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 6450-01-P UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Finding ofNo Significant Impact Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products

AGENCY: Department ofEnergy ACTION: Finding ofNo 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 ofEnergy (DOE) to administer an energy conservationprogram for these products. Based on an Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-1138, 

### DOEhas determined that the adoption ofthe 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 ofthe human environment within the meaning ofthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, anenvironmental impact statement (EIS) is not required, and the Department is issuing this fmding ofno significant impact (FONSI).

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY: Copies ofthe EA and modified emissionreduction tables for the



### 1Final 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 Final Rule are available from: U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofEnergy 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: DrBarry P. Berlin Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-43) U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 (202) 586-9127 FOR FURTHERINFORMATION REGARDING THEDOE NEPA 

### PROCESS, CONTACT: Carol Borgstrom, Director Office ofNEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42) 1000Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585-0119 (202) 586-4600

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The action is the establishment ofrevised
energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

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

new energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The results arepresented for each potential standard level. Eachpotential standard level is an alternative action, and the environmental impacts ofeach alternative are compared to what would be expected to happen ifno new standard were adopted, i.e., the "no action" alternative. The amended standard being finalized today is a small modification ofone ofthe

2standard 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 standard levels that had beenproposed.

The main environmental concernis emissions from fossil-fueled electricity generation. Most ofthe design options for this appliance product category would result in decreased electricity use and, therefore, a reduction inpowerplant emissions. The proposed efficiency standards would generally decrease airpollutionby decreasing future energy demand. The greatest decreases in airpollution would be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or

### S02. Reductions ofnitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur, and are listed by weight ofNox 

### and CO2, 

### respectively.

Although the quantity ofraw materials used per appliance would remain relatively constant, in most scenarios initial price increases from standards are expected to reduce slightly the number ofappliances sold, which would result in small decreases inthe total
amount ofraw materials used. The main effect ofthis decreased appliance production would be the 

### S02 decreases from avoided fuel burning atpower plants. The environmental contribution from reduced steel production is not included inthe estimates for net 

### S02 decreases resulting from design changes inthese products.

Although the effects onparticulate emissions related to the standard-induced decrease in electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on

### S02, NOx, 

### and CO2, 

### any reduction wouldpossibly be beneficial to the quality ofsurface water. Since the total amount ofparticulate emitted would decrease, it is very likely that less particulate would reach surface 

### 3Reduction 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 ofNEPA. Therefore, an EIS is not required.

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

V 

# (_ 1 

# 8NLA, Christine A. Ervin Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

4 Reduction in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in 

### S02 and NOx would have otherbeneficial effects onthe environment. The resultant improvement in air quality and the decreased potential for acid rain formation could help improve the quality ofwetlands and fish and wildlife as well as aid inthepreservation ofhistorical and archaeological sites.

DETERMINATION: Baseduponthe EA, DOEhas determined that the adoption ofthe amended energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would not constitute a majorFederal action significantly affecting the quality ofthe human environment, within the meaning ofNEPA. 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 ,Uojoug alqumauoN 2 Xouatot3Jg iCl o12ug XlEamas 1UL'1S!SSV S jaug Jo juampudaU -S-fl



### 9661 A IV11MVf



# SHHZHHHA Umv c c



### 8£11-V21/21® 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 20585ENVIRONMENTAL 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 energyconservation 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 

### ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTFORTHE PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FORREFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS,AND FREEZERS

1. 

### INTRODUCTION AND NEED FORPROPOSEDACTION 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 ofthe Council on Environmental Quality, Title 40, Code ofFederal 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 theDepartment has undertaken pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by theNational Energy ConservationPolicy Act and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act [1].**~** 

### Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RegardingEnergy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers. 60 FR 37388 (July 20,1995). A draft EAwas prepared and made available to the public at the

. time ofpublication ofthe proposed rule. The Department received no comments on the draft EA. The EApresents the associated environmental impacts from four energy conservation standards for this type ofhousehold appliance. Forpurposes ofthis EA, each standard is an alternative action and is compared to what is expected to happen ifno new standards for this type of product were finalized, i.e., the "no action" alternative. Ofthe four energy conservation standard levels considered, standard level 4 has the highest level ofenergy efficiency and the largest environmental impact. The proposed action implementing Standard Level 1would have the least environmental impacts, through emission reductions, ofthe four alternatives. The description ofthe standards below results from the appliance energy-efficiency analyses conducted for the rulemaking. The presentation ofenvironmental impacts for each ofthe alternatives appears at Section 3 ofthe EA. The proposed Standard Levell. This standard level is projected to save 7.0 quadrillion British thermal units (quads), the equivalent of6.7 exajoules (El) 

### ofenergy 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) ofthis standard level is 3.7 years for the largest class and no more than 9.2 years for any class. This standard is at ornear the lowest life-cycle cost for all classes and is expected to result in a reduction in life-cycle cost ofapproximately $143 or 11.5 percent for thelargest class. The standard is expected to have essentially no impact on the prototypical manufacturer's return on equity of7.3 percent.

1Standard 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 

### Standard Level 2. This standard level is projected to save 7.8 quads (8.2 

### EJ) ofenergy 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 ofthe product. The Notice ofProposed 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 projectedto save 8.6 quads ( 9.1 

### EJ) ofenergy for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and 1.7 quads (1.8 

### EJ) for freezers. While this level does not use vacuum panels, for most ofthe classes about 40 percent 

### ofthe energy savings are obtained by increasing the insulation values. The Notice ofProposed Rulemaking noted that there is general agreement that an increase in the wall thickness is not acceptable for many ofthe 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-runreturn on equity from 7.3 percent to 5.8 percent, a reduction of20 percent. Forfreezer manufacturers, short-run return on equity drops from 7.3 percent to 4.7 percent, a reduction ofmore than 35 percent. 

### Standard Level 4. Standard level 4, the maximum technologically feasible (Max Tech) level ofefficiency, 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 orderto meet this standard, the Department assumes that all refrigerator products would incorporate vacuum panel insulation. The use ofvacuum panel insulation accounts for 30 percent oftotal energy savings, with increased wall thickness as the only alternative. The Notice

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

ready tobe applied as a reliable design option in the production ofa 1998 compliant product. There are concerns about manufaCturability, availability, reliability, and performance. Vacuum panels are 6 to 10 times heavier thanfoam. Theincrease in door weight may cause the appliance to tip overwhen the dooris opened. Also, current production capability for vacuum panels is far too small for the projected demand. A I-inch increase in wall and doorthickness (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 ofthe proposed action and the alternatives, the primary environmental concernthat 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 ofpowerplant emissions. The greatest decreases in air pollution would befor sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight ofsulfur dioxide, or S02' Reductions ofnitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide would also occur and are listed by weight of N02 and CO2 , respectively. CO2emissions from fossil-fuel burning is considered an
2environmental 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 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 ofraw 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 ofthe 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 onparticulate emissions related to the proposed standard-induced decrease in electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on decreases in S02, NOx' and CO2. For example, in 1984, powerplants contributed only 7% ofU.S. total particulate emissions as compared to contributions of83% 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 ofsurface water. Since the amount ofparticulates emitted would be decreased, itis very likely that less particulates would reach surface water. Reductions in particulate emissions accompanied by decreases in S02 and-NOx would have otherbeneficial effects on the environment. The resultant improvement to air quality and the decreased potential ofacid rain formation would help improve the quality ofwetlands and fish and wildlife as well as aid in the preservation ofhistorical and archaeological sites. Reductions in NOx emissions within warmurban areas is particularlybeneficial because it is an urban smog precursor gas as well as an air pollutant in its own right. 

### 2. METHODS OFESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The greatest impacts ofthe proposed action and alternative standards would be a reduction in electricity demand growth. The main environmental effects ofpower 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 BaselineEmissions
In the Service Report that accompanies the 1991 National Energy Strategy (NES) [2J, the impact on powerplant emissions as a result of Title IV ofthe 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 thebaseline case, and serve as the basis for comparison ofemission reductions among the proposed standard and alternatives.

3In 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 

### In the report accompanying the 1991 NES, two possible outcomes are presented, a flexible case and a restricted case, so that the effect ofdifferent levels ofpermitted trading of emission allowances can be evaluated. (The report does not go beyond this 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 underthe 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 

### PowerPlantEmissions

- Baseline Case (Metric Units)
CO

### 2 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 

### PowerPlantEmissions

- Baseline Case

(Inch-Pound Units)
CO

### 2 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) Sulfurand Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Foreach ofthe alternatives analyzed, emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning power plants are estim·ated. In the analysis ofthe impacts ofdesign changes to the appliances, lower sulfur emissions resulting from decreased steel production are not considered. No changes in the amount ofsteel used per unit are expected. In orderto reflect more fully the effects ofdeaner-burning powerplants in future years,
4emission 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 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 energyuse (El) by assuming a 30% overall energy conversion efficiency. As noted above, the source ofthese projected emissions and electrical generation data is the Service Report thataccompanied 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 PowerPlants

- Metric Units Electricity Generation Energy Use Emissions EmissionsRates(generation)

(TeraWattHours) (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



### Table2.b Projected Electricity Generation,Emissions**Data~** 

### and Emission Rates for S02 and NOx 

### at Fossil Fuel-Burning PowerPlants

- 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 shorttons shorttons tons/Quad tons/Quad Britishtons

(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 NOxemissions rates for all fossil fuel-burning powerplants in theUnited States. Emissions
5rates 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 rates were not calculated for each fuel-burning source as the emissions data supplied by the Service Report were not disaggregated according to powerplant type (i.e., coal, oil, gas). To obtain emission rate values, the amount ofemissions was divided by the total energy use.offossil fuel-burning power plants. Thetotal energy use by fossil fuel-burning powerplants 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 energyuse (input), the electrical generation datafrom each fossil fuel source was summed and then divided by the assumed efficiency offossil fuel-burning power plants (30%), which includes transmission and distribution losses. This fossil fuel-burning powerplant efficiency is consistent with thatused by theLBL Residential EnergyModel (LBL-REM). The amount ofS02 and NOx emissions abated for any particularyear is determined by multiplying the estimates ofenergy saved through reduced electricity generation in thatyearby the emission rate for that particularyear. Foryears 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 CO2were 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. 

### Table3.a Projected Electricity Generation Data,Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for CO2 

### atFossil Fuel-BurningPowerPlants

- Metric Units

Electricity Generation Coal Oil Gas Energy Use Emission TeraWattH TeraWattH TeraWatt Total CO2 EmissionRate CO2 ours. ours Hours Exajoules Million Tons grams/kiioWatthours 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

6Table 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 

### Table 3.b Projected Electricity Generation Data, Emissions Data, and Emissions Rates for CO2 

### at Fossil Fuel-BurningPower Plants

- Inch-Pound Units

Electricitv Generation Coal Oil Gas 1rY 1rY 109 Energy UseTotal kiloWatt kiloWatt kiloWatt quadrillion Emission CO2 Emission Rate CO2

hours hours hours British tons 1rY 1rY Year (KWh) (KWh) (KWh) (Quads) shorttons 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 ofCO2emissions abated for any particular year is determined by multiplying the estimates ofenergy saved through reduced electricity generation by the emission rate for that particularyear. Foryears 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 ofemitted CO2 , S02, andNOxby imposing efficiency standards for appliances at each of the four standard levels considered in this analysis. A table is presented for each ofthe standard levels. Eachtable details the changes that would occurto each ofthe three emissions (i.e., CO2 , S02, andNOJthrough the implementation ofa particular standard level for this type of appliance. Eachtable shows, for a specific year between 1998, the first year in which the proposed standard would be implemented, and 2030, the amount ofemission abated from power plant generation, as compared against the baseline case. Also included are the cumulative changes ofeach pollutant (between the years 1998 and 2030). The estimated of S02, NOx, and CO2in Tables 

### 4-7 are also exposed as a percentage ofU.S. powerplant emissions for the yearunder consideration. 

### 3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total ofup 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% ofthe S02emissions estimated to come from powerplants in that year. In the year 2030, decreases in S02emissions will represent about 1.2% ofthe S02emissions estimated to 7come 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 come from powerplants in that year. As discussed earlier, the possible reductions ofS02 emissions caused by standards will reduce the utility's need to purchase allowances orpermit 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% ofthe NOxemissions estimated to comefr.om power plants in the years 2000 and 2030, respectively. 3.2 

### Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in CO2emissions from Standard Level 4 design changes is 914 Mt (1007 million short tons ofCO2 ),

8Table 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) 

### Table 4. Projected Reduction ofPollutants for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Standard Level One SO '7 Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. S02Power Year Generation Plant Emissions kt ( I 03 ofshort tons) kt ( I 03 ofshort 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 SOlreductIOn. 1998-2030

### = 1017 kt (1120 thousand short tons) NOx Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. NOx Power Year Generation PlantEmissions kt ( 1 03ofshort tons) kt ( 1 03ofshort 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 shorttons) 

### co, Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2Power Year Generation PlantEmissions Mt (l09 shorttons) kt (l06 shorttons) 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 CO2reductIOn, 1998-2030

### =540Mt(595 mIllIon shorttons)
9Table 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 (1 03 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 

### Table 5. Projected Reduction ofPollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Two SO '2 Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. S02Power Generation PlantEmissions Year kt ( I 03 ofshort tons) kt ( I 03 ofshorttons) 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 S02reduction, 1998-2030 = 1292 kt (1424 thousand short tons) NO Abated fi'om PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. NOxPower Year Generation PlantEmissions kt (103ofshort tons) kt ( 1 03ofshort 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 = 1228kt (1353 thousand short tons) CO, Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2Power Year Generation PlantEmissions Mt ( I 09 short tons) kt ( 1 03 ofshorttons) 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 CO2reductIon, 1998-2030 = 686Mt (756 millIon short tons)

10Table 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 

### Table 6. Projected Reduction ofPollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Three 

## So '2 Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % 

### u.s. S02Power Year Generation PlantEmissions kt (103 ofshorttons) kt ( 1 03 ofshort 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 S02reduction. 1998-2030 = 1465 kt (1615 thousand shortton) NO 'X Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % 

### u.s: NOxPower Year Generation PlantEmissions kt (103 ofshort tons) kt ( 103ofshorttons) 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



### - CumulatIveNOxreductIOn, 1998-2030 = 1393 kt (l)35 thousand short tons) CO, Abated from PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. C02Power Year Generation PlantEmissions Mt ( 1 06 ofshort tons) kt (103 ofsh0I1 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 CO2reductIon. 1998-2030 = 778Mt (858 mIllIon shorttons)

11Table 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 

### Table 7. Projected Reduction ofPollutants for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Standard Level Four S02
Abatedfrom PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. S02Power Year Generation Plant Emissions kt ( I 03 ofshorttons) kt (I03 ofshort 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 S02reductIOn, 1998-2030

### = 1720kt (1896 thousand short tons) NO AbatedtromPowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. NOxPower Year Generation PlantEmissions kt ( I 03 ofshorttons) kt (l03ofshorttons) 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 PowerPlant Total Emissions % U.S. CO2Power Year Generation PlantEmissions kt (103ofshorttons) kt (103ofshort 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 -U9 2025 40.2 44.3 3365 3708 -1.20 2030 41.7 46.0 3491 3848 -1.19 Cumulative CO2reductIOn, 1998-2030

### =914 Mt (1007 million shorttons)

123.3 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 3.3 CumulativeImpacts The CAAA calls for S02 emissions reductions in two phases. In the first phase ofthe planned reductions (beginning December 31, 1995 

### and carrying through the year2000), 

### 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 ofhigh emission units and increase the use oftheir 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 otherutilities that reduce their emissions below their permitted levels, and 5) to purchase powerratherthan generate it. Most utilities will make use of a combination ofthese options to minimize the cost ofcomplying with the allowance constraints. Total S02 emissions by utilities cannot exceed 8.1 

### Mt (8.9 

### million short tons) afterDecember 31, 2000. 

### Inthe second phase ofthe 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 ofnew, advanced generating technologies. However, during this period utilities will be less able to reduce emissions by changing the waythey utilize their plants. Since most plants will befully utilized, there will be few opportunities for reducing emissions by decreasing the use ofa high emission plant orfor further fuel switching. The proposed adoption ofthe efficiency standard level 1for this type ofappliance would likely not affect the overall quantity ofphysical emissions ofS02 which, because of S02 allowance trading, will hovernearthe ceiling permitted underthe 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 otherwords, lowered generation is a costIess means for a utility to achieve some ofthe S02 reduction required by the CAAA. Estimating these effects as they reverberate through S02 allowance trading, however, is beyond the scope ofthis analysis. Therefore, emissions reductions by weight are simply estimated and reported, as ifthe allowance trading market did not exist. 

### 3.4 Environmental Justice Because neither the proposed adoption ofStandard Level 1nor 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 ofAgencies and Persons Consulted None.

13REFERENCES

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

14 

### REFERENCES

1. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, March 17, 1987. 2. U.S. DOE. Energy Information Administration. 

### Effectsof the CleanAirActAmendments onReducingSOjNOxEmissions. Energy Information Administration, SRlNES/90-01, 1990.

14U4/08/97 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 1.52 000 000 short tons Mt = 513 ___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 Emis.'Sions 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 

### iii004