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 issue brief is for state and local governments that want to track the energy impacts and performance of a Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing program. C-PACE programs provide a mechanism for commercial property owners to finance energy improvements and can provide a variety of both private and public benefits.
Navistar presents the SuperTruck II (ST II) Final Report to the Unites States Department of Energy (US DOE), which covers the five Budget Periods (BPs) from 10-1-2016 through 6-30-2022. For ST II, Navistar built on the achievements of the SuperTruck I (ST I) Program as a catalyst to continue critical research, design and development, testing, and operations to reach the ambitious goals of the ST II project. This approach allowed Navistar to continue contributing to the essential needs of our nation for safe, efficient, and cost-effective delivery of goods and services, as we reduced negative environmental effects and improved operational productivity. This document contains information specified in DOE F 4600.2, Final Scientific/Technical Report DOE F 241.3, B. SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL REPORTS, explaining how we met and exceeded program requirements. Throughout this Final Report, Navistar extracted information from documents prepared during the project that represent our management, design and development, building, and testing efforts to meet and exceed SuperTruck II project goals. Navistar followed Plan requirements to achieve / exceed Project Objectives: a) >100% improvement in vehicle freight efficiency (FE) (on ton-MPG basis) relative to 2009 baseline with stretch goal of 140% improvement [actual: 170%); b) >55% engine brake thermal efficiency (BTE) demonstrated in operational engine at a 65-mph cruise point on a dynamometer – ≥31% increase from 2009 baseline [actual: 55.20% of combined BTE) ; and c) development and implementation of commercially cost effective technologies (in terms of a simple payback). Technology selection / development path focused on developing technologies applicable for production within 3-year approach, while ensuring technology readiness and cost of ownership for end users. The Program was organized into five budget periods: Requirements / Technology Assessment and Initial Hardware Testing; Technology Development and Concept Readiness Demonstration; Technology Finalization and Validation Tractor / Trailer Fabrication, Integration and Commissioning Demonstration; and Fuel Economy (FE) and Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE) and Program Completion. Leadership was provided by DOE, with tasks performed by laboratories (Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory); partners at Bosch, TPI, Dana, and J.B. Hunt; , and support from University of Michigan and Clemson University. Navistar lead this team with Principal Investigator / Contracting Officer; Project Manager (PM); Vehicle, Engine, and Aftertreatment Engineers; Finance Manager, Technical Program Leads, and Legal/IP; and other key personnel. Work also included personnel in risk management; funding / budget / finance. Work involved analysis, development, testing, and down selection of individual/system engine, aftertreatment, and vehicle technologies, with integration of selected technologies into a prototype vehicle for demonstration of fuel-efficiency gain. Work also included component/integrated system level development of truck and trailer aerodynamics, base engine efficiency, advanced aftertreatment, combustion efficiency, waste heat recovery, hybrid powertrain, reduced rolling resistance, weight reduction, idle reduction, and driver feedback. As ST II progressed, Navistar performed computer-based modeling / simulations of technologies focused on the primary operational areas: Engine, Aftertreatment, and Vehicle. During the ST II Program, the COVID Virus outbreak unexpectedly challenged by the effects of, which affected staffing, scheduling, design, supplies, availability of materials, production procedures, and testing. The DOE responded by extending the program by three quarters to ensure that project tasks were completed for this vital project. Focus continued on analyzing, developing, testing, and down selecting individual-/system-level engine and vehicle technologies for integration of the final selected technologies into a prototype vehicle that would demonstrate fuel-efficiency gains made possible through these technologies. This included component/integrated system-level development of truck and trailer aerodynamics, base engine efficiency, advanced aftertreatment, combustion efficiency, waste heat recovery, solar power, distributed and intelligent vehicle power, hybrid powertrain, reduced rolling resistance, weight reduction, idle reduction, and driver feedback. Throughout the program, function, reliability, and performance at all levels were ensured through testing. Proof of this approach was demonstrated in multiple, on-road demonstrations: Scenario A (Flatland) Fuel Economy, Scenario B (Hilly) Fuel Economy, and City Cycle Tests. Other benefits derived from ST II included new/improved products, publications, patents, and next-step capabilities related to electric/hydrogen vehicles and autonomous driving.
The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office (WIP) over a ten year period to provide technical assistance, research and analyses, and enhanced coordination between DOE and the State and Territory Energy Offices. Over the life of the agreement, NASEO worked with WIP and the states to provide statewide strategic energy plan analyses and recommendations, including customized technical assistance to the states; peer to peer financing assistance via NASEO’s Financing Committee and supporting activities; training on core energy policies and programs, including dialogues and resources to support energy-air coordination, a training for new State Energy Office Directors, peer to peer exchange via a rural energy taskforce, and support to states to enhance buildings efficiency, home energy labeling, and technology deployment opportunities; support for State Energy Program metrics; and regional coordination via regional coordinators and peer exchange opportunities both in-person and online. Over the life of the project, the position and role of State Energy Offices within state government has changed, with now 80 percent of State Energy Office Directors serving as their Governor’s energy advisor, or reporting directly to their Governor’s energy advisor. This shift in stature has made it ever more crucial for State Energy Offices to receive timely and relevant technical assistance across a range of energy issue areas. NASEO, in collaboration with WIP, was able to deliver this technical assistance, and energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment has accelerated across the country. The State Energy Office Directors and their staff continue to engage in NASEO’s Committees – many of which were supported through this agreement – and have provided formal and informal feedback on the value of the programs supported through this award (e.g., reporting via survey increased understanding of their roles and technical assistance offerings provided by WIP and NASEO following the New Director Trainings). Moreover, resources developed through this award (e.g., Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines, State Energy Loan Fund Database, Rural Data Resources for State Energy Planning and Programs, The Value of Adding home Energy Score to Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs, etc.) have been cited by states as instrumental to their understanding of specific energy issue areas and in many cases led directly to enhanced program design within a state (e.g. Iowa citing their review of NASEO’s Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines as a necessary first step in their planning process, later following may of the steps outlined in the guidelines). The priorities of the states and federal government have evolved over the last decade, with an increasing focus on climate mitigation and adaptation, equity impacts and considerations, energy security and resilience, and enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology deployment, but the roots of these new priorities are based in the state and federal policies and programs, and research and analyses, that were supported in part through this award and other complementary initiatives. NASEO looks forward to continuing to support the states, and collaborate and coordinate with DOE, as we build on this important foundation in the years ahead.
Uncertainty in PV energy estimates is "one of the most critical areas of lack of understanding" according to independent engineers, financiers, PV model developers, and other industry stakeholders. The primary problem is a lack of rigorous, transparent, widely accepted methods for quantifying uncertainty in energy production estimates. Uncertainty in energy production estimates arises from variability of the solar resource, inexact PV performance models and their parameters, and system reliability considerations. Uncertainty in annual energy production is frequently calculated for larger projects in order to quantify financial risk. Key statistics for energy, such as the P-values "P50" and "P90" (the annual energy values that are exceeded in future years with 50\% and 90\% probability, respectively) are used by financing institutions to calculate the repayment risk for the project. The current methods to estimate these statistics are typically proprietary, specialized, and involve significant post-processing of commercial performance model results. This black-box approach leads to inconsistent P-value estimates from different parties, which reduces investors' confidence in the results. Since the financial community bases its risk assessment on these estimates, reduced confidence increases perceived project risk, and consequently financing costs. The goal of this project was to establish a set of best practices for quantifying uncertainty in energy production estimates, including identifying what sources of uncertainty must be considered with clear definitions and metrics, determining which sources are the biggest drivers of uncertainty, and providing a computationally efficient framework for combining different sources of uncertainty that is flexible enough to accommodate substitutions of data or methods when better information is available. We engaged a wide set of stakeholders to ensure industry endorsement and adoption, and leveraged complementary projects investigating individual sources of uncertainty in great detail, as well as others' work that started down this path.
Project Objectives: The focus for the entirety of the last quarter was on the completion of the pilot loan funding within our portfolio, and the closing out of our DOE-CAP Grant: “Innovative Pathways: Transforming Impact Investments to Working Capital for Early Stage Cleantech Companies.” The fourteenth quarter (Q14) of the program performance was also dedicated toward two main activities: the continued fundraising efforts for a formalized LACI debt fund, as well as finalization of the lending processes for pilot underwriting amongst the LACI Team and with Mission Driven Finance. This quarter marked key successes around the workflows of the DOE-CAP grant, specifically around fund capitalization efforts. Activities during the thirteenth quarter included: 1. Finalization of the DOE-CAP grant activities and work-flows; 2. Due diligence, underwriting and issuance of one (1) loan in Q1 2021 and three (3) in Q4 2020 for technology providers in grant-funded zero emissions mobility & community pilots, in partnership with LACI and local organizations, totaling ten (10) total loans; 3. Development of fundraising and marketing materials, and distribution to 30+ possible funding sources over the course of Q13 & Q14; and 4. Reinvigoration of conversations with Mission Driven Finance, the prospective underwriting partner for key activities and governance documents, and finalization of all loan processing activities once the fund is capitalized
In fall 2019, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) initiated a joint Microgrids State Working Group (MSWG), funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE). The MSWG aimed to bring together NARUC and NASEO members to explore the capabilities, costs, and benefits of microgrids; discuss barriers to microgrid development; and develop strategies to plan, finance, and deploy microgrids to improve resilience. Based on member input, the MSWG developed two companion briefing papers to answer key questions about microgrids: (1) User Objectives and Design Approaches for Microgrids: Options for Delivering Reliability and Resilience, Clean Energy, Energy Savings, and Other Priorities and (2) Private Sector, State, and Federal Funding and Financing Options to Enable Resilient, Affordable, and Clean Microgrids. Read together, these resources provide readers with an understanding of both why and how customers—whether an investor-owned, cooperative, or municipal utility; federal, state, or local government entity; individual or group of residential, commercial, and/or industrial customers; or other organization—select, design, and pay for microgrid projects.
The Net Zero World (NZW) Initiative Collaborative Work Program with the Government of Indonesia (GoI) includes technical assistance and investment mobilization facilitation to accelerate deployment of energy efficiency technologies and solutions for the building sector. A February 2023 U.S.–Indonesia Joint Workshop on Decarbonizing the Building Sector yielded a NZW Indonesia Building Decarbonization Working Group (NZW IBDWG) with four sub-working groups (SWG): SWG-A National Center, SWG-B Capacity Building, SWG-C Investment and Financing, and SWG-D Pilot Projects. Technical analysis of whole-building cooling solutions for tropical climates of Indonesia was conducted by SWG-A to quantify energy savings, carbon dioxide reductions, and comfort improvements offered by 12 passive or low-energy cooling strategies: ceiling fans with and without thermostat setbacks; cool roofs; cool walls; exterior awnings; exterior shades; interior shades; insulated roofs; insulated walls; low-e windows; solar window films; and natural ventilation. Leveraging the results from SWG-A, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was conducted by SWG-C to assess the consumer and national costs and impacts associated with these 12 cooling solutions. The evaluation involved estimating life-cycle costs (LCC), payback period (PBP), net present values (NPV), annual electricity burden change for low-income households, and reduced national annual power-sector generation demand by 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060. This evaluation can help guide Indonesia’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) investments in policies and programs to advance research, development, deployment, and commercial adoption (RDDCA) of efficient residential building sector cooling technologies and solutions in Indonesia. Four key energy conservation measures (ECM) have been identified to reduce air-conditioning (AC) energy demand in single-family housing in Indonesia: ceiling fan with temperature setback (to 28.1 °Celcius from 25 °C); insulated walls; insulated roof; and cool roof. This study found that low-income households with AC installations in Indonesia currently face a high energy cost burden of approximately 10%. However, by implementing a ceiling fan with temperature setback, this burden could decrease to 2.5% today and further reduce to 1.3% by the year 2060. The PBP for a ceiling fan with temperature setback is one year, indicating one of the lowest LCC and best NPV. In the planned upcoming phase of CBA, a series of building cooling improvement scenarios can be further defined, incorporating more than one ECM in combination with socio-economic factors evaluated in the initial CBA phase. Additionally, the analysis of ECM effects in multifamily housing can be expanded. This broader national analysis aims to encompass a holistic and comprehensive system-level perspective, including factors such as avoided power sector infrastructure investments, domestic job creation, domestic manufacturing job creation, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth.
Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Utility Program has fostered collaboration among federal agencies and their serving utilities for more than 25 years. The Utility Program supports agencies using Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), a well-developed, effective contracting vehicle that enable the latest approaches to cost-effective energy management at federal sites. Federal agencies have successfully used UESCs to award over 2,000 energy and water efficiency and renewable energy projects, investing approximately $\$$2.8 billion in furthering the Federal Government's efforts to reduce energy intensity. Authorized by 42 U.S. Code section 8256 (10 U.S. Code section 2913 for the Department of Defense), a UESC is a limited-source acquisition between a federal agency and an eligible serving utility for energy management services that generate savings from the implementation of energy- and water -conservation measures (collectively referred to as ECMs), with 42 U.S. Code section 8287 (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 241), providing the term of a UESC, which may extend up to 25 years. Through a UESC, the utility partner assesses designs, and implements the desired ECMs - which can range from lighting retrofits and renewable energy systems, to combined heat and power plants or other technologies and strategies, and may provide financing for the project. The agency may use any combination of appropriations and third-party financing to pay for the project, providing useful flexibility. There is no limit to the project size, big or small, that can be implemented using a UESC. To assist agencies implementing a UESC, FEMP has developed a Utility Energy Service Contract Guide and this companion guidance document to help agencies and their utility partners better understand the best practices for to ensure UESCs continue to perform and generate savings throughout their performance period. These best practices utilize a combination of effective project management, communication, documentation, and a detailed Performance Assurance Plan. This plan is a project specific set of actionable protocols that define important tasks and responsibilities throughout the contract term and reflects the site conditions, complexities, agency capabilities, and operating and maintaining planned ECMs.
With an increased need for funding diversity in hydropower, private capital is becoming more important than ever. Investors are actively seeking opportunities, but what makes a project attractive for investment, and how can companies secure private equity or venture capital backing? This session brings together experts to discuss what capital providers look for in providing financing for hydropower projects. Panelists will explore key barriers - such as the lack of diversified portfolios and long-term revenue certainty - and strategies to overcome them through innovative financing mechanisms, partnerships, and market-driven solutions.
Calculations of annual energy production (AEP) from a wind power plant – whether based on preconstruction or operational data – are critical for wind plant financial transactions. The uncertainty in the AEP calculation is especially important in quantifying risk and is a key factor in determining financing terms. A popular industry practice is to assume that different uncertainty components within an AEP calculation are uncorrelated and can therefore be combined as the sum of their squares. We assess the practical validity of this assumption for operational-based uncertainty by performing operational AEP estimates for more than 470 wind plants in the United States, mostly in simple terrain. We apply a Monte Carlo approach to quantify uncertainty in five categories: revenue meter data, wind speed data, regression relationship between density-corrected wind speed (from reanalysis data) and measured wind power, length of long-term-correction data set, and future interannual variability. We identify correlations between categories by comparing the results across all 470 wind plants. We observe a positive correlation between interannual variability and the linearized long-term correction; a negative correlation between wind resource interannual variability and linear regression; and a positive correlation between reference wind speed uncertainty and linear regression. Then, we contrast total operational AEP uncertainty values calculated by omitting and considering correlations between the uncertainty components. We quantify that ignoring these correlations leads to an underestimation of total AEP uncertainty of, on average, 0.1% and as large as 0.5% for specific sites. Although these are not large increases, these would still impact wind plant financing rates; further, we expect these values to increase for wind plants in complex terrain. Based on these results, we conclude that correlations between the identified uncertainty components should be considered when computing the total AEP uncertainty.
Abstract. The financing of a wind farm directly relates to the preconstruction energy yield assessments which estimate the annual energy production for the farm. The accuracy and the precision of the preconstruction energy estimates can dictate the profitability of the wind project. Historically, the wind industry tended to overpredict the annual energy production of wind farms. Experts have been dedicated to eliminating such prediction errors in the past decade, and recently the reported average energy prediction bias is declining. Herein, we present a literature review of the energy yield assessment errors across the global wind energy industry. We identify a long-term trend of reduction in the overprediction bias, whereas the uncertainty associated with the prediction error is prominent. We also summarize the recent advancements of the wind resource assessment process that justify the bias reduction, including improvements in modeling and measurement techniques. Additionally, because the energy losses and uncertainties substantially influence the prediction error, we document and examine the estimated and observed loss and uncertainty values from the literature, according to the proposed framework in the International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-15 wind resource assessment standard. From our findings, we highlight opportunities for the industry to move forward, such as the validation and reduction of prediction uncertainty and the prevention of energy losses caused by wake effect and environmental events. Overall, this study provides a summary of how the wind energy industry has been quantifying and reducing prediction errors, energy losses, and production uncertainties. Finally, for this work to be as reproducible as possible, we include all of the data used in the analysis in appendices to the article.
The U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, but without deliberate action low- and moderate-income communities could be left behind. Key recommendations for policymakers and funders in the renewable energy and community development fields that emerged 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 a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit as was done during the last recession. • 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, provide greater certainty for developers, and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.
One of the primary hindrances to producing a viable, sustainable domestic biomass industry for renewable biofuels, bio-products and bio-power is the lack of understanding and quantification of the risks associated with both the biomass supply chain and preprocessing and conversion technologies. Currently a consistent method for assessing, comparing, and quantifying risks in biomass supply chains does not exist, creating a major investment barrier to bioenergy projects in the U.S. The lack of a standardized approach has resulted in bioenergy stakeholders independently using inconsistent approaches and evaluation criteria, leading to unreliable and incomparable assessments of risks and financing barriers to bio-project development. Along with the challenges of inconsistent risk assessment for supply chain risk, technology specific risks based on variability in biomass properties are not fully understood and can pose significant unforeseen challenges for bioenergy projects. In many cases these properties have not yet been identified and the impacts on the proposed technology and products unquantified. This is particularly challenging for emerging preprocessing and conversion technologies. Without a firm understanding of the preprocessing/conversion technology-specific critical properties, the risk of a proposed bio-project cannot be fully evaluated. To address inconsistent risk evaluation in the biomass supply chain supporting project financing, a Biomass Supply Chain Risk Standards (BSCRS) framework was developed. The BSCRS framework includes a comprehensive list of known and perceived risks (Risk Indicators) to the supply chain developed through 100’s of interviews with bioenergy industry experts spanning from feedstock growers and suppliers to representatives from the financial sector. These risks have been organized into a manageable hierarchy of Risk Categories and Risk Factors that can be practically assessed. This BSCRS framework also provides mitigation strategies for multiple Risk Indicators from best available industry practices and research findings. Additionally, a risk quantification methodology for each Risk Factor, Risk Category, and the bio-project as a whole was developed to enable capital markets to assess feedstock risk more efficiently and more accurately. Multiple case studies representing existing bio-projects have been used to evaluate and verify the BSCRS framework and scoring methodology. To address technological risk along with the supply chain risk captured in the developed BSCRS framework, this work also focuses on development of a systematic criticality assessment tool using well-accepted, quantitative risk analysis methods to evaluate bioenergy feedstock critical properties impacting system unit operations. The proposed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach uses a team of subject area experts (SAEs) for each targeted unit operation within a system. Collectively, the team will develop and use a quantitative scoring system to assess the material attributes, process parameters, and quality attributes for key unit operations that have already been identified. The FMEA process generates Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the various failures and predominant causes for each material/process unit/product combination resulting in a semi-quantitative, standardized methodology for assessing technological risk and biomass properties contributing to that risk.
The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.
The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.
As is well documented in the research, there is a great disparity of where solar is installed in the US based on race and ethnicity. Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities have significantly less solar power installed on average than non-BIPOC communities. However, when solar installations do occur in BIPOC communities, the rate of subsequent adoption by neighbors is faster on average than in non-BIPOC communities. In addition, nonprofit organizations, such as houses of worship, have limited access to solar financing options. The goal of this initiative by RE-volv, Interfaith Power & Light, and Green the Church is to help BIPOC-led houses of worship go solar, and in doing so, demonstrate the benefits of solar energy to their community. This report details the progress achieved during the contract term of February 2022 through May 2023.
UMass Clean Energy Extension (CEE) and its partners have designed the Community Planning for Solar Toolkit to help municipalities in Massachusetts and throughout the Northeast proactively plan for solar PV development in their communities. The tools and processes are designed with rural and suburban communities in mind, though some of the tools may also apply to urban settings. Community Planning for Solar empowers community residents and officials to take the lead in solar development by providing communities with the resources that can help them to: (1) Identify and prioritize locations in the community for solar development; (2) Evaluate various solar financing options and provide guidance on community benefits that best match community goals and needs; (3) Assess their community's unique resources, solar development options, goals, and preferences regarding solar development; (4)Develop a Community Solar Action Plan.
This report is a solar resource and infrastructure assessment for the town of Blandford, Massachusetts. The assessment was funded through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Solar Energy Innovation Network (NREL SEIN) Solar in Rural Communities Program, as part of a project to develop a Community-Informed Proactive Solar Siting and Financing Model. As a first step, the project lead organization, UMass Clean Energy Extension prepared an assessment of existing infrastructure, resources, and potential solar development opportunities in participating municipalities, including Blandford. This assessment was designed to describe relevant bylaws and infrastructure within the town, identify the types of solar facilities that could be developed, and quantify the total space available for each type of facility. In this report, we reviewed existing electricity grid infrastructure, and the potential to interconnect additional solar facilities. At the present time, most distribution lines providing electricity to Blandford are over-saturated with authorized and proposed solar projects, and cannot accommodate additional solar projects to interconnect to the grid. We can expect significant upgrades to these circuits, if any of the in-process projects are to proceed, which might then free up additional capacity for new projects. There is one circuit which serves a section of North Blandford Road that is not over-saturated; for the immediate future, this is the most cost-effective location for new large-scale projects to be sited. Meanwhile, most three-phase lines could likely accommodate additional small-to-medium scale projects (under 200 kW), and most single-phase lines could likely accommodate additional projects under 50 kW in size. This description represents the local grid infrastructure as it is - planning for future scenarios of development could include recommendations for areas of grid infrastructure improvement to allow siting of distributed generation in preferred locations. Future scenarios may also include the addition energy storage and other "non-wires alternatives."