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**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 (SO**  **2 ),**  **and carbon**  **dioxide (CO**  **2 ).**  **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 (SO 2 )

**In addressing**  **SO 2**  **emissions, the**  **Clean Air**  **Act Amendments**  **of 1990**  **set an**  **SO 2** 

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

**use of**  **emissions allowances**  **and tradable**  **permits. This**  **SO 2**  **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 “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 SO**  **2 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**  **SO 2**  **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**  **SO 2**  **emissions, SO**  **2 emission**  **results are**  **not reported** 

**in this**  **Chapter.**

Nitrogen Oxides (NO

x )

**Nitrogen oxides** 

, **or NO** 

**x ,**  **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 (NO**  **2 ),**  **along with** 

**particles in**  **the air**  **can often**  **be seen**  **as a**  **reddish­brown layer**  **over many**  **urban areas.**  **NO 2**  **is the** 

**specific form**  **of NO** 

**x reported**  **in this**  **document. NO** 

**x is**  **one of**  **the main**  **ingredients involved**  **in**

**the formation**  **of 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.**

**NO**

**x 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**  **NO**

**x are**  **motor vehicles,**  **electric utilities,**  **and other** 

**industrial, commercial,**  **and residential**  **sources that**  **burn fossil**  **fuels. NO** 

**x can**  **also be**  **formed**

**naturally. Electric**  **utilities account**  **for about**  **22 percent**  **of NO** 

**x 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**Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 )

**Carbon dioxide**  **(CO 2**  **) 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, CO**  **2 ,**  **methane (CH**  **4 ),**  **nitrous oxide**  **(N 2**  **O), and**  **ozone (O**  **3 ).**  **Human activities,**  **however,**

**add to**  **the levels**  **of most**  **of these**  **naturally occurring**  **gases. For**  **example, CO**  **2 is**  **emitted to**  **the**

**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)**

**CO 2**  **emissions resulted**  **from burning**  **fossil fuels.** 

**Concentrations of**  **CO 2**  **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**  **CO 2**  **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, CO**  **2 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**  **self**

**contained 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 SO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**x .**  **Also, the**  **Clean Air**  **Act Amendments**  **of**

**1990 gave**  **EPA the**  **authority to**  **control acidification**  **and to**  **require operators**  **of electric**  **power**

**plants to**  **reduce emissions**  **of SO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**x .**  **Title IV**  **of the**  **1990 amendments**  **established a**  **cap**

**and­trade program**  **for SO**  **2 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 SO**  **2**

**16­3 and**  **NO**

**x in**  **the eastern**  **United States.**  **CAIR achieves**  **large reductions**  **of SO**  **2 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**  **cap**

**and­trade 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 NO** 

**x are**  **to be**  **in place**  **in**

**2009. Phase**  **1 caps**  **for SO**  **2 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**  **CO 2** 

**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 SO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**x 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 SO**  **2**

**and NO** 

**x 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**  **NO**

**x 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 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**  **SO 2**  **trading tends**  **to imply**  **that the**  **physical emissions**  **effects will**  **be zero,** 

**as long**  **as emissions**  **are at**  **the allowed**  **ceiling. Because**  **SO 2**  **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**  **SO 2**  **results here.**  **This assumption**  **is consistent**  **with**

**previous DOE**  **environmental assessment**  **documents. 1** 

**As with**  **SO 2**  **emissions, caps**  **on NO** 

**x 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 NO** 

**x 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 NEMS** 

**BT 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**  **NO 2**  **and mercury**  **emissions from**  **power plants**  **are shown** 

**in these**  **tables. Changes**  **in CO**  **2 emissions**  **from all**  **sources are**  **also shown**  **in these**  **four tables.** 

**16­5**Table 16.2.1 Power Sector Emissions Impacts Forecast for AEO2007 Reference Case

NEMS­BT Results*:

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

**CO 2**  **(Million metric** 

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

**NO x**  **(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

**CO 2**  **(Million metric**  **tons/year) 

** NO** **x (Kilo**  **tons/year)†**

**Hg (tons/year)†** 

TSL 2

**CO 2**  **(Million metric**  **tons/year)**

**NO x**  **(Kilo tons/year)** 

**Hg (tons/year)** 

TSL 3

**CO 2**  **(Million metric**  **tons/year)**

**NO x**  **(Kilo tons/year)** 

**Hg (tons/year)** 

TSL 4

**CO 2**  **(Million metric**  **tons/year)**

**NO x**  **(Kilo tons/year)** 

**Hg (tons/year)** 

TSL 5

**CO 2**  **(Million metric**  **tons/year)**

**NO x**  **(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 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**  **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** 

**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 SO**  **2 )**  **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 CO**  **2 ,**  **and NO** 

**x**

**. 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 CO**  **2 ,**  **and NO** 

**x**

**. 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

**CO 2**  **2.7 11.9** 

**NO x**  **5.8 40** 

**16­7**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 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 CO**  **2 ,**  **NO**

**x ,**  **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**  **CO 2**  **and NO** 

**x 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 CO**  **2 and**  **NO**

**x are**  **described but**  **not quantified**  **in section** 

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

**in power**  **plant emissions.**  **This 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**Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary

Environmental Effects Reference

Case* 1 2 3 4 5

**Cumulative Emission**  **Reductions 

** CO** **2 (Million**  **metric tons)** 

**NO x**  **(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**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**