A modeling framework integrating both building energy modeling and power system modeling is introduced for the design of net zero energy (NZE) districts for the simultaneous selection of both demand-side efficiency measures and supply-side generation technologies. A novel district control scheme is proposed for pursuing NZE on a subhourly basis while mitigating potential grid impacts such as power backfeeding and voltage violations. As a case study, Peña Station NEXT, a new 100-building, mixed-use district on a 1200-node distribution feeder in Denver, Colorado, is modeled in the integrated framework. An exhaustive scenario analysis is conducted for sizing the district's distributed energy resources, considering multiple objectives such as capital cost, net energy import, and equipment violations. When trying to achieve annual NZE, the district incurs frequent operating violations, and achieving NZE on a 15-min basis is also limited by seasonal fluctuations in photovoltaic output, illustrating the need for diverse generation or seasonal storage. As a practical compromise, both annual and 15-min district import can be reduced by ∼78% without significant violations.

In accordance with requirements set forth in the terms of the CRADA agreement, this document is the final CRADA report, including a list of subject inventions, to be forwarded to the DOE Office of Science and Technical Information as part of the commitment to the public to demonstrate results of federally funded research.

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of a political election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of an election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs, and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.