Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “state 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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Check the Storage Stack: Comparing Behind-the-Meter Energy Storage State Policy Stacks in the United States

A variety of studies and disparate datasets track state energy storage polices, but these datasets do not cover all BTM-related storage policy. Moreover, these databases do not align these policies with the policy stacking framework. Thus, it is unclear what BTM storage policies are adopted across the country, what should comprise a complete storage policy framework or stack, and how states policies compare against that stack. This report addresses this gap in the literature by developing a state policy stack for BTM battery storage that we compare across all fifty states. This first-of-its-kind BTM storage policy stack includes 11 parent policy categories, and 31 associated policies divided across the market preparation, creation, and expansion policy components.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

State Energy Offices’ Engagement in Electric Distribution Planning to Meet State Policy Goals

NASEO and Berkeley Lab released a new publication on State Energy Offices’ Engagement in Electric Distribution Planning to Meet State Policy Goals. State and Territory Energy Offices develop plans, programs, policies, and projects that have a substantial impact on electric distribution systems. They also can participate in distribution system planning (DSP) processes to help ensure that utilities – consumer- and investor-owned – meet the state’s future energy needs. This paper recognizes the wide spectrum of roles that State Energy Offices can play in DSP processes, including planning for distributed energy resources and grid modernization. It highlights various examples of non-regulatory activities by State Energy Offices including planning, conducting studies, convening stakeholder processes, and implementing programs that inform and contribute to distribution system planning. It also provides examples of State Energy Offices’ engagement in proceedings before their respective public utility commissions. As State Energy Offices face myriad challenges associated with meeting state policy goals, preparing for anticipated rates of distributed energy resource deployment, addressing concerns regarding grid reliability and resilience, and recommending and making long-term investment decisions, the examples provided through this guide can serve as a resource in navigating those challenges.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

State Policies and Programs for Community Solar

The purpose of this dataset is to summarize current community solar policies and related stipulations by state in the United States. The dataset is updated multiple times per year. The current version is the first file located below. Previous versions of the dataset published before August of 2024 can be found in the dataset below labeled “ARCHIVE_State Policies and Programs for Community Solar_Before 08.24.“ This list has been reviewed, but errors may exist, and the list may not be comprehensive. NLR invites input to update or add to the database. Please submit updates, additions, and corrections to Jenna Harmon (Jenna.Harmon@nlr.gov) and Sonja Berdahl (sonja.berdahl@nlr.gov).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

DEPRECATED - State Policies and Programs for Community Solar (2024 Q3 Update)

This data set is no longer current – The most current data and all historical data sets can be found at https://data.nlr.gov/submissions/249 The purpose of this dataset is to summarize current community solar policies and low-income stipulations by state in the United States as of June 2024. The "State_Program" sheet summarizes the key policy details for each state. This list has been reviewed, but errors may exist, and the list may not be comprehensive. NREL invites input to update or add to the database. To submit updates, additions, or corrections please find contact information on the current data set page linked above.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Inclusive Shared Solar: The State Policy Landscape and Select Community Solar Project Profiles

This report provides an overview of the LMI community solar landscape to help State Energy Offices, LIHEAP offices, and other key stakeholders understand and take advantage of opportunities to expand the reach and impact of community solar programs. It discusses common LMI community solar policy and program considerations and profiles four projects in three different states to show how state policy decisions can impact community solar program design and implementation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

DEPRECATED - State Policies and Programs for Community Solar (2022)

This data set is no longer current – The most current data and all historical data sets can be found at https://data.nlr.gov/submissions/249 The purpose of this dataset is to summarize current community solar policies and low-income stipulations by the state in the United States as of December 2022. The "State_Program" sheet summarizes the key policy details for each state. This dataset is associated with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication "Expanding Solar Access: State Community Solar Landscape (2022)." https://www.nlr.gov/docs/fy23osti/84247.pdf This list has been reviewed, but errors may exist, and the list may not be comprehensive. NREL invites input to update or add to the database. Please submit updates, additions, or corrections please find contact information on the current data set page linked above.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

DEPRECATED - State Policies and Programs for Community Solar (2024 Q2 Update)

This data set is no longer current – The most current data and all historical data sets can be found at https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/249 The purpose of this dataset is to summarize current community solar policies and low-income stipulations by the state in the United States as of April 2024. This list has been reviewed, but errors may exist, and the list may not be comprehensive. NREL invites input to update or add to the database. To submit updates, additions, or corrections please find contact information on the current data set page linked above.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

State Policies on Access to Vaccination Services for Low-Income Adults

Importance State vaccination benefits coverage and access for adult Medicaid beneficiaries vary substantially. Multiple studies have documented lower vaccination uptake in publicly insured adults compared with privately insured adults. Objective To evaluate adult Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to adult immunization services through review of vaccination benefits coverage in Medicaid programs across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants A public domain document review with supplemental semistructured telephone survey was conducted between June 1, 2018, and June 14, 2019, to evaluate vaccination services benefits in fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements for adult Medicaid beneficiaries in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (total, 51 Medicaid programs). Exposures Document review of benefits coverage for adult immunization services and supplemental survey with validation of document review findings. Main Outcomes and Measures Benefits coverage for adult Medicaid beneficiaries and reimbursement amounts for vaccine purchase and administration. Results Public domain document review was completed for all 51 jurisdictions. Among these, 44 Medicaid programs (86%) validated document review findings and completed the survey. Only 22 Medicaid programs (43%) covered all 13 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices–recommended adult immunizations under both fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements. Most fee-for-service arrangements (37 of 49) reimbursed health care professionals using any of the 4 approved vaccine administration codes; however, 8 of 49 programs did not separately reimburse for vaccine administration to adult Medicaid beneficiaries. Depending on administration route, median reimbursement for adult vaccine administration ranged from $\$9.81$ to $\$13.98$ per dose. Median per-dose reimbursement for adult vaccine purchase was highest for 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine ($\$204.87$) and lowest for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine ($\$18.09$). Median reimbursement was below the private sector price for 7 of the 13 included vaccines. Conclusions and Relevance Even in programs with complete vaccination benefits coverage, reimbursement amounts to health care professionals for vaccine purchase and administration may not fully cover vaccination provision costs. Reimbursement amounts below costs may reduce incentives for health care professionals to vaccinate low-income adults and thereby limit Medicaid adult beneficiary access to vaccination.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Cataloging US state policy patterns towards microgrid deployment

Frequent extreme weather events have called for rigorous and timely efforts for alternative non-wire solutions. These efforts are getting more widespread to offer a perfect alternative as the conventional grid becomes progressively less resilient. One of these solutions is microgrids that can disconnect from the grid and offer grid resilience during an outage. While this technology is still finding its footing in the industry, states across the US are employing policy patterns and forms of instruments to support its deployment. This study includes a systemic review of the US by conducting a binary analysis of all 50 states (including Washington D.C, excluding other US territories) using seven variables. The results show four major policy approaches to microgrids: i) supporting microgrids through a definitive legislative activity leading to further policy action; ii) direct efforts from the public utilities commissions without a concrete legislative push; iii) initiatives from institutions other than the commissions; and lastly, iv) self-initiated community and private consumer efforts. The results help understand what policy instruments are being used in each of these patterns to support this niche technology that still faces regulatory challenges.

Furqan, Maham↗
DOE OSTI2021

History of Ethanol Fuel Adoption in the United States: Policy, Economics, and Logistics

Ethanol has the achieved the greatest market share of all the alternative transportation fuels that have been researched, developed, and deployed in the US. There are multiple lessons to be learned from the history of ethanol adoption that can be applied to future fuels and products. Ethanol has replaced portions of gasoline in three main blend levels, with corresponding vehicles, equipment, benefits, and policies. The first is E10, which has replaced nearly all pure gasoline (E0) sold in the United States today (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2015). This was brought about through generations of policies that were motivated by multiple factors related to engine performance, energy security, health, air quality, and climate protection. Ethanol's high octane has been a consistent driver of the fuel because this enables higher performance engines. Early policies (1973-1979) were largely motivated by the desire to reduce dependence on petroleum sourced from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. Fuel policy in the 1980s was largely in pursuit of promoting octane number enhancers that could replace lead. Criteria pollutant reduction was the overarching goal of actions taken from 1990 to 2005. From 2005 to the present, fuel policy has been largely motivated by energy security and climate protection goals. These policies were usually technology-agnostic and promoted multiple fuels and additives during each period. However, ethanol is the only fuel identified that is cost effective with qualities that enabled it to prosper in the policy environments of all four of these periods.The second market for ethanol is via 85% ethanol (E85). This fuel has the advantage of a greater concentration of ethanol but the disadvantage of not being compatible with regular gasoline vehicles. Instead, it can only be used in flexible-fuel vehicle (FFVs), which can use every blend level from E0 to E85. Therefore, much of the effort to increase E85 consumption has been aimed at incentivizing automakers to manufacture FFVs, drivers to purchase FFVs, and fueling stations to equip themselves to sell E85.The third, and newest, market through which ethanol is consumed is 15% ethanol (E15), which builds upon the E10 market to increase ethanol consumption by common gasoline vehicles. Efforts to create the E15 market consisted largely of testing vehicles and refueling equipment for compatibility, creating waivers to allow the use of E15, placing requirements on E15 retailers, and incentivizing retailers to equip themselves to purchase E15.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Advancing Electric System Resilience with Distributed Energy Resources: A Review of State Policies

Severe weather, cyber-attacks, geomagnetic disturbances, and other hazards and threats have caused or have the potential to cause substantial levels of damage to electricity infrastructure and the global economy. Growth in distributed energy resources (DERs) and increasing attention to the resilience of the electric grid - its ability to "anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover" from disruptions, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, 2018) - have created an opportunity for energy stakeholders to develop and deploy "resilient DERs," resources in the distribution grid that improve the ability of a customer, critical facility, and/or the distribution system in general to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from disruptions. This paper explores how existing state regulations intersect with resilience and highlights opportunities where state regulators can employ DERs to advance resilience.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

The prospective impacts of 2019 state energy policies on the U.S. electricity system

Over the past several years state energy policies have been evolving rapidly, and are more frequently including higher targets, including 100% clean energy targets. This study assesses the aggregate impacts of state clean energy standards and emissions policies on national electricity generation, power sector carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, and electricity prices and system costs. To do so, we apply the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, which is a detailed electric sector capacity expansion model, to evaluate scenarios with and without state policies and using a range of renewable energy technology cost projections. Across the scenarios analyzed, we find that the state policies drive 1.9%–10.7% of total nationwide clean energy and reduce cumulative power sector CO 2 emissions by 2.6%–5.4% over the 2020–2050 study period. This incremental generation is predominantly, but not exclusively, from renewable energy technologies. In most cases, the state policies result in increases to electricity prices and electricity system costs, and policy costs are sensitive to the future cost of clean energy technologies. Across all scenarios, the levelized cost of incremental policy-driven clean energy generation is estimated to be $17–38/MWh and the average cost of CO 2 abatement from the state-level policies is estimated to be $29–74/metric ton.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

A comparative analysis of US state-level policies and programs to advance energy justice

Abstract The US energy system is undergoing massive changes that have environmental, technological, and societal implications. Decisions and actions taken now will dramatically alter the trajectory of our future energy system. Though new technologies can lessen the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, an effective and sustainable transition requires addressing social justice issues as a priority. To this end, many states have implemented policies and programs that address energy justice. A formal survey of state-level energy justice policies and programs is needed to better understand the methods used to assist communities targeted and the impacts of these efforts. Such an analysis should include an analysis of the metrics used to judge the effectiveness of the enacted policies and programs. In this paper, we analyze the energy justice policies and programs of seven different US states. From this analysis, we identify three important aspects of state energy policies. First, most policies and programs do not articulate their goals, nor cite metrics to judge their successes. This lack of transparency and accountability is a major roadblock to truly just solutions. Second, states focus on a very narrow range of solutions for energy justice issues. The most prevalent being utility bill assistance, which does not address the systemic and enduring challenges faced by many low-income or historically marginalized communities. Lastly, comprehensive energy policy does not acknowledge and address housing, employment, education, and healthcare inequities that exacerbate energy system inequities. The work presented in this paper sheds light on the progress of state-level energy justice policies and programs across the United States, and we argue more work needs to be done to understand best practices in energy justice policymaking.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

State Microgrid Policy, Programmatic, and Regulatory Framework

The purpose of this framework is to provide a resource for PUCs and State Energy Offices as they develop policies, regulations, and programs to support microgrids. Through shared understanding of the roles of these different entities, the framework aims to foster productive collaboration to support microgrid development.

Jones, Kelsey↗
DOE OSTI2025

Rooftop Solar Deployment, Potential Electricity Rate Impacts, and the Timing of Revisions to State Net Metering Policy

Most U.S. states require utilities to credit residential solar photovoltaic (PV) output at the retail electricity rate, a structure known as net metering. However, 12 states have replaced net metering with alternative rate structures that reduce PV adopter bill savings. The share of households living in states that require net metering fell from around 84% in 2014 to around 57% by the end of 2023. Proponents of net metering revisions have argued that net metering can affect the electricity rates of customers without PV. This report analyzes the relationships between state PV deployment levels, potential electricity rate impacts on PV nonadopters, and the timing of revisions to net metering policy.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluating Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the U.S. Power System

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, commonly referred to as the 'Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),' collectively represent the largest commitment of the U.S. Federal Government to invest in the modernization and decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that total support for the broad range of climate and clean energy programs, tax credits, and other incentives authorized through the two laws will exceed $430 billion from 2022 through 2031 (CRS 2022; CBO 2021, 2022). While the climate and clean energy provisions are numerous and have the potential to impact all aspects of the U.S. energy system from fuel and electricity production to final consumption in industry, transportation, and buildings, the provisions relevant to the electricity sector - in particular the suite of tax credits for clean generation, storage, and carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) capture and storage - are expected to be some of the most consequential in terms of emissions reduction and clean energy deployment (Larsen et al. 2022; Jenkins, Mayfield, et al. 2022; Mahajan et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2022). In this report, we detail the methods and results of a study estimating the potential impacts of key provisions of IRA and BIL on the contiguous U.S. power sector from present day through 2030. The analysis employs an advanced power system planning model, the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), to evaluate how major provisions from both laws impact investment in and operation of utility-scale generation, storage, and transmission, and, in turn, how those changes impact power system costs, emissions, and climate and health damages. While not exhaustive in capturing every provision, the analysis estimates the possible scale of power-sector impacts that could result from the modeled provisions in IRA and BIL. The study is structured around two scenarios to evaluate the potential impacts of both laws on the power sector: 1) No New Policy: A counter-factual scenario that reflects all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, with exception to IRA and BIL, and assumes load growth consistent with the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (AEO22) Reference case (EIA 2022a); 2) IRA-BIL: A scenario reflecting all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, including key IRA and BIL provisions, most notably the investment and production tax credits for zero-carbon emitting electricity generation and storage (ITC and PTC), the tax credit for CO 2 capture and storage (45Q), and the tax credit for existing nuclear plants (described further in Section 2.3). To account for the impacts of IRA and BIL on electrification, assumes increased load growth consistent with a scaled version of the Medium Electrification scenario from the Electrification Futures Study (Mai et al. 2018). These scenarios are simulated across seven sets of assumptions with varying projected future electricity market conditions, including technology costs and performance, natural gas prices, and the degree of availability, feasibility, and cost of development of renewable resources, electricity transmission, and CO 2 pipeline, injection, and storage infrastructure. In addition, we simulate two sensitivities on the 'policy' treatment in which we vary key assumptions pertaining to the realized value of the clean electricity ITC and PTC: 1) the cost of monetization of tax credits, and 2) the level of bonus crediting realized by project developers. We demonstrate that IRA and BIL have the collective potential to drive substantial growth in clean electricity by 2030, while reducing costs for consumers, mitigating climate change, and decreasing the human health impacts of power sector emissions. However, we also demonstrate that if expected cost improvements of clean technologies are not realized and/or constraints on deployment driven by factors such as supply-chain challenges, regulatory hurdles, and the social acceptability of energy infrastructure development limit the rate of clean energy and associated infrastructure deployment (such as transmission), then the share of clean generation achieved and the associated emissions benefits realized may be substantively reduced.

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↗