16-i 

CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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 CARBON 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 IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 16-16

16.7 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS ................................................................... 16-16

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

16.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................ 16-16

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

LIST OF TABLES

Table 16.2.1 Reduction in Cumulative Energy-Related Emissions of CO2 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 Sector 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 CO2, 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 CO2 and NOX 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 Discount 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 Standards 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 Standards 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 Discount 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), all of the trial standard 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 environmental 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 describes 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 conservation 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 this 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 (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury (Hg). An air pollutant is any substance in the 

air that can cause harm to humans or the environment. Pollutants may be natural or man-made 

(i.e., anthropogenic) and may take the form of solid particles (i.e., particulates or particulate 

matter), liquid droplets, or gases.a

 This analysis also considers carbon dioxide (CO2).

Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide, or SO2, belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases 

(SOX). 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. 

SOX 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. SO2 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. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) website at www.epa.gov. 
16-2 

DOE has determined that SO2 emissions from affected Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 

are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs that create 

uncertainty about the standards’ impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an 

annual emissions cap on SO2 for all affected EGUs. SO2 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 allowancebased 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 SO2 emission allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 

imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO2

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

the quantity of unused emission allowances, there would be an overall reduction in SO2

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

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap and trade system, the NEMSBT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no 

physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2. 

Even if there is no significant reduction in the overall emissions of SO2 that results from 

the standard, there may still be some economic benefit from reduced demand for SO2 emission 

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

Electricity savings that decrease the overall demand for SO2 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 SO2 allowance price from any 

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

Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides, or NOX, is the generic term for a group of highly 

reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the 

nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), along with particles in the air, can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many 

urban areas. NO2 is the specific form of NOX reported in this document. NOX 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. NOX also contributes to the formation of fine particles 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 NOX are motor vehicles; electric utilities; and other 

industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fossil fuels. NOX can also be formed 

naturally. Electric utilities account for about 21 percent of NOX emissions in the United 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 to 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 and 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 CO2, 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 result from human 

activities. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), and ozone (O3). Human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally 

occurring gases. For example, CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels 

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

anthropogenic CO2 emissions resulted from burning fossil fuels.5

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are naturally regulated 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 CO2 emissions produced each year, 

billions of metric tons (Mt) are added to the atmosphere annually. In 2008, CO2 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, and 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 SO2 and NOX 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, they 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 emissions 

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 regarding PM source 

apportionment.6 In this compilation of studies, sources are classified into seven categories: (1) 

secondary sulfate/coal; (2) secondary organic matter/mobile sources; (3) nitrate dominated 

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

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

emissions and SO2 emissions from these power plants. This is because both SO2 and direct PM 

emissions aggregate and interact with water droplets and emissions from other sources to create 

final particulates that are a complex mixture of different constituents. Both the SO2 and the direct 

PM are emitted from the power plant at the same time, and if the final aerosol particle 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” pollutants), two of which are SO2 and NOX. 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 SO2 and NOX. Title IV of the 1990 amendments established a capand-trade program for SO2 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 SO2 and NOX in eastern States of the United States. CAIR achieves large reductions 

of SO2 and/or NOX 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 capand-trade system that caps emissions in two stages; or 2) meet an individual state emissions 

budget through measures of the State’s choosing. Phase 1 caps for NOX have been in place since 

2009. Phase 1 caps for SO2 were in place beginning in 2010. The Phase 2 caps for both NOX and 

SO2 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 coal-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 NOX 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 CO2, as major contributors to climate change. 

Because this rule, if finalized, will likely decrease CO2 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 CO2 emissions 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 through 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) established 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 increased 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 scenarios for CO2, 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 confidence, 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 be some 

beneficial impacts on crop yields in temperate regions.

Causes of Climate Change. The IPCC Report states that the world has warmed by about 

0.74 °C in the last 100 years. The report finds that most of the temperature increase since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 and 

other long-lived GHGs such as methane and NOX in the atmosphere, rather than from natural 

causes.

Increasing the CO2 concentration partially blocks the earth’s re-radiation of 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 CO2 currently makes up about 77 percent of the total CO2-equivalente

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

percent) of the CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use.9 For the future, the IPCC Report describes a 

wide range of GHG emissions scenarios, but under each scenario CO2 would continue to 

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

Stabilization of CO2 Concentrations. Unlike many traditional air pollutants, CO2 mixes 

thoroughly in the entire atmosphere and is long-lived. The residence time of CO2 in the 

atmosphere is long compared to the emission processes. Therefore, the global cumulative 

emissions of CO2 over long periods determine CO2 concentrations because it takes hundreds of 

years for natural processes to remove the CO2. Globally, 49 billion Mt of CO2-equivalent of 

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

billion Mt of CO2.

10,f

Researchers have focused on considering atmospheric CO2 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 

CO2 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 forcing of CO2, i.e., CO2-equivalent. CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2

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-fossil fuel contributors include CO2 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 CO2 stabilized concentrations range between 

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

low-end range would still result in temperatures projected to increase 2.0 to 2.4 °C above preindustrial levels11 (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 CO2 and GHGs in the atmosphere.11

The Beneficial Impact of the Rule on CO2 Emissions. It is anticipated that the rule will 

reduce energy-related CO2 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 CO2 in 2007 were about 6.0 

billion Mt. In the AEO2010 Reference Case, EIA projected that annual energy-related CO2 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 CO2 emission reductions from ballast efficiency standards 

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

16.2.1. The estimated CO2 emission reductions from electricity generation are calculated using 

the NEMS-BT model. 

Table 16.2.1 Reduction in Cumulative Energy-Related Emissions of CO2 from 2014 

through 2043 from Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Reduction in CO2 Emissions

(2014 through 2043)

million Mt

Existing Technologies,

Shift

Emerging Technologies,

Roll-up

1 70 14 

2 87 27

3 121 40

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

specific emission rates with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and specific atmospheric 

concentrations with future temperatures because the IPCC Report describes a clear lag in the 

climate system between any given concentration of CO2 (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 

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

defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of CO2 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 correlates to a range of temperature changes. Thus, climate 

sensitivity is a key uncertainty for CO2 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 extent particular CO2 emissions reductions will impact global warming. However, as Table 

16.2.1 indicates, the rule is expected to reduce CO2 emissions associated with energy 

consumption in buildings. 

16.2.4 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions 

 

NEMS-BT incorporates capabilities to assess compliance with SO2 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 SO2

and NOX for some States, and the CAMR, which imposed a national Hg constraint. As discussed 

in section 16.2.2, on December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit decided to allow CAIR to remain in 

effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. North Carolina v. 

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

emissions 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 SO2 emissions allowances according to the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

Consequently, the decision to build a particular capacity type must consider the cost (if any) of 

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

an existing unit. 

DOE’s analysis assumed the presence of nationwide emission caps on SO2 and caps on 

NOX emissions in the 28 States covered by the CAIR. Any emissions reductions in NOX

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 

indicates that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2. However, 

remaining uncertainty prevents DOE from estimating or reporting SO2 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 SO2 emissions reductions will 

remain at the cap, SO2 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 SO2 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 Reference Case power plant emissions in selected years.

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Forecast, Reference Case

NEMS-BT Results 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

CO2 (million metric tons) 2,218 2,279 2,344 2,433 2,538 2,635

NOX (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 

CO2, NOX, 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

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -0.444 -1.424 -2.217 -2.823 -3.242 -3.242 -3.242

NOX (thousand 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

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -0.553 -1.774 -2.761 -3.516 -4.038 -4.038 -4.038

NOX (thousand 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

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -0.769 -2.465 -3.837 -4.886 -5.611 -5.611 -5.611

NOX (thousand 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

* CO2 results are in metric tons, NOX 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 Standard Level 1

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -0.392 -1.016 -1.128 -0.729 0.181 0.181 0.181

NOX (thousand 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

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -0.777 -2.011 -2.233 -1.443 0.359 0.359 0.359

NOX (thousand 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

CO2 (million metric tons/year) -1.135 -2.939 -3.263 -2.109 0.525 0.525 0.525

NOX (thousand 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 processes, 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 SO2) 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 natural 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 CO2 and NOX. The percentages provide a means to estimate upstream emission 

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

emissions. 
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 Emissions

CO2 2.7 11.9

NOX 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 CO2 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 existing 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 the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of CO2. 

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of CO2 emissions, the 

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

Council16 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 climate 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 CO2 emissions. Consistent with the directive 

in Executive 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 CO2

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 path, an 

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

to cumulative global CO2 emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question 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 recent interagency estimates of the 

potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO2 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 domestic effects,g although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits 

of reducing CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per ton of CO2 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 CO2. A domestic SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages in 

the United States resulting from a unit change in CO2 emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.

 

g It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 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 CO2 refer to metric tons.
16-13

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton of CO2

(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 $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$). 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 CO2 for discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions). 

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

best to quantify the benefits from reducing CO2 emissions. To ensure consistency in how 

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

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

change damages from reduced CO2 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 CO2. 

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 presented 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 CO2 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-reviewed 

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 conducted 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 addition, 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 values grow in real terms over time, as 

depicted in Table 16.3.1. 

Table 16.3.1 Social Cost of CO2, 2010–2050 (in 2007$ per Metric 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 

economic 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 Federal 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 humility 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 CO2

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 CO2 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 Order 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 SO2 and caps on NOX emissions in the 28 States 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 SO2, 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 standards would affect the price of emissions 

allowances. 

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions from the 

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

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for 

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

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

per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (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 

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

percent.j 

DOE is aware 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 before 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 into 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 historical or archaeological sites.

 

i

 For 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 reduction 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 standards.

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 the 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 CO2, NOX, and Hg for 2014 through 2043 

for each of the ballast TSLs. Cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions are reduced compared to 

the reference case for all TSLs. 

Upstream fuel cycle emission of CO2 and NOX 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 magnitude 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 Reduction in Emissions (2014 through 2043)

Existing Technologies,

Shift

Emerging Technologies,

Roll-Up 

CO2

million Mt

NOX

thousand tons

Hg

tons

CO2

million Mt

NOX

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 CO2 are in metric tons; values for NOX 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 CO2 and NOX 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 CO2 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 discount rate), and 

$64.9/ton (the 95th-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 present the global values of CO2 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 CO2 Emissions Reduction in 

2014-2043 Under 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, 95th

percentile*

1 248 1,262 2,138 3,853

2 309 1,572 2,662 4,799

3 429 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 CO2 Emissions Reduction in 

2014-2043 Under 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, 95th

percentile*

1 64 296 489 905

2 126 586 969 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 NOX 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 Estimates of Present Value of NOX 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 Estimates of Present Value of NOX 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 present the NPV values that 

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

reduced CO2 and NOX 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 CO2 values 

used in the columns of each table correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions 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 CO2 and NOX 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%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

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

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

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

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value

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

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

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

NOX 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 CO2 and NOX** 13,653 7%

26,961 3%

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 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 95th

percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. See section 16.3.1 for details.

** Total monetary benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of 

CO2 emissions calculated at a 3-percent discount rate (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton in 

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 in market transactions, while the 

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

of CO2, 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 CO2 emissions 

reductions reflects the present value of all future climate-related impacts due to emitting a ton of 

CO2 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 16.9.7through Table 16.9.18present 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 CO2 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 values. 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 of 

CO2 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 be 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot 

MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot 

MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Discount Rate)

Product Class (PC) and Subclass

PC1 – IS/RS Ballasts Operating PC2 – PS Ballasts Operating

PC3 – 

Ballasts 

Operating

PC5 – 

Ballasts 

Operating

Annualized Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot 

MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 Values

Two 4-foot MBP (com)Two 4-foot MBP (res)Four 4-foot MBP Two 8-foot slimlineTwo 4-foot MBP Four 4-foot MBP Two 4-foot MiniBP SOTwo 4-foot MiniBP HOTwo 8-foot HOFour 8-foot HO (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

CO2 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

NOX 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

NOX 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 CO2 and 2,519/ton NOX) billion $2009

NOX 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

NOX 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 February 25, 2011.) 

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

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

Apportionment for PM2.5. 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 on 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.htm> 8 

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability. (Last accessed February 25, 2011.) <www.ipcc-wg2.gov/> 9 

10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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 on Climate Change. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate 

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/co2_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).