ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS AND

INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

**EA.1 INTRODUCTION**  **................................................................................................EA­2**

**EA.2 METHODOLOGY**  **...............................................................................................EA­2**

**EA.3 RESULTS**  **.............................................................................................................EA­4**

**REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................EA­5** 

**EA­i**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT

LAMPS AND INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

EA.1 INTRODUCTION

**The U.S.**  **Department of**  **Energy (DOE)**  **will conduct**  **an environmental**  **assessment**

**as part**  **of the**  **Notice of**  **Public Rulemaking**  **(NOPR) for**  **general service**  **fluorescent lamps** 

**(GSFL) and**  **incandescent reflector**  **lamps (IRL).**  **DOE will**  **assess these**  **environmental**

**effects by**  **using a**  **variant of**  **the U.S.**  **DOE/Energy Information**  **Administration (EIA)’s** 

**National Energy**  **Modeling System**  **(NEMS) known**  **as NEMS­BT**  **to provide**  **key inputs** 

**to the**  **analysis. The**  **environmental assessment**  **produces results**  **in a**  **manner similar**  **to**

**those provided**  **in the**  AEO

**.**

**The primary**  **environmental effects**  **of energy**  **conservation standards**  **for GSFL** 

**and IRL**  **would be**  **reduced power**  **plant emissions**  **resulting from**  **reduced electricity** 

**consumption. The**  **intent of**  **the environmental**  **assessment is**  **to provide**  **emissions results** 

**estimates, and**  **to fulfill**  **requirements to**  **properly quantify**  **and consider**  **the environmental** 

**effects of**  **all new**  **Federal rules.**  **The environmental**  **assessment that**  **will be**  **produced by** 

**NEMS­BT considers**  **only two**  **pollutants (SO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**X )**  **and two**  **other emissions**  **(carbon**

**and mercury).**  **The form**  **of carbon**  **the NEMS­BT**  **model tracks**  **is CO**  **2**

**. Therefore,**  **the**

**carbon discussed**  **in this**  **analysis is**  **only in**  **the form**  **of CO**  **2**

**. For**  **each of**  **the trial**  **standard**

**levels, DOE**  **will calculate**  **total undiscounted**  **and discounted**  **power plant**  **emissions using** 

**NEMS­BT.**

EA.2 METHODOLOGY

**DOE will**  **conduct each**  **environmental assessment**  **performed in**  **this rulemaking** 

**as an**  **incremental policy**  **impact (i.e.,**  **a standard**  **for the**  **products under**  **evaluation, in**  **this**

**case fluorescent**  **and incandescent**  **lamps) of**  **the** AEO2007 **forecast, applying**  **the same** 

**basic set**  **of assumptions**  **used in**  AEO2007

**. For**  **example, the**  **emissions characteristics**  **of**

**an electricity**  **generating plant**  **will be**  **exactly those**  **used in**  AEO2007

**. Also,**  **forecasts**

**conducted with**  **NEMS­BT consider**  **the supply­side**  **and demand­side**  **effects on**  **the**

**electric utility**  **industry. Thus,**  **the analysis**  **will account**  **for any**  **factors affecting**  **the type** 

**of electricity**  **generation and,**  **in turn,**  **the type**  **and amount**  **of airborne**  **emissions**

**generated by**  **the utility**  **industry.**

**The NEMS­BT**  **model tracks**  **carbon emissions**  **with a**  **specialized carbon** 

**emissions estimation**  **subroutine, producing**  **reasonably accurate**  **results due**  **to the**  **broad**

**coverage of**  **all sectors**  **and the**  **inclusion of**  **interactive effects.**  **Past experience**  **with**

**carbon results**  **from NEMS**  **suggests that**  **emissions estimates**  **are somewhat**  **lower than** 

**emissions based**  **on simple**  **average factors.**  **One of**  **the reasons**  **for this**  **divergence is**  **that**

**NEMS tends**  **to predict**  **that conservation**  **displaces generating**  **capacity in**  **future years.** 

**On the**  **whole, NEMS­BT**  **provides carbon**  **emissions results**  **of reasonable**  **accuracy, at**  **a**

**level consistent**  **with other**  **Federal published**  **results.**

**EA­2 NEMS­BT**  **also reports**  **SO 2**  **and NO** 

**X ,**  **which DOE**  **has reported**  **in past**  **analyses.**

**The Clean**  **Air Act**  **Amendments of**  **1990 (P.L.**  **101­549) set**  **an SO**  **2 emissions**  **cap on**  **all**

**power generation.**  **The attainment**  **of this**  **target, however,**  **is flexible**  **among generators** 

**through the**  **use of**  **emissions allowances**  **and tradable**  **permits. Although**  **NEMS includes** 

**a module**  **for SO**  **2 allowance**  **trading and**  **delivers a**  **forecast of**  **SO 2**  **allowance prices,** 

**accurate simulation**  **of SO**  **2 trading**  **implies that**  **physical emissions**  **effects will**  **be zero** 

**because emissions**  **will always**  **be at**  **or near**  **the ceiling.**  **However, there**  **may be**  **an SO**  **2**

**benefit from**  **energy conservation**  **in the**  **form of**  **a lower**  **SO 2**  **allowance price.**  **Since the** 

**impact of**  **any one**  **standard on**  **the allowance**  **price is**  **likely small**  **and highly**  **uncertain,**

**DOE does**  **not plan**  **to monetize**  **the SO**  **2 benefit.** 

**NEMS­BT also**  **has an**  **algorithm for**  **estimating NO** 

**X emissions**  **from power** 

**generation. The**  **impact of**  **these emissions,**  **however, will**  **be affected**  **by the**  **Clean Air** 

**1 Interstate**  **Rule (CAIR),**  **which the**  **EPA issued**  **on March**  **10, 2005. CAIR**  **will**

**permanently cap**  **emissions of**  **NO X**  **in 28**  **Eastern states**  **and the**  **District of**  **Columbia. 70** 

**FR 25162**  **(May 12,**  **2005). As**  **with SO**  **2 emissions,**  **a cap**  **on NO**  **X emissions**  **means that** 

**product energy**  **conservation standards**  **may have**  **no physical**  **effect on**  **these emissions.** 

**When NO**  **X emissions**  **are subject**  **to emissions**  **caps, DOE’s**  **emissions reduction**  **estimate**

**corresponds to**  **incremental changes**  **in the**  **prices of**  **emissions allowances**  **in cap­and** 

**trade emissions**  **markets rather**  **than physical**  **emissions reductions.**  **Therefore, while**  **the**

**emissions cap**  **may mean**  **that physical**  **emissions reductions**  **will not**  **result from** 

**standards, standards**  **could produce**  **an environmental­related**  **economic benefit**  **in the** 

**form of**  **lower prices**  **for emissions**  **allowance credits.**  **However, as**  **with SO**  **2 allowance** 

**prices, DOE**  **does not**  **plan to**  **monetize this**  **benefit because**  **the impact**  **on the**  **NO X** 

**allowance price**  **from any**  **single energy**  **conservation standard**  **is likely**  **small and**  **highly**

**uncertain.**

**With regard**  **to mercury**  **emissions, NEMS­BT**  **has an**  **algorithm for**  **estimating**

**these emissions**  **from power**  **generation, and,**  **as it**  **has done**  **in the**  **past, DOE**  **is able**  **to**

**report an**  **estimate of**  **the physical**  **quantity of**  **mercury emissions**  **reductions associated** 

**with an**  **energy conservation**  **standard. DOE**  **assumed that**  **these emissions**  **would be** 

**subject to**  **EPA’s Clean**  **Air Mercury**  **Rule (CAMR),**  **which would**  **permanently cap** 

**emissions of**  **mercury for**  **new and**  **existing coal­fired**  **plants in**  **all States**  **by 2010.**  **Similar**

**to SO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**x ,**  **DOE assumed**  **that under**  **such system,**  **energy conservation**  **standards**

**would result**  **in no**  **physical effect**  **on these**  **emissions, but**  **would be**  **expected to**  **result in** 

**an environmental­related**  **economic benefit**  **in the**  **form of**  **a lower**  **price for**  **emissions**

**allowance credits.**  **DOE’s plan**  **for addressing**  **analysis does**  **not include**  **monetizing the** 

**benefits of**  **reduced mercury**  **emissions, because**  **DOE considered**  **that valuation**  **of such** 

**impact from**  **any single**  **energy conservation**  **standard would**  **likely be**  **small and**  **highly**

**uncertain.**

**On February**  **8, 2008,**  **the U.S.**  **Court of**  **Appeals for**  **the District**  **of Columbia** 

**Circuit (D.C.**  **Circuit) issued**  **its decision**  **in State**  **of New**  **Jersey,** et al. **v. Environmental** 

**2 Protection**  **Agency**

**, in**  **which the**  **Court, among**  **other actions,**  **vacated the**  **CAMR**

**EA­3 referenced**  **above. Accordingly,**  **DOE is**  **considering whether**  **changes are**  **needed to**  **its**

**plan for**  **addressing the**  **issue of**  **mercury emissions**  **in light**  **of the**  **D.C. Circuit’s**  **decision.**

**With regard**  **to particulates,**  **these emissions**  **are a**  **special case**  **because they**  **arise**

**not only**  **from direct**  **emissions, but**  **also from**  **complex atmospheric**  **chemical reactions** 

**that result**  **from NO** 

**x and**  **SO 2**  **emissions. DOE**  **does not**  **intend to**  **analyze or**  **report on**  **the**

**particulate emissions**  **from power**  **stations because**  **of the**  **highly complex**  **and uncertain** 

**relationship between**  **particulate emissions**  **and particulate**  **concentrations that**  **impact air** 

**quality.**

EA.3 RESULTS

**The results**  **for the**  **environmental assessment**  **are similar**  **to a**  **complete NEMS**  **run**

**as published**  **in the**  AEO2007

**. These**  **results include**  **power­sector emissions**  **for SO**  **2 ,**  **NO**

**X ,**  **mercury and**  **carbon in**  **5­year forecasted**  **increments extrapolated**  **to 2042.**  **The**

**outcome of**  **the analysis**  **for each**  **CSL is**  **reported as**  **a deviation**  **from the**  AEO2007

**reference (base)**  **case.**

**EA­4 2**  REFERENCES

**1 U.S.**  **Environmental Protection**  **Agency. Rule**  **To Reduce**  **Interstate Transport**  **of Fine** 

**Particulate Matter**  **and Ozone**  **(Clean Air**  **Interstate Rule);**  **Revisions to**  **Acid Rain** 

**Program; Revisions**  **to the**  **NO X**  **SIP Call,**  **Final Rule.**  Federal Register

**. 2005.**  **70(91):**

**pp. 25162­25210.** 

**No. 05­1097,**  **2008 WL**  **341338, at**  ***1 (D.C.**  **Cir. Feb.**  **8, 2008).** 

**EA­5**