## 16-i 

# CHAPTER 16. ENVIRO NMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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 Global Climate Change.................................................................................................. 16-4

16.2.4 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions .......................................................................... 16-8

16.2.5 Effects on Power Pl ant Emissions ............................................................................... 16-10

16.2.6 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions ................................................................ 16-15

16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 16-16

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

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

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS ....................................................................................... 16-17

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..................................................... 16-17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 16.2.1 Impact of IRL and GSFL Efficiency Standards on Cumulative EnergyRelated Emissions of CO 2 

# between 2012-2042 by Trial Standard Level

(Million Metric Tons of CO 2 

# )............................................................................ 16-7

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Forecast from AEO2009 Reference Case ................. 16-10

Table 16.2.3 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts IRL, Shift ..................................... 16-11

Table 16.2.4 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for IRL, Roll-up ........................... 16-12

Table 16.2.5 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for GSFL, Shift ............................ 16-13

Table 16.2.6 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for GSFL, Roll-up ........................ 16-14

Table 16.2.7 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Po llutants as a Percentage of Direct

Power Plant Combustion Emissions ................................................................ 16-15

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary for IRL ............................ 16-18

Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary for GSFL ......................... 16-18

LIST OF FIGURE

Error! No table of figures entries found.

## 16-1 

# CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

16.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes potential environmen tal effects that may result from amended

energy conservation standards fo r incandescent reflector lamps (IRL) and general service

fluorescent lamps (GSFL). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s proposed energy

conservation standards are not site-s pecific, and would apply to all 50 States and U.S. territories.

Therefore, none of the proposed standards would impact land uses , cause any direct disturbance

to the land, or directly affect biological resources in any one area.

All of the potential trial standard leve ls (TSLs) are expected to reduce energy

consumption in comparison to a baseline efficiency level. These changes in the demand for

electricity and the costs of achieving these savings are the primary drivers in analyzing

environmental effects. Estimates of source ener gy savings can be found in the national impact

analysis in Chapter 11 of this technical suppor t document (TSD). 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, mu ch of this chapter describes the air quality

analysis.

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

The primary focus of the environmental analys is is the impact on air quality of amended

energy conservation standards for residential, commercial and industria l IRL and GSFL. The

outcomes of the environmental analysis are driven by changes in power plant types and

quantities of electricity generated under each of the alternatives. Changes in generation are

described in the utility impact analysis in Chapter 14.

16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions

For each of the TSLs, DOE calculated total power-sector emissions based on output from

NEMS-BT model (see Chapter 14). This analysis considers three pollutant s: nitrogen oxides

(NO

x 

# ), mercury (Hg), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# ). 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 part icles (i.e., particulates or particulate matter),

liquid droplets, or gases a 

# . This analysis also considers carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ).

a 

## More information on air pollution characteristics and regul ations is available on the U.S. Environment Protection

Agent (EPA)’s website at http://www.epa.gov

## 16-2 

# Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

# )

In addressing SO 2 

# emissions, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO 2 

# emissions cap on all affected elect ric generating units. The attainment of the emissions cap is

flexible among generators and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradeable

permits. This SO 2 

# trading process (sometimes called “cap and trade”) implies that the standard

will have no affect on total physical emissions b ecause emissions will always be at, or near, the

allowed emissions ceiling. Cons equently, there is no direct SO 2 

# environmental benefit from a

reduction in electricity use due to the proposed energy conservation st andards, as long as there is

enforcement of the emissions ceiling. But 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 decline, there

is greater flexibility in reducing the ceiling am ount. However, since DOE does not anticipate a

change in SO 2 

# emissions, SO 2 

# emission results are not reported in this Chapter.

Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x 

# )

Nitrogen oxides

, or NO

x 

# , are the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of

which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides 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 la yer over many urban areas. NO 2 

# is the

specific form of NOx reported in this document. NO

x 

# is one of the main ingredients involved in

the formation of ground-level ozone, which can tr igger serious respiratory problems. It can

contribute to the formation of acid rain, and can impair visibility in areas such as national parks.

NO

x 

# also contributes to the fo rmation of fine particles 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, electric utilities, and other

industrial, commercial, and residentia l sources that burn fossil fuels. NO

x 

# can also be formed

naturally. Electric utilities acc ount for about 22 percent of NO

x 

# emissions in the United States.

Mercury(Hg)

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 th e global Hg pool or to contamination of U.S.

waters. U.S. coal-fired power plants emit Hg in three different forms: oxidized Hg (likely to

deposit within the United States); elemental H g, which can travel thousands of miles before

depositing to land and water; and Hg that is in particulate form. Atmospheric Hg is then

deposited on land, lakes, rivers, and estuarie s through rain, snow, and dry deposition. Once

there, it can transform into methylmercur y and accumulate in fish tissue through

bioaccumulation.

## 16-3 

# Americans are exposed to methylmercury pr im arily by eating contaminated fish. Because

the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of methylmercury, women of

childbearing age are regarded as the population of greatest concern. Children exposed to

methylmercury before birth may be at increased risk of poor performa nce on neurobehavioral

tasks, such as those measuring attention, fine motor function, language skills, visual-spatial

abilities, and verbal memory.

Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 

# )

EPA does not currently require emissions controls for CO 2 

# under the Clean Air Act.

However, CO 2 

# is of interest because of its classification as a gr eenhouse gas (GHG). GHGs trap

the sun’s radiation inside the Eart h’s atmosphere and either occur naturally in the atmosphere or

result from human activities. Naturally 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 (oil, natural gas, a nd coal), 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 m ovement of carbon between the atmosphere and

the land and oceans is dominated by natural processe s, such as plant photosynthesis. While these

natural processes can absorb some of the anthropogenic CO 2 

# emissions produced each year,

billions of metric tons are added to th e atmosphere annually. In the U. S., CO 2 

# emissions

account for 84.6 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 list 188 toxic air pollutants that EPA is required

to control. EPA has set nationa l air quality standards for six co mmon pollutants (also referred to

as “criteria” pollutants), two of which are SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# . Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 gave EPA the authority to cont rol acidification and to require operators of electric power

plants to reduce emissions of SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# . Title IV of the 1990 amendments established a capand-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 w ith similar features.

In 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) under sections 110 and 111 of

the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Parts 51, 96, and 97). b 

# CAIR would permanently cap emissions of

SO 2 

# and NOx in eastern States of the United St ates. CAIR required large reductions of SO 2



# and/or NOx emissions across 28 eastern states and the District 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 partic ipate in an EPA-administered

b 

## See http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/

.

## 16-4 

# interstate cap-and-trade system th at caps emissions in two stages, or 2) meet an individual state

emissions budget through measures of th e 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 Phase 2 caps for both

pollutants are due in 2015.

Also in 2005, EPA issued the final rule en titled “Standards of Performance for New and

Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Steam Ge nerating Units,” under sections 110 and 111 of

the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 72, and 75) . This rule, also called the Clean Air

Mercury Rule (CAMR), was closely related to the CAIR and estab lished standards of

performance for Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating

units. The CAMR regulated Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants.

On February 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of App eals for the District of Columbia Circuit

(D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in State of New Jersey, et al. v. Environm ental Protection

Agency

, c 

# 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. Environmental Protection Agency

, which

vacated the CAIR issued by the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency on March 10, 2005. d



# But 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).

16.2.3 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 sources of gree nhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ), as major

contributors to climate change. Because this Rule, if finalized, will likely decrease CO 2 

# emission

rates that are associated with IRLs and GSFLs and are from the fossil fuel sector in the United

States, the Department here examines the impacts and causes of climate change and then the

potential impact of the Rule on CO 2 

# emissions and global warming.

Impacts of Climate Chan ge 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 the variabil ity of its properties (e.g., temperature or

precipitation) over an extended perio d, typically decades or longer.

c 

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

d 

## See http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/.

## 16-5 

# The World Meteorological Organization a nd United Nations E nvironm ent Programme

(UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Pa nel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide an

objective source of information about climat e change. According to the IPCC Fourth

Assessment Report (IPCC Report), published in 2007, climate change is consistent with

observed changes to the world’s na tural systems; the IPCC expects these changes to continue.

Changes that are consistent with warming include 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 i ce at a rate of 2.7 % 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 con tinued global warming of about 0.2°C per

decade for the next two decades under a wide range of emission scenarios for carbon dioxide

(CO 2 

# ), other greenhouse gases (GHG)s, and aerosols. After that period, the ra te of increase is

less certain. The IPCC Report describes increases in average global temperatures of about 1.1°C

to 6.4°C at the end of the century relative to t oday. These increases vary depending 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 average temperature, IPCC reports, with either

high or very high confidence, that there is likely to be an increas ing degree of impacts such as

coral reef bleaching, loss of wild life habitat, loss to specific ecosystems, and negative yield

impacts for major cereal crops in the tropics, but al so projects that there likely will be some

beneficial impacts on crop yields in temperate regions.

Causes of Climate Change

The IPCC Report states that the world has wa rmed by about 0.74°C in the last 100 years.

The IPCC Report finds that most of the temperat ure increase since the mi d-20th century is very

likely due to the increase in anth ropogenic concentrations of CO 2 

# and other long-lived

greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as methane and nitrous 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% of the total CO 2 

# -equivalent e 

# global

e 

## GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forci ng) on a global climate syst em 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- time integrated radiative forcing, over a given time horizon, as an

emitted amount of other long- lived GHG or mixture of GHGs.

## 16-6 

# warming potential in GHGs emitted from human activit ies, with the vast m a jority (74%) of the

CO 2 

# attributable to fossil fuel use. For the fu ture, the IPCC Report describes a wide range of

GHG emissions scenarios, but under each scenario CO 2 

# would continue to comprise above 70%

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. Th e residence time of CO 2 

# in the atmosphere is long compared to the emission

processes. Therefore, the gl obal cumulative emissions of CO 2 

# over long periods determine CO 2 

# concentrations because it takes hundreds of y ears for natural processes to remove the CO 2



# . Globally, 49 billion metric tons of CO 2 

# –equivalent of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse

gases are emitted every year. Of this annual total, fossil fuels contribute about 29 billion metric

tons of CO 2



# . f



# 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 partic ular 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

ppm and 400 ppm (essentially today’s value)—because of climate inertia, concentrations in this

low end range would still result in temperatures projected to increase 2.0°C to 2.4°C above preindustrial levels g 

# (about 1.3°C to 1.7°C above today’s leve ls). To achieve concentrations

between 350 ppm to 400 ppm, the IPCC scenarios pr esent that there would have to be a rapid

downward trend in total annual gl obal emissions of greenhouse gase s to levels that are 50% to

85% 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

production, the scenarios identify required re ductions in greenhouse gas emissions intensity

(emissions per unit of output) of more than 90%. 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 consum ption in buildings. In the United States, the

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA ) reports in its 2 009 Annual Energy Outlook

( AEO2009 ) 1 

# that U.S. annual energy-related emissions of CO 2 

# in 2005 were about 6.0 billion

metric tons (about 20 percent of the world energy-related CO 2 

# emissions and about 12 percent of

total global greenhouse gas emissions), of which 2.4 billion tons were attributed to the electric

f 

## Other non-fossil fuel contributors include CO 2 

## emissions from deforest ation and decay from agriculture biomass;

agricultural and industrial emissions of methane; and emissions of nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons.

g 

## IPCC Working Group 3 Table TS 2

## 16-7 

# power sector. In the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case, EIA pr ojected that annual energyrelated CO 2 

# emissions would grow from 6.0 billion metric tons in 2005 to 6.2 billion metric tons

in 2030, an increase of 4 percent (see AEO2009 ), while emissions attributable to the electric

power sector would grow to 2.6 billion tons, an increase of 10 percent.

As shown in Table 16.2.2 in the AEO2009 Reference Case, the cumulative U.S. energyrelated power sector CO 2 

# emissions between 2012 and 2042 are described at about 79 billion

metric tons. The estimated cumulative CO 2 

# emission reductions from IRL and GSFL during this

same 30-year period are indicate d in Table 16.2.1. Estimated CO 2 

# emission reductions in Table

16.2.1 come from electricity generation (i.e., power plants). The estimated CO 2 

# emission

reductions from electricity ge neration are calculated usi ng the NEMS-BT model.

Table 16.2.1 Impact of IRL and GSFL Efficiency Standards on Cumulative EnergyRelated Emissions of CO 2 

# between 2012-2042 by Trial Standard Level

(Million Metric Tons of CO 2 

# )

GSFL

TSL Estimated Cumulative CO 2 

## (MMt) Emission Reductions

1 66.4 to 130.3

2 86.0 to 133.9

3 148.3 to 296.6

4 174.6 to 487.6

5 262.0 to 552.0

IRL

TSL Estimated Cumulative CO 2 

## (MMt) Emission Reductions

1 7.5 to 19.8

2 19.1 to 48.9

3 37.8 to 85.1

4 44.0 to 105.7

5 53.3 to 118.1



# The estimated savings shown in Table 16.2.1, which are at most 0.9 percent of U.S.

emissions of CO 2 

# from electricity generation (total em issions reported for TSL 5 in Table 16.2.1

combining IRL and GSFL), comprise an even sm aller fraction of U.S. emissions of greenhouse

gases and of world emissions of greenhouse gase s. However, the savings would likely reduce

the overall U.S. CO 2 

# emissions rate, as compared to the U.S. CO 2 

# emissions rate absent an

increase in the required effi ciency of IRLs and GSFLs.

The Incremental Impact of th e Rule on Climate Change

It is difficult to correlate specific emissi on rates with atmospheri c concentrations of CO 2 

# and specific atmospheric concentrations with future temperatures because the IPCC Report

## 16-8 

# describes a clear lag in the climate syst em between any given concentration of CO 2 

# (even if

maintained for long periods) and the subsequent average worldwide and regional temperature,

precipitation, and extreme weathe r regimes. For example, a major determinant of climate

response is “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, a measure of the climate system response to

sustained radioactive forcing. It is defined as the global average surface warming following a

doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. Th e IPCC Report describes its estimated, numeric

value as about 3°C, but the likely range of that value is 2°C to 4.5°C, with cloud feedbacks the

largest source of uncertainty. Further, as illustrated above, the IPCC Report scenarios for

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 sp ecific temperature levels.

Because of the complexity of global climate sy stems, it is difficult to know to what extent

and when particular CO 2 

# emissions rates will impact global warming. However, as Table 16.2.1

indicates, the Rule will likely reduce CO 2 

# emissions rates from the electric power sector.

16.2.4 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions

NEMS-BT incorporates capabilit ies to assess compliance with SO 2 

# restrictions specified

in the Clean Air Act and its amendments. Clean Air Act provisi ons include New Source

Performance Standards, and Re vised New Source Performance St andards. The version of

NEMS-BT in 2008 also included 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 is 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.

Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand of

vacatur). But actions taken on February 8, 2008 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

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

Environmental Protection Agency , remain in effect vaca ting the CAMR. Although the

constraints on Hg in CAMR have sin ce been vacated by a court decision, the AEO2009

Reference Case assumes that emissions of Hg wo uld decline over time as shown in Table 16.2.2.

Because the courts had vacated both CAIR and CAMR at the time that DOE was drafting

the NOPR, the 2008 version of NEMS-BT could not be used directly to estimate emissions

impacts for NO X 

# and Hg. Instead, for the NOPR DOE established a range of NO X 

# and Hg

reductions due to standards. For the final rule, DOE is able to use the AEO2009 version of

NEMS-BT to estimate NO X 

# reductions that result from States not covered under CAIR.

The NEMS-BT has only rough estimates of me rcury emissions, and it was decided that

the range of emissions used in the NOPR rema ined appropriate given these circumstances.

Therefore, rather than using the NEMS-BT model, DOE established a range of Hg emission rates

to estimate the Hg emissions that could be reduced through standards. DOE’s low estimate

assumed that future standards would displace elec trical generation only from natural gas-fired

power plants, thereby resulting in an effective emission rate of zero. (Under this scenario, coalfired power plant generation would remain una ffected.) The low-end emission rate is zero

## 16-9 

# because natural gas-fired power plants have virtually zero Hg emissions associated with their

operation. Earthjustice stated that basing the lo w end of the range on the displacement of only

gas-fired power plants was inconsistent with DOE’s utility impact analysis (Earthjustice, No. 60

at pg. 8-9). However, DOE belie ves that the estimate should pr ovide the full range of possible

outcomes and has selected the low and high values to bracket the uncertainties associated with

estimating mercury emission reductions.

DOE’s high estimate, which assumed that standards would displace only coal-fired power

plants, was based on an estimate of the 2006 nationwide mercury emission rate from AEO2008

. (Under this scenario, DOE assumed that no future reductions in the rate of mercury emissions

from such sources would occur.) Because power plant emission rates ar e 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, th e most reasonable high estimate is based on the

assumption that all displaced coal generati on would have been emitting at the 2006 average

emission rate for coal generation as specified by the April Update to AEO2009 . This is viewed

as a high estimate because it is likely that future emission controls will be installed at coal-fired

power plants which will reduce their average emission rate. As noted previously, because

virtually all mercury emitted from electricity ge neration is from coal-fired power plants, DOE

based the emission rate on the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of coal-generated electricity.

Based on the emission rate for 2006, DOE derive d a high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons per

TWh. To estimate the reduction in mercury emi ssions, DOE multiplied the emission rate by the

reduction in coal-generated electricity due to th e standards considered in the utility impact

analysis. These changes in Hg emissions are extremely small, ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 percent of

the national base-case emissions forecast by NEMS-BT for GFSL, depending on the TSL and

scenario, and less than 0.2 percent for all IRL levels.

Coal-fired electric generation is the single largest source of electricity in the United

States. Because the mix of coals used signifi cantly affects the emissions produced, the model

includes a detailed representation of coal suppl y. The model considers the rank of the coal as

well as the sulfur contents of the fuel us ed when determining optimal dispatch.

Within the NEMS-BT model, pl anning options for achieving em issions 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 su ch 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 invo lve 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. Because SO 2 

# has been regulated with emissions

caps for more than a decade, and no emissions reductions are reported from the NEMS-BT

## 16-10 

# forecast model, DOE does not report SO 2 

# results here. This assu mption is consistent with

previous DOE environmental assessment documents.

As noted in Chapter 14, NEMS-BT model for ecasts end in year 2030. Emissions impacts

beyond 2030 were extrapolated for this rulemaking in Table 16.2.3 through 16.2.6.

16.2.5 Effects on Power Plant Emissions

Table 16.2.2 shows the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case power plant emissions in

selected years along with the extrapolation to 2042. The Reference case emissions are the

emissions shown by the NEMS-BT model to resu lt if none of the TSLs are promulgated.

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Forecast from AEO2009 Reference Case

NEMS-BT Results*:

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total

2012-

2042 ††



## CO 2 

## (Million metric tons)** 2,397 2,3 43 2,384 2,462 2,533 2,637 78,824

NO X 

## (Million metric tons) † 

## 3.64 2.29 2.05 2.07 2.07 2.09 59.0

Hg (Metric tons) † 

## 51.49 43.69 29.37 28.75 29.00 28.63 846.1

** Comparable to Table A18 of AEO2009 : Electric Power

† 

## Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2009 : Electric Power Sector Emissions

†† 

## Extrapolated by assuming 2030 end valu es in all subsequent years 2031-2042.



# Table 16.2.3 through Table 16.2.6 show the esti mated changes in power plant emissions

in selected years for all the TSLs. Changes in CO 2 

# , NO X 

# and Hg emissions from power plants

are shown in these tables. Compared to the antic ipated reference case emissions impacts forecast

shown in Table 16.2.2, changes in emission levels shown in Table 16.2.3 though 16.2.6 are

extremely small.

# Table 16.2.3 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts IRL, Shift

IRL Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Substitution

NEMS-BT Results Difference From Updated AEO2009 Reference

Exptrapolation Total

Trial Standard Level 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042 2012

‐ 2042

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.06 (0.72) (0.57) (0.64) (0.68) (0.68) (0.68) (0.68) (19.8)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) (0.01) (0.04) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (1.9)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.3)

Trial Standard Level 2

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.20 (1.76) (1.31) (1.47) (1.67) (1.67) (1.67) (1.67) (48.9)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.08 (0.03) 0.06 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (5.5)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.03) (0.01) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.7)

Trial Standard Level 3

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.31 (3.02) (2.41) (2.71) (2.93) (2.93) (2.93) (2.93) (85.1)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.10 (0.07) 0.16 (0.06) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 (7.6)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.05) (0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (1.3)

Trial Standard Level 4

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.35 (3.70) (2.85) (3.15) (3.71) (3.71) (3.71) (3.71) (105.7)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.02 0.02 (0.08) (0.18) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 (8.4)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.06) (0.03) (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (1.7)

Trial Standard Level 5

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.49 (4.24) (3.32) (3.55) (4.06) (4.06) (4.06) (4.06) (118.1)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.18 0.12 0.16 (0.02) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 (9.3)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.07) (0.04) (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (1.8)



### Note: All units are metric tons , equivalent to 1.1 short tons



## 16-11

# Table 16.2.4 Power Sector Emissions Impa ct Forecasts for IRL, Roll-up

IRL Emerging Technologies, Rollup, BR Lamp Substitution

NEMS-BT Results Difference From Updated AEO2009 Reference

Exptrapolation Total

Trial Standard Level 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042 2012

‐ 2042

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.03 (0.30) (0.22) (0.21) (0.24) (0.24) (0.24) (0.24) (7.5)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.01 (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (1.3)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.1)

Trial Standard Level 2

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.10 (0.78) (0.54) (0.53) (0.59) (0.59) (0.59) (0.59) (19.1)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.05 0.06 0.01 (0.05) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (3.2)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.3)

Trial Standard Level 3

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.23 (1.63) (1.07) (1.07) (1.20) (1.20) (1.20) (1.20) (37.8)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.05 (0.22) (0.09) (0.07) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 (5.4)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.03) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.6)

Trial Standard Level 4

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.26 (1.88) (1.22) (1.20) (1.40) (1.40) (1.40) (1.40) (44.0)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.16 0.11 (0.06) (0.10) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 (6.4)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.7)

Trial Standard Level 5

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.32 (2.22) (1.52) (1.56) (1.65) (1.65) (1.65) (1.65) (53.3)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.31 (0.13) (0.12) (0.10) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 (8.1)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.8)



### Note: All units are metric tons , equivalent to 1.1 short tons



## 16-12

# Table 16.2.5 Power Sector Emissions Impa ct Forecasts for GSFL, Shift

GSFL Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise

NEMS-BT Results Difference From Updated AEO2009 Reference

Exptrapolation Total

Trial Standard Level 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042 2012

‐ 2042

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.29 (3.24) (3.97) (4.27) (4.98) (4.98) (4.98) (4.98) (130.3)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) (0.02) (0.51) (0.37) (0.33) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (11.7)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (2.0)

Trial Standard Level 2

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.32 (3.64) (3.79) (4.69) (5.11) (5.11) (5.11) (5.11) (133.9)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.05 (0.37) (0.06) (0.48) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (10.0)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (2.4)

Trial Standard Level 3

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.89 (8.12) (8.67) (10.69) (10.91) (10.91) (10.91) (10.91) (296.6)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) (0.06) 0.10 (0.13) (0.72) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (17.0)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.14) (0.13) (0.15) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (4.8)

Trial Standard Level 4

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 1.82 (17.35) (15.16) (16.64) (16.15) (16.15) (16.15) (16.15) (487.6)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 1.09 (2.34) 0.18 (1.00) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 (36.8)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.01 (0.27) (0.19) (0.21) (0.26) (0.26) (0.26) (0.26) (7.3)

Trial Standard Level 5

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 1.96 (23.09) (17.71) (18.03) (17.86) (17.86) (17.86) (17.86) (552.0)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) (0.07) (2.86) 0.20 0.13 (1.13) (1.13) (1.13) (1.13) (58.1)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.01) (0.42) (0.24) (0.24) (0.31) (0.31) (0.31) (0.31) (8.8)



### Note: All units are metric tons , equivalent to 1.1 short tons



## 16-13

# Table 16.2.6 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for GSFL, Roll-up

GSFL Emerging Technologies, Roll up, Market Segment Based Lighting Expertise

NEMS-BT Results Difference From Updated AEO2009 Reference

Exptrapolation Total

Trial Standard Level 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042 2012

‐ 2042

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.15 (1.66) (1.81) (2.22) (2.60) (2.60) (2.60) (2.60) (66.4)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.00 (0.19) 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 (1.9)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (1.2)

Trial Standard Level 2

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.26 (3.46) (2.54) (2.72) (2.94) (2.94) (2.94) (2.94) (86.0)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.14 (0.34) 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 (5.1)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (1.4)

Trial Standard Level 3

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.53 (5.07) (4.43) (5.10) (5.15) (5.15) (5.15) (5.15) (148.3)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.19 (0.40) 0.27 (0.23) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 (7.3)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.09) (0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (2.3)

Trial Standard Level 4

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.89 (7.78) (4.98) (5.74) (5.48) (5.48) (5.48) (5.48) (174.6)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) (0.07) (0.75) 0.33 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 (11.0)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) 0.00 (0.13) (0.06) (0.08) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (2.8)

Trial Standard Level 5

Power Sector CO2 (MMT CO2) 0.84 (9.84) (8.17) (8.89) (8.55) (8.55) (8.55) (8.55) (262.0)

Nitrogen Oxide

‐ (x000 t) 0.16 0.38 0.35 (0.23) 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 (12.9)

Mercury (Hg)

‐ Low (t)

- - - - - - - - -

Mercury (Hg)

‐ High (t) (0.00) (0.16) (0.11) (0.12) (0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (4.0)



### Note: All units are metric tons , equivalent to 1.1 short tons



## 16-14

## 16-15 

# 16.2.6 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions

Fuel-cycle emissions refer to the emissions associated with the am ount 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 re ports only power plant emissions.

However, previous DOE environmental assessment documents have developed

qualitative estimates of affects on upstream fuel -cycle emissions. These emissions factors

provide the reader with a sense of the possible ma gnitude of upstream effects. These upstream

emissions would be in addition to emissions from direct combustion. Relativ e 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 eight 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. 2 

# 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. DeLu chi’s work, DOE estimated that approximately an amount

equal to 14 percent of emissions from natural ga s production result from upstream processes.

Emission factor estimates and corresponding percen tages of contributions of upstream emissions

from coal and natural gas production, relative to power plant emissions, are shown in Table

16.2.9 for CO 2 

# and NOx. 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 percentage effects presented in Table 16.2.9 provides a qualitative approach to viewing

effects on fuel cycle emissions. The previous section indicates slight overall reductions in CO 2 

# and NOx. Thus, very small reductions in upstream emissions of air pollutant could be expected.

This approach does not address Hg emissions.

Table 16.2.7 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Pollutants as a Percentage of

Direct Power Plant Combustion Emissions

Pollutant Percent of Coal

Combustion Emissions Percent of Natural Gas

Combustion Emissions

CO 2 

## 2.7 11.9

No

x 

## 5.8 40

## 16-16 

# 16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THRE ATENED SPECIES, AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES

DOE’s proposed action is not site-specific, nor would it affect land disturbance or use

due to IRL and GSFL adoption. Ther efore, none of the proposed TSLs is expected to affect the

quality of wetlands, or threatened or endangered species. Further, this ac tion is not expected to

impact cultural resources such as hi storical or archaeological sites.

16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

DOE's analysis has shown that the increase in the first cost of pur chasing more efficient

lighting products at the proposed standard level is completely offset by a reduction in the lifecycle cost (LCC) of owning a more efficient piece of equipment. In other words, the customer

will pay less operating costs over the life of the e quipment even through the first cost increases.

The complete analysis and its conclusions are presented in Chapter 8 of the TSD.

For subgroups of low-income and senior consumers that purchase lighting products, DOE

determined that the average LCC impact is simila r to that for the full sample of consumers.

Therefore, DOE concludes that the proposed ac tion would have no significant socioeconomic

impact. For a complete discussion on the LCC impacts on consumer subgroups, see Chapter 12

of the TSD.

16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

According to Executive Order 12898 of Febr uary 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address

Environm ental Justice in Minorit y Populations and Low-Income Populations,” DOE is required

to examine the effect of more stringent energy-e fficiency standards on: (1) small businesses that

either manufacture or use IRL and GSFL, (2) manu facturers of niche produ cts related to IRL and

GSFL, and (3) small businesses operated by disadvantaged or minority populations.

DOE identified small businesses as a sub-group that possibly could be disproportionately

affected by IRL and GSFL energy conservation standa rds. As described in the Life-Cycle Cost

Subgroup Analysis, Chapter 11 of the TSD, DOE found that there was no disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmenta l effects on small busines ses that would result

from the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE believes that above conclusion also

applies to minority populations.

## 16-17 

# 16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS

Im provements in efficiency of IRL and GSFL equipment is expected to result from

changes in the choice of components and other de sign features. These changes are described in

Chapter 5 of this TSD. Efficiency improvement s result from improved heat exchanger designs

using increased levels of coppers, and more effi cient compressors. Thes e 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 efficient equipment. Changes to the design to improve the efficiency levels are

not anticipated to affect the equipment’s aesthetics.

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table 16.7.1 and Table 16.7.2 summarize antici pated environmental impacts for each of

the TSLs across all equipment types. Air quality impacts were estimated 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. The resulting changes in emi ssion quantities are very small. Cumulative

CO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , and Hg emissions show a decrease compared to the reference case.

Upstream fuel cycle emission of CO 2 

# and NO

x 

# are described but not quantified in section

16.2.7. The text describes potential reductions 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 a pproach does not address Hg emissions.

Socioeconomic impacts are presented in TSD Chapter 12.

# Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary for IRL

NEMS-BT Results: Environmental Effects

Total Reference Case

2012-2042† TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5



## IRL Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Substitution

CO2 (Million metric tons) 78,824 19.8 48.9 85.1 105.7 118.1

NOX (x1000t) 59,033 1.9 5.5 7.6 8.4 9.3

Mercury (t)

Low Emission Rate 846 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

High Emission Rate 846 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.7 1.8

IRL Emerging Technologies, Rollup, BR Lamp Substitution

CO2 (Million metric tons) 78,824 7.5 19.1 

## 37.8 44.0 53.3

NOX (x1000t) 59,033 1.3 3.2 5.4 6.4 8.1

Mercury (t)

Low Emission Rate 846 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

High Emission Rate 846 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8

† 

## Extrapolated by assuming 2030 end values in all subsequent years 2031-2042.



# Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary for GSFL

16-18 5 

## NEMS-BT Results: Environmental Effects

Total Reference Case

2012-2042† TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL



## GSFL Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise

CO2 (Million metric tons) 78,824 130.3 133.9 296.6 487.6 552.0

NOX (x1000t) 59,033 11.7 10.0 17.0 36.8 58.1

Mercury (t)

Low Emission Rate 846 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

High Emission Rate 846 2.0 2.4 4.8 7.3 8.8

GSFL Emerging Technologies, Roll up, Ma rket Segment Based Lighting Expertise

CO2 (Million metric tons) 78,824 66.4 86.0 

## 148.3 174.6 262.0

NOX (x1000t) 59,033 1.9 5.1 7.3 11.0 12.9

Mercury (t)

Low Emission Rate 846 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

High Emission Rate 846 1.2 1.4 2.3 2.8 4.0

† 

## Extrapolated by assuming 2030 end values in all subsequent years 2031-2042.

## 16-19 

# REFERENCES

1 

# U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual

Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecti ng Provisions of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act and Recent Change s in the Economic Outlook . April 2009: Washington,

DC. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/ >

2 

# DeLuchi, M. A. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and

Electricity , Volume 2: Appendixes A-S. Nove mber, 1993. Argonne National Laboratory.

Argonne, IL. Report No. ANL/ESD/TM-22-Vol.2.