ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ENERGY 

CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR- 

, AND FREEZERS 

- 

1. INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

ental Assessment (EA) on the candidate energy conservation stand 

licy Act. of 1969 (NEPA), regulations of the Council on Environmentd Qu 

refrigerators, re€iigerator-freezers, and freezers was prepared pursuant to the National ' 

ederal Regulations, Parts 1500 through. 1508. The proposed energy 

conservation standard (Level 1) and the alternative standards are being reviewed in an energyefficiency standards rulemaking that the Department has undertaken pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act and 

the National Appliance Energy Consehation Act [l]. & Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Regarding,Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Reffigerator-Freezers, and Freezers. 

60 FR 37388 (July 20, 1995). A draft EA was prepared and made available to the public at the 

time of publication of the proposed rule. The Departm received no comments on the draft EA. 

The EA presents the associated environmental acts from four energy conservation 

standards for this of household applihce. For purposes of this EA, each standard is an 

alteinative action is compared to what is expected to happen if no new standards for this type 

of product were finalized, i.e., the "no action" alternative. Of the four energy conservation 

standard levels considered, standard level 4 has the highest level of energy efficiency and the 

largest environmental impact. The proposed action implementing Standard Level 1 would have 

the least environmental impacts, through emission reductions, of the four alt 

The description of the standards below results from the appliance energy-efficiency 

analyses conducted for the rulemaking. The presentation of environmental impacts 

alternatives appears at Section 3 of the EA. 

The proposed St ard Level 1. This standard level is projected to save 7.0 quadrillion 

British thermal units (qu,ads), the equivalent of 6 exajoules (E J) of energy for refrigerators and 

reffigerator-freezers, and 0.5 quads (0.4 EJ) for fieezers. The technologies that are necessary to 

meet this standard level are presently available. The consumer payback (i.e. repayment of 

e increase) of this standard level is 3.7 years for the largest class and no more than 

This standard is at or near the lowest life-cycle cost for all classes and is expected to result in a 

reduction in life-cycle cost of approximately $143 or 1 1.5 percent for the largest class. The 

standard is expected to have essentially no impact on the prototypical manufacturer's return on 

equity of 7.3 percent. 

1 
eve1 2. This standard level is projected to save 7.8 quads (8. 

for refigerators and refigerator-freezers, and 1.3 quads (1.4 EJ) for freezers. However, this 

level requires an increase in insulation with a corresponding increase in wall thickness. 

Furthermore, the payback may be as long as 19.0 years, the expected life of the product. The 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the initial burden on the manufacturers would be 

ugacceptably high for their standard level: short-run return on equity for both refrigerators and 

freezers decreases from 7.3 percent to 6.2 percent, a reduction of 16 percent. 

Standard Level 3. This standard level is projected to save 8.6 quads ( 9.1 EJ) of energy 

for refigerators and refrigerator-freezers and 1.7 quads (1.8 EJ) for freezers. While this level 

does not use vacuum panels, for most of the classes about 40 percent of the energy savings are 

obtained by increasing the insulation values. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking noted that 

there is general agreement that an increase in the wall thickness is not acceptable for many of the 

larger models in each class. This level has payback periods as high as 25. 

than the product life) and reduces refigerator manufacturer short-run 

equity drops fiom 7.3 percent to 4.7 percent, a reduction of more than 35 pe 

. 

s (much longer 

equity from 7.3 

percent to 5.8 percent, a reduction of 20 percent. For fieezer manufacturers, short-run return on _. 

Standard Level 4. Standard level 4, the maximum technologically feasible 

-%vel of efficiency, would save the most energy! 10.0 quads (10.55 EJ) for 

refigerators (including refigerator-freezers) and 2.0 quads (2.1 1 EJ) for freezers between 1998 

bd 2030. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all refigerator products 

would incorporate vacuum panel insulation. The use of vacuum panel insulation accounts for 30 

percent of total energy savings, with increased wall thickness as the only alternative. The Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking that reported that vacuum panel technology has progressed, but it is not 

ready to be applied as a reliable design option in the production of a 1998 compliant product. 

There are concerns about manufacturability, availability, rei ability, and performance. Vacuum 

panels are6 to 10 times heavier than foam. The increase in door weight may cause the appliance 

to tip over when the door is opened. Also, current produc on capability for vacuum panels is far 

too small for the projected demand. A 1-inch increase in wall and door thickness (a 2-inch 

increase in the side-to-side dimension) is not a viable option. Many products are already 

constrained by the need to fit into existing spaces and through doors and pas 

Decreasing interior volume would sacrifice product utility. 

' 

. 

In the evaluation of the proposed action and the alternatives, the pri 

concern that is addressed is atmospheric emissions from fossil-fueled electricity generation. 

Residential refigeration is fueled almost entirely by electricity, and this standard is not expected 

to affect propane residential refigeration, which is widely used only where grid power is 

unavailable. The proposed design options for this appliance type would result in decreased 

electricity use and, therefore, a reduction of power plant emissions. The greatest decreases in air 

pollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent -weight of sulfbr dioxide, or SO,. 

Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur and are listed by weight ofNO, and CO,, respectively. CO, emissions from fossil-fuel burning is considered an 

2 
enviromental hazard because it contributes to the “greenhouse effect” by trapping heat energy 

. from the earth that is emitted as infrared radiation. The greenhouse effect is expected gradually to 

raise the mean global temperature. ‘ 

/ 

Although the quantity of raw materials used per appliance would remain relatively 

in small decreases in raw materials used. The main effect of the 

constant, in most s 

appliances sold, re 

appliance production decrease would be reduced SO, emitted in steel production. That reduction 

would be small, however,. in comparison to the SO, decreases &om &el burning avoided at p 

plants. The contribution from steel production is not included in the estimates for net SO, 

decreases resulting from design changes in these products. 

os increased initial cost is expected to decrease slightly the number of 

The effects on particulate emi to the proposed standard-induced decrease in 

electricity generation would be mino effects on decreases in SO,, NO,: and CO,. 

For example, in 1984, power plants contributed only 7% of U.S. total particulate mssions as 

compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total SO, and NO, emissions, respectively. 

Though the reduction in particulate emissions would be relatively small, any reduction would 

possibly be beneficial to improving the quality of surface water. Since the amount of particulates 

emitted would be decreased, it is very likely t s particulates would 

Reductions in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in 

have other beneficial effects on the environment. The resultant improvement to air quality and the 

decreased potential of acid rain formation would help improve the quality of wetlands and fish and 

wildlife as well as aid in the preservation of historical and archaeological sites. Reductions in NO, 

emissions within warm urban areas is particularly beneficial because it is an urban smog precursor 

gas as well as an air pollutant in its own right. 

2. METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL CTS 

The greatest impacts of the proposed actip and qlternative standards would be a 

reduction in electricity demand growth. The main environmental effects of power plants on air and 

water quality result from emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO,), nitrogen oxides (NO,), and 

carbon dioxide (CO,). Since the proposed standards would lessen the need for electricity 

generation, power plant emissions would be reduced. 

2.1 Baseline Emissions 

In the Service Report that accompanies the 1991 National Energy Strategy (NES) [2], the 

impact on power plant emissions as a 

1990, P. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 

7401-7626 (Supp. I1 1990) are estimated. These estimates comprise the baseline case, and serve 

as‘the basis for comparison of emission reductions among the proposed standard arid alternatives. 

it of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

. 15, 1990) codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. 6 

3 
In the report accompanying the 1991 NES, two possible outcomes are presented, a 

flexible case and a restricted case, so that the effect of different levels of permitted trading of 

emission allowances can be evaluated. (The report does not go beyond this explanation in 

- defining the differences between the two cases.) As presented in the report, the results for the 

- - 

Table 1.b Projected U.S. CO,, SO,, and NO, Power Plant Emissions - Baseline Case 

(Inch-Pound Units) -- 

1995 223 3 13.8 8.4 

2000 2506 9.0 6.7 

203 0 4804 4.8 5.9 

2.l(a) Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 

For each of the alternatives analyzed, emissions abated from fossil &el-burning power 

plants are estimated. In the analysis of the impacts of design changes to the appliances, lower 

sulfur emissions resulting from decreased steel production are not considered. No changes in the 

amount of steel used per unit are expected. 

' 

4 
? 
r 

rates were not calculated for each hel-burning source as the emissions data supplied by the 

Service Report were not disaggregated according to power plant type (Le., coal, oil, gas). To 

obtain emission rate values, the amount of emissions was divided by the total energy use of fossil 

hel-burning power plants. The total energy use by fossil hel-burning power plants was 

calculated from the electrical generation data supplied by the report accompanying the 1991 NES. 

The electrical generation data was disaggregated by he1 source. To obtGn the total ene 

(input), the electrical generation data fiom each fossil he1 source was summed and then 

by the assumed effici 

and distribution loss 

of fossil hel-burning power 

his fossil hel-burning power 

s (30%), which includes transmi 

efficiency is consistent with that used 

~ by the LBL Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM). 

The amount of SO2 and NO, emissions abated for any particular year is determined b 

lectricity generation in that year 

d in the Service Report, line 

corresponding abated emis 

multiplying the estimates of energy saved through redu 

the emission rate for that particular year. For years no 

interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in 

6 
I I' e 

Table 3.b Projected Electri'city Generation Data, Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for 

CO, at Fossil FueCBurning Power Plants - Inch-Pound Units ' 

As with the SO, and NO, emissions, the amount of CO, emissions abated for any 

particular year is determined by multiplying the estimates of energy saved through reduced 

electricity generation by the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the 

Service Report, linear interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in turn, the ' 

corresponding abated emissions. 

-_ 

3. ENVLR~NMENTAL IMPACTS 

The following results in Tab1 -7 indicate projected changes that could be brought about 

in the amounts of emitted CO,, SO2, and NO, by imposing efficiency standards for appliances at 

each of the four standard levels considered in this analysis. A table is presented for each of the 

standard levels. Each table details the changes that would occur to each of the three emissions 

(i.e., C02, SO2, andNO,) through the implementation of a particular standard level for this type of 

le shows, for a specific year between 1998, the first year in which the 

ould be implemented, and 2030, the amount of emission abated from power 

ompared against 

of each poliutant (between the years 1 

Tables 4-7 are also exposed as a percentage of U. S. power plant emissions for the year under 

consideration. 

3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emi 

baseline case. Also included are the 

and 2030). The estimated of SO,, N 

Sulhr dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of up to 1720 kt (1 896 1 

thousand short tons) between 1998 and 2030 at energy conservation standard level 4, the most 

stringent standard level. In the year 2000, Standard Level 4 decreases in SO, would represent 

about 0.19% of the SO, emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year 

2030, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 1.2% of the SO2 emissions estimated to 

7 

YW 

1998 - 

2000 

2005 

2010 

Year 

1998 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2025 

2030 

- 

Abated from Power Plant 

Generation 

kt ( 10' of short tons) 

3.3 I 3.7 

8.35 9.2 

21.6 23.8 

33.7 37.2 

39.2 43.2 

Table 4. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, Re 

Freezers, Standal;d Level One 

Cumulative SO, reduction, 1998-2030 = 1017 kt (1 120 thousand short tons) 

Nor 

Total Emissions % U.S. NO, Power 

Plant Emissions 

kt ( 1 O3 of short tons) 

8356 9208 -0.04 

7335 8083 -0.11 

7136 7864 -0.30 

6914 7619 -0.49 

6070 6689 -0.65 

5489 6048 -0.70 

4836 5330 -0.70 

4289 4726 -0.70 

, 

Cumulative NO, reduction: 1998-2030 = 966 kt (1065 thousand short tons) 

Cumulative CO, reduction, 1998-2030 = 540 Mt (595 million short tons) 

9 
Table 5. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Two 

10 
.- ._ 

_- 

Table 6. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Three 
Table 7. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Four 

Abated !?om Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. S0,Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt ( 1 03* ofshort tons) kt ( 1 O3 of short tons) 

1998 , 8.1 8.9 12362 13623 -0.07 

2000 . 

2005 45.4 50.1 8867 9772 -0.51 

2010 65.6 72.3 7956 8767 -0.82 

19.1 21.1 - 9853 ' 10858 -0.19 

2015 71.5 78.8 6546 7214 - 1.09 

2020 65.3 72.0 5489 6048 -1.19 

2025 52.7 58.1 4412 4862 - 1.20 

2030 41.6 45.9 3488 3844 -1.19 

Cumdative SO, reduction, 8-2030 = 1 720 kt ( 1896 thousand short tons) 

--- 

-1.20 _- -- 

2030 51.2 56.4 4289 4726 -1.19 A 

Cumulative NO, reduction, 1998-2030 = 1635 kt (1 802 thousand slht tons) 

' Cumulative CO, reduction, 1998-2030 = 914 Mt (1 007 million short 

12 
I 

3.3 Cumulative Impacts 

The CAAA calls for SO, emissions reductions in two phases. In the first phase of the 

planned reductions (beginning December 3 1, 1995 and carrying through the year 2000), electric 

utilities will have several options, for reducing their SO, emissions to comply with the all 

constraints imposed by the CAAA. The major options are 1) to decrease use of high e 

umls and-increase the use of their clean units, 2) to switch units using high sulfur coal to low 

sulfk coal, 3) to retrofit plants emitting at a high rate h emissions-reduction techno 

scrubbers), 4) to purchase allowances from other utili that reduce their emissions below their 

a combination of these options to minimize the cost of complying with the allowance const 

Tot& SO, emissions by utilities cannot exceed 8.1 Mt (8.9 million short tons) after Dece 

2000. 

~ 

-- 

~ permitted levels, and 5) to purchase power rather than generate it. Most utilities will make use of 

\- 

In the second phase of the planned reductions (beginning December 3 1,2000), the optio 

available to electric utilities for maintaining the 8.1 Mt cap will broaden with the expected 

introduction of new, advanced generating technologies. HoweveF, during this period utilities will 

be less able to reduce emissions by changing the way,they utilize their plants. Since most plants 

will be filly utilized, there will be few rtunities for reducing emissions by decreasing the use 

n plant or for hrther _. 

- H-dheproposed adoption of the efficiency standard level 1 for this type of appliance wo 

likely not affect the overall quantity of physical emissions pf SO, which, because of SO, 

allowance trading, will hover near the ceiling permitted under the CAAA. This is not to say th 

'there would be no SO, emissions benefit to be derived from the lowered electricity demand 

expected from the proposed appliance standard. Actual physical emissions would not necessaril 

be lowered, but the demand for SO, allowances by electricity generators would be reduced, 

resulting in lower allowance prices, and lower electric utility compliance costs. In other words, 

lowered generation is a costless means for a utility to achieve some of the SO, reduction required 

however, is beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, emissions reductions by weight are 

simply estimated and reported, as if the allowance trading market did not exist. 

3.4 Environmental Justice 

. by the CAAA. Estimating these effects as they reverberate through SO, allowance trading, 

- 

Because neither the proposed adoption of Standard Level 1 nor the alternative standards , 

would have adverse impacts on the environment, there would be no disproportionate and adverse 

impacts on low-income and minority communities pursuant to Executive Order 12898 on 

Environmental Justice. 

3.5 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted ~ 

None. 

rn 
REFE~NCES 

1. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, March 17, 

1987. 

U.S. DOE. Energy Information Administration. Eflects of the Clean Air Act Amendhrents 

on Reducing SOPOX Emzsiom. Energy Wormation Administration, SwNES/90-01, 1990. 

2. 

14 
4 --. ~7tuilt~4 . LU~ AQ.JL CU 3AU 4(lb bUYG EAP LBNL 

pduuTANT REDOCTIONS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS. 

Standard Level: Final Rule 

-97 Fuel Prices 

SO2 emissions: 

AND FREEZERS 

Abated from Abated from Total Reduction Reductim as 

In House in Emissions a % of '.!otal 

000's Residential 

kt short kt short Rdsrzions 

2005 21.96 24.20 -0.13 -0.15 21.82 24.05 

2010 43.79 48.26 -0.54 -0.59 43.25 47.66 1 :16 

2015 62.06 68.39 -0.61 -0.89 61.2s 67.50 1.70 

2020 71.66 78.96 -0.94 -1.04 70.71 77.93 2.06 

2025 t73.35 80.84 -0.94 -1.04 72.41 79.80 

2030 68-00 74.93 -1.08 -1.19 66.92 73.75 

Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1545 kt = 1703 000 short tons 

NOx enussions: 

Abated from 

Year \ Power Plant 

kt short 

2010 39.81 43.87 -0.90 -0.99 38.91 42.88 

201s 57.92 63.83 -1.42 -1.56 56.51 62.27 

2020 66.35 73.12 -1.79 -1.97 64.56 71.14 

Mt short Mt short 

1.44 .