Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “COST RECOVERY”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Benefits of a Full Waste Cost Recovery Program - 16322

A full waste cost recovery program has been established at the INL in order to fund disposition of all newly-generated hazardous, radioactive, and mixed waste at the INL. Significant improvements have resulted from implementation of this program at the INL, and it is anticipated that others could benefit from using a similar approach. The INL Waste Management Program (WMP) administers two site-wide service centers that collect revenue from programs and projects in order to pay waste disposition costs. These service centers are administered separately due to their unique scope and functions. The combination of these service centers provides the INL with a fully functional cost recovery program for all newly generated waste. This cost recovery program ensures that funding is available for disposition of all waste types and that waste costs are paid for by the generating programs or facilities. The implementation of these service centers in Fiscal Year 2014 has resulting in several significant improvements in waste disposition, including a substantial increase in awareness and emphasis on waste minimization and segregation. The service centers have virtually eliminated funding shortfalls from projects that end and have not budgeted for dispositioning waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Cost Recovery for Standby and Ancillary Services for Distributed Generation: Considerations for New Mexico

A New Mexico statute allows investor-owned utilities to recover costs of “standby and ancillary services” resulting from distributed generation (DG). In attempting to do so, it is important to recognize both the physical and economic impacts, positive and negative, that distributed generation creates. Distributed generation has different impacts on ancillary and standby services depending on the location, capacity, and production patterns of the systems. Low penetrations of small distributed generation systems will not create significant contingencies for utilities. System impact of fluctuations in DG production may be no larger than normal fluctuations caused by customer demand, such as an air conditioner cycling. Higher penetrations and large DG system may produce noticeable impacts; so magnitude is critical when determining potential additional recoverable utility costs. Understanding DG impact on ancillary services is a relatively new and emerging area of study and as such there are not well-established formulas or protocols. Discretion is required. A hosting capacity analysis can help determine how much DG can be implemented before the impacts become substantive. Standby rates are traditionally used for large industrial generators or combined heat and power systems and threshold system size levels are often used in determining applicability of standby rates. System size thresholds may also be appropriate for standby rates and DG. Relatively small, geographically diverse DG systems are unlikely to create a noticeable coincident outage, so developing a standby charge based on assumed coincidence may not be appropriate. Individual lines and feeders may have considerable excess capacity during coincident outages, or they may be fully utilized and facing upgrades in the near future, which could vary over time. Understanding specific events that create concern for utilities is critical to developing an appropriate rate mechanism (e.g., single residential or community system outage, cascading event, clouds, eclipse). Any modeling or studies of the grid should also recognize the unique situation created when DG is coupled with a smart inverter or storage. These devices change the value proposition and can help mitigate some of the voltage and ramping issues DG can pose for a utility. Utilities can recover their fixed costs in a variety of ways, and some are better suited for DG than others. Beyond charging for standby and ancillary services, other options include fixed customer charges, demand charges, minimum bills, time-of-use rates and updated net energy-metering policies. Studies and analyses of the specific impacts that DG has on the grid should inform utilities’ decision-making process because distributed generation creates both costs and benefits for the grid. Any charge specific to DG customers should be backed up with analysis. At the heart of this conversation is utilities attempting to recover fixed costs. Allowing utilities to indiscriminately recover all stranded fixed costs can negatively affect long-term market efficiency by blunting utility incentives to lower costs and acting as a barrier to entry and exit. The current status of New Mexico’s grid, impending infrastructure updates, and likely customer adoption patterns for DG (backed up by transparent analysis) should remain at the forefront when considering charges for standby and ancillary services. Recognizing that utility regulation is largely a reactive process, it is recommended that applications for DG related standby or ancillary services cost recovery mechanisms be thoroughly reviewed by an experienced economist. If the commission has no such skill set on staff, one might be hired.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2019

Non-empirical, low-cost recovery of exact conditions with model-Hamiltonian inspired expressions in jmDFT

Density functional theory (DFT) is widely applied to both molecules and materials, but well known energetic delocalization and static correlation errors in practical exchange-correlation approximations limit quantitative accuracy. Common methods that correct energetic delocalization errors, such as the Hubbard U correction in DFT+U or Hartree-Fock exchange in global hybrids, do so at the cost of worsening static correlation errors. We recently introduced an alternate approach [Bajaj et al., J. Chem. Phys. 147, 191101 (2017)] known as judiciously modified DFT (jmDFT), wherein the deviation from exact behavior of semilocal functionals over both fractional spin and charge, i.e., the so-called flat plane, was used to motivate functional forms of second order analytic corrections. In this work, we introduce fully nonempirical expressions for all four coefficients in a DFT+U+J-inspired form of jmDFT, where all coefficients are obtained only from energies and eigenvalues of the integer-electron systems. We show good agreement for U and J coefficients obtained nonempirically as compared with the results of numerical fitting in a jmDFT U+J/J' correction. Incorporating the fully nonempirical jmDFT correction reduces and even eliminates the fractional spin error at the same time as eliminating the energetic delocalization error. We show that this approach extends beyond s-electron systems to higher angular momentum cases including p- and d-electrons. Finally, we diagnose some shortcomings of the current jmDFT approach that limit its ability to improve upon DFT results for cases such as weakly bound anions due to poor underlying semilocal functional behavior.

Delocalization↗
DOE OSTI2016

Recovery of Utility Fixed Costs: Utility, Consumer, Environmental and Economist Perspectives

Utilities recover costs for providing electric service to retail customers through a combination of rate components that together comprise customers’ monthly electric bills. Rates and rate designs are set by state regulators and vary by jurisdiction, utility and customer class. In addition to the fundamental tenet of setting fair and reasonable rates, rate design balances economic efficiency, equity and fairness, customer satisfaction, utility revenue stability, and customer price and bill stability. At the most basic level, retail electricity bills in the United States typically include a fixed monthly customer charge — a set dollar amount regardless of energy usage — and a volumetric energy charge for each kilowatt-hour consumed. The energy charge may be flat across all hours, vary by usage level (for example, higher rates at higher levels of usage), or vary based on time of consumption. While some utility costs, such as fuel costs, clearly vary according to electricity usage, other costs are “fixed” over the short run — generally, those that do not vary over the course of a year. Depending on your point of view, and whether the state’s electricity industry has been restructured or remains vertically integrated, the set of costs that are “fixed” may be quite limited. Or the set may extend to all capacity costs for generation, transmission and distribution. In the long run, all costs are variable. In the context of flat or declining loads in some regions, utilities are proposing a variety of changes to retail rate designs, particularly for residential customers, to recover fixed costs. In this report, authors representing utility (Chapter 1), consumer (Chapter 2), environmentalist (Chapter 3) and economist (Chapter 4) perspectives discuss fixed costs for electric utilities and set out their principles for recovering those costs. The table on the next page summarizes each author’s relative preferences for various options for fixed cost recovery, some of which may be used in combination. The specific design of any ratemaking option matters crucially, so a general preference for a given option does not indicate support for any particular application.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Funding Mechanisms for Federal Geothermal Permitting

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) initiated a Geothermal Regulatory Roadmap (GRR) in March 2012 to facilitate the development of utility-scale geothermal power. The GRR team conducted a series of workshops during the summer of 2012, which included key representatives from federal and state agencies, as well as industry and other stakeholders involved in the permitting and development of utility-scale geothermal projects. In many of the GRR meetings held with agencies, industry, and other stakeholders, a recurring issue was competing priorities for agency staff's time, which result in permit processing delays. Some agency personnel explained how only a percentage of their weekly or monthly time is allocated to geothermal due to geothermal budget allocations. Others described how their time allocation was determined by agency priorities, and not by specific geothermal budget allocations. In these cases, geothermal may not be a priority at all. One suggestion that was to increase geothermal permit fees or to develop some other mechanisms of cost recovery to fund additional geothermal positions or contractors to process permits more quickly. Because much of the geothermal resource available in the western U.S. is on federal lands, analysis of cost recovery programs could identify opportunities for additional funding mechanisms to support federal agency personnel and processing permits for geothermal projects. This paper discusses: federal agency revenues received for geothermal projects, including: (1) lease revenues, (2) fixed fees, and (3) cost recovery fees; and potential federal agency budget sources for processing geothermal applications, including: (1) cost-recovery fees for services rendered, (2) set-aside funds (such as those employed by EPAct2005), and (3) the appropriations process. This paper then analyzes the three budget sources as mechanisms for increasing funds available to federal agencies for processing geothermal permits and approvals. This paper concludes that both set-asides and cost-recovery fees for services rendered were effective ways of ensuring sufficient funding for processing geothermal authorizations on federally-managed public lands in a timely manner.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2011

Cost Effective Recovery of Low-TDS Frac Flowback Water for Re-use

The project goal was to develop a cost-effective water recovery process to reduce the costs and envi-ronmental impact of shale gas production. This effort sought to develop both a flowback water pre-treatment process and a membrane-based partial demineralization process for the treatment of the low-Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) portion of the flowback water produced during hydrofracturing operations. The TDS cutoff for consideration in this project is < 35,000 {approx} 45,000 ppm, which is the typical limit for economic water recovery employing reverse osmosis (RO) type membrane desalination processes. The ultimate objective is the production of clean, reclaimed water suitable for re-use in hydrofracturing operations. The team successfully compiled data on flowback composition and other attributes across multiple shale plays, identified the likely applicability of membrane treatment processes in those shales, and expanded the proposed product portfolio to include four options suitable for various reuse or discharge applications. Pretreatment technologies were evaluated at the lab scale and down-selected based upon their efficacy in removing key contaminants. The chosen technologies were further validated by performing membrane fouling studies with treated flowback water to demonstrate the technical feasibility of flowback treatment with RO membranes. Process flow schemes were constructed for each of the four product options based on experimental performance data from actual flowback water treatment studies. For the products requiring membrane treatment, membrane system model-ing software was used to create designs for enhanced water recovery beyond the typical seawater desalination benchmark. System costs based upon vendor and internal cost information for all process flow schemes were generated and are below target and in line with customer expectations. Finally, to account for temporal and geographic variability in flowback characteristics as well as local disposal costs and regulations, a parametric value assessment tool was created to assess the economic attractiveness of a given flowback recovery process relative to conventional disposal for any combination of anticipated flowback TDS and local disposal cost. It is concluded that membrane systems in combination with appropriate pretreatment technologies can provide cost-effective recovery of low-TDS flow-back water for either beneficial reuse or safe surface discharge.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Characteristics of locational uncertainty marginal price for correlated uncertainties of variable renewable generation and demands

With the rapid increase of variable renewable energy sources in power systems, how to manage and price the uncertainty of renewable resources’ power outputs is becoming an urgent issue. Current market designs considering the uncertainties are mainly based on the probabilistic scenario set of demand and renewable energy resources power outputs. This consideration makes market designs vulnerable to three significant challenges when put into practice. First, the accurate probability distribution of renewable generation is hard to obtain in real-time. Second, it is challenging to clear the market timely with many scenarios to guarantee accuracy. Third, generation cost recovery cannot be guaranteed for some scenarios. To overcome these challenges, this paper proposes a locational uncertainty marginal price model to price the uncertainty explicitly based on a scenario-free stochastic market-clearing model. Instead of using the probabilistic scenario set, the uncertainty of renewable energy sources and loads is modeled with distributionally-robust chance constraints. The correlation of uncertainties can be endogenously modeled in both the market-clearing and the locational uncertainty marginal price formation. Furthermore, this paper proves that generation cost recovery, revenue adequacy, and partial market equilibrium can be achieved using the locational uncertainty marginal price model. Numerical results from both the small and large systems simulations validate that the generation cost recovery is maintained no matter the generation participates in uncertainty mitigation or not. The transmission congestion surplus is also allocated appropriately among loads, renewable energy sources, and financial transmission right owners.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Examples of State and Utility Actions on Proactive Planning and Investments

As states across the U.S. confront rising electricity demand, clean energy deployment, grid modernization imperatives, and the integration of large new loads, some regulators and utilities are shifting away from reactive, “just-in-time” investment approaches toward more proactive planning and investment frameworks. This report compiles examples of jurisdictional and utility actions that reshape planning processes, cost recovery mechanisms, and performance oversight to anticipate—rather than simply respond to—future grid needs. Several themes emerge from state actions examined in this report. First, legislatures and commissions are increasingly directing utilities to proactively upgrade their distribution and transmission systems, reflecting a shift toward a forward-looking system that aligns planning with state policy goals. Second, states are establishing long-term, iterative planning frameworks that often feature multi-year horizons, biannual or annual compliance reporting, structured opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and emphasis on collaboration among utilities, regulators, and stakeholders. Third, states are actively investigating innovative cost recovery mechanisms designed to support accelerated electrification and grid modernization, while balancing consumer advocates’ concerns regarding the ratepayer financial risks of premature investments. Fourth, performance metrics and reporting requirements are being developed to ensure transparency and accountability for proactive investments. Fifth, methodological improvements in planning—such as aligning load forecasting assumptions, incorporating sensitivities, and considering load management potential across building, vehicles, storage, and demand response—are recurring areas of stakeholder focus across jurisdictions. Overall, these developments signify a growing recognition among state regulators, utilities, and stakeholders that proactive planning—supported by clear definitions, consistent and transparent methodologies, robust performance metrics, and innovative cost recovery mechanisms—is a tool that can be used to address the scale and urgency of contemporary grid needs.

electricity market↗
NASA NTRS2016

Heat Exchanger Performance Impacts on Optimum Cost Conditions in Thermoelectric Energy Recovery Designs

Cost is just as important as power density or efficiency for the adoption of waste heat recovery thermoelectric generators (TEG). Prior work [1] has shown that the system design that minimizes cost (e.g., the $/W value) can be close to the designs that maximize the system’s efficiency or power density, however, it is important to understand the relationship between those designs to optimize TEG performance-cost compromises. Expanding on recent work [1, 2, 3] the impact of heat exchanger conditions on the optimum TEG fill factors and cost scaling of a waste heat recovery thermoelectric generator with a detailed treatment of the hot side exhaust heat exchanger has been investigated further. The effect of the heat lost to the environment and updated relationships between the hot-side and cold-side conductances [4] that maximize power output are considered. The optimum fill factor to minimize TEG energy recovery system costs is strongly dependent on the heat leakage fraction, σ, the mass flow rate of the exhaust, the hot-side heat exchanger effectiveness, heat exchanger UAh, and heat flux. These relationships are explored and characterized for typical exhaust gas-flow conditions to show the inherent design complexities. The heat exchanger costs often dominate the TEG cost equation and it is critical to fully understand the tradeoff between heat exchanger performance, optimum TEG fill factors, and cost to establish potentially optimum design points within the cost-performance design space. This work will explore the design tradeoffs and relationships within the cost-efficiency-power density design space for a typical thermoelectric energy recovery system application. The interplay between optimum TEG fill factors and heat exchanger design can impact system footprint, volume, and mass in weight-sensitive applications. Less-effective, low-cost heat exchangers may outperform higher cost alternatives from a market adoption perspective. This shift of emphasis acknowledging the interdependence of optimum TEG fill factors and heat exchanger performance has significant implications on thermoelectric waste heat recovery systems designs and their operation. In addition, preferred TEG design regimes exist that accommodate reasonable compromises in TE performance and cost. This effort highlights how the optimum fill factor–heat exchanger performance relations couple to these optimum TEG performance-cost domains based on TEG-system-level analyses and provides a focus for future system research and development efforts.

Energy recovery↗
DOE OSTI2014

Financial sustainability in municipal solid waste management – Costs and revenues in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Highlights: • Cost-revenue analysis over 2 years revealed insufficient cost-recovery. • Expenses for motorized secondary collection increased by 82% over two years. • Low fee collection rate and reliance on only one revenue stream are problematic. • Different options for cost reduction and enhanced revenue streams are recommended. • Good public–private alliance is crucial to plan and implement improvement measures. - Abstract: Providing good solid waste management (SWM) services while also ensuring financial sustainability of the system continues to be a major challenge in cities of developing countries. Bahir Dar in northwestern Ethiopia outsourced municipal waste services to a private waste company in 2008. While this institutional change has led to substantial improvement in the cleanliness of the city, its financial sustainability remains unclear. Is the private company able to generate sufficient revenues from their activities to offset the costs and generate some profit? This paper presents a cost-revenue analysis, based on data from July 2009 to June 2011. The analysis reveals that overall costs in Bahir Dar’s SWM system increased significantly during this period, mainly due to rising costs related to waste transportation. On the other hand, there is only one major revenue stream in place: the waste collection fee from households, commercial enterprises and institutions. As the efficiency of fee collection from households is only around 50%, the total amount of revenues are not sufficient to cover the running costs. This results in a substantial yearly deficit. The results of the research therefore show that a more detailed cost structure and cost-revenue analysis of this waste management service is important with appropriate measures, either by the privates sector itself or with the support of the local authorities, in order to enhance cost efficiency and balance the cost-revenues towards cost recovery. Delays in mitigating the evident financial deficit could else endanger the public-private partnership (PPP) and lead to failure of this setup in the medium to long term, thus also endangering the now existing improved and currently reliable service. We present four options on how financial sustainability of the SWM system in Bahir Dar might be enhanced: (i) improved fee collection efficiency by linking the fees of solid waste collection to water supply; (ii) increasing the value chain by sales of organic waste recycling products; (iii) diversifying revenue streams and financing mechanisms (polluter-pays-, cross-subsidy- and business-principles); and (iv) cost reduction and improved cost-effectiveness. We argue that in a PPP setup such as in Bahir Dar, a strong alliance between the municipality and private enterprise is important so that appropriate solutions for improved financial sustainability of a SWM system can be sought and implemented.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1972

Cost analysis of water recovery systems

Cost and performance data from Gemini, Skylab, and other aerospace and biotechnology programs were analyzed to identify major cost elements required to establish cost estimating relationships for advanced life support subsystems for long range planning in support of earth orbital programs. Cost analysis are presented for five leading water reclamation systems; (1) RITE waste management-water system;(2) reverse osmosis system;(3) multifiltration system;(4) vapor compression system; and(5) closed air evaporation system with electrolytic pretreatment.

Yakut, M. M.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Understanding the cost bases of Space Shuttle pricing policies for commercial and foreign customers

The principles and underlying cost bases of the 1977 and 1982 Space Shuttle Reimbursement Policies are compared and contrasted. Out-of-pocket cost recovery has been chosen as the base of the price for the 1986-1988 time period. With this cost base, it is NASA's intent to recover the total cost of consumables and the launch and flight operations costs added by commercial and foreign customers over the 1986-1988 time period. Beyond 1988, NASA intends to return to its policy of full cost recovery.

Stone, Barbara A.↗
DOE OSTI2017

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - Program Update - 17530

The legacy of the United States' early atomic energy program is an important piece of our Nation's history. That legacy however, left low-level radiological contamination at properties now owned and operated by commercial, private and/or local government entities. Although many of these contaminated sites were identified by the Government in the past, additional properties continue to be identified. The United States Government, thru the US Department of Energy (USDOE) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is addressing these sites with the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) and has been doing so since the 1970's. The USDOE and the USACE both have roles in the Program. The USACE FUSRAP Program has an important task but faces many challenges to achieve a success conclusion. Since the implementation of 'sequestration cap' budgeting by Congress in 2012, the annual budget for the Program has decreased significantly compared to the funding levels in prior years. The Program complies with USACE Civil Works budgetary reprogramming rules that requires close coordination between the project and program teams to appropriately and efficiently obligate and expend Program funding. The very nature of environmental remediation work results in consistently finding additional unknowns during each phase of a project. The Program is required to follow Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) guidance and conduct cost recovery activities but does not have authorities such as those held by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In order to pursue cost recovery actions, conclude a settlement agreement or file an administrative order, USACE must engage the US Department of Justice or USEPA to act on their behalf as USACE does not have the authority to do so themselves. Twenty years later, USACE continues to carry out the FUSRAP mission and work in coordination with the USDOE Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) to ensure that the Government's responsibilities are addressed. Success is measured by finishing each site cleanup so they can be turned back to their property owner and stakeholders for safe use. USACE continues to seek new technologies and methods of approach to improve and expedite site investigations and clean ups. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗