DOE/EA-1674 

Environmental Assessment 

for 

10 CFR 431 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines 

August 2009
16-i 

CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 16-1 

16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions................................................................................ 16-1 

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

16.2.3 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions .............................................................. 16-7 

16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions ..................................................................... 16-8 

16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions ...................................................... 16-8 

16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND 

CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 16-9 

16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS....................................................................................... 16-9 

16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS................................................................... 16-10 

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS .......................................................................................... 16-10 

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................ 16-11 

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 16-13 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 16.2.1 Summary of Emissions Reductions by TSLs for Beverage Vending 

Machines (cumulative reductions, 2012–2042)................................................. 16-6 

Table 16.2.2 Emissions Forecast for AEO 2009 Reference Case........................................... 16-8 

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

Power Plant Combustion Emissions .................................................................. 16-9 

Table 16.4.1 Mean Life-Cycle Cost Savings for All Customers and Sub-Group, 

Beverage Vending Machine (2008$)............................................................... 16-10 

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class A Beverage 

Vending Machine Equipment .......................................................................... 16-11 

Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class B Beverage 

Vending Machine Equipment .......................................................................... 16-12 
16-1 

CHAPTER 16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

16.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes potential environmental effects that may result from energy 

conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines. The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE)’s proposed energy conservation standards are not site-specific, and would apply 

to all 50 states and U.S. territories. Therefore, none of the proposed standards would impact land 

uses, cause any direct disturbance to the land, or directly affect biological resources in any one 

area. 

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

comparison to the baseline efficiency levels. These changes in the demand for electricity and the 

costs of achieving these savings are the primary drivers in analyzing environmental effects. 

Estimates of source energy savings can be found in the utility impact analysis in chapter 14 of 

this technical support document (TSD). Detailed discussion on TSLs can be found in chapter 9 of 

this TSD. 

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

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

analysis, and the latter part describes potential impacts to other environmental resources. 

16.2 AIR EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 

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

conservation standards for beverage vending machine equipment. The outcomes of the 

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

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

impact analysis in TSD chapter 14. 

16.2.1 Air Emissions Descriptions 

For each of the TSLs, DOE calculated total power-sector emissions based on output from 

NEMS-BT model (see TSD chapter 14). This analysis considers three criteria pollutants: 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). An air pollutant is any substance 

in the air that can cause harm to humans or the environment. Pollutants may be natural or manmade (i.e., anthropogenic) and may take the form of solid particles (i.e., particulates or 

particulate matter), liquid droplets, or gases. More information on air pollution characteristics 

and regulations is available on the U.S. Environment Protection Agent (EPA)’s website, 

www.epa.gov. This analysis also considers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. 

16.2.1.1 Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide is formed when fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, coal) are burned in electric 

generating stations and from other industrial combustion processes that use fossil fuels. In 

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

emissions cap on all affected electric generating units. The attainment of the emissions cap is 

flexible among generators and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
16-2 

permits. Thus, DOE is not certain that there will be reduced overall SO2 emissions from the 

standards. However, to the extent reduced power generation demand decreases the demand for 

and price of emissions allowance permits, there would be an environmentally related economic 

benefit from the proposed energy conservation standards reducing SO2 emissions allowance 

demand. Furthermore, over time, if emissions decline, there is greater flexibility in reducing the 

ceiling amount. However, since DOE does not anticipate a nontrivial change in SO2 emissions, 

these results are not reported in this chapter. 

16.2.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 

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

contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of these NOx are colorless and odorless. 

However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), along with particles in the air can 

often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NO2 is the specific form of NOx

reported in this document. NOx is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of 

ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems. It can contribute to the 

formation of acid rain, and can impair visibility in areas such as national parks. NOx also 

contributes to the formation of fine particles that can impair human health. 

Nitrogen oxides form when fossil fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion 

process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other 

industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fossil fuels. Nitrogen oxides can also be 

formed naturally. Electric utilities account for about 22 percent of NOx emissions in the United 

States. 

16.2.1.3 Mercury (Hg) 

Coal-fired power plants emit Hg present in coal during the burning process. While coalfired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated Hg emissions in the 

United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool or to contamination of U.S. 

waters. U.S. coal-fired power plants emit Hg in three different forms: oxidized Hg (likely to be 

deposited within the continental United States); elemental Hg, which can travel thousands of 

miles before depositing to land and water; and Hg that is in particulate form. Atmospheric Hg is 

then deposited on land, lakes, rivers, and estuaries through rain, snow, and dry deposition. Once 

deposited, it can transform into methyl mercury and accumulate in fish tissue through 

bioaccumulation. 

Americans are exposed to methyl mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish. 

Because the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of methyl mercury, women 

of childbearing age are regarded as the population of greatest concern. Children exposed to 

methyl mercury before birth may be at increased risk of poor performance on neurobehavioral 

tasks, such as those measuring attention, fine motor function, language skills, visual-spatial 

abilities, and verbal memory. 

16.2.1.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

The EPA does not currently require emissions controls for CO2 under the Clean Air Act. 

However, CO2 is of interest because of its classification as a greenhouse gas (GHG) that traps the 
16-3 

sun’s radiation inside the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs occur either naturally in the atmosphere or 

as the result from human activities. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, CO2, 

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Human activities, however, add to the 

levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. For example, CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere 

when solid waste, fossil fuels, wood, and wood products are burned. During the past 20 years, 

about three-quarters of anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) CO2 emissions resulted from burning 

fossil fuels. 

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes, 

collectively known as the “carbon cycle.” The movement of carbon between the atmosphere and 

the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these 

natural processes can absorb some of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions produced each year, 

billions of metric tons (Mt) are added to the atmosphere annually. In the United States, CO2

emissions account for 84.6 percent of total GHG emissions.1 

16.2.2 Air Quality Regulation 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 list 189 toxic air pollutants of which emissions 

must be reduced and that EPA is required to control (www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/orig189.html). EPA 

has set national air quality standards for six common air pollutants (also referred to as “criteria” 

pollutants), two of which are SO2 and NOx. Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 gave 

EPA the authority to control acidification and to require operators of electric power plants to 

reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx. Title IV of the 1990 amendments established a cap-and-trade 

program for SO2 from certain sources. The cap-and-trade program is intended to help control 

acid rain and serves as a model for more recent programs with similar features. 

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

the Clean Air Act (40 CFR parts 51, 96, and 97; www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule). CAIR 

would permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in eastern States of the United States. CAIR 

required large reductions of SO2 and/or NOx emissions across 28 eastern states and the District 

of Columbia. States must achieve the required emission reductions using one of two compliance 

options: (1) meet an emission budget for each regulated state by requiring power plants to 

participate in an EPA-administered interstate cap-and-trade system that caps emissions in two 

stages; or (2) meet an individual state emissions budget through measures of the state’s choosing. 

Phase 1 caps for NOx are to be in place in 2009. Phase 1 caps for SO2 are to be in place in 2010. 

The Phase 2 caps for both pollutants are due in 2015. Also in 2005, EPA issued the final rule, 

“Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Steam Generating 

Units” under sections 110 and 111 of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR parts 60, 63, 72, and 75). 

Referred to as the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), this rule was closely related to the CAIR 

and established standards of performance for Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired 

electric utility steam generating units beginning in 2010. The CAMR regulated mercury 

emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

On February 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

(D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in State of New Jersey, et al. v. EPA,2

 in which the Court, 

among other actions, vacated the CAMR referenced above. 
16-4 

On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) issued its decision in North Carolina v. EPA, which vacated the CAIR issued by the 

EPA on March 10, 2005.3

 On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit decided to allow CAIR to 

remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (remand of vacatur).4 

16.2.2.1 Global Climate Change 

Climate change has evolved into a matter of global concern because it is expected to have 

widespread, adverse effects on natural resources and systems. A growing body of evidence 

points to anthropogenic sources of GHGs such as CO2 as major contributors to climate change. 

Because this final rule will likely decrease CO2 emission rates associated with beverage vending 

machines and are from the fossil fuel sector in the United States, DOE examines the impacts and 

causes of climate change and then the potential impact of the final rule on CO2 emissions and 

global warming. 

16.2.2.2 Impacts of Climate Change on the Environment 

Climate is usually defined as the average weather, over a period ranging from months to 

many years. Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate, which is identifiable 

through changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) over an extended period, typically decades or longer. 

The World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide an 

objective source of information about climate change. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report (IPCC Report) published in 2007, climate change is consistent with observed changes to 

the world’s natural systems; the IPCC expects these changes to continue. 

These changes are consistent with warming, including warming of the world’s oceans to 

a depth of 3000 meters; global average sea level rise at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year from 

1961 to 2003; loss of annual average Arctic sea ice at a rate of 2.7 percent per decade, changes in 

wind patterns that affect extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns, increases in intense 

precipitation in some parts of the world, as well as increased drought and more frequent heat 

waves in many locations worldwide, and numerous ecological changes. 

Looking forward, the IPCC describes continued global warming of about 0.2 °C per 

decade for the next two decades under a wide range of emission scenarios for CO2, other GHGs, 

and aerosols. After that period, the rate of increase is less certain. The IPCC Report describes 

increases in average global temperatures of about 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C at the end of the century 

relative to today. These increases vary depending on the model and emissions scenarios. 

The IPCC Report describes incremental impacts associated with the rise in temperature. 

At ranges of incremental increases to the global average temperature with either “high” or “very 

high” confidence, there is likely to be an increasing degree of impacts such as coral reef 

bleaching, loss of wildlife habitat, loss to specific ecosystems, and negative yield impacts for 

major cereal crops in the tropics but also projects that there likely will be some beneficial 

impacts on crop yields in temperate regions. 
16-5 

Causes of Climate Change. The IPCC Report states that the world has warmed by about 

0.74 °C in the last 100 years. The IPCC Report finds that most of the temperature increase since 

the mid-20th century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic concentrations of CO2

and other long-lived GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, rather than 

from natural causes. 

Increasing the CO2 concentration partially blocks the earth’s re-radiation of captured 

solar energy in the infrared band, inhibits the radiant cooling of the earth, and thereby alters the 

energy balance of the planet, which gradually increases its average temperature. The IPCC 

Report estimates that currently, CO2 makes up about 77 percent of the total CO2-equivalent 

global warming potential in GHGs emitted from human activities, with the vast majority 

(74 percent) of the CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use. GHGs differ in their warming influence 

(radiative forcing) on a global climate system due to their different radiative properties and 

lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences may be expressed through a common 

metric based on the radiative forcing of CO2 (i.e., CO2 equivalent). CO2 equivalent emission is 

the amount of CO2 emission that would cause the same time integrated radiative forcing as an 

emitted amount of other long-lived GHG or mixture of GHGs. For the future, the IPCC Report 

describes a wide range of GHG emissions scenarios, but under each scenario CO2 would 

continue to comprise above 70 percent of the total global warming potential. 

Stabilization of CO2 Concentrations. Unlike many traditional air pollutants, CO2 mixes 

thoroughly in the entire atmosphere and is long-lived. The residence time of CO2 in the 

atmosphere is long compared to the emission processes. Therefore, the global cumulative 

emissions of CO2 over long periods determine CO2 concentrations because it takes hundreds of 

years for natural processes to remove the CO2. Globally, 49 billion Mt of CO2—equivalent of 

anthropogenic (man-made) GHGs are emitted every year. Of this annual total, fossil fuels 

contribute about 29 billion Mt of CO2. Other non-fossil fuel contributors include CO2 emissions 

from deforestation and decay from agriculture biomass; agricultural and industrial emissions of 

methane; and emissions of nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons. 

Researchers have focused on considering atmospheric CO2 concentrations that likely will 

result in some level of global climate stabilization, and the emission rates associated with 

achieving the “stabilizing” concentrations by particular dates. They associate these stabilized 

CO2 concentrations with temperature increases that plateau in a defined range. For example, at 

the low end, the IPCC Report scenarios target CO2 stabilized concentrations range between 

350 parts per million (ppm) and 400 ppm (essentially today’s value) because of climate inertia, 

concentrations in this low end range would still result in temperatures projected to increase 2.0 

°C to 2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels (about 1.3 °C to 1.7 °C above today’s levels). To achieve 

concentrations between 350 ppm to 400 ppm, the IPCC scenarios present that there would have 

to be a rapid downward trend in total annual global emissions of GHGs to levels that are 50 to 85 

percent below today’s annual emission rates by no later than 2050. Since it is assumed that there 

would continue to be growth in global populations and substantial increases in economic 

production, the scenarios identify required reductions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per 

unit of output) of more than 90 percent. However, even at these rates, the scenarios describe 

some warming and some climate change is projected due to already accumulated CO2 and GHGs 

in the atmosphere. 
16-6 

The Beneficial Impact of the Rule on CO2 Emissions. If finalized, it is anticipated that 

the Rule will reduce energy-related CO2 emission rates, particularly those associated with energy 

consumption in buildings. In the United States, the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

reports in its 2009 Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA 2009) that U.S. annual energy-related 

emissions of CO2 in 2007 were about 6.0 billion Mt (about 20 percent of the world energyrelated CO2 emissions and about 12 percent of total global GHG emissions), of which 2.34 

billion Mt were attributed to residential and commercial buildings sector (including related 

energy-using equipment such as beverage vending machines). Most of the GHG emissions 

attributed to residential and commercial buildings are emitted from fossil fuel-fired power plants 

that generate electricity used in this sector. In the AEO 2009 Updated Reference case,5 EIA 

projected that annual energy-related CO2 emissions would grow from 6.0 billion Mt in 2007 to 

6.2 billion Mt in 2030, an increase of 4 percent (Table 16.2.1, which is based on the Updated 

Reference Case), while emissions attributable to electricity consumption by the commercial 

sector would grow from 0.87 to 1.1 billion Mt, an increase of 25.6 percent. 

Table 16.2.1 Summary of Emissions Reductions by Trial Standard Levels for Beverage 

Vending Machines (cumulative reductions, 2012–2042) 

Emissions Reductions TSLs for Class A Beverage Vending Machines 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

CO2, Mt 0.40 1.89 4.18 6.45 7.63 8.40 10.22 

NOx, thousand tons, kt 0.13 0.65 1.43 2.20 2.60 2.87 3.49 

Hg, tons, t Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 High 0.008 0.037 0.082 0.127 0.150 0.165 0.201 

Emissions Reductions TSLs for Class B Beverage Vending Machines

1 2 3 4 5 6 NA*

CO2, Mt 0.16 0.24 1.19 1.36 3.66 4.08 -- 

NOx, kt 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.46 1.25 1.39 -- 

Hg, t Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 

 High 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.027 0.072 0.080 -- *

 Not applicable. There is no TSL 7 for Class B equipment. 

As computed for the AEO 2009 Updated Reference case and extrapolated to 2042, the 

cumulative U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions from 2012–2042 are described at about 190 

billion Mt. The estimated cumulative CO2 emission reductions from a beverage vending machine 

efficiency standard (shown as a range of alternative TSLs) during this same 30-year period are 

indicated in Table 16.2.1. The estimated CO2 emission reductions in Table 16.2.1 are calculated 

using NEMS-BT model. 

The estimated savings, which are at most 0.01 percent of U.S. energy-related emissions 

of CO2 (at TSL 7 for Class A beverage vending machines and TSL 6 for Class B beverage 

vending machines), comprise an even smaller fraction of U.S. and world emissions of GHGs. 

However, the savings would likely reduce the overall U.S. CO2 emissions rate, compared to the 

U.S. CO2 emissions rate absent an increase in the energy efficiency of beverage vending 

machines. 

The Incremental Impact of the Rule on Climate Change. It is difficult to correlate 

specific emission rates with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and specific atmospheric 

concentrations with future temperatures because the IPCC Report describes a clear lag in the 

climate system between any given concentration of CO2 (even if maintained for long periods) 
16-7 

and the subsequent average worldwide and regional temperature, precipitation, and extreme 

weather regimes. For example, a major determinant of climate response is “equilibrium climate 

sensitivity,” a measure of the climate system response to sustained radioactive forcing. It is 

defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The 

IPCC Report describes its estimated, numeric value as about 3 °C, but the likely range of that 

value is 2 to 4.5 °C, with cloud feedbacks the largest source of uncertainty. Further, as illustrated 

above, the IPCC Report scenarios for stabilization rates are presented in terms of a range of 

concentrations, which then correlates to a range of temperature changes. Thus, climate sensitivity 

is a key uncertainty for CO2 mitigation scenarios that aim to meet specific temperature levels. 

Because of how complex global climate systems are, it is difficult to know to what extent 

and when particular CO2 emissions rates will impact global warming. However, as Table 16.2.1 

indicates, the Rule will likely reduce CO2 emissions rates from the fossil fuel sector. 

16.2.3 Analytical Methods for Air Emissions 

NEMS-BT incorporates capabilities to assess compliance with SO2 restrictions specified 

in the Clean Air Act and its amendments. Clean Air Act provisions include New Source 

Performance Standards, and Revised New Source Performance Standards. The version of 

NEMS-BT in 2009 also includes provisions for the CAIR, which imposes stricter restrictions on 

SO2 and NOx for some states, and the CAMR, which imposed a national Hg constraint. As 

discussed earlier in section 16.2.2, on December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit decided to allow 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. 

North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand of 

vacatur). Therefore, DOE established NOx emissions specified by NEMS-BT as the basis to 

estimate the reduction in NOx emissions in the 22 States not subject to the cap and trade regime 

created by CAIR. Because the 28 States and District of Columbia covered by CAIR opted to 

reduce NOx emissions through participation in cap-and-trade programs for electric generating 

units, emissions from these sources are capped across the CAIR region. For the 28 eastern States 

and D.C. where CAIR is in effect, no NOx emissions reductions will occur due to the permanent 

cap. Table 16.2.1 shows the NOx emission reductions calculated by TSL. 

With respect to Hg, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in New 

Jersey, et al. v. EPA, in which the Court, among other actions, vacated the CAMR referenced 

above. Even though CAMR has been vacated, the AEO2009 Reference Case assumes that 

emissions of Hg would decline over time as shown in Table 16.2.2. The NEMS-BT has only 

rough estimates of mercury emissions; therefore, the range of emissions used in the NOPR 

remained appropriate given these circumstances. Rather than using the NEMS-BT model, DOE 

established a range of Hg emission rates to estimate the Hg emissions that could be reduced 

through standards. DOE’s low estimate assumed that future standards would displace electrical 

generation only from natural gas-fired power plants, thereby resulting in an effective emission 

rate of zero. (Under this scenario, coal-fired power plant generation would remain unaffected.) 

The low-end emission rate is zero because natural gas-fired power plants have virtually zero Hg 

emissions associated with their operation. 

DOE’s high estimate was based on a nationwide mercury emission rate from the 

AEO2009 Updated Reference Case. Because power plant emission rates are a function of local 
16-8 

regulation, scrubbers, and the mercury content of coal, it is extremely difficult to identify a 

precise high-end emission rate. Therefore, the most reasonable estimate is based on the 

assumption that all displaced coal generation would have been emitting at the average emission 

rate for coal generation as specified by the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case. As noted 

previously, because virtually all mercury emitted from electricity generation is from coal-fired 

power plants, DOE based the emission rate on the tons of mercury emitted per terra-watt hour 

(TWh) of coal-generated electricity due to the standards considered in the utility impact analysis. 

Table 16.2.1 shows the estimated reduction in mercury emissions from 2012–2042. Based on the 

emission rate from the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case, DOE derived a high-end emission 

rate of 0.0255 tons per TWh. To estimate the reduction in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied 

the emission rate by the reduction in coal-generated electricity due to the standards considered in 

the utility impact analysis. Coal-fired electric generation is the single largest source of electricity 

in the United States. Because the mix of coals used significantly affects the emissions produced, 

the model includes a detailed representation of coal supply. The model considers the rank of the 

coal as well as the sulfur contents of the fuel used when determining optimal dispatch. 

Within the NEMS-BT model, planning options for achieving emissions restrictions in the 

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

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

emission are compared to dispatching options such as fuel switching and allowance trading. 

Environmental regulations also affect capacity expansion decisions. For instance, new plants are 

not allocated SO2 emissions allowances according to the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

Consequently, the decision to build a particular capacity type must consider the cost (if any) of 

obtaining sufficient allowances. This could involve purchasing allowances or over complying at 

an existing unit. 

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

as long as emissions are at the allowed ceiling. Thus, DOE is not certain that there will be 

reduced overall SO2 emissions from the standards and DOE does not report SO2 results here. 

16.2.4 Effects on Power Plant Emissions 

Table 16.2.2 shows the AEO2009 Updated Reference Case power plant emissions in 

selected years. The Reference case emissions are the emissions shown by the NEMS-BT model 

to result if none of the TSLs is promulgated. 

Table 16.2.2 Emissions Forecast for AEO 2009 Reference Case 

NEMS-BT Results** 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CO2, Mt/yr* 2,346 2,340 2,379 2,468 2,533 2,637 

NOx, kt/yr 3.413 2.282 2.047 2.072 2.073 2.099 

Hg, t/yr 49.03 43.74 29.68 29.16 29.13 28.76 *

 Mt, equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Emissions are from all energy-related sources. ** Emissions are from electric generation. 

16.2.5 Effects on Upstream Fuel-Cycle Emissions 

Fuel-cycle emissions refer to the emissions associated with the amount of energy used in 

the upstream production and downstream consumption of electricity, including energy used at 
16-9 

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

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

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

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

However, previous DOE environmental assessment documents have developed 

qualitative estimates of affects on upstream fuel-cycle emissions. These emissions factors 

provide the reader with a sense of the possible magnitude of upstream effects. These upstream 

emissions would be in addition to emissions from direct combustion. Relative to the entire fuel 

cycle, estimates based on the work of Dr. Mark DeLuchi and reported in earlier DOE 

environmental assessment documents find that an amount approximately equal to 8 percent by 

mass of emissions (including SO2) from coal production are due to mining, preparation that 

includes cleaning the coal, and transportation from the mine to the power plant.6 Transportation 

emissions include emissions from the fuel used by the mode of transportation that moves the coal 

from the mine to the power plant. 

In addition, based on Dr. DeLuchi’s work, DOE estimated that approximately an amount 

equal to 14 percent of emissions from natural gas production result from upstream processes. 

Emission factor estimates and corresponding percentages of contributions of upstream emissions 

from coal and natural gas production, relative to power plant emissions, are shown in 

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

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

power plants. The previous section indicates slight overall reductions in CO2, and NOx. Thus, 

very small reductions in upstream emissions of air pollutant could be expected. This approach 

does not address Hg emissions. 

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

Power Plant Combustion Emissions 

Combustion Emissions 

% 

Pollutant 

Coal Natural Gas 

CO2 2.7 11.9 

NOx 5.8 40 

16.3 WETLAND, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

DOE’s proposed action is not site-specific, nor would it affect land disturbance or use 

due to beverage vending machine being installed in commercial buildings. Therefore, none of the 

proposed TSLs is expected to affect the quality of wetlands, or threatened or endangered species. 

Further, this action is not expected to impact cultural resources such as historical or 

archaeological sites. 

16.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 

DOE’s analysis shows that the increase in the first cost of purchasing a more efficient 

beverage vending machine at the proposed standard level is completely or nearly offset by a 
16-10 

reduction in the life-cycle cost (LCC) of owning a more efficient piece of equipment. In other 

words, the customer will pay lower operating costs over the life of the equipment even through 

the first cost increases. The complete analysis and its conclusions are presented in chapter 8 of 

the TSD. 

For the subgroup of customers that are manufacturing facilities, DOE determined that the 

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

concludes that the proposed action would have no significant socioeconomic impact on a subgroup of customers. For a complete discussion on the LCC impacts on manufacturing facilities 

sub-group (see chapter 12 of the TSD). 

Table 16.4.1 shows the mean LCC savings for both the full sample of customers and 

manufacturing facilities as the sub-group for beverage vending machines. 

Table 16.4.1 Mean Life-Cycle Cost Savings for All Customers and Sub-Group, Beverage 

Vending Machines (2008$) 

TSL 

$ 

Customer Type 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

All Customers–Class A Equipment 154 204 245 307 322 316 (1,194) 

Manufacturing Subgroup–Class A Equipment 103 136 150 184 186 171 (1,326) 

All Customers–Class B Equipment 47 56 49 39 (525) (2,216) NA*

Manufacturing Subgroup–Class B Equipment 28 28 10 (1) (576) (2,227) NA 

*

 Not applicable. There is no TSL 7 for Class B equipment. 

16.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS 

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

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” DOE is required 

to examine the effect of more stringent energy-efficiency standards on (1) small businesses that 

either manufacture or use beverage vending machines; (2) manufacturers of niche products 

related to beverage vending machines; and (3) small businesses operated by disadvantaged or 

minority populations. 

DOE identified manufacturing facilities as a sub-group that possibly could be 

disproportionately affected by beverage vending machine energy conservation standards. As 

described in chapter 12 of the TSD, DOE found that there was no disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on manufacturing facilities that would result from 

the proposed energy conservation standards. 

16.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS 

Improvements in efficiency of beverage vending machine equipment are expected to 

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

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

exchanger designs using increased levels of copper and more efficient compressors. These 

design changes are not expected to change noise levels in comparison to equipment in today’s 

market. Equipment that is currently manufactured in the existing market that would meet the 
16-11 

proposed standards is no louder than less efficient equipment. Changes to the design to improve 

the efficiency levels are not anticipated to affect the equipment’s aesthetics. 

16.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Table 16.7.1 and Table 16.7.2 summarize anticipated environmental impacts for each of 

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

The summary table shows cumulative changes in emissions for CO2, NOx, and Hg over the 

period 2012 to 2042. Cumulative CO2, NOx, and Hg emissions show a decrease compared to the 

reference case. 

Upstream fuel cycle emission of CO2 and NOx are described but not quantified in section 

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

in power plant emissions. This qualitative approach suggests that upstream fuel cycle emissions 

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

actual estimates of the effects. This approach does not address mercury emissions. 

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

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

and cultural resources; or noise and aesthetics. 

Table 16.7.1 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class A Beverage 

Vending Machine Equipment 

Environmental Effects Reference TSL 

Case* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Cumulative Emission Reductions**

CO2, Mt 190,106 0.40 1.89 4.18 6.45 7.63 8.40 10.22 

NOx, kt 65,198 0.13 0.65 1.43 2.20 2.60 2.87 3.49 

Hg, t 912 0.008 0.037 0.082 0.127 0.150 0.165 0.201 

Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions NA† †† †† †† †† †† †† †† 

Wetlands, Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Cultural 

Resources 

NA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Socioeconomic Impacts–

Weighted Mean LCC Savings‡

NA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

All Customers NA $154 $204 $245 $307 $322 $316 ($1,194)

Manufacturing Facilities NA $103 $136 $150 $184 $186 $171 ($1,326)

Environmental Justice NA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Noise and Aesthetics NA -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

*

 The reference case values reflect total cumulative emissions and life cycle costs in the absence of an energy 

conservation standard. 

** Cumulative total is from 2012–2042. Negative values are in parentheses. 

† NA means not applicable since this is the reference (base) case.

†† DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 16.2.5 

provides a sense for the possible magnitude of effects. 

‡

 Values refer to life-cycle cost savings over the equipment lifetime. 
16-12 

Table 16.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Results Summary, Class B Beverage 

Vending Machine Equipment 

Environmental Effects Reference TSL 

Case* 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Cumulative Emission Reductions**

CO2, Mt 190,106 0.16 0.24 1.19 1.36 3.66 4.08 

NOx, kt 65,198 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.46 1.25 1.39 

Hg, t 912 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.027 0.072 0.080 

Fuel-Cycle (Upstream) Emissions NA† †† †† †† †† †† †† 

Wetlands, Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Cultural 

Resources 

NA -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Socioeconomic Impacts–

Weighted Mean LCC Savings‡

NA -- -- -- -- -- -- 

All Customers NA $47 $56 $49 $39 ($525) ($2,216) 

Manufacturing Facilities NA $28 $28 $10 ($1) ($576) ($2,227) 

Environmental Justice NA -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Noise and Aesthetics NA -- -- -- -- -- -- 

*

 The reference case values reflect total cumulative emissions and LCCs in the absence of an energy conservation 

standard. 

** Cumulative total is from 2012–2042. Negative values are in parentheses. 

†

 NA means not applicable since this is the reference (base) case.

†† DOE does not report actual estimates of the effects of standards on upstream emissions, but section 16.2.5 

provides a sense for the possible magnitude of effects. 

‡

 Values refer to life-cycle cost savings over the equipment lifetime. 
16-13 

REFERENCES 

1. Tol, R. S. J. The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Assessment 

of the Uncertainties. Energy Policy. 2005. 33: pp. 2064–2074. 

2. State of New Jersey, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1097, 2008 WL 

341338, at *1 (D.C. Cir.). February 8, 2008. 

3. State of North Carolina, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1244, 2008 

WL 2698180, at *1 (D.C. Cir.). July 11, 2008. 

4. State of North Carolina, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir.). December 23, 2008. 

5. Energy Information Administration–Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. 

Government. An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting 

Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the 

Economic Outlook. (Last accessed June 25, 2009.) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 

servicerpt/stimulus/index.html> 

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

and Electricity, Volume 2: Appendixes A-S. November, 1993. Argonne National 

Laboratory. Argonne, IL. Report No. ANL/ESD/TM-22-Vol.2. 

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007—Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report. 2007. (Last accessed April 2009.) <http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ 

ar4-wg2.htm>