CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

16.1 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................ 16-1 16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

......................................................................................... 16-1 16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions

................................................................................ 16-1 16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation

....................................................................................... 16-3 16.2.3 Analytical Methods fo r Air Emissions

.............................................................. 16-7 16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions

..................................................................... 16-8 16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions

...................................................... 16-9 16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

............................................................................................. 16-9 16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

..................................................................................... 16-10 16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

................................................................... 16-10 16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS

.......................................................................................... 16-10 16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

........................................................ 16-11 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................... .... 16-13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 16.2.1 Summary of Emissi ons Reductions by Trial Standa rd Levels for Beverage Vending Machines (cumulative reductions, 2012–2042)

.................................. 16-6
Table 16.2.2 Emissions Forecast for AEO2009 Reference Case

............................................ 16-8 Table 16.2.3 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Pollutants as a Percentage of Direct Power Plant Combusti on Emissions

.................................................................. 16-9 Table 16.4.1 Mean Life-Cycle Cost Sa vings for All Customers and Sub-Group, Beverage Vending Machines

........................................................................... 16-10 Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class A Beverage Vending Machine Equipment

.......................................................................... 16-11 Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class B Beverage Vending Machine Equipment

.......................................................................... 16-11

16-i BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docCHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

16.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes potential environmen tal effects that may result from energy conservation standards for refrigerated bevera ge vending machines. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s proposed energy conservation standa rds are not site-specifi c and would apply to all 50 states and U.S. territories. Therefore, none of the proposed sta ndards would impact land uses, cause any direct disturbanc e to the land, or directly affect biological resources in any one

area.
All of the trial standard levels (TSLs) ar e expected to reduce energy consumption in comparison to the baseline efficiency levels. Thes e changes in the demand for electricity and the costs of achieving these savings are the primary drivers in analyzing environmental effects. Estimates of source energy savings can be found in the utility impact anal ysis in chapter 14 of this technical support document (T SD). Detailed discussion on TSLs can be found in chapter 9 of this TSD.

The primary impact of the TSLs is in air quality resulting from changes in power plant operations and capacity additions. Therefore, much of this chapter describes the air quality analysis, and the latter part describes potential impacts to other environmental resources.

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

The primary focus of the environmental analys is is the impact on air quality of energy conservation standards for beverage vending machine equipment. The outcomes of the environmental analysis are driven by changes in power plant types and qu antities of electricity generated under each of the alternatives. Changes in generation are described in the utility impact analysis in TSD chapter 14.

16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions

For each of the TSLs, DOE calculated total power-sector emissions based on output from the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)-B uilding Technologies (BT) model (see TSD chapter 14). This analysis considers three criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), and mercury (Hg). An air pollutant is a ny substance in the air that can cause harm to humans or the environment. Pollutants may be natural or man-made ( i.e. , anthropogenic) and may take the form of solid particles ( i.e. , particulates or particulate matter), liquid droplets, or gases. More information on air pollution characteris tics and regulations is available on the U.S. Environment Protection Agent (EPA)’s website, www.epa.gov . This analysis also considers carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from power plants.

16.2.1.1 Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide is formed when fossil fuels (nat ural gas, oil, coal) are burned in electric generating stations and from other industrial co mbustion processes that use fossil fuels. In addressing SO 2 emissions, the Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO 2 emissions cap on all affected el ectric generating units. The attain ment of the emissions cap is

16-1 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docflexible among generators and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Thus, DOE is not certain th at there will be reduced overall SO 2 emissions from the standards. However, to the extent reduced power generation demand decreases the demand for and price of emissions allowance permits, there would be an environmentally related economic benefit from the proposed energy conservation standards reducing SO 2 emissions allowance demand. Furthermore, over time, if emissions declin e, there is greater flex ibility in reducing the ceiling amount. However, since DOE does not anticipate a nontrivial change in SO 2 emissions, these results are not reported in this chapter.

16.2.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides are the generi c term for a group of highly r eactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in va rying amounts. Many of these NO x are colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NO 2 is the specific form of NO x reported in this document. NO x is one of the main ingredient s involved in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigge r serious respiratory problems . It can contribute to the formation of acid rain, and can impair visibi lity in areas such as national parks. NO x also contributes to the formation of fine pa rticles that can impair human health.

Nitrogen oxides form when fossil fuel is bur ned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NO x are motor vehicles, electr ic utilities, and other industrial, commercial, a nd residential sources that burn fossil fuels. Nitrogen oxides can also be formed naturally. Electric utilitie s account for about 22 percent of NO x emissions in the United States.

16.2.1.3 Mercury

Coal-fired power plants emit Hg present in coal during the burning process. While coalfired power plants are the largest remaining s ource of human-generated Hg emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool or to contamination of U.S. waters. U.S. coal-fired power plants emit Hg in th ree different forms: oxidized Hg (likely to be deposited within the continental United States); elemental Hg, which can travel thousands of miles before depositing to land and water; and Hg that is in part iculate form. Atmospheric Hg is then deposited on land, lakes, rivers, and estuar ies through rain, snow, and dry deposition. Once deposited, it can transform into methyl me rcury and accumulate in fish tissue through bioaccumulation.

Americans are exposed to methyl mercur y primarily by eating contaminated fish. Because the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of methyl mercury, women of childbearing age are regarded as the populat ion of greatest concer n. Children exposed to methyl mercury before birth may be at increas ed risk of poor perfor mance on neurobehavioral tasks, such as those measuring attention, fine motor function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory.

16-2 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.doc16.2.1.4 Carbon Dioxide

The EPA does not currently requi re emissions controls for CO 2 under the Clean Air Act. However, CO 2 is of interest because of its classification as a gree nhouse gas (GHG) that traps the sun’s radiation inside the Earth’ s atmosphere. GHGs occur either na turally in the atmosphere or as the result from human activities. Natu rally occurring GHGs include water vapor, CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and ozone (O 3 ). Human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. For example, CO 2 is emitted to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels, wood, and wood products are burned. During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of anthropogenic ( i.e. , human-made) CO 2 emissions resulted from burning fossil fuels.

Concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes, collectively known as the “carbon cycle.” The move ment of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural proce sses, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the anthropogenic CO 2 emissions produced each year, billions of metric tons (Mt) are added to th e atmosphere annually. In the United States, CO 2 emissions account for 84.6 per cent of total GHG emissions. 1

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 list 189 toxic air pollutants of which emissions must be reduced and that EPA is required to control ( www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/orig189.html ). EPA has set national air quality standards for six comm on air pollutants (also refe rred to as “criteria” pollutants), two of which are SO 2 and NO x . Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 gave the EPA the authority to control acidification and to require operators of el ectric power plants to reduce emissions of SO 2 and NO x . Title IV of the 1990 amendments established a cap-and-trade program for SO 2 from certain sources. The cap-and-trade program is intended to help control acid rain and serves as a model for more recent programs with similar features.

In 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) under sections 110 and 111 of the Clean Air Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51, 96, and 97; www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule ). CAIR would permanently cap emissions of SO 2 and NO x in the Eastern United States. CAIR required large reductions of SO 2 and/or NO x emissions across 28 eastern States and the Distri ct of Columbia. States must achieve the required emission reductions using one of two compliance options: (1) meet an emission budget for each regulated state by requiring power plants to participate in an EPA-administered interstate cap-and-trade system that caps emissions in two stages; or (2) meet an individual state emissions budget through measures of the state’ s choosing. Phase 1 caps for NO x are to be in place in 2009. Phase 1 caps for SO 2 are to be in place in 2010. The Phas e 2 caps for both pollutants are due in 2015. Also in 2005, EPA issued the final rule, “Sta ndards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Steam Generating Units” under sections 110 and 111 of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR parts 60, 63, 72, and 75). Referred to as the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), this rule was closely related to the CAIR a nd established standards of performance for Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired elec tric utility steam generating units beginning in 2010. The CAMR regulated mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

16-3 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docOn February 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeal s for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in State of New Jersey, et al. v. EPA

, 2 in which the Court, among other actions, vacated the CAMR referenced above.

On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals fo r the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in North Carolina v. EPA

, which vacated the CAIR issued by the EPA on March 10, 2005. 3 On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circ uit decided to allow CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a ru le consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176 (remand of vacatur). 4

16.2.2.1 Global Climate Change

Climate change has evolved into a matter of gl obal concern because it is expected to have widespread, adverse effects on natural resour ces and systems. A growing body of evidence points to anthropogenic sour ces of GHGs such as CO 2 as major contributors to climate change. Because this final rule will likely decrease CO 2 emission rates associated with beverage vending machines and are from the fossil fuel sector in the United States, DOE examines the impacts and causes of climate change and then the pot ential impact of the final rule on CO 2 emissions and global warming.

16.2.2.2 Impacts of Climate Change on the Environment

Climate is usually defined as the average we ather, over a period ranging from months to many years. Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate, which is identifiable through changes in the mean and/or th e variability of its properties ( e.g. , temperature or precipitation) over an extended perio d, typically decades or longer.

The World Meteorological Or ganization and United Natio ns Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Pa nel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide an objective source of information about climate change. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report) published in 2007, climate cha nge is consistent with observed changes to the world’s natural systems; the IPCC expects these changes to continue.

These changes are consistent with warming, including warming of the world’s oceans to a depth of 3000 meters; global average sea level rise at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year from 1961 to 2003; loss of annual average Arctic sea ice at a rate of 2.7 percent per decade, changes in wind patterns that affect extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns, increases in intense precipitation in some parts of the world, as well as increased drought a nd more frequent heat waves in many locations worldwide, and numerous ecological changes.

Looking forward, the IPCC describes contin ued global warming of about 0.2 °C per decade for the next two decades under a wide range of emission scenarios for CO 2 , other GHGs, and aerosols. After that period, the rate of in crease is less certain. The IPCC Report describes increases in average global temp eratures of about 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C at the end of the century relative to today. These increases vary dependi ng on the model and emissions scenarios.

The IPCC Report describes incremental impacts a ssociated with the rise in temperature. At ranges of incremental increases to the global av erage temperature with either “high” or “very

16-4 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.dochigh” confidence, there is likely to be an in creasing degree of impacts such as coral reef bleaching, loss of wildlife habitat, loss to spec ific ecosystems, and negative yield impacts for major cereal crops in the tropics but also projects that there li kely will be some beneficial impacts on crop yields in temperate regions.

Causes of Climate Change. The IPCC Report states that the world has warmed by about 0.74 °C in the last 100 years. The IPCC Report finds that most of the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is very likely due to th e increase in anthropogeni c concentrations of CO 2 and other long-lived GHGs such as methane and n itrous oxide in the atmosphere, rather than from natural causes.

Increasing the CO 2 concentration partially blocks the earth’s re-radiation of captured solar energy in the infrared band, inhibits the radiant cooling of the earth, and ther eby alters the energy balance of the planet, which gradually increases its average temperature. The IPCC Report estimates that currently, CO 2 makes up about 77 percent of the total CO 2 -equivalent global warming potential in GHGs emitted from human activities, with the vast majority (74 percent) of the CO 2 attributable to fossil fuel use. GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) on a global climate system due to their different radiative properties and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences may be expressed through a common metric based on the radiative forcing of CO 2 ( i.e. , CO 2 equivalent). CO 2 equivalent emission is the amount of CO 2 emission that would cause the same tim e integrated radiative forcing as an emitted amount of other long-lived GHG or mi xture of GHGs. For the future, the IPCC Report describes a wide range of GHG emissions scenarios, but under each scenario CO 2 would continue to comprise above 70 percent of the total global warming potential.

Stabilization of CO 2 Concentrations. Unlike many traditional air pollutants, CO 2 mixes thoroughly in the entire atmosphere and is long-lived. The residence time of CO 2 in the atmosphere is long compared to the emission processes. Therefore, the global cumulative emissions of CO 2 over long periods determine CO 2 concentrations because it takes hundreds of years for natural processes to remove the CO 2 . Globally, 49 billion Mt of CO 2 —equivalent of anthropogenic (man-made) GHGs are emitted every year. Of this annual total, fossil fuels contribute about 29 billion Mt of CO 2 . Other non-fossil fuel contributors include CO 2 emissions from deforestation and decay from agriculture bi omass; agricultural and industrial emissions of methane; and emissions of nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons.

Researchers have focused on considering atmospheric CO 2 concentrations that likely will result in some level of globa l climate stabilization, and the emission rates associated with achieving the “stabilizing” concentrations by part icular dates. They associate these stabilized CO 2 concentrations with temperature increases that plateau in a defined range. For example, at the low end, the IPCC Report scenarios target CO 2 stabilized concentrations range between 350 parts per million (ppm) and 400 ppm (essentially today’s value) because of climate inertia, concentrations in this low end range would still result in temper atures projected to increase 2.0 °C to 2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels (about 1.3 °C to 1.7 °C a bove today’s levels). To achieve concentrations between 350 ppm to 400 ppm, the IPCC scenarios present that there would have to be a rapid downward trend in to tal annual global emissi ons of GHGs to levels that are 50 to 85 percent below today’s annual emission rates by no later than 2050. Since it is assumed that there would continue to be growth in global populations and substantial increases in economic

16-5 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docproduction, the scenarios identify required reduc tions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit of output) of more than 90 percent. However, even at these rates, the scenarios describe some warming and some climate change is projected due to already accumulated CO 2 and GHGs in the atmosphere.

The Beneficial Impact of the Rule on CO 2 Emissions. If finalized, it is anticipated that the Rule will reduce energy-related CO 2 emission rates, particularly those associated with energy consumption in buildings. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports in its 2009 Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA 2009) that U.S. annua l energy-related emissions of CO 2 in 2007 were about 6.0 billion Mt (about 20 pe rcent of the world energy-related CO 2 emissions and about 12 percent of total global GHG emissions), of which 2.34 billion Mt were attributed to residential and commercial buildings sector (inc luding related energy-using equipment such as beverage vending machines). Most of the GHG emissions attributed to residential and commercial buildings are emitted from fossil fuel-f ired power plants that generate electricity used in this sector. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 ( AEO2009 ) Updated Reference case, 5 EIA projected that a nnual energy-related CO 2 emissions would grow fr om 6.0 billion Mt in 2007 to 6.2 billion Mt in 2030, an in crease of 4 percent (Table 16.2.1, which is based on the Updated Reference Case), while emissions attributable to electricity consumption by the commercial sector would grow from 0.87 to 1.1 billi on Mt, an increase of 25.6 percent.

Table 16.2.1 Summary of Emissions Reductions by Trial Standard Levels for Beverage Vending Machines (cumulative reductions, 2012–2042) Emissions Reductions TSLs for Class A Beverage Vending Machines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CO 2 , Mt 0.40 1.89 4.18 6.45 7.63 8.40 10.22 NO x , thousand tons, kt 0.13 0.65 1.43 2.20 2.60 2.87 3.49 Hg, tons, t Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High 0.008 0.037 0.082 0.127 0.150 0.165 0.201 Emissions Reductions TSLs for Class B Beverage Vending Machines 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA *
CO 2 , Mt 0.16 0.24 1.19 1.36 3.66 4.08 -- NO x , kt 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.46 1.25 1.39 -- Hg, t Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 -­ High 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.027 0.072 0.080 -­

* Not applicable: there is no TSL 7 for Class B equipment.
As computed for the AEO2009 Updated Reference case a nd extrapolated to 2042, the cumulative U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions from 2012–2042 are described at about 190 billion Mt. The estimated cumulative CO 2 emission reductions from a beverage vending machine efficiency standard (shown as a range of alte rnative TSLs) during this same 30-year period are indicated in Table 16.2.1. The estimated CO 2 emission reductions in Table 16.2.1 are calculated using NEMS-BT model.

The estimated savings, which are at most 0.01 percent of U.S. energy-related emissions of CO 2 (at TSL 7 for Class A beverage vending m achines and TSL 6 for Class B beverage vending machines), comprise an even smaller fraction of U.S. and wo rld emissions of GHGs. However, the savings would likely reduce the overall U.S. CO 2 emissions rate, compared to the U.S. CO 2 emissions rate absent an increase in th e energy efficiency of beverage vending machines.

16-6 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docThe Incremental Impact of th e Rule on Climate Change. It is difficult to correlate specific emission rates with atmo spheric concentrations of CO 2 and specific atmospheric concentrations with future temperatures becau se the IPCC Report describes a clear lag in the climate system between any given concentration of CO 2 (even if maintained for long periods) and the subsequent average worldwide and regi onal temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather regimes. For example, a major determinant of climate response is “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” a measure of the climate system re sponse to sustained radioactive forcing. It is defined as the global average surfac e warming following a doubling of CO 2 concentrations. The IPCC Report describes its estimated, numeric value as about 3 °C, but the likely range of that value is 2 to 4.5 °C, with cloud f eedbacks the largest sour ce of uncertainty. Further, as illustrated above, the IPCC Report scenarios fo r stabilization rates are presented in terms of a range of concentrations, which then correlates to a range of temperature changes. Thus, climate sensitivity is a key uncertainty for CO 2 mitigation scenarios that aim to meet specific temperature levels.

Because of how complex global climate systems ar e, it is difficult to know to what extent and when particular CO 2 emissions rates will impact glob al warming. However, as Table 16.2.1 indicates, the Rule will likely reduce CO 2 emissions rates from the fossil fuel sector.

16.2.3 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions

NEMS-BT incorporates capabilitie s to assess compliance with SO 2 restrictions specified in the Clean Air Act and its amendments. Cl ean Air Act provisions include New Source Performance Standards, and Re vised New Source Performance Standards. The version of NEMS-BT in 2009 also includes provisions for the CAIR, which imposes stricter restrictions on SO 2 and NO x for some states, and the CAMR, which imposed a national Hg constraint. As discussed earlier in section 16.2.2, on December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit decided to allow CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand of vacatur). Therefore, DOE established NO x emissions specified by NE MS-BT as the basis to estimate the reduction in NO x emissions in the 22 States not su bject to the cap and trade regime created by CAIR. Because the 28 States and Dist rict of Columbia covered by CAIR opted to reduce NO x emissions through participat ion in cap-and-trade program s for electric generating units, emissions from these sources are capped ac ross the CAIR region. For the 28 eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, no NO x emissions reductions will occur due to the permanent cap. Table 16.2.1 shows the NO x emission reductions calculated by TSL.

With respect to Hg, on February 8, 2008, th e D.C. Circuit issued its decision in New Jersey
, et al. v. EPA , in which the Court, among other actions, vacated the CAMR referenced above. Even though CAMR has been vacated, the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case assumes that emissions of Hg would decline over time as shown in Table 16.2.2. The NEMS-BT has only rough estimates of mercury emissions; therefore, the range of emissions used in the NOPR remained appropriate given these circumstances . Rather than using the NEMS-BT model, DOE established a range of Hg emission rates to esti mate the Hg emissions that could be reduced through standards. DOE’s low estimate assumed that future standards would displace electrical generation only from natural gas-fired power plan ts, thereby resulting in an effective emission rate of zero. (Under this scenar io, coal-fired power plant gene ration would remain unaffected.)

16-7 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docThe low-end emission rate is zero because natural gas-fired power plants ha ve virtually zero Hg emissions associated with their operation.

DOE’s high estimate was based on a nati onwide mercury emission rate from the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case. Because power pl ant emission rates are a function of local regulation, scrubbers, and the mercury content of coal, it is extremely difficult to identify a precise high-end emission rate. Therefore, the most reasonable estimate is based on the assumption that all displaced coal generation w ould have been emitting at the average emission rate for coal generation as specified by the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case. As noted previously, because virtually all mercury emitted fr om electricity generation is from coal-fired power plants, DOE based the emission rate on th e tons of mercury emitted per terra-watt hour (TWh) of coal-generated electricity due to the sta ndards considered in the utility impact analysis. Table 16.2.1 shows the estimated reduction in mercury emissions from 2012–2042. Based on the emission rate from the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case, DOE derived a high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons per TWh. To estimate the reduction in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the emission rate by the reduction in coal-generated electricity due to the standards considered in the utility impact analysis. Coal-fir ed electric generation is the sing le largest source of electricity in the United States. Because the mix of coals used significantly affects the emissions produced, the model includes a detailed representation of co al supply. The model considers the rank of the coal as well as the sulfur contents of the fuel used when determining optimal dispatch.

Within the NEMS-BT model, planning options fo r achieving emissions restrictions in the Clean Air Act Amendments include installing pollution control equipment on existing power plants and building new power plants with lo w emission rates. These methods for reducing emission are compared to dispatching options such as fuel switching and allowance trading. Environmental regulations also a ffect capacity expansion decisions . For instance, new plants are not allocated SO 2 emissions allowances according to the Clean Air Act Amendments. Consequently, the decision to build a particular capacity type must consider the cost (if any) of obtaining sufficient allowances. This could involv e purchasing allowances or over complying at an existing unit.

Modeling of SO 2 trading tends to imply that the phys ical emissions effects will be zero, as long as emissions are at the allowed ceiling. Thus, DOE is not certain that there will be reduced overall SO 2 emissions from the standards and DOE does not report SO 2 results here.

16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions

Table 16.2.2 shows the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case power plant emissions in selected years. The emissions shown by the NEMS -BT model would result if none of the TSLs is promulgated.

Table 16.2.2 Emissions Forecast for AEO2009 Reference Case NEMS-BT Results * 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CO 2 , Mt/yr ** 2,346 2,340 2,379 2,468 2,533 2,637 NO x , kt/yr 3.413 2.282 2.047 2.072 2.073 2.099 Hg, t/yr 49.03 43.74 29.68 29.16 29.13 28.76

* Emissions are from electric generation.

** Mt, equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Emissions are from all energy-related sources.

16-8 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.doc16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions

Fuel-cycle emissions refer to the emissions as sociated with the amount of energy used in the upstream production and downstream consumpti on of electricity, including energy used at the power plant. Upstream processes include the mining of coal or extraction of natural gas, physical preparatory and cleaning processes, and transportation to the power plant. The NEMSBT does a thorough accounting of emissions at the power plant due to downstream energy consumption, but does not account for upstream emissions ( i.e. , emissions from energy losses during coal and natural gas produc tion). Thus, this analysis repor ts only power plant emissions.

However, previous DOE environmental assessment documents have developed qualitative estimates of affects on upstream fu el-cycle emissions. These emissions factors provide the reader with a sense of the possible magnitude of upstream effects. These upstream emissions would be in addition to emissions from direct combustion. Relative to the entire fuel cycle, estimates based on the work of Dr . Mark DeLuchi and reported in earlier DOE environmental assessment documents find that an amount approximately equal to 8 percent by mass of emissions (including SO 2 ) from coal production are due to mining, preparation that includes cleaning the coal, and transporta tion from the mine to the power plant. 6 Transportation emissions include emissions from the fuel used by the mode of transportati on that moves the coal from the mine to the power plant.

In addition, based on Dr. DeLuchi’s work, DOE estimated that approx imately an amount equal to 14 percent of emissions from natural gas production result from upstream processes. Emission factor estimates and corresponding percen tages of contributions of upstream emissions from coal and natural gas production, relativ e to power plant emissions, are shown in Table 16.2.3 for CO 2 , and NO x . The percentages are relative to power plant emissions and provide a means to estimate upstream emission savings based on changes in emissions from power plants. The previous section i ndicates slight overa ll reductions in CO 2 , and NO x . Thus, very small reductions in upstream emissions of ai r pollutant could be expected. This approach does not address Hg emissions.

Table 16.2.3 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Ai r Pollutants as a Percentage of Direct Power Plant Combustion Emissions Pollutant Combustion Emissions % Coal Natural Gas CO 2 2.7 11.9 NO x 5.8 40

16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

DOE’s proposed action is not site-specific, nor would it affect land disturbance or use due to beverage vending machine being installed in commercial buildings. Therefore, none of the proposed TSLs is expected to affect the quality of wetlands, or threatened or endangered species. Further, this action is not expe cted to impact cultural res ources such as historical or archaeological sites.

16-9 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.doc16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

DOE’s analysis shows that the increase in th e first cost of purchasing a more efficient beverage vending machine at the proposed standard level is completely or nearly offset by a reduction in the life-cycle cost (LCC) of owning a more efficient piece of equipment. In other words, the customer will pay lower operating costs over the life of the equipment even through the first cost increases. The complete analysis and its conclusions are presented in chapter 8 of the TSD.

For the subgroup of customers that are manufacturing facilities, DOE determined that the average LCC impact is similar to that for th e full sample of customers. Therefore, DOE concludes that the proposed act ion would have no significant socioeconomic impact on a subgroup of customers. For a complete discussion on the LCC impacts on manufacturing facilities sub-group (see chapter 12 of the TSD).

Table 16.4.1 shows the mean LCC savings for both the full sample of customers and manufacturing facilities as the sub-gr oup for beverage vending machines.

Table 16.4.1 Mean Life-Cycle Cost Savings for All Customers and Sub-Group, Beverage Vending Machines Customer Type TSL 2008$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Customers–Class A Equipment 154 204 245 307 322 316 (1,194) * Manufacturing Subgroup–Class A Equipment 103 136 150 184 186 171 (1,326) All Customers–Class B Equipment 47 56 49 39 (525) (2,216) NA ** Manufacturing Subgroup–Class B Equipment 28 28 10 (1) (576) (2,227) NA
* Numbers in parentheses represent negative values.

** Not applicable: there is no TSL 7 for Class B equipment.

16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

According to Executive Order 12898 of Febr uary 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minorit y Populations and Low-Income Populations,” DOE is required to examine the effect of more stringent energy -efficiency standards on (1 ) small businesses that either manufacture or use beverage vending m achines; (2) manufacturers of niche products related to beverage vending machines; and (3 ) small businesses operated by disadvantaged or minority populations.

DOE identified manufacturing facilities as a sub-group that possibly could be disproportionately affected by beverage vendi ng machine energy conservation standards. As described in chapter 12 of th e TSD, DOE found that there wa s no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on manufacturing facilities that would result from the proposed energy conservation standards.

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS

Improvements in efficiency of beverage vending machine equipment are expected to result from changes in the choice of component s and other design features. These changes are

16-10 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docdescribed in chapter 5 of this TSD. Effici ency improvements result from improved heat exchanger designs using increased levels of copper and more efficient compressors. These design changes are not expected to change noise levels in comparison to equipment in today’s market. Equipment that is currently manufactured in the existing market that would meet the proposed standards is no louder than less efficien t equipment. Changes to the design to improve the efficiency levels are not anticipate d to affect the equipment’s aesthetics.

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table 16.7.1 and Table 16.7.2 summarize anticipa ted environmental impacts for each of the TSLs across all equipment types. Air qual ity impacts were modeled for each of the TSLs. The summary table shows cumulativ e changes in emissions for CO 2 , NO x , and Hg over the period 2012 to 2042. Cumulative CO 2 , NO x , and Hg emissions show a decrease compared to the reference case.

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class A Beverage Vending Machine Equipment Environmental Effects Reference TSL Case * 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative Emission Reductions ** CO 2 , Mt 190,106 0.40 1.89 4.18 6.45 7.63 8.40 10.22 NO x , kt 65,198 0.13 0.65 1.43 2.20 2.60 2.87 3.49 Hg, t 912 0.008 0.037 0.082 0.127 0.150 0.165 0.201 Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions NA † †† †† †† †† †† †† †† Wetlands, Endangered and NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Threatened Species; Cultural Resources Socioeconomic Impacts– NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Weighted Mean LCC Savings ‡
All Customers NA $154 $204 $245 $307 $322 $316 ($1,194) Manufacturing Facilities NA $103 $136 $150 $184 $186 $171 ($1,326) Environmental Justice NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Noise and Aesthetics NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­
* The reference case values reflect total cumulative emissions and life cycle costs in the absence of an energy conservation standard.

** Cumulative total is from 2012–2042. Negative values are in parentheses. † NA means not applicable since this is the reference (base) case. †† DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emi ssions, but section 16.2.5 provides a sense for the possi ble magnitude of effects. ‡ Values refer to life-cycle cost sa vings over the equipment lifetime.
Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class B Beverage Vending Machine Equipment Environmental Effects Reference TSL Case * 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative Emission Reductions ** CO 2 , Mt 190,106 0.16 0.24 1.19 1.36 3.66 4.08 NO x , kt 65,198 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.46 1.25 1.39 Hg, t 912 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.027 0.072 0.080 Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions NA † †† †† †† †† †† †† Wetlands, Endangered and NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Threatened Species; Cultural

16-11 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.doc 7Resources Socioeconomic Impacts– Weighted Mean LCC Savings ‡ NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­

All Customers NA $47 $56 $49 $39 ($525) ($2,216) Manufacturing Facilities NA $28 $28 $10 ($1) ($576) ($2,227) Environmental Justice NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Noise and Aesthetics NA

-­ -­ -­ -­ -­ -­
* The reference case values reflect total cumulative emissi ons and LCCs in the absence of an energy conservation standard.

** Cumulative total is from 2012–2042. Negative values are in parentheses. † NA means not applicable since this is the reference (base) case. †† DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emi ssions, but section 16.2.5 provides a sense for the possi ble magnitude of effects. ‡ Values refer to life-cycle cost sa vings over the equipment lifetime.
Upstream fuel cycle emission of CO 2 and NO x are described but not quantified in section 16.2.5. The text describes potential re ductions in fuel cycle emissions as percentage of decreases in power plant emissions. This qualitative approa ch suggests that upstrea m fuel cycle emissions would decrease and provides a sense for the ma gnitude of effects; how ever, DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects. This approach does not address mercury emissions.

Socioeconomic impacts are presented as changes in life cycle costs. No impacts are anticipated in the area of envir onmental justice; wetlands, enda ngered and threatened species, and cultural resources; or noise and aesthetics.

16-12 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docREFERENCES

1. Tol, R. S. J. The Marginal Damage Cost s of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Assessment of the Uncertainties. Energy Policy . 2005. 33: pp. 2064–2074.

2. State of New Jersey, et al. v. Enviro nmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1097, 2008 WL 341338, at *1 (D.C. Cir.). February 8, 2008.

3. State of North Carolina, et al. v. En vironmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1244, 2008 WL 2698180, at *1 (D.C. Cir.). July 11, 2008.

4. State of North Carolina, et al. v. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir.). December 23, 2008.

5. Energy Information Administration–Offi cial Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook . (Last accessed June 25, 2009.) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ servicerpt/stimulus/index.html>

6. DeLuchi, M. A. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity , Volume 2: Appendixes A-S. November, 1993. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL. Repor t No. ANL/ESD/TM-22-Vol.2.

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report . 2007. (Last accessed April 2009.) <http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ ar4-wg2.htm>

16-13 BVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.docBVM_FINAL_FR_TSD_Chapter16_08-14-09.doc