ERM Integration with Contractor Assurance System Integrated Performance Management Community of Practice (CoP)- Enterprise Risk Management
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Littleton, Seth Corey↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “contractors”
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.
Nanomechanics and nanometallurgy of boundaries: Contractor workshop presentation.
Abstract not provided.
Boyce, Brad↗
Organizational Considerations for Implementing Systems Engineering and Integration in the Ares Projects Office
Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) is a critical discipline in developing new space systems. In 2005, NASA performed an internal study of 24 agency and Department of Defense (DoD) programs to evaluate methods of integrating SE&I practices and determine their effectiveness. The goal of the study was to determine the best SE&I implementation strategy for the Ares Projects Office. The study identified six SE&I organizational structures: 1. Lead systems integrator (LSI) with SE&I responsibility and government technical insight. 2a. Integration contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government insight). 2b. Integration contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 3a. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government insight). 3b. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 3c. Prime contractor with SE&I responsibility (government/industry partnership). 4a.Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government insight). 4b. Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility (government oversight). 4d.Prime contractors with total system performance responsibility (TSPR). 5. Prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility and integration products through a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). 6. Government/FFRDC in-house development with SE&I responsibility and function. The organizational structure used most often was number 4, using a prime contractor with government SE&I responsibility and government technical insight. However, data analyses did not establish a positive relationship between program development costs and specific SE&I organizational types, nor did it positively determine the relationship between successful programs or projects and their SE&I structure. The SE&I study reached the following conclusions: (1) Large, long-duration, technically complex programs or projects reach their technical goals, but rarely meet schedule or cost goals. NASA's recent successes have been smaller, short-duration development projects using heritage hardware/software, focused technology development, technical oversight and stable external factors. (2) Programs and projects have failed or been terminated due to lack of technical insight, relaxing of SE&I processes, and unstable external factors. (3) The study did not find a single, clear optimum SE&I organization type to fit all projects. However, while any organizational structure can be made to work, the fewer complexities in the program, the better the likelihood of success. (4) The most common successful SE&I organization structure type in the study was type 4b, where the government maintained integration responsibility, with the prime contractor providing SE&I products and the government providing technical oversight. This study was instrumental in helping the APO select organization structure 4, following the same SE&I and oversight process used during humanlund7s last voyages to the Moon.
Thomas, LeAnn↗
Final Technical Report
Statement of the problem or situation that is being addressed in your application. The DOE and its national laboratories developed the Home Energy Score™ (HES) to encourage homeowners to improve their energy performance, lower costs and to share energy information through the MLS listing, appraisal, and financing channels. While the HES is an instrumental tool, it is currently underutilized and consists of technical, structural and sector barriers which need to be addressed in order to scale and many energy efficiency contractors are understandably overwhelmed by the added time and effort and lack of incentive to sell and deliver deep retrofit projects while simultaneously meeting the DOE HES program requirements; consequently, contractors may decide to forgo participation. Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Raters have the opportunity to play the critical Assessor role in producing a Home Energy Score (HES); this role has immense potential but currently is unfulfilled. Lastly, while utilities are interested in their customer base achieving greater energy efficiency, especially to help offset growing residential loads in states like California that are accelerating electrification, utilities do not have access to the market actors who are on the front line of influence to homeowners or review and approve their permits: HERS Raters, assessors, contractors and building departments. General statement of how this problem is being addressed: ConSol will integrate the Home Energy Score™ (HES) to its State of California, approved home energy rating services (HERS) platform (CHEERS) to develop a single tool for contractors nationwide to assess, record and install recommended cost, energy, and emissions saving measures to the 140 million single-family homes throughout the U.S. and 14 million homes in California (CHEERS+HES). The CHEERS high fidelity energy code permitting data will be integrated with HES for simple, accurate, easy-to-use home energy estimation and analysis and will directly gain access to the retrofit and renovations markets with the same upgraded platform. This innovative project will assist the utilities in supporting existing homes in their jurisdictions with HES and develop measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. How is this problem being addressed? What is the overall project approach? In effort to expand the Home Energy Score™ (HES) by increasing the use of aggregable home energy asset data, ConSol proposes to integrate the DOE HES via Application Programming Interface (API) to its State of California approved home energy rating services platform (CHEERS). Once the CHEERS platform and HES are integrated (CHEERS+HES), this enhanced platform will be instantly available and actively deployed via Phase 1 pilot to HERS Raters, assessors and contractors in California to market-test the solution, understand the rate of adoption and identify opportunities for improvement prior to scaling nationally. The CHEERS high fidelity energy code permitting data will be integrated with HES for simple, accurate, easy-to-use home energy estimation and analysis and will directly gain access to the retrofit and renovations markets with the same upgraded platform. This innovative project will assist the building industry and homeowners with an easy-to-use assessment if energy and carbon impacts of existing homes, and assist the utilities in supporting existing homes in their jurisdictions with HES to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. What is to be done in Phase I? During Phase I of this proposed project, ConSol will (1) design software architecture that links CHEERS to the Home Energy ScoreTM via API, (2) solicit partnership from one or more California utilities for a regional pilot, (3) test the new software with its HERS Raters and contractor network in the partnership utility jurisdiction, (4) launch a pilot version of the newly developed software with HERS Raters and contractors in the utility territory, and (5) explore California’s GoGreen energy efficiency homeowner lending program in parallel with the pilot. Commercial Applications and Other Benefits. Summarize the future applications or public benefits if the project is carried over into Phase II or Phase III and beyond. The CHEERS+HES commercialized product will be ready for national market scale following a successful Phase 1 performance. The CHEERS+HES adoption is estimated to reach a 5% adoption growth rate versus the 110,000 baseline, starting in Year 1 after Phase I completion, and continuing each year. As a direct benefit to the DOE, CHEERS will set a goal of 100,000 Home Energy Score assessments for existing home alterations within the first 10 years following Phase 1 performance. The technical benefits of this proposed project include the harmonized, automated, and seamless integration of the DOE HES into the widely used and market leading California energy registry, CHEERS. The social benefits include the aggregate energy, cost and GHG savings by allowing the broader public streamlined access to the CHEERS+HES measurement and the energy efficiency recommended measures that may result. Key Words: Home Energy ScoreTM (HES); Application Programming Interface (API); Home Energy Rating Services (HERS); HERS Raters; contractors; assessors; existing homes, energy asset data; cost, energy, and emissions saving measures; energy code (Title 24) compliance; document repository; utilities; pilot; newly developed software; energy efficiency; homeowner. Summary for Members of Congress: The DOE Home Energy Score™ (HES) is a tool to encourage homeowners to improve their energy performance, lower costs and share energy information but is underutilized and consists of barriers which need to be addressed in order to scale. In effort to expand the HES, CHEERS, Inc. will integrate the HES to its State of California, approved home energy rating services (HERS) platform (CHEERS) to develop a single tool for contractors nationwide to assess, record and install recommended cost, energy, and emissions saving measures to the 140 million single-family homes throughout the U.S. and 14 million homes in California.
Application Programming Interface (API)↗
Exhibit D Scope of Work and Technical Specifications MOX Rod Reduction
PROJECT/PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), here after referred to as the CONTRACTOR, plans to provide NQA-1 service and support for the disposition of PF-4 basement inventory of Areva fuel rods. These fuel rods need to be reduced in length for proper shipping and disposition. The objective of this acquisition is to enter into an agreement with a SUBCONTRACTOR that shall provide expertise, materials, input for procurement of specialized tooling to be identified, and mockups for size reduction and FS65 disposition. Handling and size reduction of the Areva rods would take place at LANL. Physical work at LANL will be performed by the CONTRACTOR’s field execution team, portions of this work will have expertise provided by the SUBCONTRACTOR. As cited below via an add alternative and supplemental site visit(s) to LANL the CONTRACTOR may request the SUBCONTRACTOR to ship the necessary transportation, handling and packaging equipment at the SUBCONTRACTOR’s location to the CONTRACTOR’s facility for size reduction activities at LANL by the CONTRACTOR’s self-perform field execution team. In addition, the SUBCONTRACTOR shall provide subject matter expertise to CONTRACTOR personnel cutting the mockup Areva Fuel Rod at LANL as a rehearsal prior to CONTRACTOR cutting the actual MOX Fuel Rod if this add alternative is exercised.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
A Survey of Direct Heating Equipment Market Actors in California
Direct Heating Equipment (DHE) is a category of ductless space heating appliances that provide warm air directly to the space where they are installed. We investigate, from the perspective of the DHE supply chain in California, what types of DHE are marketed in the state, how they are sold and serviced, and whether any potential barriers to adoption of high-efficiency DHE exist. We find that the market for DHE in the state is almost exclusively a replacement market, with some additional repair and maintenance services. We also find that, even though manufacturers sell high-efficiency DHE models in California, most contractors report installing baseline models most of the time. Contractors say their customers do not see any value in high-efficiency units, and they (contractors) do not believe that high-efficiency DHE is worth the additional cost to their customers. In addition, the majority of contractors purchase DHE from distributors and, therefore, distributors are a key piece of the supply chain that can constrain DHE purchase choice. Distributors do not see a demand for high-efficiency DHE and, hence, do not keep stock of these units. They argue that, since the market is driven mostly by replacements and these replacements occur typically in an unplanned way, homeowners are unwilling to pay for any additional costs associated with a high-efficiency model. Rather, homeowners usually prefer to replace the failed unit with a new unit that can fit in the same location with no- or minimal additional replacement costs. Considering that most DHE purchases are made by contractors, on behalf of their customers, informing contractors (and homeowners) of the potential cost-effectiveness of efficient DHE could help mitigate some of the barriers to the adoption of high-efficiency DHE in the state. In addition, monetary incentives and more stringent building codes that apply to DHE replacements can contribute to increasing adoption of high-efficiency DHE in California. This will not only reduce energy costs, but also increase safety and comfort to DHE users.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Comparative Evaluation of Phase 1 Results from the Energy Conversion Alternatives Study (ECAS)
Ten advanced energy conversion systems for central-station, based-load electric power generation using coal and coal-derived fuels which were studied by NASA are presented. Various contractors were selected by competitive bidding to study these systems. A comparative evaluation is provided of the contractor results on both a system-by-system and an overall basis. Ground rules specified by NASA, such as coal specifications, fuel costs, labor costs, method of cost comparison, escalation and interest during construction, fixed charges, emission standards, and environmental conditions, are presented. Each system discussion includes the potential advantages of the system, the scope of each contractor's analysis, typical schematics of systems, comparison of cost of electricity and efficiency for each contractor, identification and reconciliation of differences, identification of future improvements, and discussion of outside comments. Considerations common to all systems, such as materials and furnaces, are also discussed. Results of selected in-house analyses are presented, in addition to contractor data. The results for all systems are then compared.
Source record↗
Payload specialist station study. Volume 3: Program study cost estimates. Part 1: Work breakdown structure
The work breakdown structure (WBS) for the Payload Specialist Station (PSS) is presented. The WBS is divided into two elements--PSS contractor and mission unique requirements. In accordance with the study ground rules, it is assumed that a single contractor, hereafter referred to as PSS Contractor will perform the following: (1) provide C and D hardware (MFDS and elements of MMSE), except for GFE; (2) identify software requirements; (3) provide GSE and ground test software; and (4) perform systems engineering and integration in support of the Aft Flight Deck (AFD) C and D concept. The PSS Contractor WBS element encompasses a core or standardized PSS concept. Payload peculiar C and D requirements identified by users will originate as a part of the WBS element mission unique requirements; these requirements will be provided to the PSS Contractor for implementation.
Source record↗
Summary and evaluation of the conceptual design study of a potential early commercial MHD power plant (CSPEC)
The conceptual design study of a potential early commercial MHD power plant (CSPEC) is described and the results are summarized. Each of two contractors did a conceptual design of an approximtely 1000 MWe open-cycle MHD/steam plant with oxygen enriched combustion air preheated to an intermediate temperatue in a metallic heat exchanger. The contractors were close in their overall plant efficiency estimates but differed in their capital cost and cost of electricity estimates, primarily because of differences in balance-of-plant material, contingency, and operating and maintenance cost estimates. One contractor concluded that its MHD plant design compared favorably in cost of electricity with conventional coal-fired steam plants. The other contractor is making such a comparison as part of a follow-on study. Each contractor did a preliminary investigation of part-load performance and plant availability. The results of NASA studies investigating the effect of plant size and oxidizer preheat temperature on the performance of CSPEC-type MHD plants are also described. The efficiency of a 1000 MWe plant is about three points higher than of a 200 MWe plant. Preheating to 1600 F gives an efficiency about one and one-half points higher than preheating to 800 F for all plant sizes. For each plant size and preheat temperature there is an oxidizer enrichment level and MHD generator length that gives the highest plant efficiency.
Staiger, P. J.↗
Safety, reliability, maintainability and quality provisions for the Space Shuttle program
This publication establishes common safety, reliability, maintainability and quality provisions for the Space Shuttle Program. NASA Centers shall use this publication both as the basis for negotiating safety, reliability, maintainability and quality requirements with Shuttle Program contractors and as the guideline for conduct of program safety, reliability, maintainability and quality activities at the Centers. Centers shall assure that applicable provisions of the publication are imposed in lower tier contracts. Centers shall give due regard to other Space Shuttle Program planning in order to provide an integrated total Space Shuttle Program activity. In the implementation of safety, reliability, maintainability and quality activities, consideration shall be given to hardware complexity, supplier experience, state of hardware development, unit cost, and hardware use. The approach and methods for contractor implementation shall be described in the contractors safety, reliability, maintainability and quality plans. This publication incorporates provisions of NASA documents: NHB 1700.1 'NASA Safety Manual, Vol. 1'; NHB 5300.4(IA), 'Reliability Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors'; and NHB 5300.4(1B), 'Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors'. It has been tailored from the above documents based on experience in other programs. It is intended that this publication be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect new experience and to assure continuing viability.
M S Malkin↗
Realizing the Residential Electrification Opportunity: One Heat Pump at a Time
Space and water heating in residential buildings is a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. Advanced electric heat pumps (HP) and heat pump water heaters (HPWH) are poised to provide a low carbon alternative to traditional fossil-based space and water heating. Widespread deployment of heat pumps could help address the significant portion of building emissions and primary energy used in American households, however much work needs to be done to close the knowledge gap between like-for-like fossil equipment replacement and switching to HPs for the average contractor. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has been working on closing this knowledge gap through the development of decision tools and resources targeted towards contractors and installers. Developed in coordination with stakeholders and experienced contractors from a variety of geographic regions, these tools help streamline the process of sizing and selecting residential HPs and HPWHs for key use cases. Along with the complementary Retrofit Decision Tool developed by PNNL, the decision tools will help contractors understand the importance of whole building considerations when choosing HPs including envelope upgrades, duct assessments, and electrical assessments to ensure optimal selection and performance of the HP or HPWH. They also provide direct links to resources and best practices developed by PNNL as well as external entities to further help contractor education and training. This paper describes the development of these tools, and their role in moving the existing space and water heating market towards HPs to help realize the country’s decarbonization goals.
heat pump, heat pump water heater, Residential bui↗
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts management and control requirements for NASA space flight programs
This document establishes electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts management and control requirements for contractors providing and maintaining space flight and mission-essential or critical ground support equipment for NASA space flight programs. Although the text is worded 'the contractor shall,' the requirements are also to be used by NASA Headquarters and field installations for developing program/project parts management and control requirements for in-house and contracted efforts. This document places increased emphasis on parts programs to ensure that reliability and quality are considered through adequate consideration of the selection, control, and application of parts. It is the intent of this document to identify disciplines that can be implemented to obtain reliable parts which meet mission needs. The parts management and control requirements described in this document are to be selectively applied, based on equipment class and mission needs. Individual equipment needs should be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement should be implemented on a procurement. Utilization of this document does not preclude the usage of other documents. The entire process of developing and implementing requirements is referred to as 'tailoring' the program for a specific project. Some factors that should be considered in this tailoring process include program phase, equipment category and criticality, equipment complexity, and mission requirements. Parts management and control requirements advocated by this document directly support the concept of 'reliability by design' and are an integral part of system reliability and maintainability. Achieving the required availability and mission success objectives during operation depends on the attention given reliability and maintainability in the design phase. Consequently, it is intended that the requirements described in this document are consistent with those of NASA publications, 'Reliability Program Requirements for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1A-l); 'Maintainability Program Requirements for Space Systems,' NHB 5300.4(1E); and 'Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1B).
Source record↗
Panel to review EOSDIS plans
Formed in Jan. 1992, the Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans was charged with advising NASA on its plans for developing the Earth Observing System (EOS) Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Specifically, the panel was asked to do the following: assess the validity of the engineering and technical underpinnings of the EOSDIS; assess its potential value to scientific users; suggest how technical risk can be minimized; and assess whether current plans are sufficiently resilient to be adaptable to changing technology and requirements such as budget environments, data volumes, new users, and new databases. The panel completed an interim report (Addendum A) and transmitted it to NASA and other interested parties in the government on 9 Apr. 1992. Because of a delay in NASA's plans to select the contractor for EOSDIS, the panel was not able to complete its review of the program according to the original government request. With the issuance of a letter report (Addendum B) on 28 Sep. 1992, the panel became inactive until such time as NASA could release the details of the contractor's proposed architecture, schedule, and costs for developing EOSDIS. In early 1993, NASA awarded the contract for the EOSDIS Core System (ECS). On 20 Apr. 1993, NASA asked the panel to reconvene to do the following: ( 1) complete its review of NASA's approach to the EOSDIS architecture and implementation; (2) appraise NASA's responses to the panel's previous recommendations; and (3) review the planning for EOSDIS in the context of NASA's role in the Global Change Data and Information System (GCDIS) implementation plan. To respond to the NASA charge, the panel met three times in 1993 including sessions with NASA officials and the EOSDIS contractor. In addition, several of the panel members visited individual Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAAC's) to obtain additional views of EOSDIS. The panel has now obtained substantial information on the EOSDIS budget, contractor work program, and current baseline architecture that was not previously available, due to procurement restrictions. This report presents the panel's findings and recommendations based on this additional information.
Source record↗
The advantages of cost plus award fee contracts
A Cost Plus Award Fee contract is the best procurement vehicle for the high-tech, one-of-a-kind, development projects that constitute most of NASA'S projects. The use of this type of contract requires more government and contractor effort than any other forms of contracts. An award fee contract is described as an arrangement whereby the government periodically awards a fee consistent with the cost, schedule and technical performance that is achieved by a contractor during a preset period with preset award fee pools. It's the only contracting method where both the government and contractor goals are closely linked. It also has a built-in mechanism to conveniently alter and emphasize program events in order to current external and internal situations. The award fee process also demands good communication between government and contractor participants.
Keathley, William C.↗
NASA Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Remediation Technology Collaboration Development
NASA is committed to finding solutions to agency cleanup problems that are better, cheaper, and more effective than the status quo. Unfortunately, some potential solutions involve innovative technologies for which NASA remediation managers may not have a high level of understanding or confidence. Since 2004, NASA's Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Mississippi has been pumping groundwater contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOC) from their cleanup location designated "Area G" through extraction wells to an aboveground treatment system. Over time, however, the effectiveness of this treatment strategy has diminished and an alternative approach is needed. In 2012, professionals from NASA's Principal Center for Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation (TEERM) introduced SSC managers to an innovative technology for enhancing the performance of SSC's existing pump and treat system. The technology, generally referred to as in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO), involves slowly and continuously injecting a strong but safe chemical oxidant into the groundwater. Treatment is enhanced by a "surfactant-type effect" which causes residual contamination from saturated soil to be released into the dissolved-phase where it can be readily oxidized. Any dissolved-phase contamination that was not oxidized can be collected by the extraction well network and treated aboveground. SSC was not familiar with the technology so to increase their confidence, TEERM identified a contractor who was willing to demonstrate their product and process at a significantly reduced price. An initial, small-scale demonstration of ISCO began at sse in March 2012 and completed in August 2012. This successful demonstration was followed by three larger-scale ISCO demonstrations between August and December 2012. The contractor's innovative Continuous Injection System (CIS) incorporated "green" and sustainable technologies and practices. A slow injection rate was maintained autonomously by the CIS, eliminating the need for multiple mobilizations of personnel and powered equipment. The CIS was calibrated to deliver only as much reagent as the formation would accept without "short circuiting", minimizing material waste. Public utility water pressure was used to mix, dilute, and inject the reagent. NASA personnel were trained to operate and maintain the system and remote monitoring and injection control capabilities were developed, further reducing the need for contractor mobilizations to the site. An integrated solar photovoltaic panel was used to power the control valves and web monitoring telemetry. SSC provided hydrogen peroxide for the process using their existing supplier for the aboveground pump and treat systems. The only consumable required from the contractor was their proprietary activator to catalyze SSC's peroxide.
Romeo, James↗
Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering. Volume 2: Crosscutting Topics, Special Topics, and Appendices
Historically, most successful NASA projects have depended on effectively blending project management, systems engineering, and technical expertise among NASA, contractors, and third parties. Underlying these successes are a variety of agreements (e.g., contract, memorandum of understanding, grant, cooperative agreement) between NASA organizations or between NASA and other Government agencies, Government organizations, companies, universities, research laboratories, and so on. To simplify the discussions, the term "contract" is used to encompass these agreements. This section focuses on the NASA systems engineering activities pertinent to awarding a contract, managing contract performance, and completing a contract. In particular, NASA systems engineering interfaces to the procurement process are covered, since the NASA engineering technical team plays a key role in the development and evaluation of contract documentation. Contractors and third parties perform activities that supplement (or substitute for) the NASA project technical team accomplishment of the NASA common systems engineering technical process activities and requirements outlined in this guide. Since contractors might be involved in any part of the systems engineering life cycle, the NASA project technical team needs to know how to prepare for, allocate or perform, and implement surveillance of technical activities that are allocated to contractors.
Steven R Hirshorn↗
Site Environmental Report for 2020, Sandia National Laboratories, California
Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The management and operations of the facility are under a contract with the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On May 1, 2017, the name of the management and operating contractor changed from Sandia Corporation to National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The DOE, NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. DOE and its management and operating contractor for Sandia are committed to safeguarding environmental protection, compliance, and sustainability and to ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This Site Environmental Report for 2020 was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOE 2012). The report provides a summary of environmental monitoring information and compliance activities that occurred at SNL/CA during calendar year 2020, unless noted otherwise. General site and environmental program information is also included.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Assessing the New Home Market Opportunity: Case Study and Cost Modeling for Solar and Storage in 2030
Residential solar and storage markets are growing in the United States. With approximately 1 million new homes constructed every year, this represents a significant opportunity for solar and storage installations. Some homebuilders have begun to build new homes with solar and storage included as a standard offering. It is not clear how solar and storage is incorporated into the new construction process and at what cost. Further, it is unclear what barriers or opportunities exist to scale this model nationwide. To fill this gap in the literature, this research conducts a case study of Mandalay Homes' new solar and storage community in Arizona to gather lessons learned. From this foundation, we further generate a set of pathways to reduce install costs and expand solar and storage market penetration in this sector. To model existing and 2030 solar and storage costs, we use the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) bottom-up cost model. This modeling is further informed by 12 interviews conducted with new home builders, solar contractors, and other subject matter expert organizations. Our case study analysis generated three key considerations for other homebuilders including: 1. Educating local permitting, inspection, and in some cases utility officials on solar and storage products, designs, and code compliant building practices may be required. The need for education may decline as more local governments and utilities review and approve solar and storage projects. 2. Incorporating solar and storage systems into the homebuilding process can add complexity and related coordination challenges. This does not need to result in home construction delays, but can result in costly contractor "dry runs" to construction sites. 3. Deploying solar and storage at the time of new construction has significant economies of scale, which can improve the value proposition of the systems. The case study, extant literature, and interviews were used to model both existing and future solar and storage installation costs at time of new construction. Here, we find three key cost reduction opportunities relating to solar and battery storage hardware, customer acquisition, and overhead. If future contractors can maximize the cost reduction opportunities outlined here, residential new construction costs could decline by 8 - 25% by 2030, depending on the modeled scenario. Though we expect costs to decline through 2030, it is unclear which of these scenarios may ultimately appear. Interviewees further identified a variety of barriers across each cost category that could temper the savings shown here. At the same time, interviewees described several pathways to scale the new construction solar and storage market, beyond installation cost savings. Interviewees confirmed that changes in finance, rate design, resilience policies, deployment mandates, and DER aggregation could all support more market adoption than seen today. These findings suggest that there are significant opportunities to expand new construction markets and this research can serve as a baseline to assess progress in this segment through 2030.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗