installed at various locations and the tariffs to be adjusted, all while improving the energy burden distribution and providing valuable insights into distributed generation (DG) planning. The results on IEEE 37 bus test system demonstrate how DG planning, considering EDE and OT, can help reduce the energy burden of low-income consumers. Additionally, the approach also reveals optimal tariff adjustments needed to ensure revenue neutrality for distribution utilities.

Optimal transport, equal distribution equivalent, ↗

Network-Aware and Welfare-Maximizing Dynamic Pricing for Energy Sharing

The proliferation of behind-the-meter (BTM) distributed energy resources (DER) within the electrical distribution network presents significant supply and demand flexibilities, but also introduces operational challenges such as voltage spikes and reverse power flows. In response, this paper proposes a network-aware dynamic pricing framework tailored for energy-sharing coalitions that aggregate small, but ubiquitous, BTM DER downstream of a distribution system operator's (DSO) revenue meter that adopts a generic net energy metering (NEM) tariff. By formulating a Stackelberg game between the energy-sharing market leader and its prosumers, we show that the dynamic pricing policy induces the prosumers toward a network-safe operation and decentrally maximizes the energysharing social welfare. The dynamic pricing mechanism involves a combination of a locational ex-ante dynamic price and an ex-post allocation, both of which are functions of the energy sharing's BTM DER. The ex-post allocation is proportionate to the price differential between the DSO NEM price and the energy-sharing locational price. Simulation results using real DER data and the IEEE 13-bus test systems illustrate the dynamic nature of network-aware pricing at each bus, and its impact on voltage.

aggregates↗

2025 Large Load Literature Review

This literature review catalogs more than 90 publications focused on large loads, and groups the documents and resources thematically into 12 categories, (listed below). The 2026 Large Load Literature Review and Data Sources summary reports are available here: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/2026-large-load-literature-review -Load forecasting -Data sources -Reliability and resource adequacy -Large load interconnection -Demand flexibility -Generation -Co-location -Data center location/infrastructure -Large load tariffs -Policy options -Maps and tools -Design and operations

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Chapter 2: Global Value Chain and Manufacturing Analysis on Geothermal Power Plant Turbines

The global geothermal power market has shown significant growth since the last decade and is expected to reach a total installed capacity of 18.4 gigawatts electric (GWe) by the end of 2021 (GEA, 2016). The global geothermal power plant turbine market is dominated by a small number of manufacturers. Between 2005 and 2015, 82% of the geothermal steam turbines were manufactured in Japan, and 74% of the geothermal binary cycle turboexpanders were manufactured in Israel. During this period, the United States played an important role in the global trade flow of fully assembled turbine units and turbine parts, with a high volume of imports and exports. Another significant growth area was in Italian turbine/turboexpander manufacturers, who have increased their market share in the last couple of years. One other important change in the manufacturing market was in Turkey, where the bonus on feed-in-tariff (FIT) for domestic hardware components boosted the national manufacturing sector between 2010 and 2020. When planning geothermal power projects, developers customize their power plant size to fit the available geothermal resource capacity. The turbine is designed and sized to optimize the efficiency and utilization of resource and revenue production. The rest of the power plant components such as heat exchangers (HX), water-cooled cooling towers (WCCT), or air-cooled condensers (ACC) are then chosen to complement the turbine size and design. These one-off manufacturing custom design turbines have relatively higher manufacturing set-up costs, longer lead times, and higher capital costs than the standard design turbines manufactured in larger volumes. However, turbines produced in standard increments and in larger manufacturing volumes could result in lower costs per turbine, but potentially lower efficiency. Based on pipeline projects and resource assessments, there is significant potential value in creating standard turbine sizes that could offer an economic advantage, as is done for modular microturbines.

40 EE - Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)↗

Impact of model predictive control-enabled home energy management on large-scale distribution systems with photovoltaics

Residential customers use more than one-quarter of the electricity in the world. Optimally managing home energy consumption is an effective way of easing the operational challenges facing the electric grid with increasing solar photovoltaics (PV). This paper studies the impact of the future proliferation of home energy management systems (HEMS) in the presence of PV on large-scale distribution systems. First, we present a stochastic HEMS model that minimizes residential customers' thermal discomfort and energy costs under uncertainty. The HEMS model schedules the optimal operations of residential appliances in the presence of PV within a mixed-integer linear programming-based model predictive control framework that links the proposed HEMS to a quasi-steady-state time-series simulation tool. Additionally, extensive simulations are conducted for a stand-alone residential home using two tariff structures and for 1977 homes on an 8,500-node distribution feeder. Simulation results quantify the impact of the future proliferation of HEMS on the large-scale distribution system with PV.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Model predictive control for demand flexibility: Real-world operation of a commercial building with photovoltaic and battery systems

Hundreds of studies have investigated Model Predictive Control (MPC) for the optimal operation of building energy systems in the past two decades. However, MPC field tests are still uncommon, especially for small- and medium-sized commercial buildings and for buildings integrated with onsite renewables. This paper describes the implementation and the long-term performance evaluation of an MPC controller in a small commercial building equipped with behind-the-meter photovoltaics and electrochemical batteries. MPC controls space conditioning, commercial refrigeration, and the battery system. We tested two types of demand flexibility applications in the field: electricity bill minimization under time-of-use tariffs and responses to grid flexibility events. Results show that the proposed controller achieves 12% of annual electricity cost savings and 34% peak demand reduction against the baseline, while respecting thermal comfort and food safety. The field tests also demonstrate the ability of the MPC controller to provide a multitude of grid services including real-time pricing, demand limiting, load shedding, load shifting, and load tracking, using the same optimization framework.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Economics of electric vehicle corridor fast charging in the United States

Corridor direct-current fast charging (DCFC) stations enable long-distance electric vehicle travel, yet their economics remain uncertain due to high capital costs, low initial utilization, and exposure to utility demand charges. This study evaluates the long-term economics of corridor DCFC across the United States, incorporating capital and operating expenses-including charging equipment and real-world utility tariffs-alongside modeled station utilization, financial incentives, and ancillary retail revenue. In the Baseline scenario, modeled breakeven costs for corridor DCFC average $\$$0.42/kWh over 20 years, yet fewer than half of stations reach cost parity with gasoline on a per-mile basis. Utilization is the primary driver of cost variation, with low-utilization stations costing roughly six times more per kilowatt-hour than the national average. Excluding stations that fail to reach cost parity reduces National Highway System coverage within 50 miles from 94% to 67%, underscoring the trade-off between market-driven deployment and comprehensive network coverage. These results provide guidance for charging providers, utilities, planners, and policymakers seeking to develop and sustain a financially viable national corridor charging network.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗