6450-01-P

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Finding of No Significant Impact

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products

AGENCY: Department of Energy

ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Amended Energy Conservation

Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, and the

National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments , prescribes energy conservation

standards for certain major household appliances , and requires the Department of Energy

(DOE) to administer an energy conservation program for these products . Based on an

Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-1138 , DOE has determined that the adoption of the

amended energy efficiency Standard Level 1 for refrigerators , refrigerator-freezers, and

freezers, as modified for the Final Rule, would not be a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, an environmental impact statement

(EIS) is not required , and the Department is issuing this finding of no significant impact

(FONSI).

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY: Copies of the EA and modified emission reduction tables for the

1

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

6450-01-P 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 

AGENCY: Department of Energy 

ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, and the 

National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments, prescribes energy conservation 

standards for certain major household appliances, and requires the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to administer an energy conservation program for these products. Based on an 

Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-1138, DOE has determined that the adoption of the 

amended energy efficiency Standard Levell for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, as modified for the Final Ru1e, would not be a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) is not required, and the Department is issuing this fmding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). 

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY: Copies of the EA and modified emission reduction tables for the 

1 
Final Rule are available from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20585, (202) 586-9127.

FOR FURTHER PROGRAM INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr Barry P. Berlin

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-43)

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121

(202) 586-9127

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE DOE NEPA PROCESS, CONTACT:

Carol Borgstrom, Director

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42)

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585-0119

(202) 586-4600

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The action is the establishment of revised

energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The EA evaluates the environmental impacts of a range of

new energy conservation standards for refrigerators , refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The

results are presented for each potential standard level. Each potential standard level is an

alternative action, and the environmental impacts of each alternative are compared to what

would be expected to happen if no new standard were adopted , i.e., the "no action"

alternative . The amended standard being finalized today is a small modification of one of the

2

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Final Rule are available from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20585, (202) 586-9127. 

FOR FURTHER PROGRAM INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr Barry P. Berlin 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-43) 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 

(202) 586-9127 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE DOE NEPA PROCESS, CONTACT: 

Carol Borgstrom, Director 

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42) 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0119 

(202) 586-4600 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The action is the establishment of revised 

energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The EA evaluates the environmental impacts of a range of 

new energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

results are presented for each potential standard level. Each potential standard level is an 

alternative action, and the environmental impacts of each alternative are compared to what 

would be expected to happen if no new standard were adopted, i.e., the "no action" 

alternative. The amended standard being finalized today is a small modification of one of the 

2 
standard levels that had been proposed.

The main environmental concern is emissions from fossil-fueled electricity generation.

Most of the design options for this appliance product category would result in decreased

electricity use and, therefore, a reduction in power plant emissions. The proposed efficiency

standards would generally decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand. The

greatest decreases in air pollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of

sulfur dioxide, or SO2. Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur,

and are listed by weight of No. and CO2, respectively.

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

constant, in most scenarios initial price increases from standards are expected to reduce

slightly the number of appliances sold, which would result in small decreases in the total

amount of raw materials used. The main effect of this decreased appliance production would

be the SO2 decreases from avoided fuel burning at power plants. The environmental

contribution from reduced steel production is not included in the estimates for net SO2

decreases resulting from design changes in these products.

Although the effects on particulate emissions related to the standard-induced decrease

in electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on SO2, NOR, and CO2, any

reduction would possibly be beneficial to the quality of surface water. Since the total amount

of particulate emitted would decrease, it is very likely that less particulate would reach surface

3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

standard levels that had been proposed. 

The main environmental concern is emissions from fossil-fueled electricity generation. 

Most of the design options for this appliance product category would result in decreased 

electricity use and, therefore, a reduction in power plant emissions. The proposed efficiency 

standards would generally decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand. The 

greatest decreases in air pollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of 

sulfur dioxide, or S02. Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur, 

and are listed by weight of Nox and CO2, respectively. 

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

constant, in most scenarios initial price increases from standards are expected to reduce 

slightly the number of appliances sold, which would result in small decreases in the total 

amount of raw materials used. The main effect of this decreased appliance production would 

be the S02 decreases from avoided fuel burning at power plants. The environmental 

contribution from reduced steel production is not included in the estimates for net S02 

decreases resulting from design changes in these products. 

Although the effects on particulate emissions related to the standard-induced decrease 

in electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on S02, NOx, and CO2, any 

reduction would possibly be beneficial to the quality of surface water. Since the total amount 

of particulate emitted would decrease, it is very likely that less particulate would reach surface 

3 
Reduction in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in SO2 and NOX would

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

the decreased potential for acid rain formation could help improve the quality of wetlands and

fish and wildlife as well as aid in the preservation of historical and archaeological sites.

DETERMINATION: Based upon the EA, DOE has determined that the adoption of the

amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers

would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment, within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, an EIS is not required.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 1997.

(_18NLA, V

Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

4

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Reduction in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in S02 and NOx would 

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

the decreased potential for acid rain formation could help improve the quality of wetlands and 

fish and wildlife as well as aid in the preservation of historical and archaeological sites. 

DETERMINATION: Based upon the EA, DOE has determined that the adoption of the 

amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment, within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, an EIS is not required. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on Apr; 1 23, 1997. 

Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

4 
SBSOZ Du `UO1aUUIS M

splupuB1S PU sapoD JO a1UJO

o12ug ,Uojoug alqumauoN 2 Xouatot3Jg iCl

XlEamas 1UL'1S!SSV

o juampudaU -S-fl J S jaug

A IV11MVf 9661

SHHZHHHA

c c

Umv

8£11-V21/21®

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

DOEIEA-1138 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND 

FREEZERS 

JANUARY 1996 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

Office of Codes and Standards 

Washington, DC 20585 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

1. INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) on the candidate energy conservation standards for

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers was prepared pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality,

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500 through 1508. The proposed energy

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

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

the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act [1J. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

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

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

The EA presents the associated environmental impacts from four energy conservation

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

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

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

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

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

the least environmental impacts, through emission reductions, of the four alternatives.

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

analyses conducted for the rulemaking. The presentation of environmental impacts for each of the

alternatives appears at Section 3 of the EA.

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

British thermal units (quads), the equivalent of 6.7 exajoules (EJ) of energy for refrigerators and

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

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

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

9.2 years for any class.

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

reduction in life-cycle cost of approximately $143 or 11.5 percent for the largest class. The

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

equity of 7.3 percent.

1

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ENERGY 

CONSERVA TION STANDARD FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERA TORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS 

1. INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) on the candidate energy conservation standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers was prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEP A), regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500 through 1508. The proposed energy 

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

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

the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act [1]. ~ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

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

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

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

The EA presents the associated environmental impacts from four energy conservation 

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

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

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

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

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

the least environmental impacts, through emission reductions, of the four alternatives. 

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

analyses conducted for the rulemaking. The presentation of environmental impacts for each of the 

alternatives appears at Section 3 of the EA. 

The proposed Standard Levell. This standard level is projected to save 7.0 quadrillion 

British thermal units ( quads), the equivalent of 6.7 exajoules (El) of energy for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, and 0.5 quads (0.4 El) for freezers. The technologies that are necessary to 

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

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

9.2 years for any class. 

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

reduction in life-cycle cost of approximately $143 or 11.5 percent for the largest class. The 

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

equity of 7.3 percent. 

1 
Standard Level 2. This standard level is projected to save 7.8 quads (8.2 EJ) of energy

for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and 1.3 quads (1.4 EJ) for freezers. However, this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

larger models in each class. This level has payback periods as high as 25.5 years (much longer

than the product life) and reduces refrigerator manufacturer short-run return on equity from 7.3

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

equity drops from 7.3 percent to 4.7 percent, a reduction of more than 35 percent.

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

(Max Tech) level of efficiency, would save the most energy: 10.0 quads (10.55 EJ) for

refrigerators (including refrigerator-freezers) and 2.0 quads (2.11 EJ) for freezers between 1998

and 2030. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all refrigerator products

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

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

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

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

There are concerns about manufacturability, availability, reliability, and performance. Vacuum

panels are 6 to 10 times heavier than foam. The increase in door weight may cause the appliance

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

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

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

constrained by the need to fit into existing spaces and through doors and passage-ways.

Decreasing interior volume would sacrifice product utility.

In the evaluation of the proposed action and the alternatives, the primary environmental

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

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

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

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

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

pollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or SO2.

Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur and are listed by weight of

NO, and CO2, respectively. CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning is considered an

2

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Standard Level 2. This standard level is projected to save 7.8 quads (8.2 EJ) of energy 

for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and 1.3 quads (1.4 EJ) for freezers. However, this 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

larger models in each class. This level has payback periods as high as 25.5 years (much longer 

than the product life) and reduces refrigerator manufacturer short-run return on equity from 7.3 

percent to 5.8 percent, a reduction of20 percent. For freezer manufacturers, short-run return on 

equity drops from 7.3 percent to 4.7 percent, a reduction of more than 35 percent. 

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

(Max Tech) level of efficiency, would save the most energy: 10.0 quads (10.55 EJ) for 

refrigerators (including refrigerator-freezers) and 2.0 quads (2.11 EJ) for freezers between 1998 

and 2030. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all refrigerator products 

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

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

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

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

There are concerns about manufaCturability, availability, reliability, and performance. Vacuum 

panels are 6 to 10 times heavier than foam. The increase in door weight may cause the appliance 

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

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

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

constrained by the need to fit into existing spaces and through doors and passage-ways. 

Decreasing interior volume would sacrifice product utility. 

In the evaluation of the proposed action and the alternatives, the primary environmental 

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

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

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

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

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

pollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or S02' 

Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur and are listed by weight of 

N02 and CO2, respectively. CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning is considered an 

2 
environmental hazard because it contributes to the "greenhouse effect" by trapping heat energy

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

raise the mean global temperature.

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

constant, in most scenarios increased initial cost is expected to decrease slightly the number of

appliances sold, resulting in small decreases in raw materials used. The main effect of the

appliance production decrease would be reduced SO2 emitted in steel production. That reduction

would be small, however, in comparison to the SO2 decreases from fuel burning avoided at power

plants. The contribution from steel production is not included in the estimates for net SO2

decreases resulting from design changes in these products.

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

electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on decreases in SO2, NO, and CO2.

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

compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total SO2 and NO,, emissions, respectively.

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

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

emitted would be decreased, it. is very likely that less particulates would reach surface water.

Reductions in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in SO2 and NO,, would

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

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

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

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

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

2. METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The greatest impacts of the proposed action and alternative standards would be a

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

water quality result from emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NO,;), and

carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the proposed standards would lessen the need for electricity

generation, power plant emissions would be reduced.

2.1 Baseline Emissions

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

impact on power plant emissions as a result of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, P. L.'101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (Nov. 15, 1990) codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. § §

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

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

3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

environmental hazard because it contributes to the "greenhouse effect" by trapping heat energy 

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

raise the mean global temperature. 

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

constant, in most scenarios increased initial cost is expected to decrease slightly the number of 

appliances sold, resulting in small decreases in raw materials used. The main effect of the 

appliance production decrease would be reduced S02 emitted in steel production. That reduction 

would be small, however, in comparison to the S02 decreases from fuel burning avoided at power 

plants. The contribution from steel production is not included in the estimates for net S02 

decreases resulting from aesign changes in these products. 

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

electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on decreases in S02, NOx' and CO2. 

F or example, in 1984, power plants contributed only 7% of U. S. total particulate emissions as 

compared to contributions of 83% and 34% to total S02 and NOx emissions, respectively. 

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

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

emitted would be decreased, it is very likely that less particulates would reach surface water. 

Reductions in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in S02 and-NOx would 

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

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

wildlife as well as aid in the preservation of historical and archaeological sites. Reductions in NOx 

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

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

2. METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The greatest impacts of the proposed action and alternative standards would be a 

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

water quality result from emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02),· nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and 

carbon dioxide (C02). Since the proposed standards would lessen the need for electricity 

generation, power plant emissions would be reduced. 

2.1 Baseline Emissions 

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

impact on power plant emissions as a result of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, P. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (Nov. 15, 1990) codified as amended at 42 U. S. C. § § 

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

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

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

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

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

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

two cases are virtually identical. Because the two cases are so similar, only the U.S. power plant

emission projections for the three effluents under the assumptions made in the flexible case are

presented. Tables La and 1.b summarize the results.

Table l.a Projected U.S. C021 SO2, and NO, Power Plant Emissions - Baseline Case

(Metric Units)

CO2 SO2 NOa

Year Million tons Million tons Million tons

(Mt) (Mt) (Mt)

1995 2025 12.5 7.6

2000 2274 8.2 6.1

2010 2920 7.6 6.6

2020 3596 6.1 6.1

2030 4358 4.4 5.4

Table l.b Projected U.S. C021 SO2, and NO, Power Plant Emissions - Baseline Case

(Inch-Pound Units)

Year

CO2

106 short tons

SO2

106 short tons

NOX

106 short tons

1995 2233 13.8 8.4

2000 2506 9.0 6.7

2010 3219 8.4 7.3

2020 3964 6.7 6.7

2030 4804 4.8 5.9

2.1(a) Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

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

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

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

amount of steel used per unit are expected.

In order to reflect more fully the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in future years,

4

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

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

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

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

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

two cases are virtually identical. Because the two cases are so similar, only the U.S. power plant 

emission projections for the three effluents under the assumptions made in the flexible case are 

presented. Tables 1.a and l.b summarize the results. 

Table 1.a Projected U.S. CO2, S02' and NOx Power Plant Emissions - Baseline Case 

(Metric Units) 

CO2 S02 NOx 

Year Million tons Million tons Million tons 

(Mt) (Mt) (Mt) 

1995 2025 12.5 7.6 

2000 2274 8.2 6.1 

2010 2920 7.6 6.6 

2020 3596 6.1 6.1 

2030 4358 4.4 5.4 

Table l.b Projected U.S. CO2, S02' and NOx Power Plant Emissions - Baseline Case 

(Inch-Pound Units) 

CO2 S02 NO" 

Year 106 short tons 106 short tons 106 short tons 

1995 2233 13.8 8.4 

2000 2506 9.0 6.7 

2010 3219 8.4 7.3 

2020 3964 6.7 6.7 

2030 4804 4.8 5.9 

2.1(a) Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 

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

plants are estim·ated. In the analysis of the impacts of design changes to the appliances, lower 

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

amount of steel used per unit are expected. 

In order to reflect more fully the effects of deaner-burning power plants in future years, 

4 
emission rates (g/kWh) for power plant fuel-burning are calculated from projected emissions and

electrical generation data. The electrical generation data is translated below into energy use (EJ)

by assuming a 30% overall energy conversion efficiency. As noted above, the source of these

projected emissions and electrical generation data is the Service Report that. accompanied the

1991 NES (data for Tables l.a and 1.b were extracted from the same Service Report). Tables 2.a

and 2.b present these data and the calculated emission rates for SO2 and NON.

Table 2.a Projected Electricity Generation , Emissions Data, and Emission Rates for SO2

and NO, at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Metric Units

Electricity Generation

(TeraWattHours)

(TWH)

Energy Use Emissions

(Million Tons)

(MT)

Emissions Rates(generation)

gram/kiloWatthours (g/kWh)

Coal Oil Gas Total S02 NOS; S02 NOX

Year Exajoules

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 27 12.5 7.6 5.6 3.4

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 31 8.2 6.1 3.1 2.3

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 40 7.6 6.6 2.3 2.0

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3 49 6.1 6.1 1.5 1.5

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 61 4.4 5.4 0.9 1.1

Table 2.b Projected Electricity Generation, Emissions Data, and Emission Rates for SO2

and NO, at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants Inch-Pound Units

Electricity Generation

(kiloWatthours)

(kWh)

Energy Use Emissions Emissions Rates (primary)

Coal Oil Gas S02 NOa S02 NOa

Year 10, 10" 10" Total 10, 106 103 10,

quadrillion short tons short tons tons/Quad tons/Quad

British tons

(Quads)

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 25.74 13.8 8.4 552.5 336.3

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 29.89 9.0 6.7 310.3 231.0

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 37.88 8.4 7.3 228.6 198.6

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3 47.01 6.7 6.7 146.9 146.9

2030 4837.3 29,0 179.2 58.03 4.8 5.9 85.2 104.8

The calculated emissions rate data listed in Tables 2.a and 2.b represent the average SO2

and NOa emissions rates for all fossil fuel-burning power plants in the .United States. Emissions

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Year 

1995 

2000 

2010 

2020 

2030 

emission rates (glkWh) for power plant fuel-burning are calculated from projected emissions and 

electrical generation data. The electrical generation data is translated below into energy use (El) 

by assuming a 30% overall energy conversion efficiency. As noted above, the source of these 

projected emissions and electrical generation data is the Service Report that accompanied the 

1991 NBS (data for Tables l.a and l.b were extracted from the same Service Report). Tables 2.a 

and 2.b present these data and the calculated emission rates for S02 and NOx' 

Table 2.a Projected Electricity Generation, Emissions Data, and Emission Rates for S02 

and NOx at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Metric Units 

Electricity Generation Energy Use Emissions Emissions Rates(generation) 

(Tera WattHours) (Million Tons) gramlkiloWatthours (glkWh) 

(T\VH) (MT) 

Coal Oil Gas Total S02 NOx S02 NOx 

Exaioules 

1602.2 193.7 442.0 27 12.5 7.6 5.6 3.4 

1814.0 179.8 605.0 31 8.2 6.1 3.1 2.3 

2660.6 149.9 482.5 40 7.6 6.6 2.3 2.0 

3727.8 67.2 292.3 49 6.1 6.1 1.5 1.5 

4837.3 29.0 179.2 61 4.4 5.4 0.9 1.1 

Table 2.b Projected Electricity Generation, Emissions Data~ and Emission Rates for S02 

and NOx at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Inch-Pound Units 

ElectIicity Generation Energy Use Emissions Emissions Rates (primary) 

(kiloWatthours) 

(kWh) 

Coal Oil Gas S02 NOx S02 NOx 

Year 109 109 109 Total 106 106 103 103 

quadrillion short tons short tons tons/Quad tons/Quad 

British tons 

(Quads) 

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 25.74 13.8 8.4 552.5 336.3 

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 29.89 9.0 6.7 310.3 231.0 

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 37.88 8.4 7.3 228.6 198.6 

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3 47.01 6.7 6.7 146.9 146.9 

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 58.03 . 4.8 5.9 85.2 104.8 

The calculated emissions rate data listed in Tables 2.a and 2.b represent the average S02 

and NOx emissions rates for all fossil fuel-burning power plants in the United States. Emissions 

5 
rates were not calculated for each fuel-burning source as the emissions data supplied by the

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

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

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

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

The electrical generation data was disaggregated by fuel source. To obtain the total energy use

(input), the electrical generation data from each fossil fuel source was summed and then divided

by the assumed efficiency of fossil fuel-burning power plants (30%), which includes transmission

and distribution losses. This fossil fuel-burning power plant efficiency is consistent with that used

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

The amount of SO2 and NOa emissions abated for any particular year is determined by

multiplying the estimates of energy saved through reduced electricity generation in that year by

the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the Service Report, linear

interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in turn, the corresponding abated emissions.

2.1(b) Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Emission rates for CO2 were derived in the same manner as those derived for SO2 and

NOV Table 3. a and 3 .b present the CO2 emission rate data as derived from the electrical

generation data and emissions data supplied by the 1991 NES Service Report.

Table 3.a Projected Electricity Generation Data, Emissions Data , and Emissions Rates for

CO2 at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Metric Units

Electricity' Generation

Coal Oil Gas Energy Use Emission

TeraWattH TeraWattH TeraWatt Total CO2 Emission Rate CO2

ours. ours Hours Exaioules Million Tons grams/kiloWatthours

Year (TWH) (TWH) (TWH) (EJ) (MT) (/kWh)

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 27 2025 905

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 31 2274 875

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 40 2920 887

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3' 49 3596 880

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 61 4358 864

6

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

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

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

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

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

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

The electrical generation data was disaggregated by fuel source. To obtain the total energy use 

(input), the electrical generation data from each fossil fuel source was summed and then divided 

by the assumed efficiency of fossil fuel-burning power plants (30%), which includes transmission 

and distribution losses. This fossil fuel-burning power plant efficiency is consistent with that used 

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

The amount of S02 and NOx emissions abated for any particular year is determined by 

multiplying the estimates of energy saved through reduced electricity generation in that year by 

the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the Service Report, linear 

interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in turn, the corresponding abated emissions. 

2.1(b) Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Emission rates for CO2 were derived in the same manner as those derived for S02 and 

NOx ' Table 3.a and 3.b present the CO2 emission rate data as derived from the electrical 

generation data and emissions data supplied by the 1991 NES Service Report. 

Table 3.a Projected Electricity Generation Data, Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for 

CO2 at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Metric Units 

Electricity Generation 

Coal Oil Gas Energy Use Emission 

TeraWattH TeraWattH TeraWatt Total CO2 Emission Rate CO2 

ours. ours Hours Exajoules Million Tons grams/kiio W atthours 

Year (TWH) (TWH) (TWH) (EJ) (MT) (g/kWh) 

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 27 2025 905 

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 31 2274 875 

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 40 2920 887 

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3' 49 3596 880 

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 61 4358 864 

6 
Table 3.b Projected Electricity Generation Data, Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for

CO2 at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Inch-Pound Units

Electricity Generation

Coal Oil Gas

109 109 109 Energy Use Total

kiloWatt kiloWatt kiloWatt quadrillion Emission CO2 Emission Rate CO2

hours hours hours British tons 106 106

Year (KWh) (KWh) (KWh) (Quads) short tons tons/Quad

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 25.74 2232.5 89.39

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 29.89 2506.2 86.41

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 37.88 3219.3 87.60

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3 47.01 3964.2 86.90

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 58.03 4804.4 85.32

As with the SO2 and NO,, emissions, the amount of CO2 emissions abated for any

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

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

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

corresponding abated emissions.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The following results in Table 4-7 indicate projected changes that could be brought about

in the amounts of emitted CO2, SO2, and NOS; by imposing efficiency standards for appliances at

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

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

(i.e., CO2, SO2, and NOR) through the implementation of a particular standard level for this type of

appliance. Each table shows, for a specific year between 1998, the first year in which the

proposed standard would be implemented, and 2030, the amount of emission abated from power

plant generation, as compared against the baseline case. Also included are the cumulative changes

of each pollutant (between the years 1998 and 2030). The estimated of SO2, NO,, and CO2 in

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

consideration.

3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of up to 1720 kt (1896

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

stringent standard level. In the year 2000, Standard Level 4 decreases in SO2 would represent

about 0. 19% of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year

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

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Table 3.b Projected Electricity Generation Data, Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for 

CO2 at Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants - Inch-Pound Units 

Electricitv Generation 

Coal Oil Gas 

1rY 1rY 109 Energy Use Total 

kiloWatt kiloWatt kiloWatt quadrillion Emission CO2 Emission Rate CO2 

hours hours hours British tons 1rY 1rY 

Year (KWh) (KWh) (KWh) (Quads) short tons tons/Quad 

1995 1602.2 193.7 442.0 25.74 2232.5 89.39 

2000 1814.0 179.8 605.0 29.89 2506.2 86.41 

2010 2660.6 149.9 482.5 37.88 3219.3 87.60 

2020 3727.8 67.2 292.3 47.01 3964.2 86.90 

2030 4837.3 29.0 179.2 58.03 4804.4 85.32 

As with the S02 and NOx emissions, the amount of CO2 emissions abated for any 

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

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

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

corresponding abated emissions. 

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The following results in Table 4-7 indicate projected changes that could be brought about 

in the amounts of emitted CO2, S02, and NOx by imposing efficiency standards for appliances at 

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

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

(i.e., CO2, S02, and NOJ through the implementation of a particular standard level for this type of 

appliance. Each table shows, for a specific year between 1998, the first year in which the 

proposed standard would be implemented, and 2030, the amount of emission abated from power 

plant generation, as compared against the baseline case. Also included are the cumulative changes 

of each pollutant (between the years 1998 and 2030). The estimated of S02, NOx, and CO2 in 

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

consideration. 

3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 

Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of up to 1720 kt (1896 

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

stringen~ standard level. In the year 2000, Standard Level 4 decreases in S02 would represent 

about 0.19% of the S02 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year 

2030, decreases in S02 emissions will represent about 1.2% of the S02 emissions estimated to 

7 
come from power plants in that year. As discussed earlier, the possible reductions of SO2

emissions caused by standards will reduce the utility's need to purchase allowances or permit it to

save them for future use, or sell them. To the extent saved allowances are used for future

emissions, the standards' net effect on those S02 emissions would be only a reduction in the

demand for emissions allowances.

Standard Level 4 design changes to residential refrigeration would result in an estimated

decrease in'NOXemissions of 1635 kt (1802 thousand short tons) between 1998 and 2030. NOX

decreases would represent 0.19% and 1.2% of the NOX emissions estimated to come from power

plants in the years 2000 and 2030, respectively.

3.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Standard Level 4 design changes is 914

Mt (1007 million short tons of CO2);

8

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

come from power plants in that year. As discussed earlier, the possible reductions of S02 

emissions caused by standards will reduce the utility's need to purchase allowances or permit it to 

save them for future use, or sell them. To the extent saved allowances are used for future 

emissions, the standards' net effect on those S02 emissions would be only a reduction in the 

demand for emissions allowances. 

Standard Level 4 design changes to residential refrigeration would result in an estimated 

decrease in'NOxemissions of 1635 kt (1802 thousand short tons) between 1998 and 2030. NOx 

decreases would represent 0.19% and 1.2% of the NOx emissions estimated to come fr.om power 

plants in the years 2000 and 2030, respectively. 

3.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from Standard Level 4 design changes is 914 

Mt (1007 million short tons of CO2), 

8 
Table 4. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and

Freezers, Standard Level One

S®

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (103 of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' of short tons)

% U.S. SO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 4.9 5.4 12362 13623 -0.04

2000 11.2 12.3 9853 10858 -0.11

2005 26.8 29.5 8867 9772 -0.30

2610 38.8 42.8 7956 8767 -0.49

2015 42.3 46.6 6546 7214 -0.65

2020 38.5 42.5 5489 6048 -0.70

2025 31.1 34.3 4412 4862 -0.70

2030 24.5 27.0 3488 3844 -0.70

Cumulative SO2 reduction. 1998-2030 = 1017 kt (1120 thousand short tons)

NOx

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (103 of short tons)

% U.S. NOS Power

Plant Emissions

1998 3.3 3.7 8356 9208 -0.04

2000 8.3 9.2 7335 8083 -0.11

2005 21.6 23.8 7136 7864 -0.30

2010 33.7 37.2 6914 7619 -0.49

2015 39.2 43.2 6070 6689 -0.65

2020 38.5 42.5 5489 6048 -0.70

2025 34.1 37.6 4836 5330 -0.70

2030 30.2 33.3 4289 4726 -0.70

Cumulative NOS reduction, 1998-2030 = 966 kt (1065 thousand short tons)

CO,

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

Mt (109 short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' short tons)

% U.S. CO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 1.1 1.2 2714 2990 -0.04

2000 3.1 3.4 2744 3024 -0.11

2005 8.8 9.7 2918 3216 -0.30

2010 14.9 16.4 3049 3360 -0.49

2015 20.1 22.2 3114 3432 -0.65

2020 22.8 25.1 3248 3579 -0.70

2025 23.7 26.1 3365 3708 -0.70

2030 24.6 27.1 3491 3848 -0.70

Cumulative CO2 reduction. 1998-2030 = 540 Mt (595 million short tons)

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

Table 4. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Standard Level One 

SO '7 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. S02 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt ( I 03 of short tons) kt ( I 03 of short tons) 

1998 4.9 5.4 12362 13623 -0.04 

2000 11.2 12.3 9853 10858 -0.11 

2005 26.8 29.5 8867 9772 -0.30 

2010 38.8 42.8 7956 8767 -0.49 

2015 42.3 46.6 6546 7214 -0.65 

2020 38.5 42.5 5489 6048 -0.70 . 

2025 31.1 34.3 4412 4862 -0.70 

2030 24.5 27.0 3488 3844 -0.70 

CumulatIve SOl reductIOn. 1998-2030 = 1017 kt (1120 thousand short tons) 

NOx 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. NOx Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt ( 1 03 of short tons) kt ( 1 03 of short tons) 

1998 3.3 3.7 8356 9208 -0.04 

2000 8.3 9.2 7335 8083 -0.11 

2005 21.6 23.8 7136 7864 -0.30 

2010 33.7 37.2 6914 7619 -0.49 

2015 39.2 43.2 6070 6689 -0.65 

2020 38.5 42.5 5489 6048 -0.70 

2025 34.1 37.6 4836 5330 -0.70 

2030 30.2 33.3 4289 4726 -0.70 

CumulatIve NOx reductIon, 1998-2030 = 966 kt (1065 thousand short tons) 

co, 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

Mt (l09 short tons) kt (l 06 short tons) 

1998 1.1 1.2 2714 2990 -0.04 

2000 3.1 3.4 2744 3024 -0.11 

2005 8.8 9.7 2918 3216 -0.30 

2010 14.9 16.4 3049 3360 -0.49 

2015 20.1 22.2 3114 3432 -0.65 

2020 22.8 25.1 3248 3579 -0.70 

2025 23.7 26.1 3365 3708 -0.70 

2030 24.6 27.1 3491 3848 -0.70 

CumulatIve CO2 reductIOn, 1998-2030 = 540 Mt (595 mIllIon short tons) 

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

So

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (103 of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (103 of short tons)

% U.S. SO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 6.0 6.6 12362 13623 -0.05

2000 14.5 16.0 9853 10858 -0.15

2005 34.0 37.5 8867 9772 -0.38

2010 49.3 54.3 7956 8767 -0.62

2015 53.7 59.2 6546 7214 -0.82

2020 49.0 54.0 5489 6048 -0.89

2025 39.5 43.6 4412 4862 -0.90

2030 31.2 34.3 3488 3844 -0.89

Cumulative SO2 reduction, 1998-2030 = 1292 kt (1424 thousand short tons)

NO,.

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (103 of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (103 of short tons)

% U.S. NO, Power

Plant Emissions

1998 4.0 4.4 8356 9208 -0.05

2000 10.8 11.9 7335 8083 -0.15

2005 27.4 30.2 7136 7864 -0.38

2010 42.8 47.2 6914 7619 -0.62

2015 49.8 54.9 6070 6689 -0.82

2020 49.0 54.0 5489 6048 -0.89

2025 43.3 47.8 4836 5330 -0.90

2030 38.4 42.3 4289 4726 -0.89

Cumulative NOS reduction- 1998-2030 = 1228 kt (1353 thousand short tons)

CO,

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

Mt (10' short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (103 of short tons)

% U.S. CO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 1.3 1.40 2714 2990 -0.05

2000 4.0 4.40 2744 3024 -0.15

2005 11.2 12.0 2918 3216 -0.38

2010 18.9 20.80 3049 3360 -0.62

2015 25.6 28.20 -3114 3432 -0.82

2020 29.0 32.00 3248 3579 -0.89

2025 39.5 43.60 4412 4862 -0.90

2030 31.2 34.30 3488 3844 -0.89

Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1998-2030 = 686 Mt (756 million short tons)

10

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

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

SO '2 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. S02 Power 

Generation Plant Emissions 

Year kt ( I 03 of short tons) kt ( I 03 of short tons) 

1998 6.0 6.6 12362 13623 -0.05 

2000 14.5 16.0 9853 10858 -0.15 

2005 34.0 37.5 8867 9772 -0.38 

2010 49.3 54.3 7956 8767 -0.62 

2015 53.7 59.2 6546 7214 -0.82 

2020 49.0 54.0 5489 6048 -0.89 

2025 39.5 43.6 4412 4862 -0.90 

2030 31.2 34.3 3488 3844 -0.89 

Cumulative S02 reduction, 1998-2030 = 1292 kt (1424 thousand short tons) 

NO 

Abated fi'om Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. NOx Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt (103 of short tons) kt ( 1 03 of short tons) 

1998 4.0 4.4 8356 9208 -0.05 

2000 10.8 11.9 7335 8083 -0.15 

2005 27.4 30.2 7136 7864 -0.38 

2010 42.8 47.2 6914 7619 -0.62 

2015 49.8 54.9 6070 6689 -0.82 

2020 49.0 54.0 5489 6048 -0.89 

2025 43.3 47.8 4836 5330 -0.90 

2030 38.4 42.3 4289 4726 -0.89 

CumulatIve NO" reduction. 1998-2030 = 1228 kt (1353 thousand short tons) 

CO, 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

Mt ( I 09 short tons) kt ( 1 03 of short tons) 

1998 l.3 1.40 2714 2990 -0.05 

2000 4.0 4.40 2744 3024 -0.15 

2005 11.2 12.30 2918 3216 -0.38 

2010 18.9 20.80 3049 3360 -0.62 

2015 25.6 28.20 3114 3432 -0.82 

2020 29.0 32.00 3248 3579 -0.89 

2025 39.5 43.60 4412 4862 -0.90 

2030 31.2 34.30 3488 3844 -0.89 

Cumulative CO2 reductIon, 1998-2030 = 686 Mt (756 millIon short tons) 

10 
Table 6. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Three

So

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (103 of short tons)

% U.S. SO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 7.0 7.7 12362 13623 -0.06

2000 16.4 18.1 9853 10858 -0.17

2005 38.7 42.6 8867 9772 -0.44

2010 55.9 61.7 7956 8767 -0.70

2015 60.8 67.1 6546 7214 -0.93

2020 55.6 61.3 5489 6048 -1.01

2025 44.9 49.5 4412 4862 -1.02

2030 35.5 39.1 3488 3844 -1.02

Cumulative SO2 reduction. 1998-2030 = 1465 kt (1615 thousand short ton)

NO

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' of short tons)

% U. S: NO, Power

Plant Emissions

1998 4.7 5.2 8356 9208 -0.06

2000 12.2 13.5 7355 8083 -0.17

2005 31.1 34.3 7136 7864 -0.44

2010 48.6 53.6 6914 7619 -0.70

2015 56.4 62.2 6070 6689 -0.93

2020 55.6 61.3 5489 6048 -1.01

2025 49.2 54.2 4836 5330 -1.02

2030 43.6 48.1 4289 4726 -1.02

Cumulative NO, reduction. 1998-2030 = 1393 kt (1535 thousand short tons)

CO,

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

Mt (106 of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' of short tons)

% U.S. CO, Power

Plant Emissions

1998 1.5 1.7 2714 2990 -0.06

2000 4.6 5.0 2744 3024 -0.17

2005 12.7 14.0 2918 3216 -0.44

2010 21.4 23.6 3049 3360 -0.70

2015 28.9 31.9 3114 3432 -0.93

2020 32.9 36.3 3248 3579 -1.01

2025 34.2 37.7 3365 3708 -1.02

2030 35.5 39.2 3491 3848 -1.02

Cumulative CO2 reduction. 1998-2030 = 778 Mt (858 million short tons)

11

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

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

So '2 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % u.s. S02 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt (103 of short tons) kt ( 1 03 of short tons) 

1998 7.0 7.7 12362 13623 -0.06 

2000 16.4 18.1 9853 10858 -0.17 

2005 38.7 42.6 8867 9772 -0.44 

2010 55.9 61.7 7956 8767 -0.70 

2015 60.8 67.1 6546 7214 -0.93 

2020 55.6 61.3 5489 6048 -1.01 

2025 44.9 49.5 4412 4862 -1.02 

2030 35.5 39.1 3488 3844 -1.02 

Cumulative S02 reduction. 1998-2030 = 1465 kt (1615 thousand short ton) 

NO 'X 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % u.s: NOxPower 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt (103 of short tons) kt ( 103 of short tons) 

1998 4.7 5.2 8356 9208 -0.06 

2000 12.2 13.5 7355 8083 -0.17 

2005 31.1 34.3 7136 7864 -0.44 

2010 48.6 53.6 6914 7619 -0.70 

2015 56.4 62.2 6070 6689 -0.93 

2020 55.6 61.3 5489 6048 -1.01 

2025 49.2 54.2 4836 5330 -1.02 

2030 43.6 48.1 4289 4726 -1.02 

- CumulatIve NOx reductIOn, 1998-2030 = 1393 kt (l )35 thousand short tons) 

CO, 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. C02Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

Mt ( 1 06 of short tons) kt (103 of sh0I1 tons) 

1998 1.5 1.7 2714 2990 -0.06 

2000 4.6 5.0 2744 3024 -0.17 

2005 12.7 14.0 2918 3216 -0.44 

2010 21.4 23.6 3049 3360 -0.70 

2015 28.9 31.9 3114 3432 -0.93 

2020 32.9 36.3 3248 3579 -1.01 

2025 34.2 37.7 3365 3708 -l.02 

2030 35.5 39.2 3491 3848 -1.02 

Cumulative CO2 reductIon. 1998-2030 = 778 Mt (858 mIllIon short tons) 

11 
Table 7. Projected Reduction of Pollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Four

S®2

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' of short tons)

% U.S. SO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 8.1 8.9 12362 13623 -0.07

2000 19.1 21.1 9853 10858 -0.19

2005 45.4 50.1 8867 9772 -0.51

2010 65.6 72.3 7956 8767 -0.82

2015 71.5 78.8 6546 7214 -1.09

2020 65.3 72.0 5489 6048 -1.19

2025 52.7 58.1 4412 4862 -1.20

2030 41.6 45.9 3488 3844 -1.19

Cumulative SO7 reduction. 1998-2030 = 1720 kt (1896 thousand short tons)

NO..

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10' of short tons)

% U.S. NO,, Power

Plant Emissions

1998 5.5 6.0 8356 9208 -0.07

2000 14.2 15.7 7335 8083 -0.19

2005 36.6 40.3 7136 . 7864 -0.51

2010 57.0 62.8 6914 7619 -0.82

2015 66.3 73.1 6070 6689 -1.09

2020 65.3 72.0 5489 6048 -1.19

2025 57.8 63.7 4836 5330 -1.20

2030 51.2 56.4 4289 4726 -1.19

Cumulative NO,, reduction , 1998-2030 = 1635 kt ( 1802 thousand short tons)

CO,

Year

Abated from Power Plant

Generation

kt (10' of short tons)

Total Emissions

kt (10 of short tons)

% U.S. CO2 Power

Plant Emissions

1998 1.8 2.0 2714 2990 -0.07

2000 5.3 5.9 2744 3024 -0.19

2005 14.9 16.5 2918 3216 -0.51

2010 25.1 27.7 3049 3360 -0.82

2015 34.0 37.5 3114 3432 -1.09

2020 38.6 42.6 3248 3579 -1.19

2025 40.2 44.3 3365 3708 -1.20

2030 41.7 46.0 3491 3848 -1.19

Cumulative CO2 reduction, 1998-2030 = 914 Mt (1007 million short tons)

12

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

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

S02 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. S02 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt ( I 03 of short tons) kt (I 03 of short tons) 

1998 8.1 8.9 12362 13623 -0.07 

2000 19.1 21.1 9853 10858 -0.19 

2005 45.4 50. I 8867 9772 -0.51 

2010 65.6 72.3 7956 8767 -0.82 

2015 71.5 78.8 6546 7214 -1.09 

2020 65.3 72.0 5489 6048 -I. I 9 

2025 52.7 58. I 4412 4862 -1.20 

2030 41.6 45.9 3488 3844 -1.19 

Cumulative S02 reductIOn, 1998-2030 = 1720 kt (1896 thousand short tons) 

NO 

Abated trom Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. NOx Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt ( I 03 of short tons) kt (l03 of short tons) 

1998 5.5 6.0 8356 9208 -0.07 

2000 14.2 15.7 7335 8083 -0.19 

2005 36.6 40.3 7136 7864 -0.51 

2010 57.0 62.8 6914 7619 -0.82 

2015 66.3 73.1 6070 6689 -1.09 

2020 65.3 72.0 5489 6048 -1.19 

2025 57.8 63.7 4836 5330 -1.20 

2030 51.2 56.4 4289 4726 -1.19 

- Cumulative NOx reductIOn, 1998-2030 = 163::, kt (1802 thousand shOJi tons) 

CO, 

Abated from Power Plant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2 Power 

Year Generation Plant Emissions 

kt (103 of short tons) kt (103 of short tons) 

1998 1.8 2.0 2714 2990 -0.07 

2000 5.3 5.9 2744 3024 -0.19 

2005 14.9 16.5 2918 3216 -0.51 

2010 25.1 27.7 3049 3360 -0.82 

2015 34.0 37.5 3114 3432 -1.09 

2020 38.6 42.6 3248 3579 -U 9 

2025 40.2 44.3 3365 3708 -1.20 

2030 41.7 46.0 3491 3848 -1.19 

Cumulative CO2 reductIOn, 1998-2030 = 914 Mt (1007 million short tons) 

12 
3.3 Cumulative Impacts

The CAAA calls for SO2 emissions reductions in two phases. In the first phase of the

planned reductions (beginning December 31, 1995 and carrying through the year 2000), electric

utilities will have several options for reducing their SO2 emissions to comply with the allowance

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

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

sulfur coal, 3) to retrofit plants emitting at a high rate with emissions-reduction technologies (e.g.,

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

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

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

Total SO2 emissions by utilities cannot exceed 8.1 Mt (8.9 million short tons) after December 31,

2000.

In the second phase of the planned reductions (beginning December 31, 2000), the options

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

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

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

will be fully utilized, there will be few opportunities for reducing emissions by decreasing the use

of a high emission plant or for further fuel switching.

The proposed adoption of the efficiency standard level 1 for this type of appliance would

likely not affect the overall quantity of physical emissions of SO2 which , because of SO2 .

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

there would be no SO2 emissions benefit to be derived from the lowered electricity demand

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

be lowered, but the demand for SO2 allowances by electricity generators would be reduced,

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

lowered generation is a costless means for a utility to achieve some of the SO2 reduction required

by the CAAA. Estimating these effects as they reverberate through SO2 allowance trading,

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

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

3.4 Environmental Justice

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

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

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

Environmental Justice.

3.5 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

None.

13

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

3.3 Cumulative Impacts 

The CAAA calls for S02 emissions reductions in two phases. In the first phase of the 

planned reductions (beginning December 31, 1995 and carrying through the year 2000), electric 

utilities will have several options for reducing their S02 emissions to comply with the allowance 

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

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

sulfur coal, 3) to retrofit plants emitting at a high rate with emissions-reduction technologies (e.g., 

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

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

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

Total S02 emissions by utilities cannot exceed 8.1 Mt (8.9 million short tons) after December 31, 

2000. 

In the second phase of the planned reductions (beginriing December 31, 2000), the options 

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

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

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

will be fully utilized, there will be few opportunities for reducing emissions by decreasing the use 

of a high emission plant or for further fuel switching. 

The proposed adoption of the efficiency standard level 1 for this type of appliance would 

likely not affect the overall quantity of physical emissions of S02 which, because of S02 

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

there would be no S02 emissions benefit to be derived from the lowered electricity demand 

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

be lowered, but the demand for S02 allowances by electricity generators would be reduced, 

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

lowered generation is a costIess means for a utility to achieve some of the S02 reduction required 

by the CAAA. Estimating these effects as they reverberate through S02 allowance trading, 

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

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

3.4 Environmental Justice 

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

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

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

Environmental Justice. 

3.5 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted 

None. 

13 
REFERENCES

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

1987.

2. U.S. DOE. Energy Information Administration . Effects of the Clean Air Act Amendments

on Reducing SO,/NOX Emissions. Energy Information Administration, SR/NES/90-01, 1990.

14

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

REFERENCES 

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

1987. 

2. U.S. DOE. Energy Information Administration. Effects of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

on Reducing SOjNOxEmissions. Energy Information Administration, SRlNES/90-01, 1990. 

14 
U4/08/97 1VE 16:32 FAX 510 486 6996 EAP LBNL 0004

POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Standard Level: Final Rule

AE097 Fuel Prices

S02

Year

Abated from

Power Plant

kt

000's

short

tons

2005 21.96 24.20 -0.13

2010 43.79 48.26 -0.54

2015 62.06 68.39 -0.81

2020 71.66 78.96 -0.94

2025 73.35 80.84 -0.94

2030 68.00 74.93 -1.08

Cumulative S02 reduction, 1545

NOx emissions:

Abated from

Year Power Plant

000's

short

tons

6.11

13.13

20.37

25.85

28.42

29.77

kt short kt

tons

2005 18.91 20._84 ._-0.37

2010 39.81 43.87 -0.90

2015 57. 92 63 .83 -1.42

2020 66 .35 73.12 -1.79

2025 61.62 67.90 -2.01

2030 55.63 61.31 -2.16

Cumulative NOx reduction, 1362

C02

emissions:

emissions:

Year

Mt

Abated from

Power Plant

Million

2005 5.55

2010 11.92

2015 18.48

2020 23.46

2025 25.79

2030 27.01

Cumulative C02

Abated

kt

In

from Total

House

000's

short

tons

Reduction

Emissions

kt

-0.15 21.82

-0.59 4,3.25

-0.89 61.25

-1.04 70.71

-1.04 72.41

-1.19 66.92

House

000's

kt = 1703 000 short

Abated from

In

in

Reduction as

a % of "otal

Residential

Emissions

0.56

1.16

1.70

2.06

2.16

2.15

tons

Total Reduction

in Emissions

short

tons

kt

000's

short

tons

24.05

47.66

67.50

77.93

79.80

73.75

000's

short

tons

20.43

42.88

62.27

71.14

65.68

58.93

Reducti,..)n as

a % of Total

Residential

Emissions

-0.41 18.54

-0.99 38.91

-1.56 56.51

-1.97 64.56

-2.22 59.60

-2.38 53.47

kt = 1501 000

Abated from

In House

Million

Mt

-0.40

-1.00

-1.57

-1.97

-2.21

-2.38

reduction, 465

short

tons

-0.44

-1.10

-1.73

-2.17

-2.44

-2.62

0.52

1.08

1.58

1.90

1.94

1.90

short tons

Total Reduction

in Emissions

Million

Mt short

tons

Reduction as

a % of total

Residential

Emissions

5.14 5.67 0.39

10.92 12. 03 0.80

16.91 18.63 1.19

21.49 23.68 1.44

23.58 25.99 1.51

24.64 27.15 1.52

Mt = 513 000 000 short tons

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 324

___ q4/01l/IH nJ~ Hi: Jl FAA 510 4tHi 6996 EAP LBNL 

POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS. AND FREEZERS 

Standard Level: Final Rule 

AE097 Fuel Prices 

S02 emissions: 

Abated from Abated from Total Reduction 

Year Power Plant In House in Emissions 

ODD's OOO's OOO's 

kt short kt short kt short 

tons tons tons 

2005 21.96 24.20 -0.13 -0.15 21.82 24.05 

2010 43.79 48.26 -0.54 -0.59 4.3.25 47.66 

2015 62.06 68.39 -0.81 -0.89 61.25 67.50 

2020 71.66 78.96 -0.94 -1.04 70.71 77.93 

2025 73.35 80.B4 -0.94 -1.04 72.41 79.80 

2030 68.00 74.93 -1. 08 -1.19 66.92 73.75 

Reductiun as 

a % of '.~otal 

Resideatial 

Emisf:ions 

0.56 

1.16 

1. 70 

2.06 

2.16 

2.15 

Cumulative S02 reduction, 1545 kt = 1703 000 short tons 

NOx emissions: 

Abated from Abated from Total Reduction ReductL:m as 

Year Power Plant In House in Emissions a % of 'rotal 

OOO's OOO's a~o's Residential 

kt short kt short kt short Emis:;ions 

tons tons tons 

2005 18.91 20._B4 .. -0.37 -0.41 18.54 20.43 0.52 

2010 39.B1 43.87 -0.90 -0.99 38.91 42.88 1.08 

2015 57.92 63.B3 -1.42 -1.56 56.51 62.27 1.58 

2020 66.35 73.12 -1. 79 -1.97 64.56 71.14 1.90 

2025 61.62 67.90 -2.01 -2.22 59.60 65.68 1.94 

2030 55.63 61.31 -2.16 -2.38 53.47 58.93 1.90 

Cumulative NOx reduction, 1362 kt == 1501 000 short tons 

C02 emissions: 

Abated from Abated from Total Reduction Reduction as 

Year Power Plant In House in Emissions a % of rotal 

Million Million Million Residential 

Mt short Mt short Mt short Emi s.'S ions 

tons tons tons 

2005 5.55 6.11 -0.40 -0.44 5.14 5.67 0.39 

2010 11.92 13.13 -1.00 -1.10 10.92 12.03 0.80 

2015 18.48 20.37 -1.57 -1. 73 16.91 18.63 1.19 

2020 23.46 25.85 -1.97 -2.17 21.49 23.68 1.44 

2025 25.79 28.42 -2.:21 -2.44 23.58 25.99 1.51 

2030 27.01 29.77 -2.38 -2.62 ~4.64 27.15 1.52 

Cumulative CO2 reduction, 465 Mt = 513 000 000. short tons 

iii 004