Results for “tariffs” — Page 5

DOE OSTI2023

Operating-Envelopes-Aware Decentralized Welfare Maximization for Energy Communities

We propose an operating-envelope-aware, prosumer-centric, and efficient energy community that aggregates individual and shared community distributed energy resources and transacts with a regulated distribution system operator (DSO) under a generalized net energy metering tariff design. To ensure safe network operation, the DSO imposes dynamic export and import limits, known as dynamic operating envelopes, on end-users' revenue meters. Given the operating envelopes, we propose an incentive-aligned community pricing mechanism under which the decentralized optimization of community members' benefit implies the optimization of overall community welfare. The proposed pricing mechanism satisfies the cost-causation principle and ensures the stability of the energy community in a coalition game setting. Numerical examples provide insights into the characteristics of the proposed pricing mechanism and quantitative measures of its performance.

distributed energy resources aggregation↗

DOE OSTI2022

A Fairness-based Distributed Energy Coordination for Voltage Regulation in Distribution Systems

The rapid adoption of photovoltaic (PV) systems combined with falling prices of energy storage is paving the way for a future in which customers could locally supply their energy needs and export surplus power to the grid. However, reverse power flow from multiple sites in a network can cause overvoltage that decreases system reliability and the utilization level of PV system. In this paper, we present a two-stage approach to solve the energy coordination problem in distribution networks. In the first stage, a household with PV and energy storage is optimized to allow customers to adopt different control strategies such as load following and tariff arbitrage. We show that such customer-led control strategies can cause reverse power flows during peak PV generation periods, thus resulting in overvoltage. In such cases, the second stage of the proposed approach is called upon to solve a fairness-based energy coordination problem that can maintain voltages within limits while maximizing the PV generation while fairly distributing the actions among all the PV systems. As a result, each of the resources in the network has equal opportunity to export power and shares the responsibility of voltage regulation. Simulation studies have been carried out on the IEEE 13-bus test feeder to verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Distributed energy resources, fairness, overvoltag↗

DOE OSTI2024

A Decentralized Market Mechanism for Energy Communities under Operating Envelopes

Here, we propose an operating envelopes (OEs) aware energy community market mechanism that dynamically charges/rewards its members based on two-part pricing. The OEs are imposed exogenously by a regulated distribution system operator (DSO) on the energy community's revenue meter and is subject to a generalized net energy metering (NEM) tariff design. By formulating the interaction of the community operator and its members as a Stackelberg game, we show that the proposed two-part pricing achieves a Nash equilibrium and maximizes the community's social welfare in a decentralized fashion while ensuring that the community's operation abides by the OEs. The market mechanism conforms with the cost-causation principle and guarantees community members a surplus level no less than their maximum surplus when they autonomously face the DSO. The dynamic and uniform community price is a monotonically decreasing function of the community's aggregate renewable generation. We also analyze the impact of exogenous parameters such as NEM rates and OEs on the value of joining the community. Lastly, through numerical studies, we showcase the community's welfare, and pricing, and compare its members' surplus to customers under the DSO's regime.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Occupant-Centric Demand Response for Thermostatically-Controlled Home Loads

Efficiently managing energy usage to balance supply and demand on the electric grid is crucial, especially with the widespread deployment of distributed variable renewable electricity generation. This paper introduces two duty-cycle control methods for heating systems, adjusting thermostat setpoints to limit and shift electricity demand. The control approaches employ innovative techniques, such as adaptive duty cycling, to prioritize household thermal comfort while reducing peak demand. These control methods can respond to signals from the electric grid, including demand targets and time-of-use tariffs, and were tested physically on an electric furnace and heat pump in a test home during winter conditions in 2021 and 2022. The results are given as average demand reductions and energy use impacts with respect to the average indoor-outdoor temperature difference during the control period. For heat pumps, demand limiting control reduced power by 18.5% and 23.3% for indoor-outdoor temperature differences of 30°F and 40°F. Preheating-based demand shifting achieved reductions of 34.8% and 33.2% for the same temperature differences. Electric furnace tests showed demand reductions of 33.8% and 25.3% for demand limiting, and 56.1% and 45.7% for preheating-based demand shifting. These findings highlight the potential for innovative control methods to enhance grid efficiency and reduce energy consumption.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2022

Peak Power Minimization for Commercial Thermostatically Controlled Loads in Multi-Unit Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings

The load profiles of most commercial and industrial consumers are characterized by brief periods of very high power consumption followed by intervals of lower demand. To encourage such consumers to flatten their load profiles, power utilities in and around the world often levy a monthly demand charge (DC) on the peak demand measured over brief intervals. In this work, we consider the joint optimization of energy costs (EC) and the instantaneous peak power of a multi-unit building which uses a hydronic heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC) system and responds to a demand response (DR) program. Despite the non-linear structure of the problem, we show how optimal solutions can be obtained efficiently using linear programming. Next, we study the power demand patterns resulting from our proposed strategy for thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs), and evaluate the strategy’s performance for various climate zones in the US, under both typical and atypical weather conditions. Finally, the results show that depending on the ambient conditions and the tariff structure, our strategy can result in utility bill savings of up to nearly 19% compared to the baseline. The results also indicate that our power control strategy can significantly reduce the instantaneous peak power consumption in commercial TCLs.

HVAC↗

DOE OSTI2025

Techno-Economic Analysis for the Addition of Thermal Energy Storage to a Campus With Existing Battery Storage

Rising global temperatures and increasing energy demands pose significant challenges for energy management, particularly in institutional and commercial settings. As cooling needs grow, campuses must balance operational efficiency, cost control, and grid stability. Energy storage solutions, such as thermal energy storage (TES) systems, offer a promising approach to shifting energy consumption from peak to off-peak periods, alleviating peak demand, reducing utility costs, and enhancing grid resilience. When integrated with existing battery energy storage systems (BESS), TES can further optimize load management and improve energy savings, especially in buildings with diverse energy needs. This article presents a techno-economic analysis of integrating a chilled water TES system into the central plant at California State University, Dominguez Hills, which already operates a BESS. We assess three TES sizing strategies—full storage, load leveling, and peak demand limiting—by modeling and simulations based on historical energy loads. Our findings show that we can control TES systems to complement BESS operation, with campus-level load leveling providing the greatest cost savings by reducing peak demands. Furthermore, the study also evaluates the long-term economic viability of TES, considering installation costs, energy savings, and payback periods under varying tariffs. This research offers practical guidance for institutions seeking to enhance energy resilience and reduce operational costs through energy storage solutions.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2026

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2021

EFFORT (EFFectiveness Of Rate sTructure for enabling demand response)

This tool helps utilities evaluate potential time of use price-plans and find effective hours for price plan on peak periods and the potential price-elastic demand response. An optimization model can be used to find tiered prices for the time of use tariffs and analyze the impact on load profiles, energy consumption, utility, and customer savings. The tool is equipped with an optimization model to determine the energy consumption of electric appliances that can leverage survey data containing information on the number of appliances owned by customers. Lastly, a statistical model can be used to predict system-level load based on exogenous parameters such as weather, time of day, month, type of day, and year. The tool is scripted in Python and uses the Pyomo python optimization language.

Duwadi, Kapil↗

DOE OSTI2021

LCOC (Levelized Cost of Light-Duty EV Charging Calculator)

This code was developed to calculate the levelized cost of light-duty electric vehicle (EV) charging (LCOC) for the paper "Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States" by Borlaug et al.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013). The calculation takes inputs from a variety of publicly available data sources (e.g., utility tariffs from the Utility Rate Database; EV charging station locations from the Alternative Fuels Data Center; energy price forecasts from the Energy Information Administration) and produces the current LCOC, considering when, where, and how light-duty EVs are recharged. In addition, the lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) calculation estimates the discounted fuel cost savings for a new battery EV (BEV) or plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV) over a 15-year time horizon using state-level gasoline price and LCOC projections.

Borlaug, Brennan↗

DOE OSTI2026

A Reverse Logistics Tool For Ev Battery Recycling And Repurposing,

The demand for electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States is projected to rise significantly, with sales expected to reach approximately 4.1 million units by 2030. However, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on imports for the batteries and critical raw materials—such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel—that power these vehicles. As of 2024, around 70% of these imports originate from China. This dependency has become even more precarious following China’s imposition of export restrictions in April 2025, a retaliatory move against U.S. tariffs. These developments highlight the strategic vulnerabilities posed by China’s dominant position in the critical materials market. Compounding the issue, decades of intensive extraction have severely depleted global reserves of critical materials, widening the gap between supply and growing demand. This situation underscores the urgent need for the U.S. and other nations to diversify their sources of critical materials and enhance domestic capabilities to secure these resources—an essential step toward ensuring long-term energy security. At the end of their lifecycle—whether due to the battery’s degradation or the retirement of the vehicle—EV batteries are often improperly disposed of or sent to landfills. However, many of these batteries still retain usable capacity and can follow one of three alternative pathways: (a) Re-used: deployed in another vehicle with a shorter driving range, (b) Re-purposed: utilized act as a backup storage/power for data centers, solar panels, and e-scotters or (c) Recycled: broken down to recover the critical materials. To that end, the proposed tool (REBORN) is designed to optimize the reverse logistics network for battery repurposing and recycling. Its goal is to minimize associated costs while identifying optimal locations for battery collection and processing. Ultimately, REBORN ensures that each battery is used to its fullest potential.

Srinivas, SrikarV. [Idaho National Laboratory (INL↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗