Search

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of potential grid modernization solutions is integral to integrated distribution system planning (IDSP). This report synthesizes and updates prior cost-effectiveness approaches identified by the U.S. Department of Energy for grid modernization investments, incorporating multi-objective decision-making. The structure of the report follows the IDSP process, from identifying objectives and priorities to prioritizing grid solutions. The report details two methods for conducting initial cost-effectiveness screening of individual and interdependent grid components: (1) Lowest Reasonable Cost and (2) Benefit-Cost Analysis. Drawing on solutions that passed the initial cost-effectiveness screen, the utility prioritizes grid solutions based on policy objectives and priorities, regulatory compliance, operational efficiencies, and other factors to develop a portfolio of distribution solutions. The utility uses multi-objective decision-making to assess each proposed expenditure against each objective and respective metric. The utility applies a weighting factor, reflecting the priority ranking of the objective, to the total numerical “score” based on the contribution of the proposed solution to addressing each objective. Ultimately, the utility ranks each expenditure from highest to lowest priority using the final score for each solution as well as its cost. The report includes examples of emerging best practices for states and utilities and a cost-effectiveness process checklist.

A growing number of states require regulated utilities to file resilience plans to improve the electric grid’s ability to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from increasingly severe weather events. This report aims to help state regulators identify and request data, metrics, and analyses from utilities and use it in decisions on utility resilience plans and investments. The report reviews state requirements and utility plans focused on overall grid resilience, climate change resilience and vulnerabilities, infrastructure modernization, storm protection, and wildfire mitigation. It details types of data, metrics, and analyses across five categories--and provides examples of each from the utility plans. The first category is vulnerability assessments, or evaluations of the susceptibility of systems, communities, or assets to potential harm from identified hazards. The second is data on hazards and the exposure of utility assets and customers to these hazards. The third is attribute metrics, or system characteristics that contribute to or describe the resilience of a system. The fourth is performance metrics, which are impacts of resilience investments on system performance--typically a reduction of negative impacts from hazard events. Finally, evaluation and prioritization are analyses that utilities conduct to estimate impacts from resilience measures (evaluation) and prioritize measures based on costs and estimated impacts (prioritization). The report concludes with examples of key trends and emerging best practices for states and utilities, and identifies areas for further research.

This report explores connections between six common areas for state action on energy-related issues — resilience, economic development, energy affordability, electrifying transportation, grid modernization, and using local resources — and reducing air emissions. Although clean air often is not a driver for such state actions, they nonetheless reduce a variety of emissions, including particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The study spans 15 geographically diverse states: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. While these states have not adopted mandatory climate goals, they conduct a wide range of energy-related activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants as a side benefit.

Electric utilities conduct planning annually to ensure their distribution system meets technical standards, policies, and regulations; addresses forecasted grid conditions; satisfies customer needs; and advances utility priorities. The plan identifies grid deficiencies, analyzes potential solutions, and prioritizes capital investments and other expenditures. About 20 U.S. states and jurisdictions require regulated utilities to file some type of distribution system plan with the public utility commission for review. Requirements for sharing distribution system data and analyses vary widely, from few specific requirements to a detailed list of information that must be provided.While utilities conduct extensive analysis to develop distribution system plans, in most jurisdictions regulators and stakeholders do not know what data are available and how the utility uses the data in planning and investing. This report aims to bridge the gap by increasing understanding of the types of data and analyses utilities employ to develop distribution system plans and how the information affects their decision-making. The report describes information that states and stakeholders can ask for related to 11 data categories:-Forecasting loads and distributed energy resources (DERs)-Scenario analysis-Worst-performing circuits-Asset management strategy-Hosting capacity analysis-Value of DERs-Grid needs assessment-Cost-effectiveness framework for investments-Distribution system investment strategy and implementation-Geotargeted programs-Non-wires alternatives procurement

Utilities have conducted distribution planning since they first began building and operating electricity systems. But filing these plans for regulatory and stakeholder review is a relatively recent phenomenon. This report summarizes legislative and regulatory requirements for regulated electric utilities to file some type of distribution system plan in 20 U.S. jurisdictions. Some plans focus on expedited cost recovery for certain types of distribution system improvements; other plans focus on investments for grid modernization or distributed energy resources. Increasingly, states are adopting requirements for Integrated Distribution Plans. Such plans provide holistic grid investment strategies that address state and local policies and increasing complexity at the grid edge. The report covers the following topics for distribution system plans, highlighting advanced practices:-State goals and objectives-Procedural requirements-Forecasting loads and distributed energy resources-Hosting capacity analysis-Baseline information requirements-Grid modernization strategy-Grid needs assessment-Non-wires solutions-Reliability and resilience analyses-Stakeholder engagement-Equity-Pilots-Coordination with other planning processes The report includes links to legislation; regulatory requirements, proceedings, and orders; and filed utility plans. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity provided funding support.

Most states today require regulated electric utilities to file an IRP every 1 to 5 years, and some utilities voluntarily prepare these plans. Planning needs have changed in recent years due to emerging load growth, plant retirements, rising costs, and more extreme weather events – among other factors. In response, Synapse Energy Economics and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory produced a joint report, Best Practices in Integrated Resource Planning: A guide for planners developing the electricity resource mix of the future. The guide offers best planning practices for electricity systems undergoing a major transition, but also contains a wealth of practical guidance to develop technically sophisticated, clearer, more effective, and state-of-the-art electric utility resource plans.The guide is for resource planning professionals and stakeholders involved in resource planning processes. This diverse group includes utility personnel tasked with conducting resource planning and making investment decisions, state regulatory commissions that develop planning guidance and oversee the resource planning process, and stakeholders that represent a wide range of interests—utility consumer advocates, environmental groups, industrial customers, local governments, independent power producers, and many other

As of June 2024, 14 states and one city require jurisdictional electric utilities to file resilience plans. Drawing on these requirements and filed plans, this report offers a standard template that states and utilities can consider to improve utility filings for grid resilience plans, either as part of a distribution system plan or as a separate filing. Key elements include a vulnerability assessment, description of proposed resilience programs, and projected costs and rate impacts. While many of these requirements and plans focus on extreme weather hazards, the template also can be used to address additional threats, including cyber and physical attacks and seismic events.

This Berkeley Lab Technical Brief summarizes key considerations for electric service equipment and utility infrastructure to support residential customer electrification and adoption of distributed energy resources such as photovoltaic solar and energy storage.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provided technical assistance to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff to examine how Duke Energy’s Integrated System Operations Planning (ISOP) framework interacts with other electricity planning processes in South Carolina. While this report was prepared for the South Carolina ORS, the information contained herein may be useful to audiences in other states who are interested in IDP, including public utility commissions, state energy offices, other state agencies, utilities, and stakeholders. The report discusses how to access the ISOP process diagram created for the report, provides observations about Duke Energy’s ISOP from our interviews and review of publicly available materials; and assesses ISOP, based on best practices for integrated distribution planning.

Avoided energy and capacity costs are the primary yardstick utilities use to determine which energy efficiency programs are cost-effective for their customers. But sometimes "non-energy impacts" — not commonly recognized as directly associated with energy generation, transmission and distribution — represent substantial benefits, such as improving comfort, air quality and public health.Considering whether and how to include non-energy impacts is an important part of cost-benefit analyses for these programs. This report offers practical considerations for deciding which non-energy impacts to include and how to apply values or methods from other jurisdictions.Researchers reviewed studies quantifying non-energy impacts used in 30 states and applied a five-point system to indicate transferability of a value or method from each study for 16 categories of non-energy impacts:Water resource costs and benefitsOther fuels costs and benefitsAvoided environmental compliance costsEnvironmental impactsProductivityHealth and safety Asset valueEnergy and/or capacity price suppression effectsAvoided costs of compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standard requirementsAvoided credit and collection costsAvoided ancillary servicesComfortEconomic development and job impactsPublic health impactsEnergy security impactsIncreased reliabilityThe U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.

This paper identifies likely drivers of building efficiency over the next ten years and expectations for how efficiency markets may evolve over this period. To prepare these predictions, we conducted an extensive literature review, interviewed 22 experts, reviewed legislation and executive orders in 12 states, and implemented a detailed questionnaire completed by 41 efficiency practitioners. The two most important drivers revealed by our research are (1) public policies and regulations, particularly those associated with climate change mitigation and adaptation and (2) the cost of energy relative to the cost of delivering efficiency. Other important drivers are technology changes, economic conditions, social priorities, and industry (including utility) business practices for increasing the uptake of efficiency in buildings. Our research indicates that efficiency markets will increasingly focus on supporting building decarbonization and enabling demand flexibility through the use of controls in grid-interactive efficient buildings and communities. Efficiency improvements for specific technologies (e.g., heat pumps, controls, and windows) and technological advances not specific to energy technologies (e.g., interoperability, artificial intelligence, and universal internet access) will improve the efficacy of efficiency measures and actions. Marketing of efficient products and services will increasingly focus on grid services, decarbonization, non-energy benefits for consumers, and integration with other distributed energy resources (DERs). We anticipate increased investment in disadvantaged and historically underserved communities, recognizing the social, health, and safety benefits of efficient energy usage and remediating historical biases. Lastly, we predict that while state and local government actions will vary, jurisdictions will increase their efficiency goals overall.

This report outlines a three-stage progression of the distribution system to accommodate increasing levels of distributed energy resources and electrification, including both technical and institutional considerations.

Utilities have conducted IRP for decades to consider both supply- and demand-side resources to meet bulk power system needs. More recently, an increasing number of states are requiring regulated utilities to file plans that identify distribution system needs, including DERs that can avoid or defer certain types of traditional utility investments cost-effectively. Price-based demand response (DR) is an underutilized resource that could substantially contribute to load flexibility. We find that evaluation of price-based DR as a solution to meet identified electricity system needs is uncommon at both planning processes. Where price-based DR is considered as a solution, methodologies are often deficient in the characterization and treatment of this resource. Based on our analysis of utility filings and state requirements, this brief provides recommendations for improving consideration of price-based DR in the context of long-term planning for bulk power and distribution systems.

This slide deck report identifies objectives and key indicators for state activities that advance demand flexibility in buildings — legislation, utility regulatory proceedings, executive orders and programs. It also illustrates progress to date and identifies trends, gaps, and opportunities. Part I of the report focuses on (1) demand response and (2) energy efficiency targeted to reduce peak demand or integrate with demand response. This section covers building energy codes, appliance and equipment standards, resource standards, utility planning, utility programs, advanced metering infrastructure and meter data, rate design, state programs, state energy planning, and related state policies and regulations. Part II of the report addresses traditional energy efficiency indicators, including utility and state programs, codes, and standards that support annual energy savings. See the additional links for an infographic, library of cited state documents on demand flexibility, and presentation to the NASEO-NARUC Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings Working Group.

This slide-deck report identifies drivers of energy efficiency in buildings over the next 10 years, for all fuels. The report also provides insights on what the future of efficiency may look like in that time period and considers other distributed energy resources, as well as decarbonization and demand flexibility, to the extent they are intertwined with efficiency activities. Understanding market drivers and possible future market attributes for energy efficiency can help policy makers, regulators and industry make informed decisions—for example, how best to design policies and investments to support desired outcomes.

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.

Technology classrooms provide a valuable educational environment; however, they may also create distractions for students different from a regular classroom. Distractions can result from activities students do themselves or they can be caused by other students in the classroom. Where students sit in the classroom can also have an impact. Students in the back of the classroom report more distractions from texting and online gaming. Students who are more distracted indicate it is harder to pay attention in a lab classroom as opposed to a regular classroom. Distractions, especially texting, have a negative impact on the learning environment which reduces a student's ability to learn important technology and research skills. Finally, distractions show a negative association with overall course grade.

IntroductionWe examined the relationship between current tobacco use and functionally important respiratory symptoms.MethodsLongitudinal cohort study of 16 295 US adults without COPD in Waves 2-3 (W2-3, 2014-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Exposure-Ten mutually exclusive categories of tobacco use including single product, multiple product, former, and never use (reference). Outcome-Seven questions assessing wheezing/cough were summed to create a respiratory symptom index; cutoffs of ≥2 and ≥3 were associated with functional limitations and poorer health. Multivariable regressions examined both cutoffs cross-sectionally and change over approximately 12 months, adjusting for confounders.ResultsAll tobacco use categories featuring cigarettes (>2/3's of users) were associated with higher risk (vs. never users) for functionally important respiratory symptoms at W2, for example, at symptom severity ≥ 3, risk ratio for exclusive cigarette use was 2.34 [95% CI, 1.92, 2.85] and for worsening symptoms at W3 was 2.80 [2.08, 3.76]. There was largely no increased symptom risk for exclusive use of cigars, smokeless tobacco, hookah, or e-cigarettes (adjustment for pack-years and marijuana attenuated the cross-sectional e-cigarette association from 1.53(95% CI 0.98, 2.40) to 1.05 (0.67, 1.63); RRs for these products were also significantly lower compared to exclusive use of cigarettes. The longitudinal e-cigarette-respiratory symptom association was sensitive to the respiratory index cutoff level; exclusive e-cigarette use was associated with worsening symptoms at an index cutoff ≥ 2 (RR = 1.63 [1.02, 2.59]) and with symptom improvement at an index cutoff of ≥ 3 (RR = 1.64 [1.04, 2.58]).ConclusionsPast and current cigarette smoking drove functionally important respiratory symptoms, while exclusive use of other tobacco products was largely not associated. However, the relationship between e-cigarette use and symptoms was sensitive to adjustment for pack-years and symptom severity.ImplicationsHow noncigarette tobacco products affect respiratory symptoms is not clear; some studies implicate e-cigarettes. We examined functionally important respiratory symptoms (wheezing/nighttime cough) among US adults without COPD. The majority of adult tobacco users smoke cigarettes and have higher risk of respiratory symptoms and worsening of symptoms, regardless of other products used with them. Exclusive use of other tobacco products (e-cigarettes, cigars, smokeless, hookah) was largely not associated with functionally important respiratory symptoms and risks associated with their use was significantly lower than for cigarettes. The association for e-cigarettes was greatly attenuated by adjustment for cigarette pack-years and sensitive to how symptoms were defined.

BackgroundHeavier body mass index (BMI) is the most established predictor of earlier age at puberty. However, it is unknown whether the timing of the childhood switch to heavier BMI (age at BMI rebound) also matters for puberty.MethodsIn the LEGACY Girls Study (n = 1040), a longitudinal cohort enriched with girls with a family history of breast cancer, we collected paediatric growth chart data from 852 girls and assessed pubertal development every 6 months. Using constrained splines, we interpolated individual growth curves and then predicted BMI at ages 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 years for 591 girls. We defined age at BMI rebound as the age at the lowest BMI between ages 2 and 8 years and assessed its association with onset of thelarche, pubarche and menarche using Weibull survival models.ResultsThe median age at BMI rebound was 5.3 years (interquartile range: 3.6-6.7 years). A 1-year increase in age at BMI rebound was associated with delayed thelarche (HR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83-0.97) and menarche (HR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.79-0.94). The magnitude of these associations remained after adjusting for weight between birth and 2 years, was stronger after adjusting for BMI at age 9, and was stronger in a subset of girls with clinically assessed breast development.ConclusionsEarlier BMI rebound is associated with earlier pubertal timing. Our observation that BMI rebound may be a driver of pubertal timing in girls with and without a family history of breast cancer provides insight into how growth and pubertal timing are associated with breast cancer risk.

Grid reliability and resilience are foundational to meeting electricity needs and have significant economic and societal impacts. Energy efficiency can help meet grid reliability objectives and improve resilience, but metrics and methods used today may not fully recognize these benefits. This paper explains how existing planning processes for bulk power and distribution systems capture the impact of energy efficiency on power system reliability and resilience, with illustrative examples. We identify limitations in using existing reliability and resilience metrics to quantify efficiency and other distributed energy resource (DER) benefits. The paper concludes with opportunities for regulators and utilities to enhance planning practices to better capture the reliability and resilience value of energy efficiency and identifies research needs.

Efficient, connected, grid-interactive, smart, and flexible buildings are key to decarbonizing the U.S. energy economy, optimizing energy use, reducing electric consumers’ bills, integrating variable renewable energy resources, and improving the reliability and performance of the nation’s electricity grids. Such grid-interactive efficient buildings have high levels of energy efficiency layered with other distributed energy resources (DERs) and intelligent controls to provide demand flexibility. Policy support is unfolding at the federal, state, and local levels to transform homes and workplaces into state-of-the-art energy-efficient buildings and community-level grid services. This paper starts by describing the potential benefits. Next, it highlights existing policies — with a focus on state-level actions — that support grid-interactive efficient building deployment and demand flexibility. Finally, it identifies current trends and gaps, policies and programs that promote grid-interactive efficient buildings, and aggregations of grid-interactive efficient buildings referred to as Virtual Power Plants.

Traditional reliability and emerging resilience metrics may not fully recognize benefits from distributed energy resources (DERs) such as energy efficiency. This technical brief explains how existing planning processes for bulk power and distribution systems capture the impact of energy efficiency on power system reliability and resilience with illustrative examples. We identify limitations in using existing reliability and resilience metrics to quantify efficiency and other DER benefits. The brief concludes with a discussion of opportunities to enhance current planning practices to better capture the reliability and resilience value of energy efficiency.

Avoided energy and capacity costs are the primary yardstick utilities use to determine which energy efficiency programs are cost-effective for their customers. But sometimes "non-energy impacts" — not commonly recognized as directly associated with energy generation, transmission and distribution — represent substantial benefits, such as improving comfort, air quality and public health.Considering whether and how to include non-energy impacts is an important part of cost-benefit analyses for these programs. This report offers practical considerations for deciding which non-energy impacts to include and how to apply values or methods from other jurisdictions.Researchers reviewed studies quantifying non-energy impacts used in 30 states and applied a five-point system to indicate transferability of a value or method from each study for 16 categories of non-energy impacts:Water resource costs and benefitsOther fuels costs and benefitsAvoided environmental compliance costsEnvironmental impactsProductivityHealth and safety Asset valueEnergy and/or capacity price suppression effectsAvoided costs of compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standard requirementsAvoided credit and collection costsAvoided ancillary servicesComfortEconomic development and job impactsPublic health impactsEnergy security impactsIncreased reliabilityThe U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.

The purpose of this study is to validate the seven-item wheezing module from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Children (ISAAC) in the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Adult participants with complete Wave 2-3 data were selected, including those with asthma but excluding those with COPD and other respiratory diseases (n = 16,295). We created a nine-point respiratory symptom index from the ISAAC questions, assessed the reliability of the index, and examined associations with self-reported asthma diagnosis. Threshold values were assessed for association with functional outcomes. The weighted prevalence for one or more respiratory symptom was 18.0% (SE = 0.5) for adults without asthma, 70.1% (SE = 1.3) for those with lifetime asthma, 75.7% (SE = 3.7) for adults with past-year asthma not on medications, and 92.6% (SE = 1.6) for those on medications. Cronbach's alpha for the respiratory symptom index was 0.86. Index scores of ≥2 or ≥3 yielded functionally important respiratory symptom prevalence of 7-10%, adequate sensitivity and specificity for identifying asthma, and consistent independent associations with all functional outcomes and tobacco use variables. Respiratory symptom index scores of ≥2 or ≥3 are indicative of functionally important respiratory symptoms and could be used to assess the relationship between tobacco use and respiratory health.

This report focuses on ways current methods and practices that establish the value to electric utility systems of distributed energy resource (DER) investments can be enhanced to determine the value of demand flexibility in grid-interactive efficient buildings that can provide grid services. The report introduces key valuation concepts that are applicable to demand flexibility that these buildings can provide and links to other documents that describe these concepts and their implementation in more detail.The scope of this report is limited to the valuation of economic benefits to the utility system. These are the foundational values on which other benefits (and costs) can be built. Establishing the economic value to the grid of demand flexibility provides the information needed to design programs, market rules, and rates that align the economic interest of utility customers with building owners and occupants. By nature, DERs directly impact customers and provide societal benefits external to the utility system. Jurisdictions can use utility system benefits and costs as the foundation of their economic analysis but align their primary cost-effectiveness metric with all applicable policy objectives, which may include customer and societal (non-utility system) impacts.This report suggests enhancements to current methods and practices that state and local policymakers, public utility commissions, state energy offices, utilities, state utility consumer representatives, and other stakeholders might support. These enhancements can improve the consistency and robustness of economic valuation of demand flexibility for grid services. The report concludes with a discussion of considerations for prioritizing implementation of these improvements.

This report describes grid-interactive efficient buildings in the context of state and local government interests; highlights trends, challenges and opportunities for demand flexibility; provides an overview of valuation and performance assessments for demand flexibility; and outlines actions that state and local governments can take, in concert with utilities, regional grid operators, and building owners, to advance demand flexibility.

This report focuses on potential DER benefits for distribution systems, primarily in their role as non-wires alternatives to defer, mitigate, or eliminate the need for some traditional system investments at locations where distribution capacity is insufficient to meet expected future needs. It describes approaches and tools to estimate the locational value of DERs. The report includes 24 case studies to illustrate how states and utilities are considering the locational value of DERs.

In recent years, many electric utilities have submitted grid modernization plans for review by state public utility commissions. A central objective of these plans is to demonstrate that grid modernization investments will provide net benefits to customers, be reasonable and be in the public interest. The plans typically include some form of benefit-cost analysis, but the assumptions, methodologies and frameworks vary considerably between utilities.This report:-Describes utility-facing technologies and projects for modernizing distribution systems, including interdependencies of grid components-Highlights benefit-cost considerations related to grid modernization-Summarizes recent trends in benefit-cost analysis for grid modernization based on a review of 21 plans by U.S. electric utilities-Discusses challenges state public utility commissions face in reviewing utility plans and provides options for addressing challenges

Stressful environments have been associated with earlier menarche. We hypothesized that anxiety, and possibly other internalizing symptoms, are also associated with earlier puberty in girls. The Lessons in Epidemiology and Genetics of Adult Cancer From Youth (LEGACY) Girls Study (2011-2016) included 1,040 girls aged 6-13 years at recruitment whose growth and development were assessed every 6 months. Prepubertal maternal reports of daughter's internalizing symptoms were available for breast onset (n = 447), pubic hair onset (n = 456), and menarche (n = 681). Using Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated prospective hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between 1 standard deviation of the percentiles of prepubertal anxiety, depression, and somatization symptoms and the timing of each pubertal outcome. Multivariable models included age, race/ethnicity, study center, maternal education, body mass index percentile, and family history of breast cancer. Additional models included maternal self-reported anxiety. A 1-standard deviation increase in maternally reported anxiety in girls at baseline was associated with earlier subsequent onset of breast (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 1.36) and pubic hair (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.30) development, but not menarche (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.07). The association of anxiety with earlier breast development persisted after adjustment for maternal anxiety. Increased anxiety in young girls may indicate risk for earlier pubertal onset.

A growing number of corporations and cities have adopted a goal to meet all of their annual electricity needs with renewable energy sources. Some have already achieved that goal and are exploring new ways to match their consumption more closely with real-time electricity production from these sources.Utilities are taking innovative approaches to serve these customer interests while protecting nonparticipants.Renewable Energy Options for Large Utility Customers presents perspectives from a utility, a large corporate customer, and cities that buy renewable energy. The report explores ways utilities can help large customers achieve their own renewable energy goals, implications of various utility program options, and ways to mitigate any negative impacts or risks.

Electricity systems are designed to meet peak demand — the maximum load during a specified period, typically in summer — even if that demand occurs only a few hours in a year. Yet most evaluations of electricity efficiency programs focus on reductions in annual energy use. However, these efficiency programs are also delivering peak demand savings at an affordable cost.A new study by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) explores the program administrator (PA) cost – or the cost to implement an energy efficiency program to a utility or third party administrator – of saving peak demand through efficiency programs for electric utility customers. Berkeley Lab collected data on costs, annual energy savings, and peak demand savings for electricity efficiency programs for 52 utilities and other program administrators in 15 states between 2014 and 2018. The analysis focused on eight program types that represent 68% of the peak demand savings for the utilities and program administrators studied. The findings improve our understanding of which energy efficiency programs produce the most peak demand savings and their cost performance.

This SEE Action Network report explains basic concepts and fundamental considerations for assessing the actual demand flexibility performance of buildings participating in demand flexibility programs and responding to time-varying retail rates. Demand flexibility is the capability of distributed energy resources (DERs) to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Assessments determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided. The results can be used for financial settlements and to improve performance of demand flexibility, support its consideration in resource potential studies and electricity system planning, and contribute to cost-effectiveness evaluations.While practitioners and regulators regularly find opportunities to improve performance assessments of demand-related services, to a large degree current best practices are sufficient for basic service offerings as demand flexibility is implemented today. However, advances in assessment practices will be required in a future with grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) that provide continuous demand flexibility by integrating multiple DERs and flexibility modes (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate). Example practices include using new baseline constructs—including whether baselines are even required for certain building flexibility modes or configurations, deploying more advanced metering and analytics, further developing cybersecurity standards, improving communication standards for increased interoperability, and establishing performance metrics and assessment procedures for load modulation as it is more fully defined and implemented.This report provides information on prioritizing and designing performance assessment elements for demand flexibility programs and time-varying retail rates, assessment protocols, and research and development needs. Additional research sponsored by DOE’s Building Technologies Office offers more detailed technical information on assessing performance of demand flexibility, including definition of performance metrics.

This study estimates the cost of saving a therm of natural gas from energy efficiency programs funded by utility customers during the period 2012 to 2017. Berkeley Lab researchers compiled and analyzed efficiency program data reported by investor-owned utilities and other program administrators in a dozen states representative of the four U.S. Census regions — Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah. Depending on the year, the dataset accounts for about 50 percent to 70 percent of annual national spending on natural gas efficiency programs. The estimated cost of saving natural gas during the study period is $0.40 per therm. The analysis also includes estimates of the program administrator cost of saved energy for three core sectors for natural gas: commercial and industrial, residential, and low-income households. It aggregates these sectors to provide regional and national values. Our metrics include savings-weighted averages, unweighted medians, and interquartile ranges (25th and 75th percentiles) of the levelized program administrator cost of saving gas, in constant 2017 dollars. In addition, the study analyzes cost trends during the study period, finding that average program costs trended downward.The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.

This report describes grid-interactive efficient buildings in the context of state and local government interests; highlights trends, challenges and opportunities for demand flexibility; provides an overview of valuation and performance assessments for demand flexibility; and outlines actions that state and local governments can take, in concert with utilities, regional grid operators, and building owners, to advance demand flexibility.

This report focuses on ways current methods and practices that establish the value to electric utility systems of distributed energy resource (DER) investments can be enhanced to determine the value of demand flexibility in grid-interactive efficient buildings that can provide grid services. The report introduces key valuation concepts that are applicable to demand flexibility that these buildings can provide and links to other documents that describe these concepts and their implementation in more detail.The scope of this report is limited to the valuation of economic benefits to the utility system. These are the foundational values on which other benefits (and costs) can be built. Establishing the economic value to the grid of demand flexibility provides the information needed to design programs, market rules, and rates that align the economic interest of utility customers with building owners and occupants. By nature, DERs directly impact customers and provide societal benefits external to the utility system. Jurisdictions can use utility system benefits and costs as the foundation of their economic analysis but align their primary cost-effectiveness metric with all applicable policy objectives, which may include customer and societal (non-utility system) impacts.This report suggests enhancements to current methods and practices that state and local policymakers, public utility commissions, state energy offices, utilities, state utility consumer representatives, and other stakeholders might support. These enhancements can improve the consistency and robustness of economic valuation of demand flexibility for grid services. The report concludes with a discussion of considerations for prioritizing implementation of these improvements.

This study develops projections of future spending and savings from electricity efficiency programs funded by electric utility customers in the United States through 2030 based on three scenarios. Our analysis relies on detailed bottom-up modeling of current state energy efficiency policies, demand-side management and integrated resource plans, and regulatory decisions. The three scenarios represent a range of potential outcomes given the policy environment at the time of the study and uncertainties in the broader economic and state policy environment in each state. We project spending to increase to $8.6 billion in 2030 in the medium scenario, about a 45 percent increase relative to 2016 spending. In the high case, annual spending increases to $11.1 billion in 2030 and remains relatively flat in the low case ($6.8 billion in 2030). Our analysis suggests that electricity efficiency programs funded by utility customers will continue to impact load growth significantly at least through 2030, as savings as a percent of retail sales are forecast at 0.7 percent in the medium scenario and 0.98 percent in the high scenario.

Authorship of a scientific paper is important in recognition of one's work, and in the academic setting, helps in professional promotion. Conflicting views of authorship have led to disputes and debates in many scientific communities. Addressing ethical issues in medical research and publishing, and conforming to the requirements of international organizations and local research ethics boards (REBs), has become an essential part of the research endeavor. Ethical issues of biomedical authorship have been a matter of debate for years. Authorship problems may involve problems with integrity, including ghost authorship and guest authorship. Some scientific disciplines, such as engineering or social sciences, may not have a firm guideline for authorship criteria; however this article reviews the criteria of authorship recommended by related international organizations of biomedical field and discusses common scenarios that may lead to authorship disputes and misconducts as well as issues related to authorship in multicenter studies. The paper also discusses possible scenarios that might be legitimate to make changes in authorship lists.