Air Pollution
Meeting Future Electricity Demand Will Increase Emission of Some Harmful Substances Gao ID: GAO-03-49 October 30, 2002Electric power plants burn fuels that can produce harmful emissions, such as carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, which can pose human health and environmental risks. To assess the potential risks of meeting future electricity demand, congressional committees asked GAO to (1) report on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) national and regional projections of such emissions by 2020, and (2) determine how the projections would change using alternative assumptions about future economic growth and other factors that advisers in these fields recommended. GAO also assessed the potential effects of future electricity demand on water demand and supply.
EIA forecasts that as electricity generation increases 42 percent by 2020, power plants' annual carbon dioxide and mercury emissions will rise nationwide by about 800 million tons and 4 tons, respectively. At the same time, EIA expects plants' annual emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide to decrease nationwide by about 100 thousand tons and about 2 million tons, respectively. Regionally, EIA forecasts that emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide will increase in some areas of the country; mercury will also increase in some areas, while carbon dioxide will increase in all areas. EIA also estimated emissions from three additional scenarios, using different assumptions based on recommendations from advisers GAO consulted. Like EIA's original forecast, the scenarios showed an increase nationwide in power plants' annual carbon dioxide and mercury emissions and a decrease in emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide between 2000 and 2020, although at different rates than EIA's projections. However, the scenarios also showed that, regionally, emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide could rise in some areas. Separately, GAO found that EIA had not used the most current data on certain emissions limits in its model, although this had a limited impact on the forecasts. GAO estimates that power plants will use between 3 percent less and 17 percent more water by 2020, although they will use less water for each unit of electricity produced than they currently do, primarily because of new technologies that require less water. The total increase in water use is not likely to create shortages, but it could affect companies' decisions about where to locate new plants and what type to build.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-49, Air Pollution: Meeting Future Electricity Demand Will Increase Emission of Some Harmful Substances
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-49
entitled 'Air Pollution: Meeting Future Electricity Demand Will
Increase Emission of Some Harmful Substances' which was released on
November 12, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
October 2002:
Air Pollution:
Meeting Future Electricity Demand Will Increase Emissions of Some
Harmful Substances:
GAO-03-49:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Power Plants‘ Carbon Dioxide and Mercury Emissions Will Increase by
2020:
Alternative Assumptions Lead to Wide-Ranging Estimates of Future Carbon
Dioxide and Mercury Emissions:
Power Plants‘ Demand for Water to Meet Future Electricity Needs Should
Not Create Shortages, but Could Influence the Location of New Plants:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Projected Emissions through 2020 under Four Alternative
Cases:
Appendix III: Comments from the Energy Information
Administration:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Expert Advisers Who Assisted in Our Review:
Table 2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Projections under Four
Cases, 2000-2020:
Table 3: Mercury Emissions Projections under Four Cases,
2000-2020:
Table 4: Projections of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides under Four Cases,
2000-2020:
Table 5: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Projections under Four Cases, 2000-
2020:
Figures:
Figure 1: Electricity Supply Regions Included in EIA‘s Forecasts:
Figure 2: Projected Changes in Total U.S. Electricity Generation, by
Fuel Source, between 2000 and 2020:
Figure 3: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Emissions of
Nitrogen Oxides in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
Figure 4: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
Figure 5: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Mercury Emissions in
2000 and 2020, by Region:
Figure 6: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Carbon Dioxide
Emissions in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
Figure 7: Percent Changes in Emissions under Three Scenarios, 2000-
2020:
Figure 8: Activities That Draw Fresh Water from Rivers, Lakes, and
Other Sources:
Figure 9: Diagram of Electricity Generation by a Steam Turbine:
Figure 10: Water Drawn Into Power Plants for Cooling Per Unit of
Electricity Produced, 1950 to 2020:
Abbreviations:
EIA: Energy Information Administration:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
USGS: U. S. Geological Survey:
SIP: State Implementation Plan:
October 30, 2002:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Wetlands, and Climate Change
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
Electricity is critical to the nation‘s economy. To generate
electricity, power plants use a variety of fuels, including fossil
fuels--coal, natural gas, and oil, which account for about two-thirds
of the electricity--and nuclear fuels as well as other sources. As a
result of the combustion process, power plants emit an array of harmful
substances, such as carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and
sulfur dioxide, which pose human health and environmental risks,
especially if the plants do not take steps to reduce their emissions.
For example, carbon dioxide emissions have been linked to global
climate change, among other effects, and exposure to mercury can lead
to nervous system disorders and birth defects. Although regulations
have been implemented to restrict the emission of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide, and some power plants have installed equipment to
reduce emissions of these substances, these emissions still contribute
to public health problems, including respiratory illnesses and
premature death as well as environmental problems such as acid rain
and smog.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data show that, in 1999, power
plants were the single greatest industrial source of all four
substances, emitting 35 percent of the nation‘s carbon dioxide,
37 percent of its mercury, 23 percent of its nitrogen oxides, and
67 percent of its sulfur dioxide. As demand for electricity grows,
companies not only will build new power plants, but will also continue
operating existing plants. Some of the older existing plants do not
have to meet the emission standards that new plants must meet. As a
result, older plants generally emit more pollution per unit of
electricity generated than newer plants.
Forecasts of future electricity supply and demand and associated air
emissions are used to develop national energy and environmental
policies, among other things. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) within the Department of Energy uses the National Energy Modeling
System, a computer-based modeling system to forecast annually future
energy supply, demand, and prices over a 20-year period. EIA‘s
forecasts depend on the specific assumptions used in the model, such as
economic growth and world oil prices. EIA develops a ’reference case“
forecast, which uses assumptions and data on known technology,
demographic and other trends and current laws and regulations,
including those that limit emissions. It also develops several
alternative forecasts, which it bases on assumptions of both higher and
lower oil prices and economic growth, among other factors.
Because the Congress is considering various proposals for a future
energy policy, you asked us to (1) report on EIA‘s overall and region-
specific projections of emissions of carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, and sulfur dioxide from electricity-generating facilities in
2020, and (2) determine how the emissions projections in EIA‘s
reference case would change using alternative assumptions about key
variables, such as economic growth and fuel prices, based on
suggestions by expert advisers we contacted. In addition, because power
plants use large amounts of water during the process of generating
electricity, you asked us to determine how future electricity demand
might affect future water demand and supply.
To address these issues, we analyzed EIA‘s reference case forecast of
future electricity demand and associated air emissions contained in its
Annual Energy Outlook 2002 and supporting studies. Our analysis focused
on EIA‘s estimates of electricity and emissions from electric utility
power plants and excludes industrial and other facilities that produce
electricity as a by-product of their operations, which they then sell
to utilities for distribution. To advise us in our analysis, we
contacted a wide range of individuals with experience in modeling
electricity generation and its environmental effects, including staff
of EPA and the Department of Energy, and representatives of
environmental organizations, consulting firms, research and academic
institutions, and the electric generation industry (see app. I). We
asked these individuals, who were most frequently identified by their
peers as knowledgeable in a particular field, to review EIA‘s model and
supporting documentation and suggest any alternative assumptions, such
as the rate of future economic growth or fuel price increases, that
they thought were more likely than those included in EIA‘s reference
case, based on their expertise in energy modeling and related topics.
We selected EIA‘s reference case because, according to EIA, it presents
a ’business-as-usual“ forecast, based on known technology, demographic
and other trends, and current laws and regulations. We then asked EIA
to rerun its model substituting alternative assumptions based on the
advisers‘ suggestions and analyzed the results. We did not attempt to
evaluate EIA‘s model or determine which set of assumptions was the most
likely to occur. Finally, we obtained and analyzed data on power
plants‘ water use and developed estimates of future water demand based
on EIA‘s forecasts of electricity production. Our review was conducted
from October 2001 through October 2002 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains additional
information regarding our methodology.
Results in Brief:
EIA‘s reference case shows that electricity generation will increase
overall by 42 percent from 2000 through 2020 and that power plants will
emit 800 million tons (or 35 percent) more carbon dioxide and 4 tons
(or 9 percent) more mercury per year by 2020 than they did in 2000.
This anticipated increase in emissions would result from power plants‘
increased use of fossil fuels to meet anticipated demand and the
general absence of federal or state regulations establishing emissions
standards for carbon dioxide and mercury from power plants. The
projected mercury emissions could decrease, however, once EPA proposes
mercury limits, which are required by 2004. In contrast, EIA forecasts
that by 2020 power plants‘ total emissions of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide will decrease nationwide by about 100 thousand tons
(2 percent) and about 2 million tons (19 percent), respectively. This
expected decline in emissions results from the anticipated need for
power plants to meet projected increases in electricity demand while
complying with clean air regulations. This will necessitate building
new plants that emit relatively lower levels of these pollutants and
installing emissions controls at some existing plants. Such practices
would coincidentally reduce mercury emissions, explaining in part why
EIA‘s model projects a smaller increase in emissions of mercury than
carbon dioxide. Despite these overall declines, EIA forecasts that
emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide will increase in some
regions of the country. Such regional increases may complicate efforts
to improve air quality and curb acid rain in the areas where pollutants
are emitted as well as in adjacent areas where they may spread via wind
currents. EIA forecasts that mercury emissions may increase in some
areas and decrease in others, depending on the amount of coal used,
while carbon dioxide emissions will increase nationwide.
EIA modeled three additional cases using alternative assumptions that
adjusted the model‘s values for electricity demand and natural gas
prices to address uncertainties identified by our advisers. Like the
reference case, these alternatives showed that, from 2000 through 2020,
annual carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from power plants would
rise in all cases, although at different rates than EIA‘s reference
case. EIA‘s modeling also showed that emissions of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide would decrease under all alternatives. Specifically, the
modeling showed that:
* carbon dioxide emissions could increase between 659 million tons
(28 percent) and 1,129 million tons (48 percent);
* mercury emissions could increase between 5,700 pounds (7 percent) and
17,000 pounds (21 percent);
* emissions of nitrogen oxides could decrease between 41 thousand tons
(1 percent) and 204 thousand tons (5 percent); and:
* sulfur dioxide emissions could decrease about 2.1 million tons
(19 percent) under all three alternatives, because federal emissions
limits apply under all alternatives.
The modeling also showed that emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide could increase in some areas, despite the projected decreases
nationwide. Separately, in working with EIA‘s model we found that the
agency had not used the most current data on certain emissions limits,
although this had a limited impact on the emissions forecasts. We are
making a recommendation to the Administrator of EIA to update these
data in the model.
Depending on the type of technology installed, as power plants increase
production to meet EIA‘s forecast electricity demand, we estimate that
they will use a total of between 3 percent less and 17 percent more
water per year by 2020. However, we also estimate that they will use
less water for each unit of electricity produced than they currently do
primarily because some will install new technologies that require less
water. The future water use is not likely to pose shortages for most
areas because state and local authorities must ensure that communities
will have an adequate water supply before approving new power plants.
Nevertheless, future water use could have some impact on companies‘
decisions about where to locate new plants and what type to build. For
example, when deciding whether it is economically feasible to build a
new plant in a particular location, developers must consider, among
other things, the cost of obtaining the needed water or using
alternative technologies that require little water. Such alternatives
could increase construction costs and consume 2 percent to 10 percent
of the power generated by the plant. Finally, while future water use
may not affect a locality‘s water supply, it may affect the ecosystems
that depend on that water. For example, if water discharged from a
power plant to a body of water has an elevated temperature, it could
potentially harm aquatic organisms and habitats downstream. EPA has
developed regulations to address some of these potential effects.
EIA generally agreed with the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the report, but suggested a number of technical
changes, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 requires EIA to
prepare annual reports including information on trends and projections
for energy use and supply. EIA develops the annual forecasts using the
National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model, and publishes
the results in the Annual Energy Outlook. Using the model, EIA projects
energy supply and demand and air emissions, among other things, over a
20-year period. EIA develops 30 cases with alternative assumptions
about economic growth, world oil prices, and electricity demand growth,
among other factors, to address the uncertainties inherent in mid-to
long-term forecasting. EIA‘s 2002 projections are based on federal,
state, and local laws and regulations in effect on September 1, 2001,
and on data current as of July 31, 2001.
EIA forecasts electricity generation and emissions levels for 13
electricity supply regions (see fig. 1).[Footnote 1]
Figure 1: Electricity Supply Regions Included in EIA‘s Forecasts:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO characterization of information from the Energy
Information Administration‘s Office of Integrated and Forecasting.
[End of figure]
EIA‘s projections of emissions are influenced by existing laws and
regulations that address air pollution. For example, to help limit
emissions and protect air quality, EPA, under the Clean Air Act,
regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from a
variety of sources, including power plants that burn fossil-fuels.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA requires new sources of air pollution
within certain industries to meet federal standards. The standards do
not apply to older power plants built before August 17, 1971, that have
not been modified, although some older plants have taken steps to meet
the standards. But, when older plants make ’major modifications“ that
significantly increase their emissions, they must install modern
pollution controls under the requirements of a program called New
Source Review. EPA currently does not regulate carbon dioxide or
mercury emissions from power plants, although it plans to issue mercury
regulations in 2004.
Power plants must limit their emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide under the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. To achieve reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides, the
provisions allowed companies with multiple power plants to meet the set
limits by calculating the average of their total emissions across two
or more plants and ensuring that the average did not exceed the limits.
This averaging in effect allows some individual power plants to
continue emitting at levels above the limits.
In contrast, the provisions directed EPA to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide from electricity generating units by setting a nationwide
limit, known as a ’cap,“ on emissions from all power plants, not by
setting limits for individual plants, and establishing an emissions-
trading program. Under this program, each plant receives a number of
emissions ’allowances“ which each represent the right to emit one ton
of sulfur dioxide. The allowances may be bought, sold, or banked for
use in later years, but power plant owners or operators must own enough
allowances at the end of each year to cover their annual emissions.
In addition, EPA has established air quality standards for six
principal pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (one of the nitrogen
oxides), sulfur dioxide, and ground-level ozone.[Footnote 2] These
’national ambient air quality standards“ seek to protect public health
by limiting the allowable level of these pollutants in the air. To
assist in meeting the ozone standard, EPA has issued two related
regulations that further limit emissions of nitrogen oxides. In October
1998, EPA issued a final rule requiring certain states to revise their
state implementation plan (SIP) measures to impose additional controls
on emissions of nitrogen oxides to mitigate ozone transport in the
eastern United States.[Footnote 3] The rule--known as the NOx SIP call-
-set stringent caps on emissions of nitrogen oxides in 22 midwestern
and eastern states (as well as the District of Columbia) during the
summer.[Footnote 4] In January 2000, EPA issued another rule--known as
the Section 126 rule--in response to petitions from 8 northeastern
states that the emissions of nitrogen oxides from coal-fired power
plants in 12 upwind states and the District of Columbia were being
transported by wind patterns into their states, complicating their
efforts to meet national air quality standards for ground-level ozone.
The rule required 392 facilities in the upwind states to reduce annual
emissions of nitrogen oxides and established a cap-and-trade program
for emissions within each of those states.[Footnote 5]
Power Plants‘ Carbon Dioxide and Mercury Emissions Will Increase by
2020:
EIA‘s reference case forecasts that, overall, as generators increase
electricity production to meet rising demand over the next two decades,
emissions of carbon dioxide and mercury from power plants nationwide
will increase, while their emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide will decrease. On a regional basis, EIA forecasts that power
plants‘ emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide will
increase in some portions of the country and decrease in others. Carbon
dioxide emissions will increase in all areas. These variations in
emissions may complicate some regions‘ efforts to control their
pollution and reduce the associated risks.
Carbon Dioxide and Mercury Emissions Are Expected to Increase Overall
While Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Dioxide Decrease:
EIA‘s reference case forecasts that, from 2000 through 2020,
electricity generation will increase by 42 percent (see fig. 2), from
3.5 trillion kilowatt hours in 2000 to almost 5 trillion kilowatt hours
in 2020. As this figure also shows, the largest increase in electricity
generation--240 percent--will come from power plants that burn natural
gas.
Figure 2: Projected Changes in Total U.S. Electricity Generation, by
Fuel Source, between 2000 and 2020:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Renewable sources include, among others, hydropower, solar, and
wind energy.
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
In response, EIA expects power plants‘ annual emissions of carbon
dioxide to increase nationally by about 800 million tons (35 percent),
from 2.4 billion tons in 2000 to 3.2 billion tons in 2020. Similarly,
EIA forecasts that plants‘ annual mercury emissions will increase by
about 4 tons (9 percent), from about 40 tons in 2000 to about 44 tons
in 2020. EPA plans to issue regulations limiting mercury emissions from
power plants in 2004, which could reduce emissions below the projected
levels. The expected increase in carbon dioxide and mercury will result
primarily from a projected increase in electricity generation from
fossil fuels. For example, natural gas and coal emit large amounts of
carbon dioxide when burned and coal emits mercury. In addition, these
emissions from power plants will increase because there are no federal
or state limits on them, with the exception of Maine‘s mercury emission
standard. EIA projects that 88 percent of the 355 gigawatts of new
generating capacity needed by 2020 will be fueled by natural gas and
another 9 percent by coal.[Footnote 6] These two fuels are expected to
account for 99 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions from all
electricity production in 2020. Even though mercury emissions from
power plants are not currently federally regulated, they are not
expected to increase substantially in the future in part because
certain measures that generators take to limit emissions of nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxide--such as switching to cleaner fuels and
installing emissions control technologies--also coincidentally reduce
power plants‘ mercury emissions.
In contrast to the growth of carbon dioxide and mercury emissions, EIA
forecasts that, by 2020, power plants‘ annual emissions of nitrogen
oxides will decline from 2000 levels by about 100 thousand tons
(2 percent), from about 4.3 million tons to about 4.2 million tons, and
sulfur dioxide emissions will decrease by about 2 million tons
(19 percent), from 11 million tons to about 9 million tons. Emissions
of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide decline, despite increases in
electricity generation, primarily because federal and state regulations
limit power plants‘ emissions of these substances. As generators build
additional plants and make major modifications to expand capacity at
existing plants to meet growing electricity demand over the next 20
years, they must also comply with these limits. To limit emissions from
new plants, generators are expected to build both new natural gas-and
coal-burning power plants that will include emission control
technologies. To limit emissions at some existing plants, generators
will continue to switch to cleaner fuels--such as coal that contains
less sulfur--and install technologies to control these emissions.
Some Areas of the Country Will Face Increased Emissions:
Although EIA forecasts that aggregate annual emissions of nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxide will decrease nationally by 2020, it projects
that emissions of both of these pollutants will increase in some
regions of the country and decrease in others. For example, EIA expects
emissions of nitrogen oxides to decrease in 7 of the 13 electricity
supply regions (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Emissions of
Nitrogen Oxides in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
EIA expects power plants in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United States
to experience the smallest decrease in annual emissions of nitrogen
oxides--6 thousand tons, or 3 percent--and plants in the East Central
area to experience the largest decrease--182 thousand tons, or
16 percent. However, EIA projects that emissions of nitrogen oxides
will increase in 6 regions:
* California (10 thousand tons, or 11 percent);
* the Lower Midwest (11 thousand tons, or 4 percent);
* the Northwest (32 thousand tons, or 20 percent);
* the Southwest (34 thousand tons, or 15 percent);
* the Western Great Lakes (44 thousand tons, or 13 percent); and:
* the Upper Midwest (60 thousand tons, or 23 percent).
Similarly, EIA projects that annual sulfur dioxide emissions from power
plants will decline in 10 of the 13 regions by 2020 (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
The smallest decrease--1 thousand tons (under 1 percent)--is expected
to occur in the Southwest and the largest decrease--950 thousand tons
(29 percent)--is expected in the East Central area of the country.
However, power plants‘ annual emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected
to increase in three regions:
* Texas (28 thousand tons, or 8 percent);
* the Lower Midwest (33 thousand tons, or 8 percent); and:
* the Upper Midwest (38 thousand tons, or 8 percent).
According to EIA, decreases in mercury emissions will range from about
335 pounds (20 percent) in the New York State area to about 821 pounds
(17 percent) in Texas (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Mercury Emissions in
2000 and 2020, by Region:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, EIA expects mercury emissions to increase in all but
3 regions, with the smallest increases--about 30 pounds (3 percent)--
occurring in New England and California, and the largest increase--
about 2,600 pounds (13 percent)--in the Southeast.
In contrast, EIA forecasts that carbon dioxide emissions will increase
both nationwide and in all regions (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Electricity Generators‘ Projected Annual Carbon Dioxide
Emissions in 2000 and 2020, by Region:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
EIA projects that increases in carbon dioxide emissions are likely to
range from a low of 6 million tons (15 percent) in the New York state
area to as much as 200 million tons (40 percent) in the Southeast.
Regional variations in emissions of these four substances result
primarily from (1) differences in electricity demand, which largely
determines where new generating capacity will be added, and (2) power
plants‘ interactions across regions within the emissions-trading
program. As electricity demand increases in one region, generators will
expand capacity at existing plants and build additional plants to meet
that demand. Consequently, emissions are likely to increase in those
regions where capacity is expanded. To comply with federal and state
limits on emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, generators
in those regions will, among other things, purchase emissions credits
from other plants, some of which may be in other regions, to offset the
increases. This typically requires that the plant selling emissions
credits either add emissions controls or switch to cleaner fuels,
thereby reducing emissions in that region. Accordingly, emissions of
nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide may increase in the region with the
new plants and decrease in the region where emissions credits were
purchased. In contrast, because there are no federal or, in most cases,
state limits on carbon dioxide or mercury emissions from power plants,
these emissions are generally expected to increase, both nationally and
regionally, with the expansion of generating capacity. However, plants
adding pollution controls to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
in some regions would also remove some mercury as a side benefit,
thereby decreasing mercury emissions in those regions.
Alternative Assumptions Lead to Wide-Ranging Estimates of Future Carbon
Dioxide and Mercury Emissions:
In addition to the alternative cases that EIA runs each year as part of
its forecasts, we asked EIA to model three other cases using different
values for electricity demand and fuel prices. These cases showed that,
between 2000 and 2020, annual carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from
power plants would rise under all alternatives, although mercury
emissions would decrease in some regions. The modeling showed overall
decreases in nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide under all alternatives,
although these emissions will increase in some regions. Separately, we
found that EIA had not used the most current data on certain emissions
limits, which would have only a modest impact on estimates.
Most of the Advisers Agreed with EIA‘s Modeling Methodology but
Questioned Electricity Demand and Fuel Price Assumptions:
The majority of our advisers described EIA‘s modeling methodology as
sound and suitable for forecasting future electricity generation and
emissions, but they did not always agree with EIA‘s values for two of
the key drivers of emissions forecasts--electricity demand and fuel
prices. They also said that forecasting is imprecise and that it is
difficult to know which modeling assumptions are most appropriate. Some
of the advisers provided alternative assumptions, which varied widely,
causing most estimates of future emissions to also vary.
EIA‘s reference case forecasts that electricity demand will increase by
an average of 1.8 percent a year between 2000 and 2020. Advisers‘
alternatives ranged from an annual increase of 1.25 percent (about
31 percent lower than EIA‘s estimate) to 2.1 percent (about 17 percent
higher than EIA).[Footnote 7] Of the six advisers who provided
alternatives, three said that EIA‘s electricity demand estimates were
too high; one agreed with EIA; one said that demand would be equal to
or greater than EIA‘s estimate; and one said that EIA‘s estimate was
too low. Demand could be higher, according to one adviser, if new
technologies that use electricity, such as electricity-based
transportation, are widely adopted. Another adviser predicted lower
increases in demand than EIA and said the actual numbers will depend
primarily on energy efficiency policies and economic growth. EIA‘s
analysis of the accuracy of its last 10 annual forecasts found that it
underestimated electricity demand 96 percent of the time, with an
average error of about 4 percent. Because some air emissions increase
with rising electricity demand, underestimating demand can lead EIA‘s
model to underestimate emissions also.
Several advisers raised questions as well about EIA‘s forecasts of
natural gas prices. Two of the advisers said that EIA‘s methodology
overstated the future price of natural gas. Another said prices were
too low and that EIA‘s methodology did not capture the likely
volatility in gas prices and future supply constraints that could occur
as more gas is used to generate electricity. This expert suggested that
EIA perform additional sensitivity analyses to address gas price
uncertainties.
EIA‘s analysis of the accuracy of its past forecasts also indicates
that, of all its fuel price forecasts, those for natural gas have been
the least accurate, deviating from actual prices by an average of
19 percent in the last ten forecasts, with a tendency to overestimate
(58 percent of the time) rather than underestimate (42 percent of the
time) prices. According to an EIA official, higher gas prices would
make new natural gas plants less economical and could likely lead to
the construction of more new coal plants in the future to meet demand
for additional electricity generating capacity. This in turn would lead
to higher emissions, particularly for carbon dioxide. Therefore,
overestimating gas prices could also lead to overestimating emissions.
EIA‘s Model Had Outdated Information on Certain Emissions Limits, Which
Had Little Effect on Emissions Projections:
Our review of EIA‘s modeling found that it included outdated
information on regulations limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides. EIA
used preliminary data on limits for emissions of nitrogen oxides that
will take effect in 19 states and the District of Columbia beginning in
2004. As a result, EIA used a 488,000 ton overall limit in its forecast
instead of the 473,000 ton final limit, which was published in the
Federal Register. An EIA official responsible for the model‘s emissions
data said that while they met with industry experts--including EPA
staff--in developing their analyses, these final changes were not
brought to their attention. According to this official, because of the
relatively small change--a 3 percent decline--updating the information
would slightly reduce the model‘s projected emissions of nitrogen
oxides. He said EIA would update the information in the model for
future forecasts.
In addition, our review of EIA‘s model found that it included data on
the costs and performance characteristics of equipment that power
plants use to control nitrogen oxides that were from a 1996 EPA study.
An EPA contractor updated this information in 2001 based on information
provided by control equipment suppliers and experience gained through
more than 200 installations of the equipment. The cost data fell within
the ranges reported in similar studies. EIA found that industry groups
and experts in the Department of Energy believed that the cost of
installing equipment with the performance characteristics described in
the study would be higher than reported. As a result, EIA continued
using the earlier cost and performance estimates. The EIA official
responsible for the model‘s emissions data said that the agency agrees
with EPA‘s updated performance data but would use higher cost data for
future analyses.
Modeling with Revised Electricity Demand and Natural Gas Price Data
Leads to Wide-Ranging Estimates of Carbon Dioxide Increases:
EIA prepared for us three alternative emissions projections to its
reference case by running its model with updated information on
pollution control costs and emissions limits as well as revised
assumptions to address the electricity demand and fuel price
uncertainties identified by the advisers. The first alternative--the
’revised reference case“--substituted updated information on limits and
costs for controlling emissions of nitrogen oxides. The second
alternative--the ’high emissions case“--also substituted assumptions
about economic growth and technological change that, in turn, increased
electricity demand and the price of natural gas. The third alternative-
-the ’low emissions case“--substituted assumptions that lowered
electricity demand and natural gas prices.
Nationally, these analyses show that increases in carbon dioxide and
mercury emissions could vary widely in the future, depending on the
assumptions used, while decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide would be unlikely to vary significantly from EIA‘s
reference case because of regulations that limit these emissions.
Specifically, the modeling showed that between 2000 and 2020:
* Carbon dioxide emissions could increase by between 659 million tons
(28 percent) in the low emissions case and 1,129 million tons
(48 percent) in the high emissions case, compared to 827 million tons
(35 percent) in EIA‘s reference case. The variation from the reference
case results from differences in the demand for electricity in each
case and the amount of electricity generated from each fossil fuel.
Natural gas has about 40 percent less carbon dioxide per unit of energy
than coal, so carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas combustion are
proportionately lower.
* Mercury emissions could increase by between 5,700 pounds (7 percent)
in the low emissions case and 17,000 pounds (21 percent) in the high
emissions case, compared to about 7,200 pounds (9 percent) in EIA‘s
reference case. Mercury emissions increase in relation to the amount of
electricity generated by coal plants.
* Emissions of nitrogen oxides could decrease by between 41,000 tons
(1 percent) in the high emissions case and 204,000 tons (5 percent) in
the low emissions case, compared to 104,000 tons (2 percent) in EIA‘s
reference case. The nitrogen oxides estimates do not vary significantly
from the reference case due to existing control programs and the fact
that new plants are expected to be very clean.
* Sulfur dioxide emissions would decrease by about 2.1 million tons
(19 percent) in all cases because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
call for reductions in annual sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity
generators.[Footnote 8]:
Figure 7 compares the national results of the low and high emissions
cases with EIA‘s reference case.
Figure 7: Percent Changes in Emissions under Three Scenarios, 2000-
2020:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO Analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
Under all three alternatives, carbon dioxide would increase in all
regions but the magnitude of the increases would vary widely. (App. II
contains a summary of the regional emissions projections for the
reference case and the three alternative cases). For example, annual
emissions in the Southeast would increase from about 153 million
(30 percent) in the low emissions case to 300 million tons (59 percent)
in the high emissions case, while those in New England would increase
from about 4 million (9 percent) in the low emissions case to 17
million tons (36 percent) in the high emissions case. For all three
alternatives, the Southeast and East Central regions would have the
largest emissions increases because these areas are projected to have
the largest increases in fossil-fuel generation, while New England and
New York would have the smallest emissions increases.
Mercury emissions would increase in 10 of the 13 regions in the revised
reference case and the low emissions case, and in 12 of the 13 regions
in the high emissions case. The Southeast region has the largest
expected increases in emissions and coal-fired generation. Only Texas
would have emissions decreases across all three alternatives, ranging
from about 1,008 pounds (20 percent) to 1,199 pounds (24 percent).
Even though nationally, emissions of nitrogen oxides would decrease,
regionally they would increase in six areas under all three
alternatives--California, Lower Midwest, Northwest, Southwest, Upper
Midwest, and Western Great Lakes--with the magnitude of the increases
varying by region and alternative. The Upper Midwest region would have
the largest increase--ranging from about 56,000 tons (22 percent) to
66,000 (25 percent). The alternative modeling showed increased
generation from fossil fuels in each of these regions, which may
explain the projected emissions increases.
Similarly, while sulfur dioxide emissions are expected to decrease
nationally, they would increase in the Lower Midwest and Upper Midwest
regions despite the federal limits. Emissions would decrease in 8 of
the 13 regions under all 3 alternatives. These trends likely hinge on
the national trading program for sulfur dioxide emissions, whereby
plants in some regions would control their emissions and sell excess
emissions credits to plants in other regions.
EIA has modeled additional cases that project far lower emissions than
those presented in its reference case or the three cases EIA prepared
for us. For example, for an October 2001 report, EIA modeled a case
based on assumptions of policies and programs that would promote clean
energy technologies and further reductions in emissions of carbon
dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. This case showed
that, by 2020, emissions of carbon dioxide would be 48 percent lower,
mercury 90 percent lower, nitrogen oxides 61 percent lower, and sulfur
dioxide 76 percent lower than in EIA‘s reference case.
Power Plants‘ Demand for Water to Meet Future Electricity Needs Should
Not Create Shortages, but Could Influence the Location of New Plants:
Electricity generation requires more fresh water than all other sectors
of the economy except agriculture, according to data from the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Power plants‘ water requirements will
likely rise as demand for electricity grows over the next two decades.
However, the amount of water needed to generate each unit of
electricity would likely decrease because companies are expected to
install new technologies that require less water. The total increase in
water use is not likely to have an impact on most communities‘ supplies
because state and local authorities protect certain uses, such as for
drinking water, when approving the construction of new power plants in
their areas. Nevertheless, the increase could influence companies‘
decisions regarding the locations and types of new plants and may
affect aquatic ecosystems.
Overall, Power Plants May Need More Water to Operate in 2020 than 2000,
but They Are Expected to Use Less Water per Unit of Electricity
Produced:
Power plants draw the second largest amount of fresh water from rivers,
lakes, and other sources each year--48.2 trillion gallons--according to
1995 USGS data. Only agricultural activities draw more fresh water
(see fig. 8).
Figure 8: Activities That Draw Fresh Water from Rivers, Lakes, and
Other Sources:
[See PDF for image]
Note: ’Other“ activities include such uses as domestic, commercial, and
mining activities. Percentages are national averages.
Source: USGS, 1995 data are the most current available.
[End of figure]
Nationwide, power plants also use five times more fresh water than
households use for purposes such as drinking, preparing food,
and bathing.
Power plants consume only about 3 percent of the water they draw from a
particular source during the process of generating electricity; in
contrast, agriculture consumes 61 percent. To generate electricity,
most power plants burn a fuel to heat water and create steam (see fig.
9).
Figure 9: Diagram of Electricity Generation by a Steam Turbine:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Environmental Protection Agency.
[End of figure]
The steam flows through a turbine connected to a generator, which turns
the blades and produces electricity. The steam leaving the turbine is
carried through pipes, which pass through circulating water. The steam
then condenses back into a liquid as the heat is transferred to the
water. This water, in turn, flows to a cooling tower, where the heat
dissipates through contact with the air, and then recirculates to
condense the steam again. This type of system is known as a ’wet-
cooling“ system. Some cooling systems pass the cooling water over the
steam pipes once, and then discharge it back to its source or the
community‘s local sewer system, where the water can be treated and used
for other purposes. Such systems draw in 98 percent more water than a
recirculating system.
Given these cooling processes, we estimate that power plants will need
between 94 billion gallons less water (a reduction of 3 percent) per
year by 2020 and 576 billion gallons more water (an increase of
17 percent) to meet EIA‘s reference case projections of future
electricity demand. The lower estimate assumes all the additional
demand is met with a cooling technology that uses significantly less
water, and the higher number assumes it is met with recirculating wet-
cooling systems. Plants will likely use a combination of the two
systems. Regardless, newer technologies will allow plants to consume
less water per unit of electricity produced than they currently do.
Such reductions in water use would follow a trend that has been
underway since the 1950s (see fig. 10).
Figure 10: Water Drawn Into Power Plants for Cooling Per Unit of
Electricity Produced, 1950 to 2020:
Note: Amounts for 2000 and 2020 are GAO estimates.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of USGS data.
[End of figure]
The Potential Need for More Water Should Not Threaten Local Supplies,
but Could Affect Where New Plants Are Built:
The overall increase in the volume of water used by power plants is
unlikely to cause supply shortages for most communities. Companies
generally must obtain state and local approval to withdraw water and a
permit to discharge it back to the water source or a local sewer system
before they can begin construction. In granting the approvals and
permits, the water authority usually must ensure that the plants‘ water
use will not adversely diminish regional or local water supplies. To
help make this determination, some states are establishing water
’budgets“ that allocate water resources to ensure supplies for drinking
water and other critical activities will remain adequate in the future.
On the other hand, future water use could affect decisions about where
to build new plants. When making these decisions, companies must
consider whether sufficient water is available at a particular location
and whether the cost of withdrawing and discharging the water is
prohibitive. Companies consider these costs, along with other important
factors--such as the anticipated demand for electricity, the proximity
to fuel and transmission lines, and the expected selling price for the
electricity--to determine whether building a plant in a particular
location would be profitable.
If companies anticipate water supply problems, they may consider using
alternative supplies or installing technologies that use less water.
For example, 0.5 percent of existing power plants use recycled
wastewater, typically in areas where sufficient water supplies are not
available. California has begun requiring companies to evaluate the
feasibility of using recycled wastewater before approving other water
sources. While a viable alternative, there must be sufficiently large
quantities of wastewater available to meet the power plant‘s needs. In
addition, plants must treat the wastewater to remove nutrients and
minerals that can foul equipment and decrease cooling efficiencies, and
these treatment costs add to a plant‘s operating costs.
Nearly another 2 percent of existing plants have adopted a technology
known as ’dry“ cooling, which uses outside air, rather than water, to
cool the steam produced in the plant. Dry-cooling systems can reduce
water use by 90 percent to 95 percent compared to wet-cooling systems
that use the water only once. However, they can cost 2 to 3 times more
to construct than wet recirculating systems. They can also cost
significantly more to operate because the fans and other necessary
equipment can themselves consume from 2 percent to 10 percent of the
electricity generated by the plant. These additional costs can make a
dry-cooling system economically infeasible in some locations.
Although plants‘ future water use may not affect local water supply, it
can have ecological effects on the original water sources. For example,
pulling water into a plant can kill fish, and discharging water with
elevated temperatures back to its source can damage aquatic organisms
and habitats. However, EPA has developed regulations for new plants and
is developing regulations for existing plants that specify the maximum
rates that plants can take water into the cooling system, among other
requirements. EPA has also proposed that existing plants upgrade their
cooling systems when economically feasible. For example, EPA has
proposed that a plant in Massachusetts reduce the amount of heated
water discharged by almost 96 percent, or approximately 1 billion
gallons per day, in order to lessen the effects on marine life.
Conclusions:
EIA‘s forecasts of the future electricity supply and demand as well as
associated air emissions are important for developing national energy
and environmental policies. Both the administration and the Congress
have often relied on EIA‘s expertise in modeling and forecasting to
assist them in making decisions about such key policies. Most of the
advisers whom we consulted agreed that EIA‘s modeling methodology is
sound and suitable for forecasting future electricity generation and
emissions. And while the advisers disagreed with some of EIA‘s values
for future electricity demand and fuel price trends, they and EIA
recognize that forecasting is imprecise and that it is difficult to
determine which modeling assumptions are most appropriate.
Nevertheless, regardless of which set of alternatives becomes reality,
the modeling shows that the country will face elevated levels of carbon
dioxide emissions and potentially mercury emissions. In addition,
certain regions of the country will be exposed to higher levels of
emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, even though on a
national basis, the levels will decrease. Finally, as EIA continues to
assess its modeling accuracy and refine its methodology accordingly, it
is important that the agency use the most current data available. This
includes data on any federal and state regulations that set limits on
emissions, helping to ensure more accurate future estimates.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that future forecasts of electricity generation and related
environmental effects are as accurate and useful as possible, we
recommend that the Administrator, EIA, work with EPA and states to
ensure that the agency incorporates the most current information on
regulatory limits for certain emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, into
the modeling of its electricity and emissions projections.
Agency Comments:
EIA provided written comments on a draft of this report. These comments
are reprinted in appendix III. EIA generally agreed with the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the report, but believed that there
were areas of the draft report that readers might misunderstand without
additional information. In this regard, EIA suggested a number of
technical changes and clarifications, which we have incorporated as
appropriate. Despite general agreement with the report, EIA disagreed
with what it characterized as the report‘s assertion that EIA‘s
projections were based on outdated information on the costs of
equipment used to control emissions of nitrogen oxides. However, we
believe the report had already appropriately acknowledged the basis for
EIA‘s decision to continue to use 1995 data on control costs rather
than EPA‘s more recent 2001 data. EIA made this decision primarily
because certain industry representatives and EIA advisers thought EPA‘s
data underestimated these costs. However, because the 1995 data used in
the model underestimated these costs to an even greater degree, we
asked EIA to incorporate the more recent data for the three alternative
emissions projections the agency prepared for us. In addition, the
Department of Energy‘s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
suggested a number of technical changes, which we have included as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality; the House
Committee on Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs; the Ranking Minority Member
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and its
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change; other
interested members of Congress; the Administrator, EIA; the
Administrator, EPA; the Secretary of Energy; the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address the first objective, we analyzed EIA‘s reference case
projections of future electricity demand and associated air emissions
of carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, on a
national and regional basis. To obtain this information, we met with
EIA officials responsible for the forecasting model and related
emissions projections and reviewed relevant EIA analyses. We focused on
EIA‘s reference case, which accounts for the construction of additional
power plants to meet anticipated electricity demand between 2000 and
2020, as well as the retirement of those plants that it projects will
become economically unviable.
To address the second objective, we relied on expert advisers who
identified alternative assumptions for EIA‘s model. We identified the
advisers using an iterative process (referred to as the ’snowball“
technique). We first contacted EIA officials responsible for the
agency‘s National Energy Modeling System and its emissions projections
to identify individuals within the government, electricity industry,
environmental organizations, academia, consulting firms, and other
organizations who they believed to be most familiar with EIA‘s model
and electricity forecasting. We also spoke with senior officials within
EPA, organizations that perform energy and emissions modeling similar
to EIA‘s, such as Platts/RDI Consulting, and energy and environmental
policy analysts from the electricity industry, such as the Electric
Power Research Institute, and think tanks, such as Resources For the
Future. We spoke with these parties because literature reviews and
agency contacts suggested that they would be best positioned to help us
identify individuals with the greatest knowledge of energy modeling and
related issues. We asked them to identify individuals who are
nationally recognized in the fields of energy modeling, electricity
demand and fuel price forecasting, emissions control technologies, and
related areas. We then contacted these individuals and asked them to
identify additional experts in their field. At the conclusion of this
process, we had identified 30 individuals and/or organizations.
To select individual advisers from this pool, we applied predetermined
criteria that included (1) area of expertise--to provide adequate
coverage of representatives with detailed knowledge of relevant
disciplines, including electricity modeling and emission control
technologies; (2) the number of times an individual was recommended by
others in the same field; and (3) professional affiliation--to ensure
adequate coverage of key stakeholder groups, including federal
agencies, academic institutions, private consulting firms, and
nongovernmental organizations. This process resulted in the selection
of seven advisers who included a cross section of the various
stakeholder groups and specialties. The process was intended to ensure
the selection of advisers who represent a broad range of opinions and
perspectives. Table 1 includes the names and professional affiliations
of the individuals selected.
Table 1: Expert Advisers Who Assisted in Our Review:
Adviser: Joel Bluestein; Affiliation: Energy and Environmental
Analysis; Type of Organization: Consulting.
Adviser: Steve Clemmer; Affiliation: Union of Concerned Scientists;
Type of Organization: Environmental.
Adviser: Gordon Hester; Affiliation: Electric Power Research Institute;
Type of Organization: Industry.
Adviser: Eliot Lieberman; Affiliation: U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Type of Organization: Federal government.
Adviser: Walter Short; Affiliation: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; Type of Organization: Federal government.
Adviser: Joseph Sutton; Affiliation: Westpower Management Team; Type of
Organization: Consulting.
Adviser: Frances Wood; Affiliation: OnLocation, Inc.; Type of
Organization: Consulting.
[End of table]
In addition to the advisers, we retained the services of Arnold
Leitner, Ph.D.--a nationally recognized energy forecasting expert with
Platts/RDI Consulting--to analyze the assumptions in EIA‘s model and
perform independent modeling.
To collect information and views from the advisers, we sent them
questionnaires which (1) summarized the key variables[Footnote 9] that
EIA officials identified as most directly affecting EIA‘s emissions
projections, and (2) asked specific questions regarding whether they
agreed with or would suggest alternatives to EIA‘s assumptions and
findings. We also provided them with a list of EIA‘s key assumptions
and relevant supporting documentation. We asked respondents to provide
us with specific alternatives in cases where they disagreed with EIA‘s
assumptions.
After we received and analyzed the advisers‘ responses, we determined
that, while they generally agreed with EIA‘s overall modeling
methodology, they disagreed with many specific assumptions and modeling
outputs and suggested a wide range of alternatives. We interpreted this
as evidence of the uncertainty associated with long-term energy
forecasting. Accordingly, we asked EIA to rerun its model to address
the uncertainties. Specifically, we asked EIA to run several scenarios
that would identify the lower-and upper-bound of possible future air
emissions based on alternative assumptions identified by the advisers.
We then met with EIA officials to determine how best to conduct the
additional modeling. Because we wanted EIA to run cases to reflect our
advisers‘ assumptions that would lead to both higher and lower
estimated emissions, the officials suggested rerunning the model using
alternative values for electricity demand and fuel prices--the two
modeling elements they said had the greatest influence on the model‘s
emissions projections. Instead of using the exact values for
electricity demand and natural gas prices the advisers suggested, EIA
used values from cases it had already run that most closely matched the
advisers‘ alternatives. For example, EIA used electricity demand values
from its high and low macroeconomic cases and natural gas prices from
its slow and fast oil and gas technological progress cases. We did not
attempt to assess the relative likelihood of the alternatives provided
by the advisers or the values EIA used for the additional modeling
versus EIA‘s reference case. Because EIA‘s model is integrated--it is
composed of separate modules, which produce results that, in turn, are
used as data or assumptions driving other modules--EIA could not easily
substitute some of the other information provided by the advisers.
The specific cases we asked EIA to run included:
* A ’revised reference case,“ using all of the assumptions from EIA‘s
Annual Energy Outlook 2002 reference case, but including updated EPA
data on the costs of controlling nitrogen oxides and revised state
emissions ’caps“ for the power sector, as published in the Federal
Register on March 2, 2000. The updated costs for controlling emissions
of nitrogen oxides were about 9 percent higher than those used in the
reference case. Correcting the data on state caps for emissions of
nitrogen oxides resulted in using 473,000 tons as the overall limit,
rather than the 488,000 tons used in EIA‘s reference case (a difference
of about 3 percent). The net result of these corrected assumptions was
a 1 percent decrease in emissions of nitrogen oxides.
* A ’low emissions case,“ using all assumptions as in the revised
reference case above, except substituting assumptions about economic
growth and technological change that resulted in an electricity demand
growth rate that was 4 percent lower than EIA‘s reference case, and
natural gas prices that were 21 percent lower than the reference case.
* A ’high emissions case,“ using all assumptions from the revised
reference case, except substituting assumptions about economic growth
and technological change that resulted in an electricity demand growth
rate that was 4.5 percent higher than EIA‘s reference case and natural
gas prices that were 30 percent higher than the reference case.
For each of these scenarios we received projections of emissions of
carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide on a
national and regional basis through 2020.
The alternative electricity demand values and natural gas prices used
in the low and high emissions cases did not vary equally from the
values used in the reference case. For example, electricity demand was
4 percent lower than the reference case in the low emissions case but
4.5 percent higher in the high emissions case. As a result, the
difference in emissions levels between the high emissions case and the
reference case tends to be larger than that between the low emissions
case and the reference case. The unequal variation from the reference
case in each of the additional cases is a function of the alternatives
provided by the advisers and EIA‘s decision to use values for
electricity demand and natural gas prices from cases it had already
run. While EIA‘s model is sensitive to these changes, as demonstrated
by the wide-ranging results for carbon dioxide and mercury, the results
should not be considered a sensitivity analysis. It is also important
to note that the high emissions case involved both high gas prices and
high electricity demand, which led to large amounts of generation from
coal and high carbon dioxide and mercury emissions. It is possible that
an alternative case could have similarly high demand but lower
emissions of these substances due to lower gas prices. Similarly, the
low emissions case had low demand and low gas prices, which led to
relatively high levels of generation from natural gas. It is possible
that an alternative case could have equally low demand but higher
emissions if gas prices were higher.
To respond to the third objective, we obtained and analyzed information
from EIA, and a report issued by the California Energy Commission (CEC)
that relied on data from the Electric Power Research Institute and the
Public Interest Energy Research Program. We used EIA‘s reference case
projections to determine the amount of electricity that EIA expects
each type of plant (e.g., steam, turbine, nuclear) to produce in the
future. Next, we obtained data on water consumption rates (expressed in
gallons per megawatt hour of power produced) for different types of
power plants from the CEC report. We then multiplied the projected
annual generation produced by each plant type by the typical water use
rates. We did not try to incorporate projections of improvements in
generation or cooling technologies, which in the past have reduced the
amount of water used by power plants. In order to reflect the
uncertainty associated with projecting water use by power plants in
2020, we calculated estimates using two extreme assumptions about the
methods power plants used for cooling. We first assumed that all power
plants adopted ’dry cooling“--a method that uses much less water than
the current average. Then we assumed that all power plants use ’wet-
cooling“ technology available in 2000. This provided a range of
possible water use rates. Assuming all plants adopt wet cooling likely
overstates the actual water needs for 2020 because it ignores (1) the
likely use by some generators of dry-cooling methods and (2) possible
innovations in either generating or cooling technology that would
reduce water use.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Projected Emissions through 2020 under Four Alternative
Cases:
The following tables present information on the projected emissions of
carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide through
2020 under EIA‘s reference case and the three alternative cases EIA
prepared for us: the low emissions case, the revised reference case,
and the high emissions case. The information in each table includes, by
region, the projected volume and percentage changes of the emissions
from 2000 to 2020 under the four cases.
Table 2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Projections under Four Cases, 2000-
2020:
Region: 1; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 154; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 28; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 130;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 24; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 145;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 26; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 148; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 27.
Region: 2; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 31; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 17; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 23;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 12; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 30;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 16; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 45; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 24.
Region: 3; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 53; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 44; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 49;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 40; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 52;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 42; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 68; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 55.
Region: 4; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 59; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 35; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 55;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 32; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 59;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 34; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 67; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 40.
Region: 5; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 44; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 32; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 39;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 28; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 43;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 31; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 67; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 49.
Region: 6; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 6; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 15; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 6;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 14; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 6;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 15; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 12; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 29.
Region: 7; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 7; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 16; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 4;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 9; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 7;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 15; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 17; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 36.
Region: 8; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 47; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 43; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 36;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 33; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 48;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 44; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 80; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 73.
Region: 9; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 201; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 40; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 153;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 30; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 198;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 39; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 300; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 59.
Region: 10; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 35; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 20; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 31;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 18; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 34;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 20; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 52; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 30.
Region: 11; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 77; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 76; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 39;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 39; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 77;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 75; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 92; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 91.
Region: 12; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 74; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 53; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 59;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 42; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 74;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 52; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 82; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 58.
Region: 13; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 38; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 45; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 39;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 47; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 36;
Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 43; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons): 98; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 119.
Region: Total U.S.; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(million tons): 827; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 35;
[Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million
tons): 659; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 28; [Empty];
Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons):
808; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 34; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (million tons):
1,129; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 48.
Note: The regions included in the table are:
1. East Central (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement),
2. Texas (Electric Reliability Council of Texas),
3. Mid-Atlantic (Mid-Atlantic Area Council),
4. Western Great Lakes (Mid-America Interconnected Network),
5. Upper Midwest (Mid-Continent Area Power Pool),
6. New York (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New York),
7. New England (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New England),
8. Florida (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Florida),
9. Southeast (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council /excluding
Florida),
10. Lower Midwest (Southwest Power Pool),
11. Northwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Northwest Power
Pool Area),
12. Southwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Rocky Mountain
Power Area), and
13. California (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ California-
Southern Nevada Power).
Source: EIA.
[End of table]
Table 3: Mercury Emissions Projections under Four Cases, 2000-2020:
Region: 1; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
148; EIA reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 1; [Empty];
Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 345;
Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 2; [Empty]; Revised
reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 368; Revised
reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 2; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 677; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 3.
Region: 2; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): -
821; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -17; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): -1,008; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -20;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
-1,199; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: -24; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): -989; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -21.
Region: 3; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): -
352; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -5; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): -741; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -11;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
-542; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: -8; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 674; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 10.
Region: 4; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,173; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 21; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 978; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 17;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,178; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 20; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 1,800; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 32.
Region: 5; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,350; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 26; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 1,351; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 26;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,347; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 26; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 2,170; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 43.
Region: 6; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): -
335; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -20; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): -530; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -31;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
-137; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: -8; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 68; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 4.
Region: 7; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
32; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 3; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 32; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 3;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
32; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 3; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 46; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 4.
Region: 8; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
659; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 32; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 463; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 22;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
657; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 32; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 1,852; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 89.
Region: 9; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
2,634; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 13; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 2,456; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 12;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
3,599; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 18; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 6,111; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 31.
Region: 10; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
375; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 7; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 377; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 7;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
377; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 7; [Empty]; High
emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 802; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 15.
Region: 11; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,058; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 46; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 666; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 29;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,055; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 47; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 1,467; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 65.
Region: 12; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,286; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 40; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 1,090; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 34;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
1,283; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 40; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 1,308; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 41.
Region: 13; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
32; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 3; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 222; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 29;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
221; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 29; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 1,013; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 134.
Region: Total U.S.; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(lbs.): 7,240; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 9; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (lbs.): 5,700; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 7;
[Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.):
8,240; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020: 10; [Empty];
High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (lbs.): 17,000; High
emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 21.
Note: The regions included in the table are:
1. East Central (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement),
2. Texas (Electric Reliability Council of Texas),
3. Mid-Atlantic (Mid-Atlantic Area Council),
4. Western Great Lakes (Mid-America Interconnected Network),
5. Upper Midwest (Mid-Continent Area Power Pool),
6. New York (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New York),
7. New England (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New England),
8. Florida (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Florida),
9. Southeast (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council /excluding
Florida),
10. Lower Midwest (Southwest Power Pool),
11. Northwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Northwest Power
Pool Area),
12. Southwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Rocky Mountain
Power Area), and
13. California (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ California-
Southern Nevada Power).
Source: EIA.
[End of table]
Table 4: Projections of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides under Four Cases,
2000-2020:
Region: 1; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -182; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -16; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -228; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -20; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -193; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -17; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -207; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -18.
Region: 2; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -31; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -11; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -30; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -11; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -31; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -11; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -30; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
11.
Region: 3; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -6; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -3; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -3; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-1; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 0; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
0; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 1; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 0.
Region: 4; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 44; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 13; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 33; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
10; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 34; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
11; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 29; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 9.
Region: 5; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 60; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 23; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 56; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
22; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 59; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
23; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 66; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 25.
Region: 6; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -10; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -15; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -9; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-15; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -9; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-14; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -8; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
12.
Region: 7; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -12; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -18; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -14; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -21; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -12; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -19; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -3; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -4.
Region: 8; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -24; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -11; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -34; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -16; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -23; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -11; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -5; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -2.
Region: 9; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -30; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -3; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -36; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -4; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -28; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -3; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -22; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
2.
Region: 10; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 11; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 4; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 13; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
5; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 11; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
4; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 16; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 6.
Region: 11; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 32; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 20; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 10; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
6; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 32; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
20; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 40; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 25.
Region: 12; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 34; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 15; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 26; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
12; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 34; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
15; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 38; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 17.
Region: 13; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 10; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 11; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 9; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
11; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 8; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
10; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 45; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 54.
Region: Total U.S.; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -104; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -2; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -204; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -5; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -118; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -3; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -41; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -1.
Note: The regions included in the table are:
1. East Central (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement),
2. Texas (Electric Reliability Council of Texas),
3. Mid-Atlantic (Mid-Atlantic Area Council),
4. Western Great Lakes (Mid-America Interconnected Network),
5. Upper Midwest (Mid-Continent Area Power Pool),
6. New York (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New York),
7. New England (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New England),
8. Florida (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Florida),
9. Southeast (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council /excluding
Florida),
10. Lower Midwest (Southwest Power Pool),
11. Northwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Northwest Power
Pool Area),
12. Southwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Rocky Mountain
Power Area), and
13. California (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ California-
Southern Nevada Power).
Source: EIA.
[End of table]
Table 5: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Projections under Four Cases, 2000-
2020:
Region: 1; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -950; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -29; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -888; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -27; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -982; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -29; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -987; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -31.
Region: 2; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 28; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 8; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 29; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
8; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -21; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-5; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 80; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 23.
Region: 3; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -298; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -29; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -428; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -42; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -472; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -47; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -485; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -47.
Region: 4; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -207; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -21; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -252; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -25; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -128; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -14; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -202; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -21.
Region: 5; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 38; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 8; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 28; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
6; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 51; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
11; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 37; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 8.
Region: 6; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -96; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -35; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -118; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -42; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -89; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -33; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -80; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
28.
Region: 7; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -76; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -32; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -98; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -40; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -79; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -32; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -16; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
6.
Region: 8; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -102; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -27; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -158; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -41; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -93; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -26; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -47; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
12.
Region: 9; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -376; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -12; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -304; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -9; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -248; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -8; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -380; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -12.
Region: 10; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): 33; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 8; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): 33; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
8; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 38; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
9; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 38; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 9.
Region: 11; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -59; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -36; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -67; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -41; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -59; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -36; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -56; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: -
33.
Region: 12; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -1; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: 0; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -5; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-3; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -2; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-1; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -1; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 0.
Region: 13; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020 (thousand
tons): -21; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -23; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -5; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-8; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -5; Revised reference case: Percent change 2000-2020:
-9; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): 12; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-2020: 20.
Region: Total U.S.; EIA reference case: Change in emissions 2000-2020
(thousand tons): -2,088; EIA reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -19; [Empty]; Low emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -2,088; Low emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -19; [Empty]; Revised reference case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -2,088; Revised reference case: Percent change
2000-2020: -19; [Empty]; High emissions case: Change in emissions 2000-
2020 (thousand tons): -2,088; High emissions case: Percent change 2000-
2020: -19.
Note: The regions included in the table are:
1. East Central (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement),
2. Texas (Electric Reliability Council of Texas),
3. Mid-Atlantic (Mid-Atlantic Area Council),
4. Western Great Lakes (Mid-America Interconnected Network),
5. Upper Midwest (Mid-Continent Area Power Pool),
6. New York (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New York),
7. New England (Northeast Power Coordinating Council/ New England),
8. Florida (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Florida),
9. Southeast (Southeastern Electric Reliability Council /excluding
Florida),
10. Lower Midwest (Southwest Power Pool),
11. Northwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Northwest Power
Pool Area),
12. Southwest (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ Rocky Mountain
Power Area), and
13. California (Western Systems Coordinating Council/ California-
Southern Nevada Power).
Source: EIA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Energy Information Administration:
Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) appreciates the opportunity
to assist the General Accounting Office (GAO) in responding to its
request from Senators Jeffords and Lieberman. We agree with the general
results of the GAO report that power sector emissions over the next 20
years are uncertain and sensitive to many factors, among them the rate
of growth in the demand for electricity and the price of natural gas.
It is because of this uncertainty that EIA‘s Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) includes 30 cases with alternative assumptions about the cost and
performance of energy supply and consumption technologies, economic
growth, world oil prices and electricity demand growth. EIA encourages
readers of the AEO to review the full breadth of cases presented rather
than concentrating solely on the reference case. As stated in the
report:
’The projections in AE02002 are not statements of what will happen but
of what might happen, given the assumptions and methodologies used. The
projections are business-as-usual trend forecasts, given known
technology, technological and demographic trends, and current laws and
regulations. Thus, they provide a policy-neutral reference case that
can be used to analyze policy initiatives. EIA does not propose,
advocate, or speculate on future legislative and regulatory changes.
All laws are assumed to remain as currently enacted; however, the
impacts of emerging regulatory changes, when defined, are reflected.“‘:
While we generally agree with the results presented, there are areas of
the report that readers may misunderstand or find confusing without
more information. These areas are summarized below:
The discussion of the process used to identify individuals who were
requested by GAO to review EIA‘s analysis in the 5T‘ paragraph of the
report does not include the names and affiliation of the individuals
who participated. The information is provided in Appendix I of the
report, but it would be helpful to provide a citation to the appendix
here so that readers could evaluate the reviewers‘ comments based on
who they are and their affiliation.
In the Results in Brief section (1st full paragraph on page 3) the
report states, ’The projected mercury emissions could decrease,
however, once the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes
mercury limits, which are required by 2004 and which EIA‘s modeling did
not take into account“. The final clause in the sentence gives the
impression that EIA failed to include an existing regulation, which is
untrue. Our policy, as noted in the AEO, is to incorporate laws and
regulations once they have been finalized. Thus, until EPA issues final
rules on mercury limits, EIA would not incorporate them in its
reference case forecasts.
In the Results in Brief section (bottom of page 4) the report states,
’Separately, in working with EIA‘s model we found that the agency had
not used the most current data on certain emissions limits.“ The same
point is repeated using similar language on pages 16 (1S… paragraph)
and 18 (underlined statement). These statements give the impression
that EIA made a critical mistake, which is not the case. EIA‘s analysis
incorporated nitrogen oxide limits that take effect in 19 states (22
states were originally included but 3 are involved litigation of this
issue) and the District of Columbia beginning in 2004, by assuming
values that had been published by EPA in the Federal Register prior to
final adjustments. EIA used an assumed limit of 488,000 tons based on
the original EPA Federal Register notice instead of the 473,000 ton
final limit (a 3-percent difference). Although EIA meets regularly with
industry and government experts, including EPA staff, in the
development of its forecasts, these changes were not brought to our
attention. Comparing the results in the AEO reference case to those in
the GAO reference case presented in this report shows that correcting
this oversight has negligible impact. The final limit will be
incorporated in EIA‘s Annual Energy Outlook 2003.
The report asserts that the cost and performance assumptions for
nitrogen oxide (NOx) removal equipment (discussed on page 17) used
outdated information. We disagree and feel the most widely accepted
information available was used. We used nitrogen oxide control costs
developed by EPA in 1995. In discussions with industry, the Department
of Energy‘s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and the National Energy
Technology Center (NETL), we found that these equipment cost and
performance assumptions were generally accepted. EPA updated this
information in 2001, mainly increasing its estimates for both the cost
and performance of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a key NOx
removal technology. We found that industry groups and experts in DOE
and NETL did not agree with these updates, because the cost of
achieving
the higher level of removal assumed by EPA in its revised estimates
was,
in their opinion, under-estimated.Estimates of the costs of recently
installed SCRs received from industry also supported this view. For
this reason, we continued to use the earlier cost and performance
estimates.
In the Background section (bottom of page 5) the report states, ’EIA‘s
2002 projections are based on federal, State, and local laws and
regulations in effect on September l, 2001; its model does not
incorporate pending legislation.“ We believe that this statement gives
the impression that we do not include existing laws or regulations that
take effect in the future, which is untrue. A clearer statement would
be that EIA‘s projections include existing laws and regulations that
have been fully implemented. EIA‘s analysis does not include laws and
regulations where required standards, limits, or compliance programs
have not been established.
The comment from the report advisors (page 17, middle paragraph) on
EIA‘s projected natural gas prices states, ’One of them noted that
EIA‘s methodology relied on the extrapolation of recent trends and,
therefore, depends heavily on how well the future market matches this
historical pattern.“ This statement completely mis-characterizes the
methodology we use to estimate future natural gas prices. The National
Energy Modeling System (NEMS) incorporates an extremely detailed
representation of the natural gas exploration, production, and delivery
sectors together with equally detailed representations of the
residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and electricity
consumption sectors. The cost of finding, developing and delivering
natural gas from the known resource base are represented. Resource
estimates are regularly updated using official government estimates,
and parameters related to exploration and production are re-estimated
each year. In any given year the balancing of natural gas supply and
demand, using a Gauss-Seidel integrating algorithm, determines the
price of natural gas. For those interested in more detail the
documentation can be found at: http://www.eIa.doe.gov/bookshelf/
docs.html.
The report states (page 17, last sentence), ’According to an EIA
official, higher gas prices increase the reliance on coal plants.“ This
statement needs more clarification. Higher natural gas prices would not
be expected to have much impact on the operation of existing coal
plants. Existing coal plants are quite economical and are expected to
operate intensively under most circumstances. Higher natural gas prices
would make new natural gas plants less economical and could likely lead
to the construction of more new coal plants in the future to meet new
capacity demand.
The first paragraph at the top of page 19 describes the cases in this
analysis, saying ’At our request, EIA developed ....“ A better
description is, ’With assumptions provided by GAO, EIA prepared
alternative emissions projection cases.“:
In the Conclusions section (page 27) the report states, ’And while the
advisors disagreed with some of EIA‘s values for future electricity
demand and fuel price trends, they, and EIA, recognize that forecasting
is imprecise and that it is difficult to determine which set of
alternative assumptions is most likely to occur.“ We think that it
would be useful to point out that EIA includes 30 cases with
alternative assumptions about the cost and performance of energy supply
and consumption technologies, economic growth, world oil prices and
electricity demand growth in its AEO to address the uncertainty
inherent in mid-to long-term forecasting and that EIA continually
strives through technical working groups and other regular meetings to
insure that we are using the best available information and
methodologies in our analyses.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Signed by Guy F. Caruso :
Guy F. Caruso
Administrator
Energy Information Administration:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
John B. Stephenson (202) 512-3841
Eileen R. Larence (202) 512-6510:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Michael Hix, Vincent Price,
and Laura Yannayon made key contributions to this report. Important
contributions were also made by Frank Rusco and Amy Webbink.
FOOTNOTES
[1] EIA‘s electricity supply regions are based on the North American
Electricity Reliability Council‘s (NERC) regional divisions. NERC is a
not-for-profit corporation, consisting of members from all segments of
the electric industry, including investor-owned utilities; federal
power agencies; rural electric cooperatives; state, municipal, and
provincial utilities; independent power producers; power marketers; and
end-use customers.
[2] The other principal pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, and
particulate matter.
[3] Ozone is a regulated pollutant that forms when nitrogen oxides
react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and
sunlight.
[4] 63 Fed. Reg. 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). The states were: Alabama,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia
Circuit Court later vacated the NOx SIP call for Georgia, Missouri, and
Wisconsin. Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
[5] 65 Fed. Reg. 2674 (Jan. 18, 2000).
[6] These percentages exclude electricity that is generated by
industrial and other facilities that is then sold to electric
utilities.
[7] EIA has developed an alternative case based on an annual
electricity demand growth rate of 2.5 percent.
[8] The modeling results listed here focus on the low and high
emissions cases because the results of the revised reference case did
not vary substantially from EIA‘s reference case.
[9] These include electricity demand, new plant costs, the fuel mix for
electricity production, expected fuel prices, pollution control
equipment costs, and retirements of older plants.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
