CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

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

16.2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 16­1
 

16.2.1 Air Pollutant Descriptions.................................................................................. 16­1

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation....................................................................................... 16­3

16.2.3 Analytical Methods for Air Quality................................................................... 16­4

16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions..................................................................... 16­5

16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel­Cycle Emissions ...................................................... 16­7

16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................. 16­8

16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS....................................................................................... 16­8
 

16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS..................................................................... 16­8
 

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS ............................................................................................ 16­9
 

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.......................................................... 16­9
 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 16.2.1 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecast for AEO2007 Reference Case........ 16­6

Table 16.2.2 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for Commercial Refrigeration

Equipment.......................................................................................................... 16­6

Table 16.2.3 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Pollutants as a Percentage of Direct

Power Plant Combustion Emissions.................................................................. 16­7

Table 16.4.1 Mean Life­Cycle Cost Savings for All Customers and Sub­Group,

Independent Small Grocery and Convenience Stores........................................ 16­8
 

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary ......................................... 16­10
 

16­i

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
        

                     

                  

                       

                              

                             

           

                         

                            

                           

                          

                               

                         

                               

                          

                        

   

                             

                    

                           

                            

          

   

                           

                           

                              

                                

                           

                 

     

                         

                         

                          

                                                

                               

       

CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
 

16.1 INTRODUCTION
 

This chapter describes potential environmental effects that may result from amended

energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE). The U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) proposed energy conservation standards are not site­specific, and

would apply to all 50 States and U.S. territories. Therefore, none of the proposed standards

would impact land uses, cause any direct disturbance to the land, or directly affect biological

resources in any one area.

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

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

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

environmental effects from imposing CRE standards. Estimates of source energy savings can be

found in the utility impact analysis in Chapter 14 of this Technical Support Document (TSD).

Detailed discussion on TSLs can be found in Chapter 9 of this TSD.

The primary impact of the TSLs is in air quality resulting from changes in power plant

operations and capacity additions. Therefore, much of this chapter describes the air quality

analysis. The latter part of the chapter describes potential impacts to other environmental

resources.

16.2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

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

energy conservation standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment. The outcomes of the

environmental analysis are driven by changes in power plant types and quantities of electricity

generated under each of the alternatives. Changes in generation are described in the utility

impact analysis in Chapter 14.

16.2.1 Air Pollutant Descriptions

For each of the TSLs, DOE calculated total power­sector emissions based on output from

the NEMS­BT model (see Chapter 14). This analysis considers four pollutants: nitrogen oxides

(NOx), mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2). An air pollutant is any

substance in the air that can cause harm to humans or the environment. Pollutants may be

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

particulates or particulate matter), liquid droplets, or gases.a

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

In addressing SO2 emissions, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an SO2

emissions cap on all power generation, but permitted flexibility among generators through the

use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. This SO2 trading process (sometimes called

a More information on air pollution characteristics and regulations is available on the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) website at www.epa.gov.

16­1

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                               

                              

                         

                              

                         

                       

                

                            

                         

       

     

                                 

                            

                        

                                    

                                  

                          

                                  

                           

                             

                            

                            

                              

                          

                       

                                 

                          

                         

                                

                           

                            

                     

                             

                          

                       

                     

        

“cap and trade”) implies that the standard will have no affect on total physical emissions because

emissions will always be at, or near, the allowed emissions ceiling. Consequently, there is no

direct SO2 environmental benefit from a reduction in electricity use due to the proposed energy

conservation standards, as long as there is enforcement of the emissions ceiling. But to the

extent reduced power generation demand decreases the demand for and price of emissions

allowance permits, there is an environmentally related economic benefit from the proposed

energy conservation standards reducing SO2 emissions allowance demand. Furthermore, over

time, if emissions decline, there is greater flexibility in reducing the ceiling amount. However,

since DOE does not anticipate a change in SO2 emissions, SO2 emission results are not reported

in this Chapter.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, are the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of

which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are

colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), along with

particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish­brown 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 ground­level 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.

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 22 percent of NOx emissions in the United States.

Mercury

Coal­fired power plants emit mercury found in coal during the burning process. While

coal­fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human­generated mercury emissions

in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool or to contamination of

U.S. waters. U.S. coal­fired power plants emit mercury in three different forms: oxidized

mercury (likely to deposit within the United States); elemental mercury, which can travel

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

Atmospheric mercury is 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, visual­spatial

abilities, and verbal memory.

16­2

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
     

                               

                               

                            

                          

                          

                                    

                             

                        

              

                       

                            

                              

                         

                            

                           

                          

                         

         

     

                                 

                    

                 

                      

                           

                      

                            

                           

                        

                      

                              

                         

                               

                                

                                

                             

                              

                            

                   

                               

                                    

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a regulated or criteria pollutant (see below), but it is of

interest because of its classification as a greenhouse gas (GHG) and its impact on global climate

change. 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. During the past 20 years, about three­quarters of anthropogenic (i.e., human­made)

CO2 emissions resulted from burning fossil fuels.

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 are added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s imbalance between

emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,

causing surface air temperatures and sub­surface ocean temperatures to rise. In the United

States, CO2 emissions from both energy generation and industrial processes account for 84.6

percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.7

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation

In 1990, EPA amended Title VI section to the Clean Air Act to phase out in 2010

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) refrigerants. As a result, the

refrigeration industry is transitioning to hydrofluorocarbon­based (HFC­based) refrigerants in its

equipment. For the commercial refrigeration equipment covered in this rulemaking, DOE

understands that much of the industry has already been using HFC­based refrigerants for both

remote condensing and self­contained equipment. Therefore, DOE considered the effects of

HFC­based refrigerants from the outset by using HFC refrigerants in its analyses. For remote

condensing equipment, the compressor efficiency values used in its analysis are based on ARI

1200, which uses an HFC­based compressor rack with R­404a refrigerant. Likewise for selfcontained equipment, DOE’s analysis uses R­134a and R­404a, both HFC­based refrigerants.

The anticipated use of these refrigerants is not an impact of this rulemaking. Therefore, the

effects of this conversion are outside the scope of this environmental analysis.

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

to control. 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 capand­trade program for SO2 intended to help control acid rain. This cap­and­trade program serves

as a model for more recent programs with similar features.

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

the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Parts 51, 96, and 97). CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2

16­3

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                              

                             

                              

                       

                             

                                    

                                           

      

                             

                         

                                      

                           

                          

                          

                   

                                          

                         

                                  

                                 

  

                           

                  

              

         

             

                                

                    

                         

                               

  

                         

                            

                                

                                

                             

                          

                               

                                

                             

                                    

and NOx in the eastern United States. CAIR achieves large reductions of SO2 and/or NOx

emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. States must achieve the required

emission reductions using one of two compliance options: 1) meet an emission budget for each

regulated state by requiring power plants to participate in an EPA­administered interstate capand­trade 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 are to be in place in

2009. Phase 1 caps for SO2 are to be in place in 2010. The Phase 2 caps for both pollutants are

due in 2015.

Also in 2005, EPA issued the final rule 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). This rule, also called the Clean Air

Mercury Rule, is closely related to the CAIR and establishes standards of performance for

mercury emissions from new and existing coal­fired electric utility steam generating units. The

Clean Air Mercury Rule regulates mercury emissions from coal­fired power plants. The rule

creates a market­based cap­and­trade program that will permanently cap utility mercury

emissions in two phases. The first phase of the rule sets a cap of 38 tons per year and due to

incentives created by the cap­and­trade program EPA projects that emissions will decrease from

48 tons to 31 tons beginning in 2010. Emissions will continue to decline thereafter until they are

reduced to the second phase cap of 15 tons when the program is fully implemented, beginning in

2015.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had authority to regulate CO2

emissions. EPA is currently formulating these regulations (Massachusetts v. Environmental

Protection Agency, No. 05­1120, (549 U.S. 2007)).

16.2.3 Analytical Methods for Air Quality

NEMS­BT incorporates capabilities to assess compliance with SO2 and NOx 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. NEMS­BT also

includes provisions for the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which imposes stricter restrictions on SO2

and NOx for some states, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which imposes a national mercury

constraint.

Coal­fired 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 and mercury contents of the fuel used when determining optimal dispatch.

The CAIR and mercury rules allow for emissions banking for NOx and mercury, which is

simulated in the NEMS­BT model. Emissions banking refers to regulated power plant operators

releasing fewer emissions than what they have allowances for in an earlier year in order to

release more emissions than permitted by their allowances in a later year. If a power plant

produces fewer emissions than they are allotted in one year, the regulations (and the NEMS­BT

model) allow the operator to over emit in a later year by this same amount. This banking activity

16­4

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                                   

                       

                             

                           

                           

                             

                              

                         

                       

                       

                            

                          

                        

                      

                               

                        

   

                             

                               

                             

                            

         

                             

                     

                         

                              

                        

                             

           

                            

                       

         

                        

                         

                                

                         

                                

                                    

can mean that outer years end up with levels of emissions that may be greater than anticipated or

targeted. However, the bank tends to encourage greater short­term emissions reductions.

The value of an emission allowance within the NEMS­BT model is assumed to be the

market­clearing price, which is based on the revenue requirements for the capital and operating

expenses associated with compliance. Banking would lower the overall cost of compliance if the

discounted, present value of the compliance costs in a given year is less than the corresponding

cost in a later year. Similarly, banking mercury allowances may reduce the overall cost of

complying with the mercury emissions limits specified in the Clean Air Mercury Rule.

Within the NEMS­BT model, planning options for achieving emissions restrictions in the

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

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

emission 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 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.

Modeling of SO2 trading tends to imply that the physical emissions effects will be zero,

as long as emissions are at the allowed ceiling. Because SO2 has been regulated with emissions

caps for more than a decade, and no emissions reductions are reported from the NEMS­BT

forecast model, DOE does not report SO2 results here. This assumption is consistent with

previous DOE environmental assessment documents.1

As with SO2 emissions, caps on NOx and mercury emissions will possibly result in no

physical emissions effects resulting from equipment energy conservation standards, but reduced

power generation demand will have the benefit of generating net emissions allowance credits

relative to a base case of no energy conservation standard. Therefore, DOE reported NOx and

mercury emissions reductions in this analysis. DOE assumed that under emissions cap

regulation, the reduction in power generation demand will result in the creation of an equivalent

amount of net emissions allowance credits.

As noted in Chapter 14, NEMS­BT model forecasts end in year 2030. Energy and

emissions impacts beyond 2030 were extrapolated for this rulemaking.

16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions

Table 16.2.1 shows reference power plant emissions in selected years. The Annual

Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007 Reference case emissions are the emissions shown by the NEMSBT model to result if none of the TSLs are promulgated. Table 16.2.2 shows estimated changes

in power plant emissions in selected years for all commercial refrigeration equipment analyzed

for TSL 1 through TSL 5. Changes in NO2 and mercury emissions from power plants are shown

in these tables. Changes in CO2 emissions from all sources are also shown in these four tables.

16­5

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                     

                     

  

     

     

   

                                             

                

              

               

  

                    

  

  

            

         

     

   

            

       

     

   

            

       

     

   

   

     

   

            

       

     

   

                                             

                 

               

                     

                              

                        

                      

                               

                            

Table 16.2.1 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecast for AEO2007 Reference Case
 

NEMS­BT Results*:

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CO2 (Million metric

tons/year)** 5,945 6,217 6,582 6,945 7,424 7,941

NOx (Kilo tons/year)† 3,601 2,405 2,213 2,150 2,177 2,218

Hg (tons/year)† 51.23 37.23 24.68 19.48 17.05 15.96

* All results in metric tons, equivalent to 1.1 short tons and negative values refer to a reduction compared with the base case

** Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2007: Electric Generators

† Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2007: Emissions

Table 16.2.2	 Power Sector Emissions Impact Forecasts for Commercial Refrigeration

Equipment

NEMS­BT Results*: Difference from Reference Case

TSL 1

CO2 (Million metric tons/year)**

NOx (Kilo tons/year)†

Hg (tons/year)†

TSL 2

CO2 (Million metric tons/year)

NOx (Kilo tons/year)

Hg (tons/year)

TSL 3

CO2 (Million metric tons/year)

NOx (Kilo tons/year)

Hg (tons/year)

TSL 4

CO2 (Million metric tons/year)

NOx (Kilo tons/year)

Hg (tons/year)

TSL 5

CO2 (Million metric tons/year)

NOx (Kilo tons/year)

Hg (tons/year)

2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.104 ­0.208 ­0.273 ­0.288

­0.008 ­0.030 ­0.062 ­0.105

0.002 0.003 0.001 ­0.003

­0.401 ­0.806 ­1.056 ­1.111

­0.031 ­0.116 ­0.241 ­0.407

0.008 0.012 0.005 ­0.013

­0.526 ­1.057 ­1.386 ­1.458

­0.041 ­0.152 ­0.317 ­0.535

0.010 0.016 0.007 ­0.017

­0.612 ­1.231 ­1.613 ­1.698

­0.048 ­0.177 ­0.369 ­0.622

0.012 0.018 0.008 ­0.020

­0.889 ­1.787 ­2.343 ­2.466

­0.069 ­0.257 ­0.535 ­0.904

0.017 0.027 0.011 ­0.029

2035

­0.300

­0.143

­0.008

­1.160

­0.554

­0.029

­1.523

­0.727

­0.038

­1.773

­0.846

­0.045

­2.575

­1.229

­0.065

Extrapolation

2040

­0.317

­0.193

­0.013

­1.224

­0.745

­0.050

­1.606

­0.977

­0.066

­1.870

­1.137

­0.076

­2.716

­1.652

­0.111

2042

­0.325

­0.216

­0.015

­1.254

­0.835

­0.060

­1.646

­1.096

­0.078

­1.916

­1.275

­0.091

­2.783

­1.852

­0.133

* All results in metric tons, equivalent to 1.1 short tons and negative values refer to a reduction compared with the base case

** Comparable to Table A17 of AEO2007: Electric Generators

† Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2007: Emissions

Compared to the anticipated reference case emissions impacts forecast shown in

Table 16.2.1, changes in emission levels shown in Table 16.2.2 are small. In general, the

NEMS­BT model results show a general trend toward reduced emission levels over time.

Mercury emissions show slight increases through 2025, with reductions after that. Cumulatively,

all of the proposed TSLs result in total emissions reductions through 2042 for all three emission

types. None of the changes amount to a 1 percent change in annual emissions.

16­6

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                            

                             

                                 

                                  

                      

           

                           

                       

                              

                        

                             

                         

                            

               

                      

                              

                              

                             

                       

                             

                          

                               

              

                         

                            

                     

                           

                              

                           

                            

                          

                                

                

                         

       

     

   

       

   

One possible influence on changes in emissions is emissions banking. This feature of the

CAIR and the mercury rule allows power plant operators to bank emission allowances when they

release fewer emissions than what they have allowances for in an earlier year in order to release

more emissions than permitted by their allowances in a later year. It is also possible that within

the model the timing of when power plants are replaced changes.

16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel­Cycle Emissions

Fuel­cycle 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. Upstream processes include the mining of coal or extraction of natural gas,

physical preparatory and cleaning processes, and transportation to the power plant. The NEMSBT does a thorough accounting of emissions at the power plant due to downstream energy

consumption, but does not account for upstream emissions (i.e., emissions from energy losses

during coal and natural gas production). Thus, this analysis reports only power plant emissions.

However, previous DOE environmental assessment documents have developed

qualitative estimates of affects on upstream fuel­cycle emissions. These emissions factors

provide the reader with 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 eight 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.1,2 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 an amount

equal to 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 16.2.3 for CO2, and NOx. The percentages are relative to power plant emissions and

provide a means to estimate upstream emission savings based on changes in emissions from

power plants. The percentage effects presented in Table 16.2.3 provide a qualitative approach to

viewing effects on fuel cycle emissions. The previous section indicates slight overall reductions

in CO2, and NOx. Thus, very small reductions in upstream emissions of air pollutant could be

expected. This approach does not address mercury emissions.

Table 16.2.3	 Estimated Upstream Emissions of Air Pollutants as a Percentage of Direct

Power Plant Combustion Emissions

Percent of Coal Percent of Natural Gas

Pollutant Combustion Emissions Combustion Emissions

CO2 2.7 11.9

NOx 5.8 40

16­7

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
         

                     

                           

                                

                           

           

    

                             

                     

                                  

                                 

                            

         

                       

                         

                                

                          

                           

                           

                     

                   

             

     

                   

   

       

                             

     

                         

                   

                           

                   

                       

        

                     

                      

                               

                       

16.3	 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

DOE’s proposed action is not site­specific. The efficiency of commercial refrigeration

equipment being installed in commercial buildings is not expected to affect land disturbance or

use. Therefore, none of the proposed TSLs is expected to affect the quality of wetlands, or

threatened or endangered species. Further, this action is not expected to impact cultural resources

such as historical or archaeological sites.

16.4	 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

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

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment at the proposed standard level is completely or nearly

offset by a reduction in the life­cycle cost (LCC) of owning a more efficient piece of equipment.

In other words, the customer will pay less operating costs over the life of the equipment even

through the first cost increases. The complete analysis and its conclusions are presented in

Chapter 8 of the TSD.

For the sub­group of customers that reflect small businesses, defined by independent

convenience stores and small grocery without access to national accounts, DOE determined that

the average LCC impact is similar to that for the full sample of customers. Therefore, DOE

concludes that the proposed action would have negligible socioeconomic impact. For a complete

discussion on the LCC impacts on independent hotels, see Chapter 12 of the TSD.

Table 16.4.1 shows the mean LCC savings for VCT.RC.L both the full sample of

customers and for the small business subgroup as an example.

Table 16.4.1	 Mean Life­Cycle Cost Savings for All Customers and Sub­Group,

Independent Convenience Stores and Small Grocery, VCT.RC.L Example

TSL 1 TSL 2

Trial Standard Level*

TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

All Customers 676 3594 3662 3546 3546

Independent Convenience

Stores and Small Grocery 876 4842 4941 5042 5042

*Values refer to life­cycle cost savings over the equipment lifetime compared with purchase of baseline equipment

16.5	 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

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

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­Income Populations,” DOE is required

to examine the effect of more stringent energy­efficiency standards on (1) small businesses that

either manufacture or use commercial refrigeration equipment, (2) manufacturers of niche

products related to commercial refrigeration equipment, and (3) small businesses operated by

disadvantaged or minority populations.

DOE identified small businesses as a sub­group that possibly could be disproportionately

affected by commercial refrigeration equipment energy conservation standards. As described in

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

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on small businesses

16­8

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                          

                         

              

   

                     

                            

                          

                       

                     

                            

                              

                            

                               

                              

                             

                       

                          

                        

                         

                           

                          

                   

       

                       

                               

                               

                                

                          

                            

                              

                               

   

                             

                            

                          

                               

          

                          

                         

           

that would result from the proposed energy conservation standards. Because there were no

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on small businesses in general, DOE believes this

same conclusion also applies to minority populations.

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS

Improvements in efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment are expected to result

from changes in the choice of components and other design features. These changes are

described in Chapter 5 of this TSD. Efficiency improvements result from improved heat

exchanger designs using increased levels of copper, higher efficiency evaporator fans, higher

efficiency lighting, and more efficient compressors and condenser fans applied to self­contained

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

equipment in today’s market. In addition, changes to the design to improve the efficiency levels

are not anticipated to affect the equipment’s aesthetics. None of the design options considered

by DOE is believed to result in visual changes perceptible to the store customer with the

exception of lighting. To achieve the equipment efficiencies provided at TSL 4, and 5, for

equipment for which case lighting was present in the baseline model and for which the

engineering design assumed LED lighting, DOE modeled only the energy consumption and

direct cost impacts of the equipment with solid­state lighting. Solid­state lighting provides a

functionally equivalent lighting of the product being merchandised. DOE notes that current

implementations of solid­state lighting in display cases use light from many discrete point

sources directed at the merchandised product rather than the more diffuse lighting obtained using

fluorescent bulbs. This may provide a somewhat different presentation of the product, however

not one that would result in a negative aesthetic impact.

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table 16.7.1 summarizes anticipated environmental impacts for each of the TSLs across

all equipment types. Air quality impacts were modeled for each of the TSLs. The summary

table shows cumulative changes in emissions for CO2, NOx, and mercury over the period 2012 to

2042. The resulting changes in emission quantities are very small, much less than 1 percent in

comparison to the reference case. Cumulative CO2 and NOx emissions show a decrease

compared to the reference case. Mercury emissions show a very small increase in cumulative

emissions. This increase may result from the combined effects of emissions banking, a shift in

how power plants are dispatched, or the timing within the model of when power plants are

replaced.

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 qualitative approach suggests that upstream fuel cycle emissions

would decrease and provides a sense for the magnitude of effects; however, DOE does not report

actual estimates of the effects.

Socioeconomic impacts are presented as changes in life cycle costs. No impacts are

anticipated in the area of environmental justice; wetlands endangered and threatened species; and

cultural resources; or noise and aesthetics.

16­9

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
             

   

       

           

         

       

     

       

      

       

         

      

            

       

   

     

                                       

                                  

                                               

     

                                 

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary
 

Environmental Effects

Reference

Case* 1 2 3 4 5

Cumulative Emission Reductions**

CO2 (Million metric tons)

NOx (Kilo tons)

Hg (tons)

Fuel­Cycle (Upstream) Emissions

Wetlands, Endangered and Threatened

Species, Cultural Resources

Socioeconomic Impacts ­ VCT.RC.L,

Mean LCC Savings ($) ‡

All Customers

Convenience Stores and Independent

Small Grocery

Environmental Justice

Noise and Aesthetics

238,078

69,049

568.4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

­7.37

­2.74

­0.09

†

None

676

876

None

None

­28.47

­10.58

­0.36

†

None

3594

4842

None

None

­37.37

­13.88

­0.47

†

None

3662

4941

None

None

­43.50

­16.16

0.54

†

None

3546

5042

None

None

­63.17

­23.47

­0.80

†

None

3546

5042

None

None

* The reference case values reflect total cumulative emissions and life­cycle costs in the absence of an energy conservation standard.

** Cumulative total is over a time period from 2012 to 2042. Negative values refer to emission reductions.

†	 DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 16.2.5 provides a sense for the possible

magnitude of effects.

‡	 Values refer to life­cycle cost savings over the equipment lifetime compared with purchase of baseline equipment.

16­10

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                       

              

                            

                 

         

REFERENCES
 

1 .	 DOE. 2006. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

for Distribution Transformers. DOE/EA­1565. Washington, D.C.

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

and Electricity, Volume 2: Appendixes A­S. November, 1993. Argonne National

Laboratory. Argonne, IL. Report No. ANL/ESD/TM­22­Vol.2.

16­11

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2