TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.14 Energy

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.14-1

7.14 ENERGY

7.14.1 Introduction

Energy is an important resource for the nation’s economy, and the conservation of energy is vital to 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s and the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) goals of 

environmental sustainability, clean air, and the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG). Transportation 

uses energy to move people and goods, and accounts for a large portion of the total energy consumed 

within the NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area).

7.14.1.1 Definition of Resource

Transportation energy use is generally discussed in terms of operational (direct) and construction 

(indirect) energy consumption. Direct transportation energy consumption is defined, for the Action 

Alternatives, to be a function of the following operational characteristics:

4 The energy source being used to supply electrical power to a train system (i.e., power plant)

4 Traffic and vehicle characteristics affecting fuel consumption (i.e., volume, speed, distance 

traveled, vehicle mix, thermal value of the fuel being used for roadway vehicles) 

4 Changes in bus and aircraft trips in the Study Area

4 The energy required to maintain the transportation facilities 

Indirect energy consumption consists of the non-recoverable, one-time energy expenditures

associated with the construction of the physical infrastructure associated with the Action 

Alternatives.

7.14.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The FRA collected data from the U.S. Department of Energy to present an overview of the existing 

transportation energy usage and resources for the Study Area.

Energy is commonly measured in terms of British thermal units (Btu). A Btu is defined as the amount 

of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. For 

transportation projects, the amount of fuel used predominantly influences energy usage. The average 

Btu content of fuels is the heat value (or energy content) per quantity of fuel, as determined from 

tests of fuel samples. 

Table 7.14-1 details the type of assessment used to characterize the potential energy impacts for 

each of the Action Alternatives by mode. The FRA calculated on-road vehicle energy, using U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) MOVES2010b mobile source emissions modeling program, 

which estimates energy use for mobile sources. FRA ran MOVES2010b using state-specific national 

level runs of EPA’s MOVES2010b, as the 2040 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) data were generated on 

a statewide basis. MOVES2010b accounts for the improved fuel efficiency of autos in 2040. The FRA 

used the MOVES2010b outputs to determine the changes in energy use caused by changes in 

roadway VMT (from the No Action to the Action Alternatives).
7.14. Energy

Page | 7.14-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.14-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Energy

Resource Affected Environment

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

Energy Energy Consumption by Sector –

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) –

Energy Information Administration

Quantitative: 

Percentage by 

sector per state

Statewide energy profile data

DOE – Energy Information 

Administration

Qualitative 

discussion

Overview of energy resources by state

Regional traffic along the 

Representative Route of each 

Action Alternative

Quantitative: 

Btu

Amount of energy required for propulsion 

of vehicles within the Study Area

Train vehicle-miles traveled – Rail 

lines within the Northeast Corridor 

(NEC)

Quantitative: 

Btu

Amount of energy required for propulsion 

of vehicles within the Study Area

Bus and Air travel within NEC 

region

Qualitative 

discussion

Potential changes in bus and air travel

Construction Activities Qualitative 

discussion

Qualitative discussion of energy use

during construction

Source: NEC FUTURE team, NEC FUTURE Energy Effect-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.14, 2014

The FRA calculated potential regional energy usage of the trains based on changes in train vehiclemiles and average energy requirements of passenger trains, as detailed in the Transportation Energy 

Data Book (Edition 33). The energy impacts caused by changes in air travel and construction are 

discussed qualitatively. Chapter 7.13, Air Quality, used these data to calculate pollutant emissions.

7.14.2 Resource Overview 

Under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, consideration of energy efficiency is specifically required. Under 40 C.F.R.

1502.16(e) regarding the requirements for analyzing and documenting Environmental Consequences, 

agencies are required to discuss “energy requirements and conservation potential of various 

alternatives and mitigation measures.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(f) requires agencies to consider the “natural 

or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and 

mitigation measures.”

Energy efficiency and conservation concepts may also be interpreted as a necessary consideration in 

addressing the relationship between short-term uses of the human environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources as required by the CEQ regulations (Section 1502.16). 

The following executive orders and policies require or promote energy efficiency in federal actions:

4 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation 

Management (EOP 2007) 

4 Executive Order 13221, Energy Efficient Standby Power Devices (EOP 2001a)

4 Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (EOP 2001b) 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.14-3

7.14.3 Affected Environment

Energy consumption per capita varies among the states and districts within Study Area. As shown in 

Table 7.14-2, in 2012, Delaware had the highest consumption per capita for states along the NEC, 

though 28th in the nation, and Rhode Island has the lowest consumption for states along the NEC.

Table 7.14-2: Energy Consumption per Capita (2012)

Geography

Consumption per Capita

(million Btu)

Consumption per Capita, Rank

(out of 50 states and 

Washington, D.C.)

Consumption per Capita, Rank

(out of 8 states and Washington, 

D.C.)

D.C. 267 36 3

MD 236 40 5

DE 298 28 1

PA 284 31 2

NJ 256 37 4

NY 179 50 8

CT 203 47 7

RI 173 51 9

MA 209 45 6

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015

Transportation accounts for a significant portion of the energy consumed in the Study Area. Energy 

usage for transportation accounts for approximately 12–37 percent of the states’ energy 

consumption within the Study Area (Figure 7.14-1). Table 7.14-3 indicates that in 2012 in the United 

States, light vehicles (cars, light trucks, and motorcycles) accounted for the largest percentage of 

transportation energy use (58.6 percent). Medium and heavy-duty trucks accounted for the next 

largest percentage of total transportation energy use (22.0 percent). When including buses 

(0.8 percent of total transportation energy use), on-road vehicles accounted for over 80 percent of 

total transportation energy. Of the remaining non-roadway modes of transportation, aircrafts

accounted for 8.0 percent of the total, watercrafts accounted for 4.5 percent, pipelines accounted 

for 3.8 percent, and rail accounted for 2.3 percent.

Table 7.14-3: U.S. Transportation Energy Use by Mode (2012)

Mode

Consumption

(Trillion Btu) Percentage of Total

Light Vehicles 15,361.2 58.6%

Buses 199.9 0.8%

Medium/Heavy Trucks 5,775.5 22.0%

Aircraft 2,091.9 8.0%

Watercraft 1,187.4 4.5%

Pipeline 997.0 3.8%

Rail 597.7 2.3%

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014
7.14. Energy

Page | 7.14-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Figure 7.14-1: Energy Consumption by Sector

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.14-5

7.14.4 Environmental Consequences

Table 7.14-4 presents the changes in energy use for roadways, diesel trains, and electric trains for the 

Study Area in the year 2040 under the Action Alternatives as compared to the No Action Alternative.

The table presents the results also in terms of tons of oil equivalent.

Table 7.14-4: 2040 Changes in Energy Use (MMBtu/year)

Project Element Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Alternative 3

via Central 

CT/Providence 

via Long 

Island/Providence 

via Long 

Island/Worcester 

via Central 

CT/Worcester 

Roadways* -4,815,105 -6,516,805 -7,193,175 -6,789,375 -7,433,350 -7,018,580

Diesel Trains -1 -128,585 0 4 4 4

Electric Trains 1,001,290 1,746,280 2,767,645 2,884,285 2,895,990 1,779,385

TOTAL

(MMBtu/year) -3,813,815 -4,899,110 -4,425,530 -3,905,085 -4,537,355 -5,239,195

TOTAL** 

(Tons of Oil 

Equivalent/year)

-9,611 -12,346 -11,152 -9,841 -11,434 -13,203

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

* Roadways represent changes in vehicle-miles traveled from personal vehicles (autos) on the roadway network; this does not 

include potential changes in intercity buses and trucks.

** Conversion based upon U.S. Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 33, Table B.7.

MMBtu = million Btu

As shown in Table 7.14-4, for all the Action Alternatives, roadway energy would decrease, whereas 

the energy for electric trains would increase. Overall energy use would decrease under all Action 

Alternatives, with Alternative 3 (via Central Connecticut/Worcester) showing the largest decrease in 

total energy use and Alternative 1 showing the smallest decrease in total energy use. Alternative 3

(via Long Island/Worcester route option) shows the greatest decrease in energy use from roadways, 

whereas Alternative 1 shows the smallest decrease in energy use from roadways. Alternative 3 (via 

Long Island/Worcester route option) shows the greatest increase in electric energy use from the 

trains, whereas Alternative 1 shows the smallest increase in electric energy from the trains. Changes 

in energy use of diesel trains are much smaller in scale than those from roadways and electric trains, 

with Alternatives 1 and 2 showing decreases in energy use of diesel trains and all Alternatives 3 route 

options showing no change or a slight increase in energy use of diesel trains.

The decreases in roadway energy use are attributed to decreases in VMT under the Action 

Alternatives, as compared to the No Action Alternative, caused by passengers choosing to use the 

train rather than drive. The increases in electric train energy are attributed to the increases in train 

service associated with the Action Alternatives. The changes in diesel trains are also attributed to 

changes in service associated with the Action Alternatives. 

As discussed in Chapter 5, Transportation Effects, investment in the NEC FUTURE passenger rail 

infrastructure would create a shift in demand from aircraft and bus trips servicing the corridor to rail 

trips, when comparing the Action Alternatives to the No Action Alternative. As such, the shift in travel 

mode choice would likely result in a decrease in energy use from aircraft and buses under all Action 

Alternatives; however, it was not within the scope of this analysis to make quantitative predictions 

regarding the level of decrease in energy use.
7.14. Energy

Page | 7.14-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.14-5 presents energy intensities—or the energy required to move a passenger per mile for 

each mode of transportation—for various modes of transportation. Intercity rail has a lower energy 

intensity (2,214 Btu per passenger-mile) than transit buses (4,030 Btu per passenger-mile) or aircraft 

(2,484 Btu per passenger-mile). As such, the expected mode shifts from buses and aircraft to Intercity 

passenger rail would result in an overall decrease in energy use. As shown in the table, the energy 

intensities of cars, personal trucks, and motorcycles are also higher than for intercity rail.

Table 7.14-5: Energy Intensities by Mode (2012)

Mode

Energy Intensities 

(Btu per passenger-mile)

Transit Buses 4,030

Personal Trucks 3,561

Cars 3,193

Commuter Rail 2,838

Aircraft 2,484

Motorcycles 2,475

Transit Rail 2,398

Intercity Rail 2,214

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014

Each of the Action Alternatives propose the addition of new equipment. This equipment would use 

regenerative braking, which would reduce the energy use from the electric trains. Regenerative 

braking is the process during which the train’s electric traction motors are utilized as generators 

during a brake application. It is considered standard operating procedure for high performance 

electric trains. This regenerated electricity can be used to power other trains drawing power within 

the network. The regenerated power can also be returned to the electrical utility grid using bidirectional traction power substations. Trains with high brake duty cycles can recover upwards of 

15 percent of the total consumed electricity. High-performance trains can recover approximately 5-

10 percent of the total electricity consumed, a value that is reduced by the longer distances between 

stations, and fewer station stops

The FRA did not conduct a quantitative construction analysis because the FRA did not develop a

detailed construction schedule, or estimates of construction equipment and activities, as part of NEC 

FUTURE. However, construction of the Action Alternatives would result in energy use associated with 

construction equipment and activities, as well as construction worker and delivery trips.

Furthermore, the implementation of NEC FUTURE would most likely occur as multiple Tier 2 actions.

As such, future construction activities associated with each of the Tier 2 actions would result in 

multiple, individual non-recoverable uses of energy.

7.14.5 Potential Mitigation 

Operational energy use would decrease if the Action Alternatives were implemented, resulting in 

beneficial energy effects and therefore no need for mitigation. To further reduce energy use, 

measures that include using alternative energy sources, creating renewable energy plans, and 

increasing fuel efficiency would be considered during later phases of project development and 

construction. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.14-7

7.14.6 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis

Elements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Strategic Plan that are applicable to energy 

usage, sustainability, and reliability would be incorporated as part of subsequent Tier 2 project-level 

analysis. Depending upon the Tier 2 action, further analysis of operational energy effects may not be 

required.