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.
This is a Mandarin translation of the Clean Energy Solutions Center fact sheet. The Solutions Center offers no-cost expert policy assistance, webinars and training forums, clean energy policy reports, data, and tools provided in partnership with more than 35 leading international and regional clean energy organizations.
This is an Arabic translation of the Clean Energy Solutions Center fact sheet. The Solutions Center offers no-cost expert policy assistance, webinars and training forums, clean energy policy reports, data, and tools provided in partnership with more than 35 leading international and regional clean energy organizations.
This is a Portuguese translation of the Clean Energy Solutions Center Services fact sheet. The Solutions Center offers no-cost expert policy assistance, webinars and training forums, clean energy policy reports, data, and tools provided in partnership with more than 35 leading international and regional clean energy organizations.
This document is the final technical report for the "Fundamental Algorithmic Research for Quantum Computing" (FAR-QC) project at Dartmouth College (PI: J. Whitfield, co-PI: L. Viola). It details the project's primary scientific accomplishments from 2019 to 2025, focusing on advances in quantum simulation algorithms, resource-efficient fermionic encodings, bosonic topology, and optimization methods for near-term quantum devices. The report also summarizes project impacts, including software development (Quiqbox.jl), workforce training, and a complete list of resulting publications.
IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) offer a vast potential to expand the use of geothermal energy. Heat is extracted from this engineered system by injecting cold water into a subsurface fractures, which are in contact with the hot dry rock, and pulled through the production wells. Creating EGS requires improving the natural permeability of hot crystalline rocks. To develop economically viable EGS reservoirs, significant technical barriers (e.g., better stimulation technologies without adequate water and/or permeability) and non-technical barriers (e.g., land access and permitting) must be overcome. In this short conference paper, we present a workflow to address a part of this challenge – “How to develop economically viable EGS using existing technologies?”. Our workflow called the GeoThermalCloud (GTC) for EGS, leverages recent advances in machine learning, deep learning, and cloud computing. This GTC framework is open-source and available at https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl. The GTC framework provides trained deep learning (DL) models to estimate the net present value of a given EGS design scenario. The Geothermal Design Tool (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git), a fast and simplified multi-physics solver, is used to develop a database for training DL models. The database consists of EGS design parameters (inputs to DL model) and their net present value (output of DL model) in uncertain geologic systems. The EGS design parameters for constructing this training database are based on Utah FORGE but include the options of more wells and deeper depths. The DL models are trained by ingesting the EGS design parameters and estimating the corresponding net present value. Such an emulation allows us to screen various EGS designs quickly and identify good development strategies by coupling them with optimization techniques. Our preliminary results show promise in DL emulation of net present value. However, a lot more work is needed to improve the predictive capability of DL models (i.e., extensive hyperparameter tuning is necessary). This will be the primary focus of our future work.
This report documents the fifth Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) Intercalibration Round-Robin Experiment (SIRREX-5), which was held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on 23-30 July 1996. The agenda for SIRREX-5 was established based on recommendations made during SIRREX-4. For the first time in a SIRREX activity, instrument intercomparisons were performed at field sites, which were near NIST. The goals of SIRREX-5 were to continue the emphasis on training and the implementation of standard measurement practices, investigate the calibration methods and measurement chains in use by the oceanographic community, provide opportunities for discussion, and intercompare selected instruments. As at SIRREX-4, the day was divided between morning lectures and afternoon laboratory exercises. A set of core laboratory sessions were performed: 1) in-water radiant flux measurements; 2) in-air radiant flux measurements; 3) spectral radiance responsivity measurements using the plaque method; 4) device calibration or stability monitoring with portable field sources; and 5) various ancillary exercises designed to illustrate radiometric concepts. Before, during, and after SIRREX-5, NIST calibrated the SIRREX-5 participating radiometers for radiance and irradiance responsivity. The Facility for Automated Spectroradiometric Calibrations (FASCAL) was scheduled for spectral irradiance calibrations for standard lamps during SIRREX-5. Three lamps from the SeaWiFS community were submitted and two were calibrated.
The National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) created a Minority Serving Institution Partnership Plan (MSIPP) to 1) align investments in a university capacity and workforce development with the NNSA mission to develop the needed skills and talent for NNSA's enduring technical workforce at the laboratories and production plants and 2) to enhance research and education at underrepresented colleges and universities. Out of this effort, MSIPP launched a new program in early FY17 focused on Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). The following report summarizes the project focus and status update during this reporting period. The overall goal of this project is to establish a network of TCUs with essential advanced manufacturing facilities, associated training and education programs, and private sector and federal agency partnerships to both prepare an American Indian advanced manufacturing workforce and create economic and employment opportunities within Tribal communities through design, manufacturing, and marketing of high quality products. Some examples of high quality products involve next generation grid components such as mechanical energy storage, cabling for distribution of energy, and electrochemical energy storage enclosures.
This report describes NASA's metric transition in terms of seven major program elements. Six are technical areas involving research, technology development, and operations; they are managed by specific Program Offices at NASA Headquarters. The final program element, Institutional Management, covers both NASA-wide functional management under control of NASA Headquarters and metric capability development at the individual NASA Field Installations. This area addresses issues common to all NASA program elements, including: Federal, state, and local coordination; standards; private industry initiatives; public-awareness initiatives; and employee training. The concluding section identifies current barriers and impediments to metric transition; NASA has no specific recommendations for consideration by the Congress.
This breakout session is a traditional conference instrument used by the NASA industrial hygiene personnel as a method to convene personnel across the Agency with common interests. This particular session focused on two key topics, training systems and automation of industrial hygiene data. During the FY 98 NASA Occupational Health Benchmarking study, the training system under development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was deemed to represent a "best business practice." The EPA has invested extensively in the development of computer based training covering a broad range of safety, health and environmental topics. Currently, five compact disks have been developed covering the topics listed: Safety, Health and Environmental Management Training for Field Inspection Activities; EPA Basic Radiation Training Safety Course; The OSHA 600 Collateral Duty Safety and Health Course; and Key program topics in environmental compliance, health and safety. Mr. Chris Johnson presented an overview of the EPA compact disk-based training system and answered questions on its deployment and use across the EPA. This training system has also recently been broadly distributed across other Federal Agencies. The EPA training system is considered "public domain" and, as such, is available to NASA at no cost in its current form. Copies of the five CD set of training programs were distributed to each NASA Center represented in the breakout session. Mr. Brisbin requested that each NASA Center review the training materials and determine whether there is interest in using the materials as it is or requesting that EPA tailor the training modules to suit NASA's training program needs. The Safety, Health and Medical Services organization at Ames Research Center has completed automation of several key program areas. Mr. Patrick Hogan, Safety Program Manager for Ames Research Center, presented a demonstration of the automated systems, which are described by the following: (1) Safety, Health and Environmental Training. This system includes an assessment of training needs for every NASA Center organization, course descriptions, schedules and automated course scheduling, and presentation of training program metrics; (2) Safety and Health Inspection Information. This system documents the findings from each facility inspection, tracks abatement status on those findings and presents metrics on each department for senior management review; (3) Safety Performance Evaluation Profile. The survey system used by NASA to evaluate employee and supervisory perceptions of safety programs is automated in this system; and (4) Documentation Tracking System. Electronic archive and retrieval of all correspondence and technical reports generated by the Safety, Health and Medical Services Office are provided by this system.
This semester I worked with the Flight Planning Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center. I learned about the different aspects of flight planning for the International Space Station as well as the software that is used internally and ISSLive! which is used to help educate the public on the space program. I had the opportunity to do on the job training in the Mission Control Center with the planning team. I transferred old timeline records from the planning team's old software to the new software in order to preserve the data for the future when the software is retired. I learned about the operations of the International Space Station, the importance of good communication between the different parts of the planning team, and enrolled in professional development classes as well as technical classes to learn about the space station.
Information resource instruction for undergraduate aerospace engineering students has traditionally been limited to an occasional part of the education process--a written paper required in the capstone design course or a library tour. Efforts to encourage the use of aerospace literature and information resources have been made in the past decade, with a recent push from information and, especially, networking technology. This paper presents data from a survey of U.S. aerospace engineering students regarding their instruction in the use of information resources. We find that more than 25 percent of the students surveyed had no instruction in technical communications skills or the use of information resources. We consider the need for instruction in the use of information resources and technical communications skills and the opportunities presented for improvement.
Steel Thread is a NA-22 venture that seeks to build trustworthy, reliable AI models that can be used in a wide variety of nonproliferation tasks. A key aspect of building these models is developing appropriate benchmarks and evaluation methods, which will enable the venture to identify and adapt models to provide the most value in the nonproliferation domain. Benchmarks must be relevant to key tasks in this domain, such as question answering, information retrieval, document summarization and classification, consensus analysis, and image and data analysis. This report 1) provides an overview of benchmark design, evaluation, and challenges; 2) reviews a variety of open benchmarks, with a focus on language models and tasks; and 3) identifies benchmarks that are most relevant to Steel Thread. This report is intended to serve as a basis for further efforts to classify and evaluate benchmarks and their correlation with success on nonproliferation-specific tasks. The Steel Thread venture has defined benchmarks to be a particular combination of a dataset (or datasets) and a metric (or metrics) conceptualized as representing one or more specific tasks or sets of abilities for a specific modality. It is adopted by a research community as a shared framework for comparing methods.1 It includes 1) Data: Labeled (a designated subset not used for training, which could be all the data), 2) Metric: A way to quantify performance, 3) Task/Ability: What the benchmark is testing, 4) Protocol: A structured and repeatable evaluation process, 5) Baseline/Reference Model: For comparison; could be statistical, rule-based, SME-derived, or another model, and 6) Maintenance Plan: to update with new information over time; important for long-term utility. For further clarity, the definition includes what a benchmark, in this context, is not. It is not a corpus of training data, specific to a model (it is intended to apply to a range of models), a universal evaluation of performance, a guarantee that the ‘top’ model on the leaderboard will be the best fit for every specific use case, an all-encompassing proof of a model’s universal quality, nor is it a one-size-fits-all measure of success. It does not cover every real-world constraint (like operational, ethical, or cost considerations), a systems integration test, or a unit test. This definition was inspired by and resulted from discussions within the Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force. This group was formed to define what we would mean as a benchmark within Steel Thread but persisted as the need to develop a thorough understanding of the large and expanding existing benchmarking space. This technical report is a result of the group’s divide and conquer approach to exploring this space. The release of benchmarks might not be progressing as quickly as model development, but it is moving very fast, as many benchmarks quickly become saturated, when state-of-the-art models score so close to the benchmark’s ceiling that their results are virtually indistinguishable. At that point, the test no longer differentiates between new systems, so researchers usually stop reporting scores as the benchmark no longer informs about improvements from the next generation of models. In the OpenAI announcement of GPT-5, they reported results on six flagship public benchmarks (AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, HealthBench Hard, GPQA) but the full system-card covers roughly thirty-five separate evaluations, comprising hundreds of test task items in total. There have been some efforts to summarize benchmarks in specific fields, like for text-to-image generation, but these surveys have had a narrow methodology scope. Therefore, a comprehensive survey of all benchmarks or even all benchmarks that could be relevant to Steel Thread is outside of the scope of this report. We chose some specific benchmarks to investigate in detail.
Purpose: To enable MRI-guided prostate radiotherapy, MRI-CT deformable registration is required to map the MRI-defined tumor and key organ contours onto the CT images. Due to the intrinsic differences in grey-level intensity characteristics between MRI and CT images, the integration of MRI into CT-based radiotherapy is very challenging. We are developing a learning-based registration approach to address this technical challenge. Methods: We propose to estimate the deformation between MRI and CT images in a patch-wise fashion by using the sparse representation technique. Specifically, we assume that two image patches should follow the same deformation if their patch-wise appearance patterns are similar. We first extract a set of key points in the new CT image. Then, for each key point, we adaptively construct a coupled dictionary from the training MRI-CT images, where each coupled element includes both appearance and deformation of the same image patch. After calculating the sparse coefficients in representing the patch appearance of each key point based on the constructed dictionary, we can predict the deformation for this point by applying the same sparse coefficients to the respective deformations in the dictionary. Results: This registration technique was validated with 10 prostate-cancer patients’ data and its performance was compared with the commonly used free-form-deformation-based registration. Several landmarks in both images were identified to evaluate the accuracy of our approach. Overall, the averaged target registration error of the intensity-based registration and the proposed method was 3.8±0.4 mm and 1.9±0.3 mm, respectively. Conclusion: We have developed a novel prostate MR-CT registration approach based on patch-deformation dictionary, demonstrated its clinical feasibility, and validated its accuracy. This technique will either reduce or compensate for the effect of patient-specific treatment variation measured during the course of radiotherapy, is therefore well-suited for a number of MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy, and potentially enhance prostate radiotherapy treatment outcome.
This project was initially funded in 2007 and the current technical report is for 2019-2022. The specific objectives of this project (2019-2022) were: (1) Synthesis of actinide peroxide compounds in molten salt eutectics, (2) Studies of new uranyl minerals with fascinating structures and compositions, (3) Drop-solution calorimetric studies of actinide compounds extending into the transuranium elements, with an emphasis on the uranyl-sulfate system, (4) Continuation of studies of uranyl vanadate clusters synthesized using ionic liquids, (5) The training of Ph.D. graduate students in actinide chemistry, and to introduce undergraduate students to actinide research through providing research assistantships and supervision. The report lists 67 archival journal papers describing the work, of which 23 were since 2019. Highlights of the work are summarized for the period 2019-2022.
Several multisensor simulator packages are being developed by different research groups across the world. Such simulator packages [e.g., COSP , CRTM, ECSIM, RTTO, ISSARS (under development), and SDSU (this article), among others] share overall aims, although some are targeted more on particular satellite programs or specific applications (for research purposes or for operational use) than others. The SDSU or Satellite Data Simulator Unit is a general-purpose simulator composed of Fortran 90 codes and applicable to spaceborne microwave radiometer, radar, and visible/infrared imagers including, but not limited to, the sensors listed in a table. That shows satellite programs particularly suitable for multisensor data analysis: some are single satellite missions carrying two or more instruments, while others are constellations of satellites flying in formation. The TRMM and A-Train are ongoing satellite missions carrying diverse sensors that observe clouds and precipitation, and will be continued or augmented within the decade to come by future multisensor missions such as the GPM and Earth-CARE. The ultimate goals of these present and proposed satellite programs are not restricted to clouds and precipitation but are to better understand their interactions with atmospheric dynamics/chemistry and feedback to climate. The SDSU's applicability is not technically limited to hydrometeor measurements either, but may be extended to air temperature and humidity observations by tuning the SDSU to sounding channels. As such, the SDSU and other multisensor simulators would potentially contribute to a broad area of climate and atmospheric sciences. The SDSU is not optimized to any particular orbital geometry of satellites. The SDSU is applicable not only to low-Earth orbiting platforms as listed in Table 1, but also to geostationary meteorological satellites. Although no geosynchronous satellite carries microwave instruments at present or in the near future, the SDSU would be useful for future geostationary satellites with a microwave radiometer and/or a radar aboard, which could become more feasible as engineering challenges are met. In this short article, the SDSU algorithm architecture and potential applications are reviewed in brief.
The SolSmart program was established in late 2015 to “establish a prominent national recognition and technical assistance program for local governments that will signal to installers and the public that a community is receptive to solar businesses and has established a supportive solar market environment. This, in turn, will reduce market barriers and lower soft costs, thus contributing to SunShot goals. The program will also assist communities who are just beginning to improve their solar markets.” By March 31, 2022 (the grant end date), the SolSmart Team designated 460 communities, more than 50% more than the initial program objective of 300 communities. The designated communities represent 42 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The SolSmart team developed and revised criteria representing best practices for local governments; recruited, trained, evaluated, and mentored communities to incorporate these best practices; and disseminated resources about solar and solar-related technologies as well as the newest best practices on a regular basis. 98% of local government officials who participated in the program said that SolSmart increased their knowledge of solar energy. The SolSmart program had both real and perceived tangible impacts on barriers to solar adoption in designated communities. Significantly, the time to permit a solar installation decreased by 7.5 days on average. This reduced the soft costs for both the solar installer (and therefore the customer) and the local government. The result is that solar installations in SolSmart communities increased by 17% per month compared with similar non-SolSmart communities. Larger and wealthier communities were more likely to pursue SolSmart designation and earn more points within SolSmart. As a result, IREC/TSF developed strategies to reach underserved communities and created new resources to help them more easily achieve designation, as described below. In the last year of the Award, 44% of designated communities were underserved, compared with 31% in the earlier years of the program. DOE issued two awards for SolSmart: the SolSmart Technical Assistance Provider (TAP), led by The Solar Foundation (TSF) which has since merged with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), and the Designation Program Administrator (DPA), led by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). IREC was lead for the TAP project and, until the time of TSF/IREC merger, was a subrecipient on the DPA project. These two projects were interdependent; one could not exist without the other. While this report will focus on the work performed by the TAP, it will be impossible to speak of this without talking about the successes, impacts, and benefits of the overall SolSmart program.