Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “IM3”

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 OSTI2026

NGEE Arctic Integrated Modeling (IM3): Improved snow-vegetation interaction

This data product represents the integration of new code capability for arctic tundra snow-vegetation-terrain interactions into the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), through the E3SM Land Model (ELM) component. This code integration is the result of collaborative effort between the NGEE Arctic project and the E3SM project. The NGEE Arctic project developed a total of six Integrated Modeling (IM) modules informed by observations and experiments. New ELM capability represented by this data product (IM3) falls into three categories: 1) Downscaling from gridcell to topographic unit level when working through the existing coupler bypass code. 2) Four new parameters (taper, stocking, bendresist, and vegshape) have been added to ELM to allow for flexible definition of snow-vegetation interactions. 3) Vegshape and bendresist parameters are used to calculate the fraction of leaf area and/or stem area buried by snow for a given snow depth. This data record consists of a single document (pdf format) that describes the theoretical basis for the snow-vegetation-terrain interactions added to ELM, and describes the modifications made to the ELM code. The Methods section of this metadata record includes a link to the public E3SM code repository where the exact code modifications as integrated in E3SM can be accessed. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

Thornton, Peter E [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000247595158)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Inputs to GCAM-USA: IM3 Phase 2 Experiments

Overview This dataset contains XML input files for the IM3 Phase 2 version of GCAM-USA. The files are organized into two categories: Scenario-specific inputs represent hydroclimate and socioeconomic effects on water availability, heating and cooling degree-hours, and agricultural productivity. They support eight IM3 canonical scenarios: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Model-improvement inputs extend GCAM-USA v5.3 with updated representations of coal and nuclear power plant retirements, electricity trade among U.S. interconnections, offshore carbon storage costs, and groundwater depletion constraints. Data structure Scenario-specific inputs rcp45_runoff/ and rcp85_runoff/XML files describing water availability by HUC2 basin under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. rcp45_hdcd/ and rcp85_hdcd/XML files containing monthly-day and monthly-night heating and cooling degree-hours at the U.S. state level for different RCP-SSP combinations. rcp45_agyields/ and rcp85_agyields/XML files describing changes in agricultural productivity at the intersection of GCAM regions and HUC2 water basins for different RCP-SSP combinations. rcp45_emissions_pathway/The emissions-constraint XML file used to represent the RCP 4.5 pathway. Model-improvement inputs core_retire/Updates coal-fired power plant retirement schedules based on New England ISO. GCAMUSA_IM3_elec_trade_interconnect.xmlRestricts electricity trade to occur within the ERCOT, WECC, and IE interconnections. nuclear_USA.xmlUpdates the retirement schedules of the Diablo Canyon and Palisades nuclear power plants. high_cost_offshore_carbon.xmlUpdates the assumed cost of offshore carbon storage. water_supply_constrained_gleeson_5pct.xmlReplaces WaterGAP historical groundwater-depletion estimates with data from the Gleeson dataset and limits groundwater extraction to 5% of the available groundwater in each Superwell grid cell. How to use the data This dataset is designed for use with the IM3 version of GCAM-USA. Download or clone GCAM-USA from the IM3 GCAM GitHub repository at https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/gcam-core and check out the gcam-usa-im3 branch. Place the downloaded folder im3scenarios in the gcam-core/input directory while preserving the provided folder structure.

Energy↗
DOE OSTI2023

Output Data: gcam_usa_v5p3_im3

Output databases and tables supporting the publication: Khan, Z., Zhao, M., Ahsan, H., Wolfram, P., Vernon, C., Rice, J., Iyer, G., Binsted, M., Snyder, A., Graham, N., Kyle, P., 2023. Coevolution of future water, energy and land systems across the United States in response to national and global socioeconomic, climate, and energy policy drivers. (In progress) Earths Future, DOI: XXX with further details available at the meta-repository: https://immm-sfa.github.io/khan-etal_2023_im3gcamusa Folder: gcam_usa_im3_outputs (GCAM USA v 5.3 used for IM3 experiment Output Databases): database_rcp45cooler_ssp3.tar.gz database_rcp45cooler_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp45hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp45hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85cooler_ssp3.tar.gz database_rcp85cooler_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85hotter_ssp5.tar.gz Folder: gcam_usa_im3_gcamextractor_outputs (gcamextractor post-processing of the GCAM databases for specific downstream models ): dataGCAM_cerf.tar.gz (For CERF Model) dataGCAM_demeter.tar.gz (For Demeter model) dataGCAM_go.tar.gz (For GO model) gcamDataTable.tar.gz (All IM3 scenarios)

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2023

Version of GCAM-USA used for National Climate Assessment 5, Chapter 5: GCAM-USA-v5.3-IM3-NCA5

Overview GCAM-USA-v5.3-IM3-NCA5 is developed using GCAM-USA-v5.3 as its core, with the impact of the thermodynamic global warming scenario "RCP8.5_hotter" on runoff, heating and cooling degree-hours, and agricultural yield and the SSP5 socioeconomic scenario. These scenarios were produced as part of the Integrated Multisector, Multiscale Modeling (IM3) project and used by National Climate Assessment 5. Detailed Information This software package includes the output dataset, which is located in "output/database_rcp85hotter_ssp5". For reproducibility, the model is setup and ready to run for the selected IM3 scenario "rcp85hotter_ssp5". To execute the model, double click "exe/run-gcam.bat".

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2024

GCAM-USA: IM3 Phase 2 Official Simulations

Overview GCAM-USA simulates 21st century energy-water-land interactions in global regions with sub-national detail in the United States (US). The IM3 project is focused on US multisector dynamics and has created eight GCAM-USA simulations by combining two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight GCAM-USA simulations are named: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Detailed Assumptions The SSPs describe alternative socioeconomic futures and their implications for both the US and global environmental challenges. As implemented in GCAM-USA, the primary difference between SSP3 and SSP5 in the US is their population growth projections, with SSP3 foreseeing lower growth and SSP5 projecting higher growth. The four climate projections explore moderate (RCP4.5) and high (RCP8.5) greenhouse gas emission (GHG) trajectories, each with a hotter and cooler climate variation based on the range of global climate model simulations in CMIP6s. These four climate projections are used in precursor models to develop climate impacts on building heating and cooling degree-hours, water availability, and agricultural yields that are provided as inputs to GCAM-USA. GCAM-USA reproduces the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 GHG emissions trajectories consistent with each climate projection, using dynamic carbon prices to achieve RCP4.5. When the four climate projections are combined with the two SSP projections, the resulting eight scenarios allow GCAM-USA to explore how a wide, yet plausible, range of climate and socioeconomic impacts affects the interconnected energy, water, and land systems across the contiguous United States. Technical Details IM3 uses a version of GCAM-USA v5.3 that has an enhanced electricity sector and an updated data system needed to represent regional to local scale dynamics.

IM3↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2022

IM3 SELECT Urbanization Data

IM3 SELECT Urbanization Data Urban fraction is provided in TIF files projected on the WGS84 datum at coarse (1/8 degree) and downscaled (1km) resolutions across the globe for each of three Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios corresponding to SSP2, SSP3, and SSP5; and each of two population scenarios corresponding to the default population scenario and an updated population scenario with more detailed projections for the United States. The population projections are provided as CSV files. Folder structure: default_population population urban_fraction coarse SSP2 SSP3 SSP5 downscaled SSP2 SSP3 SSP5united_states_updated_population population urban_fraction coarse SSP2 SSP3 SSP5 downscaled SSP2 SSP3 SSP5 Urban fraction data was produced using the SELECT model v1.0.0 (Gao, J. & O'Neill, B.C. 2019). Default population data derived from Gao, J. & O'Neill, B.C. 2020. Original model outputs produced using the default population data are available from Gao, J. 2020. Updated United States population data derived from Zoraghein, H. & O'Neill, B.C. 2020. Other SELECT input files available at Gao, J. & O'Neill, B.C. 2022.

McManamay, Ryan↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected U.S. Western Interconnection Grid Stress Dataset

This dataset provides projected grid stress and reliability results (including all model inputs and outputs from GO WEST and TEP) for Integrated Multisector, Multiscale Modeling (IM3) Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the U.S. Western Interconnection through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States from a set of Thermodynamic Global Warming (TGW) simulations. These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 GO WEST is an open-source power grid modeling framework for the U.S. Western Interconnection, which allows users to tailor the model depending on their research study and science questions. It covers 28 balancing authorities (BAs) and 12 states in U.S. Western Interconnection. GO WEST allows users to select different number of nodes and come up with a simplified network by utilizing 10,000 nodal topology of the U.S. Western Interconnection (ACTIVSg10k). Users can select different number of nodes, mathematical formulations (linear programming vs. mixed-integer linear programming), transmission line limit scaling factors, and hurdle rate scaling factors. GO WEST offers a unit commitment and economic dispatch (UC/ED) module to simulate grid operations on an hourly scale. In this sense, users can calibrate and validate their model versions by comparing model outputs to historical datasets. TEP is an open-source transmission capacity expansion model, built on the GO WEST framework. It utilizes linear programming to optimize transmission capacity addition investment on existing lines within the GO WEST framework. The TEP model only increases the thermal capacity of existing transmission lines and does not add new lines to the system, which leaves the topology preserved. In order to use TEP model, users need to create scenarios with the GO WEST framework. Please refer to README file for a detailed description of the dataset including individual files and references.

Capacity Expansion Model↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Data Center Driven Grid Stress Dataset for the U.S. Western Interconnection

This dataset provides projected grid stress and reliability results (including all model inputs and outputs from an open-source grid operations modeling framework - GO), for the Integrated Multisector, Multiscale Modeling (IM3) project, under varying levels of data center demand growth between 2025 and 2035 in the U.S. Western Interconnection. The scenarios and sensitivity experiments are combinations of different data center demand growth rates and energy, weather, population and economic pathways. Data center demand growth projections were sourced from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The data center demand growth projection names are: Low (3.71% annual data center demand growth) Moderate (5% annual data center demand growth) High (10% annual data center demand growth) Higher (15% annual data center demand growth) Energy, weather, population and economic pathways are informed by two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) and two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) following the hotter general circulation model (GCM) forcing group from a set of perturbed thermodynamics simulations. The resulting pathway names are: rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 The main scenarios and sensitivity experiments are detailed below. Reference scenario: The projected grid stress and reliability results for the U.S. Western Interconnection from a previous study. This scenario does not consider data center demand growth explicitly. Data center scenario: Building on the reference scenario, this scenario considers various data center growth rates and how they impact the U.S. Western Interconnection. Data center loads are modeled as flat 8760-hr profiles. This scenario does not consider new generation and transmission capacities specifically designed to meet the new data center demands. The related folder is named "flat". Delayed generator retirements sensitivity experiment: Building on the data center scenario, this experiment explores the impact of different levels of natural gas and nuclear generator retirement delays. The resulting scenario names are: (1) postponing 100% nuclear retirements; (2) postponing 100% nuclear and 25% natural gas retirements; (3) postponing only 50% natural gas retirements; (4) postponing 100% nuclear and 50% natural gas retirements; (5) postponing 100% nuclear and 75% natural gas retirements; and (6) postponing 100% nuclear and 100% natural gas retirements. The related folder names are: no_gen_retire_0_gas, no_gen_retire_25_gas, no_gen_retire_50_gas, no_gen_retire_50_gas_only, no_gen_retire_75_gas, and no_gen_retire_100_gas. Demand response through curtailment sensitivity experiment: Building on the data center scenario, this experiment explores the impact of different participation and compensation levels of data center demand response. The resulting scenario names are: (1) 5% demand available for curtailment with 750 $/MWh compensation; (2) 5% demand available for curtailment with 500 $/MWh compensation; (3) 5% demand available for curtailment with 250 $/MWh compensation; (4) 15% demand available for curtailment with 750 $/MWh compensation; (5) 15% demand available for curtailment with 500 $/MWh compensation; and (6) 15% demand available for curtailment with 250 $/MWh compensation. The related folder names are: dr_cost_250_drup_0_drdown_5, dr_cost_250_drup_0_drdown_15, dr_cost_500_drup_0_drdown_5, dr_cost_500_drup_0_drdown_15, dr_cost_750_drup_0_drdown_5, and dr_cost_750_drup_0_drdown_15. Combination of delayed generator retirements and demand response through curtailment sensitivity experiment: The impact of combining postponing 100% nuclear and 25% natural gas retirements with 5% demand available for curtailment with 750 $/MWh compensation is simulated. The related folder is named "dr_cost_750_drup_0_drdown_5_nuc_100_gas_25". Please refer to the README file for a detailed description of the dataset including individual files and references.

Artificial Intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2023

IM3 GO WEST Parameter Search Dataset

GO WEST is an open-source power grid modeling framework for U.S. Western Interconnection, which allows users to tailor the model depending on their research study and science questions. It is developed to address weather and water dynamics, and associated vulnerabilities in this bulk power system. It covers 28 balancing authorities (BA) and 12 states in U.S. Western Interconnection. GO WEST allows users to select different number of nodes and come up with a simplified network by utilizing 10,000 nodal topology of U.S. Western Interconnection created by Texas A&M University. Users can try and select different number of nodes, mathematical formulations (linear programming vs. mixed-integer linear programming), transmission line limit scaling factors, and hurdle rate scaling factors. GO WEST offers a unit commitment and economic dispatch (UC/ED) module to simulate grid operations on an hourly scale. In this sense, users can calibrate and validate their model versions by comparing model outputs to historical datasets. Therefore, GO WEST can help researchers to strike a balance between model fidelity (i.e. accuracy) and computational complexity (i.e. runtime). This dataset includes model inputs and outputs from 600 model versions for each 2019, 2020, and 2021. The folder naming convention is as follows: Exp{Number of Nodes}_{Mathematical Formulation}_{Transmission Line Limit Scaling Factor in MW}_{Hurdle Rate Scaling Factor in %}_{Year}. Linear programming is designated with "simple" label whereas mixed-integer linear programming is designated with "coal" label. For example, "Exp100_simple_1000_50_2019" folder contains inputs and outputs from 2019 model version with 100 nodes, linear programming, +1000 MW transmission line limit scaling factor, and +50% hurdle rate scaling factor. GO WEST GitHub repository hosts all raw datasets, processing scripts, and model scripts. Please refer to the README file for a detailed description of the included files.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Phase 2 Official Simulations: GCAM-Demeter-SELECT Annualized Land Use and Land Cover, Wood Harvest and Fertilization Data with Dynamic Urbanization Harmonized to CLM Land Definitions at 0.125 Degrees

Annualized land use land cover data, including wood harvest and fertilizer use data from the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) downscaled to 0.125 degrees for couping with the Community Land Model (CLM). GCAM here refers to GCAM-USA v5.3.im3 which has an enhanced electricity sector and an updated data system needed to represent regional to local scale dynamics. Data is also harmonized with future urbanization projections from the Spatially-Explicit, Long-term, Empirical City developmenT (SELECT) model. Projections/Data are generated using the demeter land use and land cover downscaling model. Original projections were generated at 0.05 degrees before being aggregared to 0.125 degrees. Projections are available for 8 alternative scenarios. Two versions of final data are included- one with managed forests or harvested forest area per pixel broken out and one with the same aggregated into total forests. Following folders are included: demeter_78_PFT_output:This is the final output of dynamic land use land cover change for 78 PFTs as required by CLM raw_outputs_incl_managed_forest: This is the final output but with managed forests broken out as a different PFT. Essentially a 79th PFT is added. wood_harvest_outputs: Wood harvest output per pixel in gC/m2 fertilization_outputs: Fertilizer use per pixel in gN/m2 Each NetCDF file in each folder represents a projection for a separate year, scenario. Land use outputs are organized as PFT level data saved as subdata. Link to GCAM version used- https://data.msdlive.org/records/yb23g-44274 Link to SELECT documentation -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815219301707 Link to CLM documentation- - https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/clm In case of questions contact- kanishka.narayan@pnnl.gov

GCAM-USA↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 + EPRI Data Center Load Projections

This dataset contains scenarios of hourly total electricity demand with and without projected loads from data centers over the period 2022-2040. The root projections without data center demands are identical to those documented in Burleyson et al. 2024. In short, those projections encompass hourly electricity demands for 54 Balancing Authorities (BAs) in the United States across a range of eight of weather and socioeconomic scenarios. Refer to the root dataset and accompanying publication, Burleyson et al. 2025, for information about how those projections were generated. For this derivative dataset we used the base loads from the following scenarios: rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 The root load projections did not reflect the drastic expansion of data centers that has occurred in the last several years to support artificial intelligence and cloud computing. To reflect growth in data center demand, a second set of load projections were created in which we layered in additional data center load projections based on the data center load growth scenarios described in a 2024 report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI): "Powering Intelligence: Analyzing Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Energy Consumption". The EPRI projections from the report are included in this dataset (EPRI_2024_Projections.xlsx). That report contained annual state-level data center load projections for four year-over-year growth rates for data center demands: Low (3.71% annual growth) Moderate (5% annual growth) High (10% annual growth) Higher (15% annual growth) To homogenize the load projections with and without data centers we had to get them to a common scale. The first step was to take the EPRI annual state-level data center energy consumption values and convert them to 8760-hr loads for each year. We did that by assuming a flat (e.g., not weather- or time-sensitive) load profile and distributing the data center loads in each state evenly across all hours in a year. From there the loads were downscaled from the state-level to the county-level using 2019 county-level populations as weights. Finally, the county-level hourly data center loads were summed to the BA-level using the county-to-BA mapping underpinning the root load projections. The net result is 16 (4 weather and socioeconomic scenarios crossed with 4 data center load growth scenarios) unique load projections for the period 2022-2040. The file format follows that of the root dataset with a single additional column "Scaled_TELL_BA_Load_with_DC_MWh" that contains the hourly loads with the added data center loads for a given BA-year-scenario combination. Please refer to the readme file in the root dataset for more information on the file format.

Burleyson, Casey [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2022

When Do Different Scenarios of Future Electricity Demand Start to Meaningfully Diverge?

Climate and population change are known to influence electricity demand, but what is the impact of uncertainty in climate and population projections on electricity demand in the United States (U.S.) over the next 30 years? This question has important implications for investment decisions in the energy sector, which are typically made using a 15- to 30-year time horizon. Simply put, if future climate and population scenarios do not lead to meteorological conditions and subsequent energy demands that are distinctly different within the first 30 years then, for the purposes of investment decisions, it may not matter which potential pathway we are most likely on. The Integrated, Multisector, Multiscale Modeling (IM3) project has generated a wide, yet plausible range of 21st century high-resolution climate and population scenarios for the U.S. The IM3 projections span two climate scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 and 8.5) and two population scenarios (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 3 and 5). For each of the climate scenarios, we reflect a range of climate model uncertainty by using boundary conditions from a set of climate models that are hotter and colder than the multi-model mean. In total there are eight (2 x 2 x 2) IM3 scenarios. This work explores a basic question: When do future climate and energy outcomes start to meaningfully diverge across the eight scenarios? The analysis is done on both the raw meteorology time-series from each scenario as well as a time-series of projected total electricity demand generated using IM3's Total ELectricity Loads (TELL) model. We also explore the spatial heterogeneity of the divergence signal to identify regions of the country that may be more or less path dependent.

Climate Change↗