Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Policy”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,297 records · Page 72
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Vulnerability and adaptation to severe weather events in the American southwest

Climate change can induce changes in the frequency of severe weather events representing a threat to socio-economic development. It is thus of uttermost importance to understand how the vulnerability to the weather of local communities is determined and how adaptation public policies can be effectively put in place. We focused our empirical analysis on the American Southwest. Results show that, consistently with the predictions of an investment model, economic characteristics signaling local economic growth in the near future decrease the level of vulnerability. We also show that federal governments transfers and grants neither work to support recovery from and adaptation to weather events nor to distribute their costs over a broader tax base. Finally, we show that communities relying on municipal bonds to finance adaptation and recovery policies can benefit from local acknowledgment of the need for such policies and that they do not have to pay lenders a premium for the risk induced by weather events. In conclusion, our findings suggest that determinants of economic growth support lower vulnerability to the weather and increase options for financing adaptation and recovery policies, but also that only some communities are likely to benefit from those processes.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Life cycle environmental impacts of substituting food wastes for traditional anaerobic digestion feedstocks

Highlights: • Life Cycle Assessment of an industrial anaerobic digestion plant in Northern Ireland. • Demonstration of GHG savings for electricity production by the utilisation of biogas from AD. • Comparison of landfilling of food waste vs food waste utilisation for electricity production through AD. • Analysis based on a full-scale operational biogas/bioenergy facility, using primary data for both plant operation and feedstocks. • Inclusion of the avoided emissions from landfilling of food wastes and substitution of digestate for artificial fertilisers. - Abstract: In this study, life cycle assessment has been used to evaluate life cycle environmental impacts of substituting traditional anaerobic digestion (AD) feedstocks with food wastes. The results have demonstrated the avoided GHG emissions from substituting traditional AD feedstocks with food waste (avoided GHG-eq emissions of 163.33 CO{sub 2}-eq). Additionally, the analysis has included environmental benefits of avoided landfilling of food wastes and digestate use as a substitute for synthetic fertilisers. The analysis of the GHG mitigation benefits of resource management/circular economy policies, namely, the mandating of a ban on the landfilling of food wastes, has demonstrated the very substantial GHG emission reduction that can be achieved by these policy options – 2151.04 kg CO{sub 2} eq per MWh relative to UK Grid. In addition to the reduction in GHG emission, the utilization of food waste for AD instead of landfilling can manage the leakage of nutrients to water resources and eliminate eutrophication impacts which occur, typically as the result of field application. The results emphasise the benefits of using life-cycle thinking to underpin policy development and the implications for this are discussed with a particular focus on the analysis of policy development across the climate, renewable energy, resource management and bioeconomy nexus and recommendations made for future research priorities.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Energy storage solutions to decarbonize electricity through enhanced capacity expansion modelling

To meet ambitious global decarbonization goals, electricity system planning and operations will change fundamentally. With increasing reliance on variable renewable energy resources, energy storage is likely to play a critical accompanying role to help balance generation and consumption patterns. As grid planners, non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations, policy makers, regulators and other key stakeholders commonly use capacity expansion modelling to inform energy policy and investment decisions, it is crucial that these processes capture the value of energy storage in energy-system decarbonization. Here we conduct an extensive review of literature on the representation of energy storage in capacity expansion modelling. We identify challenges related to enhancing modelling capabilities to inform decarbonization policies and electricity system investments, and to improve societal outcomes throughout the clean energy transition. Additionally, we further identify corresponding research activities that can help overcome these challenges and conclude by highlighting tangible real-world outcomes that will result from pursuing these research activities. Capacity expansion modelling (CEM) approaches need to account for the value of energy storage in energy-system decarbonization. A new Review considers the representation of energy storage in the CEM literature and identifies approaches to overcome the challenges such approaches face when it comes to better informing policy and investment decisions.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2018

Pity the poor biofuels policymaker: reconsidered

The purpose of this note is to clarify three significant misrepresentations published in a Policy Update (Tyner, 2013) titled “Pity the poor biofuel policymaker.” The stated aim of the Policy Update (Tyner, 2013) was to “review some of the literature on three key biofuels issues”: land-use change (LUC), fossil fuel prices and food prices impacts. However, Tyner (2013) repeatedly cited our publication, “Global economic effects of US biofuel policy and the potential contribution from advanced biofuels” (Oladosu et al., 2012). The following compares statements made in the Policy Update (Tyner, 2013) with the substance of what was published by Oladosu et al. (2012).

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Assessing the costs and benefits of US renewable portfolio standards

Abstract Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) exist in 29 US states and the District of Columbia. This article summarizes the first national-level, integrated assessment of the future costs and benefits of existing RPS policies; the same metrics are evaluated under a second scenario in which widespread expansion of these policies is assumed to occur. Depending on assumptions about renewable energy technology advancement and natural gas prices, existing RPS policies increase electric system costs by as much as $31 billion, on a present-value basis over 2015−2050. The expanded renewable deployment scenario yields incremental costs that range from $23 billion to $194 billion, depending on the assumptions employed. The monetized value of improved air quality and reduced climate damages exceed these costs. Using central assumptions, existing RPS policies yield $97 billion in air-pollution health benefits and $161 billion in climate damage reductions. Under the expanded RPS case, health benefits total $558 billion and climate benefits equal $599 billion. These scenarios also yield benefits in the form of reduced water use. RPS programs are not likely to represent the most cost effective path towards achieving air quality and climate benefits. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that US RPS programs are, on a national basis, cost effective when considering externalities.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was repealed due to concerns about the “unnecessary, costly burdens” it may impose on electric utilities, thereby delaying efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ) from the electricity sector. This paper examines the greenhouse gas and welfare implications of this repeal while incorporating the presence of the state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in the US as the status quo. We assess the carbon abatement and welfare costs with the CPP relative to two alternative baselines: a no–policy baseline and a pre–existing policy baseline with the RPS. The CPP is implemented as a regional mass–based standard, a regional rate–based standard, or as a national mass–based standard with trading of emissions across regions over the 2022–2030 period. We find that the incremental discounted welfare costs per metric ton of CO 2 that would have been abated by the CPP relative to the RPS would be substantially lower than the global social cost of CO 2 . However, the overall costs of carbon abatement with the CPP added to the RPS would have become higher than the social cost of carbon when estimated relative to a no–policy baseline, except with a national mass–based CPP. Across all policy combinations and choice of baselines, the aggregate welfare costs were lowest under a national mass–based standard and highest under the regional rate–based standard. Here, we also find that the CPP would have imposed large welfare costs on consumers and fossil fuel producers while benefiting the renewable fuel producers.

, Q42↗
DOE OSTI2012

Potential External (non-DOE) Constraints on U.S. Fuel Cycle Options

The DOE Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) Program will be conducting a screening of fuel cycle options in FY2013 to help focus fuel cycle R&D activities. As part of this screening, performance criteria and go/no-go criteria are being identified. To help ensure that these criteria are consistent with current policy, an effort was initiated to identify the status and basis of potentially relevant regulations, laws, and policies that have been established external to DOE. As such regulations, laws, and policies may be beyond DOE’s control to change, they may constrain the screening criteria and internally-developed policy. This report contains a historical survey and analysis of publically available domestic documents that could pertain to external constraints on advanced nuclear fuel cycles. “External” is defined as public documents outside DOE. This effort did not include survey and analysis of constraints established internal to DOE.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2014

The Costs and Benefits of Compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standards: Reviewing Experience to Date

More than half of U.S. states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in place and have collectively deployed approximately 46,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity through year-end 2012. Most of these policies have five or more years of implementation experience, enabling an assessment of their costs and benefits. Understanding RPS benefits and costs is essential for policymakers evaluating existing RPS policies, assessing the need for modifications, and considering new policies. A key aspect of this study is the comprehensive review of existing RPS cost and benefit estimates, in addition to an examination of the variety of methods used to calculate such estimates. Based on available data and estimates reported by utilities and regulators, this study summarizes RPS costs to date. The study considers how those costs may evolve going forward, given scheduled increases in RPS targets and cost containment mechanisms incorporated into existing policies. The report also summarizes RPS benefits estimates, based on published studies for individual states, and discusses key methodological considerations.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Synthetic Biology and the U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory System: Challenges and Options

Synthetic Biology and the U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory System: Challenges and Options Sarah R. Carter, Ph.D., J. Craig Venter Institute; Michael Rodemeyer, J.D., University of Virginia; Michele S. Garfinkel, Ph.D., EMBO; Robert M. Friedman, Ph.D., J. Craig Venter Institute In recent years, a range of genetic engineering techniques referred to as “synthetic biology” has significantly expanded the tool kit available to scientists and engineers, providing them with far greater capabilities to engineer organisms than previous techniques allowed. The field of synthetic biology includes the relatively new ability to synthesize long pieces of DNA from chemicals, as well as improved methods for genetic manipulation and design of genetic pathways to achieve more precise control of biological systems. These advances will help usher in a new generation of genetically engineered microbes, plants, and animals. The JCVI Policy Center team, along with researchers at the University of Virginia and EMBO, examined how well the current U.S. regulatory system for genetically engineered products will handle the near-term introduction of organisms engineered using synthetic biology. In particular, the focus was on those organisms intended to be used or grown directly in the environment, outside of a contained facility. The study concludes that the U.S. regulatory agencies have adequate legal authority to address most, but not all, potential environmental, health and safety concerns posed by these organisms. Such near-term products are likely to represent incremental changes rather than a marked departure from previous genetically engineered organisms. However, the study also identified two key challenges for the regulatory system, which are detailed in the report. First, USDA’s authority over genetically engineered plants depends on the use of an older engineering technique that is no longer necessary for many applications. The shift to synthetic biology and other newer genetic engineering techniques will leave many engineered plants without any pre-market regulatory review. Second, the number and diversity of engineered microbes for commercial use will increase in the near future, challenging EPA’s resources, expertise, and perhaps authority to regulate them. For each of these challenges, the report sets out a series of options, including an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option from a variety of perspectives, for policy makers to consider. Policy responses will depend on the trade-offs chosen among competing considerations. This report, funded by the Department of Energy with additional funds from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, is the result of a two-year process that included interviews, commissioned background papers, discussions, and two workshops that sought input from a wide range of experts, including U.S. federal agency regulators, legal and science policy experts, representatives from the biotechnology indus¬try, and non-governmental organiza¬tions. This cross-section of views informed this report, but the conclusions are solely those of the authors. An Executive Summary, full Report, and background papers are available at: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-biology-and-the-us-biotechnology-regulatory-system/overview/

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2012

The Future of Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs in the United States: Projected Spending and Savings to 2025

We develop projections of future spending on, and savings from, energy efficiency programs funded by electric and gas utility customers in the United States, under three scenarios through 2025. Our analysis, which updates a previous LBNL study, relies on detailed bottom-up modeling of current state energy efficiency policies, regulatory decisions, and demand-side management and utility resource plans. The three scenarios are intended to represent a range of potential outcomes under the current policy environment (i.e., without considering possible major new policy developments). By 2025, spending on electric and gas efficiency programs (excluding load management programs) is projected to double from 2010 levels to $9.5 billion in the medium case, compared to $15.6 billion in the high case and $6.5 billion in the low case. Compliance with statewide legislative or regulatory savings or spending targets is the primary driver for the increase in electric program spending through 2025, though a significant share of the increase is also driven by utility DSM planning activity and integrated resource planning. Our analysis suggests that electric efficiency program spending may approach a more even geographic distribution over time in terms of absolute dollars spent, with the Northeastern and Western states declining from over 70% of total U.S. spending in 2010 to slightly more than 50% in 2025, with the South and Midwest splitting the remainder roughly evenly. Under our medium case scenario, annual incremental savings from customer-funded electric energy efficiency programs increase from 18.4 TWh in 2010 in the U.S. (which is about 0.5% of electric utility retail sales) to 28.8 TWh in 2025 (0.8% of retail sales). These savings would offset the majority of load growth in the Energy Information Administration’s most recent reference case forecast, given specific assumptions about the extent to which future energy efficiency program savings are captured in that forecast. However, the pathway that customer-funded efficiency programs ultimately take will depend on a series of key challenges and uncertainties associated both with the broader market and policy context and with the implementation and regulatory oversight of the energy efficiency programs themselves.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

The EPSA Project Finance Mapping Tool

The Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Office of DOE has requested a tool to compare the impact of various Federal policies on the financial viability of generation resources across the country. Policy options could include production tax credits, investment tax credits, solar renewable energy credits, tax abatement, accelerated depreciation, tax-free loans, and others. The tool would model the finances of projects in all fifty states, and possibly other geographic units like utility service territories and RTO/ISO territories. The tool would consider the facility s cost, financing, production, and revenues under different capital and market structures to determine things like levelized cost of energy, return on equity, and cost impacts on others (e.g., load-serving entities, society.) The tool would compare the cost and value of the facility to the local regional alternatives to determine how and where policy levers may provide sufficient incremental value to motivate investment. The results will be displayed through a purpose-built visualization that maps geographic variations and shows associated figures and tables.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2019

NRC Regulatory History of Non-Light Water Reactors (1950-2019)

This report describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) history with the licensing of non-light water reactors (LWRs). The focus is on regulatory policy and licensing issues that have arisen in the past so that NRC staff will be in a better position to deal with these matters in the future. It is not an objective to discuss in any detail the technology of non-LWR designs. Documenting the historical policy issues and licensing approaches is particularly important to NRC staff unfamiliar with non-LWRs and is an important incentive for the report. Hence, the report is written as a tutorial rather than as an historical archive. The subject is approached chronologically going from the early days of the Atomic Energy Commission to the formation of the NRC, then into the era when the regulatory structure newly developed for LWRs provided guidance for other types of reactors, and then into the era when policy was made specifically for advanced reactors including non-LWRs. This background provides the transition to current planning for future non-LWR licensing and policy.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards 2021 Status Update: Early Release

Berkeley Lab’s annual status report on U.S. renewables portfolio standards (RPS) provides an overview of key trends associated with U.S. state RPS policies. The report, published in slide-deck form, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on renewables development, and compliance costs. The 2021 Early Release, published in lieu of a 2020 edition, presents historical data through year-end 2019, with some limited results for the year 2020. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: Evolution of state RPS programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies. Among other significant changes since the start of 2019, eight states enacted higher RPS targets or created new clean-energy/zero-carbon targets (AZ, DC, MD, NM, NV, VA, WA), in most cases setting targets equal to at least 50% of retail sales. Historical impacts on renewables development: Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, though that percentage has declined in recent years, representing 23% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2019. However, within particular regions-namely, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic-RPS policies continue to serve a central role in motivating RE growth. Future RPS demand and incremental needs: RPS demand growth through 2030 will require roughly 90 GW of new RE capacity and will require total U.S. non-hydro RE generation to reach 17% of electricity sales (compared to 12% in 2019). Relative to EIA projections, this amounts to roughly one-third of projected RE growth over the next decade. RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific issues. REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs rose steeply over 2019, reaching $40/MWh and remaining at roughly that level over 2020. PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise at a modest pace over the course of 2020, reaching $10/MWh by year-end. Prices for solar RECs remained relatively stable over 2020, and continue to exhibit wide variation across states, with the highest prices ($200-450/MWh) in NJ, MA, and DC.RPS compliance costs and cost caps: RPS compliance costs in 2019 averaged roughly 2.6% of retail electricity bills in RPS states, compared to 2.3% in 2018, with costs in most states ranging from 0.5% to 4.5% of retail electricity bills.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Scenarios of Nuclear Energy Use in the United States for the 21st Century

The uncertainty in the cost of nuclear energy coinciding with efforts to address climate change are contributing to the uncertainty in the future role of nuclear energy in the US electricity system and the response to addressing global climate change. Sensitivity cases of alternative nuclear capital costs, ranging from 2600 to 6600 $\$ $/kW, were investigated with scenarios of alternative carbon mitigation policies, including 50, 100, and 150 $\$ $/tCO 2 carbon tax cases and economy-wide net-zero goals by 2050, 2060, and 2070 for the US. The resulting US nuclear power capacity ranged from 130 to 240 GW in 2050 and 90 to 450 GW in 2100 from nuclear cost sensitivity cases without carbon mitigation policies. Imposing policies to achieve the decarbonization of electricity and net-zero emission goals increased the range of nuclear power capacity from 190 to 460 GW in 2050 and 210 to 850 GW by 2100, where the range is from the low and high nuclear cost cases. Carbon penalties beyond 100 $\$ $/tCO 2 had a diminishing role on the expansion of nuclear power as the electricity sector becomes fully decarbonized. The 50 $\$ $/tCO 2 tax had the nuclear capital cost equivalency of 1000 $\$ $/kW reduction, while the 100 $\$ $/tCO 2 tax had the equivalency of 2000 $\$ $/kW reduction. Net-zero goals increased the contribution of nuclear power due to the increase in total electricity demand, but the delay in the timing of net-zero did not significantly affect the role of nuclear in the long-term. All net-zero goals were similar in their energy system impact with resulting carbon tax levels reaching 300 $\$ $/tCO 2 . Electricity is fully decarbonized in the net-zero scenarios and carbon pricing beyond 100 to 150 $\$ $/tCO 2 had little influence on the additional deployment of nuclear power. Regardless of the carbon policy, however, nuclear capital cost reductions had a clear and pronounced impact on the expanded deployment of nuclear power under all scenarios.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Third-Party Aggregation Rulemaking in MISO and SPP Footprints

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each decision comes with various tradeoffs. One main tradeoff is between simplicity and quick implementation versus comprehensive and prolonged implementation. In many cases, actions in Tier I could be implemented without significant changes by relying on the use of existing processes for an aggregator context. On the other hand, many actions in Tier III are more narrowly designed to address aggregators specifically, but often require more significant changes including the involvement of additional parties through stakeholder engagement or legislative action. In some cases, these tiers are discrete. However, state regulators may also choose to progress through these various tiers sequentially as they phase in aggregators while learning from their experience. With the ability to stack bulk system level services, distributed energy resource aggregations in MISO and SPP could provide various private benefits (e.g., increased value streams to the owner) as well as societally beneficial grid services (e.g., peaking capacity, ancillary services, and other services that increase the grid’s overall operational efficiency). In deciding how to best to enable these benefits, states and retail regulators must weigh various tradeoffs if considering reversing a previous opt out.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Product Innovation to Increase Low-to-Moderate-Income Customers' Adoption of Community Solar PV

This study aims to comprehensively analyze community solar project preferences for consumers and suppliers by conducting three distinct analyses. First we analyze the predictors of community solar contract adoption to understand how individual priorities affect the probability of adoption. Using an original data set of survey responses from potential community solar customers, we analyzed the predictors of contract adoption by employing a weighted logit model. We find that individuals who were previously familiar with community solar projects were significantly more likely to adopt than those who were not familiar. Secondly, a survey of community solar developers and financiers identified industry perceived barriers to community solar access and inclusion. Thirdly, we gathered payment performance information from community solar initiatives to measure how financial risks are perceived and how they interact with customer demographics. Our study is beneficial to the public by providing insights into the drivers and barriers of community solar adoption and sheds light on the importance of understanding individual priorities in designing effective community solar policies. The community solar industry has changed significantly since the beginning of this project. The industry continues to grow at a rapid rate, with an additional 7 gigawatts expected to come online between 2022 and 2027. With federal pressure to meet climate goals, as the harms of climate change continue to impact everybody, legislators are looking to community solar as a method to achieving their states energy policy goals. These new policies that push for low-to-moderate inclusion, coupled with the increase in community solar capacity illustrate a new era for the community solar industry. A number of policies have arisen in the last few months that push for more inclusive practices including the groundbreaking Solar for All program run by the EPA. The research created a “best practice” contract that can then be used, in conjunction with the manuscript and validated study, to pitch the industry on a more inclusive community solar product.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Pathways to Carbon Neutrality 2050 in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia has recently set an ambitious target of achieving carbon neutrality as early as 2050. To accomplish this, the country will need to strategically reduce its emissions across all sectors. In 2020, Malaysia emitted approximately 368 MtCO2e, with the largest sources of emissions including electricity (36% of total emissions), transportation (17%), and industry (15%)1. We find that the greatest reductions in emissions can therefore come from decarbonizing power generation and electrifying end-use sectors. Digitalization, smart technologies, and improved energy efficiency will significantly reduce economy-wide energy consumption. By leveraging efficient technologies, both Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur can address the challenges posed by rapid urbanization and climate change. Digitalization is a broad category that includes a variety of measures; for example, the wide adoption of high-efficiency appliances and lighting or improved building energy codes in the buildings sector. Similarly, technological improvements can advance industrial energy efficiency, and for transportation, smart technologies cover a shift from private to public transportation and the greater use of electric vehicles. While renewable energy (RE) will play a crucial role in decarbonization, achieving carbon neutrality in certain sectors will be difficult without emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and innovative fuel sources such as hydrogen. In order for Malaysia to rely on CCS as a mitigation option, early investment and incentives to the private sector will be critical. This holds for the use of hydrogen as well: investing in the necessary technology, infrastructure, and human capital will allow Malaysia to position itself as an innovator in the region and leverage these advanced technologies as a key part of its climate strategy. Another possible carbon removal option other than CCS would be a land-use sink; however, given that Malaysia is still developing and may deforest in the near-term, this report does not focus on the mitigation potential of land-use change. With its innovative and bold climate plans, Kuala Lumpur is primed to be a leader in regional climate change efforts. Kuala Lumpur is also engaged in several international collaborations to ensure sustainable city development such as the C40 network and the ASEAN Smart Cities Partnership. As such, the city will play a critical role in contributing to Malaysia’s overall climate goals and as a policy trendsetter through ambitious, scalable plans. One key factor in these emissions reductions is that Kuala Lumpur has full control over its building guidelines, allowing for ambitious policies resulting in significant emissions reductions. However, in other sectors, Kuala Lumpur has less direct control over regulations; for example, power generation and integration of RE are largely in the hands of the Malaysian government. With limited and primarily light industry, Kuala Lumpur’s contributions to emissions reductions here are curbed. And, while Kuala Lumpur has control over local transportation policies like increasing access to and quality of public transportation, broad shifts in transportation will stem from national-level policies. As such, multi-level governance is an integral component of Malaysia’s climate strategy and coordination between local and national governments will be essential in reducing emissions and achieving other climate goals. This report addresses these and other key challenges and opportunities Malaysia faces on the road to carbon neutrality.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

SolarView: Georgia Solar Adoption in Context

The local-national gap is a problem currently plaguing the adoption of emerging technologies targeted at resolving energy transition issues that are characterized by disparities in the adoption of innovations and policies on a local level in response to national policy implementation. These disparities reflect a complex system of technical, economic, social, political, and ecological factors linked to the perceptions held by communities and how they see energy development and national/global policy goals. This dataset is an attempt to bridge the local-national gap regarding solar PV adoption in the State of Georgia (U.S.) by aggregating variables from seven different publicly-available sources. The objective of this activity was to design a resource that would help researchers interested in the context underlying solar adoption on the local scale of governance (e.g., the county level). The SolarView database includes information necessary for informing policy-making activities such as solar installation information, a historical county zip code directory, county-level census data, housing value indexes, renewable energy incentive totals, PV rooftop suitability percentages, and utility rates. As this is a database from multiple sources, incomplete data entries are noted.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗