DOE/EIA-0608(96)

Distribution Category UC-950

Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Voluntary Reporting

October 1997

Energy Information Administration

Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and

analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be

construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or of any other

organization.
For More Information

Individuals or members of organizations wishing to

report reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases

under the auspices of the Voluntary Reporting Program

can contact the Energy Information Administration

(EIA) at:

Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

Energy Information Administration

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

EI-81, Room 2F-081

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Telephone: 1-800-803-5182 or 202-586-0688

FAX: 202-586-3045

e-mail: infoghg@eia.doe.gov

The EIA has both a long form (EIA-1605) and a short

form (EIA-1605EZ) available, as well as an electronic

version of the form. They are available upon request or

on EIA’s web site at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/

frntend.html.

General or specific technical information concerning the

contents of this report may also be obtained by contacting the Voluntary Reporting Program.

ii Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Preface

Title XVI, Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (EPACT), enacted on October 24, 1992, directed

the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to establish a mechanism for “the voluntary collection and

reporting of information on . . . annual reductions of

greenhouse gas emissions and carbon fixation achieved

through any measures, including fuel switching, forest

management practices, tree planting, use of renewable

energy, manufacture or use of vehicles with reduced

greenhouse gas emissions, appliance efficiency, methane recovery, cogeneration, chlorofluorocarbon capture

and replacement, and power plant heat rate improvement . . . .”

The legislation further instructed EIA to create forms

for the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions, and to establish a database of the information

voluntarily reported under this subsection of EPACT.

The reporting Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ,

“Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” were first

made available to the public in July 1995, providing a

vehicle for voluntary reporting on activities that

occurred before and during 1994. This publication summarizes data reported for 1995, the second year of data

collection for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse

Gases Program.

The data reported to the program are available through

several media. All nonconfidential reports received by

the program are compiled into a public-access database,

available either on CD-ROM or a set of diskettes. The

software is interactive and modular by design, allowing

the user to select, view, and if desired print the reports

filed by the voluntary reporters, for each year of their

participation. Predesigned queries allow the user to

access and print a variety of summary reports; the user

can also build original queries with commercially available SQL software.

The Public Use Database and the current reporting software are also available at the program’s FTP (File

Transfer Protocol) site on the World Wide Web. The

site is: ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom. Interested

parties are encouraged to visit the Program’s home

page at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntend.html for

more information and background on the Program.

Software, additional copies of this report, paper reporting forms, and technical support information can be

obtained from the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse

Gases Communications Center by e-mail at infoghg@

eia.doe.gov, toll-free at 1-800-803-5182, or locally at

202-586-0688.

This report was prepared under the guidance of Mary

J. Hutzler, Director of EIA’s Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. People who have made significant

contributions to the program, the current software, and

the preparation of this report include: Arthur T.

Andersen, Director of the Energy Demand and Integration Division, Stephen Calopedis, Laura Gehlin,

William LaPerch, Gabriela Martin, Kenneth Pruitt,

Chris Minnucci, John Molineaux, Michael Mondshine,

Richard Richards, and Arthur Rypinski.

EIA would also like to express special thanks to the

voluntary reporters, without whom this program would

be impossible.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting iii
Contents

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1. Voluntary Reporting of Emissions Reduction Actions: An Overview ............................ 1

Introduction ...................................................................... 1

Plan of the Report .................................................................. 1

Who Reported? .................................................................... 2

What Was Reported? ................................................................ 3

Emissions Mitigation Reporting in the Context of National Emissions Trends ..................... 7

2. Reducing Emissions from Electricity Supply ............................................... 9

Overview of Projects Reported ........................................................ 9

Reducing the Carbon Content of Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Increasing Efficiency in Electricity Production and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Federal Voluntary Programs for the Electric Utility Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3. Increasing End-Use Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Project Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

New Projects and New Reporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Federal Voluntary Programs To Increase End-Use Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4. Reducing Oil-Based Transportation Fuel Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

U.S. Transportation Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Using Alternative Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Reducing Vehicle Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Improving Vehicle Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Federal Voluntary Programs for the Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Reporting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Domestic Forestry Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

International Forestry Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Urban Forestry Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Federal Voluntary Carbon Sequestration Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Reporting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting v
Contents (Continued) Page

6. Projects To Reduce Methane Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

U.S. Methane Emissions in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Emissions Reductions by Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Methane Emissions from Waste Generation and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Methane Emissions from Energy Production and Distribution: Natural Gas Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Methane Emissions from Energy Production and Distribution: Coal Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Methane Emissions from Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Reporting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Double Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Methane Recovery as a Proxy for Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

The Role of Carbon Sequestered in Waste in the Global Carbon Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7. Halogenated Substances and Other Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

U.S. Emissions of Halogenated Substances and Other Gases in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Emissions Reductions by Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chlorofluorocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Perfluorocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Sulfur Hexafluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

8. Entity-Level Emissions and Future Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

About Entity Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Entity-Level Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Entity-Level Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

The Definition of the Reference Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Treatment of Indirect Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Foreign Emissions and Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Future Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Entity Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Project Financial Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Project Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendixes

A. The Voluntary Reporting Program: A Developmental Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

B. Emissions Accounting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

C. Summary of Reports Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Tables

ES1. Profile of Voluntary Reporting Program Reports ........................................... x

1. Forms Filed, by Standard Industrial Classification and Data Year, 1994 and 1995 .................. 3

2. Distribution of Projects by Reduction Objective and Project Type, Data Year 1995 ................. 4

3. Geographic Scope of Reports Received and Location of Emissions Reductions Projects,

Data Years 1994 and 1995 ............................................................ 4

4. Summary of Project-Level Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration by Reduction Objective,

Data Year 1995 .................................................................... 7

5. Number of Projects and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions for Transportation Projects

by Project Type, Data Years 1994 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6. Fuel Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7. Electricity Supply Requirements for Recent Electric Vehicle Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

vi Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Tables (Continued) Page

8. Estimated U.S. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide and Methane, 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

9. Total Reported Methane Emissions Reductions, Data Years 1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

10. Reported Methane Emissions Reductions from Waste Generation and Disposal Projects,

Data Years 1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

11. Reported Methane Emissions Reductions from Natural Gas System Projects, Data Years 1991-1995 . . . . 53

12. Estimated U.S. GWP-Weighted Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

13. Reported Halocarbon Emissions Reductions, Data Years 1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

14. Reported Increases in Emissions of CFC Substitutes, Data Years 1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

15. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Type of Activity, 1988-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

16. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases, 1988-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

17. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions by Type of Activity, 1991-1995 . . . . . 66

18. Reported 1990 and 1995 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Selected Reporters

Using a “Basic Reference Case” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

19. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Emissions Reductions for Other Gases, 1991-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C1. 1995 Reporting Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

C3. Reporting Entities by Type of Form and Organization, Data Years 1994 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

C4. Summary of Reports Received by Schedule, Data Years 1994 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

C5. Distribution of Projects Reported by Project Type Category, Data Years 1994 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

C6. Distribution of Projects Reported by Project Type Category and Reporting Form, Data Year 1995 . . . . . 110

C7. Affiliation of Reported Emissions Reduction and Carbon Sequestration Projects

with Voluntary Programs by Project Type Category, Data Year 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figures

ES1. Project-Level Emissions Reductions Reported to the Voluntary Reporting Program, 1994 and 1995 ..... x

1. Number of Projects in 1995 by Geographic Location ........................................ 5

2. Electricity Emissions Reduction Projects by Project Size ..................................... 9

3. Carbon Content Reduction Projects by Project Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Fuel-Switching Projects by Project Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Capacity Addition Projects by Energy Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. Efficiency Improvement Projects by Project Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7. End-Use Projects by Project Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8. End-Use Projects by Project Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

9. End-Use Projects by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

10. End-Use Projects by Load Shape Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

11. Trends in Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector, 1980-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

12. Transportation Sector Carbon Emissions by Fuel, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

13. Trends in Highway Vehicle Use, 1980-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

14. Transportation Sector Carbon Emissions Reduction Projects by Project Size and Type, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . 31

15. Comparison of Fuel Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Electric and Gasoline Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

16. Carbon Sequestration Projects by Project Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

17. U.S. Forestry Projects by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

18. American Electric Power’s Domestic Forestry Projects by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

19. Total Sequestration for American Electric Power’s Domestic Forestry Projects, 1992-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

20. International Forestry Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

21. U.S. Urban Tree Planting Projects by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

22. U.S. Methane Emissions by Source, 1990 and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting vii
Executive Summary

The Voluntary Reporting Program, developed pursuant

to Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,

permits corporations, government agencies, households,

and voluntary organizations to report on their emissions of greenhouse gases, and on actions taken that

have reduced or avoided emissions or sequestered carbon, to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

This, the second annual report of the Voluntary Reporting Program, describes information provided by the

participating organizations on their aggregate emissions

and emissions reductions, as well as their emissions

reduction or avoidance projects, through 1995. This

information has been compiled into a database that

includes reports from 142 organizations and descriptions of 967 projects that either reduced greenhouse gas

emissions or sequestered carbon. Fifty-one reporters

also provided estimates of emissions, and emissions

reductions achieved, for their entire organizations.

The projects described actions taken to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from energy production and

use; to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions

from energy use, waste management, and agricultural

processes; to reduce emissions of halocarbons, such as

CFCs and their replacements; and to increase carbon

sequestration. Current reporters represent 13 different

industries, as defined by the two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. More than 80 percent are

electric utilities. Nonetheless, representation from other

sectors is significant. Other reporters include large

enterprises in the automotive, metals, chemicals, and

computer industries.

In the past year, the prospect of global climate change

and public policies to ameliorate climate change have

received increasing attention from policymakers in

Washington and from the public at large. Interest has

been stimulated by the progress of the international

climate change negotiations and the successive policy

announcements of the U.S. Government, which have

gradually committed the United States to a long-term

strategy aimed at limiting U.S. emissions of greenhouse

gases over the next two decades. The methods by

which such a strategy might be implemented, however,

have not been decided, and they remain a topic of

active discussion.

To date, U.S. policy initiatives to promote progress

toward the goal of stabilizing U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions have emphasized voluntary efforts. President

Clinton’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) sought

to energize cooperative approaches to identify and

implement actions that could reduce emissions of

greenhouse gases. In that spirit, an array of government-industry partnerships were formed to search for

and pursue opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas

emissions. Most Voluntary Reporting Program participants are also affiliated with one or more governmentsponsored voluntary programs.

Table ES1 indicates the number of contributors to the

Voluntary Reporting Program for 1994 and 1995. The

number of reports received increased by 31 percent, to

142. The number of individual projects described increased by 50 percent, to 967. Reporters claimed that

the 967 projects reduced emissions by a total of 184 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 1995

(Figure ES1).

Electricity supply projects were the most numerous of

all projects reported under the Voluntary Reporting

Million Metric Tons

53.1

97.8

11.8

15.7

0.7

7

2.7

3

3.2

56.9

3.9

23.7

Electricity Supply

End Use/Transport

Carbon Sequestration

Waste Reduction

Methane and

Nitrous

Halocarbons/Other

0 20 40 60 80 100

1994

1995

Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

Methane and

Nitrous Oxide

7.0

3.0

Figure ES1. Project-Level Emissions Reductions

Reported to the Voluntary Reporting

Program, 1994 and 1995

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and

EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting ix
Table ES1. Profile of Voluntary Reporting Program Reports

Item 1994 Reports 1995 Reports Percent Change

Number of Reports Received ........................ 108 142 31.4

Number of Individual Projects Reported

Carbon Dioxide Reduction

Electricity Generation, Transmission, and Cogeneration . . . . 231 303 31.7

End Use and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 326 35.8

Carbon Sequestrationa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 199 155.1

Waste Reduction and Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 50 51.5

Methane Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 58 34.8

Halogenated Substances and Other Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 22 46.6

Other (Includes Education and Training) ................. 5 9 80.0

Totala ....................................... 645 967 49.9

a

Includes reports from 20 participants on their pro-rated shares of joint international forestry projects.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 (long form) and EIA-1605EZ (short form), “Voluntary Reporting

of Greenhouse Gases” (1994 and 1995 data from the 1995 and 1996 reporting cycles).

Program. Such projects can reduce emissions in two

ways: replace high emitting fuels with lower emitting

or non-emitting energy sources for power generation;

or improve the efficiency of electricity generation and

distribution to reduce energy use per unit of delivered

electric power. Eighty-six organizations reported 303

electricity supply projects, one-half of which achieved

carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 10,000 metric

tons or more. More than one-third of the reductions

came from 15 large electricity generation-related projects, which collectively reduced emissions by 79 million

metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, and most of

which were nuclear availability improvement projects.

Ninety-one organizations reported 276 projects that

improved energy end-use efficiency. Most reporters described electric utility demand-side management (DSM)

programs. End-use projects tend to yield small reductions in carbon dioxide emissions; however, many (for

example, installation of improved lighting or motor

drive equipment) have the potential for widespread

adoption.

Fifty transportation-related projects were reported. The

most commonly reported transportation project was

switching to alternative fuels, particularly compressed

natural gas. However, there were several unusual transportation demand reduction projects. One company

reported a half-million mile savings in employee commuting from the use of videoconferencing for regional

meetings.

Almost 200 carbon sequestration projects were reported.

Most States are benefiting from one or more projects

sponsored by participants in the Voluntary Reporting

Program. In addition, reported initiatives are underway

in 15 foreign countries. Electric utilities are very active

in supporting forestry projects. Their efforts are significantly complemented by a variety of nonprofit environmental protection organizations.

Emissions reductions for gases other than carbon dioxide accounted for 16 percent of the reported 1995

reductions (on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis). Coal

mining companies reported initiatives to capture and

use methane emissions from their operations; waste

management organizations reported actions that captured methane from landfills and reduced waste

accumulation that would otherwise have produced

methane emissions in the future. One electric utility

reported halving its emissions of sulfur hexafluoride—a

gas that has a global warming potential of 23,900. (For

a discussion of global warming potential, see ”What

Are Greenhouse Gases?” on page 6.)

Fifty-one reporters provided information on their

aggregate levels of both greenhouse gas emissions and

reductions. These reporters collectively reported direct

emissions of some 855 million metric tons and indirect

emissions of 378 million metric tons carbon dioxide

equivalent in 1995. They reported reductions of about

84 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent in

1995. Most reporters calculated their company-wide

reductions based on what their emissions would have

been if they had not undertaken actions tending to

reduce their emissions. However, 10 firms reported

reductions calculated on the basis that their emissions

were lower than in some baseline year, usually 1990.

For most reporters, increases in overall activity levels

associated with economic growth have tended to offset

improved emissions rates per unit of activity, leading

to increases in emissions. These increases, however, are

less than they would have been in the absence of their

voluntary greenhouse gas reduction efforts.

x Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
1. Voluntary Reporting of Emissions Reduction Actions:

An Overview

Introduction

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) directed the

Energy Information Administration (EIA) to develop

two new programs to enhance understanding of U.S.

emissions of greenhouse gases as well as the scope of

efforts directed toward reducing emissions (see box on

page 2).1 This report focuses on the second program,

mitigation of emissions.2 It is based on a reporting

system designed to document voluntary actions that

reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or remove such

gases from the atmosphere. The reporting program was

developed in cooperation with the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy and with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

This report presents information on activities underway

in 1995, which reflects the second year of data collection for the program. The database compilation includes

reports from 142 volunteers and describes more than

900 projects that either reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. Projects relate to emissions of

carbon dioxide from energy production and use; methane and nitrous oxide emissions from energy use, waste

management, and agricultural processes; emissions involving a wide range of halocarbon use; and actions

that increase carbon sequestration. Current reporters

represent 13 different industries, as defined by the twodigit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. More

than 80 percent are electric utilities. Nonetheless, representation from other sectors is significant, including

large enterprises in the automotive, metals, chemicals,

and computer industries.

As concern about global climate change grows, the

search for remediation options intensifies. Voluntary

reporting of emissions mitigation initiatives can help

identify innovative actions that can spur imitation and

widespread replication across the economy. To the

extent that achievements are realized in this voluntary

manner, pressures for more direct action to control

emissions may be ameliorated.

To date, U.S. policy initiatives to promote progress

toward the goal of stabilizing U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions have emphasized voluntary efforts. President

Clinton’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) sought

to energize cooperative approaches to identify and implement actions that could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.3 In that spirit, an array of government/

industry partnerships were formed to search for and

pursue opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the contributors to the database on

voluntary greenhouse gas emissions mitigation efforts

are affiliated with one or more government-sponsored

voluntary programs.

Plan of the Report

This report is divided into eight chapters. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of participation in the Voluntary Reporting Program, a perspective

on the composition of activities reported, and a review

of some key issues in interpreting and evaluating

achievements associated with reported emissions mitigation initiatives.

Chapters 2 through 7 provide a more detailed review

of the variety of project-level emissions reduction initiatives reported to the program. Carbon dioxide emissions reductions are the focus of Chapters 2 through 4.

Chapter 2 examines projects involving energy efficiency

improvements in the production and distribution of

electricity and reductions in the use of higher emitting

carbon-based fuels. Chapter 3 considers improvements

in end-use efficiency in the residential, commercial, and

industrial sectors. Chapter 4 reviews transportation

projects that reduce travel activity or diminish reliance

on petroleum-based fuels. Activities to improve or

1

Title XVI of the Energy Policy Act, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992), in Section 1605(a) called for an annual report on national

aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases. Section 1605(b) called for the establishment of a database on annual reductions of emissions

as reported on a voluntary basis.

2

Since 1993, EIA has issued an annual report on aggregate U.S. emissions—Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States—which

deals with the first program.

3

U.S. Department of State, Climate Action Plan, Publication 10496 (Washington, DC, July 1997).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 1
The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Sections 1605(b) and (c)

(B) Voluntary Reporting.—

(1) ISSUANCE OF GUIDELINES.—Not later than

18 months after the date of the enactment of

this Act, the Secretary shall, after opportunity

for public comment, issue guidelines for the

voluntary collection and reporting of information on sources of greenhouse gases. Such

guidelines shall establish procedures for the

accurate voluntary reporting of information

on—

(A) greenhouse gas emissions—

(i) for the baseline period of 1987 through

1990; and

(ii) for subsequent calendar years on an

annual basis;

(B) annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon fixation achieved through

any measures, including fuel switching,

forest management practices, tree planting,

use of renewable energy, manufacture or

use of vehicles with reduced greenhouse

gas emissions, appliance efficiency, methane recovery, cogeneration, chlorofluorocarbon capture and replacement, and

power plant heat rate improvement;

(C) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

achieved as a result of—

(i) voluntary reductions;

(ii) plant or facility closings; and

(iii) State or Federal requirements; and

(D) an aggregate calculation of greenhouse gas

emissions by each reporting entity.

Such guidelines shall also establish procedures

for taking into account the differential radiative activity and atmospheric lifetimes of each

greenhouse gas.

(2) REPORTING PROCEDURES.—The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall develop forms for voluntary

reporting under the guidelines established

under paragraph (1), and shall make such

forms available to entities wishing to report

such information. Persons reporting under this

subsection shall certify the accuracy of the

information reported.

(3) CONFIDENTIALITY.—Trade secret and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential shall be protected as

provided in section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United

States Code.

(4) ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA BASE.—Not

later than 18 months after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Secretary through

the Administrator of the Energy Information

Administration shall establish a data base comprised of information voluntarily reported

under this subsection. Such information may

be used by the reporting entity to demonstrate

achieved reductions of greenhouse gases.

(C) Consultation.—

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall

consult, as appropriate, with the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency.

expand carbon sinks, notably through reforestation and

afforestation, are the subject of Chapter 5. Emissions reduction initiatives associated with methane and halogenated substances are examined in Chapters 6 and 7,

respectively.

Chapter 8 reviews emissions reports of participants

who provided data on aggregate entity emissions. A

total of 51 reporters provided information on both

aggregate emissions and aggregate reductions. These

include most of the largest electric utilities in the

United States. Appendixes provide information on the

development and structure of the data collection

instrument, a discussion of issues in the interpretation

of the data, and summary lists of reporters and projects

reported.

Who Reported?

The data collection program for emissions mitigation

actions is highly flexible. At one extreme, participants

can limit their reporting to a single project. At the other

extreme, a report can include multiple projects placed

in the context of the reporter’s aggregate or “entitylevel” emissions inventory.

Reports for 1995 were received from 142 participants in

13 different industries or services, compared with 108

reports from participants in nine different industries or

services for 1994 (Table 1). Most reporters were utilities

actively involved in the production and distribution of

electricity. Electric utilities accounted for 81 percent

(115) of the total number of reporting entities,

2 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
compared with 88 percent (96) during the previous reTable 1. Forms Filed, by Standard Industrial Classification and Data Year, 1994 and 1995

(Number of Reports)

SIC Code Description

Data Year

1994 1995

08 Forestry ...................................................... 1 2

12 Coal Mining ................................................... 1 2

27 Printing and Publishing ........................................... 0 1

28 Chemical and Allied Products ...................................... 1 3

33 Primary Metals ................................................. 2 2

34 Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment .... 0 2

36 Electronic Equipment ............................................ 1 1

37 Transportation Equipment ......................................... 1 1

38 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries ............................... 0 1

49 Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 123

65 Real Estate ................................................... 0 1

82 Educational Services ............................................. 1 2

88 Private Households .............................................. 2 1

Total ................................................................ 108 142

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 (long form) and EIA-1605EZ (short form), “Voluntary Reporting

of Greenhouse Gases.”

porting cycle. Of the 115 electric utility reporters to the

Voluntary Reporting Program, 41 (36 percent) reported

entity-wide information on emissions and reductions.

Even though the number of reporters from other industries remained relatively small, in many cases reports

were received from key companies in those industries.

For example, the automotive products industry was

represented by General Motors; the metals industry was

represented by Noranda and an operating division of

Alcan; Peabody reported on coal mining; and IBM

represented the electronic equipment sector. A complete

listing of all reporters is provided in Appendix C.

Most reporters indicated that their projects were affiliated with one or more government-sponsored

voluntary programs. Of the projects reported, 721 were

affiliated with the Climate Challenge Program, 29 with

EPA’s Green Lights Program, 19 with the U.S. Initiative

on Joint Implementation, 13 with the Climate Wise

Recognition Program, 9 with the Natural Gas STAR

Program, and 8 each with the Landfill Methane Outreach and Energy Star Building Programs. Other voluntary programs cited included Energy Star Computers,

Energy Star Transformers, the Voluntary Aluminum

Industrial Partnership, Motor Challenge, Waste Wise,

and Coalbed Methane Outreach.

Not all participants in the various voluntary programs

provide information for the EIA database. The level of

participation rose in the second reporting cycle, however, as familiarity with emissions accounting methodology improved, and as organizational efforts to

promote accomplishments gained momentum.

What Was Reported?

Of the 142 reporters, 129 (91 percent) provided information on a total of 967 projects (931 domestic and 36

foreign), and 13 provided data on reduction accomplishments without providing specific information on

project characteristics (Table 2 and Figure 1). The

projects were widely distributed geographically within

the United States. A limited number were located

abroad, where several forestry initiatives are underway.

The total number of projects reported increased by 322,

or 50 percent, compared with the previous reporting

cycle (Table 3).

About one-third of all the projects reported were

related to electricity generation, transmission, and

distribution. More than 200 involved actions to improve

power generation heat rates or to reduce energy losses

associated with electricity transmission and distribution.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 3
Table 2. Distribution of Projects by Reduction Objective and Project Type, Data Year 1995

Reduction Objective and Project Type Number of Projects Number of Reporters

Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions ...................... 629 123

Electricity Generation, Transmission, and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 292 86

Cogeneration and Waste Heat Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8

Energy End Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 91

Transportation and Offroad Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 34

Entity-Level Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13

Reducing Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 29

Waste Treatment and Disposal (Methane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 20

Agriculture (Methane and Nitrous Oxide) .................... 3 2

Oil and Natural Gas Systems and Coal Mining (Methane) . . . . . . . . 16 10

Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 62

Halogenated Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 18

Other Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 45

Total ............................................. 967 142

Note: The total number of reporters are smaller than the sum of the numbers of reporters for each project type, because

most reporters provided information on more than one project.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Table 3. Geographic Scope of Reports Received and Location of Emissions Reductions Projects,

Data Years 1994 and 1995

Geographic Scope

Reports Received Projects Reported

1994 1995 1994 1995

U.S. Only ................................ 102 124 636 931

Foreign Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9 36

Both U.S. and Foreign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 16 NA NA

Total .................................. 108 142 645 967

NA = not applicable.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Another 100 projects involved increasing reliance on

non-carbon or low-carbon fuels for generation. From an

emissions standpoint, the largest reduction achievements came from improving nuclear plant availability

so that coal-fired generation could be reduced. Other

carbon-reducing projects included increased use of

wind power and biomass for electricity generation.

Numerous projects (276) designed to improve energy

end-use efficiency were also reported, most of them by

electric utilities. They covered an array of demand-side

management efforts to replace inefficient equipment

and improve building shell integrity. Projects reported

by industrial firms included motor drive replacement;

integrated control of heating, cooling, and lighting

systems; and cogeneration. Many utilities reported

multiple projects affecting both supply and demand for

energy. Only a limited number of reporters provided

information on the costs and benefits of their actions;

however, those that provided such information usually

indicated a payback period of less than 2 years.

Among the remaining projects reported, those designed

to improve carbon sinks were most numerous. A wide

variety of forestry projects were identified. Of those

initiated in the United States, 14 percent involved urban

tree planting, and 54 percent involved reforestation or

afforestation. One or more such projects were initiated

in 41 States. Although utilities sponsored most of the

projects, substantial activity was reported by nonprofit

organizations. Thirty-six foreign forestry initiatives

were also reported, involving 15 countries (Table 3).

4 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
New England

43

Mid Atlantic

122

South Atlantic

121

Pacific

Contiguous

 83

Pacific

Non-contiguous

5

Foreign

36

East-South

Central

48

Mountain 

75 

West-North 

 Central 

179 East-North 

Central 

195 

West-South 

Central 

44 

Dispersed

Nationally

15

Figure 1. Number of Projects in 1995 by Geographic Location

Notes: Fractions of projects dispersed across regions were allocated to the individual regions. As a result, the regional values do not add to the

total number of projects reported (967) due to rounding. Of the 36 foreign projects reported, 20 represent shares in the Rio Bravo Carbon

Sequestration Pilot Project.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Fifty projects affecting transportation fuel use were

reported. Two-thirds promoted substitution of alternative fuels for gasoline. Natural gas conversions were the

most numerous. From an emissions reduction perspective, the single largest project involved the replacement

of conventional rail coal cars with lightweight aluminum cars, which enabled more coal to be shipped per

trip. As a result, the number of deliveries and freight

miles needed to service major coal-fired power facilities

were reduced. The most comprehensive transportation

project reported was developed by Quad/Graphics,

which simultaneously incorporated decisions on plant

location, alternate work schedules, car pooling, and

mass transit development to minimize workforce commuting costs and related emissions.

A variety of efforts to reduce methane emissions and

the emissions of other gases with high global warming

potential were also reported. (For a discussion of global

warming potential, see ”What Are Greenhouse Gases?”

on page 6.) Methane projects were numerous, with

most capturing methane from waste in landfills, wastewater treatment, or animal husbandry. The recovered

methane was typically combusted to supply electricity.

The greatest methane emissions reductions were associated with a large waste diversion project. The Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA) represents 65

of the Nation’s 114 waste-to-energy facilities in

operation in 1995. The IWSA reported reductions of

944,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Other initiatives

were directed toward reducing fugitive emissions from

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 5
What Are Greenhouse Gases?

Many chemicals found in the Earth’s atmosphere act

as “greenhouse gases,” which received their appellation because they tend to be transparent to sunlight

radiated largely in the visible and ultraviolet spectra,

whereas they tend to absorb infrared radiation (heat)

that is radiated back into the atmosphere from the

Earth’s surface. This process traps the heat from

sunlight at, or close to, the Earth’s surface and

significantly raises the average temperature of the

planet. Many gases that occur naturally in the atmosphere exhibit such “greenhouse” properties, including

water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

and an array of largely manufactured halogenated

substances. Other gases have so-called “indirect

effects” on global warming, because they may contribute to the buildup or decomposition of other

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For instance,

some urban air pollutants (nitrogen oxides and nonmethane volatile organic compounds) react in the

presence of sunlight to create ozone (O3), which is

also a greenhouse gas. Sulfur dioxide may have a net

cooling effect by promoting cloud formation, while

chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons

have a direct warming effect that is offset to some

unknown degree by an indirect cooling effect caused

by their propensity to destroy ozone in the stratosphere.

Atmospheric concentrations of several important

greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous

oxide, and most halogenated substances) have been

increasing rapidly for many years. The growth in their

concentrations is believed to be caused by human

activities—particularly, by the burning of fossil fuels

and by deforestation. In recent years, some scientists

and policymakers have become concerned that the

buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may

increase the share of the sun’s heat retained in the

atmosphere, which in turn may affect the Earth’s

climate in uncertain but potentially disruptive ways.

Some greenhouse gases are more effective in trapping

reflected infrared radiation than others. Since policymakers need to know on which gases their efforts

should be concentrated, scientists working with the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

have engaged in efforts to develop an index of the

relative marginal heat-trapping capacities of various

greenhouse gases. This index, called a “global warming potential” (GWP), is intended to measure only the

marginal direct radiative forcing of greenhouse gases,

ignoring most indirect effects, which proved too

complex and uncertain to incorporate in the GWP

measure. GWPs are calculated on the basis of the

radiative forcing ability of a unit of carbon dioxide,

which is set equal to 1, integrated over periods of 20,

100, and 500 years.

The IPCC periodically revises its GWP calculations.

The table below shows the most recent (1995) 100-year

GWPs for some of the most important greenhouse

gases. The IPCC indicates that the typical uncertainty

for these estimates is ±35 percent.

Numerical Estimates of 100-Year Global Warming

Potential Relative to Carbon Dioxide

(Carbon Dioxide = 1)

Gas

100-Year

Global Warming

Potential

Carbon Dioxide ............. 1

Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Nitrous Oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

Halogenated Substances

HFC-23 .................. 11,700

HFC-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

HFC-41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

HFC-43-10mee ............. 1,300

HFC-125 ................. 2,800

HFC-134 ................. 1,000

HFC-134a ................ 1,300

HFC-143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

HFC-143a ................ 3,800

HFC-152a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

HFC-227ea ............... 2,900

HFC-236fa ................ 6,300

HFC-245ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560

Chloroform ................ 4

Methylene Chloride .......... 9

Perfluoromethane ........... 6,500

Perfluoroethane ............ 9,200

Perfluoropropane ........... 7,000

Perfluorobutane ............ 7,000

Perfluoropentane ........... 7,500

Perfluorohexane ............ 7,400

Perfluorocyclobutane ......... 8,700

Trifluoroiodomethane . . . . . . . . <1

Sulfur Hexafluoride .......... 23,900

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change

(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996),

p. 121.

6 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
coal mining and natural gas production and delivery.

The CONSOL Coal Group, one of the top 10 producers

and distributors of coal in the United States, reported

methane emissions reductions in excess of 500,000 metric tons in 1995 (equivalent to 12 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide) through methane recovery from mine

operations and closure of coal mines with high methane

emissions.

As shown in Table 4, projects with the principal objective of reducing methane emissions also had substantial

carbon dioxide reduction benefits. Such benefits may

accrue when captured methane displaces oil or coal as

an energy source, or when reduced landfilling results

in the release of less carbon dioxide from aerobic decomposition (in the presence of oxygen). Projects that

reduced emissions of perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride also generated large reductions on a carbon

dioxide equivalent basis. Overall, the less than 10 percent of projects that focused on controlling emissions

other than carbon dioxide were responsible for nearly

40 percent of the total carbon dioxide equivalent reductions reported. This total excludes chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), despite

the large reductions reported for them on a full molecular weight basis, because of the uncertainty associated

with their net warming potential.4

Emissions Mitigation Reporting

in the Context of National

Emissions Trends

Emissions mitigation projects reported for 1995 indicate

aggregate reductions in the range of 180 million metric

tons carbon dioxide equivalent. How could such large

reductions be achieved by reports from a relatively

limited number of respondents? Equally important,

how can one reconcile such a total to national emissions

levels that are rising at an annual rate of 50 to 100

million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent?

In fact, the voluntary reporting database cannot be

reconciled to the database for the national emissions

inventory. They reflect two different accounting frameworks. For the most part, the national inventory calculates emissions from energy used to produce a wide

variety of goods and services. Year-to-year comparisons

are based on historical performance, mainly associated

with trends in energy production and consumption.

Emissions mitigation data are not necessarily related to

historical experience. Only a handful of reporters

indicate mitigation achievements in comparison with

historical performance baselines. The vast majority of

Table 4. Summary of Project-Level Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration

by Reduction Objective, Data Year 1995

(Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent)

Gas

Reductions by Project Objective

Total

Reductions

Reduce

Carbon Dioxide

Emissions

Reduce

Methane and

Nitrous Oxide

Emissions

Increase

Carbon

Sequestration

Reduce

Emissions of

Halogenated

Substances

Carbon Dioxide ............ 115,039,852 33,267,241 7,037,746 0 155,344,840

Methane ................. 249,010 23,613,180 0 0 23,862,190

Nitrous Oxide ............. 1,253,526 1,181 0 0 1,254,707

PFCs ................... 0 0 0 3,192,463 3,192,463

Other Gases .............. 0 0 0 208,481 208,481

Total .................. 116,542,389 56,881,602 7,037,746 3,400,944 183,862,681

CFCs, HCFCs ............ 0 0 0 20,304,696 20,304,696

Notes: Totals include all emissions reductions reported. No attempt has been made to correct for double counting, where

more than one entity has (or may have) reported on the same emissions reduction project. CFCs and HCFCs are not included

in the totals because of the uncertainty associated with estimates of net global warming potential for these gases. Their direct

warming effects (radiative forcing) are offset by indirect cooling effects (destruction of stratospheric ozone, another greenhouse

gas). For the same reason, methyl chloroform has been excluded from the ”Other Gases” category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

4

For a discussion of global warming potentials, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of

Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 7
reporters report emissions mitigation accomplishments

relative to a hypothetical baseline—what emissions

would have been had the mitigation effort not been

undertaken. Reporters can participate in establishing

mitigation records even for projects that involve new

activities for which no historical records exist and

which, in fact, lead to overall increases in emissions

levels. In this context, success of the mitigation effort

relates to moderating the growth rate of emissions.

Similarly, an entity whose scope of activity is not

increasing, but whose customer base is growing, may

report mitigation actions that only slow a rise in

emissions. Thus, it is possible to observe both increases

in specific emissions mitigation successes and rising

levels of national emissions (see box in Chapter 3, page

28).

Several other factors complicate the interpretation of

data on emissions mitigation efforts. Many actions have

both direct and indirect effects on emissions. The scope

of project accounting may ignore indirect increases

associated with a project’s implementation. Thus, the

shutdown of a coal-fired power plant could save direct

emissions for a reporter which, in some measure, might

be offset if replacement power were supplied by a nonreporting emitter. Even if a project is unambiguous in

its effect, the responsibility for its implementation may

not be. Is the entity capturing methane from a landfill

the mitigating agent, or is it the utility that promises to

purchase the methane as fuel (thereby justifying investment in recovery equipment)? Multiple sponsorship of

individual projects can lead to double reporting of

emissions savings when pro rata contributions to project implementation cannot be readily identified and

adjusted.

Still another consideration affecting interpretation of

reduction reports relates to the selection bias inherent

in voluntary reporting. Reporters participate to share

data on successes. Many nonreporters may have successes to report as well. Even more important, however,

is the fact that nonreporters will include actors who

have no reductions to report or who are engaged primarily in activities that generate increasing levels of

greenhouse gas emissions.

How then does the voluntary reporting of emissions

mitigation efforts help to address the national problem

of rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions? The establishment of an accounting framework for enterprises to

assess emissions sources and options for reduction

helps provide a new metric for decisionmakers reviewing the consequences of actions taken. Heightened

awareness can set the stage for emissions avoidance or

mitigation. Additionally, the program can help promote

activism and innovation in the search for emissions

reduction strategies in at least three ways:

• Replicating of small projects on a large scale. Many

projects achieve modest emissions reduction benefits individually, but are widely applicable. One

major utility described how videoconferencing reduced employee travel between its various locations

for meetings. While the reduction in emissions resulting from the decrease in vehicle miles traveled

was not extraordinary, multiplying this reduction

by even a fraction of the numbers of companies

across the United States that are similarly geographically dispersed could produce a substantial

aggregate benefit. By sharing information on projects such as this, voluntary reporting can promote

replication of cost-effective emissions mitigation

measures.

• Enhancing project scale through pooling of resources. Organizational initiatives in which several

participants pool resources can enhance the scale of

the projects undertaken. For example, 40 different

electric utilities are jointly sponsoring a forestry

project in Belize that will enhance carbon sequestration through improved forest management techniques on 120,000 acres. Voluntary reporting promotes such collaborations by providing recognition

to the participating companies.

• Identifying reduction opportunities. Through the

accounting of emissions performance records necessary for voluntary reporting, reporters gain an

understanding of the greenhouse gas emissions

consequences of their activities, which enables them

to identify the most cost-effective reduction opportunities. The realization that the global warming

potential of sulfur hexafluoride is nearly 24,000

times that of carbon dioxide spurred at least one

reporter to halve its emissions of this gas.

If the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program assists in any of these dimensions, some progress

toward national stabilization targets may be made.

8 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
2. Reducing Emissions from Electricity Supply

The electric utility sector produces more than 1.81

billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year—about

one-third of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. These

emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels—

coal, oil, and natural gas—during the electricity

generation process. Coal is the largest contributor to

utility emissions, accounting for 88 percent of the total,

reflecting the fact that coal is the primary energy source

used for electricity generation (51 percent of total U.S.

generation), as well as having the highest emissions per

unit of energy used. When it is burned, coal emits

about 70 percent more carbon dioxide per British thermal unit (Btu) of energy produced than does natural

gas.

Between 1990 and 1995, carbon dioxide emissions from

the utility sector5 increased by 62 million metric tons,

or 3.5 percent. This trend reflects U.S. economic growth

and corresponding increases in energy consumption.

However, electric utility carbon dioxide emissions grew

at a slower rate than total energy consumption, which

grew by 7.3 percent between 1990 and 1995, which, in

turn, is slower than the growth of the U.S. economy

(10.5 percent). Factors that helped to slow the growth

in emissions include increased reliance on natural-gasfired and nuclear power plants and efficiency improvements in both the generation and use of electricity.

Between 1994 and 1995, electric utility emissions declined despite a 2.9-percent increase in electricity

consumption, because nuclear and hydroelectric power

plants increased their share of total generation at the

expense of fossil-fuel-fired plants.6

Overview of Projects Reported

Projects undertaken by the electric utility industry

usually reduce emissions in one of two ways. First,

they may displace higher emitting fossil fuels (e.g.,

coal) with lower emitting fuels (e.g., natural gas) or

non-emitting energy sources (hydropower, geothermal,

solar, wind, and nuclear). Alternatively, by improving

the efficiency of electricity generation, transmission, and

distribution, they may reduce the quantity of fossil fuel

used by power plants. This chapter considers these two

groups of projects separately, following a brief overview of the reported electricity supply projects.

Electricity supply projects are the most numerous

reported to the Voluntary Reporting Program, accounting for 31 percent of all projects reported in 1996.

Eighty-six organizations, including one trade association, one independent power producer, and 84 electric

utilities, reported a total of 303 electricity supply

projects, a 31-percent increase from the previous

reporting year. Forty-four new projects were undertaken in 1995—a slight decline from 1994, when 49 new

projects were begun.

Electricity supply projects are also the largest projects

reported. More than one-half of all electricity supply

projects reported in 1996 achieved carbon dioxide reductions in excess of 10,000 metric tons each. Of the 21

largest projects reported (yielding a total of more than

1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide reductions in

1995), 15 were electricity supply projects (Figure 2).

Emissions Reductions in 1995 (Metric Tons CO2)

Number of Projects

398

168

87

21

0

to

10,000

10,000

to

100,000

100,000

to

1,000,000

>1,000,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Electricity Supply

Other

1

to

10,000

10,000

to

100,000

100,000

to

1,000,000

More

than

1,000,000

Other

Electricity Supply

Figure 2. Electricity Emissions Reduction Projects

by Project Size

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and

EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

5

Including independent power producers but excluding cogeneration facilities.

6

Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997), pp. 11-19.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 9
Reducing the Carbon Content of Energy

Sources

Fuel-switching projects, power plant availability improvements, and increases in low-emitting capacity

typically reduce the carbon content of the fuel or

energy sources used in electricity generation. A total of

104 such projects were reported for 1995 (Figure 3),

including some of the largest projects reported to the

Voluntary Reporting Program. It should be noted that

some carbon content reduction projects are in fact

“hybrids,” combining efficiency improvements with

measures such as availability improvements or increases in low-emitting capacity.

Number of Projects

21

20

20

25

35

45

12

14

Availability Improve

Fuel Switching

Low-Emitting Capacity

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50

Availability Improvements

Fuel Switching

Lower Emitting Capacity Additions

Other

1994

1995

Figure 3. Carbon Content Reduction Projects

by Project Type

Notes: Excludes electricity supply projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ. Some projects may be counted in more than one category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Availability Improvements

By increasing the generation from lower emitting power

plants, availability improvement projects provide a

commensurate reduction in the amount of generation

supplied by higher emitting plants. The number of

availability improvement projects reported for 1995

held fairly steady at 20, down one from the 21 reported

for 1994 (Figure 3).7 As was the case last year, availability improvement projects were among the most

effective in terms of the magnitude of their impact on

carbon dioxide emissions. On average, availability

improvements reduced carbon dioxide emissions by

more than 2.2 million metric tons per project in 1995.8

Availability improvement projects primarily reflect

developments within the nuclear power industry. Of

the 20 availability improvement projects reported, 11

occurred at nuclear power plants. Mainly through

significant advances in operating, maintenance, and

refueling procedures, capacity factors at nuclear plants

were increased, displacing fossil-based power generation. Because nuclear power plants are invariably large

baseload facilities, even a fairly small improvement in

plant availability can lead to a major reduction in fossil

fuel consumption. In some cases, the capacity factor

improvements were anything but small; for example,

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation raised the capacity factor at its Nine Mile Point nuclear plant from about

30 percent during the 1987 to 1990 time period, to over

70 percent during the 1991 to 1995 period.

Examples of specific actions taken to improve nuclear

plant capacity factors include:

• Carolina Power & Light Company’s adoption of

techniques for on-line maintenance to avoid maintenance outages, and its adoption of industry best

practices to reduce the duration of refueling

outages.

• A move to a 2-year refueling cycle and enhancement of the Preventive Maintenance and Surveillance programs at General Public Utilities

Corporation’s Oyster Creek and Three Mile Island

nuclear plants.

• The extension of refueling schedules and reduction

of refueling outage durations at Texas Utilities

Electric Company’s Comanche Peak nuclear power

plant.

7

Most of the 21 projects reported for 1994 were included in the 20 projects reported for 1995, because they continued to yield emissions

reductions in 1995. This is typically true not only of availability improvement projects but of all reported projects. Most projects continue

to yield emissions reductions over an extended period of time; for example, many of the availability improvement projects at nuclear

power plants involved the adoption of new maintenance and refueling programs that, once in place, are followed over a multi-year period.

Reporters continue to report the annual emissions reductions achieved by these long-lived projects on a yearly basis. Note, however, that

some projects reported for 1994 were not reported for 1995 (e.g., because the projects were discontinued, or reporters chose not to report

them). Also, in a few cases, projects may have been reclassified as to their project type between 1994 and 1995. For these reasons, the

number of reported projects in some cases declined between 1994 and 1995 (availability improvement projects are an example). For the

vast majority of project types, however, the number of reported projects increased, as 1994 projects continued and new projects were

reported for the first time.

8

Estimates of average reductions across reporters should be viewed with caution, since reporters may not calculate reductions in the

same way, and multiple reporters may report on some of the same activities (see Appendix B). Averages are presented only to provide

a rough indication of the relative sizes of different types of projects.

10 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Carbon Content Reduction Projects: Definitions and Terminology

The purpose of the electricity generation process is to

convert other forms of energy (e.g., heat) into electrical energy. During this process, the combustion of

fossil fuels to produce heat causes greenhouse gas

emissions. In addition to substantial releases of carbon

dioxide, fossil fuel combustion also results in the

emission of small quantities of methane and nitrous

oxide. Carbon content reduction projects typically

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing higher

emitting fuels (such as coal) with cleaner burning

fuels (such as natural gas) or non-emitting energy

sources (such as nuclear power).

Availability Improvements. By reducing the frequency and length of planned and unplanned power plant

outages, availability improvement projects can result

in increased use of the affected plant. This is particularly true if the plant is a baseload plant (i.e., a

plant that is generally used on an around-the-clock

basis except during plant outages), but it may hold

true for other types of plants as well. If the resulting

increased generation from the affected plant displaces

generation that otherwise would have been produced

by a higher emitting plant, emissions reductions will

result. Power plant utilization is measured by the

plant’s capacity factor, defined as the ratio of the

average load on the plant over a given period to its

total capacity. For example, if a 100-megawatt plant

operates (on average) at 75 percent of capacity (i.e., at

a load of 75 megawatts) over a period of a year, the

plant’s capacity factor is 75 percent.

Fuel Switching. The amount of carbon contained in

fossil fuels and released in the form of carbon dioxide

during combustion varies, depending on the type of

fuel. Thus, carbon dioxide emissions from a power

plant can be reduced by switching from a higher

emitting fuel (such as coal) to a lower emitting fuel

(such as natural gas).

Increases in Lower Emitting Capacity. By increasing

the capacity of an existing lower emitting or nonemitting plant (e.g., a hydroelectric plant), or by

constructing new generating capacity (e.g., wind turbines), a utility can reduce or avoid reliance on higher

emitting plants. The result will be a reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions from the displaced plants.

Fuel Switching

Twenty-five fuel-switching projects were reported,9

compared with 20 in the previous reporting year.

Seventeen of the projects involved switching from coal

to other fuel types (Figure 4). Fuels used in place of (or

co-fired with) coal included natural gas, waste oil from

transformers, wood waste, and tire-derived fuel. Since

coal is the highest emitting fossil fuel, switching from

coal to other fuels can have a substantial effect on

carbon dioxide emissions. For example, switching from

bituminous coal to natural gas will reduce carbon

dioxide emissions per unit of energy consumed by

approximately 43 percent. While other reported

actions—namely, switching from oil to gas—may not

lead to reductions of the same magnitude, they too can

affect emissions. Typically, carbon dioxide emissions

reductions on the order of 200,000 metric tons per year

were achieved as a result of the reported fuel-switching

projects.

The 25 reported fuel switching projects include a number of new projects that were started in 1995:

• American Electric Power added natural gas firing

capability at its coal-fired Conesville Units 1-3. In

1995, natural gas accounted for approximately 7

percent of the generation produced by the units and

7 percent of the heat input to the units. The use of

natural gas offset approximately 38,000 metric tons

of coal. Number of Projects

4

7

3

2

5

8 8 8

Coal-to-Gas Coal-to-Oil Coal-to-Other Oil-to-Gas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 1994 1995

Figure 4. Fuel-Switching Projects by Project Type

Notes: Excludes electricity supply projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

9

Some of these projects were “hybrids,” combining fuel switching with other project types.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 11
• General Public Utilities Corporation initiated a

demonstration project in conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute, involving co-firing

wood resources with coal at its Shawville generating station. Three types of wood fuel were tested:

sawdust, right-of-way tree trimmings, and hybrid

poplar. The Pennsylvania Energy Office provided

assistance on the project.

• Illinois Power Company converted its Vermilion

Units 1 and 2 from coal to natural gas in June 1995,

resulting in estimated carbon dioxide emissions

reductions of more than 49,000 metric tons.

• Mississippi Power Company, an operating unit of

The Southern Company, spent approximately $2

million on burners, piping and controls to make

Units 4 and 5 at the Plant Jack Watson capable of

burning natural gas as well as coal. In 1995, this

project offset nearly 1.8 trillion Btu of coal and

reduced carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated

66,942 metric tons. The plant will continue to burn

gas as a substitute for coal whenever the economics

and fuel availability are favorable.

Increases in Lower Emitting Capacity

Projects involving the construction of new, lower emitting power plants or increases in the capacity of

existing lower emitting plants were among the most

numerous electricity supply projects reported. A total

of 45 such projects were reported;10 up from 35 in the

last reporting year. The majority involved the installation of new nuclear, renewables, and hydropower capacity, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions

(Figure 5); 6 projects involved additional natural-gasfired capacity, up from 3 projects reported last year.

In general, most of these projects were either small

additions to existing power plants or the opening of

small new plants (primarily renewables plants). The

emissions reductions achieved therefore tended to be

small in comparison with those for availability improvement projects. One major exception was the return

of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Browns

Ferry Nuclear Units 2 and 3 to service. These units had

been shut down in 1985. After extensive modifications,

Unit 2 was restarted in 1991 and Unit 3 in December

1995. The return of the units to operation reduced

TVA’s need to rely on coal-fired generation. TVA estimated the project’s total carbon dioxide emissions

reductions (due to the operation of both units) at nearly

9.3 million metric tons in 1995, making this one of the

largest projects reported on Form EIA-1605. Furthermore, TVA expected the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit

Number of Projects

11

13

11

15

4

4

3

3

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

3

6

1

0

Hydroelectric

Nuclear

Wind

Photovoltaic

Geothermal

Fuel Cell

Other Renewables

Pumped Storage

Natural Gas

OIl

0 5 10 15 20

1994

1995

Figure 5. Capacity Addition Projects

by Energy Source

Note: Excludes electricity supply projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

1 to begin operation in 1996. With the addition of Watts

Bar, and the realization of the full impact of Browns

Ferry Unit 2 (which operated for only one month in

1995), TVA projects that emissions reductions will rise

to over 16 million metric tons per year. To put this in

perspective, 16 million metric tons corresponds to 0.9

percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the

electricity sector.

One of the new capacity addition projects reported this

year was a fuel cell research project undertaken by

Duquesne Light Company, one of 36 new reporters.

The project, begun in July 1993, installed and operated

a 200-kilowatt natural gas fuel cell at Pittsburgh International Airport. The fuel cell is used in baseload mode

and meets the needs of approximately 3 percent of the

total load on its circuit. Waste heat from the fuel cell is

recovered and used to provide space heating.

Other new projects that became operational in 1995 include New England Electric System (NEES) Companies’

repowering of the Manchester Street Station and

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation’s capacity upgrade at the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 nuclear plant. The

new NEES project converted Manchester Street from a

small, relatively inefficient oil-fired plant to a midsized, efficient combined-cycle plant utilizing natural

gas. Estimated emissions reductions resulting from the

project were over 236,000 metric tons in 1995. Niagara

Mohawk’s project, which increased the capacity of Nine

10Some of these projects were “hybrids,” combining capacity additions with other project types.

12 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Project Profile: Waverly Light & Power Company’s Wind Turbine Project

Renewable electricity generation projects, such as

geothermal energy, photovoltaics, and wind power,

produce essentially no greenhouse gas emissions,

while at the same time reducing reliance on fossilfuel-fired generating stations. A number of electric

utilities have been experimenting with these relatively

new generation technologies, including Waverly Light

& Power Company (WLP), a small municipal utility

serving the town of Waverly, Iowa. In 1993, WLP installed an 80-kilowatt wind turbine as an experimental

demonstration project. On Form EIA-1605, WLP describes the wind turbine project as follows:

Waverly Light & Power contracted with R. Lynette

and Associates in 1991 to perform a preliminary

study to investigate the potential for wind energy

in the Waverly, Iowa area. The results of that

study indicated that wind energy may be feasible in

the area, but that a more thorough investigation,

using actual site wind speed data, was necessary to

confirm this.

In September, 1991, WLP applied for, and was

awarded, a Demonstration of Energy-Efficient

Developments (DEED) Program grant from the

American Public Power Association (APPA) to

further study the potential for wind energy

applications in the Waverly, Iowa area. The WLP

Board of Directors authorized Phase I of the study,

which was limited to the following tasks:

(1). Determining performance issues;

(2). Resolving utility and government issues; and

(3). Developing a financial model for estimating the

cost of energy.

The goals of this project were to gain experience

and knowledge in operating and maintaining wind

generating systems, to document the costs and performance of wind turbines with advanced components in Midwest wind regimes, to demonstrate the

ability of a small utility to incorporate wind energy

into their generation mix, and to acquire knowledge

that can be used to develop larger scale projects in

the future. All of these goals were fully achieved

during this project....

The wind turbine project displaced power that would

have been generated by a coal-fired power plant. WLP

estimated the resulting annual carbon dioxide emissions reduction at 37 metric tons in 1992, rising to 113

metric tons in 1995. Based on the success of the initial

80-kilowatt wind turbine, WLP is pursuing plans to

install approximately 1 megawatt of wind capacity.

Mile Point Unit 2 by 116 megawatts, yielded carbon dioxide emissions reductions of just over 100,000 metric

tons.

Other Carbon Content Reduction Projects

Fourteen other projects were reported (up from 12 for

1994), including 6 projects involving decreases in higher

emitting capacity and 6 involving changes in the dispatching of power plants. The demand for electricity is

not constant but fluctuates according to such factors as

the time of day and the season. Individual power plants

are brought on line or taken off line as demand fluctuates. The order in which power plants are used or dispatched is generally determined by economics; i.e., the

plants that can be operated at the lowest cost are dispatched first, while the highest cost plants are last in

the dispatch order. Changes in the dispatch order can

affect carbon dioxide emissions; emissions will be reduced when lower emitting plants are moved up in the

dispatch order and used more frequently.

As an example, Southern California Edison (SCE) reported three projects involving their purchase of

electricity from independent power producers (IPPs).

Because the IPPs generated the power using new (post1990) renewables facilities (specifically, biomass, geothermal, and wind facilities), the power purchases

effectively represented a change in Southern California

Edison’s dispatch order; specifically, the renewable

energy displaced SCE’s marginal natural-gas-fired

generating stations. It should be noted that the IPPs

that generated the power were classified as “qualifying

facilities” under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act of 1978 (PURPA). Under PURPA, electric utilities

are required to purchase power from such qualifying

facilities. SCE estimated that, in 1995, carbon dioxide

emissions were reduced by a total of over 500,000

metric tons as a result of the three dispatching projects.

General Public Utilities (GPU) Corporation’s Form EIA1605 provides examples of projects involving decreases

in higher emitting capacity. GPU reported the retirement of generating units at the Sayerville, Front Street,

and Williamsburg power plants as three separate projects. The Front Street and Williamsburg units were

coal-fired, while the Sayerville units burned natural gas

and oil. The total emissions reductions resulting from

these three projects were estimated at 628,000 metric

tons of carbon dioxide in 1995.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 13
Increasing Efficiency in Electricity

Production and Distribution

Reported projects that improve the efficiency of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution were

both more numerous and smaller than carbon content

reduction projects. Efficiency improvement tends to be

an ongoing effort at electric utilities, yielding a continuous stream of small, incremental improvements

rather than one-time dramatic increases in efficiency.

For example, heat rate improvement projects are often

undertaken in response to normal plant deterioration.

As power plants age, efficiency tends to erode gradually. Utilities seek to maintain heat rates by replacing old,

worn-out equipment. Similarly, new energy-efficient

transformers are often installed gradually over a period

of years, as old transformers fail.

Although the impact of any one efficiency project on

carbon dioxide emissions may be relatively small, their

combined potential is significant. Consider, for example, electricity transmission and distribution. Among

U.S. utilities, energy losses associated with transmission

and distribution typically fall in the 5 to 10 percent

range, with an average of about 7 percent. The generation of this lost energy causes carbon dioxide emissions

of about 127 million metric tons. Hence, a one percentage point reduction in transmission losses for the

United States as a whole would yield an annual reduction in emissions of 18 million metric tons. This is a

sizable quantity (although, in perspective, it is only

about 2 million metric tons larger than the annual emissions reductions TVA expects to achieve from the opening of the Browns Ferry and Watts Bar nuclear plants).

A total of 185 efficiency improvement projects were

reported for 1995, including some “hybrid” projects that

combined efficiency improvements with measures such

as availability improvements. Efficiency improvement

projects fall into two main categories: (1) generation,

involving efficiency improvements in the conversion of

fossil fuels and other energy sources into electricity;

and (2) transmission and distribution, involving improvements in the delivery of electricity from the

power plant to the end user. For 1995, 107 generation

projects and 78 transmission and distribution projects

were reported (Figure 6).

Generation Projects

Efficiency Improvements. Improvements in generating

efficiency are the most numerous type of efficiency

project reported (Figure 6). A total of 97 such projects

were undertaken, up 24 percent from the number reported last year.11 Heat rate improvements at coalfired power plants are a particularly popular means of

increasing efficiency and reducing emissions. The average carbon dioxide emissions reduction per project was

roughly 60,000 metric tons per year, making these projects somewhat larger than transmission and distribution

projects but significantly smaller (less than half the size)

of the reported cogeneration projects.12 There are

numerous opportunities for improving efficiency at

existing power plants, but the efficiency gains—and

hence reductions in fuel consumption and emissions—

are limited by technology and tend to be small. Even in

the context of long-established technologies (e.g., coalfired steam turbine plants) efficiency gains were reported in a wide range of projects. Reported heat rate improvements typically were between 0.5 and 2.5 percent.

Number of Projects

78

97

7

10

16

31

10

22

12

21

11

4

Efficiency Improvement

Cogeneration

High-Efficiency Transf

Reconductoring

Voltage Upgrades

Other T&D Projects

0 20 40 60 80 100

Efficiency Improvements

Cogeneration

Reconductoring

High-Efficiency Transformers

Voltage Upgrades

Other Transmission and

Distribution Projects

1994

1995

Figure 6. Efficiency Improvement Projects

by Project Type

Notes: Excludes electricity supply projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ. Some projects may be counted in more than one category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

New projects undertaken in 1995 provide some

examples of the types of improvements made and the

magnitude of the resulting efficiency gains:

• Allegheny Power Service Corporation replaced the

boiler pressure components, burners, and air preheating devices at its Armstrong Unit 1. Initial

performance data indicate that a 2-percent improvement in boiler efficiency was achieved. Reported

carbon dioxide emissions reductions for the project

were 3,079 metric tons.

11Some of these projects were “hybrids,” combining efficiency improvements with other project types.

12Estimates of average reductions across reporters should be viewed with caution, since reporters may not calculate reductions in the

same way, and multiple reporters may report on some of the same activities (see Appendix B). Averages are presented only to provide

a rough indication of the relative sizes of different types of projects.

14 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Efficiency Projects: Definitions and Terminology

Generation Projects

It is neither theoretically nor practically possible to

convert all of the thermal or other energy produced

by a power plant into electrical energy. In fact, most

of the energy is lost rather than converted. Typically,

U.S. steam-electric generating plants operate at efficiencies of about 33 percent, meaning that two-thirds

of the thermal energy produced is lost. Some more

advanced power plants have higher efficiencies, but

even combined-cycle plants (in which the waste heat

from a gas turbine is recovered to produce steam to

drive a steam turbine) typically have efficiencies of

only 45 percent. Generator projects seek to improve

power plant efficiencies either by reducing the

amount of energy lost during the conversion process

or by recovering the lost energy for subsequent

application.

Efficiency Improvements. By increasing the efficiency

of the generation process, efficiency improvement

projects at fossil-fuel-fired power plants reduce the

plants’ heat rate, defined as the amount of fossil

energy (measured in Btu) needed to produce each

kilowatthour of electricity. The result is a reduction in

the amount of fuel that must be burned to meet generation requirements, and hence a reduction in carbon

dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. Efficiency improvements at nonfossil power plants (e.g.,

hydroelectric plants) can also reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. Emissions reductions occur if the efficiency

improvement leads to an increase in the amount of

electricity generated by the affected plant, with a

consequent reduction in the amount of electricity that

must be generated by other (fossil fuel) plants to meet

demand.

Cogeneration. Only a portion of the heat generated

during the combustion of fossil fuels can be converted

into electrical energy; the remainder is generally lost.

Cogeneration involves the recovery of this thermal

energy, for use in subsequent applications. Cogeneration facilities typically employ either topping or

bottoming cycles. In a topping cycle, thermal energy is

first used to produce electricity and then recovered

for subsequent applications. Topping cycles are widely used in industry as well as utility power plants that

sell electricity and steam to customers. In bottoming

cycles, the thermal energy is first used to provide

process heat, from which waste heat is subsequently

recovered to generate electricity. Bottoming cycle

applications are less common and are usually associated with high-temperature industrial processes.

Because cogeneration involves the recovery and use of

thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted, it

reduces the amount of fossil fuel that must be burned

to meet electrical and thermal energy requirements,

hence reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Transmission and Distribution Projects

The purpose of the electricity transmission and distribution system is to deliver electrical energy from

the power plant to the end user. Due to resistance to

the flow of the electrical current in the cables, transformers, and other components comprising the transmission and distribution system, a portion of the

energy (typically about 7 percent) is lost in the form

of heat. Improving the efficiency of the various

system components can reduce such “line losses,”

reducing the amount of generation required to meet

end-use demand and, thus, power plant fossil fuel

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

High-Efficiency Transformers. Transformers, used to

change the voltage between different segments of the

transmission and distribution system, are a major

source of system losses. Transformer losses occur as

a result of impedance to the flow of current in the

transformer windings, and because of hysteresis and

eddy currents in the steel core of the transformer.

When existing transformers are replaced with highefficiency transformers (including improved silicon

steel transformers and amorphous core transformers)

transformer losses are reduced.

Reconductoring. Like transformers, conductors (including feeders and transmission lines) are a major

source of transmission and distribution system losses.

In general, the smaller the diameter of the conductor,

the greater its resistance to the flow of electric current,

and the greater the consequent line losses. Reconductoring involves the replacement of existing conductors

with larger diameter conductors.

Distribution Voltage Upgrades. Line losses are dependent, in part, on the voltage at which the various

segments of the transmission and distribution system

operate. By upgrading the voltage of any segment,

line losses can be reduced.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 15
Reporter Profile: The Southern Company

The Southern Company is a large investor-owned utility, whose operating subsidiaries include Georgia

Power, Alabama Power, and Mississippi Power,

among others. For 1995 The Southern Company reported on projects that cover the full gamut of

efficiency improvement measures, from voltage upgrades and transformer replacements to cogeneration

and heat rate improvements at all 22 of the utility’s

coal-fired power plants. The Southern Company describes its various efficiency improvement projects as

follows:

Heat Rate Improvement on Coal-Fired Capacity. From 1990 to 1994, coal-fired generating

plants in The Southern Company improved their

average net heat rate from 9,810 Btu per kilowatthour to 9,739 Btu per kilowatthour. Upgrades

and better operation and maintenance of plant

equipment were key to the heat rate improvement

effort. Examples of the types of projects undertaken

during this time include enhanced boiler heat

recovery in economizer and air preheater systems,

component replacement for efficiency gain (fans,

heat exchangers, pumps), heat rejection upgrades,

improved turbine performance monitoring/maintenance, etc. This focus on efficiency has significantly

lowered the amount of coal used to provide each

unit of energy from the plants.

This project includes all 22 of the Southern Company’s coal-fired power plants.

Chevron Cogenerating Plant, Unit 5. The

Southern Company subsidiary, Mississippi Power

Company, upgraded the cogeneration facility at the

Chevron refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi to

include a new 75-megawatt unit in 1994. Although

the facility has been in service for 28 years, this

fifth unit, which essentially doubled the plant

capacity, began commercial operation on May 14,

1994. This natural gas-fired facility produces

electricity and process steam for a significant

industrial customer and provides The Southern

Company system with less CO2 emissions as compared to coal-fired baseload capacity.

The CO2 reductions are the result of the following:

(1) Without the addition of this unit, Mississippi

Power would have continued to serve Chevron’s

baseload electrical need with coal-fired generation

....

(2) Without the addition of this unit, Chevron

would have met its steam needs less efficiently with

its own natural gas-fired boilers....

Bulk Power Transmission Improvements. In

1991, about 7.4 percent of U.S. electric energy was

lost between generation facilities and end use. In

the Southern Company system, the losses associated

with the bulk transmission system in general are

approximately 3.0 percent of the power transmitted

during peak load conditions.

In a tightly integrated bulk transmission system,

such as The Southern Company, the ability to make

substantial loss reductions is limited when considering the already low-loss transmission system.

This does not lessen the need to evaluate losses,

since the value of losses can be significant; hence

The Southern Company pursues cost-effective loss

reduction options in the expansion of its transmission system. Examples of projects being pursued

by The Southern Company include the operation of

some of the transmission systems at a higher voltage profile, addition of new capacitors on the

transmission grid, and substitution of more efficient transformers.

Of the above three projects, the heat rate improvement was the largest, yielding total carbon dioxide

emissions reductions of nearly 670,000 metric tons in

1994. No reductions were reported for this project in

1995; however, reported emissions reductions for the

cogeneration project totaled over 358,000 metric tons

in 1995, and the bulk power transmission project

produced reductions of more than 168,000 metric tons.

• Entergy Services, Incorporated replaced the highpressure feedwater heater at its Independence unit,

resulting in a 2-percent heat rate improvement and

carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 65,693 metric tons.

• Union Electric Company upgraded the control system at its Sioux Plant. Before the project, many of

the plant’s critical controls frequently had to be

operated on a “manual” basis. The project has enabled automated operation and improved control of

steam temperature, excess oxygen, gas temperature,

and reheat spray. Union Electric reported an estimated 0.56-percent improvement in the heat rate as

a result of the project. Reported emissions reductions were 12,648 metric tons.

Cogeneration. A total of 10 cogeneration projects were

reported this year, up from 7 in the previous reporting

cycle. Average carbon dioxide emissions reductions

16 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
resulting from these projects were about 145,000 metric

tons in 1995, making cogeneration projects the largest

of the various efficiency improvement projects, but

smaller than the carbon content reduction projects described in the preceding section.13 Some of the industrial partners in the cogeneration projects included a

grain processor, a greenhouse, a chemical plant, a food

processing plant, and a paper mill. Seven of the projects

used natural-gas-fired cogeneration systems, one used

oil and gas, and one used coal.14 Reported end uses

of the thermal energy included electricity generation,

process heat applications, and space heating/cooling.

The three new projects reported this year include one

undertaken by a new reporter, Duquesne Light Company, and two undertaken by previous reporters,

Bountiful City Light & Power and General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU). Bountiful City Light & Power,

a municipal utility serving the town of Bountiful, Utah,

uses the excess hot water produced by its natural gas

and diesel generators to provide space heating for the

power plant, as well as a warehouse, truck bay, and

office complex owned by the utility. GPU’s new cogeneration project utilizes a 200-kilowatt/235-kilovolt

phosphoric acid fuel cell fueled by natural gas. In

addition to generating premium quality power for dedicated lines, the cogeneration system provides thermal

energy for heating and cooling applications. In 1995, the

fuel cell generated 825 megawatthours of electricity and

48 million Btu of thermal energy. Total carbon dioxide

emissions reductions resulting from the avoidance of

transmission and distribution losses and the displacement of higher emitting boilers and generators was

estimated by GPU at 111 metric tons.

Transmission and Distribution Projects

Transmission and distribution projects, although not as

frequently reported as generation projects, were nonetheless reported in significant numbers. A total of 78

transmission and distribution projects were reported,

up from 49 for 1994 (Figure 6). Many of the “new”

projects were initiated before 1995; however, they were

undertaken by new reporters and are hence “new” to

the Voluntary Reporting Program. Only 6 transmission

and distribution projects were initiated in 1995. Unlike

generation projects, which typically have discrete start

and completion dates, efforts such as upgrading conductors and replacing transformers are ongoing activities at electric utilities. Hence, most of the transmission

and distribution efficiency improvements made in 1995

were reported as continuations of long-standing projects rather than as new projects.

In terms of average emissions reductions, transmission

and distribution projects are typically somewhat smaller

than generation projects. While there are numerous

opportunities for improving efficiencies in the delivery

of electricity, the magnitude of the efficiency gains that

can be realized is limited.

The three most frequently reported types of transmission and distribution projects were (1) highefficiency transformers (including improved silicon steel

and amorphous core transformers), (2) reconductoring

(replacing existing conductors with large-diameter

conductors to reduce line losses), and (3) distribution

voltage upgrades (increasing the voltage at which the

various segments of the system operate, to reduce line

losses). Figure 6 shows the number of reported projects

for each type. Installation of high-efficiency transformers was the most frequently reported type of project. A total of 31 such projects were reported—nearly

double the number reported in the previous reporting

year (16). Many of these projects were “hybrids,”

combining high efficiency transformer installation with

one or more other activities (e.g., reconductoring).

Twenty-two projects involving reconductoring and 21

projects involving distribution voltage upgrades (again

often in combination with other activities) were reported. Only 4 projects were classified as “general” or

“other” transmission and distribution by the reporters,

down from 11 in 1994. An example of “other” projects

is American Electric Power’s application of an “openloop” technique to reduce losses in ground wires. This

project yielded carbon dioxide emissions reductions of

nearly 1,000 metric tons in 1995.

Some of the new transmission and distribution projects

undertaken in 1995 include the following:

• Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L) reported on a

transmission line improvement project. As stated on

Form EIA-1605, “WP&L routinely reviews loadings

on transmission lines and determines where improvements can be made to reduce system losses.

Losses are also reduced when new lines are installed or old lines upgraded to improve system

reliability.” Estimated carbon dioxide emissions

reductions for this project were 9,744 metric tons in

1995.

13Estimates of average reductions across reporters should be viewed with caution, since reporters may not calculate reductions in the

same way, and multiple reporters may report on some of the same activities (see Appendix B). Averages are presented only to provide

a rough indication of the relative sizes of different types of projects.

14The fuel type for the remaining cogeneration project was not reported.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 17
• Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative reported on

Project Profile: Allegheny Power Service Corporation’s Transmission and Distribution

Projects

One of the key facts that emerges from the Form EIA1605 data is the frequent compatibility between the

goals of reducing emissions and reducing costs. Many

of the projects reported on Form EIA-1605 were

undertaken because they were sound investments; the

resulting emissions reductions are an added bonus.

This is perhaps no more evident than in the case of

electricity transmission and distribution projects, all of

which have the goal of reducing the amount of electrical energy lost between the power plant and the

end user. The resulting energy savings reduce the

amount of electricity that must be generated to meet

a given level of demand, hence reducing generation

costs and lowering emissions.

Energy savings, however, typically come at the expense of higher capital costs. Larger diameter conductors are more expensive than smaller conductors;

similarly, amorphous steel core transformers have

higher purchase and installation costs than less

efficient silicon steel transformers. Utilities must

weigh the energy savings resulting from the use of

more efficient transmission and distribution equipment against the generally higher price tag of the

equipment. Nonetheless, the economic calculus often

favors the more efficient equipment. How do utilities

make the economic evaluations that lead to the use of

more efficient equipment? Two projects described by

Allegheny Power Service Corporation (APS) provide

insight into the decisionmaking process for one utility:

Economic Conductor Selection. Subtransmission and distribution line design alternatives are

evaluated based on lowest total owning cost, which

includes construction costs plus the cost of electrical losses. On average, this results in a conductor one wire size larger than would be used

without economic considerations. For example, the

smallest wire size now used for primary distribution lines is #2 AAAC. Before economic considerations, the smallest wire size was #4 ACSR. Larger

conductors exhibit lower losses than smaller conductors. Computer software used for line design

shows specific loss values associated with different

conductor alternatives.

Efficient Distribution Transformers. Distribution transformers are purchased based on lowest

total owning cost which includes purchase price

plus the cost of electrical losses. APS loss cost per

watt is provided to transformer manufacturers

prior to bidding. Manufacturers use this information to determine which design to bid. Both low

price and lowest total owning cost bids are

requested from manufacturers.

APS estimates that the Economic Conductor Selection

project reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 4,722

metric tons in 1995, while the Efficient Distribution

Transformers project yielded carbon dioxide emissions

reductions of 52,336 metric tons in the same year.

its purchase of energy-efficient transformers. Estimated emissions reductions for the project were 131

metric tons of carbon dioxide.

• UNICOM (Commonwealth Edison Company) reported its purchase of 12,496 transformers, yielding

carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 2,114 metric

tons.

In addition to the above transformer project, Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative—a new reporter for

1995—reported an older project involving routine upgrades to its transmission and distribution system to

provide for load growth and other changes. The specific

work included the conversion of two existing substations and surrounding lines to higher voltages, as well

as the installation of a new substation. The resulting

emissions reductions were estimated at 212 metric tons

of carbon dioxide in 1993, rising to 428 metric tons in

1995. Shenandoah Valley also described work planned

for 1996 through 1998, which will include the reconductoring of various lines totaling nearly 14 miles in

length.

Another new reporter, Prince George Electric Cooperative, reported various transmission and distribution

efficiency efforts as a single project. Specific programs

included a Conductor Replacement Program (in which

small-gauge, high-loss conductors are systematically

identified and replaced with larger conductors),

Capacitor Optimization Program (involving the efficient

placement of capacitors system-wide to raise power

factors and reduce losses), and their Transformer

Purchase Program. Prince George Electric Cooperative

also included Economic Conductor Studies in the reported project, involving comparisons of alternative

conductors based on total ownership costs, including

the costs of energy losses and construction and financing costs. The cooperative noted that this total cost

approach typically results in the selection of a larger,

more efficient conductor than that required for voltage

and amperage correction, because the higher capital

18 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
costs associated with larger conductors are more than

offset by the reduced energy losses. The total carbon

dioxide emissions reductions resulting from this project

have increased from 29 metric tons in 1992 to 57 metric

tons in 1995.

Federal Voluntary Programs

for the Electric Utility Industry

Most of the electricity supply projects reported by the

utility industry were undertaken at least in part to

fulfill commitments made under various federally sponsored voluntary emissions reduction programs. Many

of these programs have their roots in the President’s

Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which identifies

nine specific action items aimed at reducing supply-side

greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility

sector. These action items are designed to increase

natural gas utilization, enhance the commercialization

of renewable technologies, improve the performance of

hydroelectric generating stations, and improve the

efficiency of electricity transmission and distribution

systems.15

As part of the last goal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched the Energy Star

Transformers program. Under this voluntary program,

electric utilities enter into agreements with the EPA to

purchase high-efficiency distribution transformers, and

manufacturers commit to produce and market Energy

Star distribution transformers. Five of the electricity

supply projects reported to the Voluntary Reporting

Program were Energy Star Transformer projects. In the

area of renewables, the U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE) Renewable Energy Commercialization program

sponsors cost-shared pilot and demonstration projects

with utility and industry partners. Renewable technologies covered by the program include geothermal,

photovoltaics, wind, and biomass.

The cornerstone of the CCAP for electric utilities, is the

Climate Challenge program. Administered by DOE,

Climate Challenge is a voluntary program in which

electric utilities enter into formal agreements that spell

out their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. The contents of these formal

accords vary from utility to utility, They may, for

example, include commitments to stabilize overall

greenhouse gas emissions at or below 1990 levels or

commitments to undertake specific greenhouse gas

reduction projects. In addition to the individual utilityDOE accords, the Climate Challenge program has

spawned nine separate utility industry initiatives for

collective action. Examples include the Earth Comfort

Program, which has the goal of increasing annual sales

of energy-efficient geothermal heat pumps; the Utility

Forest Carbon Management Program and its affiliated

nonprofit UtiliTree Carbon Company, which are funding 5 domestic and international forestry projects; and

the International Utility Efficiency Partnership, which

is currently assessing projects in 18 countries. The other

Climate Challenge collective initiatives include the

Envirotech charter, the Combined Purchasing Initiative,

EV America (electric vehicles), the Electric End Use

Efficiency Technology Initiative, Tree Power, and the

International Donated Equipment Initiative.

Climate Challenge participants are encouraged to report

their emissions reduction activities to the EIA. The

Climate Challenge program is designed to give individual utilities flexibility in identifying and pursuing

the most cost-effective approaches to greenhouse gas

reductions.16 There are currently 117 participants in

the Climate Challenge program, representing over 60

percent of total U.S. electric generating capacity (excluding nonutility generators), and 69 percent of 1990

utility carbon dioxide emissions.17 Most of the electricity supply projects reported to the EIA (90 percent

of the total) were included in the reporters’ Climate

Challenge commitments.

15President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), Summary Table of Actions, Actions 23-

31.

16President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), Foundation Actions, Launch the Climate

Challenge.

17U.S. Department of Energy, “Climate Challenge Executive Summary,” web site www.eren.doe.gov/climatechallenge (March 19, 1997).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 19
Reporting Issue: The Form EIA-1605 Standard Emissions Coefficients

Estimating the emissions reductions achieved as a result of electricity supply projects generally involves

two steps. First, the reporter estimates the amount of

electrical energy or fuel saved (or displaced in the

case of fuel switching). Then, the reporter converts the

energy savings estimate into an emissions reduction

estimate, using standard emissions coefficients. The

instructions for Form EIA-1605 provide reporters with

emissions coefficients for this purpose (although reporters are free to use coefficients from other sources).

Two sets of emissions coefficients are provided in the

instructions. The first set provides coefficients for

fuels (e.g., bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, diesel

fuel, natural gas). For each fuel type, a coefficient is

provided in pounds of CO2 per million Btu; in addition, a second coefficient is provided on a per weight

or volume basis (e.g., pounds of CO2 per ton of bituminous coal). These “fuel-based” emissions coefficients can be used whenever the reporter knows the

type of fuel saved and has estimated the project’s fuel

savings in Btu (or on a weight or volume basis).

The second set of coefficients are referred to in the

instructions as “Adjusted Electricity Emission Factors.” Three separate emissions factors are provided

for each State, in pounds of CO2 per kilowatthour,

short tons of CO2 per megawatthour, and metric tons

of CO2 per megawatthour. These State-level emission

factors can be applied to estimates of electrical energy

saved, in kilowatthours or megawatthours.

The two sets of emissions coefficients provided in the

Form EIA-1605 instructions are by no means equal.

The fuel-based coefficients—intended as the primary

coefficients, to be used whenever possible—are in

general highly accurate and were derived from laboratory analyses of the carbon and heat contents of

the different fuel types. Although the ratio of a fuel’s

carbon content to its heat content exhibits some variation, the variability is generally confined to a narrow

range. Hence, the fuel-based coefficients can be

applied to virtually all U.S. fuels with highly accurate

results. It should be noted, however, that the coefficients expressed on a per million Btu basis are in

general more accurate than the weight- or volumebased coefficients, particularly in the case of coal,

which shows little variability in the ratio of carbon

content to heat content but wide variations in the

amount of carbon per ton, even within a particular

coal rank.

The adjusted electricity emission factors, on the other

hand, are much less accurate than the fuel-based coefficients. These factors represent State-level averages

reflecting the mix of fuels used to generate electricity

throughout each State, although the actual fuel mix

used by particular utilities within a State varies widely, depending on the energy resources available to

each utility, the time of day, and the season. Thus,

emissions reduction estimates derived using the Statelevel adjusted electricity emissions factors should be

viewed as no more than rough approximations. These

factors are intended for use only as a last resort, when

the reporter has an estimate of the amount of electrical energy saved by a project but cannot determine

the type(s) and amount of fuel saved.

Such situations arise frequently, because it is often

difficult if not impossible to identify the specific

power plants affected by a project. Consider, for

example, the case of transmission and distribution

projects. The energy saved as a result of such a project

reduces the amount of power that must be generated

to meet demand; the generation reduction will actually occur at the utility’s marginal power plant. But

the particular power plant operating at the margin

changes constantly, depending on the time of day, the

season, planned and unplanned outages, etc. Furthermore, the marginal power plant is often a plant

owned by another utility selling wholesale power to

the utility that undertook the project, and the buyer

may have no knowledge of the specific power plants

that generated the purchased power.

Still, the utility often has at least some information

that enables it to make reasonable assumptions. For

example, a utility that undertakes an availability

improvement project at its nuclear plant may assume

that the resulting increased generation displaces baseload coal-fired plants except during peak load periods, when it displaces gas-fired units. From this

assumption, the utility can estimate the amount of

coal and gas saved as a result of the project and apply

the fuel-based emissions coefficients to derive emissions reductions. Such an approach, based on a reasonable, informed assumption, will generally yield a

more accurate result than the alternative—i.e., simply

applying the State-adjusted electricity emissions factor

to the increased nuclear generation without attempting to approximate the specific fuel types affected.

Although some reporting utilities do rely on the adjusted electricity emission factors, many, if not most,

use the “reasonable assumption” approach that allows

application of the more accurate fuel-based emissions

coefficients.

20 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
3. Increasing End-Use Energy Efficiency

Energy use in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors account for more than 3.49 billion metric

tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year—about twothirds of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. This total

includes about 1.8 billion metric tons of emissions from

the generation of electricity consumed by each of the

three sectors. Industry is the largest of the three sectors

in terms of emissions, accounting for nearly half the

total; the residential sector accounts for about 29 percent of total emissions, and the commercial sector contributes an additional 22 percent.18

Between 1990 and 1995, carbon dioxide emissions

associated with industrial, residential and commercial

energy use increased by 4.3 percent. The residential

sector is the fastest-growing emissions source, having

registered a 7.5 percent emissions increase between

1990 and 1995. Emissions from the commercial sector

increased by 3.2 percent over the same period, while

industrial sector emissions rose by 3.0 percent. This

upward trend in emissions across all three sectors

reflects U.S. economic growth and corresponding increases in energy consumption. However, end-use

energy emissions grew at a slower rate than energy

consumption (7.3 percent between 1990 and 1995),

which in turn grew at a slower rate than the U.S.

economy (10.5 percent). Factors that helped to slow the

growth in emissions included efficiency and other

improvements in the supply of electricity (see Chapter

2) as well as end-use efficiency gains.19

Projects Reported

Energy end-use projects accounted for 28 percent of all

projects reported for 1995, second only to electricity

supply projects (in number of projects reported). The

276 reported energy end-use projects represent a 33-

percent increase over the number reported for 1994. A

total of 91 entities reported energy end-use projects, 63

of them on the long form. Most (83) of these entities

were utilities. The remaining reporters included a

nonprofit forestry organization (American Forests), a

printing company (Quad/Graphics, Incorporated), a

pharmaceutical company (Johnson & Johnson), a metals

fabricator (Majestic Metals, Incorporated), an automobile manufacturer (General Motors), a defense/

aerospace firm (Lockheed Martin), a university (the

Rochester Institute of Technology), and one private

household.

Only 20 new energy end-use projects were initiated in

1995, down from 34 in 1994 and 62 in 1993. This may

reflect the fact that most of the reported end-use

projects (88 percent of the total20) are demand-side

management (DSM) programs sponsored by electric

utilities. Most utilities introduced their DSM programs

in the late 1980s and early 1990s; hence, the bulk of

DSM projects reported this year represent established,

ongoing programs.

Carbon dioxide emissions reductions reported for individual projects ranged from less than 1 metric ton to

more than 1 million metric tons, primarily because of

the flexibility allowed in defining the scope of a project.

Projects could range from the installation of a compact

fluorescent light bulb reported by a household, up to a

system-wide DSM program reported by a large utility.

Nonetheless, like most other project types, energy enduse projects tended to fall in the emissions reduction

range of 0 to 100,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (Figure 7). Ninety percent of the end-use projects

yielded emissions reductions in this range in 1995.

Twenty-four large projects yielded emissions reductions

between 100,000 and 1 million metric tons, and three

very large projects yielded reductions in excess of 1

million metric tons.

Project Types

Most of the reported projects are “hybrids” that target

multiple end uses; this is particularly true of the

18In terms of their contribution to overall energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, the industrial sector leads with a 33-percent share

of the total, followed by the residential sector (19 percent) and the commercial sector (16 percent). Transportation, which is considered

in the next chapter, accounts for the remaining 33 percent.

19Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997), pp. 11-19.

20This percentage includes in-house utility demand-side management programs aimed at reducing the utilities’ own energy

consumption.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 21
CO2 Reductions in 1995 (Metric Tons)

Number of Projects

112 112

174 168

87

21

0

to

10

10

to

100

100

to

1,000

1,000

to

10,000

10,000

to

100,000

More

than

100,000

0

50

100

150

200

0

to

100

1,000

to

10,000

100

to

1,000

10,000

to

100,000

100,000

to

1,000,000

More

than

1,000,000

End Use

Other

Figure 7. End-Use Projects by Project Size

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and

EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

various DSM programs reported by electric utilities.

Nonetheless, end-use projects most frequently targeted

lighting and lighting controls, followed by equipment

and appliances and heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) (Figure 8). These three types of

projects also showed the most growth in terms of numbers reported since the last reporting cycle.

The prevalence of projects involving lighting, equipment and appliances, and HVAC reflects the importance of these three energy end uses in the United

States. Space heating, ventilation and air conditioning

is the primary energy end use in both the residential

sector (where it accounts for about 58 percent of total

energy use21) and the commercial sector (45 percent

of total energy consumption22). Furthermore, the potential for reducing the amount of energy consumed by

HVAC equipment is considerable. Consider, for example, that new homes (constructed between 1988 and

Number of Projects

0

3

84

103

93

118

42

42

75

87

57

61

53

54

12

14

5

5

12

14

General Energy Use

Equipment/Appliances

Lighting/Lighting Cont

Load Control

Heating, Ventilation,

Building Shell

Motors/Motor Drive

Fuel Switching

Urban Forestry

Other

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1994

1995

Lighting/Lighting Controls

Heating/Ventilation/

Air Conditioning

Figure 8. End-Use Projects by Project Type

Notes: Excludes energy end-use projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ. Some projects may be counted in more than one category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

1993) use only 79 percent of the electricity consumed by

old (pre-1988) homes for space heating and 88 percent

of the electricity used by old homes for air conditioning—in part because they are more likely to use highefficiency HVAC equipment, such as heat pumps.23

Energy consumed by equipment and appliances accounts for 39 percent of the U.S. total in the residential

sector24 and about one-fourth of the total in the commercial sector.25 Lighting is a less significant energy

end use in the residential sector (accounting for only

about 3 percent of the total),26 but it is important in

the commercial sector, where it accounts for 18 percent

of total energy consumed and 29 percent of total energy

expenditures.27 Reducing these disproportionately

high expenditures is no doubt a motive behind many of

the lighting projects reported for the commercial sector.

21Estimated from data contained in Energy Information Administration, Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993, DOE/EIA0321(93) (Washington, DC, October 1995).

22Energy Information Administration, Energy End-Use Intensities in Commercial Buildings, DOE/EIA-0555(94)/2 (Washington, DC,

September 1994), p. 7.

23Energy Information Administration,Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993,DOE/EIA-0321(93) (Washington, DC, October

1995), p. 15.

24Estimated from data contained in Energy Information Administration, Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993, DOE/EIA0321(93) (Washington, DC, October 1995).

25Energy Information Administration, Energy End-Use Intensities in Commercial Buildings, DOE/EIA-0555(94)/2 (Washington, DC,

September 1994), p. 7.

26Estimated from data contained in Energy Information Administration, Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993, DOE/EIA0321(93) (Washington, DC, October 1995).

27Energy Information Administration, Energy End-Use Intensities in Commercial Buildings, DOE/EIA-0555(94)/2 (Washington, DC,

September 1994), pp. 7 and 11.

22 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Project Profile: Lockheed Martin’s Motor Challenge Project

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Motor

Challenge program, a limited number of companies

have been selected to showcase energy-efficient motor

systems. One is Lockheed Martin, a major U.S. defense contractor and aerospace firm. Lockheed Martin

describes the ongoing Motor Challenge project at its

Lakeside Avenue industrial plating plant in Burlington, Vermont, as follows:

Lockheed Martin Armament Systems was looking

for a way to improve the performance of the ventilation system [at the plant]. By utilizing variable

frequency drives (VFDs) and making other modifications to the system, they were able to improve the

plant’s overall operating efficiency, reduce costs,

and improve the work environment and worker

health and safety. This Motor Challenge Showcase

Demonstration Project has resulted in annual

savings of more than $68,000, with a payback of

just under one and a half years....

Concerned with rising overhead rates, Lockheed

Martin management targeted energy expenditures

as a prime opportunity for cost savings. At the

Burlington facility, electrical costs are more than

10 cents per kilowatthour, the highest of any

Lockheed Martin plant in the country.

The previously existing ventilation system, which

has been in use for more than 25 years, was designed for continuous 24-hour operation. Currently, however, the plant only operates one shift per

day . . . .

During the installation of the VFDs, Lockheed

Martin also decided to install a new energy

management system (EMS) in conjunction with

the VFDs. This was done so that the motors could

be controlled as a system. The EMS also allows a

trending capability and has the capacity to control

the entire facility.

The new variable-output ventilation system includes nine electronic VFDs which reduce ventilation during idle times.... Flow has been reduced

to 55-65 percent of full speed during idle times

....

Benefits of the new system include a 38 percent

cost reduction in electric and natural gas utilities,

emergency ventilation control, fewer emissions, and

improved system control. The project cost was

approximately $99,400 to implement and has resulted in annual savings of more than $68,000,

providing a simple payback of just under 1.5 years.

Key to this low payback is the dramatic reduction

in VFD costs over the last few years....

Estimated carbon dioxide emissions reductions for the

project were 215 metric tons in 1995.

For the second year, end-use projects in the residential

and commercial sectors outnumbered those in the industrial sector, which, in turn, greatly outnumbered

agricultural projects (Figure 9). The number of projects

reported in the commercial sector increased by 43 percent relative to the last reporting cycle, and residential

and industrial sector projects also saw significant

growth, whereas the number of projects reported for

the agricultural sector dropped from 25 to 24. It should

be noted that many projects—particularly utility DSM

programs—cover more than one end-use sector.

On average, industrial sector projects yielded slightly

larger carbon dioxide emissions reductions than projects involving the commercial and residential sectors.

Whereas HVAC and lighting represent major end uses

in the latter two sectors, less than 8 percent of the

energy consumed by U.S. manufacturers is used for

facility support (including HVAC and lighting). Energy

consumed by the manufacturing sector is used mainly

in direct process applications (which account for over

half of all energy utilized). Process heating is the

primary direct process application, accounting for more

Number of Projects

98

120

25

24

72

91

81

116

Residential

Agricultural

Industrial

Commercial

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1994

1995

Figure 9. End-Use Projects by Sector

Notes: Excludes energy end-use projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ. Some projects may be counted in more than one category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 23
than one-third of all energy consumed by manufacturing establishments. Motors and motor drives are also an

important end use, with about a 13-percent share of

total consumption.28 Fifty-four projects involving

motor/motor drive efficiency improvements were reported to the Voluntary Reporting Program.

Many of the utility DSM programs reported on Form

EIA-1605 have multiple load shape objectives; however,

simply improving energy efficiency is at least one of

the objectives for a majority of the reported DSM programs (Figure 10). Peak clipping was the second most

frequently reported load shape objective, and load

shifting was the third.

New Projects and New Reporters

Number of Projects

205

11

37

64

17

Energy Efficiency

Load Building

Load Shifting

Peak Clipping

Valley Filling

0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 10. End-Use Projects by Load Shape

Objective

Notes: Excludes energy end-use projects reported on Form EIA1605EZ. Some projects may be counted in more than one category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Opportunities for reducing emissions through improvements in end-use efficiency are almost as varied as the

types of energy end uses themselves. A consideration

of the new projects reported this cycle provides some

sense of the extent and variety of emissions reduction

options available. Of the 20 new end-use projects initiated in 1995, 5 were undertaken by Johnson & Johnson:

• A building shell project involving facility audits and

thermal integrity improvements, such as the installation of window film and insulation

• An equipment and appliances project, aimed at

heaters, office and manufacturing support equipment, and power conditioning equipment

Utility DSM Load Shape Objectives

Utility DSM programs may have a number of different objectives beyond simply improving energy efficiency. Some DSM programs have the objective of

altering load shapes. For example, programs aimed

at peak clipping seek to reduce energy consumption

at certain critical times, typically when the utility

experiences system peaks. Load shifting programs

have the objective of shifting energy consumption

from one time of day to another, typically from peak

to off-peak periods. Although (unlike the case for

peak clipping) overall energy consumption is not

necessarily reduced by load shifting, emissions

reductions may nonetheless occur, depending on the

types of fuel used during peak and off-peak periods.

For example, load shifting will reduce emissions if

hydropower is used to meet baseload demand and

natural gas-fired generators are used as peaking

units. Similarly, load building programs, which seek

to increase electricity consumption (e.g., through the

promotion of industrial electrotechnologies) may

reduce emissions if the increased electricity demand

displaces higher emitting energy sources. Valley

filling, which is aimed at increasing off-peak

electricity consumption, may also reduce emissions,

depending on the energy sources displaced.

• An HVAC project, involving measures such as the

use of energy management systems and boiler/

chiller upgrades

• A load control project

• A motor efficiency project.

Johnson & Johnson undertook the above projects as

part of its efforts under a number of voluntary

emissions reduction programs, including DOE’s and

EPA’s Climate Wise, EPA’s Energy Star Buildings, and

DOE’s Motor Challenge. Taken together, the five

projects reduced carbon dioxide emissions by an

estimated 5,145 metric tons in 1995.

Next to Johnson & Johnson, PacifiCorp led the reporters

in terms of the number of new end-use projects undertaken in 1995, with a total of four. These projects

included one conducted in conjunction with CES/Way,

an energy conservation contractor. CES/Way performs

detailed engineering analyses of commercial, government, and institutional facilities and recommends

energy efficiency improvements. The measures evaluated include energy management control systems and

28Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Consumption of Energy 1991, DOE/EIA-0512(91) (Washington, DC, December 1994),

pp. 18-19.

24 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Reporter Profile: Seattle City Light

Seattle City Light is a municipal utility serving the

city of Seattle, Washington. For 1995 it reported on 10

separate DSM projects with a variety of incentives and

methods to encourage energy efficiency and conservation in the residential, commercial, and industrial

sectors. Many were undertaken in conjunction with

the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Eight of

the projects are described below.

Energy $avings Plan (E$P). This project was originally funded directly by the BPA, but in September 1991

Seattle City Light signed a contract with the BPA to

market the program. E$P is an incentive program to

encourage energy savings in the industrial sector. The

program provides funding for energy audits, financial

incentives for energy conservation, and rebates for

energy-efficient motors. The eligible population for

this program includes Seattle City Light’s 293 industrial customers.

Energy-Efficient Water Heater Rebate Program. This

program, operated in conjunction with the BPA, is

designed specifically to increase the installation of

energy-efficient electric water heaters when old water

heaters are replaced. If the new water heater meets

the specified energy efficiency standards, the customers receives a rebate of $30. Originally the

program targeted the residential sector, but in 1994 it

was expanded to include commercial customers with

water heaters smaller than 120 gallons. The program

currently leads the northwestern region in the number

of energy-efficient water heaters installed.

Home Water Savers Program (HWSP). Under this

program, Seattle City Light, in cooperation with the

Seattle Water Department and Puget Sound Power

and Light Company, distributed free home water

savers kits to 147,000 residences with electric water

heaters. Each kit included an efficient-flow showerhead, a bathroom faucet aerator, a toilet flow device,

and toilet leak detection tablets. Installation was also

provided for elderly and disabled customers and, beginning in November 1992 and continuing until 1994,

for multifamily buildings with five or more units.

Installation services were provided by the Seattle

Conservation Corps, the Seattle Water Department,

and the Seattle Housing Authority, as well as building

owners. Two surveys conducted after the original kit

distribution indicated that, excluding free riders, 56

percent of single-family residences had installed the

showerheads and 40 percent had installed the bathroom faucet aerators. Seattle City Light estimates that

the average single-family residence saved 300 kilowatthours per year by using the efficient-flow

showerhead and 65 kilowatthours per year by using

the faucet aerator, representing approximately 3 percent of the total energy used by the typical single

family residence with electrically heated water. The

typical multiplex (two- to four-unit) residence saved

an estimated 200 kilowatthours per year for each

showerhead and 80 kilowatthours for each the faucet

aerator, corresponding to 2 percent of the total energy

used by such residences. Finally, the average multifamily (five or more units) residence saved 200 kilowatthours per year per showerhead and 170 kilowatthours per year per faucet aerator, corresponding to 5

percent of the total energy consumed by such residences. Supporting partners in this project included

the BPA, the Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleMetro (waste water), and the Washington Natural Gas

Company.

Long-Term Super Good Cents Program. This is a

“beat the code” financial incentive program designed

to encourage builders of new multifamily residential

dwellings to employ more efficient construction practices. Incentives are paid for buildings that meet the

specified goals in the areas of building shell, lighting,

and appliances such as water heaters, refrigerators,

and showerheads. Partial funding for the program

was provided by the BPA up until 1996, when Seattle

City Light took over full funding. Based on an evaluation completed in 1996, Seattle City Light estimated

the annual average energy savings per residential unit

to be 2,350 kilowatthours for buildings completed in

1993-94. The savings break down as follows: 1,090

kilowatthours in space heat savings, 65 kilowatthours

in internal (within unit) lighting savings, and 1,195

kilowatthours in common area lighting savings. Units

that received efficient refrigerators were assumed to

save an additional 120 kilowatthours per year.

Low-Income Electric Program (LIEP). This program

provides weatherization grants to households for

building and water heater insulation, water heater

thermostat setbacks, caulking, weatherstripping, and

smoke detectors. LIEP targets low-income singlefamily homes and small (two- to four-unit) multiplexes with electric space heating. The program is

administered jointly with the Department of Housing

and Human Services. The estimated energy savings

per home averaged 2,450 kilowatthours per year for

single-family residences and 1,308 kilowatthours per

year for multiplex buildings.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 25
Reporter Profile: Seattle City Light (Continued)

Multifamily Conservation Program—Standard Income. This program provides financial and technical

help to apartment owners for improving building

insulation, lighting and water heating. It is partially

funded by the Bonneville Power Administration. The

standard-income program targets an eligible population of 2,373 buildings with 47,461 units. Seattle City

Light’s goal is to bring 62 percent of the eligible

population into the program.

Multifamily Conservation Program—Low Income.

This program targets low-income households. On

average, participants in both the standard-income and

low-income programs saved an estimated 1,490 kilowatthours per residential unit per year in 1992. An

additional average of 390 kilowatthours per unit was

saved through common area lighting measures. The

eligible population for the low-income program

includes 791 low-income buildings with a total of

15,820 units.

Warm Home Program. The Warm Home Program

provides grants and loans for weatherizing electrically

heated homes. The program is marketed by private

contractors paid and managed by Seattle City Light.

Insulation is provided at no cost, and a grant of $3

per square foot plus a loan of up to $12 per square

foot is provided for insulated windows. Average

annual energy savings were reported as 2,664 kilowatthours for single-family residences and 2,044 kilowatthours per unit for multiplex residences.

Total estimated emissions reductions for all 10 reported projects (including 2 not described above) increased more than threefold between 1992 and 1995,

from 29,697 metric tons to 105,043 metric tons. The

projects saved an estimated 267,782 megawatthours in

1995, equivalent to 3.8 percent of Seattle City Light’s

total 1995 electricity generation (based on data from

the Energy Information Administration’sElectric Power

Monthly, DOE/EIA-0226, various issues).

retrofits of motor, lighting, shell insulation, and HVAC

systems. CES/Way provides up-front funding for the

recommended measures, with repayment from PacifiCorp and the customer, based on the verification of

energy savings.

Duquesne Light Company reported its 10-percent share

of a joint research project on thermal storage that was

initiated in March 1995. The project involves a thermal

storage system installed in a Carnegie Mellon University Research Institute building. The system stores chilled

water during off-peak evening hours, for use in space

cooling during business hours.

Union Electric Company reported its 15.9-percent share

in the EnviroTech Fund, an investment program that

supports the development of energy-efficient technologies. The fund is managed by Advent International

Corporation, in cooperation with the Edison Electric

Institute. Advent International uses the fund to invest

in promising technologies. New investments are expected over the next several years.

In addition to the above projects, which were initiated

in 1995, a number of older projects were reported for

the first time by new reporters. Rochester Institute of

Technology (RIT) reported on nine separate projects,

including the conversion of 1,257 exit signs to LED

signs in 41 buildings, the installation of 1,562 occupancy

sensors, and a number of projects involving the installation of 32-watt T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts in

various buildings on the campus. The university estimated its total energy savings for all of these projects

at 2,679 megawatthours in 1995. Assuming electricity

costs between $0.05 and $0.09 per kilowatthour, the

corresponding monetary savings can be estimated at

roughly $135,000 to $240,000. RIT estimated the total

carbon dioxide emissions reductions for the nine projects at 1,259 metric tons for 1995.

Duquesne Light Company reported on a DSM project

that has evolved over the years from a “heating

approach” to an “end-use approach.” The program was

originally intended to reduce the electricity bills of lowincome customers through the provision of weatherization services; however, because the use of electric

resistance heating was relatively limited among the

targeted low-income customers, Duquesne Light

changed the program’s focus to encompass a broader

array of end uses. The utility provides program participants with various no-cost services, including advice

on reducing energy bills and installation of energyefficient technologies such as compact fluorescent

lamps. Refocusing the program appears to have had a

significant positive impact. Estimated project energy

savings grew from 3,974 megawatthours in 1992 to

9,935 megawatthours in 1995, and carbon dioxide

emissions reductions increased from 3,064 metric tons

to 7,661 metric tons over the same period.

26 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Federal Voluntary Programs To

Increase End-Use Energy Efficiency

Most of the reported end-use projects were undertaken

in conjunction with various Federal voluntary emissions

reduction programs. The President’s Climate Change

Action Plan (CCAP) includes 18 different action items

aimed at reducing energy demand through efficiency

improvements and conservation. In the industrial sector, 7 action items seek to accelerate efficiency improvements in motors, compressors, pumps, fans, and

process technologies, to promote source reduction and

recycling, and to reduce the amount of energy used in

the manufacture of fertilizers (by reducing fertilizer

usage). In the commercial sector, CCAP includes 5

action items aimed at improving the energy efficiency

of commercial buildings, demonstrating emerging energy efficiency and renewables technologies, and providing the building industry with information and training

on renewable and energy efficiency options. In the residential sector, 6 action items are designed to improve

the efficiency of houses and home appliances.29

The Federal Government sponsors a wide variety of

programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions

by lowering energy consumption. Some were created

under the Climate Change Action Plan; others predate

CCAP. The EPA’s various Energy Star programs seek

to improve the efficiency of buildings and appliances

through such means as certifying equipment that meets

EPA specifications with the Energy Star label. The

Energy Star programs include Energy Star Buildings,

Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Exit Signs, Energy Star

Office Equipment, and Energy Star Residential Heating

and Cooling. Eight Energy Star Building projects and

one Energy Star Computers project were reported to the

Voluntary Reporting Program for 1995.

Other voluntary programs include:

• DOE’s Building America program, which is aimed

at researching and testing systems engineering

approaches to improving the energy efficiency of

residential buildings. Project funding is 50 percent

cost-shared with industry participants

• DOE’s Cool Communities program, which encourages the use of lighter wall and roof colors and the

planting of shade trees around buildings, through

technical assistance and education

• DOE’s Rebuild America program, under which participating communities agree to develop and implement Action Plans for energy-efficient retrofits of

existing buildings

• DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Information and Training programs, which are

aimed at the building industry

• DOE’s Energy Fitness program, which seeks to

identify and remove barriers (e.g., information

barriers) to increasing the delivery of energyefficient technologies to energy service companies

• EPA’s Green Lights program, under which participants commit to surveying their facilities and

upgrading their lighting where profitable within 5

years (29 Green Lights projects were reported to the

Voluntary Reporting Program for 1995)

• DOE’s Energy Analysis and Diagnostic Centers (3

projects reported)

• DOE’s Motor Challenge program, under which industrial participants showcase energy-efficient

motor systems installed with technical assistance

from DOE and EPA (4 projects reported)

• The NICE3 Industrial Pollution Prevention Grants

program (jointly sponsored by DOE, EPA, and the

Department of Agriculture), which provides grants

to prevent pollution and improve energy efficiency

• EPA’s Waste Wi$e program, which encourages businesses and State, local, and tribal governments to

reduce waste through waste prevention, collection

of recyclables, and the purchase of recycled

products (1 project reported to the Voluntary

Reporting Program for 1995).

Finally, the analog of the Climate Challenge Program

within the industrial sector is the Climate Wise

Recognition Program, jointly supported by DOE and

EPA. Participating companies enter into agreements to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The specifics of these

agreements vary for each participant, but they may, for

example, include commitments to undertake specific

emissions reduction projects, or to reduce overall

company emissions to 1990 levels. Current participants

include DuPont, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson,

and Quad/Graphics, among others. Climate Wise companies are encouraged to report on Form EIA-1605.

Eight of the energy end-use projects reported this year

were Climate Wise projects, and 221 (80 percent) were

Climate Challenge projects. The dominance of Climate

Challenge projects reflects the fact that the majority of

energy end-use projects were reported by electric utilities.

29President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), “Summary Table of Actions.”

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 27
Reporting Issue: “Basic” and “Modified” Reference Cases

In order to estimate the emissions reductions resulting

from an energy end-use project, reporters must compare current energy use (with the project) to some

baseline usage level (without the project). The difference represents the amount of energy saved. The

baseline usage level employed as the point of comparison is referred to as the reference case. Reporters

have a choice between basic and modified reference

cases. In a basic reference case, the point of comparison is the reporter’s historical energy use before the

project. In a modified reference case, the point of

comparison is an estimate of what the reporter’s energy use would have been without the project.

It may appear that a basic reference case will yield a

more accurate, “real” estimate of emissions reductions

than a modified reference case. The basic reference

case is a historical value, which can be (at least in

theory) directly measured. The modified reference

case, on the other hand, is always by necessity a

“what if” estimate of energy usage in the absence of

the project. A modified reference case may yield emissions reductions even when emissions have increased

from their historical level. Thus, reporters who have

committed to reducing their total emissions below

1990 levels under the Climate Challenge or Climate

Wise program should use a basic reference when reporting their entity-level emissions reductions. In this

case, the objective of computing emissions reductions

is to measure progress by comparison to a historical

emissions level.

On the other hand, the modified reference case is

usually more appropriate for computing project-level

reductions. For many new projects there are no

historical emissions to be compared with current

emissions. Also, it is rarely possible to ”screen out”

the effects of factors unrelated to the project. Energy

end-use projects—particularly utility DSM projects—

provide good examples.

Consider the problem of “free riders,” defined as

utility DSM participants who would have taken the

utility-sponsored energy saving measures irrespective

of the DSM program (e.g., customers who would have

purchased an energy-efficient appliance even had they

not received a rebate from the utility). Since by

definition their actions are not influenced by DSM

programs, the energy saved by free riders should be

excluded from estimates of DSM program savings.

With a modified reference case, the energy that would

have been consumed by the participants in the absence of the DSM program can be estimated, and the

energy savings for free riders can be computed as

zero. Changes in energy consumption caused by

weather provide another example of the advantages

of the modified reference case, which can control for

the effects of weather. A basic reference case does not

provide this flexibility.

In summary, the purpose of the emissions reduction

estimate should be considered when a reference case

is selected. For estimating emissions reductions

caused by a project, the modified reference case is

typically preferable to the basic reference case. For

1995, most Form EIA-1605 reporters did use modified

reference cases for estimating their project-level

emissions.

28 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
4. Reducing Oil-Based Transportation Fuel Use

U.S. Transportation Emissions

The transportation sector currently produces about onethird of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and is expected

to be the fastest growing source of this gas through the

year 2000 (Figure 11). Carbon dioxide results from the

combustion of fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, jet

fuel, and natural gas. Emissions from the transportation

sector currently exceed 1,680 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide annually.30 Nearly 80 percent comes

from the consumption of motor gasoline and distillate

(diesel) fuel (Figure 12), over 95 percent of which is

used in highway vehicles.31

Carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion increased by 21 percent between 1980 and 1995, largely as Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

History Projections

Figure 11. Trends in Carbon Dioxide Emissions

from the U.S. Transportation Sector,

1980-2015

Sources: History: 1980 and 1985—Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review 1995, DOE/EIA-0384(95)

(Washington, DC, July 1996), p. 333. 1990 and 1995—EIA, Emissions

of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96)

(Washington, DC, October 1997), p. 20. Projections: EIA, Annual

Energy Outlook 1997, DOE/EIA-0383(97) (Washington, DC, December

1996), p. 120.

the result of a corresponding increase in highway

vehicle usage (Figure 13). Between 1980 and 1995, the

number of registered vehicles and the average miles

traveled per vehicle increased by 27 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Vehicle miles traveled increased by

59 percent, reaching nearly 2.5 trillion miles in 1995.

This increase has translated directly into higher carbon

dioxide emissions, which have been mitigated somewhat by a 27-percent increase in average fuel efficiency,

from 13.29 miles per gallon in 1980 to 16.91 miles per

gallon in 1995.

Projects Reported

Overview

A total of 50 transportation projects were reported for

1995 by 34 entities, 32 of which (94 percent) were

electric utilities. The two nonutilities were Majestic

Metals, Inc., a fabricated metal product manufacturer, Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide

1,035

220

307

120

Motor Gasoline Jet Fuel Distillate Other

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Figure 12. Transportation Sector Carbon Emissions

by Fuel, 1995

Source: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997).

30Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997), p. 12.

31U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 1997, DOT-VNTSC-BTS-96-4

(Washington, DC, December 1996), Table 4-3, p. 161.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 29
Figure 13. Trends in Highway Vehicle Use, 1980-1995

YEAR

Billion Miles

1980 1985 1990 1995

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Vehicle Miles Traveled

YEAR

Million Vehicles

1980 1985 1990 1995

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of Registered Vehicles YEAR Thousand Miles

1980 1985 1990 1995

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Average Distance Traveled per Vehicle

YEAR

Miles per Gallon

1980 1985 1990 1995

0

5

10

15

20

Average Fuel Efficiency for Registered Vehicles

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 1995, DOT-VNTSC-BTS-96-4

(Washington, DC, December 1996).

and Quad/Graphics, Inc., a printing company. Detailed

information was provided for 40 (80 percent) of the

projects on the long form (Form EIA-1605). (See Appendix A for a description of the reporting format.) Summary data for the remaining 10 projects were reported

on the short form (Form EIA-1605EZ). Thirty-three (66

percent) of the projects reported in 1996 were affiliated

with either Climate Challenge or Climate Wise.

The projects reported fell into three broad categories:

• Alternative fuel use (25 projects or 50 percent)

• Travel reduction (19 projects or 38 percent)

• Vehicle efficiency improvements (6 projects or 12

percent).

The majority (88 percent) of the projects involved

passenger travel. For the 6 projects involving freight

transportation, emissions reductions were achieved by

reducing fuel consumption through improving vehicle

efficiency (5 projects) or reducing travel (1 project).

The primary effect of the transportation projects reported was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, although

reductions in emissions of nitrous oxide or methane

were also reported for four projects. For 5 of the 50

transportation projects reported, emissions reductions

were not estimated. The total reduction in carbon dioxide emissions reported for 1995 for the remaining 45

transportation projects was 86,584 metric tons, almost

4 times the 22,146 metric tons reported last year for

1994 (Table 5). The increase between 1994 and 1995 was

principally in efficient vehicle projects. The emissions

reductions reported for these projects rose from 6,729

metric tons to 54,275 metric tons, primarily as a result

of three new projects involving the operation of lightweight aluminum coal cars, accounting for over half of

the total 1995 carbon dioxide emissions reduction for

transportation projects (see box on page 31). Emissions

reductions reported for travel reduction projects also

increased by an impressive amount, from 594 metric

tons in 1994 to 19,903 metric tons in 1995.

The average size of the reported carbon dioxide emissions reductions for transportation projects reported

this year increased significantly over the previous year.

The average reduction for 1995 was 1,924 metric tons,

compared with 728 metric tons reported last year for

1994. Nevertheless, most reported transportation projects are still modest in size. Of those projects for which

estimates were developed, 33 (73 percent) reported carbon dioxide emissions reductions of less than 1,000

metric tons in 1995. In 1995, efficient vehicle projects

tended to be the largest projects, followed in order by

travel reduction and alternative fuels projects (Figure

14).

30 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table 5. Number of Projects and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions for Transportation Projects

by Project Type, Data Years 1994 and 1995

Project Type

Number of Projects

Emissions Reductions

(Metric Tons)

1994 1995 1994 1995

Vehicle Efficiency .......................... 2 6 6,729 54,277

Travel Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 19 594 19,903

Alternative Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 25 14,823 12,403

Total .................................. 33 50 22,146 86,584

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

CO2 Reductions in 1995 (Metric Tons)

Number of Projects

5

8

13

12

8

4

N.E. 1

to

10

10

to

100

100

to

1,000

1,000

to

10,000

More

than

10,000

0

5

10

15

20

Not

Estimated

10

to

100

0

to

10

100

to

1,000

1,000

to

10,000

More

than

10,000

Travel

Alt. Fuels

Efficiency Vehicle Efficiency

Alternative Fuels

Travel Reduction

Figure 14. Transportation Sector Carbon Emissions

Reduction Projects by Project Size

and Type, 1995

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and

EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

There was a significant difference in the magnitude of

emissions reductions reported for projects involving

passenger and freight transportation. The six projects

involving freight transportation accounted for 75 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions reductions reported for 1995. On average, freight transportation projects

reduced emissions by more than 10,000 metric tons,

nearly 20 times the average reduction achieved for

measures involving passenger travel.

The level of activity necessary for passenger travel projects to reduce emissions by more than 100 metric tons

is substantial. For example, to achieve a reduction in

carbon dioxide emissions of 109 metric tons in 1995,

Cinergy ran a fleet of 105 vehicles on compressed natural gas or propane instead of gasoline. General Public

Utilities reduced vehicle travel by 885,805 miles to

reduce emissions by 356 metric tons. On the other

UNICOM’s Aluminum Coal Cars

Save Fuel

In order to meet sulfur dioxide emissions reductions

mandated by the Clean Air Act, UNICOM (formerly

Commonwealth Edison Company) has been using

low-sulfur coal since the 1970s. The coal is transported to UNICOM’s power plants in Illinois by

train from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and

Montana. Although the environmental benefits in

acid rain reduction are significant, more energy is

used for transporting the coal. UNICOM purchased

lightweight aluminum coal cars to reduce the energy

requirement.

Weighing in at 43,000 pounds each, the aluminum

coal cars are 28 percent lighter than the 60,000-

pound steel cars they replaced. Lighter coal cars

provide fuel savings on both legs of the 1,200-mile

journey between Illinois and Wyoming or Montana.

UNICOM operates 26 train sets, each of which

makes 3.5 trips per month, for a total of 1,092 round

trips per year. UNICOM estimates that the aluminum train sets save 1,533 gallons of diesel fuel per

round trip. Therefore, in 1995, UNICOM saved

1,674,036 gallons of fuel and avoided emissions of

nearly 17,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

hand, many of these projects have wide applicability

and could substantially reduce national carbon dioxide

emissions if they were duplicated by companies

throughout the industrial and commercial sectors.

Using Alternative Fuels

The alternative fuel vehicle projects reported involve

the use of natural gas, electricity, propane, M-85 (a

blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline),

and ethanol (in a blend with gasoline). At least 97 percent of the reductions associated with alternative fuels

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 31
were attributed to vehicles using natural gas, which

was used in 16 of the 25 alternative transportation fuel

projects reported and was the only alternative fuel used

in 13 projects. Eleven projects involved the operation of

electric vehicles. Nine were exclusively electric vehicle

projects. The emissions reductions reported for electric

vehicle projects in 1995 were relatively small (about 1

percent of the total for alternative fuel vehicles). Five

alternative fuel vehicle projects also included infrastructure improvements associated with deployment of

refueling stations for natural gas vehicles.

Quad/Graphics Finds Four Ways To Reduce Demand

Industrial and commercial companies consume much

of the petroleum fuel used in the transportation sector

either directly, for hauling raw materials and products, or indirectly, for employee commuting. Quad/

Graphics, Inc., a Climate Wise partner, is a printing

company based in Wisconsin that has found four

ways to reduce its own and its employees’ demand

for transportation services. The activities could easily

be accomplished by other companies, and the relatively modest reductions achieved by the individual projects could be multiplied considerably.

The activities reported by Quad/Graphics and the

associated carbon dioxide emissions reductions for

1995 were as follows:

• Duplainville Return Load Project (12,078 metric

tons). Quad/Graphics ensures that trucks delivering finished printed products from its Duplainville

plant do not return to the plant empty, but are

used to haul supplies and raw materials. Quad/

Graphics estimates that this program saves 8 million vehicle miles per year.

• 12-Hour Shift (2,844 metric tons). Quad/Graphics

changed from three 8-hour shifts to two 12-hour

shifts, which means that its employees work fewer

days per year, reducing commuting trips and

associated emissions. The employees added to the

12-hour shift since 1991 drove an estimated 20

million fewer miles in 1995.

• West Allis Plant Brownfield Site (1,550 metric

tons). Needing a new facility, Quad/Graphics

redeveloped an existing structure in West Allis,

Wisconsin, instead of developing a greenfield site.

A benefit of the West Allis site is that it is closer

to town and workers’ homes than was the greenfield site considered, with estimated savings of 3.5

million vehicle miles traveled in 1995.

• New Mass Transit Routes (1,887 metric tons).

Quad/Graphics entered into a joint venture bus

program with Milwaukee County Transit System

(MCTS) in 1995. MCTS now provides service to

the Pewaukee and Sussex plants twice daily to

serve both shifts of workers, reducing the number

of employee vehicle round trips by 23,185 and

saving more than 20,000 gallons of gasoline.

Three projects were oriented toward research and development. The Southern Company conducted or sponsored a range of research and development activities,

including participation in the United States Advanced

Battery Consortium, the Electric Power Research Institute’s Electric Transportation Business Unit, and the

Electric Vehicle Research Network. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County reported its sponsorship of an annual battery- and solar-powered boat race

and an electric car race, the latter a new project in 1995.

Reducing Vehicle Travel

Travel reduction accounted for 22 percent of the total

reduction in carbon dioxide emissions reported for

transportation projects for 1995, up from 3 percent last

year. Of the 17 demand reduction projects reported, 13

involved employee commute reduction or company vehicle use reduction. These projects included carpooling,

increased use of mass transit, compressed work weeks,

and subscription bus service. The largest demand

reduction project, reported by Quad/Graphics (see the

box below), involved ensuring that delivery vehicles

were always full on return trips from delivering printed

materials to customers. This project reduced carbon

dioxide emissions by 12,078 metric tons in 1995, representing 65 percent of the total for reported travel

reduction projects.

Two utilities reported on efforts to reduce vehicle miles

driven by corporate vehicles. General Public Utilities

Corporation implemented a videoconferencing system

in 1991 that reduced employee travel by nearly 1.5 million miles between 1991 and 1995. For 1995, GPU

indicated an annual savings of over 500,000 miles of

employee travel. Public Utility District No. 1 of

Snohomish County continued a pilot program in which

bicycles are used by meter readers on suitable routes

(emissions reductions were not estimated).

Two service efficiency improvement projects were also

reported this year. Texas Utilities Electric Company

32 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
reported that use of fleet vehicles has been reduced

through more efficient dispatching (including modifying service routes to put workers closer to work areas)

and corporate downsizing. Duquesne Light Company

has also reduced the size of its vehicle fleet and has

achieved a 21-percent reduction in gasoline consumption since the effort was initiated in 1993.

Improving Vehicle Efficiency

Six projects involving the operation of more efficient

vehicles were reported, five of which claimed relatively

large emissions reductions (more than 1,000 metric

tons) in 1995. The Tennessee Valley Authority has increased the fuel efficiency of its fleet vehicles since

1991, with cumulative savings in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 10,000 metric tons. Four Midwestern

utilities reported the utilization of aluminum railroad

cars to transport coal to their plants. UNICOM (formerly Commonwealth Edison Company) reduced 1995 carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 17,000 metric tons (see

box on page 31). Substantial reductions were achieved

by three other utilities using aluminum coal cars:

Kansas City Power & Light (15,786 metric tons), Western Resources, Inc. (14,713 metric tons), and Union

Electric Company (5,330 metric tons). The smallest

efficient vehicle project was an investment by Central

Louisiana Electric Company (CLECO) in a company

that developed and commercialized a device for monitoring and adjusting tire pressure on trucks to achieve

optimal fuel efficiency. CLECO reported carbon dioxide

emissions reductions of 303 metric tons for its 5-percent

share of the project. The entire project reduced carbon

dioxide emissions by more than 6,000 metric tons.

Federal Voluntary Programs

for the Transportation Sector

The President’s Climate Change Action Plan did not

involve establishing participatory voluntary programs

specifically for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in

the transportation sector; however, participants in

voluntary programs such as Climate Challenge and

Climate Wise have made commitments involving, and

are conducting, transportation projects. Government

initiatives that affect motor vehicles and have the

potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are regulatory in nature, with the primary objective of reducing

emissions of the “criteria pollutants” that cause urban

air pollution. Many of the measures that are being

implemented in response to these regulations, particularly those aimed at reducing vehicle use (increased

mass transit use, carpooling, and telecommuting) and

those increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, will also reduce

emissions of greenhouse gases. On the other hand,

measures designed specifically to reduce the emissions

of criteria pollutants often have ambiguous consequences for greenhouse gas emissions, particularly

when fuel cycle effects are considered. Such measures

include onboard pollution control equipment, fuel reformulation, and switching to alternative fuels.

Reporting Issues

Many reporting issues for transportation projects concern the proper accounting of fuel cycle emissions. One

of the problems is making the distinction between direct and indirect emissions. For most reporters, direct

emissions are those that result from the combustion of

fuels in vehicles. Indirect emissions, which occur upstream of the vehicles, include emissions associated

with such activities as exploration, production, transportation, and refining in the case of petroleum fuels.

Reporting reductions of direct emissions is relatively

simple for projects that reduce fuel consumption

through efficiency enhancement or travel reductions.

Emissions coefficients are provided in an appendix to

the instructions for Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ.

Estimating only direct emissions reductions for such

projects is considered acceptable by the Voluntary

Reporting Program, because it provides both accurate

and conservative estimates of reductions achieved. (The

accuracy of upstream, indirect emissions reduction estimates is more uncertain. Furthermore, since upstream

reductions are proportional to both direct reduction

achieved and fuel saved, omitting these values makes

little difference in the qualitative information included.)

For projects that involve fuel switching, full fuel cycle

effects are more important, because differences in upstream emissions associated with different fuels can be

significant. Reporters had difficulty evaluating such

projects because of the unavailability of suitable emissions coefficients. The fuel cycle emissions coefficients

for transportation fuels given in the program’s guidelines32 do not distinguish between vehicle (direct) and

nonvehicle (indirect) emissions for reporters interested

in conducting fuel cycle analyses of their projects. EIA

recently published fuel cycle emissions coefficients for

gasoline, methanol, ethanol, compressed natural gas,

and liquefied natural gas that separate vehicle and

nonvehicle emissions (Table 6).

32U.S. Department of Energy, Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies Supporting the General Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting

of Greenhouse Gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Volume II, DOE/PO-0028 (Washington, DC, October 1994), pp.

4.16-4.23.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 33
For electric vehicles, it is particularly important to

Table 6. Fuel Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions

(Grams per Vehicle Mile Traveled)

Fuel

Vehicle Other Fuel Cycle Total

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O

Gasoline ................. 272.4 0.080 0.070 74.9 0.269 0.004 347.3 0.349 0.074

Methanol from Natural Gas . . . 270.4 0.080 0.070 112.7 0.467 0.005 383.1 0.547 0.075

Ethanol from Corn .......... 301.1 0.080 0.070 24.4 0.541 0.341 325.5 0.647 0.411

Compressed Natural Gas .... 204.7 0.900 0.070 43.5 0.559 0.001 248.2 1.459 0.071

LPG from Oil and Gas ....... 235.4 0.080 0.070 28.1 0.190 0.001 263.5 0.270 0.071

LPG = liquefied petroleum gases.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Volume 2, “Greenhouse

Gas Emissions,” DOE/EIA-0508(94/2) (Washington, DC, August 1996), p. 16.

Table 7. Electricity Supply Requirements

for Recent Electric Vehicle Models

(Kilowatthours per Mile)

Model

Requirement

Vehiclea Totalb

GM Impact ............. 0.185 0.305

Cocconi Honda CRX ...... 0.166 0.273

BMW E-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.204 0.336

Chrysler Van ........... 0.483 0.785

Ford Ecostar ............ 0.302 0.497

Honda CUV4 ........... 0.249 0.410

a

Based on city cycle test procedure.

b

Reflects combined battery/charging efficiency of 65 percent and transmission losses of 7 percent.

Sources: Vehicle Consumption: U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment, Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car, OTA-ETI-638

(Washington, DC, September 1995). Battery and Charging

Efficiencies: M.A. DeLuchi, Emissions of Greenhouse

Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity,

Volume 2, ANL/ESD/TM-22 (Chicago, IL: Argonne National

Laboratory, November 1993), Table B.1.

evaluate emissions impacts upstream, where virtually

all the emissions occur. Analysis of these projects presents the most difficulty, however, since reporters do

not typically meter the electricity used to recharge

vehicle batteries. While some information on the electricity consumption of electric vehicles is available, it

does not always reflect the supply losses associated

with battery operation, recharging, and transmission

that determine how much electricity must be generated

to fuel the vehicle (Table 7). In addition, the applicability of this information to specific projects is questionable, given the ongoing advances in both electric

vehicle and battery technology. Furthermore, once electricity consumption has been estimated, determining

the emissions consequences presents more than the

usual difficulties. Using average system- or State-level

emissions coefficients may not be appropriate because

of time-of-day considerations. Electric vehicles are often

driven during the day and recharged overnight. This

pattern would result in the consumption of primarily

baseload power, which would result in a wide range of

upstream emissions, depending on the region of the

country and the specific generator or power pool providing the electricity. Upstream emissions would be

Vehicle

Pounds Carbon Dioxide per Mile

xx

0.43

0.84

1.04

0.26

0.52

0.64

0.98

0.81

0.70

Natural Gas

Oil

Coal

Natural Gas

Oil

Coal

25 mpg

30 mpg

35 mpg

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Vehicle Type and Fuel/Fuel Efficiency

Electric (Ford Ecostar)

Electric (GM Impact)

Conventional Gasoline

0

Vehicle Emissions Other Fuel Cycle Emissions

Pounds Carbon Dioxide per Mile

Figure 15. Comparison of Fuel Cycle Carbon

Dioxide Emissions for Electric and

Gasoline Vehicles

Notes: Electricity requirements to operate the electric vehicles are

0.497 and 0.305 kilowatthours per mile generated at source for the

Ford Ecostar and GM Impact, respectively. Assumed generation

technologies are natural gas/combined cycle, oil/steam, and coal/

pulverized with wet flue gas desulfurization.

Sources: Electric Vehicle Electricity Consumption: U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Advanced Automotive

Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car, OTA-ETI-638

(Washington, DC, September 1995). Carbon Dioxide Emissions:

U.S. Department of Energy, Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting

Methodologies Supporting the General Guidelines for the Voluntary

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992, Volume I, DOE/PO-0028 (Washington, DC,

October 1994), Table 1.3.

34 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
higher if coal, rather than natural gas or nonfossil fuels

(nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and other renewable

sources), provided the bulk of the electricity.

Figure 15 compares the carbon dioxide emissions of

gasoline vehicles (with fuel efficiencies of 25, 30, and 35

miles per gallon) with those of a Ford Ecostar (a twoseat light delivery vehicle) and a GM Impact (a twoseat passenger vehicle) operating on electricity from

three different types of power plants: pulverized coal

(with wet flue gas desulfurization), oil steam turbine,

and natural gas combined cycle. Fuel efficiency for the

electric vehicles is based on city driving. This analysis

suggests that, under some circumstances, the use of

electric vehicles may result in a net reduction in fuel

cycle emissions. The magnitude of the reduction will

depend on the fuel efficiency of the specific electric

vehicle model, the efficiency of the conventional gasoline vehicle it replaces, and the source of the electricity

used to recharge the electric vehicle’s batteries. The use

of larger or less efficient electric vehicles could even

yield a net increase in emissions if the electricity used

to recharge the batteries was generated from coal.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 35
5. Carbon Sequestration

Background

Carbon sequestration plays an important role in

reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Green

plants remove (sequester) carbon from the atmosphere

through photosynthesis, whereby they extract carbon

dioxide from the air, separate the carbon atom from the

oxygen atoms, return oxygen to the atmosphere, and

use the carbon to make biomass in the form of roots,

stems, and foliage.

Every year in the United States and throughout the

world a very large amount of carbon dioxide—on the

order of 100 billion metric tons—is sequestered in

biomass.33 At the same time, carbon is released to the

atmosphere from vegetative respiration, combustion of

wood as fuel, degradation of manufactured wood products, and the natural decay of expired vegetation. The

net numerical difference, or flux, between carbon

sequestration and release can be viewed as a measure

of the relative contribution of biomass to the carbon

cycle. World flux is difficult to measure, but it is

thought to be a net “sink” of carbon dioxide.

Facts about the carbon content and sequestration potential of trees can give a sense of the importance of

forests in offsetting human-produced carbon emissions.

On average, trees are approximately 25 percent carbon

by weight (live trees are approximately 50 percent

water by weight, and oven-dried wood is approximately 50 percent carbon by weight).34 The amount of

carbon a plant can sequester depends on a number of

variables, including species and age, but can be quite

large. For example, one large sugar maple tree is

capable of removing more than 450 pounds of carbon

dioxide from the atmosphere in a year. At that rate,

preserving 25 trees per operating automobile in the

United States would offset all U.S. automobile-related

carbon dioxide emissions.35

Carbon sequestration on a national scale is substantial;

the USDA Forest Service estimates that in the United

States, all forests combined sequestered a net of

approximately 281 million metric tons of carbon per

year from 1952 to 1992. This amount offset approximately 25 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon during

that period.36

Projects Reported

A total of 62 entities reported forestry-related carbon

sequestration or emissions reduction projects, a 155-

percent increase from the previous reporting cycle. The

reporters included 58 electric utilities, 2 forestry organizations, a university, and a real estate company. A total

of 199 carbon sequestration projects were reported,37

an increase of 255 percent from last year. Forestry

projects were the third most popular type of project

reported (after electricity supply and energy end-use

projects), accounting for 21 percent of all reported

projects for 1995. Forestry projects are also the fastest

growing project type in terms of the number of new

projects reported. Fifty-seven new forestry projects were

initiated in 1995—up 46 percent from the number

started in 1994.

On average, carbon sequestration projects tend to be

somewhat smaller than other types of projects (such as

electricity supply and energy end use) in terms of their

33Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse

Gas Inventories, Vol. 3 (Paris, France, 1995), p. 5.2.

34R.A. Birdsey, Carbon Storage and Accumulation in United States Forest Ecosystems, (Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, 1992), p. 12.

35Number of automobiles in operation in 1993, automobile miles traveled, and average miles per gallon from Energy Information

Administration, Annual Energy Review 1994, DOE/EIA-0384(94) (Washington, DC, July 1995), pp. 67, 69. Carbon dioxide emissions per

gallon of motor gasoline from U.S. Department of Energy, Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies Supporting the General Guidelines

for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, DOE/PO-0028 (Washington, DC,

October 1994), Vol. 2, p. 4.19.

36R.A. Birdsey and L.S. Heath, “Carbon Changes in U.S. Forests,” in L.A. Joyce (ed.), Productivity of America’s Forests and Climate Change,

General Technical Report RM-GTR-271 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 1995).

37Twenty-one of these projects were actually portions of the same project reported by 20 different entities participating in the Rio Bravo

Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project (see text box in this chapter). Each entity reported only its share of carbon sequestered by the project.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 37
impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide.38 Most forestry projects sequestered between 10 and 10,000 metric

tons of carbon dioxide (Figure 16). Their relatively

small size is due in part to the fact that a significant

number of the reported projects were urban forestry

projects, involving the planting of trees in urban and

suburban areas. Urban forestry projects are typically

much smaller than forestry projects undertaken in rural

or wilderness areas. The latter projects can in some

instances be quite large, as evidenced by the fact that

five such projects each sequestered more than 100,000

metric tons of carbon dioxide each.

CO2 Sequestration in 1995 (Metric Tons)

Number of Projects

15

45

59

36

10

5

0

to

10

10

to

100

100

to

1,000

1,000

to

10,000

10,000

to

100,000

More

than

100,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

to

10

100

to

1,000

10

to

100

1,000

to

10,000

10,000

to

100,000

More

than

100,000

Figure 16. Carbon Sequestration Projects

by Project Size

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and

EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

The reported forestry projects were dispersed over a

wide geographic area. Projects were reported in 40

States and 15 foreign countries. A total of 163 domestic

and 36 international forestry projects were reported.

Thirty-two of the domestic projects involved urban

forestry.

Domestic Forestry Projects

Figure 17 shows the geographic distribution of the 133

domestic forestry projects reported (excluding urban

forestry projects). Although they are scattered throughout the United States, the map indicates that projects

are concentrated more heavily in and around the midAtlantic region (including Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia) and the north central region (mainly Wisconsin,

Minnesota, and Iowa). Many (68) of the reported domestic projects are reforestation projects, involving the

planting of trees in areas that were recently cleared.

Afforestation projects (involving the planting of trees in

areas absent of trees in recent times) are less numerous

but still fairly common; a total of 36 domestic afforestation projects were reported. Other project types reported in fewer numbers include forest preservation,

improved forest management, and agroforestry.

Two organizations account for a disproportionate

number of the domestic forestry projects reported.

American Forests, a nonprofit forestry organization,

reported on 62 different domestic forestry projects (as

well as one urban forestry project). This was the largest

number of projects reported by a single organization

(see box on page 41). American Electric Power, Inc.

(AEP), a large investor-owned utility, reported 36

domestic forestry projects and 1 foreign project. Taken

together, American Forests and AEP account for nearly

three-fourths of all of the domestic forestry projects

reported for 1995.

Most of AEP’s 36 domestic forestry projects were conducted on land owned by the utility in Ohio, West

Virginia, and Virginia. The projects ranged in size from

a 1.5-acre afforestation project that sequestered 4 metric

tons of carbon dioxide in 1995 to a 1,265-acre improved

forest management project that yielded 1,685 metric

tons of sequestered carbon dioxide (Figure 18). AEP’s

total reported carbon dioxide sequestration for all

projects more than doubled between 1992 and 1995

(Figure 19). The sharp upward trend reflects AEP’s

continuing efforts to develop new projects. Of the 36

projects reported, 15 were initiated in 1995.

The variety of measures undertaken by AEP can be

seen in the following examples:

• The AEP-AEPSC-1995 project is an afforestation

project. In March 1995, green ash, pin oak, and red

oak were planted on idle land. The trees were

planted as an Eagle Scout project, by Boy Scout

Troop 166, on 1.5 acres at the rate of 700 seedlings

per acre.

• AEP-APCo-1993 is another afforestation project, in

which marginal cropland used for hay production

was planted with loblolly pine. Eight acres were

planted, at the rate of 625 seedlings per acre. The

trees were planted in May 1993; an inspection conducted in March 1996 indicated that 80 percent of

the seedlings had survived.

• AEP-APCo-1993FM is a forest management project,

conducted in upland central hardwood stands

ranging from 40 to 60 years in age. The stands were

38Reported estimates of carbon sequestration and emissions reductions may not be strictly comparable across projects. Participants

employed a wide range of estimation methods in determining the effects of their projects. The database includes reported methodologies.

38 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
6 to 23 Projects

3 to 5 Projects

1 to 2 Projects

No Projects

Figure 17. U.S. Forestry Projects by State

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

selectively harvested to improve the growing space

between trees by removing mature, over mature,

and diseased trees. AEP estimates that 60 percent of

the timber harvested is used in long-term wood

products (e.g., furniture), where the carbon will

remain sequestered for extended periods of time

(e.g., 50 years).

• AEP-OPCo-1992P1 is an afforestation project, in

which 129 acres of mined land reclaimed as pasture

was planted with Austrian pine at the rate of 736

seedlings per acre. AEP reduced the sequestration

estimate for this project by 50 percent from what

they would otherwise have estimated, to reflect

lower assumed tree growth productivities and survival rates for the reclaimed pasture.

In addition to the 15 new projects reported by AEP, a

number of other organizations reported projects that

were initiated in 1995. DTE Energy/Detroit Edison

reported a forest management project involving a

number of previously unmanaged woodlots consisting

primarily of red oak, red maple, and ash. Because the

sites were overstocked, it appeared that there had been

very little increase in carbon sequestration in the years

prior to the project. Detroit Edison conducted a commercial thin of the lots, which yielded approximately 2

million board feet of hardwood, for use mainly in durable goods such as furniture. Detroit Edison plans to

manage the sites as sustainable yield forests, with

selective harvesting on 5-year cycles. The project, which

involves a total of 600 acres, sequestered an estimated

297 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1995.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 39
CO2 Sequestration in 1995 (Metric Tons)

Number of Projects

3

8

23

2

0

to

10

10

to

100

100

to

1,000

More

than

1,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

to

10

100

to

1,000

10

to

100

More

than

1,000

Figure 18. American Electric Power’s Domestic

Forestry Projects by Size

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605,

“Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide

1992 1993 1994 1995

0,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

4,725

7,348

9,410

11,309

Figure 19. Total Sequestration for American Electric

Power’s Domestic Forestry Projects,

1992-1995

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605,

“Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Sunbelt Land and Mineral Company, a new reporter,

reported an afforestation project at the Smith Place

Tract in Dallas County, Alabama. The 163-acre tract

was converted from pasture by the planting of loblolly

pine seedlings. Additional activities undertaken to

establish the stand and enhance growth included the

elimination of the subsoil hardpan by row ripping,

weed control, and the broadcast application of phosphate. Sunbelt Land and Mineral Company expects the

pine plantation rotation to be 30 years, with forest

management thinning in years 13 and 22 and the final

cut in year 31. The tree survival rate after 1 year was

491 trees per acre. Estimated carbon dioxide sequestration was 298 metric tons in 1995.

Texas Utilities reported involvement in the Texas

Reforestation Foundation, which is sponsored by the

Texas Forest Service, commercial forestry companies,

and private interests. Texas Utilities is the only electric

utility member. Through the provision of funding and

other arrangements, the foundation supports the planting of commercial species on suitable areas, mainly cut

over or open lands. Texas Utilities contributes funds to

the foundation on an annual basis. The amount of carbon dioxide sequestered by the Texas Reforestation

Foundation’s activities in 1995 was estimated at 980

metric tons.

Not all the new carbon sequestration projects were

forestry projects. UNICOM (formerly Commonwealth

Edison Company) reported the planting of Illinois

Prairie Grasses on company properties. The amount of

carbon sequestered by prairie grasses is significantly

greater than that sequestered by conventional turf

grasses, because the former have much deeper root

systems. UNICOM estimates that the prairie grasslands

sequester 2,567 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per

year; hence, the total amount of carbon dioxide sequestered on the 300 acres planted by UNICOM was reported as 349 metric tons in 1995. UNICOM notes that other

environmental benefits resulting from the project

include reduced soil erosion and downstream flooding

and elimination of the need for irrigation, fertilizers,

pesticides, and herbicides.

International Forestry Projects

A total of 36 international projects were reported, in 15

different countries (Figure 20); however, 21 of these

projects actually represent the shares reported by 20

different utilities involved in the Rio Bravo Carbon

Sequestration Pilot Project in Belize. The box on page 43

provides more information on the project and the 20

participating reporters.

Thirteen of the 15 remaining projects were undertaken

by a single organization: Trees for the Future, a nonprofit forestry organization. These projects are located

in Africa (Cameroon, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, and

Chad), Asia (India, Nepal, Turkey, and the Philippines),

and Central America (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras,

and Panama). In 1995, Trees for the Future expanded

plantings for 7 ongoing projects and initiated 6 new

projects. More than 4 million trees were planted, which

40 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Reporter Profile: American Forests

American Forests, the oldest national conservation

organization in the United State, was established in

1875 by a group of citizens concerned about the rapid

deterioration of the Nation’s forest resources. American Forests has sought to promote the protection and

sustainable management of forests through programs

in research, policy, education, and citizen action.

An important part of the organization’s work in

recent years has been to develop understanding of

forests as part of the global climate change dynamic.

American Forests has been involved in the development of science and technology to bring new information to the public discussion. It has also developed

projects to reduce emissions through energy-saving

urban forestry projects and carbon-sequestering rural

projects, and has participated in the Federal Country

Studies program to provide technical support to developing and transitional countries that are seeking to

include forestry projects in their national efforts to

mitigate global climate change. (Although the projects

reported to EIA are domestic, American Forests also

works through the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation to develop opportunities for investing in carbon

offset projects in other countries.)

From a total of 12 projects in 12 States in 1992, American Forests’ projects have expanded to 63 (including

one urban forestry project) in 31 States as of 1995.

American Forests estimates that the projects sequestered a total of 24,558 metric tons of carbon dioxide in

1995, an average of nearly 400 metric tons per project.

The domestic forestry projects reported to EIA are

part of the American Forests Global ReLeaf campaign,

initiated in 1988. The Global ReLeaf Forests program—part of the organization’s larger citizen action

and education effort—supports the restoration of

forest ecosystems across the United States that have

been damaged by natural or human events. Global

ReLeaf solicits project support from individuals and

organizations to help improve the environment—

locally and globally—through tree planting. As of

early 1997, the program had planted 5 million trees,

representing one-fourth of the program’s goal of 20

million by the year 2000. Developing project support

through organizations interested in sequestering

carbon is a major strategy of attaining that goal.

Examples of the Global ReLeaf projects reported to

EIA include:

• The planting of a 25-acre tract in Pennsylvania’s

Allegheny National Forest with red oak seedlings,

to replace trees lost to drought and gypsy moth

defoliation. To protect the seedlings from the large

deer population, each was planted with a tree

shelter.

• The Big Woods Ecological Restoration Project in

southeastern Minnesota, which was a joint effort

involving the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources-Parks, the Minnesota Nature Conservancy, the Land Stewardship Project, the County

Soil & Water Conservation District, area colleges,

public schools, private and public agencies and

citizen groups, as well as American Forests. The

project involved the planting of 8,000 red oak and

500 butternut seedlings on old fields. The project’s

goals included restoration of the canopy as well as

the provision of educational opportunities and the

enhancement of community involvement.

• The restoration of longleaf pine on the Sam

Houston National Forest, San Jacinto Ranger District, Texas. The site is near the southwestern-most

limit of the U.S. longleaf pine ecosystem, and it

hosts a number of wildlife species that will benefit

from the project, including quail and wild turkeys.

• The reforestation of a 60-acre site identified as an

“Area of Critical Environmental Concern” near

Casper, Wyoming. The site, which was damaged

by the Little Red Creek Wildfire, is a winter

roosting area for the American Bald Eagle.

• The planting of 17,000 seedlings on 43 acres to

begin the restoration of a 1,000-acre site destroyed

by Hurricane Andrew in Dade County, Florida.

The site contained the last large expanse of South

Florida slash pine in the southeastern part of the

county. It could eventually accommodate 500,000

seedlings.

exceeded the total number reported for previous years

(1991 through 1994). Total estimated carbon sequestration for the 13 projects, which had increased from

approximately 60,000 metric tons in 1992 to 105,000

metric tons in 1994, doubled in 1995 to 210,000 metric

tons.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 41
Guatemala

Honduras

Panama

Belize

Chad

Ghana

Cameroon

Kenya

Uganda

Malaysia

Philippines

India

Nepal

Turkey

Russia

Figure 20. International Forestry Projects

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Examples of the projects undertaken by Trees for the

Future include:

• A project to provide training in agroforestry, reforestation, and silviculture management and to

distribute seeds of fast-growing trees to communities in the Cortes Province of northern Honduras.

As a result of logging, slash and burn agriculture,

and cattle grazing, the uplands of northern Honduras have been almost entirely denuded of trees.

The loss of upland forest has in turn led to flooding

of the valleys and declining food production. Trees

for the Future became involved in the region in response to a request from a local women’s branch of

International Friends, in the city of San Pedro Sula.

The initial seed plantings, in August 1991, proved

highly successful, thus convincing many additional

communities to join the program. Since that time,

seedbed nurseries have been established throughout

Cortes Province, the program has expanded into the

Santa Barbara and La Esperanza areas in cooperation with the Honduran Ecological Association, and

a training center has been established in San Pedro

Sula, with additional local extension trainers and

technicians operating in the city of Puerto Cabezas

and a number of smaller towns. New technologies

are under development to expand the project’s primary tree species (Leucena leucocephala) to coffee

plantations. In addition to the carbon sequestration

benefits of the project, local participants have benefitted from improved erosion control and use the

leaves and wood for cattle forage, organic fertilizer,

and fuel.

• A tree planting project near Mudaurai, India, which

since 1991 has expanded to include two additional

areas in India. Working with rotary clubs and other

community organizations, Trees for the Future initially planted 5,000 leucena trees around Madurai.

The success of this planting led to the planting of

an additional 186,000 trees in the Madurai area,

using seeds from the original 5,000 trees. The

project was subsequently expanded to the areas of

Uttar Pradesh, in the city of Vrindavan, and to the

Bombay area. Vrindavan is a sacred city visited by

hundreds of thousands of Hindu pilgrims each

year. The Temple area was the initial planting site,

selected so that pilgrims could see the enhancement

provided by the trees. Since the initial planting, 435

hectares have been planted. The Vrindavan plantings have been conducted in cooperation with the

Friends of Vrindavan, a U.S.-based organization.

Finally, the Bombay-area activities, in cooperation

with the RISED Foundation of Devashayam, the

Amercy Foundation, and local rotary clubs, have

reforested 450 hectares of barren land. More than

42 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Project Profile: The Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project

The Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project is

being undertaken through a partnership of Wisconsin

Electric, DTE Energy/Detroit Edison, Cinergy, Pacificorp, and UtiliTree Carbon Company (the “Financial

Participants”). UtiliTree is a consortium of 40 electric

utilities, and each contributed financial support to the

Rio Bravo project. Also participating are The Nature

Conservancy and a Belizean nongovernment organization, Programme for Belize. In addition to their financial role, the Financial Participants are closely involved in project design and implementation support.

The project has been accepted by the U.S. Initiative on

Joint Implementation.

The project is located in northwestern Belize, Central

America, and centered on the eastern land parcels of

the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area.

The project has two components:

• Component A included the purchase and preservation of a 13,843 acre parcel of endangered forest

threatened with deforestation and conversion to

intensive row crop agriculture. The purchase of

this parcel linked two forested Rio Bravo properties owned by Programme for Belize in the northwestern corner of Belize.

• Component B will establish a sustainable forestry

management program on the entire Rio Bravo

Conservation and Management Area, which includes Component A, as well as the other land

parcels already held by Programme for Belize.

Component B will implement improved forest

management techniques and timber processing

and marketing approaches. It is designed to optimize carbon sequestration in a 120,000-acre area.

Only Component A of the Rio Bravo project was

reported for the 1995 reporting cycle. Component B

will be reported in a subsequent reporting cycle.

The Rio Bravo project sequestered a total of 152,640

metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1995. The carbon

sequestration estimate was based on actual measurements from 58 permanent plots in Component A of

the Rio Bravo project in 1996.

This project was reported by the 4 utility Financial

Participants and by 16 of the utility participants in the

UtiliTree Carbon Company: American Electric Power,

Baltimore Gas & Electric, Central Illinois Light

Company, Duke Power Co., General Public Utilities

Corp., Illinois Power Co., Kansas City Power & Light,

New England Electric System, Northern Indiana

Public Service, Ohio Edison Co., Sierra Pacific Power

Co., Tampa Electric Co., Tennessee Valley Authority,

Texas Utilities Corp., Tucson Electric, and Western

Resources. One of the Financial Participants (Cinergy

Corp.) provided separate reports for its individual

participation and its involvement through UtiliTree.

As a result, the Voluntary Reporting Program received 21 separate reports on this project, although

each reporter claimed only its share of the total

carbon sequestration. The reports received covered 94

percent of the carbon sequestered by the project.

1 million trees have been planted in the three areas

encompassed by the project.

• A land restoration and agroforestry project in and

around Lake Chad, in Chad. The land around the

lake is mainly desert, which has been sparingly

grazed over many centuries. The lake is drying, due

to evaporation and declining water aquifers in the

surrounding uplands. Trees have been planted on

hummocks in the lake itself to reduce evaporation,

as well as on the surrounding uplands to control

erosion and provide forage for grazing animals. The

plantings consist of drought-resistant, fast-growing,

multipurpose trees. The project is designed for

sustainable production of fuel and forage; more

recently, fruit trees and hardwood timber trees have

been added to the stands.

Urban Forestry Projects

Urban forestry projects are unique, in that under some

circumstances they can reduce energy consumption as

well as sequester carbon. Shade trees planted near

buildings reduce summer air conditioning requirements; in addition, trees can also act as windbreaks,

reducing heating needs in the winter. A total of 32

urban forestry projects were reported for 1995 (Figure

21). Carbon sequestration estimates were provided for

31 of the 32 projects, but emissions reductions associated with energy savings were provided for only 5

projects.39 There are probably two main reasons for

the absence of emissions reduction estimates. First, not

all urban forestry projects involve the planting of shade

trees near buildings. Urban forestry encompasses treeplanting in all urban and suburban settings, including

39Including one project for which sequestration effects were not reported.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 43
3 to 5 Projects

2 Projects

1 Project

No Projects

Figure 21. U.S. Urban Tree Planting Projects by State

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

parks, utility rights of way, and city streets, as well as

around buildings. Second, it is often difficult to estimate the energy savings resulting from urban forestry

projects. Models have been developed for this purpose,

but they are complex and not widely used.

American Forests was able to develop both sequestration and emissions reduction estimates for its urban

forestry project at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in

Arizona. The project, undertaken as part of DOE’s Cool

Communities program, involved the planting of 340

trees on a 64-home site at the base. The trees reduce

ambient temperatures and decrease energy usage

associated with air conditioning. American Forests

estimated that the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from this project was significantly

greater than the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered

(6.8 metric tons and 1.5 metric tons, respectively). This

is typical of urban forestry projects undertaken to

reduce energy consumption. The three other projects for

which comparative data are available indicate that the

emissions reductions range from about 3.5 to nearly 32

times the corresponding sequestration estimates.

The Davis-Monthan project was initiated in 1995. Other

new projects initiated in 1995 include Bountiful City

Light & Power’s tree replacement project, in which the

utility offers its customers a replacement tree for each

tree removed to clear transmission and distribution

lines. If the affected customer does not wish to take the

tree, it is offered to the City Parks Department, the

School District, or a charitable organization for planting

elsewhere in Bountiful. In 1995, 14 trees were planted

as part of the project, including 4 silver maples, 3

44 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
eastern redbuds, 3 cottonwoods, 2 mountain ashes, and

2 Norway maples. Total estimated sequestration for the

project was 0.06 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1995.

Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) reported on its

TreeLine USA Program, initiated in 1995 in cooperation

with the cities of Peoria and Pekin. Under this project,

CILCO donated $5,000 to each city for the purchase and

planting of deciduous trees on city property. A total of

121 deciduous hardwoods were planted in Peoria, and

64 were planted in Pekin, providing for the sequestration of an estimated 0.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide

in 1995.

In addition to the above new projects, a number of new

reporters reported on projects that were initiated before

1995. Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), for example, reported on its Trees for Tucson program. The

primary focus of this project is to reduce energy

consumption for air conditioning by planting desertadapted shade trees (mainly mesquite) around homes

and other buildings in TEP’s service territory. Thus far,

more than 11,000 trees have been distributed to residences, schools, community projects, and the DavisMonthan Air Force Base. The project sequestered an

estimated 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1995.

Another new reporter, Blue Earth Light & Water, reported on its project to plant trees in various locations

within the town of Blue Earth, Minnesota. This project

sequestered an estimated 0.33 metric tons of carbon

dioxide in 1995.

Federal Voluntary

Carbon Sequestration Programs

More than half of the reported forestry projects were

undertaken in part to fulfill commitments made under

the Climate Challenge program. In addition, 10 percent

were undertaken as part of the U.S. Initiative on Joint

Implementation (USIJI). Established under the Climate

Change Action Plan (CCAP),40 the USIJI is a pilot

program that seeks to encourage foreign-based emissions reduction and carbon sequestration projects

between U.S. and non-U.S. partners. Partners must

submit a proposal to USIJI to receive approval of

proposed projects; thus far, 24 projects have been

approved,41 encompassing a wide variety of measures, including energy conservation in district heating

systems, conversion of biomass waste to energy, wind

power, and forestry projects. USIJI projects reported to

EIA include the Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot

Project (see box on page 43); Oregon State University’s

RUSAFOR-SAP project, involving reforestation and

afforestation of three sites in Russia; and New England

Electric System Companies’ Reduced Impact Logging

Project, which involves the development and implementation of reduced-impact logging techniques on

1,400 hectares of commercial forest in Malaysia.

In addition to these USIJI projects, two urban forestry

projects were reported as part of the Cool Communities

Program. This program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, seeks to reduce energy consumption

associated with air conditioning through the use of

lighter wall and roof colors and the planting of shade

trees around buildings. The program provides technical

assistance and education in the implementation of these

measures. The two Cool Communities projects were

located in Arizona: American Forests’ Urban Ecosystem

Analysis project at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

and Tucson Electric Power Company’s Trees for Tucson

program.

Reporting Issues

Some of the carbon removed from the atmosphere by

plants becomes incorporated into structural elements of

plants (e.g., roots, stems, foliage). The rest is consumed

by the plant’s metabolic processes (respiration), and the

carbon is returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Likewise, when all or part of the plant dies and decays,

much of the carbon is released to the atmosphere, and

a portion is retained as soil organic matter. The effect

of a forestry project on atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases is measured by net sequestration, the net

quantity removed from the atmosphere in a given year.

Some guidance is available to assist reporters in

estimating net sequestration, including that provided in

the program’s guidelines.42 This guidance typically

focuses on net sequestration over a given period,

usually until the forest reaches maturity. Annual net

sequestration for an afforestation or reforestation project

will vary considerably over this period. In the early

years, net sequestration can be low or even negative. It

generally peaks in the middle years and gradually tails

off as the living biomass structures reach maximum

size. At maturity, new growth sequestering carbon may

be balanced by mortality. Forests, if undisturbed, will

40President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), Appendix II.

41“Nine New USIJI Projects Approved,” International Partnerships Report, Vol. 3, No. 1 (February 1997), p. 1.

42U.S. Department of Energy, Sector Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies Supporting the General Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting

of Greenhouse Gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Vol. 2, Part 5 (Forestry Sector), DOE/PO-0028 (Washington, DC,

October 1995).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 45
continue to be a net carbon sink indefinitely, as a

Reporting Issue: Ten Reporters Use Urban Forestry Guidance Document

The Voluntary Reporting Program has released a

guide designed to assist participants in determining

the quantity of carbon sequestered by urban forestry

projects. A total of 10 reporters used the guide in the

preparation of their 1995 reports.

Calculating the carbon sequestration potential of

urban trees can be a complex undertaking. It is necessary to account for differences in species type, which

affect tree growth rates and sequestration potential. In

addition, tree mortality, which differs by species type

and over time, must be considered in determining the

percentage of trees removed from the sequestration

pool each year.

The guide, Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration

by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings, was based on

research by the Voluntary Reporting Program and

findings from USDA Forest Service researcher David

Nowak. Growth rate and mortality estimates for 100

tree species commonly planted in urban and suburban

settings are included in the guide.

The guide contains the following components:

• Detailed instructions on all aspects of urban forestry carbon sequestration reporting under the

Voluntary Reporting Program

• A look-up table containing species names, types,

and growth rates of 100 common urban tree

species

• A look-up table containing mortality rates

(“survival factors”) for different tree species

• Worksheets designed to walk a reporter through

each step of the process.

The participants using the guide were Blue Earth

Light and Water, Bountiful City Light and Power,

Cedar Falls Utilities, Central Illinois Light Company,

City Utilities of Springfield, Detroit Edison, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Seattle City Light,

Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative, and Tucson

Electric Power Company. The guide prepared by the

Voluntary Reporting Program is by no means the only

guide or even the best guide. It is simply a standardized tool that can be applied to a wide variety of

locations and circumstances, with the intent of making

the job of reporting carbon sequestration by urban

forestry projects easier for participants in the program.

Other participants employed their own calculation

methodologies based on research from hired consultants, the USDA Forest Service, and other Federal and

State government agencies.

Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in

Urban and Suburban Settings is available to the public

through the Voluntary Reporting Program’s file transfer protocol (FTP) site at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/

1605/cdrom (file name sequestr.pdf),* by e-mailing a

request to infoghg@eia.doe.gov, or by calling 1-800-

803-5182 or 202-586-0688.

*The software application Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to open and print this file. This application is available free from Adobe

at: http://www.adobe.com.

portion of the carbon in the dead biomass ends up in

the soil. Typically, the quantities reported represent the

annual average sequestration over a specified time

period, usually from planting until the forest reaches

maturity.

Carbon in forests cannot be considered permanently

sequestered, however. Perturbations, such as timber

harvesting and fires, can rapidly reverse decades of

sequestration, returning the carbon to the atmosphere.

This represents an accounting challenge for any system

of credits, allowances, or offsets designed to control

greenhouse gases that mixes sequestration with emissions reductions. In contrast to the impermanence of

sequestration, emissions reductions represent a permanent, irreversible debit from the amount of greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere. To some degree, the problem

can be overcome by a life-cycle approach to evaluating

emissions that takes timber harvesting into account

when average annual sequestration is estimated; however, unplanned events (forest fires) or any change in

land use are problems for any greenhouse gas emissions accounting scheme.

Evaluating urban forestry projects presents reporters

with the dual challenge of estimating carbon sequestration and emissions reductions resulting from energy

savings. Most of the available guidance for estimating

sequestration, aimed at estimating sequestration by the

acre, is not applicable to urban forestry. As a remedy,

EIA has developed a worksheet for this purpose (see

box below).

The energy effects of urban forestry projects are even

harder to estimate than the sequestration effects. Although models are available for this purpose, they are

complex and require site-specific data, particularly on

46 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
climate, that are not readily available. Of the 32 urban

forestry projects reported, only 4 explicitly estimated

emissions reductions associated with the projects’ energy effects. Two reporters (Waverly Light & Power and

Osage Municipal Utilities) used a stipulated factor of

132 kilowatthours saved per tree planted, developed by

a consultant. To evaluate a project involving tree planting on home sites within an Air Force Base in Arizona,

American Forests used its own CITYgreen Urban Ecosystem Analysis software. PacifiCorp based its estimate

of the energy savings and resulting emissions reductions of its Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Project on a

spreadsheet model which assumes that annual cooling

savings of 12 percent are achieved once a tree reaches

maturity.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 47
6. Projects To Reduce Methane Emissions

U.S. Methane Emissions

in Perspective

U.S. methane emissions totaled 30.9 million metric tons

in 1995, the equivalent of 649 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide considering the relative atmospheric

warming effects of methane and carbon dioxide.43

Over a 100-year time horizon, 1 ton of methane is estimated to have 21 times the warming effect of 1 ton of

carbon dioxide. U.S. anthropogenic carbon dioxide

emissions are about 170 times as large as methane emissions when measured by their full molecular weight,

but when they are weighted by global warming potential (GWP), carbon dioxide emissions are only about 8

times as large as methane emissions (Table 8). (For a

discussion of global warming potentials, see ”What Are

Greenhouse Gases” on page 6.)

While emissions of carbon dioxide rose by more than 5

percent between 1990 and 1995, emissions of methane

declined by more than 2 percent. Because almost all

carbon dioxide emissions (98 percent) can be attributed

to fossil fuel consumption, changes in emissions levels

are largely driven by economic growth, energy prices,

and weather. Thus, during periods of steady or strong

economic growth and stable or declining real energy

prices, such as that which has been experienced in the

United States since 1992, it is difficult to restrain the

growth of carbon dioxide emissions.

In contrast, methane emissions are principally the result

of either biological processes or unintended fugitive

releases. Because methane can be used as an energy

source, it can be recovered at some economic benefit.

Additionally, methane releases from biological processes may represent system inefficiencies that can be

modified by improved agricultural methods or more

productive animal husbandry. Thus, trends in methane

emissions are more easily separated from general

economic trends than are trends in carbon dioxide

emissions. Further, because a large share of methane

emissions can be traced to a relatively small number of

facilities, technological solutions and public policy may

be more effectively focused on sources of methane

emissions than on the millions of separate sources of

carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

Projects Reported

There were 58 methane reduction projects reported for

1995, an increase of nearly 35 percent over the number

reported for 1994.44 Together, these 58 projects reduced methane emissions in 1995 by more than 1.1 million metric tons, more than 7 times the reduction of

150,000 metric tons reported for 1994 (Table 9). Nearly

all reductions were reported as indirect; only a small

portion (8,269 metric tons) were reported as reductions

Table 8. Estimated U.S. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide and Methane, 1990-1995

(Million Metric Tons)

Gas 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Carbon Dioxide ................................ 5,037.1 4,987.3 5,059.8 5,175.9 5,256.1 5,296.9

Methane (Full Molecular Weight) ................... 31.6 31.6 31.7 30.8 31.4 30.9

Methane (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) ............... 663.6 663.6 665.7 646.8 659.4 648.9

Source: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96)

(Washington, DC, October 1997).

43Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

44All of the 43 projects reported for 1994 during the previous reporting cycle were reported again for 1995. An additional 15 projects

were reported for 1995 during this reporting cycle.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 49
in direct emissions.45 The most frequently reported

Table 9. Total Reported Methane Emissions Reductions, Data Years 1991-1995

(Metric Tons)

Reporting Form 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

EIA-1605

Direct Reductions ....................... 6,303 6,885 9,557 20,981 8,269

Indirect Reductions ...................... 47,351 83,842 91,249 104,608 1,065,548

EIA-1605EZ ............................ NA NA NA 24,523 50,554

NA = not available.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

method of reducing methane emissions was by recovering methane for energy. There were 41 such projects, 39

of which used the recovered methane to generate electricity, which was then used on-site or sold to a utility.

Two projects sold recovered methane as pipeline-quality gas. In addition to the methane recovery projects,

two projects used refuse-derived fuel, combusting

waste rather than sending it to a landfill where it

would decompose and generate methane emissions.

One project was an experimental study on reducing rice

field emissions.46

Emissions Reductions by Source

There are three principal sources of methane emissions:

waste generation and disposal; energy production and

distribution; and agriculture. Emissions from waste

generation and disposal represent about one-third of

total U.S. methane emissions, having declined steadily

since 1990 as waste reaching landfills decreased and the

volume of methane recovered increased (Figure 22).

Emissions from energy production and distribution

represent slightly more than 36 percent of all U.S.

methane emissions. There are two major contributors to

emissions from energy production and distribution:

emissions from the oil and natural gas system from

unintended leaks or vented associated gas; and fugitive

emissions from coal mines during production. These

two sources are discussed separately below. Twentynine percent of U.S. methane emissions can be traced to

agricultural sources. More than 90 percent of emissions

from agricultural sources result from animal husbandry,

Million Metric Tons of Methane

11.15

10.6

9.05

12.07

11.11

8.29

Energy

Sources

Waste

Management

Agricultural

Sources

0

5

10

15

1990 1995

Energy

Sources

Waste

Management

Agricultural

Sources

10.60

Figure 22. U.S. Methane Emissions by Source,

1990 and 1995

Source: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997).

with about two-thirds of that share traced to enteric

fermentation and one-third emitted from animal wastes.

Methane Emissions from Waste Generation

and Disposal

Trends in U.S. Emissions

Estimated U.S. methane emissions attributed to waste

generation and disposal have declined steadily since

reaching more than 11 million metric tons in 1990. For

1995, an estimated 10.6 million metric tons of methane

45Direct emissions are from sources owned by the reporting entity. Indirect emissions are from sources outside the reporting entity that

are affected by the reduction activities.

46There were several instances of double reporting that somewhat inflate the total number of projects reported. In one instance, a landfill

gas-to-energy developer and the utility purchasing electricity from the developer reported the same project (see “Reporting Issues” at

the end of this chapter). Two reporters reported one project each for the carbon dioxide emissions reductions and the methane emissions

reductions attributable to their projects. This was an effect of the constraints imposed on reporters using the short form EIA-1605EZ, which

allows the reporting of only one gas per project. Thus, if a reporter wishes to capture the carbon dioxide effects of a methane reduction

project, it must be presented as two projects. Accounting for these instances of double reporting, 55 distinct activities to reduce methane

emissions were reported.

50 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
emissions can be traced to waste generation and disposal. Anaerobic (in the absence of oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills is responsible for more than

98 percent of that total.47 Thus, the trend of diminishing emissions is largely the result of substantial

increases in the share of waste being recycled or

incinerated rather than landfilled between 1990 and

1995 and a near doubling in recovery of methane generated at landfills. Recovered methane may be flared or

used to generate energy. The most frequently reported

methane reduction activity was recovery for energy use.

Reduction Activities Reported

There were 39 projects reported that reduced methane

emissions from waste generation and disposal, accounting for more than 1 million metric tons of reductions in

1995, nearly 9 times 1994 levels (Table 10). The 39 projects accounted for 99 percent of the total reported methane emissions reductions for 1995. This rapid escalation

can be attributed to one waste-to-energy project reported by the Integrated Waste Services Association

(IWSA), which accounts for more than 90 percent of the

reductions from waste generation and disposal reported

for 1995. The report included reductions for 1995 but

not for previous years. The IWSA membership includes

65 of the Nation’s 114 waste-to-energy facilities, and the

report included the activities of the full membership, a

total of 944,000 metric tons of indirect emissions reductions in 1995 (see box on page 52).

Though accounting for smaller reductions per individual project than the refuse-to-energy project reported by

the IWSA, anaerobically generated biogas-to-energy

projects were reported more often as a method for reducing methane emissions from waste generation and

disposal. There were 36 such projects reported for 1995:

33 converted landfill gas to electricity, which was then

consumed on-site or sold to a utility; 2 converted biogas from anaerobic digesters filled with wastewater to

electricity; and 1 used cleaned landfill gas in natural

gas pipelines. The typical biogas-to-energy project reduced emissions by between 1,000 and 10,000 metric

tons, with four projects reducing between 10,000 and

20,000 metric tons in 1995. Reports for nine of the landfill gas-to-energy projects and one wastewater treatment

project included estimates of the energy content of the

recovered gas. Eight reported energy contents between

400 and 650 Btu per standard cubic foot, and two reported more than 900 Btu per standard cubic foot for

gas that had been cleaned to pipeline quality.

Twenty of the biogas-to-energy projects were reported

by utilities that purchased either electricity generated

from combusted methane or gas cleaned sufficiently to

be transported via pipeline. Sixteen were reported by

landfill gas-to-energy developers—14 on Form EIA1605EZ, likely reflecting the smaller staff and resources

available to landfill gas developers. Ten of these

projects were reported by Zahren Alternative Power

Corporation (ZAPCO), a developer of landfill-gas-toenergy projects. Three methane recovery projects did

not use the methane for energy but flared it, which has

the effect of substituting the much lower warming

effect of carbon dioxide for that of methane.

Federal Programs To Reduce Methane

Emissions from Waste Generation and Disposal

Landfills are the largest single source of U.S. methane

emissions, and the majority of emissions can be traced

to approximately 700 of the Nation’s largest landfills.

This, together with the economic value of recovered

methane, has made landfills potential candidates for

government initiatives to reduce emissions. Because

landfills pose other pollution concerns, such as volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions and groundwater

contamination, they have a long history of regulation at

Table 10. Reported Methane Emissions Reductions from Waste Generation and Disposal Projects,

Data Years 1991-1995

(Metric Tons)

Reporting Form 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

EIA-1605

Direct Reductions ....................... 1,787 1,096 648 980 619

Indirect Reductions ...................... 47,130 83,626 91,008 104,333 1,061,708

EIA-1605EZ ............................ NA NA NA 24,388 50,325

NA = not available.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

47Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 51
Integrated Waste Services Association: Reducing Emissions

Through Waste-to-Energy Facilities

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA) is a

national trade group whose members represent 65 of

the 114 waste-to-energy facilities operating in the

United States. According to the IWSA, these 65 facilities processed an estimated 31.3 million short tons of

waste in 1995, providing 2,650 megawatts of electric

generation capacity. IWSA assumed that 20 percent of

the electricity generated was consumed internally or

lost due to unit downtime, and 80 percent was exported to the electric grid. These waste-to-energy facilities

also generated about 1.4 million pounds of steam (the

equivalent of 1,400 million Btu) per hour for export.

IWSA assumed that the municipal and industrial solid

waste consumed in member facilities would have

otherwise been placed in landfills. As waste decomposes in a landfill, both carbon dioxide and methane

are generated. Carbon dioxide emissions result from

aerobic decomposition and methane emissions from

anaerobic decomposition. The IWSA assumes that 55

percent of the emissions from decomposition are

carbon dioxide and 45 percent are methane, occurring

over a period of 30 years, during which 60 percent of

the waste decomposes. The IWSA report includes only

the volume of waste diverted during 1995, but its

emissions reduction estimate for 1995 includes the

effects of waste diverted since 1987. The result is

estimated reductions of just under 1 million metric

tons of methane and 2.1 million metric tons of carbon

dioxide from avoided decomposition at landfills in

1995.

IWSA also reported some offsetting emissions effects

from the combustion of waste to generate electricity,

estimating that combustion resulted in emissions of

28.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The use of

waste-to-energy facilities offset an estimated 8.97

million short tons of bituminous coal consumption,

reducing emissions at electric power plants by more

than 20 million metric tons, resulting in a net increase

from fuel combustion during 1995 of more than 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. On an energy

equivalent basis, the emissions rate for waste energy

is about 2.5 percent lower than that for bituminous

coal; however, the heat rate of waste-to-energy facilities is nearly 50 percent higher than that for coal-fired

utility boilers, requiring more energy input for the

same electricity output, which explains the net increase in emissions.

Despite the increase in net emissions of carbon dioxide, overall GWP-weighted emissions were reduced

as a result of the activities reported by IWSA, because

the GWP for methane is 21 times that for carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon. Also, IWSA did

not measure or report the emissions reduction associated with exported steam heat, which would offset

some of the increased emissions from combustion.

the State and Federal levels. On March 12, 1996, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

and Emission Guidelines (EG), which require all landfills with more than 2.5 million metric tons of waste in

place and annual emissions of nonmethane volatile

organic compounds (NMVOCs) exceeding 50 metric

tons to collect and combust their landfill gas. The

product of combustion may be flared or used as an

energy resource. According to EPA estimates of landfill

sizes and NMVOC emissions, this regulation should

affect about 300 of the Nation’s largest landfills,

doubling the number recovering methane. The Climate

Change Action Plan envisions emissions reductions of

15.4 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, or

734,000 metric tons of methane, in 2000 as a result of

these regulations.48

The EPA also sponsors a voluntary Landfill Methane

Outreach Program (LMOP), which works with municipal solid waste landfill owners and operators, States,

tribes, utilities, and other Federal agencies to promote

the use of landfill gas to generate electricity or as a

medium-Btu boiler fuel. Among its primary targets are

those landfills affected by the NSPS and EG that will be

required to recover and combust methane. By selling

the energy from recovered methane, landfill operators

may recover some of the capital cost incurred in complying with the new regulations. Under the Climate

Change Action Plan, LMOP is expected to reduce methane emissions by 4 million metric tons carbon dioxide

equivalent, or almost 200,000 metric tons of methane,

by 2000.49 The eight reported projects that cited

LMOP affiliations showed reductions of 66,000 metric

tons of methane for 1995.

48President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), p. 36.

49President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), p. 37.

52 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Methane Emissions from Energy

Production and Distribution:

Natural Gas Systems

Trends in U.S. Emissions

Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas

system grew slowly between 1990 and 1994 due to increases in both natural gas consumption and miles of

pipeline in the gas distribution system. In 1995, a sharp,

temporary, and unexplained drop in the volume of

associated gas vented to the atmosphere reduced emissions from the oil and natural gas system. This drop

did not effect trends in the natural gas distribution

system, and when 1996 saw a more typical volume of

gas vented, U.S. emissions resumed their slow upward

trend. Estimated emissions of methane from the oil and

natural gas system stood at 6.8 million metric tons in

1996, up from 6.6 million metric tons in 1990.50

Reduction Activities Reported

Thirteen projects reported reduced emissions from the

natural gas system for 1995, two more than for the

previous reporting cycle. Together, these 13 projects

eliminated about 7,000 metric tons of methane emissions in 1995, down by about 24 percent from reductions reported from 13 projects for 1994 (Table 11). All

reported projects focused on reducing or controlling

emissions from the natural gas transmission and distribution system. Twelve of the projects involved one of

two activities: (1) a change in operation and maintenance practices, such as reducing pipeline blowdowns,

directed inspection and maintenance of controllers at

gate stations, or reducing venting of compressed natural gas cylinders; or (2) equipment replacement and

upgrade, typically in the form of pipeline repair and

replacement. The other project, reported by Montana

Power Company, involved the installation of catalytic

converters at gas plants to reduce emissions of carbon

monoxide and nitrogen oxides, with no reported effect

on methane emissions.

Five of the projects to reduce methane emissions from

the natural gas system were reported on Form EIA1605EZ by Brooklyn Union Gas. Four of these projects

reduced methane emissions by less than 10 metric tons

in 1995, but Brooklyn Union’s project to rehabilitate

leaky pipe saved more than 220 metric tons of methane

in 1995. The remaining eight projects affecting the

natural gas system were reported by seven different

electric and gas utilities. Of the seven methane reduction projects reported on the long form, three saved less

than 100 metric tons, three saved between 100 and 1,000

metric tons, and one project saved more than 1,000 metric tons during 1995. All the reductions reported for

years prior to 1995 were characterized as direct because

they typically involved activities to reduce fugitive

emissions from transmission and distribution systems

owned by the project reporter; however, 1995 reports

showed a nearly even distribution between direct and

indirect emissions reductions. The shift is attributable

to a change in ownership. After completing system

replacement and upgrades, Western Resources sold a

portion of its natural gas distribution system to

Columbia Gas. For the portion of the system that was

sold, Western Resources reported emissions reductions

from system replacement and upgrades as indirect,

shifting about 3,000 metric tons of reductions reported

as direct in 1994 to indirect in 1995.

Federal Programs To Reduce Methane

Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas System

Regulation of the oil and natural gas production and

distribution industries has typically been of the

economic rather than environmental variety, and much

of it has fallen by the wayside over the past several

Table 11. Reported Methane Emissions Reductions from Natural Gas System Projects, Data Years 1991-1995

(Metric Tons)

Reporting Form 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

EIA-1605

Direct Reductions ....................... 3,846 4,168 6,261 9,092 3,460

Indirect Reductions ...................... 0000 3,265

EIA-1605EZ ............................ NA NA NA 135 230

NA = not available.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

50Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 53
years. Because most emissions of methane from the

natural gas transmission and distribution system represent a direct economic loss to system owners, it is not

necessary to mandate that they avoid such losses. Instead, Federal efforts have focused on providing technical and institutional assistance to the oil and natural gas

industry through EPA’s voluntary Natural Gas STAR

program.

The Natural Gas STAR program aims to reduce methane emissions by introducing and promoting costeffective technologies and practices throughout the

natural gas industry. The program provides implementation guidelines, technical assistance, and an information sharing network for gas companies. The goal of the

Natural Gas STAR program is to reduce emissions by

11 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, or

about 524,000 metric tons of methane, by 2000. According to the EPA, Natural Gas STAR reduced methane

emissions by 205,000 metric tons in 1994 and an additional 290,000 metric tons in 1995. Nine of the 13

reported projects were undertaken in cooperation with

the Natural Gas STAR program. Together they reduced

methane emissions by nearly 700 metric tons in 1995.

Methane Emissions from Energy

Production and Distribution:

Coal Mining

Trends in U.S. Emissions

U.S. methane emissions from coal mining were nearly

4 million metric tons in 1995, more than 14 percent

below 1990 levels, primarily because of decreased emissions from the ventilation and degasification systems of

the Nation’s gassiest coal mines and growing methane

recovery from coal mines.51

Reduction Activities Reported

Three reported projects recovered methane from coal

mines in 1995. Together, these three projects showed

emissions reductions of 4,469 metric tons, almost 10,000

metric tons below the reductions reported for 1994.

Northwest Fuel Development, Inc., sold a seven-eighths

interest in its project that recovers methane from an

abandoned coal mine to Columbia Gas, which is now

distributing the gas through its pipelines. Columbia Gas

did not report to the Voluntary Reporting Program.

Thus, the reductions continue, but they no longer

appear in the Voluntary Reporting Program database.

In addition to Northwest Fuel Development, Cinergy

Corporation and Peabody Holding Company reported

projects that reduced methane emissions from coal

mines. Cinergy Corporation reported purchases by its

subsidiary, PSI Energy, of electricity generated using

methane from a closed and abandoned underground

mine. This project reduced methane emissions by 278

metric tons in 1995. Northwest Fuel Development, Inc.,

reported a similar project in which an internal combustion engine is used to generate electricity from methane

recovered at the abandoned Nelms #1 mine in Cadiz,

Ohio. The electricity is supplied to Harrison Mining for

use at a nearby mine. Excess production is sold to

American Electric Power’s Ohio Power Company. This

project reduced methane emissions by 571 metric tons.

Peabody Holding Company’s project recovered pipeline-quality gas from a coal mine and delivered it

directly into the natural gas distribution system, reducing emissions of methane by 3,620 metric tons. The

CONSOL Coal Group also reported very large reductions in methane emissions from coal mines as part of

an entity-level report but chose not to report on the

project level (see box on page 55).

Federal Programs To Reduce

Methane Emissions from Coal Mining

Federal regulation of the coal mining industry has

historically focused on maintaining safety. Because

methane in concentrations above 5 percent is explosive,

coal mine operators have been required to provide

sufficient ventilation to reduce methane levels in coal

mines to below 2 percent. For many years, methane

was viewed as a hazard and a nuisance. Only recently

has it been recognized as a recoverable energy resource.

The EPA has endeavored to encourage recovery

through the voluntary Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP), which works with coal mines and related industries to encourage the recovery and use of

methane that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere during mining operations. Program activities

include profiling conditions at the gassiest coal mines;

conducting site-specific assessments; and working with

government agencies to reduce barriers to project development. The CMOP seeks to reduce emissions by 8.1

million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, or almost

400,000 metric tons of methane, by 2000. The project

reported by Peabody Holding Company was the only

reported project associated with the CMOP.

51Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

54 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
CONSOL Coal Group:

Reducing Emissions of Coalbed Methane

CONSOL Coal Group is one of the top ten producers and distributors of coal, operating some of

the largest producing coal mines in the United

States. Some of those mines are in the Nation’s

gassiest coal seams. Through a combination of

changes in mining operations, sale of recovered coalbed methane, and internal use of coalbed methane

as a fuel, CONSOL reported a reduction in methane

emissions of about 525,000 metric tons in 1995, from

a 1990 baseline of 1.4 million metric tons of emissions. The 1990 baseline estimate represents roughly

one-third of total estimated U.S. emissions from coal

mines during that year, and the 525,000-metric-ton

reduction is nearly equivalent to the estimated

decline in U.S. emissions from coal mines between

1990 and 1995.

Emissions estimates were supplied for 1990, 1994,

and 1995, based on recorded measurements where

possible and best estimates if measurements were

unavailable. In 1993, CONSOL acquired Island

Creek Coal Company, whose mines are located in a

very gassy coal seam in Buchanan County, Virginia.

Parallel to the financial accounting of mergers,

acquisitions, and divestments guided by standard

accounting practices, CONSOL has “restated” 1990

emissions to include emissions from the acquired

Island Creek mines. Through selective mine closure

and methane recovery for pipeline sales, CONSOL

has reduced emissions from the mines substantially.

Methane Emissions from Agriculture

Trends in U.S. Emissions

In 1995, methane emissions from agricultural sources

were just over 9 million metric tons, 9 percent higher

than 1990 levels but slightly below 1994 levels. More

than 90 percent of methane emissions from agriculture

can be traced to animal husbandry, with about twothirds of that share traced to enteric fermentation and

one-third emitted from animal wastes. Emissions from

both sources are largely driven by animal sizes and

populations. Between 1990 and 1994, emissions from

animal sources grew steadily as animal populations and

animal sizes increased, but they have since begun to

recede as animal populations have decreased.52

Reduction Activities Reported

Two reported projects reduced methane emissions from

agriculture, both of which recovered methane generated

anaerobically from animal wastes. No projects were

reported that reduced emissions from enteric fermentation. The two projects were reported by General Public

Utilities (GPU). In the first project, waste from dairy

cows at the Mason Dixon Farms in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, decomposed in an anaerobic digester, and the

methane produced was used to generate electricity for

on-site energy needs, with any excess sold to GPU. In

the other project, electricity was generated from methane recovered from the decomposing waste of swine

owned by Valley Pork, Inc., of Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania. Again, electricity was used on-site, and any

excess was sold to GPU. Together, these two projects

were responsible for emissions reductions of 300 metric

tons in 1995, up by 9 percent from 1994.

An additional reported project described a study of

methods to reduce methane emissions from wetland

rice cultivation. The results of the study have not yet

been implemented, and no associated emissions reductions were reported.

Federal Programs To Reduce

Methane Emissions from Agriculture

The Federal Government sponsors the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program—a cooperative effort of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA—to provide research and demonstration projects aimed at

reducing methane emissions from dairy and beef cattle

due to enteric fermentation. Initiatives are aimed at

improving nutrition through mechanical and chemical

feed processing and strategic supplementation, genetic

improvements, and disease control. The program is

slated to reduce emissions by 6.6 million metric tons

carbon dioxide equivalent, or more than 300,000 metric

tons of methane, by 2000.

To encourage the capture and use of methane produced

from the anaerobic decomposition of animal waste, the

EPA the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsor the AgSTAR program.

As part of this program, participating producers

commit to survey their facilities to identify profitable

options for capture and use of methane as an on-site

power source. The program includes demonstration

projects and decision support software. AgSTAR is

expected to contribute reductions of 5.5 million metric

tons carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 260,000 metric

tons of methane, under the CCAP.

52Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 55
Reporting Issues

Double Reporting

Many methane recovery projects provide the opportunity for double reporting; however, this should not be

confused with double counting. Typically, a methane

recovery project involves two or more parties: the party

that recovers the gas, such as a landfill developer,

wastewater treatment facility, livestock farm, or coal

mine; and the party that uses the energy contained in

the recovered methane, such as a utility or natural gas

pipeline company. The party that recovers the gas reports the reduction as direct, since the emission would

have occurred at that facility. The purchaser of the

energy produced from the gas reports the reduction as

indirect, since the reduction occurred at the seller’s

facility. Thus, the project is double reported. It is not

double counted, however, because indirect and direct

emissions reductions can be examined separately.

Where double counting may occur, it will be restricted

to indirect emissions when multiple reporters claim

activities that affect emissions from a single source they

do not own. (For a more extensive discussion of multiple reporting, see Appendix A, “Emissions Accounting

Issues.”)

The landfill gas recovery project at Hamm’s landfill is

an excellent example of how multiple reporters can provide information on a project without causing double

counting. The developer of Hamm’s landfill, Zahren

Alternative Power Corporation (ZAPCO) reported

direct methane reductions from the landfill of 1,575

metric tons during 1995. General Public Utilities (GPU)

purchased the electricity generated at the landfill by

ZAPCO and reported indirect methane emissions reductions of 1,475 metric tons during 1995. The difference in reductions claimed does not reflect inaccuracy

on the part of either party but rather reflects the

estimation methods used and the point in the fuel cycle

at which emissions were measured. ZAPCO estimates

reductions on the basis of metered gas recovery data.

GPU estimates reductions on the basis of megawatthours of electricity purchased. The difference in the

estimates is driven by assumptions about heat rate that

GPU must make to take into account the energy losses

associated with generation and transmission.

Today, reductions in emissions have no legislatively

mandated economic value, nor has a system of property

rights been established for either emissions or reductions. Thus, all contributors to an emissions reduction

project may wish to report their reductions either as

direct or indirect, as appropriate. In some cases, when

multiple parties have contributed to a project, the

parties have established contractual rights to report the

emissions reductions.

Methane Recovery as a Proxy for

Emissions Reductions

Most methane reduction projects use metered volumes

of methane recovery as a proxy for estimating emissions reductions. This is not surprising, as it provides

the most accessible and measurable data for estimating

reductions. However, this method may overestimate

actual reductions, because it assumes that all methane

recovered would have been vented to the atmosphere.

A few examples reveal that this may not necessarily be

the case.

Methane recovered from animal waste is typically obtained by placing waste in a liquid system, such as an

anaerobic digester. Such a system is specifically designed to maximize methane output. If the waste in the

anaerobic digester were simply spread over pasture

land, it would decompose aerobically and produce

almost no methane. Similarly, absent degasification, the

ultimate disposition of methane removed from a coal

seam before mining is uncertain. The coal seam might

never have been mined, ruling out emissions, or the

methane might have remained in cracks and fissures of

the coal seam or in portions of unmined coal. Methane

from landfills is recovered by dropping wells into the

waste and using a vacuum to pull out biogas. It is

uncertain how much of the gas recovered would have

been emitted otherwise, or when it would have been

emitted. Some might have migrated into groundwater

or been oxidized in cover soils, and some might have

been permanently trapped in the landfill. Thus, while

recovery data currently provide the best and easiest

method for estimating emissions reductions, the

method is imperfect.

The Role of Carbon Sequestered in

Waste in the Global Carbon Cycle

In estimating emissions reductions from waste diversion or methane recovery projects, an understanding of

the role of the carbon sequestered in waste relative to

the global carbon cycle is important. Several approaches

can be taken. Some reporters view the carbon contained

in waste as part of the carbon cycle and, thus, as

having no effect on emissions levels. This view is taken

because the carbon portion of the organics in waste

such as food and paper was fixed in those products

through normal carbon uptake and, upon decomposition, will once again be fixed in plants, trees, animals,

and the oceans. Others argue that the use of natural

products for food or paper removes fixed carbon which,

through decomposition, will be added to anthropogenic

emissions of methane and carbon dioxide. Although

both arguments have merit, it is a question that is

unlikely to be resolved in the context of the Voluntary

56 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Reporting Program. Nevertheless, for an emissions reduction report, the role of carbon in waste should be

treated in a consistent manner.

For example, when estimating reductions from a wasteto-energy project, a reporter may wish to assume that

the carbon released from the waste during combustion

is part of the normal carbon cycle, and thus that the

reductions are equal to the full magnitude of the fossil

fuel generation displaced. If so, the reporter should not

also report the reductions in emissions from a landfill

that would otherwise have received that waste, because

the reporter has defined the methane and carbon

dioxide that would have been released as part of the

normal carbon cycle. If a methane recovery project is

reported, the carbon contained in the methane has been

defined as not part of the normal carbon cycle; thus,

the carbon dioxide emissions from combusting that

methane through flaring or for energy should be

reported.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 57
7. Halogenated Substances and Other Gases

U.S. Emissions of Halogenated

Substances and Other Gases

in Perspective

Emissions of halogenated substances and other gases—

all of which have relatively high global warming potential (GWP)—can be grouped into two classes according

to their effects on global climate. In the first group are

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs), and other chlorine-containing gases. Because

these gases contain chlorine, they have a tendency to

react with ozone in the upper stratosphere, diminishing

the concentration of ozone, which is itself a greenhouse

gas. The resulting reduction in ozone offsets, to an undetermined degree, the absorption of infrared radiation

associated with the chlorinated gases. As a result, the

effect of these gases on global climate is ambiguous.

In contrast, the second class of gases discussed in this

chapter—halocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride—do not

combine with ozone and therefore have less ambiguous

effects on climate. Thus, their overall relative contribution to U.S. GWP-weighted emissions can be more

readily evaluated. U.S. emissions of HFCs grew by

nearly 60 percent between 1990 and 1995, emissions of

perfluorocarbons by 24 percent, and emissions of sulfur

hexafluoride by 29 percent. Despite the rapid increases,

these gases still represent only about 2.5 percent

of national GWP-weighted greenhouse gas emissions

(Table 12).

Projects Reported

There were 22 projects that reduced emissions of CFCs,

HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs and other high-GWP gases such as

methyl chloroform and sulfur hexafluoride reported for

1995, an increase of 47 percent over the number of such

projects reported for 1994.53 The 22 projects were

reported by 15 separate entities, including 12 utilities,

2 aluminum companies, and 1 chemical company. The

projects reported had one of three primary goals: (1)

reductions in emissions of CFCs; (2) reductions in

emissions of PFCs; and (3) reductions in emissions of

sulfur hexafluoride.

Emissions Reductions by Gas

Emissions reductions were reported for three separate

chlorofluorocarbons: CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113.

Most CFC reductions are attributed to CFC-12, with

total reductions of more than 3,200 metric tons reported

for 1995 (Table 13).54 Reductions reported for CFC-11

and CFC-113 totaled less than 5 metric tons for 1995.

Emissions reductions for two PFCs, perfluoroethane

Table 12. Estimated U.S. GWP-Weighted Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, 1990-1995

(Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent)

Gas 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 ......... 92 96 103 99 113 132

Carbon Dioxide .............. 5,037 4,987 5,060 5,176 5,256 5,297

Nitrous Oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 140 140 143 146 141

Methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664 664 666 647 659 649

Total .................... 5,931 5,888 5,970 6,066 6,174 6,219

HFCs = hydrofluorocarbons. PFCs = perfluorocarbons. SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96)

(Washington, DC, October 1997).

53One of 15 projects reported for 1994 was not reported for 1995, 14 projects were reported for both 1994 and 1995, and 8 projects were

newly reported for 1995.

54These totals aggregate direct and indirect reductions and thus introduce the potential for double counting. Reported indirect

reductions of CFC-12 were 6.89 metric tons in 1995, and reported indirect reductions of CFC-11 were 1.75 metric tons. No indirect

reductions were reported for CFC-113.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 59
and perfluoromethane, were reported. These reductions

Table 13. Reported Halocarbon Emissions Reductions, Data Years 1991-1995

(Metric Tons)

Gas 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

CFC-11 ................... 0.00 0.00 1.24 3.04 a4.08

CFC-12 ................... 27.70 2,511.20 2,929.60 3,180.00 3,231.10

CFC-113 .................. 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.33

Perfluoroethane ............. 38.97 42.43 40.93 45.78 42.50

Perfluoromethane ............ 391.69 428.26 414.18 465.77 431.00

Sulfur Hexafluoride ........... 1.57 2.24 8.59 10.29 8.72

HCFC-22 .................. 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.02 0.26

Methyl Chloroform ............ 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.21 8.02

Other ..................... 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47

a

Includes 1.27 metric tons reported on Form EIA-1605EZ.

Note: Direct and indirect reductions have been aggregated, introducing the possibility of double counting; however, total

indirect reductions of all the compounds shown did not exceed 40 metric tons in any year, and only for CFC-11 and HCFC-22

do indirect reductions make up a significant share of the total reductions shown.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

were somewhat less than those reported for CFC-12,

but their respective GWPs of 9,200 and 6,500 magnify

the importance of even small reductions of PFC gases.

Reported reductions of sulfur hexafluoride were small

in nominal terms but significant relative to the very low

aggregate level of national emissions of the gas. Reductions were also reported for HCFC-22 and methyl

chloroform as parts of projects that recovered other

gases, but specific information on methods used to

reduce emissions of these gases was not provided.

Emissions of several CFC substitutes (HCFC-123,

HCFC-142b, and HFC-134a) increased as they displaced

other compounds as blowing agents and as coolants

(Table 14).

Chlorofluorocarbons

Trends in U.S. Emissions

Driven by the phaseout required under the Montreal

Protocol, U.S. emissions of CFCs declined substantially

between 1990 and 1995. Emissions of CFC-11 decreased

by more than 85 percent during that period, due to its

elimination as a blowing agent and a substantial reduction in the number of chillers charged with CFC-11.

Emissions of CFC-12 have dropped more slowly. The

use of CFC-12 as a blowing agent dropped by some 90

percent over the 5 years, but a significant amount

remains in use in automobile air conditioners. Emissions of CFC-113 were reduced by 85 percent between

1990 and 1995.55

Reduction Activities Reported

Thirteen reported projects showed reductions of

CFC-12. Together, these projects reported total emissions reductions of 3,231 metric tons for 1995, a small

(1.6 percent) increase from 1994 levels. This total is by

far the largest reduction for any of the gases in the

halocarbon or other gases category and is nearly all

(99.5 percent) attributable to two projects reported by

Dow Chemical Company. Dow Chemical reported a

CFC refrigeration systems conversion project and the

replacement of CFCs as blowing agents in worldwide

operations that together eliminated more than 3,200

metric tons of CFC-12 emissions. However, Dow substituted HCFC-142b as a blowing agent, increasing emissions of that compound by more than 3,200 metric tons

in 1995 (see box on page 61).

Absent the substantial reductions reported by Dow,

reductions of CFC-12 reported for 1995 would have

been smaller than those reported for 1994, for two

reasons: the termination of Niagara Mohawk’s Refrigerator Roundup program in 1995 (because the full

charge of CFC-12 is recovered at the time of refrigerator

turn-in, appliances removed from service do not generate ongoing emissions reductions) and a substantial

diminution in reductions achieved through Wisconsin

Electric Power’s appliance turn-in program. Refrigerator

roundups and appliance turn-ins were the most commonly reported method for reducing emissions of

CFC-12, with six such projects reported. Two of the

projects also reduced CFC-11 emissions. Overall, seven

55Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

60 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
projects reported reducing emissions of CFC-11 in 1995.

Table 14. Reported Increases in Emissions of CFC Substitutes, Data Years 1991-1995

(Metric Tons)

Gas 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

HCFC-123 ................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08

HCFC-142b ................ 0.00 2,025.00 2,745.00 3,453.00 3,269.00

HFC-134a ................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03

Note: Reported direct increases in emissions of HCFC-123 totaling 0.09 metric tons in 1995 were somewhat offset by

reported indirect reductions of 0.01 metric tons.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

These projects reduced CFC-11 emissions by a total of

4.08 metric tons during 1995, up from just over 3 metric

tons reported for 1994.

Federal Programs To Reduce Emissions

of Chlorofluorocarbons

Chlorofluorocarbons and halocarbons are unique

among greenhouse gases in that their levels of use and

emissions are largely a function of the regulation of

ozone-depleting substances required under the

Montreal Protocol and subsequent, related treaties.

Under the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal

Protocol, as implemented by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, U.S. production of CFCs, with the

exception of small amounts for health and safety equipment, ceased in January 1996.

Perfluorocarbons

Trends in U.S. Emissions

The principal quantifiable source of PFC emissions is

aluminum smelting. PFCs are produced during aluminum production when the alumina content of the electrolytic bath falls below critical levels required by the

electrolytic effect. The resulting electrical upset in the

reduction cell is manifested as a rapid voltage increase.

The gases formed accumulate at the reduction cell

anodes (hence the name “anode effect”). Semiconductor

manufacturing also results in PFC emissions. Total U.S.

Dow Chemical Company:

Replacing CFCs as Blowing Agents in the Manufacture of Foams

Dow Chemical Company does not produce CFCs but

has used them as blowing agents in the manufacture

of foamed plastics and as a refrigerant and heat

transfer fluid in operations. CFCs have very high

molecular stability, allowing them to migrate to the

stratosphere when they are emitted. Once in the

stratosphere, they react with and transform ozone,

depriving Earth of its shield against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Thus, there has been international

agreement to phase out their production and use.

Since January 1996, CFCs have not been produced in

the United States except in very small amounts for

health and safety equipment. Since 1988, Dow has

steadily and substantially reduced their use, and thus

their emissions, throughout worldwide operations that

include plants in 30 nations.

In January 1989, Dow began replacing CFCs in its

operations with HCFCs. From a 1988 peak of more

than 5,500 metric tons, Dow’s worldwide emissions of

CFCs were only 70 metric tons in 1995, nearly a 99-

percent drop. The decline was measured by reviewing

purchase orders and inventories to estimate usage and

incorporating the estimate into an emissions model.

Dow’s use of HCFCs as CFC replacements rose

sharply during the same period, from 1,600 metric

tons in 1990 to nearly 5,000 metric tons in 1995. The

addition of a hydrogen atom in HCFCs reduces their

stability, shortening their atmospheric lifetimes and

thus limiting the likelihood that they will reach the

stratosphere and react with ozone. HCFCs generally

have lower warming impacts than the CFCs they

replace; however, because ozone is itself a greenhouse

contributor, the more benign effect of HCFCs on

ozone may somewhat offset the reduced direct

warming effect they have relative to CFCs. The

ultimate net effect on atmospheric warming from the

substitution of HCFCs for CFCs is still subject to

scientific inquiry.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 61
emissions are estimated to be between 2,000 and 3,000

metric tons annually. Because a full accounting of emissions sources is unavailable, an overall trend is difficult

to discern.56

Reduction Activities Reported

Two aluminum companies, Noranda Aluminum and

Alcan Ingot’s Sebree Aluminum Plant, reported projects

that reduced emissions of perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane. Noranda Aluminum reduced the number

and duration of anode effects through the installation

of computer process controls. Alcan Ingot’s Sebree

Aluminum Plant reduced anode effects and hence PFC

emissions through reductions in production. Together,

these two projects reduced emissions of perfluoromethane by 431 metric tons in 1995, a slightly smaller

reduction than the 466 metric tons reported for 1994.

They also reduced emissions of perfluoroethane by

some 43 metric tons, just below the reduction of 46

metric tons reported for 1994.

Federal Programs To Reduce PFC Emissions

The aluminum industry is limited to a small group of

firms. The principal source of PFCs, anode effects

during aluminum smelting, represent an inefficiency in

production. Thus, this small group can be targeted for

an economic gain. In response, the EPA has created the

Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP),

which seeks to reduce emissions of PFCs, carbon tetrafluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride during primary

aluminum production. Reductions are achieved through

improved management and technological advances

within the industry. The VAIP hopes to reduce emissions of PFCs by 6.6 million metric tons carbon dioxide

equivalent in 2000.

Sulfur Hexafluoride

Trends in U.S. Emissions

Sulfur hexafluoride is used as an insulator for circuit

breakers, switch gear, and other electric equipment and

as a cover gas in magnesium smelting. Annual U.S.

emissions of sulfur hexafluoride are estimated to have

remained steady in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500

metric tons since 1990, with about three-quarters

attributable to electrical equipment and one-quarter to

magnesium smelting. Sulfur hexafluoride has a very

high GWP—23,900 times the warming effect of carbon

dioxide per ton emitted. Therefore, even small amounts

of sulfur hexafluoride can play a disproportionate role

in U.S. contributions to climate change.57

Reduction Activities Reported

Three electric utilities reported projects to reduce emissions of sulfur hexafluoride. Duquesne Light (see box

below) and General Public Utilities improved maintenance and replaced seals on their transmission systems

to reduce emissions. Tucson Electric reduced sulfur

hexafluoride emissions by recycling the gas and returning it to circuit breakers. Together, these projects

accounted for direct emissions reductions of 8.4 metric

tons in 1995, down from the 10.3 metric tons reported

for 1994.

Duquesne Light Company: Reducing

Emissions of Sulfur Hexafluoride

Duquesne Light Company uses sulfur hexafluoride

as an insulating gas in breakers and buses at its

substations. Fugitive emissions at the sites result

from leakage at sealed joints. In January 1993,

Duquesne initiated improved maintenance practices

to identify leaky seals and replace worn gaskets. As

a result, sulfur hexafluoride emissions from

Duquesne’s transmission and distribution system

have declined from more than 12 short tons in 1992

to just above 6 short tons in 1995—a reduction of

nearly 150,000 short tons in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. This project is easily replicable

throughout the electricity transmission and distribution system, and emissions reductions can be

simply estimated from data on purchases of sulfur

hexafluoride.

56Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1997).

57Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC,

October 1996).

62 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
8. Entity-Level Emissions and Future Commitments

About Entity Reporting

The Voluntary Reporting Program encompasses three

alternative mechanisms for reporting emissions and

reductions of greenhouse gases:

• Emissions reduction projects, defined as specific

actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

from a particular source or group of sources

• Entity-level emissions and reductions, defined as

reducing the emissions of an entire company or

other organization

• Commitments to make reductions in emissions in

the future.

These mechanisms reflect differing approaches to the

problem of defining and controlling emissions. The

project approach focuses on a specific action, undertaken in a particular time and place, and then endeavors to estimate (with varying degrees of precision)

the emissions consequences of the action. The entity

approach, on the other hand, focuses on the emissions

outcome, in the form of the actual time profile of the

emissions of a particular organization. The reporter

then may be able to estimate (with varying degrees of

precision) the causes of a change in emissions. Future

commitments are promises to undertake action or

achieve results in the future, and hence can ultimately

be evaluated by the outcomes as reported in future

reporting cycles.

This chapter examines entity-level reporting and future

commitments. Entity-level reporting and project reporting are not mutually exclusive: most entity reporters

also reported on specific projects. Both project-level and

entity-level reporters described future commitments.

In 1996, 51 reporters supplied entity-level reports, a 32-

percent increase over the 38 entity reporters in the

Voluntary Reporting Program’s first year. Most (41) of

the reporters were electric utilities. The nonutilities

included two chemical companies (DuPont and Dow),

two coal companies (Peabody and CONSOL), three

manufacturers (General Motors, Johnson & Johnson,

and IBM), one aluminum smelter (Alcan), a trade

association (Integrated Waste Services Association), and

one household.

The coverage of the U.S. economy and U.S. emissions

by entity-level reports is uneven, with good coverage of

the electric utility sector but much thinner coverage of

other sectors. Although there are about 3,200 electric

utilities in the United States, electricity generation and

sales tend to be dominated by a much smaller number

of very large utilities. Some 244 large investor-owned

utilities account for about 76 percent of sales (measured

in kilowatthours) to ultimate consumers. A further 512

large publicly owned utilities account for about 13 percent of sales to ultimate consumers.58

Entity-level electric utility voluntary reporters accounted for 44 percent of U.S. electric utility emissions and

about 10 percent of U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide

emissions. Coverage in the manufacturing sector was

much lower, with direct emissions accounting for about

2 percent of industrial sector emissions, and about 0.5

percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Entity-Level Emissions

Table 15 summarizes reported entity-level emissions. As

one would expect, emissions—particularly, carbon

emissions—were heavily weighted toward electric utilities. Of the 856 million metric tons of direct carbon

dioxide emissions from stationary sources reported for

1995, nonutilities reported only 54 million tons, of

which 28 million tons was reported by the Integrated

Waste Services Association, whose members burned

municipal solid waste to generate electricity, and 20.5

million tons by Dow Chemical. DuPont also reported

“total carbon dioxide emissions” of 12.2 million metric

tons in 1995 but did not distinguish between direct and

indirect emissions and hence is not included in the

total.

Direct emissions from transportation sources reported

are largely incidental emissions from the vehicle fleets

of reporting companies.59 Since transportation emissions are dominated by households and transportation

58Energy Information Administration, Financial Statistics: Major U.S. Publicly Owned Electric Utilities 1995 (DOE/EIA-0437(95)/2

(Washington, June 1997), pp. 3-4.

59The “blip” in 1990, 1994, and 1995 transportation emissions are due to reporting on emission in those years only by a coal company.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 63
Table 15. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Type of Activity, 1988-1995

(Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide)

Type of Emission 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Direct Emissions

Stationary Combustion

1988-1995 Reporters ..... 623,027 604,949 601,765 613,234 592,636 628,382 622,600 649,259

1990-1995 Reporters . . . . . -- -- 194,412 137,571 152,017 148,523 188,963 206,492

Total ................ 623,027 604,949 796,177 750,805 746,653 776,905 811,563 855,751

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . 175 175 676 174 170 162 606 620

Indirect Emissions

Purchased Power ......... 82,522 78,136 90,239 87,267 89,021 93,047 91,406 102,252

Electricity Wholesale ....... 29,178 34,176 43,442 35,818 36,988 33,935 30,259 35,322

Other (GM Vehicles) ....... 477,292 459,460 441,381 425,673 412,059 397,320 385,120 378,344

Note: Not all reporters provided historical data for years prior to 1990. “1988-1995 Reporters” are the group of reporters who

provided emissions data for the entire period; “1990-1995 Reporters” provided information only for 1990 and subsequent years.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” Schedule III.

firms such as airlines and railroads (which did not report), it is not surprising that reported emissions are

very low.

Indirect emissions are defined as emissions from

sources other than that owned by the reporter, but

caused by actions on the part of the reporter. The

predominant source of indirect emissions is the purchase or sale of electricity. Both utilities and nonutilities

purchase electricity, and they reported estimated

“indirect” emissions based on the supposed generation

mix of the seller. Most small utilities in the United

States do not own their own generating capacity, but

purchase power from larger utilities. Indirect emissions

can thus potentially be “double reported” if the seller

is a reporting utility.

Another reporting complication is illustrated by the

“electricity wholesaling” figure. As noted above, many

utilities sell electricity to other utilities. In the EIA

reporting scheme, an emission from generation is a

“direct emission,” while an emission caused by the reporter’s use of electricity generated by others is an

“indirect emission.” However, views differ on who

“owns” the emissions arising from power generated on

behalf of others. The “electricity wholesaling” figure

was calculated on the basis of information reported by

seven utilities with significant third-party sales, which

took the view that their “net” emissions should exclude

emissions for power generated on behalf of others. Two

utilities (Allegheny and Pacificorp) accounted for the

bulk of reported electricity wholesaling.

The final indirect emissions category illustrates another

reporting issue. General Motors reported, as an indirect

emission, the calculated emissions of the fleet of GM

vehicles in operation in the United States. Since the fuel

efficiency of GM’s vehicles has increased in recent

years, the emissions of GM-built vehicles, taken as a

group, have declined. The reported emissions account

for about 23 percent of U.S. transportation emissions.

Table 16 illustrates reported emissions of greenhouse

gases other than carbon dioxide. Only 11 reporters described emissions other than carbon dioxide. Most of

these reporters indicated only minor emissions caused

by combustion of fossil fuels or refrigerant leaks. There

were, however, a few reporters who provided information on significant emissions (and reductions) from

gases other than carbon dioxide.

CONSOL reported on methane emissions from its

underground coal mining operations. By installing

degasification systems and shifting production to less

gassy mines, CONSOL reported that it was able to

reduce methane emissions by 43 percent between 1990

and 1994. This is the global warming equivalent of

about 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (3.3

million metric tons carbon equivalent), or about 0.2

percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

DuPont reported emitting around 50,000 metric tons of

nitrous oxide each year from it adipic acid plants. This

is the equivalent of about 13 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide (3.6 million metric tons carbon equivalent). DuPont indicates that it intends to install control

measures that will sharply reduce these emissions in

the near future.

Two firms reported entity-level emissions of perfluorocarbons: an aluminum smelter and a chemical company. A single firm (Dow) reported emissions of sulfur

hexafluoride. Florida Power & Light reported reductions in emissions (but not the emissions themselves) of

64 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
sulfur hexafluoride. In fact, small-scale emissions of

Table 16. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases, 1988-1995

(Metric Tons of Gas)

Gas 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Methane

Direct (Consol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NR NR 1,364,049 NR NR NR 783,407 837,543

Direct (Other Reporters) ....... 1,298 1,183 1,242 1,319 1,258 1,278 1,248 1,211

Indirect .................... 400,112 400,024 400,066 400,022 400,017 400,063 300,041 300,055

Nitrous Oxide

DuPont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NR NR NR 48,534 44,906 48,988 46,720 54,885

Other Reporters ............. 1 1 111111

Hydrofluorocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . NR NR NR 1,209 1,275 1,673 2,572 2,225

Perfluorocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NR NR NR 203 130 131 130 129

Sulfur Hexafluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . NR NR NR NR 0 0 40 54

Chlorofluorocarbons ........... 10,901 7,018 6,531 6,227 5,819 5,600 4,749 4,057

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons . . . . . . . NR NR NR 1,761 2,333 2,764 2,869 4,734

Other Ozone-Depleting Chemicals . 3,465 1,993 1,741 868 329 591 292 208

NR = not reported.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” Schedule III.

sulfur hexafluoride are probably common to most electric utilities.

There were a number of reporters of chemicals currently being phased out as ozone depleters, pursuant to

the Montreal Protocol, including chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), carbon

tetrachloride, chloroform, and methylene chloride. All

of the organizations reporting on these chemicals indicated that emissions declined rapidly during the 1990s.

Entity-Level Reductions

Most reporting organizations described both emissions

and reductions in emissions on their entity reports.

(There were a few exceptions: 5 of the 51 organizations

reported emissions only, in order to provide a baseline

for future claims of reductions.) Table 17 summarizes

the reports of emissions reductions received. Emissions

reductions totaling some 106 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (29 million metric tons carbon equivalent)

were reported for 1995, equivalent to about 2 percent of

1995 U.S. emissions.

About 21 percent of total reductions were claimed by

the Integrated Waste Services Association, reporting on

behalf of a large portion of the waste-to-energy capacity

in the United States. The Association argues that by

combusting solid waste to make electricity, its members

reduce emissions from fossil fuels and also avoid methane emissions that would otherwise have been caused

by anaerobic decomposition of municipal solid waste.

Other large reductions were claimed by Florida Power

& Light (22.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide),

Duke Power (12.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (10.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide).

The concept of an emissions reduction is more complex

than one might imagine. Reduction claims are principally affected by the diverse ways in which organizations defined two ambiguous reporting issues:

• The definition of the reference case

• The treatment of “indirect” emissions and reductions.

The Definition of the Reference Case

A reduction can be defined as a reduction compared

with emissions at some other point in time (for example, emissions are less than they were in 1990), or as

a reduction compared with an alternative state of the

world (new wind turbines reduced emissions in 1995

compared to what would have been emitted if the wind

turbine had not been built). The state of the world to

which actual emissions are compared is called “the

reference case.” A reference case defined as emissions

at a particular point in time (usually 1990) is a “basic

reference case.” A reference case defined as emissions

that would have occurred if emissions reductions actions had not been taken is called a “modified reference

case.” The actual emissions of firms adopting a modified reference case have often (but not universally) risen

over time.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 65
Table 17. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions by Type of Activity, 1991-1995

(Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide)

Gas 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Direct Reductions

Stationary Combustion .............. 25,413 44,044 53,089 65,143 83,107

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 14 91 79

Other Direct Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 * 12 15 85

Indirect Reductions

Purchased Power .................. 4,462 2,550 5,764 3,014 2,370

Electricity Wholesaling .............. 4,802 6,398 5,865 8,241 6,823

Other Indirect Sources ..............

Integrated Waste Services Association . . -- -- -- -- 22,136

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -52 -352 -850 1,002 1,363

Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 391 419 452 766

Reported Total Reductions

Integrated Waste Services Association . . . -- -- -- -- 22,136

Others .......................... 27,259 46,842 56,606 67,198 84,126

*Less than 500 metric tons.

Note: “Reported Total Reductions” do not add to the sum of reported components due to differences in the accounting

treatment of indirect emissions by various reporters, and because some reporters did not disaggregate their emissions

reductions by category.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” Schedule III.

Most companies submitting entity-level reports used

modified reference cases. The most common arrangement was to assert that the collection of projects

reported on Schedule II had reduced emissions compared with the case in which the projects had not been

undertaken. All of the largest reductions claimed

(Florida Power & Light, Duke, and TVA) came from

organizations that used a modified reference case, and

all indicated that their reductions were the result of

nuclear availability improvements and (in the case of

Florida Power & Light) shifting fossil generation from

coal-fired steam turbines to gas-fired combined-cycle

plants. Duke Power indicated that reductions came

from changes in generation mix and from improved

operation of three nuclear power plants.

Ten firms reported reductions using a basic reference

case, comparing their emissions with their 1990 emissions or their emissions over a period of years. Table 18

illustrates the 1990 and 1995 carbon dioxide emissions

for these firms. The claimed 1995 reductions for three

reporters differed from the “difference” shown in Table

18. Public Service Electricity & Gas used an average of

1987-1989 emissions, and Long Island Lighting Company and Northeast Utilities used a 1987-1990 average to

calculate their “baseline.” The carbon dioxide reductions claimed by these firms were 787,000, 1,289,000,

and 1,073,000 metric tons respectively. DTE (formerly

Detroit Edison) had emissions that were below 1990

levels through 1994, but which increased again when its

nuclear power plant shut down in 1995.

Treatment of Indirect Emissions

The report from Public Service Electricity & Gas

(PSE&G) illustrates the potential importance of the

accounting treatment of indirect emissions from electric

power transactions. PSE&G’s direct emissions declined

between 1990 and 1995, but its indirect emissions from

power purchases increased by a greater amount (Table

18).

Several reporters could have used the basic reference

case to report emissions reductions by comparison with

their 1990 emissions but elected not to do so. These

firms included Johnson & Johnson, Ohio Edison, and

Pennsylvania Power & Light, all claiming reductions

that were considerably smaller than they might have

claimed by using a basic reference case.

Table 19 illustrates reported emissions reductions for

gases other than carbon dioxide. In general, the firms

that reported emissions of gases other than carbon

dioxide at the entity level tended to be very conservative about formally claiming reductions, even when

their emissions declined. One of the largest claims of

emissions reductions was by CONSOL, which made a

very straightforward presentation: CONSOL’s reported

1990 methane emissions from coal mining were 1.36

66 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table 18. Reported 1990 and 1995 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Selected Reporters Using a

“Basic Reference Case”

(Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide)

Reporter

1990 1995 Difference

in Total

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Emissions

Arizona Public Service Corporation .......... 13,898 -- 13,898 11,251 -- 11,251 -2,647

Central Hudson Electric and Gas ............ 7,337 257 7,594 3,726 985 4,711 -2,883

DTE/Detroit Edison ...................... 39,637 5,696 45,333 41,511 5,112 46,622 1,289

Long Island Lighting Company .............. 8,271 1,405 9,677 6,290 2,510 8,800 -877

Los Angeles Department of Power and Water . . . 15,347 1,067 16,414 13,757 1,021 14,778 -1,636

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ......... 15,157 3,605 18,762 8,254 7,068 15,322 -3,440

Northeast Utilities ....................... 10,587 1,987 12,574 7,775 2,477 10,251 -2,323

Peabody Holding Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 1,103 1,700 462 881 1,345 -355

Potomac Electric Power Company ........... 19,546 -- 19,546 16,939 -- 16,939 -2,607

Public Service Electric and Gas ............. 12,500 6,931 19,430 9,760 11,612 21,372 1,942

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” Schedule III.

Table 19. Reported U.S. Entity-Level Emissions Reductions for Other Gases, 1991-1995

(Thousand Metric Tons of Gas)

Gas 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Methane

Direct Reductions

CONSOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- 89,754 302,088 580,641 526,505

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 1,908 3,022 2,723 4,357

Indirect Reductions

Integrated Waste Services Association . . -- -- -- -- 907,185

Others ......................... 16,237 46,477 51,105 53,224 55,520

CFCs, HCFCs, and Solvents . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- 3 7 12

HFC-134a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- -- -- -- *

Sulfur Hexafluoride .................. -- 5 5 5 *

*Less than 500 metric tons.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-1605, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,” Schedule III.

million metric tons; its 1995 emissions were 0.84 million

metric tons; thus, methane emissions were reduced by

0.53 million metric tons (3 million metric tons carbon

equivalent). The other large reduction claim came from

the Integrated Waste Services Association, which

claimed that by burning waste that otherwise would

have been landfilled, it reduced methane emissions

from landfills by more than 900,000 metric tons (5.2

million metric tons carbon equivalent). Peabody

Holdings also claimed a much smaller direct reduction

of methane emissions from coal mining, using a modified reference case. Other indirect emissions reductions

were claimed by several electric utilities, notably the

New England Electric System and Cinergy, both of

which reduced methane emissions by purchasing electric power generated from landfill methane projects.

Foreign Emissions and Reductions

In general, only incidental or marginal entity-level

foreign emissions were reported. Most reporters with

international operations defined their reporting entity

as the U.S. operations of the firm. The principal exception was Dow Chemical, which reported on both U.S.

and foreign operations. Other firms, including Baltimore Gas & Electric, Cinergy, Duke Power, Florida

Power & Light, Illinois Power, Kansas City Power &

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 67
Light, the New England Electric System, Ohio Edison,

Sierra Pacific, and Tampa Electric, reported emissions

“offsets” from international forestry projects.

Future Commitments

In addition to collecting information on emissions and

achieved reductions, the EIA also collects information

on commitments to reduce emissions in the future,

using Schedule IV of the reporting form (see Appendix

A). Reporting on commitments to take future actions

was not envisaged in the statutory language of the

Energy Policy Act; however, during the development of

the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program,

the Department of Energy asked the EIA to include a

section in which reporters could voluntarily record

future commitments.

Some 60 reporters (out of 142) used Schedule IV to

record future commitments. The reporters making

future commitments, without exception, were participants in various U.S. Government voluntary programs

and used the Voluntary Reporting Program to reiterate

formally commitments made under the program(s) in

which they were participating.

In order to facilitate reporting, the EIA developed a

taxonomy of reduction commitments:

• Entity commitments. As the name suggests, an entity commitment is a commitment by the reporter to

reduce emissions or to sequester carbon on behalf of

an entire organization. The essence of an entity

commitment is that the reporter promises results,

without necessarily specifying means. This year, 26

firms made 40 specific entity commitments.

• Entity financial commitment. In this instance, the

reporter undertakes to spend a particular amount of

money but does not necessarily commit the organization to the results of the expenditure. This year,

30 reporters made 61 financial commitments.

• Project commitment. In a project commitment, the

reporter promises to undertake a particular action,

without necessarily specifying the exact results of

the action. This year, 39 firms made 252 project

commitments.

As the figures above suggest, the reporters filing these

forms typically made more than one type of commitment and usually made more than a single commitment

of each type.

Entity Commitments

Of the 26 entity commitments, 22 were made by electric

utilities. (The nonutilities were Dow, DuPont, Noranda,

and Alcan.) The commitments took diverse forms. Some

of the more interesting entity commitments were:

• Florida Power & Light promised to limit its emissions rate to the 1990 level of 1.38 pounds of carbon

dioxide emitted for each kilowatthour sold. Pacificorp made a similar commitment, promising to reduce its emissions rate to 10 percent below 1990

levels.

• DuPont promised to reduce its GWP-weighted

emissions of greenhouse gases by 40 percent compared with a 1991 baseline.

• Dow Chemical promised to reduce its emissions of

certain “high toxic and ozone depleting chemicals

75 percent by 2005” from 1994 levels. The chemicals

include all the common CFCs, certain HCFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and chloroform.

• Public Service Electricity & Gas promised to reduce

its entity emissions to 2.5 million tons below 1987-

1990 average levels by 2000. New England Electric

Systems promised a 20-percent reduction below

1990 levels.

The most common entity commitment, however, was to

reduce emissions by some specified amount below the

utility’s projected year 2000 emissions.

Project Financial Commitments

This year, 30 reporters made 61 financial commitments,

totaling some $110 million, of which about $10.5 million

was actually expended in 1995. Of the total amount,

some $78 million was committed (in 12 separate initiatives) by the Southern Company, including $46 million

for a single coal ash recycling project.

Twenty-seven of the thirty reporters were electric

utilities. The nonutilities were Alcan, Noranda, and

DeBourgh Manufacturing. Alcan and Noranda committed to an improvement in smelting technology that

would reduce emissions of perfluorocarbons, and

DeBourgh committed to spending money on highefficiency lighting, converting to powder painting, and

reducing convection heat loss in manufacturing operations.

68 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Most electric utility financial commitments were connected with “mutual fund” type programs organized by

the Edison Electric Institute. These included:

• The “UtiliTree” forest carbon management initiative

(20 commitments)

• The “Envirotech” venture capital Fund (5 commitments)

• The “Earth Comfort” geothermal heat pump program (10 commitments).

In each, the Edison Electric Institute has organized and

manages an investment pool, to which utility members

are invited to contribute funds. The pool itself then

invests in forestry projects (in the case of UtiliTree) or

in energy efficiency or renewable energy technology

(Envirotech) or geothermal heat pumps (Earth Comfort).

Project Commitments

The third form of commitment is a project commitment.

In this instance, a reporter commits to undertaking a

particular action. This year, 39 firms made 252 project

commitments. Thirty-five of the firms were electric

utilities. The nonutilities were Alcan, DeBourgh Manufacturing, Dow Chemical, and Noranda Aluminum.

Firms tended to use project-level commitments for two

distinct purposes:

• To report on some of the estimated future consequence of projects already reported under Schedule

II. Reporters indicated that 125 of the 252 project

commitments were made with respect to the future

performance of projects already listed. The largest

emissions reductions promised from projects currently reported were by Tennessee Valley Authority

(increase in low-emitting capacity) and Texas Utilities (availability improvements), both referring to

nuclear power plants.

• To report on planned (but not yet implemented)

projects. There were 127 such projects, many with

specific reductions attached. The largest reduction

promised for a new project was by Pennsylvania

Power & Light, which expects to reduce its direct

emissions by 0.6 million tons and its indirect

emissions by 3.6 million tons by upgrading its

Susquehanna Station.

In a few cases, reporters tended to spread their commitments to undertake emissions reductions across categories. For example, NIPSCO reported its participation

in the Edison Electric Institute’s UtiliTree program as

both a financial commitment and a project commitment.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 69
Appendix A

The Voluntary Reporting Program:

A Developmental Overview

Introduction

Rising global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other “greenhouse

gases” have been a subject of increasing scientific and

policy concern for the past decade. Many scientists and

policymakers believe that increasing atmospheric concentrations of these gases (thought to be caused by

human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil

fuels) may cause significant long-term changes in global

weather and climate by trapping more of the sun’s heat

within the atmosphere. The heat trapping properties of

greenhouse gases are discussed in the box in Chapter

1, page 6.

In 1992, President Bush signed a multilateral treaty, the

Framework Convention on Climate Change, which

committed the United States to take steps, in conjunction with other signatory states, to “. . . achieve . . .

stabilization of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”60

As the Framework Convention was being negotiated,

the Congress began to consider measures that would

help the U.S. Government develop the national “commitment” required by the treaty. One such measure

was Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,

which requires the Energy Information Administration

(EIA) to create reporting forms and a database for the

voluntary reporting of emissions and reductions in

emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Voluntary Reporting Program was developed in a

cooperative effort with potential reporters, the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. The program permits

individuals, corporations, and other organizations to

report to the EIA on actions taken that have reduced

emissions of greenhouse gases.

Reporters may choose to undertake the considerable

effort of preparing their submissions for a variety of

reasons, such as:

• To establish a public record of their voluntary contributions to achieving a national policy objective

• To provide the opportunity for others to benefit

from their experience in reducing emissions

• To demonstrate their commitment to voluntary approaches to solving or ameliorating environmental

conditions

• To record the activities undertaken pursuant to

voluntary programs under the President’s Climate

Change Action Plan

• To create a presumption of “standing” in a possible

future regulatory scheme to stabilize or reduce

national emissions of greenhouse gases.

Development of the

Voluntary Reporting Program

The Voluntary Reporting Program is required by Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (see box

in Chapter 1, page 2). More than 3 years elapsed from

the passage of the law, in October 1992, to the completion of the first reporting cycle. The development of the

Voluntary Reporting Program consisted of three phases:

• Guidelines development (October 1992 to October

1994)

• Forms development (February 1994 to July 1995)

• First report processing (July 1995 to March 1996).

60United Nations, ”Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework on Convention for Climate Change on

the Work of the Second Part of its Fifth Session, Held at New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992,” UN Document A/AC.237/18, Part II

(May 15, 1992).

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 71
Guidelines Development

The principal clauses of Section 1605(b) of the Energy

Policy Act require the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), in consultation with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), to issue guidelines for reporting emissions of greenhouse gases. The EIA was

then required to develop a reporting framework consistent with the guidelines. The information collected

was to be accessible for public use.

The development of the guidelines was assigned to

DOE’s Office of Policy, which began a series of public

workshops to gather information about public expectations of the program. The public workshops on the

guidelines ran from September 1993 to March 1994 and

were held in Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, and

Chicago, IL. The workshops spanned a range of issues

relating to the objectives of the Voluntary Reporting

Program, the definition of a “credible” report, and

methods of reporting.

On April 21, 1993 (Earth Day), President Clinton committed the United States to stabilizing its emissions of

greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The

methods by which the Government proposes to achieve

this objective were described in the President’s Climate

Change Action Plan, published in October 1993.61 That

document spells out a range of largely voluntary programs intended to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Readers may also wish to consult the Action Plan’s

Technical Supplement, published in early 1994, which

describes the assumptions underlying the Plan in greater detail.62

Differing notions of the purpose of the Voluntary

Reporting Program were expressed, as well as differing

views about the nature and type of information to be

collected. Many potential reporters tended to stress the

notion that the reporting system should be “simple and

flexible.” They typically opposed suggestions to construct detailed “official” definitions of baselines, reporting entities, and coverage of reports. It was argued

that such definitions were premature in an experimental program, would discourage companies from

reporting, and would render the program relatively

narrow.

Some commenters argued the reverse. They urged explicit and specific definitions of “who is responsible for

an emission.” The individuals and organizations holding these views hoped to elicit reports that revealed

absolute and verifiable emissions reductions.

Following the workshops, a public review draft of the

guidelines was published in May 1994. After further

public comment, final guidelines were published in

October 1994.63

The guidelines contain several broad themes that have

shaped the program:

• The Department held that the primary objective of

the program was “broad participation.” Any U.S.

“legal person” (i.e., individual, corporation, trade

association, or private voluntary organization) may

report.

• Within the confines of the statute, reporters were

given nearly complete flexibility in crafting their

reports. Reporters were free to define as they saw

fit the nature of the reporting entity, the emissions

and reductions to be reported, methods of calculating emissions and reductions, and the type of activity deemed to cause emissions reductions.

• Reporters were to be permitted to report on activities both in the United States and abroad, so long as

they distinguish between domestic and foreign activities.

• Reporters were to be encouraged to report both

emissions and emissions reductions as comprehensively as possible, accounting for both “direct”

and “indirect” emissions, and also for “primary”

and “secondary” effects. These terms are further

defined below.

• Reporters were to be encouraged to report on emissions and emissions reductions for a range of greenhouse gases.

• Reporters were to be permitted to report “achieved

reductions,” defined as emissions reductions

achieved since 1990.

The guidelines did not define “property rights” in

emissions. For example, the emissions from generating

electricity could be the responsibility of an electric

utility or the purchaser of the electricity. By accepting

the validity of differing possible interpretations of who

“owns” emissions, reporters were given considerable

61President William J. Clinton, The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993), p. i.

62U.S. Department of Energy, The Climate Change Action Plan: Technical Supplement, DOE/PO-0011 (Washington DC, March 1994).

63U.S. Department of Energy, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992: General

Guidelines, and Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies Supporting the General Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse

Gases Under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Volumes 1 and 2, DOE/PO-0028 (Washington, DC, October 1994).

72 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
flexibility in reporting on their greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reduction activities. The guidelines

explicitly recognized the possibility that, in the absence

of clear “property rights,” two or more organizations

might report on the same emissions reduction activity,

an eventuality called “double reporting.” The flexibility

of the guidelines has, of necessity, resulted in a relatively complex reporting form and database.

Forms Development

The EIA developed, in parallel, reporting forms and a

database consistent with the guidelines. In early

November 1994, 2 weeks after the issuance of the final

guidelines, the EIA issued draft forms for public

review. The draft forms were pre-tested by several

firms interested in reporting, including Niagara

Mohawk Power, Houston Light & Power, and General

Motors. Many useful comments were received, both

from pre-testers and from the public review process.

Following the public review, the EIA sent the forms to

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for

formal clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

a legal requirement for any Federal data collection

exercise. The OMB requested further public comment

and, after reviewing the forms, cleared them for public

use in May 1995. After final editing and layout revisions to enhance readability, the EIA released the

forms to the public in July 1995.

The Voluntary Reporting Program

and the Climate Change Action Plan

As the President’s Climate Change Action Plan got

underway, managers of certain DOE- and EPAsponsored voluntary emissions reduction programs (as

well as some participants) felt the need for a reporting

system to record and describe the actions of participants in those programs. The 1605(b) Voluntary

Reporting Program, already underway with an OMBapproved data collection instrument and a requirement

to collect information about a broad range of emissions

reduction activities, turned out to be a useful vehicle

for recording results of the voluntary reduction programs. Participants in the “Climate Challenge” program

(for electric utilities) and the “Climate Wise” program

(for manufacturing firms) are strongly encouraged to

file reports documenting their emissions reduction

efforts with the Voluntary Reporting Program.64

Forms Design

The data collection forms for the Voluntary Reporting

Program, as developed, endeavor to cover the complexity in categories of emissions required by the

guidelines. To this end, the structure of the voluntary

reporting database needed to be expansible to cover

many different contingencies, including the following:

• Reporters ranged from some of the largest industrial firms in the United States to individual

households and voluntary organizations.

• Reporters could report on particular actions they

had taken to reduce emissions or on the emissions

(and reductions) of their entire organizations.

• The statute required, and reporters requested, the

ability to report on many different classes of actions

that have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, ranging from energy conservation to

carbon sequestration.

• The reporting format seeks to identify areas where

multiple reporting of the same project actually

occurs, and to make possible a general assessment

of the reliability and possible ownership of the

reports.

• The lack of generally accepted accounting principles

for greenhouse gas emissions requires a design that

permits a variety of reporting formats. This led to

ambiguities that the forms design tried to clarify.

• The guidelines permit the reporting of foreign emissions reduction actions.

• The guidelines permit reporting on reductions for a

range of greenhouse gases.

• Managers of voluntary programs asked the EIA to

develop a mechanism for collecting participants’

commitments to reduce future emissions.

The EIA developed two alternative reporting instruments: the long form (Form EIA-1605), which comprises

four schedules (described in the box on page 74), and

the short form (Form EIA-1605EZ). The short form is

intended to cover reporting solely on emissions reduction projects and for a single year only.

The text box on page 74 outlines the basic structure of

the long form. The form has four schedules. The first

schedule simply asks for the name and address of the

64Not all participants in those programs have filed 1605(b) reports. Many participants have promised to take actions in the future, which

will not be reportable until the actions have produced results. Section 1605(b) obliges the EIA to receive reports of “achieved reductions,”

meaning the results of actions already taken. Further, many participants joined the voluntary programs after the close of the 1995 reporting

cycle. Finally, some voluntary program participants may have experienced difficulty in gathering together the necessary information to

file their reports.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 73
The Structure of Form EIA-1605

Schedule I. General Information

This schedule asks for the reporter’s name, address,

and type of entity, and whether the report contains

confidential information.

Schedule II. Project Level Emissions and Reductions

This schedule covers reporting of specific actions that

the reporter has taken that have reduced emissions. It

is divided into ten parts, each covering a specific type

of project. Each part requests general information

about the location and nature of the project, emissions, emissions reductions, and (if applicable) fuel or

energy savings. Each part also asks a number of questions specific to the project type that will enhance the

ability of data users to assess the emissions reductions

claimed.

Section 1 Electric Power Generation, Transmission,

and Distribution

Section 2 Cogeneration

Section 3 Energy End Use

Section 4 Transportation and Off-Road Vehicles

Section 5 Waste Treatment and Disposal—Methane

Section 6 Agriculture—Methane and Nitrous Oxide

Section 7 Oil and Natural Gas Systems and Coal

Mining—Methane

Section 8 Carbon Sequestration

Section 9 Halogenated Substances

Section 10 Other Projects

Schedule III. Entity Level Emissions and Reductions

This schedule covers reporting on the emissions of an

entire entity. It requests direct and indirect emissions,

reductions in direct and indirect emissions, carbon

sequestered, and total emissions reductions.

Schedule IV. Commitments to Emissions Reduction

or Sequestration Projects

This schedule permits reporters to outline commitments to reduce emissions in the future, generally

as part of a Government-sponsored voluntary program.

reporter, along with some particulars about the report.

The most fundamental distinction is between “project

reporting” in Schedule II, and “entity reporting” in

Schedule III. Project reporters are reporting on specific

actions they have taken to reduce emissions. Entity

reporters are reporting on emissions and emissions

reductions for an entire organization. For example,

during the second reporting cycle of the Voluntary

Reporting Program (1996 reporting year), 51 reporters

provided entity-level reports, and 129 reporters

provided project-level reports. Thirty-nine reporters

filed both entity-level and project-level reports, while 13

reporters filed only entity-level reports. Within

Schedule II, the report is further subdivided into ten

sections, reflecting the diversity of anticipated reduction

actions. Each section contains general questions that are

applicable to all ten sections, as well as other questions

which are specific to the particular type of project, to

help reporters and the EIA understand and describe the

project.

In order to clarify what reporters are claiming as

“their” emissions, the voluntary reporting system

generally distinguishes between “direct” and “indirect”

emissions. A direct emission is defined as an emission

from a facility owned by a reporter, while an indirect

emission is defined as an emission from a facility

owned by someone else, but for whose emissions the

reporter deems himself to be responsible.

Schedule IV was added to assist participants in DOEand EPA-sponsored voluntary programs in recording

their commitments to reduce future emissions. Fortytwo firms reported on Schedule IV. All Schedule IV

reporters were electric utilities, and all were participants in the “Climate Challenge” program.

74 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Appendix B

Emissions Accounting Issues

Introduction

The Department of Energy’s guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting Program generally took the view that it

was for reporters themselves to define the emissions

and reductions for which they felt themselves responsible. However, it was the task of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to develop a reporting

system in which these possibly diverse definitions

could be made clear to data users. In attempting to

achieve this objective, the EIA was able to identify a

number of emissions accounting issues that presented

significant problems in understanding and interpreting

the data.

This appendix discusses several important issues in the

development of the forms and the review of incoming

reports. This work may assist data users in understanding the uses and limitations of data from the Voluntary

Reporting Program.

The Nature of the Entity

As noted in Chapter 8 of this report, there are different

views about the nature of the entity, and reporters have

adopted various conventions. In general, the most common definition of the entity is a corporation. However,

reporters have made a number of modifications to this

concept; for example, General Motors excluded its overseas operations and its interest in Electronic Data Systems (EDS) from its definition of its corporate entity.

Most electric utilities defined their entities as their

regulated utility activities, excluding unrelated activities

owned by their holding companies. Houston Light &

Power excluded the activities of its parent company,

Houston Industries, which include a cable TV operation.

Not all entities are firms. Several reporters are facilities,

notably, Alcan’s Sebree Aluminum Plant, which reduced emissions of perfluorocarbons. Several firms reported projects which they undertook on behalf of

some other organization, such as landfill methane capture or tree planting, where the owner of the project

was not necessarily the reporter. This led to several

instances of multiple reporting.

Types of Reports

The language of the statute calls for reporting of

“annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions . . .

achieved through any measures . . .” (1605(b)(1)(B)),

and separately calls for “an aggregate calculation of

greenhouse gas emissions by each reporting entity.” As

interpreted in the guidelines and in the forms, it establishes two categories of reporting of emissions reduction:

• In an “entity-wide” report, the emissions reported

are the emissions of the entire entity: for example,

the total emissions of a particular electric utility.

The emissions of the entity can rise or fall. Some

firms (6) did not report emissions reductions but

simply reported emissions.

• In a “project report,” the reporter indicates the

results of certain specified actions taken (called

“projects”) that resulted in a reduction of emissions

of greenhouse gases (or increased sequestration).

Most firms that filed entity-wide reports also filed

one or more reports on projects.

Emissions and Reductions

The distinction between reporting emissions and reporting emissions reductions is fundamental to the Voluntary Reporting Program. The program, following the

language of the statute, asks for both emissions and

reductions. At the entity level, the definition of

emissions is relatively straightforward. At the project

level, however, the definitions of emissions and reductions can be intricate. The fundamental problem is that

the project may be only a piece of a larger system, and

it is not clear whether “emissions and reductions” refer

to the emissions of the part or the emissions of the

whole system.

In some cases, a project may not have meaningful emissions at all. For example, large electric utilities have

multiple power generation plants that are used, as a

group, to generate electricity. Since electricity consumption varies from moment to moment—depending on the

season, weather, time of day, and whims of thousands

or millions of customers—utilities operate dispatch

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 75
centers that continually choose the least-cost generation

mix to actually dispatch at a particular moment in time.

At any given time, some plants may be on “spinning

reserve,” some are generating power, others may be on

standby, and others may be shut down for maintenance. All available generation units are ranked by

“merit order” (some combination of short-run marginal

cost and operational considerations) and are used in

order of increasing “merit,” with the lowest cost units

used first, subject to availability. Momentary surpluses

of electricity may be sold to others, and shortages may

be made up by purchases from others.

Suppose a large utility replaces an old, low-efficiency

fossil plant with a new, high-efficiency plant. In

principle, the new plant could affect the usage (and

hence emissions) of every other plant on the utility’s

system, and even on other utility systems, since the

new unit will “bump” all higher cost units in the merit

order. Thus, the relevant emissions that are being reduced by the project are the emissions of the entire

system, and the actual emissions of the new plant may

be much higher than the emissions of the old unit.

Since the old unit was a high-cost unit, it may have

been used only occasionally. The new unit, with low

costs, will be dispatched frequently and will displace

the emissions not of the unit it replaced, but of other

units with costs greater than the new unit but lower

than the old unit.

Some utility reporters chose to define their emissions as

all of their power generation emissions. Other utilities

defined their emissions as the emissions of a particular

plant. While both definitions are reasonable, they are

not comparable.

Direct and Indirect

Emissions and Reductions

One of the more contentious issues that emerged in the

process of developing the guidelines was the question

of defining exactly who was responsible for particular

emissions. Suppose, for example, in response to an EPA

initiative, that a refrigerator manufacturer designs and

builds an energy-efficient refrigerator with performance

that far exceeds that of other refrigerators on the market. An electric utility then offers rebates to customers

if they purchase the energy-efficient refrigerator. Customers buy the refrigerator and accept the rebate. The

customers purchase less electricity, and the electric

utility generates (or purchases) less electricity from

fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions. But who is

“responsible” for this reduction, and on what grounds?

• Government (for sponsoring the initiative)?

• The refrigerator manufacturer (for building the refrigerator)?

• The refrigerator dealer (for choosing to buy and

carry the efficient model in preference to some other

model)?

• The electric utility (for offering the rebate)?

• The customer (for choosing to buy the refrigerator)?

• The customer (for purchasing less electricity)?

• The electric utility (for burning less fuel)?

• Some other electric utility (for burning less fuel, as

a consequence of selling less electricity to the customer’s utility)?

There is no perfect answer to this question. All the participants have some influence on the eventual outcome.

Further, “responsibility” can have multiple meanings.

Will a firm be made legally responsible for the emissions in some hypothesized future regulatory environment? Or, alternatively, who gets “recognition” for

taking an action that reduces emissions?

In addition, different observers could choose a particular responsible party for different reasons, which means

that they might agree on this example and disagree on

some other example. Some might view the payment of

the rebate as the “act” that makes the utility the

“responsible” party. Others might view the utility as

the responsible party because it was the utility whose

emissions actually declined.

The guidelines, in accordance with legislative provisions and the objective of broad participation, do not

assign the “right” to report emissions or reductions.

Thus, in the Voluntary Reporting Program, all the participants in the hypothetical transaction described can

justifiably report on an action to reduce emissions, since

ownership in this case is not exclusive.

This decision created, not surprisingly, second-order

problems for the design of the reporting system. The

two largest problems were:

• Multiple entities could report on the same project,

a contingency dubbed “multiple reporting.”

• Since reporters’ definitions of “their” emissions and

reductions are, in principle, restricted only by the

reporters’ (possibly inclusive) notions of the nature

of causation, it could be very difficult to determine

the actual origin of the claimed emissions and reductions.

76 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
The design of the Voluntary Reporting Program took

several steps to identify instances of multiple reporting

and to clarify reporters’ definitions of emissions. To

clarify instances of multiple reporting, project-level

reporters are asked whether other entities might be

reporting on the same activity and, if so, who. Reporters are also asked about joint-venture partners (if any)

for projects, which helps to identify a particular class of

multiple reporting with precision.

In order to clarify the reporters’ definitions of “ownership” of emissions, the guidelines define (and the forms

implement) the concept of “direct” and “indirect” emissions. A “direct” emission is an emission from a source

owned and controlled by the reporter. If you drive a

car, the emissions from the tailpipe of your car are direct emissions (for you). “Indirect” emissions are

emissions that the reporter in some sense “caused” to

occur, although the reporter did not own or control the

facility producing the emission.

Direct emissions correspond to the most restrictive, and

most intuitive, sense of “ownership” of emissions. Indirect emissions account for less restrictive definitions

of ownership or responsibility. The Voluntary Reporting Program requires reporters to distinguish between

“direct” and “indirect” emissions, and this distinction

has proved useful in understanding reporters’ definitions of “ownership.”

In practice, with a few exceptions, reporters tended to

have very straightforward and intuitive definitions of

“their” emissions and “their” reductions; however,

these straightforward and intuitive definitions were not

always consistent across reporters. Nearly everyone

tended to accept the notion that direct emissions and

reductions belong to the owner of the source producing

the emissions. Thus, if a reporter owns and operates a

fossil fuel power plant, usually the reporter is viewed

as being responsible for the emissions of the plant.

In the case of sales of electricity, views were much

more diverse. Electricity consumers, such as households

and manufacturing firms, tended to view themselves as

responsible for indirect emissions arising from their use

of electricity. On the other hand, electric utilities also

tended to view themselves as responsible for their customers’ use of electricity.

Reporters accounted for wholesale electricity transactions in various ways:

• Distribution-only electric utilities tended to behave

like end-use consumers, and to view themselves as

responsible for the electricity consumption of their

customers and, hence, for the indirect emissions of

their suppliers.

• Electric utilities that both bought and sold electricity

had diverse views: some utilities assumed responsibility only for their direct emissions (i.e., sales to

wholesale and retail customers, but no responsibility for electricity purchases).

• Other utilities added direct emissions to wholesale

purchases but did not deduct wholesale sales. (This

is the approach recommended in the instructions.)

• Still others summed their purchases and wholesale

sales of electricity to calculate “net” indirect

emissions as an addition to direct emissions.

Each approach produces a different figure for the total

emissions of the reporter, and there is no theoretical

basis for defining one approach as “correct.” Each

approach has conceptual and practical merits and drawbacks, depending on the intended purpose of the calculation and the circumstances of the particular reporter.

In general, the treatment of wholesale power transactions is important only for those electric utilities that (a)

have large wholesale power sales relative to generation

and retail sales (if the number is small, it matters little

what accounting convention one follows); (b) have large

changes in the level of wholesale power sales (if the

number does not change much, it will not affect reductions); and (c) are using a “basic” reference case (if the

reduction is defined as the outcome of a set of actions,

the level of wholesale power transactions will not affect

the magnitude of the reduction).

The importance of wholesale power transactions is likely to grow in the near future, however, since it is

probable that pending changes in transmission access

regulations will greatly increase the amount of electric

power that is traded among utilities in the United

States. In the absence of a common definition of responsibility for wholesale transactions, it will be

increasingly difficult to compare reports from different

utilities without a careful study of the underlying

assumptions.

Reporting Fuel Cycle Effects

“Primary effects” and “secondary effects” are terms that

are defined in the guidelines. The guidelines were concerned with the notion that reporters could claim reductions from actions that might produce much larger

emissions elsewhere. This notion is linked to the concept of fuel cycle effects. As an example, a reporter

claims to have reduced emissions by replacing his

gasoline-powered automobile with an electric automobile. The primary effect is the direct reduction in

emissions from the reduction in burning gasoline. Most

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 77
reporters would consider the increased electricity

consumption due to the electric automobile to be a

primary effect as well, though an indirect emission.

There are also other (secondary) effects that one might

wish to consider. Mining additional coal and producing

additional natural gas causes additional emissions of

methane. Reducing gasoline consumption also reduces

emissions from oil refining and methane emissions

from crude oil and gasoline transportation and storage,

a positive secondary effect.

Primary and secondary effects are loosely related to

direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions reductions are generally the primary effect. Indirect emissions reductions may be a primary or a secondary

effect, but the secondary effects almost always cause

indirect emissions.

Despite the amount of space given to primary and

secondary effects in the guidelines, reporters almost

universally ignored secondary effects (whether positive

or negative) in their reporting. When queried about this

point, reporters tended to argue that they had no basis

for estimating secondary effects, which would require

“certifying the accuracy” of an estimate of emissions

from other industries remote in space and time from

the reporter’s knowledge and concern.

The Nature of the Reference Case

The emphasis of the Voluntary Reporting Program is

on reporting reductions in emissions. However, the

development of the guidelines raised the question:

reductions compared to what? The guidelines developed the notion that a “reduction” in emissions is

defined by comparison with an alternative situation.

This alternative situation was called a “reference case.”

The guidelines defined two ways in which a reference

case could be defined: “basic” and “modified.”

A basic reference case is the most straightforward. A

basic reference case is the reporter’s level of emissions

at some period in the recent past: for example, the

reporter’s emissions in the year 1990. This definition is

closest to the definitions implicit in the Framework

Convention and those used in the Clean Air Act emissions trading scheme. If the reporter’s emissions today

are less than they were in 1990, then the size of the

reporter’s reduction is equal to the difference between

current emissions and 1990 emissions.

Basic reference cases are most meaningful in the context

of entity-wide emissions. When applied to specific projects, however, a basic reference case can often become

ambiguous or meaningless. For example, suppose an

electric utility offers a program to induce homebuilders

to add more energy-efficient appliances to newly constructed houses. The new appliances will consume less

energy in the future than some alternative device, but

there are no baseline historic emissions. Any new project that is not an exact, one-for-one replacement for an

old project faces a similar problem. It is useful to recall

that one of the purposes of the Voluntary Reporting

Program is to recognize and encourage actions that

tend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, whether they

are new or existing sources.

In the Voluntary Reporting Program, therefore, a

second method of calculating reductions is provided:

the “modified reference case.” A modified reference

case is, in effect, a hypothetical case: the notion is that

a reporter’s emissions would have been higher, had he

not taken certain actions. In the case of the electric

utility, the “modified reference case” would be the

putative emissions of the new houses with the appliances that homebuilders would have chosen without

the intervention of the electric utility, and the reduction

would be the difference between emissions with the

energy-efficient appliances and emissions with “typical”

appliances.

Modified reference cases always have a degree of uncertainty about them, since it is never possible to be

absolutely certain about what would have happened in

the absence of a particular action. By providing modified reference cases, the guidelines permitted the

reporting of an extensive range of important and interesting projects. In practice, most project reports used

various forms of a modified reference case. About twothirds of entity-wide reporters also used a modified

reference case, indicating that while emissions increased, they did not increase as much as they would

have increased in the absence of actions by the reporter.

Mergers and Acquisitions

The definition of reference cases for measuring reductions presupposes that the definition of the entity itself

remains stable over time. This is not always the case.

Firms can merge, buy and sell assets, expand, shrink, or

even go out of business altogether.

When this occurs, the basis for comparing past emissions with present emissions becomes more complex, as

in the following examples of measurement issues:

• In 1990, Pacificorp purchased certain coal-fired

power plants from Arizona Public Service Corporation. Pacificorp initially considered incorporating

the emissions of these plants prior to 1990 in order

to provide a profile of emissions from a consistent

78 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
set of facilities. Arizona Public Service wished to

include the pre-1990 emissions of these plants in

their emissions profile as well. Ultimately, Pacificorp decided not to report pre-1990 emissions from

the plant.

• When two reporters merge, the newly formed firm

will probably file a single report. Merging the historical emissions of the two firms produces a nonhistorical reference case, though it is a logical basis

for comparison with current and future emissions.

In general there are three approaches to an entity that

is changing shape over time. One can either accept that

a changing entity will produce changing emissions and

report the results, or one can restate historical emissions

“as if” the new entity had always existed. Finally, one

can restate current emissions “as if” the older form of

the entity existed today.

The CONSOL Coal Group chose the latter approach in

this year’s report. CONSOL reported emissions estimates for 1990, 1994, and 1995 based on recorded

measurements where possible and best estimates if

measurements were unavailable. In 1993, CONSOL

acquired Island Creek Coal Company, whose mines are

located in a very gassy coal seam in Buchanan County,

Virginia. Parallel to the financial accounting of mergers,

acquisitions, and divestment guided by standard accounting practices, CONSOL has “restated” 1990 emissions to include those emissions from acquired Island

Creek mines.

In general, each of these approaches will have its merits

in particular situations. In many cases, however, the

problem will be best dealt with by properly accounting

for changes in indirect emissions. For example, if a

utility signs a power purchase agreement with an independent power producer (IPP), in principle it is outsourcing its power generation, and a reduction in direct

emissions (from the utility’s own capacity) is offset by

an increase in indirect emissions (from the IPP).

Domestic and Foreign Actions

Reporters are permitted to file reports on actions both

within the United States and abroad, but they are required to distinguish between domestic and foreign

emissions and reductions and report them separately.

The rationale for this distinction is that, on the one

hand, the President’s commitment under the Framework Convention is to reduce domestic emissions.

Therefore, only domestic emissions “count” in achieving the President’s commitment. On the other hand, it

has long been an objective of U.S. climate change policy

to promote “joint implementation,” wherein one country participates in emissions reduction projects in another country. Further, since greenhouse gas emissions

have equal consequences no matter where the source of

the emissions is located, foreign reductions are just as

valuable as domestic reductions in ameliorating climate

change. Therefore, both kinds of report are permitted,

while the distinction between domestic and foreign reports is preserved. In practice, only a relatively small

number of reports were received relating to projects or

activities abroad, largely forestry projects.

Confidentiality

Section 1605(b)(3) requires the Energy Information Administration to offer protection from publication and

Freedom of Information Act requests to reporters who

are submitting trade secret and commercial or financial

information. In practice, for most firms wishing to

participate in a public, voluntary program, one of

whose benefits is public recognition of their actions,

confidentiality is unnecessary. Firms worried about

proprietary data can refrain from reporting, or design

their reporting definitions to protect proprietary data.

In 1996, only two firms requested confidentiality. Their

reports are not included in the release of the Public Use

Database.

Emissions Trading

One of the most striking uses of a voluntary report

occurred when Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

and the Arizona Public Service Company engineered

the first-ever trade of carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Arizona Public Service Company agreed to trade

20,000 sulfur dioxide allowances (obtained under the

Clean Air Act Amendments) in exchange for rights to

2.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions

reductions achieved by Niagara Mohawk in the period

1991 through 1993. This exchange was expected to have

taken place by December 31, 1996. Niagara Mohawk

indicated its intent to donate the sulfur dioxide

allowances to a nonprofit environmental organization,

which would then cancel the sulfur allowances. Niagara

Mohawk also indicated that it intended to use the tax

benefits associated with the donation to fund additional

greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects.

Data Validation and Accuracy

Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act requires the

Secretary of Energy to issue guidelines that “establish

procedures for the accurate voluntary reporting of

greenhouse gases.” During the development of the

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 79
Voluntary Reporting Program, there was considerable

discussion of the related topics of “data validation” and

“data accuracy.” Some observers, who were concerned

about the accuracy of emissions reporting, recommended “third-party validation,” meaning, in essence,

reviews or audits of reporting by disinterested third

parties. The law also states: “Persons reporting under

this subsection shall certify the accuracy of the

information reported.” That sentence has been interpreted to mean that it is the reporter who is responsible for

the accuracy and correctness of the emissions and reductions claimed in the Voluntary Reporting Program.

The EIA devotes considerable effort to the review of

incoming reports. Each report is assigned to an EIA

reviewer, who reviews the reported information for

internal consistency, accuracy of calculation, and

comparability with other sources of information. The

reviewer then prepares a list of issues for discussion

with the reporter, who is asked about possible problem

areas identified in the review. In some cases, reporters

subsequently chose to revise their reports. All of the

information described in this document is the product

of that review process.

This work has given EIA useful insights into the potential and limitations of data validation and accuracy.

First, nothing in the review process gave the slightest

credence to the notion that reporters deliberately

prepared and submitted inaccurate voluntary reports.

Reporters found the task of developing emissions and

reductions estimates sufficiently daunting in itself. The

notion of deliberately inaccurate reporting has tended

to divert attention from the genuine problems faced by

reporters in attempting to prepare accurate reports.

Some of those real problems include:

• Lack of generally accepted “accounting standards”

for emissions. This left each reporter to make judgments about the limits of the reporting entity and

the ownership of emissions. Most reports were clear

about the judgments that had been made, but it still

can be difficult to aggregate and compare reports.

• Imprecision in estimation methods. Emissions of

greenhouse gases generally are estimated on the

basis of operating data, particularly, consumption of

fossil fuels. Estimates of direct emissions from the

combustion of fossil fuels should be reasonably

accurate; however, there are significant uncertainties

inherent in the estimation of indirect emissions

generally, as well as in the estimation of emissions

(direct or indirect) of other gases (particularly,

methane and nitrous oxide). Many reporters chose

not to report indirect emissions or emissions of

other gases because of those uncertainties.

• Limited expertise in emissions estimation. Organizations rarely collect information on greenhouse gas

emissions, and they have no reason to develop corporate expertise in estimating emissions. Reporters

must start from scratch in collecting underlying

operating data and developing expertise in estimating emissions on the basis of operating data.

• Limited availability of data within the organization.

A comprehensive emissions and reductions report

might cover direct combustion of fossil fuels, electricity purchases, use of halogenated substances as

refrigerants and solvents, consumption of transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel), and any

process emissions peculiar to the reporter. Collecting such information within an organization can

present significant challenges, particularly for

manufacturing companies, where energy is a relatively small portion of total operating costs. Companies may not collect fuel, electricity, or refrigerant

consumption data at all, and many companies may

record financial (but not quantitative) data in their

accounting systems. Alternatively, the information

may be collected only at the local (plant) level and

never forwarded to corporate headquarters. In such

cases, the person preparing the report must obtain

information from a host of individual plant managers. Personnel in separately managed subsidiaries

may be unable or unwilling to provide information.

While current data may be available, historical data

may be destroyed, archived, or otherwise practically

unrecoverable.

These considerations have shaped the reports submitted

to the Voluntary Reporting Program. Reporters have

tended to calculate emissions where data are available,

to make the calculations they can make, and to form

reasonable judgments about what information they

should meaningfully include.

80 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Appendix C

Summary of Reports Received

Table C1. 1995 Reporting Entities

Program Participant Form

Number of

Projects

Reported

(Schedule II)

Entity-Wide

Report

(Schedule III)

Commitments

(Schedule IV)

A&N Electric Cooperative Long 2 N Y

Alcan Ingot, Sebree Aluminum Plant Long 1 Y Y

Allegheny Power Service Corporation Long 30 Y Y

American Electric Power, Inc. Long 49 N N

American Forests Long 63 N N

Anoka Municipal Utility Short 5 N N

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short 3 N N

Arizona Public Service Company Long 0 Y Y

Arthur Rypinski & Jacquelyn Porth Long 5 Y N

Atlantic Energy, Inc. (AEI) Long 5 N Y

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. Long 10 Y Y

BARC Electric Cooperative Long 2 N N

Berkeley Electric Cooperative Incorporated Short 2 N N

Blue Earth Light & Water Long 7 N N

Bountiful City Light & Power Long 7 Y Y

Brooklyn Union Short 5 N N

Buckeye Power Incorporated Short 3 N N

Carolina Power & Light Company Long 1 N N

Cedar Falls Utilities Long 14 Y Y

Centerior Energy Corporation Long 3 Y Y

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp Long 7 Y Y

Central Illinois Light Company Long 7 N Y

Central Illinois Public Service Company Long 0 Y N

Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc. Long 1 N Y

Choptank Electric Cooperative Long 1 N N

Cinergy Corp. Long 28 Y N

City of Austin Electric Utility Short 5 N N

City of Edmond, Oklahoma, Electric Department Short 3 N N

City of Palo Alto Short 7 N N

City of Sherrill Power & Light Short 1 N N

City of Wayne Short 4 N N

City Utilities of Springfield Long 4 N N

COM/Electric Short 5 N N

Community Electric Cooperative Long 1 N N

CONSOL Coal Group Long 0 Y N

Cooperative Power Association Long 21 N Y

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 81
Table C1. 1995 Reporting Entities

Program Participant Form

Number of

Projects

Reported

(Schedule II)

Entity-Wide

Report

(Schedule III)

Commitments

(Schedule IV)

DeBourgh Manufacturing Company Long 0 N Y

Delaware Electric Cooperative Long 1 N Y

Delmarva Power Long 9 N N

Delta Electric Power Association Short 5 N N

DTE Energy/ Detroit Edison Long 11 Y N

Duke Power Company Long 5 Y Y

DuPont Company Long 0 Y Y

Duquesne Light Company Long 9 N Y

East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short 5 N N

Entergy Services, Inc. Long 10 Y N

EnviroGas Limited Partnership Long 1 N N

Flint Electric Membership Corporation Short 3 N N

Florida Power & Light Company Long 0 Y Y

Florida Power Corporation Long 0 Y N

General Motors Corporation Long 2 Y N

General Public Utilities Corporation Long 35 N N

Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc Short 4 N N

Hopkinsville Electric System Short 1 N N

Houston Lighting & Power Company Long 5 Y Y

IBM Long 0 Y N

Illinois Power Company Long 17 Y Y

Integrated Waste Services Association Long 2 Y N

Jacksonville Electric Authority Short 8 N N

Johnson & Johnson Long 9 Y N

Kansas City Power & Light Company Long 9 Y Y

LFG Energy, Inc. Short 2 N N

Lockheed Martin Long 2 N N

Long Island Lighting Company Long 0 Y N

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Long 0 Y N

Lower Colorado River Authority Long 2 Y Y

Majestic Metals, Inc. Short 6 N N

McMinnville Electric System Short 1 N N

Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative Long 1 N N

Minnesota Power Long 7 N Y

Missouri Basin Muni Pwr Agency Short 1 N N

Montana Power Company Long 6 N Y

Moorhead Public Service Short 4 N N

Mora Municipal Utilities Short 3 N N

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Long 1 Y Y

N.W. Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short 1 N N

Nashville Electric Service Short 3 N N

Nebraska Public Power District Short 5 N N

New England Electric System (NEES) Companies Long 11 Y Y

New York Power Authority Long 0 Y Y

82 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C1. 1995 Reporting Entities

Program Participant Form

Number of

Projects

Reported

(Schedule II)

Entity-Wide

Report

(Schedule III)

Commitments

(Schedule IV)

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Long 14 Y Y

NIPSCO Industries Long 20 Y Y

Noranda Aluminum Inc. Long 1 N Y

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Short 1 N N

Northeast Utilities Long 0 Y Y

Northern Neck Electric Cooperative Long 2 N Y

Northern States Power Company Long 9 N Y

Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative Long 2 N N

Northwest Fuel Development, Inc. Long 1 N N

Ohio Edison Company Long 19 Y Y

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Long 1 N N

Omaha Public Power District Short 9 N N

Oregon State University (State of Oregon) Long 1 N N

Osage Municipal Utilities Long 11 Y Y

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Short 6 N N

PacifiCorp Long 29 Y Y

Peabody Holding Company, Inc. Long 1 Y N

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (PP&L) Long 6 Y Y

Portland General Electric Co. Long 13 Y N

Potomac Electric Power Company Long 4 Y Y

Prince George Electric Cooperative Long 1 N Y

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Long 0 Y Y

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Long 8 N N

Puget Sound Power & Light Company Long 1 N N

Quad/Graphics, Inc. Long 6 N N

Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Long 2 N N

Rochester Institute of Technology Long 9 N N

Salt River Project Short 8 N N

Santee Cooper Long 6 Y Y

Seattle City Light Long 17 N N

Seminole Electric Coop., Inc. Short 4 N N

Seneca Energy, Inc. Short 2 N N

Seneca Meadows, Inc. Short 2 N N

Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative Long 4 N Y

Shrewsbury Electric Light Plan Short 2 N N

Sierra Pacific Power Company Long 7 Y Y

Southers California Edison Co Long 5 N Y

Southside Electric Cooperative Long 1 N N

Steuben Rural Electric Co-op Short 2 N N

Sunbelt Land and Mineral Co., Inc Long 1 N N

Tacoma Public Utilities Short 7 N N

Tampa Electric Company Long 2 Y Y

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant Short 4 N N

Tennessee Valley Authority Long 16 Y Y

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 83
Table C1. 1995 Reporting Entities

Program Participant Form

Number of

Projects

Reported

(Schedule II)

Entity-Wide

Report

(Schedule III)

Commitments

(Schedule IV)

Texas Utilities Electric Company Long 9 N Y

The Dow Chemical Company Long 2 Y Y

The Southern Company Long 11 Y Y

Trees for the Future Long 13 N N

Tucson Electric Power Company Long 8 N Y

UNICOM (Commonwealth Edison Company) Long 8 N Y

Union Electric Company Long 18 N Y

United Power Association Long 8 N Y

Utah Municipal Power Agency Short 4 N N

Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Long 12 N N

Waverly Light & Power Company Long 9 Y Y

Western Resources, Inc. Long 26 N Y

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Long 9 N Y

Wisconsin Power & Light Long 16 Y Y

Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Short 12 N N

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Long 3 Y Y

Zahren Alternative Power Corp. Short 10 N N

Zeeland Board of Public Works Short 3 N N

84 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

A&N Electric Cooperative Long

Transmission and Distribution Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-side Management Load Control Program U.S. Energy End Use

Alcan Ingot, Sebree Aluminum Plant Long

PFC Emissions Reductions U.S. Halogenates

Allegheny Power Service Corporation Long

Armstrong Boiler No. 2 Renovation Project U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Auxiliary Fuel Switching U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wire Replacement on Transmission Lines U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Potomac Edison 138/500 kV System Split U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Armstrong Unit 2 - Boiler Controls Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Rivesville Unit No. 6 - Boiler Controls Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

R. P. Smith Unit 4 - Boiler Controls Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hatfield Unit 1 - HP/IP Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hatfield Unit 2 - HP/IP Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Rivesville Unit 6 - High Pressure Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Willow Island - Low Pressure Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

NOx Compliance with Clean Air Act Ammendments of 1990 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Efficient Distribution Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Application of Capacitors U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Economic Conductor Selection U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Replace Small Primary Conductors U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Conversion to Higher Voltage Distribution U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Small Hydroelectric Station Relicensing U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Star Transformer Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Armstrong Boiler No. 1 Renovation Project U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lake Lynn Hydro Electric Station Relicensing U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Armstrong Unit 1 - Boiler Controls Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hatfield Unit 3 - LP Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights Utility Ally Program U.S. Energy End Use

Heat Pipe Heat Exchanger U.S. Energy End Use

Adjustable Speed Drives for Plastic Injection Molding Machin U.S. Energy End Use

Canonsburg Plant Upgrade U.S. Waste Methane

Black Oak Property Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Fly Ash use as replacement for cement U.S. Other

American Electric Power, Inc. Long

Heat Rate Improvement Projects (Oper. and Equip. Changes) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Heat Rate Improvement (Due to oper. at higher load factor) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Open-Loop Transmission Groundwire Resistive Loss Reduction U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Distribution System Equipment Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission System Reinforcements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Nuclear Plant Improved Utilization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

AEP Hydroelectric Facility Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switch Coal to Natural Gas (Conesville Unit 1-3) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Residential Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 85
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Commercial/Industrial Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights U.S. Energy End Use

AEP-OPCo-1991P U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1991H U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1992H U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1992P1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1992P2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1994P U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1994H U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1993P1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1993H1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1993P2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1993P3 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCo-1993 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCo-1994 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1991FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1992FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1993FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1994FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-IMPCo-1994FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-IMPCo-1993FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCo-1993FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCo-1994FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1995P1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-SOCCo-1995P2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-SOCCo-1995P3 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1995P4 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1995H1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCo-1995H2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCO-1993-2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-AEPSC-1995 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCO-1995FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-OPCO-1995FM2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

AEP-CSPCO-1995FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCO-1995FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCO-1995FM2 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-APCO-1995FM3 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

AEP-I&M-1995FM U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Fly Ash Utilization Program (Cement Replacement) U.S. Other

American Forests Long

Urban Ecosystem Analysis -- Davis-Monthan, Arizona U.S. Energy End Use

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Conecuh, Alabama U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Choccolocco, Alabama U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Cossatot, Arkansas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Cache River, Arkansas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

86 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Little River, Arkansas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Aqua Fria, Arizona U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- San Pedro, Arizona U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Indian Creek, California U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Mattole River, California U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Pike, Colorado U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Kenosha Pass, Colorado U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Blackwater, Florida U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Rockland Forest, Florida U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Apalacicola, Florida U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Darton College, Georgia U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Hakalau, Hawaii U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Stephens Forest, Iowa U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Three Mile Lake, Iowa U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Farragut, Idaho U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Boise, Idaho U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Pine Creek, Idaho U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Tangipahoa, Louisiana U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Caddo Parish, Louisiana U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- AuSable, Michigan U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Pillsbury, Minnesota U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Voyagers, Minnesota U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Big Woods, Minnesota U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Blackfoot-Clearwater, Montana U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Holly Springs, Mississippi U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- DeSoto, Mississippi U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Croatan, North Carolina U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Greater Grand Forks, North Dakota U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Belleplain, New Jersey U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Bass River, New Jersey U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Double Trouble, New Jersey U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Cuba, New Mexico U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Rio Salada, New Mexico U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Carson, New Mexico U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Marys River, Nevada U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Starr Hill, New York U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Urban Ecosystem Analysis -- Davis Monthan, Arizona U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Oneida County, New York U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Harrison, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Coshocton, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Beaver Creek, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Perry State Forest, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Duck Creek, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Indian Lake, Ohio U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Great Plains RC & D, Oklahoma U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Allegheny, Pennsylvania U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 87
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Two Rocks, Pennsylvania U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Michaux, Pennsylvania U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Francis Marion, South Carolina U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Sanborn, South Dakota U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Sam Houston, Texas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Ellis, Texas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Indian Mounds, Texas U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Fairfax, Virginia U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Spokane, Washington U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Kettle Moraine, Wisconsin U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Black River, Wisconsin U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Global ReLeaf Forests -- Casper, Wyoming U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Anoka Municipal Utility Short

Distribution System Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wind Generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Management Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Central A/C Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Urban Forestry U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short

Lighting and Exit Sign Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Fly Ash Sales U.S. Other

Utility Photovoltaic Group U.S. Other

Arthur Rypinski & Jacquelyn Porth Long

Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs U.S. Energy End Use

Super Efficient Refrigerator U.S. Energy End Use

High Efficiency Water Heater U.S. Energy End Use

High Efficiency Central Air Conditioning System U.S. Energy End Use

Mass Transit Commuting U.S. Transportation

Atlantic Energy, Inc. (AEI) Long

Peach Bottom Nuclear Units #2 & 3 Uprate Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

AGI - Pedricktown Cogeneration Limited Partnership U.S. Cogeneration

Binghamton Cogeneration Limited Partnership U.S. Cogeneration

AGI - Vineland Cogeneration Facility U.S. Cogeneration

Atlantic Electric DSM Resource Program U.S. Energy End Use

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. Long

Brandon Shores Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Crane Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

H.A. Wagner Heat Rate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hydroelectric Generation Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission / Distribution Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Gas SystemsO&M U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestation Pilot Project EIA No. 1002 Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Refrigerant Recycling U.S. Halogenates

Solid Waste Recycling U.S. Other

88 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

BARC Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Load Control Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Berkeley Electric Cooperative Incorporated Short

Load Control Electric Water Heater (New and Replacements) U.S. Energy End Use

DSM through Advertising Good Cents Energy Efficient Homes U.S. Energy End Use

Blue Earth Light & Water Long

Distribution Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

New Generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Street Lighting U.S. Energy End Use

Compact Fluorescent Retrofits U.S. Energy End Use

Hot water insulation blankets U.S. Energy End Use

Shower head flow restrictors U.S. Energy End Use

Tree planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Bountiful City Light & Power Long

Hydroelectric plant operations U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Capacitor bank installation - increasing system efficiency U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Air fuel ratio controller installed in dual fuel engine U.S. Electric PowerG&T

District heating U.S. Cogeneration

Street lighting replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Residential compact fluorescent lighting program U.S. Energy End Use

Tree planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Brooklyn Union Short

Rehab of Leaky Distribution Pipe U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Directed I&M at surface and subsurface facilit U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Flaring When Retiring Gas Holders U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Reduce venting of CNG cylinders U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Reduct. of Controller Venting at Gate Stations U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Buckeye Power Incorporated Short

Heat Rate Improvement at Cardinal Operating Company U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Water Heater Replacement Program U.S. Energy End Use

Geothermal Heat Pump Project U.S. Energy End Use

Carolina Power & Light Company Long

Nuclear Capacity Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cedar Falls Utilities Long

Streeter Unit 6 Controls Upgrade (PROJECT 1.1) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

High-Efficiency Transformers (PROJECT 1.2) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Co-Owned Generation (PROJECT 1.3) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Co-Owned Generation (PROJECT 1.4) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Council Bluffs #3 ESP Hot-Side Conversion (PROJECT 1.5) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Neal #4 ESP Hot-Side Conversion (PROJECT 1.6) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Streeter ACC & VFD (PROJECT 1.7) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

City Street Light Conversion (PROJECT 3.1) U.S. Energy End Use

Home Energy Survey (PROJECT 3.2) U.S. Energy End Use

Good Cents Home Program (New Homes) (PROJECT 3.3) U.S. Energy End Use

Good Cents Improved Home (PROJECT 3.4) U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 89
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Security Lighting Services (PROJECT 3.5) U.S. Energy End Use

Water Heater Jacket Rebate (PROJECT 3.6) U.S. Energy End Use

Cedar Falls Trees (PROJECT 8.1) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Centerior Energy Corporation Long

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Various CFC Replacements U.S. Halogenates

Use of Ash in Cement Production U.S. Other

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp Long

Roseton Gas Co-Firing U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Danskammer Heat Pipe Air Heater U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Roseton Unit 2 Main Step-Up Transformer Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Danskammer Unit 4 Main Step-Up Transformer Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Natural Gas Vehicles U.S. Transportation

EPA Natural Gas Star Program U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Central Illinois Light Company Long

E.D. Edwards Unit #3 Last Stage Bucket Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

CILCO Cogen One U.S. Cogeneration

Tazewell County Landfill Methane Outreach Program U.S. Waste Methane

UtiliTree Carbon Company Forest Management Foreign Carbon Sequestration

TreeLine USA Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Freon TF (CFC-113) Substitution U.S. Halogenates

"In Concert With the Environment" Education Program U.S. Other

Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc. Long

Cycloid - Domestic U.S. Transportation

Choptank Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cinergy Corp. Long

Gibson Performance Maximization Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cayuga Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wabash River Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wabash River Unit 1 Repowering Project U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Merger Dispatch Savings U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Residential Wrap-Up Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Energy Efficient Lighting Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Smart $aver & Heat Pump Savings Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Seal-Up & Low-Income Efficiency Program U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial Audit/Incentive Program U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial Direct Lighting U.S. Energy End Use

Industrial Efficiency Improvement & Energy Awareness Program U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial/Industrial Peak Reduction Program U.S. Energy End Use

Planergy U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights Program U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial/Industrial Lighting Rebate Program U.S. Energy End Use

Thermal Energy (Cool) Storage Program U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial/Industrial High Efficiency Motors Plan U.S. Energy End Use

90 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Commercial/Industrial Adjustable Speed Drive Plan U.S. Energy End Use

Fleet Alternative Fuels U.S. Transportation

Danville, IN Electric Generation U.S. Waste Methane

Rumpke Landfill Gas Recovery U.S. Waste Methane

AFC Electric Generation U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Facility Tree Planting Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

UtiliTree Carbon Company-Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Benificial Use of Coal Fly Ash U.S. Other

Recycled Paper and Aluminum U.S. Other

City of Austin Electric Utility Short

Increase in Low Emitting Capacity U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Increase in Low Emitting Capacity U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Increase in Low Emitting Capacity U.S. Electric PowerG&T

General Transmission and Distribution Projects U.S. Electric PowerG&T

General Energy Use U.S. Energy End Use

City of Edmond, Oklahoma, Electric Department Short

High Efficiency Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

High Efficiency Heat Pump Installation U.S. Energy End Use

Trees/Shrub Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

City of Palo Alto Short

DSM - Refrigerator Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

DSM - Residential CFL U.S. Energy End Use

Utility Street Light Conversion to HPS Lamps U.S. Energy End Use

DSM - Commercial Air Conditioning U.S. Energy End Use

DMS - Commercial Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

City Transportation Program - Employee Mass Transit U.S. Transportation

City Transportation Program - Employee Car Pooling U.S. Transportation

City of Sherrill Power & Light Short

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

City of Wayne Short

High-Efficiency Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Load Control (DSM) U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Public Education on Energy Efficiency Methods U.S. Other

City Utilities of Springfield Long

LOW SULFUR FUEL SWITCH - SWPS U.S. Electric PowerG&T

HEAT RATE IMPROVEMENTS - SWPS U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Natural Gas Fleet U.S. Transportation

Urban Forestry U.S. Carbon Sequestration

COM/Electric Short

Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Kendall Station co-generation U.S. Cogeneration

Conservation (DSM) U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights Program U.S. Energy End Use

Green Tree Spree -Tree Planting Incentive Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 91
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Community Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversion and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cooperative Power Association Long

L-0 Buckets U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Ultrasonic & Helium Leak Detection Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cooling Tower Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Intelligent Business & Farm Grants U.S. Energy End Use

Efficient Lighting U.S. Energy End Use

Water Heater Blankets U.S. Energy End Use

Low-Flow Showerheads U.S. Energy End Use

Setback Thermostats U.S. Energy End Use

Excess Water Heating Setting Reductions U.S. Energy End Use

Water Pipe Insulation U.S. Energy End Use

Low Interest Financing U.S. Energy End Use

Capacitor Installation and Control U.S. Energy End Use

Transformer Sizing and Changeout U.S. Energy End Use

Low Loss Transformers U.S. Energy End Use

Loss Reduction Measures U.S. Energy End Use

Residential and Commercial Audits U.S. Energy End Use

Other DSM U.S. Energy End Use

Coal Creek Station Vanpool U.S. Transportation

Tree-planting programs U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Coal Ash Programs U.S. Other

Recycling Projects & Activities U.S. Other

Delaware Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions & Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Delmarva Power Long

T&D Loss Reduction U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hay Road Combined Cycle U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Edge Moor Natural Gas Use U.S. Electric PowerG&T

DP&L Facility Energy Saving U.S. Energy End Use

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

CNG Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Edge Moor Landfill Gas Use U.S. Waste Methane

Urban Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Ash Reuse U.S. Other

Delta Electric Power Association Short

High Efficiency Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Load Control Interruptible Rate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Conversion - 175 Watt Mercury Vapor to 100 Watt High Pressur U.S. Energy End Use

Off Peak Pumping and Aeration - Catfish Ponds U.S. Energy End Use

DTE Energy/ Detroit Edison Long

Increased Nuclear Utilization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Greenwood Energy Center Fuel Switching U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Distribution Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

92 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Energy Partnerships U.S. Energy End Use

Geothermal Projects U.S. Energy End Use

Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project U.S. Transportation

Landfill Gas Recovery Projects and Energy Purchases U.S. Waste Methane

Forest Land Management U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Afforestation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Miscellaneous Tree Plantings U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Program Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Duke Power Company Long

Increased Nuclear Generation at Oconee Nuclear Station U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Increased Nuclear Generation at McGuire Nuclear Station U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Increased Nuclear Generation at Catawba Nuclear Station U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Recycling Flyash U.S. Other

Duquesne Light Company Long

Photovoltaics Research Project - Ambridge, PA U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Cell - Pittsburgh International Airport U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Allegheny Development Corporation Energy Facility U.S. Cogeneration

Air to air heat pumps U.S. Energy End Use

Low income weatherization U.S. Energy End Use

Thermal Storage U.S. Energy End Use

Hybrid Electric Bus U.S. Transportation

Fleet Vehicle Reduction Program U.S. Transportation

SF6 Reductions U.S. Halogenates

East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short

Renewable Energy Purchases-Wind Power U.S. Electric PowerG&T

DSM-Load Management U.S. Energy End Use

DSM-Efficient Equipment U.S. Energy End Use

Alternative Fuels-Ethanol Use U.S. Transportation

Industry Initiative-Geothermal Heat Pumps U.S. Other

Entergy Services, Inc. Long

Raise Nuclear Unit Targets on Annual Capacity Factor U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Independence Unit Heater Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Sabine Unit Heater Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Texas Eastern Gas Compressor Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Ninemile Turbine Retrofit U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission and Distribution Efficiency U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Vidalia Hydroelectric Station U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lewis Creek Combustion Control U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Entergy SASI Lighting U.S. Energy End Use

EnviroGas Limited Partnership Long

EnviroGas Limited Partnership U.S. Waste Methane

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 93
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Flint Electric Membership Corporation Short

Transmission and Distribution Upgrades U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Mgt. through Marketing (Heat Pump, Good Cents) U.S. Energy End Use

Load Control U.S. Energy End Use

General Motors Corporation Long

1991 - 1995 General Motors Annual Energy Competition U.S. Energy End Use

1993 - 1995 Mich. Demand Side Mgt. and Energy Partner Prog. U.S. Energy End Use

General Public Utilities Corporation Long

Yards Creek Pumped Storage Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Seneca Pumped Storage Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Sayreville Generating Station Retirements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Front Street Generating Station Retirement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Williamsburg Generating Station Retirement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Loss Evaluation Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Shunt Capacitor Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

T & D System Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

TMI Capacity/Availability Improvement Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Oyster Creek Capacity/Availability Improvement Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Biomass Co-firingR&D Program U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Photovoltaics Project-User Scale Applications-(USAPV) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Homer City Greenhouse Project U.S. Cogeneration

JCP&L Fuel Cell-Crawford Hill U.S. Cogeneration

Met-Ed/Penelec DSM, Efficiency & Electrotechnology Program U.S. Energy End Use

JCP&L DSM, Efficiency & Electrotechnology Program U.S. Energy End Use

JCP & L Green Lights Program U.S. Energy End Use

Met-Ed Lighting & Building Energy Consumption Reduction Prog U.S. Energy End Use

Building Energy Consumption Reduction Program U.S. Energy End Use

Genco Lighting & Building Energy Consumption Reduction Progr U.S. Energy End Use

Information Services - Green Computers U.S. Energy End Use

GPU Service Lighting & Building Energy Efficiency Project U.S. Energy End Use

Video - Conferencing U.S. Transportation

Electric Vehicles and Employee Trip Reduction Program U.S. Transportation

FR & S Landfill NUG U.S. Waste Methane

Lebanon Methane NUG U.S. Waste Methane

Hamm’s Landfill NUG U.S. Waste Methane

L & D Landfill NUG U.S. Waste Methane

Corry U.S. Waste Methane

Valley Pork U.S. Agriculture

Mason Dixon Farms, Inc. U.S. Agriculture

Utiltree Carbon Sequestration Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Transmission & Distribution Facility Maintenance - JCP&L U.S. Halogenates

JCP&L Applaince Turn-In Service Program U.S. Halogenates

Recycling Program U.S. Other

Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc Short

Use of Hydropower U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Sense DSM Program U.S. Energy End Use

94 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Tree give-away U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Recycled coal ash U.S. Other

Hopkinsville Electric System Short

Tree Planting Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Houston Lighting & Power Company Long

GT PRIME U.S. Electric PowerG&T

San Jacinto Steam Electric Generating Station U.S. Cogeneration

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Rice Field Methane Reduction Study U.S. Agriculture

Coal Fly Ash Sales U.S. Other

Illinois Power Company Long

Burn Waste Oil at Baldwin 3 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Improve Clinton Power Station Availability U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Tire-Derived Fuel Cofiring at Baldwin U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Baldwin 3 Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Install Natural Gas Fired Aux. Boiler at Havana U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hennepin Gas Reburn Project U.S. Electric PowerG&T

New Boiler Controls at Hennepin U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Vermilion 1 Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Vermilion 2 Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Add Turbine Shell Heaters on Wood River 4 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switch To Natural Gas at Hennepin U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switch To Natural Gas at Wood River 4 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Convert Vermilion Units 1 And 2 To Natural Gas U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wood River 4 Turbine Rotor Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

CNG Vehicle Conversions U.S. Transportation

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project-Component A Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Baldwin 3 Flyash Sales U.S. Other

Integrated Waste Services Association Long

Waste-to-Energy - Fuel Displacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Waste-to-Energy - Waste Diversion U.S. Waste Methane

Jacksonville Electric Authority Short

Incidental Reductions for Transmission and Substation Capaci U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switching U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Urban Forestry U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Urban Forestry U.S. Carbon Sequestration

New Home Construction Workshops/Contractor Continuing Educat U.S. Other

Residential Energy Audits U.S. Other

Non-Residential Energy Audits U.S. Other

Johnson & Johnson Long

Green Lights Upgrades U.S. Energy End Use

Installation of Energy Efficient Systems U.S. Energy End Use

Installation of Timer Controls and Shutdowns U.S. Energy End Use

Process Improvements U.S. Energy End Use

HVAC U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 95
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Equipment & Appliances U.S. Energy End Use

Motor and Motor Drives U.S. Energy End Use

Building Shell U.S. Energy End Use

Load Control U.S. Energy End Use

Kansas City Power & Light Company Long

Improve heat rate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Nuclear Unit Uprate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

New Transmission Line & Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

EPA’s Green Lights U.S. Energy End Use

Street Light Upgrade U.S. Energy End Use

DSM - AC upgrade U.S. Energy End Use

Aluminum Coal Cars U.S. Transportation

UtiliTree - Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Coal Fly Ash Recycling U.S. Other

LFG Energy, Inc. Short

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Lancaster U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Lancaster - Carbon Dioxide U.S. Waste Methane

Lockheed Martin Long

Motor Challenge/Lockheed Martin Armament Systems U.S. Energy End Use

Motor Challenge/3M Company U.S. Energy End Use

Lower Colorado River Authority Long

Residential & Commercial DSM Program U.S. Energy End Use

Coal Combustion By-Product Recycling U.S. Other

Majestic Metals, Inc. Short

Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Paint Oven Modifications U.S. Energy End Use

Compressor Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Air Conditioner Upgrade U.S. Energy End Use

Carpooling U.S. Transportation

Mass Transit U.S. Transportation

McMinnville Electric System Short

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversion and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Minnesota Power Long

Heat Rate Improvements, BEC U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Expanded Generation from Existing Hydro Electric Resources U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Mgmt., Industrial Process Efficiency Improvement U.S. Energy End Use

Demand Side Mgmt., Conservation Improvements U.S. Energy End Use

Expanded Use of Renewable Biomass (wood waste) U.S. Energy End Use

Short Rotation Woody Crop Establishment U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Waste Paper Recycling Development U.S. Other

Missouri Basin Muni Pwr Agency Short

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Montana Power Company Long

Upgrades to Colstrip Coal-Fired Units U.S. Electric PowerG&T

96 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Hydro-Electric Plant Upgrades U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Natural Gas Vehicles - Fleet Conversion U.S. Transportation

Gas Plant Catalytic Converters U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Sale of Fly Ash U.S. Other

Moorhead Public Service Short

Insulation Improvement U.S. Energy End Use

Lighting Retrofit Program U.S. Energy End Use

Custom rebate for energy efficiency improvements U.S. Energy End Use

Urban Forestry (sequestration only) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Mora Municipal Utilities Short

Demand Side Management (Load Management) U.S. Energy End Use

Demand Side Management (Lighting Replacement) U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Long

Nuclear Generation Utilization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

N.W. Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Short

Market and Sell Geothermal Heat Pumps U.S. Energy End Use

Nashville Electric Service Short

Distribution Voltage Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

High-efficiency transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Urban Forestry (sequestration only) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Nebraska Public Power District Short

Plant Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Changeout U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Distribution Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hydro Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Street Light Conversions U.S. Energy End Use

New England Electric System (NEES) Companies Long

Brayton Point Station Unit No. 4 Gas Conversion U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Power Purchases from Natural Gas Generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Manchester Street Repowering U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights Program U.S. Energy End Use

Johnston Landfill Gas to Electricity Project U.S. Waste Methane

Turnkey Landfill Gas to Electricity Project U.S. Waste Methane

Reduced Impact Logging Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Appliance Removal Program U.S. Halogenates

Coal Ash Recycling as Cement Replacement U.S. Other

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Long

Nuclear Generation Performance Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Amorphous Metal Core Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Installation and Operation of Wind Turbines U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Installation and Operation of Photovoltaic Energy Systems U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Nuclear Generation Capacity Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 97
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Partial Conversion of Oil-Fired Plant to Natural Gas U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Outdoor Lighting Lamp Conversion Program U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs (DSM) - External U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs (DSM) - Internal U.S. Energy End Use

Alternative Fuel Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Identify & Rehabilitate Leaky Gas Distribution Pipe U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Refrigerator Roundup U.S. Halogenates

Coal Ash Utilization U.S. Other

Investment Recovery Program (Recycling) U.S. Other

NIPSCO Industries Long

Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Low Loss Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Capacitor Additions U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Efficiency - Residential U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Efficiency - Commercial U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Efficiency - Industrial U.S. Energy End Use

Electric Vehicles and Equipment U.S. Transportation

Natural Gas Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Employee Commute Options U.S. Transportation

Landfill Methane Recovery - Prairie View U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Methane Recovery - Deercroft View U.S. Waste Methane

North Trenton Pipeline Replacement U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Natural Gas STAR U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Rural Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Urban Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

UtiliTree- Rio Bravo Pilot Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Ozone Depleting Chemicals U.S. Halogenates

Coal Combustion Byproduct Utilization U.S. Other

Recycling program U.S. Other

Employee Training U.S. Other

Noranda Aluminum Inc. Long

PFC Emissions Reductions via Reductions in Anode Effects U.S. Halogenates

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Short

Change in purchased power generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Northern Neck Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversion and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Northern States Power Company Long

Wind power U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Nuclear capacity increase U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Upgrade for hydro capacity U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Refuse-derived fuel U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand side management (electric) U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights U.S. Energy End Use

Landfill gas purchase U.S. Waste Methane

98 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Appliance Recycling U.S. Halogenates

Coal ash utilization U.S. Other

Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-side Management Load Control Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Northwest Fuel Development, Inc. Long

Utilization of Coal Mine Gas U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Ohio Edison Company Long

Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switching U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Efficient Lighting (Industrial and Commercial) U.S. Energy End Use

Efficient Motors U.S. Energy End Use

Refrigerator Recycling Program U.S. Energy End Use

Good Cents New Home Program U.S. Energy End Use

Hot Water Conservation U.S. Energy End Use

Water Heater Efficiency Improvements U.S. Energy End Use

Audit/Infiltration Single and Multi-Family U.S. Energy End Use

Food Service Conservation U.S. Energy End Use

Water Heating - Conservation U.S. Energy End Use

High Efficiency Heat Pump Rebates U.S. Energy End Use

Thermal Energy Storage - Cooling U.S. Energy End Use

Heat Pump Maintenance Check U.S. Energy End Use

Efficient Lighting (Residential) U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Source U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Refrigerator Recycling U.S. Halogenates

Substitution of Fly Ash for Portland Cement in Concrete U.S. Other

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Long

Green Lights U.S. Energy End Use

Omaha Public Power District Short

Coal Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

T&D Capacitor Installations U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Nuclear Capacity Factor Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Heat Pump Program (RECP) U.S. Energy End Use

Street Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial & Industrial Audits U.S. Energy End Use

Right Lights U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Recycling Fly Ash U.S. Other

Oregon State University (State of Oregon) Long

RUSAFOR-SAP Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Osage Municipal Utilities Long

Central A/C Tune Up Rebate Program- Project 3.1 U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Furnace Tune Up Rebate Program- Project 3.2 U.S. Energy End Use

Load Management Program- Project 3.3 U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Low-Flow Shower Heads- Project 3.4 U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 99
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Residential Water Heater Jackets- Project 3.5 U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Audits Program- Project 3.6 U.S. Energy End Use

Faucet Aerator Project- Project 3.7 U.S. Energy End Use

Compact Fluorescent Lighting Rebate Program-Project 3.8 U.S. Energy End Use

Tree-Cooling Effects- Project 3.9 U.S. Energy End Use

Overhead Door Replacement at Municipal Complex- Project 1.3 U.S. Energy End Use

Tree-Planting Program- Project 8.1 U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Short

New 1995 Electric Energy Efficiency U.S. Energy End Use

Prior Electric Energy Efficiency in 1995 U.S. Energy End Use

New 1995 Natural Gas Energy Efficiency U.S. Energy End Use

Prior Natural Gas Energy Efficiency in 95 U.S. Energy End Use

New 95 CNG Vehicles (PG&E and customers) U.S. Transportation

Prior CNG Vehicles in 95 (PG&E and customers) U.S. Transportation

PacifiCorp Long

Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Project U.S. Energy End Use

Super Good Cents U.S. Energy End Use

Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program (MAP) U.S. Energy End Use

Low Income Weatherization and Conservation Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Weatherization Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Home Comfort U.S. Energy End Use

Water Heater / Solar U.S. Energy End Use

Hassle-Free Program U.S. Energy End Use

Showerhead Program U.S. Energy End Use

Utah Water Smart Kits (Schedule 5) U.S. Energy End Use

Super Efficiency Refrigerator Program (SERP) U.S. Energy End Use

H-PRO: High Efficiency Heat Pumps U.S. Energy End Use

Energy FinAnswer U.S. Energy End Use

Energy FinAnswer Prescriptive U.S. Energy End Use

Energy FinAnswer Retrofit U.S. Energy End Use

Industrial Energy FinAnswer U.S. Energy End Use

Major Accounts Program U.S. Energy End Use

Irrigation FinAnswer Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Competitive Bid - ECONS U.S. Energy End Use

Small Commercial Retrofit U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial Competitive Bid - EUA/Onsite U.S. Energy End Use

Competitive Bid - CES/Way U.S. Energy End Use

Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Project U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Reforestation in Eastern Washington U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Reforestation of Private Lands in Oregon - Site Class III U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Reforestation of Private Lands in Oregon - Site Class II U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Coal Ash Recycling U.S. Other

Ethanol Production Carbon Offset Project U.S. Other

Peabody Holding Company, Inc. Long

Coal Bed Methane Utilization U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

100 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (PP&L) Long

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Re-Rate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Savings U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fossil Plant Efficiency U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Project U.S. Energy End Use

Trees for the Future U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Ash Use in Cement Making U.S. Other

Portland General Electric Co. Long

T&D: Power Factor Correction Capacitors U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Oak Grove Turbine Runner Replacements - 1991 - Units 1&2 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Sullivan turbine rebuilds U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Bull Run Turbin Runner Replacements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Faraday Units 4&5 1994 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Beaver Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Boardman Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Photovoltaic Streetlight Controls U.S. Electric PowerG&T

1995 Colstip Units 3&4 Ruggedizing U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Projects U.S. Energy End Use

Green Lights Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Natural Gas Fleet Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Potomac Electric Power Company Long

GLP -- Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Mngt/Conservation Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Investment Recovery U.S. Other

Coal Combustion By-Product Utilization U.S. Other

Prince George Electric Cooperative Long

Transmission and Dist. Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Long

Transmission Networking and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Conservation Voltage Reduction U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Commute Reduction Program U.S. Transportation

Bicycles for Meter Readers U.S. Transportation

Battery and Solar Powered Boat Races U.S. Transportation

Electric Car Race U.S. Transportation

We-cycle Office Wastepaper (WOW) Program U.S. Other

Puget Sound Power & Light Company Long

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Quad/Graphics, Inc. Long

Energy Efficient Installations U.S. Energy End Use

Duplainville return load project U.S. Transportation

New Mass Transit routes U.S. Transportation

12 hour shift U.S. Transportation

Waste Paper Reduction Program U.S. Other

West Allis Plant Brownfield Site U.S. Other

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 101
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rochester Institute of Technology Long

Campus LED Exit Signs U.S. Energy End Use

Occupancy Sensors U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps James Booth - 7A U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps, College of Science U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps - Liberal Arts U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps, Chester Carlson U.S. Energy End Use

Compact Fluorescent Lamps U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps - Frank Gannett U.S. Energy End Use

T-8 Lamps - George Eastman U.S. Energy End Use

Salt River Project Short

Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Electric Vehicles Demonstration and Business Use U.S. Transportation

Carpooling U.S. Transportation

Replaced R-11 with R-123 U.S. Halogenates

Fly Ash Sales U.S. Other

Cooperative Photovoltaic and Fuel Cell U.S. Other

Halophyte Farming U.S. Other

Santee Cooper Long

Cross Unit 2 Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Winyah Unit 1 Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Summer Nuclear Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Forestation/Reforestation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Fly Ash Used in Cement Manufacture U.S. Other

Seattle City Light Long

Gorge Dam turbine runner replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Diablo Dam turbine runner replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Ross Dam turbine runner replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cedar Falls turbine runner replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

4kV to 26kV Distribution System Conversion U.S. Electric PowerG&T

South Fork Tolt River hydroelectric project U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Home Water Savers Program U.S. Energy End Use

Multifamily Common Area Lighting Program (MF-CAL) U.S. Energy End Use

Warm Home Program (WMHM) U.S. Energy End Use

Long-Term Super Good Cents Program (LTSGC) U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Efficient Water Heater Rebate Program (EEWHRP) U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Smart Design U.S. Energy End Use

Energy $avings Plan (E$P) U.S. Energy End Use

Multifamily Conservation Program: Standard-Income U.S. Energy End Use

Multifamily Conservation Program: Low-Income U.S. Energy End Use

102 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Low-Income Electric Program U.S. Energy End Use

Urban Tree Replacement Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Seminole Electric Coop., Inc. Short

Heat Rate Improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission Conductor Optimization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Reuse U.S. Other

Seneca Energy, Inc. Short

Seneca Energy, Seneca Meadows Landfill, Seneca Falls, NY U.S. Waste Methane

Seneca Energy, Seneca Meadows Landfill, Seneca Falls - CO2 U.S. Waste Methane

Seneca Meadows, Inc. Short

Seneca Meadows Landfill, Seneca Falls, New York U.S. Waste Methane

Seneca Meadows Landfill, Seneca Falls, New York - CO2 U.S. Waste Methane

Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversions and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Efficient Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Load Control Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Visual Screening-Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Shrewsbury Electric Light Plan Short

High-Efficiency Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lighting Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Sierra Pacific Power Company Long

Geothermal Contracts U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switching (Residual Oil to NG) - Tracy Plant U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Heat Rate Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Measures U.S. Energy End Use

CNG Fleet Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Valmy 1 Fly Ash Reuse U.S. Other

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. Long

Renewable Energy Purchases - Wind U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Renewable Energy Purchases - Geothermal U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Renewable Energy Purchases - Biomass U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

ENVEST SCE U.S. Energy End Use

Southside Electric Cooperative Long

System Line Conversion and Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Steuben Rural Electric Co-op Short

Other Transmission & Distribution Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Water Heater Control Program U.S. Energy End Use

Sunbelt Land and Mineral Co., Inc Long

Smith Place Tract U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Tacoma Public Utilities Short

Generator Improvement (Cushman/Nisqually) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Generator Improvement (Wynochee) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switching (Steam Plant No.2 - wood waste and RDF) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 103
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

General Energy Use U.S. Energy End Use

Reforestation (Cowlitz Project) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Forest Preservation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Materials Recycled (Steam Plant No.2 Fly Ash) U.S. Other

Tampa Electric Company Long

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Fly Ash Reuse U.S. Other

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant Short

T&D Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Lightwaves and Smartlights U.S. Energy End Use

Home Energy Audit U.S. Energy End Use

Electric Vehicle U.S. Transportation

Tennessee Valley Authority Long

Return Browns Ferry Nuclear Units 2 and 3 To Service U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Heat Rate Improvements At TVA Coal Fired Generating Units U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hydro Unit Modernization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wood Waste Cofiring At Coal Fired Generating Plants U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission System Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Electric Heat Pump Installation U.S. Energy End Use

Outdoor Lighting Replacements By Memphis Light, Gas And Wate U.S. Energy End Use

Comfort Plus Homes U.S. Energy End Use

Transportation Fleet Fuel Efficiency Improvement U.S. Transportation

Alternate Fuel Vehicles U.S. Transportation

Landfill Methane Recovery and Power Generation U.S. Waste Methane

Afforestation On TVA Lands U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

CFC Management U.S. Halogenates

Paper Recycling U.S. Other

Flyash Sales To Concrete Industry U.S. Other

Texas Utilities Electric Company Long

Operation of Nuclear Generation Units U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Power Plant Heat Rate Improvement Projects U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Renewable Energy Development Projects U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-Side Management Program U.S. Energy End Use

Vehicle Use Reductions U.S. Transportation

Increased Reforestation in Land Reclamation Program U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Texas Reforestation Foundation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

UtiliTree Carbon Company Rio Bravo Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Coal Ash Byproduct Use U.S. Other

The Dow Chemical Company Long

CFC Refrigeration Systems Conversion U.S. Halogenates

Replace CFC’s as blowing agents to manufacture foams. U.S. Halogenates

The Southern Company Long

Heat Rate Improvement on Coal-Fired Capacity U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Biomass U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Plant Alvin W. Vogtle Capacity Uprate U.S. Electric PowerG&T

104 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Plant Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Availability Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Bulk Power Transmission Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

New Combustion Turbines U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Gas Capability at Watson 4-5 U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Chevron Cogenerating Plant - Unit 5 U.S. Cogeneration

Demand Side Management U.S. Energy End Use

Transportation Research U.S. Transportation

Carbon Sequestration on Company Lands U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Trees for the Future Long

Guatemala Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Ghana Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Cameroon Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Belize Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Honduras Foreign Carbon Sequestration

India Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Nepal Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Kenya Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Panama Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Philippines Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Tchad Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Turkey Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Uganda Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Tucson Electric Power Company Long

Commercial DSM Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Residential DSM Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Travel Reduction Program U.S. Transportation

Trees for Tucson U.S. Carbon Sequestration

UtiliTree Program Foreign Carbon Sequestration

R-22 Recycling U.S. Halogenates

R-11 Recycling U.S. Halogenates

SF6 Recycling U.S. Halogenates

UNICOM (Commonwealth Edison Company) Long

Collins Station 123-Fuel Switch U.S. Electric PowerG&T

High Efficiency Transformers U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Windmill U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Cooperative U.S. Energy End Use

UNICOM Thermal Cooling Plant U.S. Energy End Use

Aluminum Railroad Cars U.S. Transportation

Illinois Prairie Grass Plantings U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Unicom Thermal Cooling Plant U.S. Halogenates

Union Electric Company Long

Subtransmission Reconductoring U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Replacement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Waste Oil Heat Recovery U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Meramec Power Plant Control Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Conversion to a dry flyash handling system. U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 105
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Install adjustible speed fan drives replacing fixed speed U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Replaced motor-generator exciters with static exciter system U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Increased Nuclear generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Sioux Plant Control Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Projects U.S. Energy End Use

Meramec Power Plant Lighting Upgrade U.S. Energy End Use

Street Light Conversion U.S. Energy End Use

EnviroTech Fund U.S. Energy End Use

Purchase of Light Weight Rail Cars U.S. Transportation

Union Electric Car Pool U.S. Transportation

Milam Landfill Methane Recovery U.S. Waste Methane

Green Leaf Project U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Flyash substitution for cement. U.S. Other

United Power Association Long

L-0 Bucket Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Ultra-sonic and Helium leak detection improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Cooling Tower Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Load Management U.S. Energy End Use

Ground-Source Heat Pumps U.S. Energy End Use

Conservation U.S. Energy End Use

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Project U.S. Waste Methane

Coal Ash Programs U.S. Other

Utah Municipal Power Agency Short

Geothermal Generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

In-House Conservation U.S. Energy End Use

Street Light Replacement U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Planting U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Long

Swanton Village Hydro Expansion U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission and Distribution System Efficiency Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Residential Water Heating and Lighting Efficiency Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Appliance Disposal Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Low Income Weatherization Piggyback Program U.S. Energy End Use

Residential Mail Order Lighting Program U.S. Energy End Use

Farm Efficiency Program U.S. Energy End Use

Small Commercial Retrofit Program U.S. Energy End Use

Large Commercial and Industrial Audit Program U.S. Energy End Use

Equipment Replacement and Remodeling Program U.S. Energy End Use

Street and Area Lighting Efficiency Program U.S. Energy End Use

Act 250 New Construction Program U.S. Energy End Use

Waverly Light & Power Company Long

Wind Turbine (Project 1) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hydro (Project 2) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Distribution System Upgrade (Project 3) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Low-Loss Transformers (Project 4) U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy End-Use Programs (Project 3.1) U.S. Energy End Use

106 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

High-Pressure Sodium Lights (Project 3.2) U.S. Energy End Use

Energy Savings Due to Trees Forever (Project 3.3) U.S. Energy End Use

Electric Vehicle (Project 4.1) U.S. Transportation

Trees Forever (Project 8.1) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Western Resources, Inc. Long

JEC2 Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wolf Creek Increased Capacity Rating U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transformer Replacements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Distribution Capacitor Additions U.S. Electric PowerG&T

LEC5 Upgrades U.S. Electric PowerG&T

HEC4 Cooling Tower Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

GEV1 Feedwater Heater Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

TEC8 Condenser Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

LAC2 Turbine Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

JEC1 Precipitator Intermittent Energization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

JEC2 Precipitator Intermittent Energization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Photovoltaic Installations U.S. Electric PowerG&T

TEC8 Precipitator Intermittent Energization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

GEV2 Feedwater Controls Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

GEV2 Feedwater Heater Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

TEC7 Precipitator Intermittent Energization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

JEC3 Precipitator Intermittent Energization U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Wolf Creek Turbine Modifications U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Residential Conservation Use Rate DSM Program U.S. Energy End Use

Electrotechnologies Marketing U.S. Energy End Use

Conversion of Company Fleet Vehicles to Alternative Fuels U.S. Transportation

Purchase of Aluminum Rail Cars U.S. Transportation

Natural Gas Distribution System Replacement Program U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Natural Gas Transmission System Blowdown Reductions U.S. Oil & Gas Methane

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

Coal Fly Ash Recycling U.S. Other

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Long

Fossil plant heat rate improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Hydro plant improvements and additions U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission & distribution system loss reductions U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand-side management energy efficiency programs U.S. Energy End Use

Vehicle conversion to dual fuel capability U.S. Transportation

Beneficial use of landfill methane U.S. Waste Methane

Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project Foreign Carbon Sequestration

CFC-12 Recovery from Appliance Turn-In Program U.S. Halogenates

Fly ash substitution program U.S. Other

Wisconsin Power & Light Long

Columbia 2 turbine blade Heat rate improvement U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Fuel Switching U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Columbia 1 turbine blade Efficiency improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Edge 5 Excess Air Efficiency improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 107
Table C2. 1995 Emissions Reduction Projects Reported

Reporter/Project Form

U.S. or

Foreign Project Type

Columbia 2 economizer Efficiency improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Columbia 1&2 Excess Air Efficiency improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Tire Derived Fuel Generation U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Transmission line improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Energy end use projects-Electric U.S. Energy End Use

Energy end use-Gas U.S. Energy End Use

Verona Landfill Methane U.S. Waste Methane

Modified Forest Management U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Conservation tillage U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Forest preservation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Afforestation U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Habitat Restoration U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Short

Boswell Heat Rate Reduction U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Kaukana CT I&C Upgrade U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Dispatch Change - Menasha Unit U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Residential Appliances U.S. Energy End Use

Commercial Industrial Farm Program U.S. Energy End Use

Street Lighting U.S. Energy End Use

Tree Power 1991 Plantings (5 Year Olds) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Tree Power 1992 Plantings (4 Year Olds) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Tree Power 1993 Plantings (3 year Olds) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Tree Power 1994 Plantings (2 year olds) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Tree Power 1995 Plantings (1 Year Olds) U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Energy Education U.S. Other

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Long

Transmission Line Construction U.S. Electric PowerG&T

Demand Side Management Programs U.S. Energy End Use

Afforestation and Reforestation Efforts U.S. Carbon Sequestration

Zahren Alternative Power Corp. Short

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Oceanside U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, SPSA U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Smithtown U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Oyster Bay U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Hamm’s U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Bondi’s U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Intervale U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Amity Facili U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Onondaga U.S. Waste Methane

Landfill Gas Recovery for Energy, Dunbarton U.S. Waste Methane

Zeeland Board of Public Works Short

Distribution Line Improvements U.S. Electric PowerG&T

General Tranmission & Distribution U.S. Electric PowerG&T

General Carbon Sequestration U.S. Carbon Sequestration

108 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C3. Reporting Entities by Type of Form and Organization, Data Years 1994 and 1995

(Number of Forms Received)

Reporting Entity

Reports Received Percent of Total

1994 1995 1994 1995

Form EIA-1605

Individual or Family ......................... 1 1 1.4 1.0

Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 -- 1.0

Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 67 76.7 66.3

Publicly Traded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 48 56.2 47.5

Privately Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 5.5 8.9

Non-Profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 6.8 4.0

Subsidiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 8.2 5.9

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 16.4 12.9

Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.4 1.0

State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4.1 3.0

Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.4 1.0

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 9.6 7.9

Trade Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 -- 1.0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 18 5.5 17.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 101 100.0 100.0

Form EIA-1605EZ

Individual or Family ......................... 1 0 2.9 --

Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 14 20.0 34.1

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 18 57.1 43.9

Non-Profit Organization ...................... 4 6 11.4 14.6

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 8.6 7.3

Total .................................. 35 41 100.0 100.0

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Table C4. Summary of Reports Received by Schedule, Data Years 1994 and 1995

(Number of Reports Received)

Type of Information

Form EIA-1605 Form EIA-1605EZ Total

1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995

Emissions Reductions Projects (Schedule II) .......... 64 88 35 41 99 129

Entity-Wide Emissions or Reductions (Schedule III) . . . . . . 40 51 -- -- 40 51

Commitments to Reduce Future Emissions (Schedule IV) . 42 59 -- -- 42 59

Total Reports Received ........................ 73 101 35 41 108 142

Note: The totals are smaller than the sums of the numbers for each type of information, because most reporters provided

information on more than one schedule.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 109
Table C5. Distribution of Projects Reported by Project Type Category, Data Years 1994 and 1995

Project Type

Number of Reporters Number of Projects

1994 1995 1994 1995

Electricity Generation, Transmission, and Distribution ...... 71 86 223 292

Cogeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 7 11

Energy End Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 91 208 276

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 34 33 50

Waste Treatment and Disposal (Methane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 20 27 39

Agriculture (Methane and Nitrous Oxide) ............... 2233

Oil and Natural Gas Systems and Coal Mining (Methane) . . . 8 10 13 16

Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 62 78 199

Halogenated Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 18 15 22

Other Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 45 38 59

All Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 129 645 967

Did Not Report Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13 -- --

Total, All Reporters ............................. 108 142 645 967

Note: The total numbers of reporters are smaller than the sums of the numbers of reporters for each project type, because

most reporters provided information on more than one project.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Table C6. Distribution of Projects Reported by Project Type Category and Reporting Form, Data Year 1995

Project Type

Form EIA-1605 Form EIA-1605EZ Total

Number of

Reporters

Number of

Projects

Number of

Reporters

Number of

Projects

Number of

Reporters

Number of

Projects

Electricity Generation, Transmission, and

Distribution ......................... 62 248 24 44 86 292

Cogeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10 1 1 8 11

Energy End Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 221 28 55 91 276

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 40 6 10 34 50

Waste Treatment and Disposal (Methane) . . 16 23 4 16 20 39

Agriculture (Methane and Nitrous Oxide) . . . 230023

Oil and Natural Gas Systems and Coal

Mining (Methane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 1 5 10 16

Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 175 18 24 62 199

Halogenated Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 21 1 1 18 22

Other Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 44 10 15 45 59

Total (All Project Types) ............. 88 796 41 171 129 967

Note: The total numbers of reporters are smaller than the sums of the numbers of reporters for each project type, because

most reporters provided information on more than one project.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

110 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Table C7. Affiliation of Reported Emissions Reduction and Carbon Sequestration Projects

with Voluntary Programs by Project Type Category, Data Year 1995

Voluntary Program

Number of

Reporters

Project Type

Total

Number of

Electricity Projects

Energy

End Use

Carbon

Sequestration

Other

Emissions

Reductions

Climate Challenge ............ 97 264 221 107 129 721

Coalbed Methane Outreach ..... 10001 1

Climate Wise Recognition ...... 50805 13

Energy Star Building .......... 10800 8

Energy Star Computers ........ 10100 1

Energy Star Transformers ...... 55000 5

Green Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 0 29 0 0 29

Landfill Methane Outreach ...... 60008 8

Motor Challenge ............. 30400 4

Natural Gas STAR ........... 50009 9

Other Federal, State, and Local . . 50330 6

USIJI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 19 0 19

WasteWi$e ................. 30102 3

Other ..................... 91428 15

None Specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 26 23 78 49 176

Total ..................... 129 292 276 199 200 967

USIJI = U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation.

Note: The total numbers are smaller than the sums of the numbers for each voluntary program type, because some projects

were affiliated with more than one voluntary program and most reporters reported on more than one project.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Forms EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.”

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 111
Glossary

Afforestation: Planting of new forests on lands that

have not been recently forested.

Anaerobic lagoon: A liquid-based manure management

system, characterized by waste residing in water to a

depth of at least 6 feet for a period ranging between 30

and 200 days.

Associated gas: Natural gas found mixed with crude oil

in underground reservoirs, released as a byproduct of

oil production.

Baseline period: The years 1987 through 1990 for which

entity-level emissions may be reported.

Biofuels: Organic materials, such as wood, waste, and

alcohol, burned for energy purposes.

Biogas: A mixture of carbon dioxide and methane produced through bacterial action.

Biomass: Materials that are biological in origin,

including organic material (both living and dead) from

above and below ground, e.g., trees, crops, grasses, tree

litter, roots, and animals and animal waste.

British thermal unit (Btu): A common unit used in

measuring energy, equal to the amount of heat needed

to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1oF.

Carbon sink: A reservoir that absorbs or takes up released carbon. Vegetation and soils are common carbon

sinks.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): A family of inert, nontoxic, and easily liquefied chemicals used in refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, and insulation, or as

solvents or aerosol propellants. Because they are nonreactive, they drift into the upper atmosphere, where

they are disassociated by solar radiation and where

their components destroy ozone.

Cogeneration: The sequential use of energy to generate

electricity and another form of useful thermal energy,

such as heat or steam.

Commercial-scale: Application of a demonstrated technology at a cost-effective scale.

Commitment: An expressed intention to undertake an

action or actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, or achieve a stated

emissions goal.

Conversion factor: A unique value used to convert one

unit (e.g., acres) to another appropriate unit (e.g.,

hectares).

Deforestation: The removal of forest stands.

Emission coefficient/factor: A unique value for scaling

emissions to activity data in terms of a standard rate of

emissions per unit of activity (e.g., pounds of carbon

dioxide emissions per barrel of fossil fuel consumed).

Emissions: Anthropogenic (human-caused) releases of

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (e.g., the release of

carbon dioxide during fuel combustion).

Emissions, direct: Emissions from sources owned

(wholly or in part) or leased by an entity.

Emissions, fugitive: Emissions that are released inadvertently or accidentally from a controlled or closed

system, such as natural gas pipelines.

Emissions, indirect: Emissions from sources not owned

or leased by an entity that occur, wholly or in part, as

a result of its activities.

Emissions reduction: A decrease in annual greenhouse

gas emissions.

Energy conservation: Activities that reduce end-use

demand for energy by reducing the service demanded.

Entity: For the purposes of the Voluntary Reporting

Program, an individual or organization that is a legal

U.S. person (e.g., a U.S. citizen, resident alien, company,

organization or group incorporated under or recognized

by U.S. law; or a Federal, State, or local government

agency).

Entity boundary: Conceptually, a line drawn to encompass the emissions sources and sinks to be evaluated in an entity-level report. An entity boundary

should include all the emissions sources and sinks

owned (wholly or in part) or leased by the entity, and,

to the extent possible, other emissions sources and sinks

affected by the entity’s activities.

Entity-level reporting: The reporting of greenhouse gas

emissions, emission reductions, and carbon sequestration for an entire entity.

Estimation method: The techniques, including key

assumptions and data sources, used by the reporter to

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 113
derive the reported emissions, emission reductions, or

sequestration.

Foreign activities: All actions outside of the United

States, its territories, and trusts.

Fossil fuel: A hydrocarbon fuel, such as petroleum,

derived from living matter of a previous geologic time.

Fuel cycle: The entire set of sequential processes or

stages involved in the utilization of fuel, including

extraction, transformation, transportation, and combustion. Emissions generally occur at each stage of the

fuel cycle.

Fuel switching: The substitution of one type of fuel for

another. The fuel substitution may be either temporary

(as in the case of a power plant that temporarily

switches from coal to natural gas) or permanent (as in

the case of a fleet operator who replaces gasolinepowered automobiles with electric cars).

Fugitive emissions: See Emissions, fugitive.

Gob: A zone of rubble created when the roof of a coal

mine collapses behind the mining operations.

Greenhouse effect: A popular term used to describe

the roles of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other

trace gases in keeping the Earth’s surface warmer than

it would otherwise be. These radiatively active gases

are relatively transparent to incoming shortwave radiation but are relatively opaque to outgoing long-wave

radiation. The latter radiation, which would otherwise

escape to space, is trapped by these gases within the

lower levels of the atmosphere. The subsequent reradiation of some of the energy back to the Earth

maintains surface temperatures higher than they would

be if the gases were absent. There is concern that

increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and man-made halogenated substances, may enhance the greenhouse effect and

cause global climate change.

Greenhouse gases: Those gases, such as water vapor,

carbon dioxide, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide, and

methane that are transparent to solar radiation but

opaque to long-wave radiation, thus preventing longwave radiation energy from leaving the atmosphere.

The greenhouse gases covered by the Voluntary Reporting Program are (1) carbon dioxide (CO2), (2) methane

(CH4), (3) nitrous oxide (N2O), and (4) halogenated

substances. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere may contribute to an increase in average

global temperatures, resulting in adverse climate

changes.

Halogenated substance: A volatile compound containing halogens, such as chlorine, fluorine, or bromine.

Horizon year: The year in which a commitment to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase sequestration (reported on Schedule IV) is expected to be met.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

A panel established jointly in 1988 by the World

Meteorological Organization and the United Nations

Environment Program to assess scientific information

relating to climate change and to formulate realistic

response strategies.

Life cycle: A progression of a product through its

service life. For most products, emissions and energyconsuming characteristics will be altered as they age.

Longwall mining: A technique of underground mining

in which a cutting machine is pulled back and forth

along a panel of coal 300 to 1,000 feet wide and as

much as 2 miles long. As the panel is cut, the broken

coal is removed by a conveyor, and movable roof supports advance, allowing the roof in mined-out areas to

collapse.

Manure management: The method used to dispose of

the solid waste produced by livestock and poultry.

Municipal solid waste: Residential solid waste and

some nonhazardous commercial, institutional, and

industrial wastes.

Ozone: A molecule made up of three atoms of oxygen.

In the stratosphere, it occurs naturally and provides a

protective layer shielding the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the troposphere, it is a chemical

oxidant and major component of photochemical smog.

Photosynthesis: The manufacture of carbohydrates by

plants from carbon dioxide and water in the presence

of chlorophyll, with sunlight as the energy source. In

this process, carbon is sequestered and oxygen is released.

Pilot project: A small-scale trial designed to test or

demonstrate the efficiency or efficacy of a project.

Project: An action undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions or sequester carbon.

Project boundary: Conceptually, a line drawn to encompass the emissions sources and sinks affected by a

project. A project boundary should include all the

significant and quantifiable effects of the project.

Project ID code: A unique code assigned by the Energy

Information Administration to a reported project for

tracking purposes.

Project-level reporting: Reporting on emissions reductions or carbon sequestration achieved as a result of a

specific action or group of actions.

114 Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting
Reconductoring: Replacement of existing conductors

with large-diameter conductors to reduce line losses.

Conductors (including feeders and transmission lines)

are a major source of transmission and distribution

system losses. In general, the smaller the diameter of

the conductor, the greater its resistance to the flow of

electric current, and the greater the consequent line

losses.

Reference case: The emissions level to which the

current actual emissions levels is compared when

calculating emissions reductions.

Reference case, basic: A reference case using actual

historical emissions or sequestration values.

Reference case, modified: A reference case using projected emissions or sequestration values, representing

the emissions level that would have occurred in the

absence of the reduction or sequestration efforts.

Reforestation: Replanting of forests on lands that have

recently been harvested.

Reporter: An entity (see definition above) completing

either Form EIA-1605 or Form EIA-1605EZ and submitting it to the Energy Information Administration.

Room and pillar mining: The most common method of

underground coal mining, in which the mine roof is

supported by coal pillars left at regular intervals.

Sequestered carbon: Carbon that is removed from the

atmosphere and retained in a carbon sink (such as a

growing tree) or in soil.

Sequestration: The fixation of atmospheric carbon

dioxide in a carbon sink through biological or physical

processes, such as photosynthesis.

Sink: See carbon sink.

Third-party reporter: An authorized party that submits

a report on behalf of two or more entities which have

engaged in emissions-reducing or sequestrationincreasing activities. Possible third-party reporters

include trade associations reporting on behalf of members that have undertaken reduction projects.

Vhar metering: Phase shifters on watthour meters that

measure reactive volt ampere hours or varhours.

Watt (W): A common metric unit used in measuring

power (the rate at which work is done), defined as

1 Joule per second and equivalent to 3.412 Btu per

hour.

Energy Information Administration/ Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting 115