### 16 -i 

## CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

16.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 16-1

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYS IS ......................................................................................... 16-1

16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions

................................ ................................................ 16-1

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation ....................................................................................... 16-4

16.2.3 Global Climate Change ...................................................................................... 16-5

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

16.2.5 Effects on Power Plant Emissions ..................................................................... 16-9

16.3 SOCIAL COST OF CARBO N DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ............................................... 16-11

16.3.1 Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions ........................................................... 16-11

16.3.2 Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses ................... 16-12

16.3.3 Current Approach and Key Assumptions ........................................................ 16-13

16.4 VALUATION OF OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ............................................ 16-15

16.5 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 16-15

16.6 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT S ..................................................................................... 16-16

16.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTIC E IMPACTS ................................................................... 16-16

16.8 NOISE AND AESTHETICS .......................................................................................... 16-16

16.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONME NTAL IMPACTS ........................................................ 16-16

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 16-33

LIST OF TABLES

Table 16.2.1 Reduction in Cumulative Energy- Related Emissions of CO 2 

## from 2014

through 2043 from Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards ............................ 16-7

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Forecast, Reference Case .............................................. 16-9

Table 16.2.3 Power Sec tor Emissions Impacts Forecasts for Ballast TSLs, Existing

Technologies, Shift Scenario* ........................................................................... 16-9

Table 16.2.4 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecasts for Ballast TSLs, Emerging

Technologies, Roll Scenario ............................................................................ 16-10

Table 16.2.5 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Pollutants as a Percentage of Direct

Power Plant Combustion Emissions ................................................................ 16-11

Table 16.3.1 Social Cost of CO 2 

## , 2010–2050 (in 2007$ per Metric Ton) ............................... 16-14

Table 16.9.1 Cumulative Emissions Reductions Under Ballast TSLs* ................................... 16-17

Table 16.9.2 Ballasts: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO 2 

## Emissions Reduction in

2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels (Existing Technologies, Shift

Scenario) .......................................................................................................... 16-17

Table 16.9.3 Ballasts: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO 2 

## Emissions Reduction in

2014-2043 Under Trial Standard Levels (Emerging Technologies, Roll- Up

Scenario) .......................................................................................................... 16-18

Table 16.9.4 Estimates of Present Value of NO X 

## Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043

Under Ballast Trial Standard Levels (Existing Technologies, Shift

Scenario) .......................................................................................................... 16-18

### 16

- ii 

## Table 16.9.5 Estimates of Present Value of NO X 

## Emissions Reduction in 2014–2043

Under Ballast Trial Standard Levels (Emerging Technologies, Roll

- Up

Scenario) .......................................................................................................... 16-18

Table 16.9.6 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present Value of

Monetized Benefits from CO 2 

## and NO X 

## Emissions Reductions at TSL 3

for Ballasts ( Existing Technologies, Shift) ...................................................... 16-19

Table 16.9.7 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1, Existing Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-21

Table 16.9.8 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2, Existing Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-22

Table 16.9.9 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3, Existing Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent D iscount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-23

Table 16.9.10 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1, Existing Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-24

Table 16.9.11 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Stan dards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2, Existing Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-25

Table 16.9.12 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3, Existing Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-26

Table 16.9.13 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-27

Table 16.9.14 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-28

Table 16.9.15 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed St andards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-29

Table 16.9.16 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-30

Table 16.9.17 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Discount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-31

Table 16.9.18 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for

2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3, Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7

Percent Disc ount Rate) .................................................................................... 16-32

### 16 -1 

## CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

16.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes potential environmental effects that may result from amended

energy conservation standards for ballasts . The U.S. Department of Energy ’s (DOE ’s) proposed

energy conservation standards are not site-specific, and would apply to all 50 States and U.S.

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

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

For this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), a ll of the trial standar d levels (TSLs) are

expected to reduce energy consumption in comparison to the base case. These changes in energy

consumption are the primary drivers in analyzing environmental effects. The estimates of energy

savings that serve as inputs to the environmen tal impacts analysis can be found in the utility

impact analysis in chapter 14 of this NOPR technical support document (TSD).

The primary impact of the TSLs is on air emissions resulting from power plant

operations. Therefore, much of this chapter describe s the air emissions analysis, and the latter

part of the chapter describes potential impacts to other environmental resources.

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

A primary focus of the environmental analysis is the impact on air emissions of amended

energy conservatio n standards for ballasts . The outcomes of the environmental analysis are

largely driven by changes in power plant types and quantities of electricity generated under each

of the alternatives. Changes in electricity generation are described in the utility impact analysis

in chapter 14 of th is NOPR TSD

.

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 –Building Technologies ( NEMS

- BT ) model (see NOPR

TSD chapter 14 for a description of the model). This analysis considers three pollutants: sulfur

dioxide (SO 2 

## ), nitrogen oxides (NO X 

## ), and mercury (Hg). An air pollutant is any substance in the

air that can cause harm to humans or the envi ronment. 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. a 

## This analysis also considers carbon dioxide (CO 2 

## ).

Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide, or SO 2 

## , belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases

(SO X 

## ). These gases dissolve easily in water. Sulfur is prevalent in all raw materials, including

crude oil, coal, and ore that contains common metals like aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, and iron.

SO X 

## gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned, and when

gasoline is extracted from oil or metals are extracted from ore. SO 2 

## dissolves in water vapor to

form acid, and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other

products that can be harmful to people and their environment. 1

a 

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

Agen cy (EPA) website at www.epa.gov

.

### 16 -2 

## DOE has determined that SO 2 

## emissions from affected Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs that cr eate

uncertainty about the standards’ impact on SO 2 

## emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an

annual emissions cap on SO 2 

## for all affected EGUs. SO 2 

## emissions from 28 eastern States and

the District of Columbia (D.C.) are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR,

published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2005. 70 FR 25162. ), which creates an allowance

based trading program that will gradually replace the Title IV program in those States and D.C.

(The recent legal history surrounding CAIR is discussed below.) The attainment of the emissions

caps is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and

tradable permits. Under existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) regulations, any

excess SO 2 

## emissi on allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the

imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO 2 

## emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if the standard resulted in a permanent increase in

th e quantity of unused emission allowances, there would be an overall reduction in SO 2 

## emissions from the standards. While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of

efficiency standards on SO 2 

## emissions covered by the existing cap and trad e system, the NEMS

BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no

physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO 2



## .

Even if there is no significant reduction in the overall emissions of SO 2 

## that results from

the standard, there may still be some economic benefit from reduced demand for SO 2 

## emission

allowances that is not fully reflected in the cost savings experienced by individual consumers.

Electricity savings that decrease the overall dem and for SO 2 

## emissions allowances could lower

allowance prices and thereby result in some economic benefits for all electricity consumers, not

just those that reduced their electricity use as a result of an efficiency standard. DOE does not

plan to monetize this particular benefit because the effect on the SO 2 

## allowance price from any

single energy conservation standard is likely to be small and highly uncertain.

Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides, or NO X 

## , is the generic term for a group of highly

reactive gas es, 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 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

ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigger 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 formation of fine particle s that can

impair human health. 2



## Nitrogen oxides form when fossil fuel is burned 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 residential sources that burn fossil fuels. NO X 

## can also be formed

naturally. Electric utilities account for about 21 percent of NO X 

## emissions in the U n ited States. 3



## Mercury. Coal

- fired power plants emit mercury , or Hg , found in coal during the burning

process. While coal -fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human- generated Hg

emissions in the United States, they contribute very little t o the global Hg pool or to

contamination of U.S. waters. 4 

## U.S. coal- fired power plants emit Hg in three different forms:

### 16 -3 

## oxidized Hg (likely to deposit within the United States); elemental Hg, which can travel

thousands of miles before depositing to land a nd water; and Hg that is in particulate form.

Atmospheric Hg is then deposited on land, lakes, rivers, and estuaries through rain, snow, and

dry deposition. Once there, it can transform into methylmercury and accumulate in fish tissue

through bioaccumulation.

Americans are exposed to methylmercury primarily 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 performance on neurobehavioral

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

abilities, and verbal memory. 4



## Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide, or CO 2 

## , is not a criteria pollutant (see below), but it is

of interest because of its classification as a greenhouse gas (GHG). GHGs trap the sun’s radiation

inside the Earth’s atmosphere and either occur naturally in the atmosphere or res ult 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 at mosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels

(oil, natural gas, and coal), wood, and wood products are burned. In 2008, over 90 percent of

anthropogenic CO 2 

## emissions resu lted from burning fossil fuels. 5



## Concentrations of CO 2 

## in the atmosphere are naturally reg ulated by numerous processes,

collectively known as the “carbon cycle.” The movement of carbon between the atmosphere and

the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, 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 the atmosphere annually. In 2008, CO 2 

## emissions from

electricity generation accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. 5



## Particulate Matter. Particulate matter , or PM, also known as particle pollution, is a

complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up

of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals,

metals, an d soil or dust particles.

PM impacts are of concern due to human exposures that can impact health. Particle

pollution— especially fine particles —contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so

small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Numerous

scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including

increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty

breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis;

irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung

disease.

Power plant emissions can have either direct or indirect impacts on PM. A portion of the

pollutants emitted by a power plant are in the form of particulates as they leave the smoke stack.

These are direct PM emissions. In addition, other pollutants such as SO 2 

## and NO X 

## interact with

other elements in the atmosphere to produce PM at some distance from the power plant.

### 16 -4 

## Compared to emission reductions of other pollutants , the relative impacts of reducing

direct PM emissions on PM exposures generally are much more difficult to estimate because of

the complex interactions among PM, other power plant emissions, meteorology, and atmospheric

chemistry that impact human exposure to particulates. Human exposure to PM usually occurs far

from the power plants that are emitting particulates and particulate precursors. When power plant

emissions travel this distance

, th ey undergo highly complex atmospheric chemical reactions and

the proportion of impacts and exposures attributable to different emissions can vary dramatically

for different emissions sources and types of particulate precursors. These variations in emission s impacts depend on the distance to the source, land use and land cover, and the local and regional

meteorology responsible for pollutant transport, deposition, and atmospheric chemistry.

The EPA has compiled and summarized technical studies reg arding PM s ource apportionment. 6 

## In this compilation of studies, sources are classified into seven categories: (1)

s econdary sulfate/coal ; (2) s econdary organic matter/mobile sources ; (3) n itrate dominated

sources ; (4) biomass burning; (5) industrial; (6) c rustal and salt; and (7) other. In these studies,

the PM exposures attributed to coal power plants are not disaggregated between direct particulate

emissions and SO 2 

## emissions from these power plants. This is because both SO 2 

## and direct PM

emissions aggregate and in teract with water droplets and emissions from other sources to create

final particulates that are a complex mixture of different constituents. Both the SO 2 

## and the direct

PM are emitted from the power plant at the same time , and if the final aerosol partic le contains

both sulfur compounds and other PM components it is not possible to attribute that aerosol

particle to one source or the other. Therefore, DOE cannot perform modeling that can makes

reliable estimates of the impact of direct PM emissions on air quality at this time.

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation

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

to control. 7 

## EPA has set national air quality standards for six common pollutants (also referred to

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

## and NO X 

## . Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 gave EPA the authority to control 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 cap

and

- trade program for SO 2 

## intended to help control acid rain. 7 

## This cap

- and

- trade program serves

as a model for more recent programs with similar features.

In 2005, EPA issued the CAIR under sections 110 and 111 of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR

parts 51, 96, and 97). b 

## 70 FR 25162–25405 (May 12, 2005). CAIR will permanently cap

emissions of SO 2 

## and NO X 

## in eastern States of the United States. CAIR achieves large reductions

of SO 2 

## and/or NO X 

## emissions across 28 eastern States and D.C . 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 S tate’s choosing. Phase 1 caps for NO X 

## have been in place since

2009. Phase 1 caps for SO 2 

## were in place beginning in 2010. The Phase 2 caps for both NO X 

## and

SO 2 

## are due in 2015.

b 

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

.

### 16 -5 

## Also in 2005, EPA issued a final rule entitled “Standards 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). 70 FR 28606–28700 (May 18, 2005.) This

rule, called the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), was closely related to the CAIR and

established standards of performance for Hg emissions from new and existing coal- fired electric

utility steam generating units. The CAMR regulated Hg emissions from c oal-fired power plants.

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

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

Agency (517 F.3d 574, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ), in which the Court, among other actions, vacated

the CAMR referenced above.

On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in North Carolina v. Environmental

Protection Agency , which vacated the CAIR issued by EPA on March 10, 2005. c 

## CAIR was the

vehicle for capping NO X 

## emissions. d 

## 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.

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 global concern because it is expected to have

widespread, adverse effects on natural resources and systems. A growing body of evidence

points to anthropogenic sources of GHGs , such as CO 2 

## , as major contributors to climate change.

Because this r ule, if finalized, will likely decrease CO 2 

## emission rates from the fossil fuel sector

in the United States, DOE here examines the impacts and causes of climate change and then the

potential impact of the rule on CO 2 

## emissi ons and global warming.

Impacts of Climate Change on the Environment. Climate is usually defined as the

average weather, over a period ranging from months to many years. Climate change refers to a

change in the state of the climate, which is identifiable t hrough changes in the mean and/or the

variability of its properties ( e.g. , temperature or precipitation) over an extended period, typically

decades or longer. 8



## The World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) establishe d the Intergovernmental Panel 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 change is consistent with observed changes to

the world’s natural systems; the IPCC expects these changes to continue. 8



## Changes that are consistent with warming include warming of the world’s oceans to a

depth of 3, 000 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 in creased drought and more frequent heat

waves in many locations worldwide; and numerous ecological changes. 8

c 

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

. d 

### See id. at 903.

### 16 -6 

## Looking forward, the IPCC describes continued global warming of about 0.2 °C per

decade for the next two decades under a wide range of emission scen arios for CO 2 

## , other GHGs,

and aerosols. After that period, the rate of increase is less certain. The IPCC Report describes

increases in average global temperatures of about 1.1 to 6.4 °C at the end of the century relative

to today. These increases vary depending on the model and emissions scenarios. 8



## The IPCC Report describes incremental impacts associated with the rise in temperature.

At ranges of incremental increases to the global average temperature, IPCC reports, with either

high or very high confiden ce, that there is likely to be an increasing degree of impacts such as

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

impacts for major cereal crops in the tropics, but also projects that there likely will b e 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 r eport finds that most of the temperature increase since the

mid -20th century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic concentrations of CO 2 

## and

other long-lived GHGs such as methane and NO X 

## in the atmosphere, rather than from natural

causes.

Increasing the CO 2 

## concentration partially blocks the earth’s re-radiation o f captured

solar energy in the infrared band, inhibits the radiant cooling of the earth, and thereby alters the

energy balance of the planet, which gradually increases its average temperature. The IPCC

Report estimates that CO 2 

## currently makes up about 77 percent of the total CO 2 

## -equivalent e



## global warming potential in GHGs emitted from human activities, with the vast majority (74

percent) of the CO 2 

## attributable to fossil fuel use. 9 

## For the future, the IPCC Report describes a

wide range of GHG emissions sc enarios, but under each scenario CO 2 

## would continue to

comprise above 70 percent of the total global warming potential. 9



## 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 i t takes hundreds of

years for natural processes to remove the CO 2 

## . Globally, 49 billion Mt of CO 2 

## -equivalent of

anthropogenic GHG s are emitted every year. Of this annual total, fossil fuels contribute about 29

billion Mt of CO 2



## . 10

, f



## Researchers have focused on considering atmospheric CO 2 

## concentrations that likely will

result in some level of global climate stabilization, and the emission rates associated with

achieving the “stabilizing” concentrations by particular dates. They associate these stabilized

CO 2 

## concentrations with temperature increases that plateau in a defined range. For example, at

e 

### 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 for cing 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.

f 

### Other non

- fo ssil fuel contributors include CO 2 

### emissions from deforestation and decay from agriculture biomass;

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

### 16 -7 

## the low end, the IPCC Report scenarios target CO 2 

## stabilized concentrations range between

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

low-end range would still result in temperatures projected to increase 2.0 to 2.4 °C above preindustrial levels 11 

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

350 and 400 ppm, the IPCC scenarios present that there would have to be a rapid downward

trend in total annual global emissions 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 population and substantial increases in economic production, the scenarios

identify required reductions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit of output) of more

than 90 percent. However, even at these rates, the scenarios project some warming and some climate change due to already accumulated CO 2 

## and GHGs in the atmosphere. 11



## The Beneficial Impact of the Rule on CO 2 

## Emissions. It is anticipated that the r ule will

reduce energy

- related CO 2 

## emissions, particularly those associated with energy consumption in

buildings. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports in its 2010 Annual Energy

Outlook ( AEO2010 ) 12 

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

## in 2007 were about 6.0

bi llion Mt . In the AEO2010 Reference Case, EIA projected that annual energy- related CO 2 

## emissions

would grow from 5.7 billion Mt in 2015 to 6.3 billion Mt in 2035, an increase of 10 percent (see

AEO2010 ).



## The estimated cumulative CO 2 

## emission reductions from ballast efficiency standards

(shown as a range of alternative TSLs) during the 30- year analysis peri od are indicated in Table

16.2.1 . The estimated CO 2 

## emission r eductions from electricity generation are calculated using

the NEMS -BT model.

Table 16.2.1 Reduction in Cumulative Energy -Related Emissions of CO 2 

## from 2014

through 2043 from Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Reduction in CO 2 

## Emissions

(2014 through 2043)

mil lion Mt

Existing Technologies,

Shift Emerging Technologies,

Roll

- up



## 1 70 14



## 2 87 2 7



## 3 121 40



## The Incremental Impact of the Rule on Climate Change. It is difficult to correlate

specific emission rates with atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 

## and specific atmospheric

concentrations with future temperatures because 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 regional temperature, precipitation, and extreme

weather regimes. For example, a major determinant of climate response is “equilibrium climate

sensit ivity

, ” a measure of the climate system response to sustained radioactive forcing. It is

defined as the global average surface 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 feedbacks being the largest source of uncertainty. Further, as

illustrated above, the IPCC Report scenarios for stabilization rates are presented in terms of a

### 16 -8 

## range of concentrations, which then corre lates 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 are, it is difficult to know when and to

what e xtent particular CO 2 

## emissions reductions will impact global warming. However, as Table

16.2.1 indicates, the rule is expected to reduce CO 2 

## emissions associated with energy

consumption in buildings.

16.2.4 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions

NEMS

- BT incorporates capabilities to assess compliance with SO 2 

## restrictions specified

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

Performance Standards, and Revised New Source Performance Standards. The version of

NEMS -BT in 2008 included provisions for the CAIR, which imposed stricter restrictions on SO 2



## and NO X 

## for some S tates, and the CAMR, which imposed a national Hg constraint. As dis cussed

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 cons istent with the court’s earlier opinion. North Carolina v.

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

EPA has not promulgated a rule to replace CAMR, which the D.C. Circuit vacated in 2008.

Thus, the version of NEMS -BT used in this analysis does not include provisions for the CAMR.

Coal

- fired electric generation is the single 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 coal supply. The model considers the rank of the coal as

well as the sulfur contents of the fuel used when determining optimal dispatch. 13



## Within the NEMS -BT model, planning options for achieving emissions restrictions in the

Clean Air Act Amendments include installing pollution control equipment on existing power

plants and building new power plants with low emission rates. These methods for reducing

emission s are compared to dispatching options such as fuel switching and allowance trading.

Environmental regulations also affect 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 part icular capacity type must consider the cost (if any) of

obtaining sufficient allowances. This could involve purchasing allowances or over complying at

an existing unit.

DOE’s analysis assumed the presence of nationwide emission caps on SO 2 

## and caps on

NO X 

## emissions in the 28 States covered by the CAIR. Any emissions reductions in NO X 

## calculated by the NEMS -BT modeling system that DOE plans to use are in addition to the

regulatory emissions reductions modeled in AEO . The NEMS

- BT modeling system currently

in dicates that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO 2 

## . However,

remaining uncertainty prevents DOE from estimating or reporting SO 2 

## reductions from energy

conservation standards at this time. It should be noted that the standards could put slight

downward pressure on the prices of emissions allowances in cap- and

- trade markets.

### 16 -9 

## In contrast to the NEMS

- BT modeling forecasts that SO 2 

## emissions reductions will

remain at the cap, SO 2 

## emissions were below the trading cap in 2007 and 2008. The difference

between the emissions levels that NEMS

- BT forecasts and those that EPA forecasts is an

indicator of the uncertainties associated with long

- range energy sector forecasts. Because of such

uncertainties, DOE cannot estimate the economic and physical benefit from SO 2 

## emissions

reductions at this time.

As noted in chapter 14, NEMS-BT model forecasts end in year 2035. Emissions impacts

beyond 2035 are assumed to be equal to the impacts in 2035.

16.2.5 Effects on Power Plant Emissions

Table 16.2.2 shows NEMS

- BT R eference C ase power plant emissions in selected years.

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Forecast

, Reference Case

NEMS

- BT Resul ts 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

CO 2 

### (million metric tons) 2,218 2,279 2,344 2,433 2,538 2,635

NO X 

### (thousand tons) 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1

Mercury (tons) 40.6 30.7 30.4 30.3 30.8 30.6



## Table 16.2.3 and Table 16.2.4 show the estimated changes in power plant emissions of

CO 2 

## , NO X 

## , and Hg in selected years for each of the TSLs.

Table 16.2.3 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecasts for Ballast TSLs , Existing

Technologies, Shift Scenario *

NEMS

- BT Results Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2043

Trial Standard Level 1

CO 2 

### (m illion metric tons/year)

- 0.444

- 1.424

- 2.217

- 2.823

- 3.242

- 3.242

- 3.242

NO X 

### (t housand tons/year)

- 0.253

- 0.739

- 1.018

- 1.089

- 0.952

- 0.952

- 0.952

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.015

- 0.042

- 0.052

- 0.044

- 0.020

- 0.020

- 0.020

Trial Standard Level 2

CO 2 

### (m illion metric tons/year)

- 0.553

- 1.774

- 2.761

- 3.516

- 4.038

- 4.038

- 4.038

NO X 

### (t housand tons/year)

- 0.315

- 0.921

- 1.268

- 1.356

- 1.185

- 1.185

- 1.185

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.019

- 0.052

- 0.064

- 0.055

- 0.025

- 0.025

- 0.025

Trial Standard Level 3

CO 2 

### (m illion metric tons/year)

- 0.769

- 2.465

- 3.837

- 4.886

- 5.611

- 5.611

- 5.611

NO X 

### ( t housand tons/year)

- 0.438

- 1.280

- 1.762

- 1.884

- 1.647

- 1.647

- 1.647

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.027

- 0.073

- 0.089

- 0.076

- 0.034

- 0.034

- 0.034

* CO 2 

### results are in metric tons, NO X 

### and Hg results are in short tons.

### 16

- 10 

## Table 16.2.4 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecasts for Ballast TSLs , Emerging

Technologies, Roll Scenario

NEMS

- BT Results Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2043

Trial S tandard Level 1

CO 2 

### (m illion metric tons/year)

- 0.392

- 1.016

- 1.128

- 0.729 0.181 0.181 0.181

NO X 

### (t housand tons/year)

- 0.028

- 0.123

- 0.255

- 0.424

- 0.629

- 0.629

- 0.629

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.007

- 0.019

- 0.020

- 0.012 0.007 0.007 0.007

Trial Standard Level 2

CO 2 

### ( m illion metric tons/year)

- 0.777

- 2.011

- 2.233

- 1.443 0.359 0.359 0.359

NO X 

### (t housand tons/year)

- 0.055

- 0.244

- 0.505

- 0.839

- 1.245

- 1.245

- 1.245

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.014

- 0.037

- 0.040

- 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.013

Trial Standard Level 3

CO 2 

### (m illion metric tons/year)

- 1.135

- 2.939

- 3.263

- 2.109 0.525 0.525 0.525

NO X 

### (t housand tons/year)

- 0.081

- 0.356

- 0.738

- 1.226

- 1.820

- 1.820

- 1.820

Hg (tons/year)

- 0.021

- 0.054

- 0.058

- 0.033 0.019 0.019 0.019



## Upstream fuel

- cycle emissions refer to the emissions associated with the amount of

energy used in the upstream production and downstream consumption of electricity, including

energy used at the power plant. 14 

## Upstream processes include the mining of coal or extraction of

natural gas, physical preparatory and cleaning process es, and transportation to the power plant.

NEMS -BT 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 production). Thus, this analysis reports only power plant

emissions.

However, previous DOE environmental assessment documents have developed

approximate estimates of effects on upstream fuel

- cycle emissions. These emissions factors

provide 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 transportation from the mine

to the power plant. 15 

## Transportation emissions include emissions from the fuel used by the mode

of transportation that moves the coal from the mine to the power plant. In addition, based on Dr.

DeLuchi’s work, DOE estimated that approximately 14 percent of emissions from natur al gas

production result from upstream processes.

Emission factor estimates and corresponding percentages of contributions of upstream

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

Table 16.2.5 for CO 2 

## and NO X 

## . The percentages provide a means to estimate upstream emission

savings based on changes in emissions from power plants. This approach does not address Hg

emiss ions.

### 16

- 11 

## Table 16.2.5 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 Emi ssions

CO 2 

### 2.7 11.9

NO X 

### 5.8 40



## 16.3 SOCIAL COST OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted by

law, “assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some

costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the

social cost of carbon ( SCC ) estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the

monetized social benefits of reducing CO 2 

## emissions into cost- benefit analyses of regulatory

actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. The estimates

are presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear

understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the

science and economics of climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical experts

from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the

technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main

objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input

assumptions grounded in the e xisting scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key

uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC

estimates used in the rulemaking process.

16.3.1 Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to)

changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood

risk, and th e value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric

ton of CO 2



## .

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of CO 2 

## emissions, the

analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Research

Council 16 

## points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of

information about (1) future emissions of GHGs ; (2) the effects of past and future emissions on

the climate system ; (3) the impact of changes in cl imate on the physical and biological

environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As

a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise

serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.

Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be

useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing CO 2 

## emissions. Consistent with the directive

in Exe cutive Order 12866 quoted above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to

### 16

- 12 

## make it possible for Federal agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing CO 2



## emissions into cost- benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts

on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have

marginal impacts on global emissions.

For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs from

increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by

the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value (NPV) of the benefits can then be

calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate discount factor and

summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the marginal damages from

increased emissions are constant for small departures from the baseline emissions pa th, an

approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on emissions that are small relative

to cumulative global CO 2 

## emissions. For policies that have a large (non- marginal) impact on

global cumulative emissions, there is a separate questio n of whether the SCC is an appropriate

tool for calculating the benefits of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this

notice, and DOE does not attempt to answer that question here.

At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most rec ent interagency estimates of the

potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 

## emissions in 2010, expressed in 2009$,

were $4.9, $22.1, $36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton avoided. For emissions reductions that occur in

later years, these values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group

determined that a range of values from 7 to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to

calculate dom estic effects, g 

## although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits

o f reducing CO 2 

## emissions. See appendix 15A of this TSD for the full range of annual SCC

estimates from 2010 to 2050.

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these

estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on

society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary goal of

revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as substantially updated models become

available, and to continue to support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group

will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part

of the ongoing interagency process.

16.3.2 Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of values to

estimate the benefits associated with reducing CO 2 

## emissions. In the final model year 2011

CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a “domestic” SCC value of

$2 per ton of CO 2 

## and a “global” SCC value of $33 per ton of CO 2 

## for 2007 emission reductions

(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year. h 

## DOT also included a sensitivity

analysis at $80 per ton of CO 2 

## . A do mestic SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages in

the United States resulting from a unit change in CO 2 

## emissions, while a global SCC value is

meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.

g 

### It is recognized that this calculation for domestic va lues is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There

is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global damages over time.

h 

### Throughout this section, references to tons of CO 2 

### refer to metric tons.

### 16

- 13 

## A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton of CO 2 

## (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions (with a range of $0 to $14 for sensitivity analysis), also

increasing at 2.4 percent per year. A regulation finalized by DOE in October 2008 used a

domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO 2 

## for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$). In

addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases identified

what it described as “very preliminary” SCC estimates subject to revision. EPA’s global mean

values were $68 and $40 per ton CO 2 

## for discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3

percent, respectively (in 20 06$ for 2007 emissions).

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how

best to quantify the benefits from reducing CO 2 

## emissions. To ensure consistency in how

benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administrati on sought to develop a transparent and

defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate

change damages from reduced CO 2 

## emissions. The interagency group did not undertake any

original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates from the existing literature to use as

interim values until a more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the

preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO 2



## .

These interim values represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S.

government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary

effort were p resented in several proposed and final rules and were offered for public comment in

connection with proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and CO 2 

## tailpipe

emission proposed rules.

16.3.3 Current Approach and Key Assumptions

Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular

basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which were considered for this proposed rule.

Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the technical literature

in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models (IAMs)

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models (described in

appendix 16- A of the NOPR TSD ). These models are frequently cited in the peer

- reviewe d

literature and were used in the last assessment of the IPCC . Each model was given equal weight

in the SCC values that were developed.

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result

in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a

consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the different approaches to

quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature

was conduct ed to select three sets of input parameters for these models: climate sensitivity,

socio -economic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for

climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In additio n, the interagency

group used a range of scenarios for the socio- economic parameters and a range of values for the

discount rate. All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’

best estimates and judgments.

### 16

- 14 

## The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three

values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates

of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate

across all three models at a 3 -percent discount rate, is included to represent higher- than

- expected

impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. For emissions

(or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these v alues grow in real terms over time, as

depicted in Table 16.3.1

.

Table 16.3.1 Social Cost of CO 2 

## , 2010– 2050 (in 2007 $ per M etric Ton)

Discount Rate

5%

Avg 3%

Avg 2.5%

Avg 3%

95th

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2



## It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain and that current

SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will evolve with

improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the

existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research Council report mentioned

above points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the

econ omic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model

these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that should be addressed by the

research community, including research programs housed in many of the Fede ral agencies

participating in the interagency process to estimate the SCC.

The U.S. Government intends to periodically review and reconsider estimates of the SCC

used for cost- benefit analyses to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of

climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context, statements recognizing

the limitations of the analysis and calling for further research take on exceptional significance.

The interagency group offers the new SCC values with all due h umility about the uncertainties

embedded in them and with a sincere promise to continue work to improve them.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 

## emissions, DOE used the most recent values identified by the interagency process, adjusted to

2009$ using the standard gross domestic product deflator values for 2008 and 2009. For each of

the four cases specified, the values used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.1, $36.3, and $67.1

per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2009$). To monetize the CO 2 

## emissions reductions

expected to result from amended standards for ballasts in 2014–2043, DOE used the values

identified in Table A1 of the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under

Executive Orde r 12866,” which is reprinted in appendix 16-A of the NOPR TSD, appropriately

adjusted to 2009$. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE

### 16

- 15 

## discounted the values in each of the four cases using the discount rates that had been used to

obtain the SCC values in each case.

16.4 VALUATION OF OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

As previously stated, DOE’s analysis assumed the presence of nationwide emission caps

on SO 2 

## and caps on NO X 

## emissions in the 28 S tates covered by the CAIR. In the presence of

these caps, the NEMS -BT modeling system that DOE used to forecast emissions reduction

indicated that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO 2 

## , but that the

amended standards could put slight downward pressure on the prices of emissions allowances in

cap

- and

- trade markets. Estimating this effect is very difficult because such factors as credit

banking can change the trajectory of emissions allowance prices. Based on its modeling to date,

DOE currently cannot estimate whether stand ards would affect the price of emissions

allowances.

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO X 

## emissions from the

TSLs it considered. As noted above, new or amended energy conservation standards would

reduce NO X 

## emissions in those 22 S tates that are not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the

monetized value of NO X 

## emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for

today’s NOPR based on environmental damage estimates found in the relevant scientific

literature. Availa ble estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary values, ranging from $370

per ton to $3,800 per ton of NO X 

## from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a

range of $447 to $4,591 per ton in 2009$). i 

## In accordance with OMB guidance, DOE conducted

two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using each of the economic values used for

NO X 

## , one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7

percent. j



## DOE is aw are of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values

used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to

await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions b efore it

once again monetizes Hg emissions in its rulemakings.

16.5 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Because ballasts are not water -consuming products, more efficient ballasts would not

reduce the amount of water discharged int o the waste stream. As a result, ballast energy

conservation standards do not affect the quality of wetlands or the threatened or endangered

species that reside in these wetlands. This action is also not expected to impact cultural resources

such as histor ical or archaeological sites.

i 

### F or additional information , refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget , Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on

State, Local, and Tribal Entities , Washington, D.C

. j 

### OMB, Circular A

- 4: Regulatory Analysis ( Sept. 17, 2003).

### 16

- 16 

## 16.6 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

DOE’ s analysis has shown that , for the average consumer, the increase in the first cost of

purchasing more efficient ballasts at the proposed standard levels is, in most cases, completely

offset by a redu ction in the life -cycle cost (LCC) of owning a more efficient product. In other

words, despite the increase in the first cost, the consumer will pay less in operating costs over the

life of the product. The complete LCC analysis and its conclusions are presented in chapter 8 of

the NOPR TSD.

For subgroups of low-income and other consumers that purchase ballasts, DOE

determined that the average LCC impact of the standards is similar to that for the full sample of

consumers. Therefore, DOE concludes that the proposed standards would have no significant

adverse socioeconomic impact. For a complete discussion on the LCC impacts on consumer

subgroups, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

16.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

In view of Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” DOE examined

the effect of the energy conservation standards on low-income households. As described in the

LCC subgroup analysis in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD, DOE found that there were no

disproportionately high and adverse socioeconomic effects on low-income populations, nor does

DOE anticipate that adverse human health or environmental effects would result from the

proposed energy conservation stand ards.

16.8 NOISE AND AESTHETICS

Improvements in efficiency of ballasts are expected to result from changes in the choice

of components and other design features. These changes are described in chapter 5 of th e NOPR

TSD. These design changes are not expected to change noise levels in comparison to products in

today’s market. Products that are currently manufactured in the existing market that would meet

the standards are no louder than less efficient products. Changes to the ballast design to improve

the efficiency levels are not expected to adversely affect the ballast aesthetics or the aesthetics of

lighting fixtures in which they are installed

.

16.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table 16.9.1 summarizes the estimated emissions impacts for each of the TSLs for

ballasts. It shows cumulative changes in emissions for CO 2 

## , NO X 

## , and Hg for 2014 through 2043

for each of the ballast TSLs. Cumulative CO 2 

## , NO X 

## , and Hg emissio ns are reduced compared to

the reference case for all TSLs.

Upstream fuel cycle emission of CO 2 

## and NO X 

## are described but not quantified in section

16.2.5

. The text describes potential reductions in fuel cycle emissions as percentage of decreases

in power plant emissions. This approach suggests that upstream fuel cycle emissions would

decrease and provides a sense of the magnitud e of effects; however , DOE does not report actual

estimates of the effects.

### 16

- 17 

## For subgroups of low-income and other consumers that purchase ballast, DOE

determined that the average LCC impact of the standards is similar to that for the full sample of

consumers. Therefore, DOE concludes that the proposed standards would have no significant

adverse socioeconomic impact.

No impacts are anticipated in the areas of environmental justice, wetlands, endangered

and threatened species, cultural resources , or noise and aesthetics.

Table 16.9.1 Cumulative Emissions Reductions Under Ballast TSLs*

Trial

Standard

Level Cumulative R eduction in E missions (2014 through 2043)

Existing Technologies,

Shift Emerging Technologies,

Roll -Up

CO 2



### million Mt NO X



### thousand tons Hg

tons CO 2



### million Mt NO X



### thousand tons Hg

tons

1 70 26 0.96 14 11 0.20

2 87 32 1.20 27 22 0.40

3 121 44 1.67 40 32 0.59

* Values for CO 2 

### are in metric tons; values for NO X 

### and Hg are in short tons.



## As part the analysis for the proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to

result from the reduced emissions of CO 2 

## and NO X 

## that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs

considered. As discussed in section 16.3.1 , DOE used values for the SCC developed by an interagency process . The four values for CO 2 

## emissions reductions resulting from that process

(expressed in 2007$) are $4.7/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5- percent

discount rate), $21.4/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3- percent discount

rate), $35.1/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5- percent disco unt rate), and

$64.9/ton (the 95 th



## - percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3

- percent discount rate). These

values correspond to the value of emission reductions in 2010; the values for later years are

higher due to increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change increases.

Table 16.9.2 and Table 16.9.3 pr esent the g lobal values of CO 2 

## emissions reductions at

each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of annual

values using the same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton

values are based.

Table 16.9.2 Ballasts: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO 2 

## Emissions Reduction in

2014-2043 U nder Trial Standard Levels (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario)

TSL Million 2009$

5% discount

rate, average* 3% discount

rate, average* 2.5% discount

rate, average* 3% discount

rate, 95 th



### percentile*

1 2 48 1, 262 2, 138 3,853

2 3 09 1, 572 2, 662 4,799

3 4 29 2, 185 3, 699 6,668

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn

from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for

consistency with other values presented in this TSD , and incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time.

### 16

- 18 

## Table 16.9.3 Ballasts: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO 2 

## Emissions Reduction in

2014-2043 U nder Trial Standard Levels (Emerging Technologies, Roll

- Up Scenario)

TSL Million 2009$

5% discount

rate, average* 3% discount

rate, average* 2.5% discount

rate, average* 3% discount

rate, 95 th



### percentile*

1 64 296 489 905

2 126 58 6 969 1,791

3 185 856 1,416 2,618

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn

from a different part of the distribution. Values presented in the table are based on escalating 2007$ to 2009$ for

consistency with other values presented in this TSD , and incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time.



## DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits

associated with NO X 

## emissions reductions anticipated to result from amended standards for

refrigeration products. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section 16.4

. Table 16.9.4 and Table 16.9.5 present the cumulative present values for each TSL calculated

using seven- percent and three

- percent discount rates.

Table 16.9.4 E stimates of Present Value of NO X 

## Emissions Reduction in 2014-2043 Under

Ballast Trial Standard Levels (Existing Technologies, Shift Scenario )

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

million 2009$

Using 7% discount rate 3.6

– 36.5 4.4

– 45.5 6.2

– 63.2

Using 3% discount rate 6.7

– 68.3 8.3

– 85.1 11.5

– 118.2



## Table 16.9.5 E stimates of Present Value of NO X 

## Emissions Reduction in 2014–2043 Under

Ballast Trial Standard Levels (Emerging Technologies, Roll

- Up Scenario)

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

million 2009$

Using 7% discount rate 1.2

– 12.2 2.3

– 24.1 3.4

– 35.2

Using 3% discount rate 2.6

– 26.4 5.1

– 52.3 7.4

– 76.4



## The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be viewed

as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this

rulemaking. Using the Existing Technologies, Shift scenario as an example, Table 16.9.6 shows

an example of the calculation of the combined NPV including benefits from emissions

reductions for the case of TSL 3 for ballasts . Tables 16.9.7 – 16.9.18 pre sent the NPV values that

would result if DOE were to add the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from

reduced CO 2 

## and NO X 

## emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of consumer

savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7- percent and 3- percent

discount rate (using the Existing Technologies, Shift scenario as an example). The CO 2 

## values

used in the columns of each table correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO 2



## emission r eductions presented in section 16.3.1

.

### 16

- 19 

## Table 16.9.6 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present Value of

Monetized Benefits from CO 2 

## and NO X 

## Emissions Reductions at TSL 3 for Ballasts

(Existing Technologies, Shift)

Category Present Value

million 2009$ Discount

Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 16,858 7%

35,284 3%

CO 2 

### Reduction Monetized Value

(at $4.7/Metric Ton)* 429 5%

CO 2 

### Reduction Monetized Value

(at $21.4/Metric Ton)* 2,185 3%

CO 2 

### Reduction Monetized Value

(at $35.1/Metric Ton)* 3,699 2.5%

CO 2 

### Reduction Monetized Value

(at $64.9/Metric Ton)* 6,668 3%

NO X 

### Reduction Monetized Value

(at $2,519/Ton)* 35 7%

65 3%

Total Monetary Benefits ** 19,078 7%

37,534 3%

Costs

Total Incremental Installed Costs 5,425 7%

10,573 3%

Net Benefits/Costs

Including CO 2 

### and NO X 

### ** 13,653 7%

26,961 3%

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO 2 

### emissions in 2010 under several

scenarios. The values of $4.7, $21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using

5- percent , 3

- percent , and 2.5

- percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.9 per ton represents the 95 th



### percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3

- percent discount rate. See section 16.3.1 for details.

** Total m onetary b enefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of

CO 2 

### emissions calculated at a 3

- percent discount rate (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton i n 2010 (in 2007$).



## Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions

provides a valuable perspective, the following should be considered: (1) the national consumer

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings found i n market transactions, while the

values of emissions reductions are based on estimates of marginal social costs, which, in the case

of CO 2 

## , are based on a global value; and (2) the assessments of consumer savings and emissionrelated benefits are performed with different computer models, leading to different timeframes

for analysis. For ballasts , the present value of national consumer savings is measured for the

period in which units shipped (2014–2043 ) continue to operate. However, the time frames of the

benefits associated with the emission reductions differ. For example, the value of CO 2 

## emissions

reductions reflects the present value of all future climate

- related impacts due to emitting a ton of

CO 2 

## in that year, out to 2300.

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards, for products sold in 2014–2043,

can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values shown in

Table 16.9.7 th rough Table 16.9.18 present the sum of (1) the annualized national economic

value, expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the

### 16

- 20 

## proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus

increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing

consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions,

including CO 2 

## emission reductions. These results tables address all TSLs, product subclasses,

and shipment scenarios.

DOE used a two -step calculation process to convert the time- series of costs and benefits

into annualized value s. First, DOE calculated a present value in the same year used for

discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. To calculate the present value, DOE

used discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value o f

CO 2 

## reductions. For the latter, DOE used the range of discount rates discussed above. From the

present value, DOE then calculated the corresponding time-series of fixed annual payments over

a 30 -year period starting in the same year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs

and savings. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated

annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the

annualized values were determined would b e a steady stream of payments.

### 16

- 21 

## Table 16.9.7 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1, Existing

Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.103 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.018 0.001 0.006 0.000

- 0.006 0.161



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.451 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.125 0.100 0.040 0.002 0.256 1.109



### NPV billion $2009 0.348 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.107 0.099 0.033 0.002 0.261 0.948



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 6.097 0.967 0.000 0.000 0.816 1.932 1.576 0.862 0.001 3.876 16.127



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 24.350 3.861 0.000 0.000 3.259 7.715 6.293 3.444 0.006 15.480 64.408



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 38.609 6.122 0.000 0.000 5.168 12.233 9.977 5.460 0.009 24.545 102.123



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 74.309 11.783 0.000 0.000 9.947 23.544 19.203 10.509 0.017 47.242 196.555



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.128 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.041 0.033 0.018 0.000 0.082 0.339



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.723 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.229 0.187 0.102 0.000 0.460 1.912



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.317 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.176 0.417 0.340 0.186 0.000 0.838 3.485



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.108 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.034 0.028 0.015 0.000 0.069 0.287



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.610 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.193 0.158 0.086 0.000 0.388 1.615



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.113 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.353 0.288 0.157 0.000 0.707 2.943



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.373 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.115 0.106 0.037 0.002 0.277 1.0142



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.373 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.115 0.106 0.037 0.002 0.277 1.0139

### 16

- 22 

## Table 16.9.8 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2, Existing

Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.103 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.026 0.069 0.041 0.000

- 0.006 0.274



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.452 0.085 0.000 0.006 0.053 0.154 0.197 0.072 0.002 0.256 1.275



### NPV billion $2009 0.348 0.050 0.000 0.006 0.048 0.128 0.128 0.030 0.002 0.261 1.001



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 6.487 1.047 0.000 0.095 0.868 2.531 3.290 1.646 0.001 4.122 20.087



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 25.906 4.183 0.000 0.380 3.466 10.110 13.139 6.573 0.006 16.461 80.223



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 41.076 6.632 0.000 0.602 5.495 16.029 20.833 10.422 0.009 26.101 127.200



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 79.059 12.765 0.000 1.159 10.577 30.852 40.096 20.059 0.018 50.235 244.820



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.136 0.022 0.000 0.002 0.018 0.053 0.069 0.035 0.000 0.087 0.423



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.769 0.124 0.000 0.011 0.103 0.300 0.390 0.195 0.000 0.489 2.382



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.402 0.226 0.000 0.021 0.188 0.547 0.711 0.356 0.000 0.891 4.340



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.115 0.019 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.045 0.058 0.029 0.000 0.073 0.357



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.649 0.105 0.000 0.010 0.087 0.253 0.329 0.165 0.000 0.413 2.011



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.184 0.191 0.000 0.017 0.158 0.462 0.600 0.300 0.000 0.752 3.665



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.375 0.055 0.000 0.006 0.051 0.138 0.141 0.037 0.002 0.278 1.08354



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.375 0.055 0.000 0.006 0.051 0.138 0.141 0.037 0.002 0.278 1.08317

### 16

- 23 

## Table 16.9.9 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3, Existing

Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/ RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.125 0.034 0.037 0.000 0.007 0.026 0.244 0.072 0.000

- 0.006 0.539



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.627 0.085 0.089 0.006 0.060 0.154 0.418 0.104 0.002 0.256 1.800



### NPV billion $2009 0.502 0.050 0.052 0.006 0.053 0.128 0.174 0.032 0.002 0.261 1.261



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 8.782 1.021 1.421 0.095 0.963 2.468 6.806 2.335 0.003 4.018 27.912



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 35.071 4.078 5.675 0.380 3.845 9.856 27.181 9.327 0.010 16.049 111.472



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 55.608 6.466 8.999 0.602 6.097 15.628 43.098 14.789 0.016 25.447 176.748



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 107.027 12.445 17.320 1.159 11.734 30.079 82.949 28.464 0.031 48.977 340.184



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.185 0.021 0.030 0.002 0.020 0.052 0.143 0.049 0.000 0.085 0.587



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 1.041 0.121 0.168 0.011 0.114 0.293 0.807 0.277 0.000 0.476 3.309



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.897 0.221 0.307 0.021 0.208 0.533 1.471 0.505 0.001 0.868 6.031



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.156 0.018 0.025 0.002 0.017 0.044 0.121 0.041 0.000 0.071 0.496



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.879 0.102 0.142 0.010 0.096 0.247 0.681 0.234 0.000 0.402 2.795



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.602 0.186 0.259 0.017 0.176 0.450 1.242 0.426 0.000 0.733 5.093



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.538 0.054 0.058 0.006 0.057 0.138 0.202 0.042 0.002 0.278 1.3755



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.538 0.054 0.058 0.006 0.057 0.138 0.202 0.041 0.002 0.278 1.3750

### 16

- 24 

## Table 16.9.10 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1,

Existing Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Disc ount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.089 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.015 0.001 0.005 0.000

- 0.006 0.136



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.340 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.093 0.072 0.031 0.002 0.213 0.856



### NPV billion $2009 0.251 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.078 0.071 0.026 0.002 0.219 0.720



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 6.097 0.967 0.000 0.000 0.816 1.932 1.576 0.862 0.001 3.876 16.127



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 24.350 3.861 0.000 0.000 3.259 7.715 6.293 3.444 0.006 15.480 64.408



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 38.609 6.122 0.000 0.000 5.168 12.233 9.977 5.460 0.009 24.545 102.123



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 74.309 11.783 0.000 0.000 9.947 23.544 19.203 10.509 0.017 47.242 196.555



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.128 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.041 0.033 0.018 0.000 0.082 0.339



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.723 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.229 0.187 0.102 0.000 0.460 1.912



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.317 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.176 0.417 0.340 0.186 0.000 0.838 3.485



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.108 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.034 0.028 0.015 0.000 0.069 0.287



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.610 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.193 0.158 0.086 0.000 0.388 1.615



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.113 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.353 0.288 0.157 0.000 0.707 2.943



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.276 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.086 0.078 0.029 0.002 0.235 0.78630



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.276 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.086 0.077 0.029 0.002 0.235 0.78601

### 16

- 25 

## Table 16.9.11 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2,

Existing Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.089 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.023 0.053 0.033 0.000

- 0.006 0.226



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.340 0.065 0.000 0.005 0.043 0.115 0.139 0.054 0.002 0.213 0.976



### NPV billion $2009 0.251 0.036 0.000 0.005 0.038 0.092 0.086 0.021 0.002 0.219 0.750



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 6.487 1.047 0.000 0.095 0.868 2.531 3.290 1.646 0.001 4.122 20.087



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 25.906 4.183 0.000 0.380 3.466 10.110 13.139 6.573 0.006 16.461 80.223



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 41.076 6.632 0.000 0.602 5.495 16.029 20.833 10.422 0.009 26.101 127.200



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 79.059 12.765 0.000 1.159 10.577 30.852 40.096 20.059 0.018 50.235 244.820



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.136 0.022 0.000 0.002 0.018 0.053 0.069 0.035 0.000 0.087 0.423



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.769 0.124 0.000 0.011 0.103 0.300 0.390 0.195 0.000 0.489 2.382



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.402 0.226 0.000 0.021 0.188 0.547 0.711 0.356 0.000 0.891 4.340



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.115 0.019 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.045 0.058 0.029 0.000 0.073 0.357



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.649 0.105 0.000 0.010 0.087 0.253 0.329 0.165 0.000 0.413 2.011



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.184 0.191 0.000 0.017 0.158 0.462 0.600 0.300 0.000 0.752 3.665



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.277 0.040 0.000 0.005 0.042 0.103 0.099 0.028 0.002 0.236 0.83275



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.277 0.040 0.000 0.005 0.042 0.103 0.099 0.028 0.002 0.236 0.83238

### 16

- 26 

## Table 16.9.12 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3,

Existing Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.108 0.029 0.032 0.000 0.006 0.023 0.188 0.058 0.000

- 0.006 0.437



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.472 0.065 0.067 0.005 0.048 0.115 0.293 0.078 0.002 0.213 1.359



### NPV billion $2009 0.364 0.036 0.035 0.005 0.042 0.092 0.105 0.020 0.002 0.219 0.921



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 8.782 1.021 1.421 0.095 0.963 2.468 6.806 2.335 0.003 4.018 27.912



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 35.071 4.078 5.675 0.380 3.845 9.856 27.181 9.327 0.010 16.049 111.472



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 55.608 6.466 8.999 0.602 6.097 15.628 43.098 14.789 0.016 25.447 176.748



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 107.027 12.445 17.320 1.159 11.734 30.079 82.949 28.464 0.031 48.977 340.184



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.185 0.021 0.030 0.002 0.020 0.052 0.143 0.049 0.000 0.085 0.587



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 1.041 0.121 0.168 0.011 0.114 0.293 0.807 0.277 0.000 0.476 3.309



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.897 0.221 0.307 0.021 0.208 0.533 1.471 0.505 0.001 0.868 6.031



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.156 0.018 0.025 0.002 0.017 0.044 0.121 0.041 0.000 0.071 0.496



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.879 0.102 0.142 0.010 0.096 0.247 0.681 0.234 0.000 0.402 2.795



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.602 0.186 0.259 0.017 0.176 0.450 1.242 0.426 0.000 0.733 5.093



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.400 0.040 0.041 0.005 0.046 0.102 0.133 0.029 0.002 0.236 1.03613



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.400 0.040 0.041 0.005 0.046 0.102 0.133 0.029 0.002 0.236 1.03561

### 16

- 27 

## Table 16.9.13 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.000

- 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.000 0.006 0.000

- 0.005 0.008



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.068 0.055 0.040 0.000 0.213 0.411



### NPV billion $2009 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.059 0.055 0.033 0.000 0.218 0.404



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.705 0.758 1.210 0.000 1.226 4.153



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 0.001 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.858 2.561 2.754 4.394 0.000 4.453 15.087



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 0.002 0.101 0.000 0.000 1.330 3.968 4.268 6.809 0.000 6.900 23.378



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 0.003 0.199 0.000 0.000 2.627 7.835 8.427 13.445 0.000 13.625 46.162



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.022 0.024 0.038 0.000 0.039 0.131



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.126 0.135 0.215 0.000 0.218 0.740



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.229 0.246 0.393 0.000 0.398 1.348



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.016 0.017 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.096



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.091 0.098 0.157 0.000 0.159 0.538



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.166 0.179 0.286 0.000 0.290 0.981



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.062 0.058 0.038 0.000 0.222 0.41946



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.062 0.058 0.038 0.000 0.222 0.41926

### 16

- 28 

## Table 16.9.14 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.052 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.014 0.024 0.038 0.000

- 0.005 0.160



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.238 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.088 0.095 0.068 0.002 0.213 0.817



### NPV billion $2009 0.186 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.074 0.070 0.030 0.002 0.218 0.657



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 2.158 0.679 0.000 0.002 0.290 0.915 1.002 1.014 0.001 2.162 8.223



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 7.838 2.467 0.000 0.007 1.055 3.324 3.640 3.683 0.002 7.854 29.870



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 12.146 3.822 0.000 0.010 1.634 5.150 5.641 5.707 0.003 12.170 46.285



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 23.983 7.547 0.000 0.021 3.227 10.170 11.139 11.270 0.006 24.030 91.393



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.068 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.029 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.068 0.260



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.384 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.163 0.178 0.181 0.000 0.385 1.464



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.700 0.220 0.000 0.001 0.094 0.297 0.325 0.329 0.000 0.702 2.669



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.050 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.050 0.189



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.280 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.119 0.130 0.131 0.000 0.280 1.066



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.510 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.216 0.237 0.239 0.000 0.511 1.942



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.195 0.053 0.000 0.001 0.027 0.078 0.074 0.034 0.002 0.226 0.68852



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.194 0.053 0.000 0.001 0.027 0.078 0.074 0.034 0.002 0.226 0.68813

### 16

- 29 

## Table 16.9.15 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 3 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.065 0.034 0.019 0.000 0.003 0.014 0.108 0.072 0.000

- 0.005 0.311



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.358 0.085 0.051 0.006 0.033 0.088 0.213 0.104 0.002 0.213 1.153



### NPV billion $2009 0.293 0.050 0.032 0.006 0.030 0.074 0.106 0.032 0.002 0.218 0.841



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 3.315 0.694 0.539 0.064 0.349 0.936 2.314 1.594 0.002 2.211 12.018



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 12.042 2.522 1.957 0.232 1.268 3.399 8.406 5.791 0.006 8.031 43.655



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 18.660 3.909 3.033 0.359 1.965 5.267 13.025 8.974 0.009 12.445 67.646



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 36.846 7.718 5.989 0.710 3.881 10.400 25.719 17.719 0.017 24.573 133.572



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.105 0.022 0.017 0.002 0.011 0.030 0.073 0.050 0.000 0.070 0.380



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.590 0.124 0.096 0.011 0.062 0.167 0.412 0.284 0.000 0.394 2.140



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.076 0.225 0.175 0.021 0.113 0.304 0.751 0.517 0.001 0.718 3.900



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.076 0.016 0.012 0.001 0.008 0.022 0.053 0.037 0.000 0.051 0.276



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.430 0.090 0.070 0.008 0.045 0.121 0.300 0.207 0.000 0.287 1.557



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.783 0.164 0.127 0.015 0.082 0.221 0.547 0.377 0.000 0.522 2.838



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.305 0.053 0.034 0.006 0.031 0.078 0.115 0.038 0.002 0.226 0.88729



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.305 0.053 0.034 0.006 0.031 0.078 0.114 0.038 0.002 0.226 0.88671

### 16

- 30 

## Table 16.9.16 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL1,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.000

- 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.000 0.005 0.000

- 0.005 0.005



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.055 0.045 0.031 0.000 0.182 0.344



### NPV billion $2009 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.047 0.045 0.026 0.000 0.187 0.339



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.705 0.758 1.210 0.000 1.226 4.153



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 0.001 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.858 2.561 2.754 4.394 0.000 4.453 15.087



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 0.002 0.101 0.000 0.000 1.330 3.968 4.268 6.809 0.000 6.900 23.378



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 0.003 0.199 0.000 0.000 2.627 7.835 8.427 13.445 0.000 13.625 46.162



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.022 0.024 0.038 0.000 0.039 0.131



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.126 0.135 0.215 0.000 0.218 0.740



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.229 0.246 0.393 0.000 0.398 1.348



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.016 0.017 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.096



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.091 0.098 0.157 0.000 0.159 0.538



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.166 0.179 0.286 0.000 0.290 0.981



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.049 0.048 0.030 0.000 0.192 0.35485



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.049 0.048 0.030 0.000 0.192 0.35465

### 16

- 31 

## Table 16.9.17 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL2,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.050 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.013 0.021 0.030 0.000

- 0.005 0.142



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.195 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.071 0.075 0.051 0.002 0.182 0.666



### NPV billion $2009 0.144 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.058 0.054 0.021 0.002 0.187 0.525



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 2.158 0.679 0.000 0.002 0.290 0.915 1.002 1.014 0.001 2.162 8.223



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 7.838 2.467 0.000 0.007 1.055 3.324 3.640 3.683 0.002 7.854 29.870



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 12.146 3.822 0.000 0.010 1.634 5.150 5.641 5.707 0.003 12.170 46.285



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 23.983 7.547 0.000 0.021 3.227 10.170 11.139 11.270 0.006 24.030 91.393



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.068 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.029 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.068 0.260



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.384 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.163 0.178 0.181 0.000 0.385 1.464



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.700 0.220 0.000 0.001 0.094 0.297 0.325 0.329 0.000 0.702 2.669



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.050 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.050 0.189



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.280 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.119 0.130 0.131 0.000 0.280 1.066



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.510 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.216 0.237 0.239 0.000 0.511 1.942



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.152 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.061 0.058 0.025 0.002 0.196 0.55599



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.152 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.061 0.057 0.025 0.002 0.196 0.55560

### 16

- 32 

## Table 16.9.18 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Ballasts for 2014

− 2043 Analysis Period (TSL3,

Emerging Technologies Scenario, 7 Percent Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1

– IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2

– PS Ballasts Operating PC3

–

Ballasts

Operating PC5

–

Ballasts

Operating

Annualized ValuesTwo 4-footMBP (com)Two 4-footMBP (res)Four 4-footMBPTwo 8-footslimlineTwo 4-footMBPFour 4-footMBPTwo 4-footMiniBP SOTwo 4-footMiniBP HOTwo 8-footHOFour 8-footHO (sign)



### TOTAL

Increased Equipment Cost billion $2009 0.064 0.029 0.019 0.000 0.003 0.013 0.095 0.058 0.000

- 0.005 0.276



### Operating Cost Savings billion $2009 0.293 0.065 0.042 0.005 0.029 0.071 0.165 0.078 0.002 0.182 0.931



### NPV billion $2009 0.229 0.036 0.023 0.005 0.025 0.058 0.071 0.020 0.002 0.187 0.655



### Social Cost of Emissions

Monetary values million $2009

CO 2 

### savings

at $4.7/ton in 2007$ (5% discount rate) 3.315 0.694 0.539 0.064 0.349 0.936 2.314 1.594 0.002 2.211 12.018



### at $21.4/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 12.042 2.522 1.957 0.232 1.268 3.399 8.406 5.791 0.006 8.031 43.655



### at $35.1/ton in 2007$ (2.5% discount rate) 18.660 3.909 3.033 0.359 1.965 5.267 13.025 8.974 0.009 12.445 67.646



### at $64.9/ton in 2007$ (3% discount rate) 36.846 7.718 5.989 0.710 3.881 10.400 25.719 17.719 0.017 24.573 133.572



### NO X 

### savings (3% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.105 0.022 0.017 0.002 0.011 0.030 0.073 0.050 0.000 0.070 0.380



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.590 0.124 0.096 0.011 0.062 0.167 0.412 0.284 0.000 0.394 2.140



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 1.076 0.225 0.175 0.021 0.113 0.304 0.751 0.517 0.001 0.718 3.900



### NO X 

### savings (7% discount rate)

at $447/ton in 2009$ 0.076 0.016 0.012 0.001 0.008 0.022 0.053 0.037 0.000 0.051 0.276



### at $2,519/ton in 2009$ 0.430 0.090 0.070 0.008 0.045 0.121 0.300 0.207 0.000 0.287 1.557



### at $4,591/ton in 2009$ 0.783 0.164 0.127 0.015 0.082 0.221 0.547 0.377 0.000 0.522 2.838



### NPV including Social Cost of Emissions

($21.4/ton CO 2 

### and 2,519/ton NO X 

### ) billion $2009

NO X 

### at 3% discount rate 0.241 0.039 0.025 0.005 0.027 0.061 0.080 0.026 0.002 0.196 0.70109



### NO X 

### at 7% discount rate 0.241 0.039 0.025 0.005 0.027 0.061 0.079 0.026 0.002 0.196 0.70050

### 16

- 33 

## REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sulfur Dioxide. 2010. ( Last accessed February 25,

2011.) < www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/ >

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nitrogen Dioxide . 2010. ( Last accessed February

25, 2011.) < www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/ >

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nitrogen Oxides . 2009. ( Last accessed February

25, 2011.) < www.epa.gov/air/emissions/nox.htm >

4. Trasande, L., C. Schechter, K.A. Haynes, and P.J. Landrigan. Applying Cost Analyses to

Drive Policy That Protects Children: Mercury as a Case Study. Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences . 2006. 1076.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

. 2010. (Last accessed Febr uary 25, 2011.)

< www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html >

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Existing Studies on Source

Apportionment for PM 2.5 

## . 2003. Washington, D.C.

< www.epa.gov/airtrends/specialstudies/compsareports.pdf >

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Act . 1990. < www.epa.gov/air/caa/ >

8. Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change

. IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report:

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis . 2007. Geneva.

< www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_re

port_the_physical_science_basis.h tm > 8

9. Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change

. Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation

and Vulnerability . (Last accessed February 25, 2011.) < www.ipcc

- wg2.gov/ > 9

10. Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Cha nge

. IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land- Use

Change and Forestry . 2000. Geneva. < www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/501.htm >

11. Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change

. IPCC Fou rth Assessment Report Cl imate

Change 2007: Working Group III Report “Mitigation of Climate Change .” 2007. Geneva.

< www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar4/wg3/ar4

- wg3 -ts.pdf >

12. U.S. Department of Energy– Energy Information Administration

. Annual Energy Outlook

2010 . 2010. Washington, D.C. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2010).

< www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/index.html >

### 16

- 34 

## 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human -Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon

Dioxide. 2010. (Last accessed February 25, 2011.)

< www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/c o2_human.html >

14. Herzog, H. a. K. S. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. Chapter

8: Cost and economic potential . 2005. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Cambridge.

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

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

Report No. ANL/ESD/TM-22-Vol.2.

16. National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy

Production and Use. National Academies Press: Washington, DC (2009).