ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT 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 ofthe Council on Environmentd Qu refrigerators, re€iigerator-freezers, and freezers was prepared pursuant to the National ' ederal Regulations, Parts 1500through. 1508. The proposed energy conservation standard (Level 1) and the alternative standards arebeing reviewed in an energyefficiency standards rulemaking that the Department has undertaken pursuant to the Energy Policy and ConservationAct, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act and the National Appliance Energy Consehation Act 

### [l]. 

### & Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding,Energy Conservation Standardsfor 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. acts fromfour energy conservation The EA presents the associated environmental standards for this ofhousehold applihce. For purposes ofthis 

### 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. Ofthe four energy conservation standard levels considered, standard level 4has the highest level ofenergy efficiency and the largest environmental impact. The proposed action implementing StandardLevel 1 would have the least environmental impacts, through emission reductions, of the four alt The description ofthe standards below results from the appliance energy-efficiency analyses conducted for the rulemaking. The presentation ofenvironmental impacts alternatives appears at Section 3 ofthe EA. The proposed St ard Level 1. This standard level is projected to save 7.0 quadrillion British thermal units (qu,ads), the equivalent of6 exajoules (E J) 

### ofenergy for refrigerators and reffigerator-freezers,and 0.5 quads (0.4 EJ) for fieezers. The technologiesthat are necessary to meet this standard level are presently available. The consumerpayback (i.e. repayment of e increase) ofthis standard level is 3.7years 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 essentiallyno impact on the prototypical manufacturer's return on equity 

### of7.3 percent.

1

### eve1 2. This standard level is projected to save 7.8quads (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 19.0years, the expected life ofthe product. The Notice ofProposed Rulemaking that the initial burden on the manufacturerswould be ugacceptably high for their standard level: short-run return on equity forboth refrigerators and freezers decreases 

### from 7.3percent 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 ofthe classes about 40 percent of the energy savings are obtained by increasing the insulation values. TheNotice of Proposed Rulemaking noted that there is general agreement that an increase in the wall thickness isnot 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 4.7percent, a reduction ofmore than 35 pe . s (much longer equity from 

### 7.3 percent to 5.8 percent, a reduction of20 percent. For fieezer manufacturers, short-runreturn on _. Standard Level 4. Standard level 

### 4,the maximum technologically feasible -%vel ofefficiency,would save the most energy! 10.0 quads (10.55 EJ) for refigerators (includingrefigerator-freezers) and 2.0 quads (2.11 EJ) for freezers between 1998 bd 2030. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumesthat all refigerator products would incorporate vacuum panel insulation. The use ofvacuum panel insulation accounts for 30 percent oftotal energy savings, with increased wall thickness as the only alternative. The Notice ofProposed 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 are6to 10times heavier than foam. The increase in doorweight 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-inchincrease 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 sacrificeproduct utility. '

.

In the evaluation ofthe 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 affectpropane residential refigeration, which is widely used only where grid power is unavailable. The proposed design options for this appliance type would result in decreased electricityuse and, therefore, a reduction ofpower plant emissions. The greatest decreases 

### in air pollution would be for sulfuroxides, listed in equivalent-weight of sulfbr dioxide, or SO,. Reductions 

### ofnitrogen 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 2enviromentalhazard because it contributes to the “greenhouse effect”by trapping heat energy

. fromthe earth that is emitted as infrared radiation. The greenhouse effectis expected gradually to

raise the mean global temperature. ‘
/ Although the quantity 

### ofraw materials used per appliance would remain relatively in small decreases in raw materials used. The main effect ofthe 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 isexpected to decrease slightlythe number of

The effects on particulate emi to the proposed standard-induced decrease in electricity generation would be mino effectson decreases in 

### SO,, NO,: and 

### CO,. For example, in 1984, power plants contributed only 

### 7% ofU.S. total particulate mssions as compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total 

### SO, and NO, emissions, respectively. Thoughthe reduction in particulate emissions would be relatively small, any reduction would possibly be beneficial to improving the quality ofsurfacewater. Since the amount ofparticulates emitted would be decreased, it is very likely t s particulates would Reductions in particulate emissions accompaniedby decreases in have otherbeneficial effects on the environment. The resultant improvementto air quality and the decreased potential ofacid rain formationwould help improve the quality ofwetlands and fish and wildlife as well as aid in the preservation ofhistorical and archaeological sites. Reductions 

### inNO, emissionswithin warm urban areas is particularlybeneficial 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 ofthe proposed actipand qlternative standardswould 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 comprisethe baseline case, and serve as‘thebasis for comparison of emission reductions among the proposed standard arid alternatives. it of Title IV ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of

. 15, 1990) codifiedas amended at 42 U. 

### S. C. 

## 6

3In the report accompanyingthe 1991

### NES,two possible outcomes are presented, a flexible case and a restricted case, 

### so that the effect 

### ofdifferent levels 

### ofpermitted trading 

### of emission allowances can be evaluated. (The report does not go beyond this explanationin 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 2233 13.8 8.4 2000 2506 9.0 

### 6.7

2030 4804 4.8 5.9 2.l(a) Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions For each 

### ofthe alternatives analyzed, emissions abated from fossil &el-burning power plants are estimated. In the analysis ofthe impacts ofdesign changesto the appliances, lower sulfur emissionsresulting from decreased steel production are not considered. No changes in the amount 

### ofsteel used per unit are expected. '

4?r rates were not calculated for each hel-burning source as the emissions data supplied by the ServiceReport were not disaggregated accordingto power plant type (Le., coal, oil, gas). To obtain emission rate values, the amount ofemissions 

### was divided by the total energy use 

### offossil hel-burning power plants. The total energy use by fossil hel-burningpower plants was calculated 

### fromthe electrical generation data supplied

### by the report accompanyingthe 1991

### NES. The electrical generation datawas disaggregated by he1 source. To obtGn the total ene (input), the electrical generation data fiom each fossil he1sourcewas summed and then by the assumed effici and distribution 

### loss offossil hel-burning power 

### his fossil hel-burning power s (30%), which includes transmi efficiencyis 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 ServiceReport, line

corresponding abated emis multiplyingthe estimates 

### ofenergy saved 

### through redu the emission rate for that particular year. For years no interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in

6I



# I'

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

### CO, at Fossil FueCBurningPower 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 

### ofenergy saved through reduced electricitygenerationby the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the Service Report, linear interpolationwas used to derive emissionrates and, in turn, the ' corresponding abated emissions. -_ 3. 

## ENVLR~NMENTAL IMPACTS The followingresults 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 changesthat would occurto each of the three emissions (i.e., 

### C02, SO2,andNO,) through the implementation ofa 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 

### ofemission abated 

### from power ompared against 

### of each poliutant (betweenthe years 1 Tables 4-7 are also exposed as a percentage ofU.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 (1896 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% ofthe 

### SO, emissions estimated to come 

### from power plants 

### in that year. In the year 2030, decreases in SO2emissionswill represent about 1.2%ofthe SO2emissions estimated to 7YW
1998 - 2000 2005 2010

Year 1998 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

# - Abated fromPower 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 120thousand shorttons) NorTotal Emissions %U.S. NO, Power Plant Emissions kt ( 1 O3ofshorttons) 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 ,

CumulativeNO, reduction: 1998-2030= 966 kt (1065thousand shorttons)

Cumulative CO, reduction, 1998-2030= 540 Mt (595 million shorttons) 9Table 5. Projected Reduction ofPollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Two

10.- 

### ._ _- Table 6. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level ThreeTable 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 (103* ofshorttons) kt (1O3ofshorttons) 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 (1896thousand short tons)



## ---

-1.20 _- -- 2030 51.2 56.4 4289 4726 -1.19 A CumulativeNO, reduction, 1998-2030 = 1635 kt (1 802 thousand slhttons)

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

12

## I

3.3 Cumulative Impacts The 

### CAAA calls for 

### SO, emissions reductions in two phases. In the first phase 

### ofthe planned reductions (beginning December 3 1, 1995 and carryingthrough 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 ofhigh e 

### umls and-increase the use oftheir 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-reductiontechno scrubbers), 4) to purchase allowances from otherutili that reduce their emissions below their
a combination ofthese options to minimize the cost ofcomplying 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 ofthe planned reductions (beginning December 31,2000),the optio availableto electric utilities for maintainingthe 8.1 Mt cap will broaden with the expected introduction 

### ofnew, advanced generating technologies. HoweveF, during this period utilities 

### will be less able to reduce emissions by changing the way,theyutilize their plants. Since most plants will be filly utilized, there will be few rtunities for reducing emissions by decreasingthe use 

### n plant or for hrther _.



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

### ofappliance wo likely not affect the overall quantity ofphysical emissionspf 

### SO, which, because of SO, allowance trading, will hover near the ceiling permitted under the 

### CAAA.This is not to say th 'therewould be no 

### SO, emissions benefit to be derived from the lowered electricity demand expected fromthe 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 

### ofthe 

### SO, reduction required however, is beyond the scope ofthis analysis. Therefore, emissions reductions

### by weight are simply estimated and reported, as ifthe allowance trading market did not exist. 3.4 EnvironmentalJustice . 

### by the 

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

-

Because neitherthe proposed adoption of Standard Level 1nor 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 

### ofAgencies and Persons Consulted

~ None.

rn

### REFE~NCES
1. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, March 17, 1987. U.S.

### DOE. EnergyInformation Administration. 

### Eflects ofthe 

### CleanAirActAmendhrents onReducingSOPOX 

### Emzsiom. EnergyWormationAdministration, SwNES/90-01, 1990. 2.



### 144 --. ~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
.