l 0 l l (t;

\0

177

....

'!.:,;'1

-~

..
-- -----

From: "Conover, David" <David.Conover@hq.doe.gov> on 08/21/2003 09:26:39 AM

From:

"Conover, David" <David.Conover@hq.doe.gov> on 08/21/2003 09:26:39 AM

Record Type:
To:

Record

Kevin D. Hurst/OSTP/EOP@EOP, Phil Cooney/CEQ/EOP@EOP, Bryan J. Hannegan/CEQ/EOP@EOP,

Clay Seii/OPD/EOP@EOP

cc:
Subject: NCCTI/CCTP

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Department of Energy E-Mail Security Se!Ver'' made the following

annotations on 08/21/03 09:26:47

Due to an error during the content scanning process, this message

has not be fully scanned for content. Caution should be taken when opening messages
that are either unexpected or are from an unknown source as they may contain viruses.~

CEQ 010776

\.===================================================================
', =::z===. :'.
I've heard different versions of the proposal EOP would like me to move up the chain. One would
designate all incremental increases in the FY04 budget request that are key climate change as part of
NCCTI, while the other would include total funding for major CC initiatives. I'll be prepared to explain
e~her one tomorrow, or both, if need be. Personally, I'd favor the latter as it's consistent with both the
CCTP 05 budget priorities analysis we did earlier this year and the Key Climate Technology .Initiatives
publication (aka Current Activities Brochure, which is a lousy name) we will publish this fall.
I've attached an FY03-FY04 budget comparison and the CCTP FY05 priorities one-pager; the latter was
formally presented to the blue box at the June meeting.
-;<CCTP FY03-04 Budget Comparisons.wpd>> FY05 Recs 051403 Rev2.xls
~

To differentiate between the old NCCTI $40M grant request and the new, real NCCTI initiative, we should
call the $40M something like the NCCTI Competitive Solicitation Program (CSP}. That leads to my other
question: was there discussion at the meeting of the appropriate FY05 level for the NCCTI CSP, given that
the appropriators have thrown us tWo strikes on this already?
~
Clarification of these two points before my chairs meet tomorrow would be helpful.

Dave Conover
Director, Climate Change Technology Program
US DOE
202-586-3994 (voice)
240-381-6506 (wireless)
202-586-0092 (fax)

CCTP FY03-tl4

FYOS Recs 051403

Budget Compartsons.wpd

R.ev2.xls

CEQ 010777

\3 Yf

so -

From:

Bryan J. Hannagan on 09/04/2003 09:12:24 PM

Record Type:

To:

Record

"Anderson, Margot" <Margot.Anderson@hq.doe.gov>

cc:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: CEQ comments on 1605(b) press materials ~

bh edits 1605b Press Release \bh edits talking points August 2003
Message Copied
To:
phil cooney/ceq/eop@eop
"conover, david" <davld.conover@hq.doe.gov>
"dobriansky, larisa" <larlsa.dobriansky@hq.doe.gov>
"devito, vincent" <vlncent.devito@hq.doe.gov>
"bill hohenstein (e-mail}" <whohenst@oce.usda.gov>
'1oe kruger (e-mail)" <kruger.joe@epa.gov>
harvey.reid@epamall.epa.gov
"eule, stephen" <stephen.eule@hq.doe.gov>
"cobb, al'' <al.cobb@hq.doe.gov>
"bailey, vicky" <vicky .bailey@hq.doe.gov>
"friedrichs, mark" <mark.friedrichs@hq.doe.gov>
"staub, john" <john.staub@hq.doe.gov>
"vieth, jill" <jill.vieth@hq.doe.gov>

..

'l,O.
t?!Q,;

01

Greenhouse Effects/1605(b)
General Guidelines Review and Roll-Out

CEQ 013750

'DRAFT: Press Release 1605(b) Revised General Guidelines

Today, the Department of Energy releases for a 60-day comment period- proposed
revised General Guidelines for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and
reductions (give web site). The proposed revisions would enable the Department of
Energy to provide special recognition!~'?. _t.l)!?~~. ~~P.~~i.~~. ~~~- .<?~.~~~-.~~~~-~ .J~~t J?.r<?~!~~ ...
a full accounting of their greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reductions, The
voluntary reporting program is P.. ~~. ~!~'!'.~.~~- !~ -~~-~. A9.~!~!~~!:~~~~~. ~!!~~~ .~<?.......... ......
encourage voluntary efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. and,~!l_l.~!~.o.
serve as the central.p~'?.Q.~.I!'. f~~. r~~~~~!r:t.!;l. ~~. ~~.~!~Y.~.n:t~~~ .'?.~ ~. ~~~~~. ~~ .Y~!~~~~ry
emission reduction programs.

Comment: Tr.msferablc c:redils'1

Deleted: reporters
Deleted:
Deleted: and are
Deleted:.
Deleted: The DOE voluntary
registry

The proposed Guidelines are intended to improve measurement accuracy, reliability,

Deleted: recordation
and verifiability and aid in achieving the President's climate change goals. The
proposed guidelines enable large entities, such as utilities..J.l:l.~!:l~f~~~':'.':~~-~~-~~~~~~n.~ ........... f._o_et_eted_:_a_nd_ _ _ _ ___,
local governments, universities and hospitals, to register emissions reductions with
DOE, provided they provide. ~.'?~!"!!P.~~.t-~. ~~~<?.':'!:l~~~t?.~ ~n.~!W::~!~~ .9.~~.~P.~~~~-~- ~~~.... .......... f'-o_el_eted_:_su..:.;pp~IY_ _ _ ___,
emissions and emissions reductions. Some entities - those without significant
emissions, such as households and small businesses -would be eligible to register
reductions without filing entity-wide reports. Reporters not seeking special recognition
can continue to report on emissions and emission reductions without meeting the new
entity-wide requirements. The proposal would require the CEO or other senior officer of
participating companies to certify the accuracy of their reports and would, in addition,
encourage reporters to have._th.~.lr. ~~P.~~~ .i.f!.~.~p~~~~r:'.t~Y..Y.~.~i~!':~.......................................... {._o_et_et_ed_:_ _ _ _ _ ___,
The proposed revised guidelines are in response to the February 14th, 2002 Presidential

!.~~;~~~;~
.~~~~~~c;_~~~~~~~;~~~~-~~:~~~.~J~~-;~;;~~~~;;~Q~~~~;~-~~~j~..... . ..... ......
implement the President's directive, DOE led extensive interagency consultations,
issued a public Notice of Inquiry, established a website to distribute extensive
background analyses and receive stakeholder comments, held four public workshops
(USDA hosted two additional workshops on sequestration), and met with numerous
stakeholder groups. . ...... . . .......... ..... . ............. .. ...... .. .. ................. .

{,-D-el-et-ed_:_ _ _ _ _ _........,

Deleted: The proposed General

Guidelines have the Input and support
of other Federal agencies and offices
Involved In climate change EPA,
USDA, Stale, CEA, Transportation,
Treasury, OMB, and CEQ.

CEQ 013751

DRAFT
1605(b) Talking Points

Overview

Today, the Department of Energy releases for comment, draft General

Guidelines for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and
reductions.

The proposed revisions focus on providing special recognition!~~.~~~~~...............

companies and other entities ~~~~ .I?.~~Y.i~~. ~ .~1.1. ~~~C?.':I.nti~~. ~fQ~~~n.hc:>.':l.~~. ~~~ .. . ..
emissions and emissions reductions.

eomment:TmJSfcrabJecrcdil$?

Deleted: reporters

The voluntary reporting program is a key element in the Administration's

efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions intensity.
The national registry will eventually serve as the central.p~~9.~~~.~'?r.~~~.'?~.i~f! ... { Deleted: recordation
the achievements of a range of voluntary err]ission reduction programs, such
as the Administration~~ C.l_i~~~~Y!~i.C?f.!. P.f~~ra~... .. .... .. .. .. .......... .... .. .. . .
...... (Deleted: Department of Energy
The draft guidelines provide a range of mechanisms by which firms may
report their emissions inventories, account for emission reductions, and
selected efforts made to reduce emissions through the use of carbon
sequestration, Improved efficiency;.~~~ .l.o.~~. ~r. ~~~~~- ~!'n.\~~i~~ t!3~~r:'.o.l~Q!~s.

Deleted: technology specific

measures

Background

Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to establish a
voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program. Guidelines were issued in
1994. Currently, about 220 reporters report under DOE's program, which is
managed by DOE's Energy lnfonnation Administration.

On 14 February 2002, the President directed DOE to lead an interagency

effort to enhance the existing voluntary reporting program. A senior level
interagency policy group met several times to decide on key policy issues.

Since the President's directive, DOE held interagency consultations, issued a

public Notice of Inquiry, established a website to distribute P.!:l~!Y.~.~~-~~~-~~~-~.~ .... (._c_el_et_ed_:_ _ _ _ _ __;
information, and held four public workshops (2 additional workshops were

I. . . ~-ei~-~~-~~-~~~ ~~-~-~~S. ~~-~~~~~.~. ~~~~.~~~-~~~~-~~.:.~~~i.~.~~-~-~.~~-~:. ~::::::.::::::::: ::::~A

.....
To meet the requirements of the President's directive, the proposed General

Guidelines contain significant revisions to the current reporting guidelines, but

maintain consistency with 1'605(b) statutory requirements.

senior level.
lnteragencypollcygroupmetseveral
limes to decide on key policy Issues.
The proposed General Guidelines

reftect1heviewsofCEOEPA.USDA.

StateXEA. Transportation, Treasury,

andOMB.l!

CEQ 013752

DRAFT

Key Features of Proposed Revised General Guidelines

Under the revised program, reporters will be able to register greenhouse gas
emissions
reductions if they provide entity-wide emissions data and can
demonstrate they achieved etiiii}i~wli:ie anifssfori r=ecfucHons after 2oo~t .....

Reporters not wanting to register reductions can continue to repqrt on

emissions and emission reductions without having to provide and an entitywide inventory and account forentity-wide emissions.

Reporters will be able to calculate emission reductions using different

methods, which specify adjustments for increases and decreased in output.

Companies are encouraged to report at the highest level but may report at a
subsidiary or affiliate level: registered reductions, if applicable, always accrue
to the reportin~ unit.

I
I

Some entities -those without significant greenhouse gas emissions -:_are

eligible to register reductions without filing entity-wide reports (this Includes
households and...srn.aJ_I_ ~~S.~~~~~~sJ.. .................................................. .

CEOs are required to sign reports, maintain records for three years.
Independent verification is encouraged, but not required.

The revised program maintains flexibility at the point of defining the reporting
entity while enhancing the consistency of data reported. This increases
reporting transparency and builds consensus on what reductions are real.

DOE is developing revised measurement and accounting methods, consistent

with the General Guidelines, which will be released for public comment over
the next several months.

. (Deleted:

... {Deleted:

CEQ 013753

Issue Resolution Meeting: September 25, 2003

Draft Proposed Revised General Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Program (1605b)

Reference: Version 8, with Changes (and) Issues

~

Page 6: Mentioning transferable credits objective -- Whether to reference the

President's stated desire to create a mechanism for "transferable credits"?

A\ Page 19: Offsets as emission reduction method -

\.J emission reduction calculation methods.

:tf///J

Whether to add 'offsets' to the list of

"*""

~ ~
~
kks H~~ a 1tgs' l'lf?.#" Page 22: Requesting comment on requiring Independent veritidition -- Whether to

~/

solicit public comment on whether independent verification should be required?

N .o ~age 26: Project-level reporting- Whether to drop solicitation of comment on sub---

entity-level reporting/registration?

)<.

Pages 31/32: Requesting comment on direct reporting of all offsets- Whether to

solicit comment on the desirability of requiring all parties that generate registered
reductions to report directly (rather than allowing some entities to report 'offset'
reductions on behalf of other entities)?

X Page 33: Discussion of international emissions issue-- Whether to modify the

discussion of the how/whether to recognize international emission reductions?

'AA'.L;JJ()

Page 47: Defining entities at "highest meaningful level of aggregation"-- Whether to

require all reporters to report at the highest meaningful level of aggregation-- rather than
c,l~permitting them flexibility to determine the most appropriate level of aggregation?

~~-.~

~a

Pages 52 and 57: Exemptions for small emitters (and for de minimis emissions)-Whether to eliminate the exemptions provided for small emitters (those with average
emissions of less than 10,000 tons per year) or to limit the ability of small emitters to
focus their reports on only one type of economic activity (e.g., growing trees)?

~Page 60: Project-based calculation method -- Whether to eliminate "project-based"

'Vbased methods from the list of methods available to entities seeking to file entity-wide
reports and to register reductions?

Greenhouse Effects/1605(b)
General Guidelines Review and Roll-Out
CEQ 013854

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 300
RIN 1901-ABll

/\
lf Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting
AGENCY: Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Proposed rule and opportunity for public comment; Proposed Revised
Guidelines.
SUMMARY: Section 1605(b) ofthe Energy Policy Act of1992 (EPACT), 42 U.S.C.
13385(b), directed the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to issue guidelines
establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program. The guidelines issued by the
Department in 1994 to establish the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program
were intentionally flexible to encourage the broadest possible participation. On February
14, 2002, the President directed DOE, together with other involved Federal agencies, to
recommend reforms to enhance this voluntary reporting program. The purposes of the
proposed revised Guidelines are to: (I) establish revised procedures and reporting
requireme11:ts for filing voluntary reports, and (2) encourage corporations, government
agencies, non-profit organizations, individuals and other private and public entities to
submit annual reports of their total entity-wide greenhouse gas emissions, net emission
reductions, and carbon sequestration activities that are complete, reliable and consistent.

CEQ 013855

Public comments on these proposed revised Guidelines are solicited and a public
workshop bas been scheduled to encourage an open exchange of views on this subject.
DATES: Interested persons should submit written e-mail or written comments by
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION] to the addresses
given below. You may present oral views and data at a public workshop that will be held
in [city] on [date].

ADDRESSES: Send e-mail comments to:

1605bgeneralguidelines.comments@hg.doe.gov. Altemat,iyely, written comments may
be sent to: Mark Friedrichs, PI-40; Office of Policy and International Affairs; U.S.
Department ofEnergy; Room 1El90, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20585. DOE will hold a public workshop at the following address: [insert address]. You
may review comments received by DOE, the workshop transcript, and any other related
material at the following website:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/proposedguidelines/generalguidelines.
html. If you lack access to the internet, you may access this website by visiting the DOE
Freedom of Information Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,
DC. See Section III of the Supplementary Information section of this notice for more
information about public participation in this proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Friedrichs, Pl-40, Office of
Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave.,
S.W., Washington, DC 20585, or email: 1605bgeneralguidelines.comments@hg.doe.gov
[Please indicate if your e-mail is a request for information, rather than a public comment.]

CEQ 013856

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I.

Introduction
A.
B.

ll.

Discussion of Proposal and Requests for Comments

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

H.

I.
J.

K.
L.
M.
N.

0.

III.

Background.
Process for Finalizing and Implementing Guidelines.

Overview.
Defining Reporting Entities.
Defining Entity Boundaries.
Emission Sources and Sinks Covered.
Entity-Wide Reporting of Emissions Inventories.
Entity-wide Emission Reductions.
Guidelines for Small Emitters.
Emission Reduction Calculations.
1.
Reductions in emissions intensity.
2.
Absolute reductions in emissions.
3.
Increased carbon sequestration.
4.
Avoided emissions.
5.
Project-specific emission reductions.
Recordkeeping, Report Certification, and Verification.
Starting to Report.
Sustaining Entity Reports of Emissions and Emission Reductions.
Report Acceptance.
Registration of Emission Reductions.
EIA Database and Summary Reports.
Cross-cutting and Other Important Issues.
1.
Entity-wide v. Sub-Entity or Project-only Reporting.
2.
Treatment of Certain Small Emissions.
3.
Excluding the Effects of Changes in Output on Emissions.
4.
Emissions and Reductions Associated with Electricity Generation
and Use.
5.
Recognizing Emission Offsets.
6.
International Emission Reductions.
7.
Relationship of Proposed Guidelines to Climate VISION, Climate
Leaders and Other Voluntary Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.

Opportunity for Public Comment

CEQ 013857

A.
B.

IV.

Written Comments.
Participation in Public Workshop.

Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements

A.

B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

J.

Review Under Executive Order 12866.

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Review Under Executive Order 13132.
Review Under the Treasury and General Government AppropriationsAct,
2001.
Review Under Executive Order 12988.
Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999.
Review Under Executive Order 13211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I.

Introduction
A. Background. Section 160S(b) ofthe Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT)

directed the Department of Energy, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA), to
establish a voluntary reporting program and database on. emissions of greenhouse gases,
reductions of these gases, and carbon sequestration activities (42 U.S.C. 1338S(b)).
Section 160S(b) required that DOE's Guidelines provide for the "accurate" and
"voluntary" reporting of information on: (1) greenhouse gas emission levels for a
baseline period (1987-1990) and thereafter, annually; (2) greenhouse gas emission
reductions and carbon sequestration, regardless of the specific method used to achieve
them; (3) greenhouse _gas emission reductions achieved because of voluntary efforts,
plant closings, or state or federal requirements; and (4) the aggregate calculation of
greenhouse gas emissions by each reporting entity (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(l)(A)-(D)).

CEQ 013858

Section 1605(b) contemplates a program whereby voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions can be recorded, with the specific purpose that this record can be used "by
the reporting entity to demonstrate achieved reductions of greenhouse gases" (42 U.S.C.
13385(b)(4)).
In 1994, after notice and public comment, DOE issued General Guidelines and

sector-specific guidelines that established the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

Program for recording voluntarily submitted data and information on greenhouse gas
emissions and the results of actions to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions. The 1994 General Guidelines are appended to today's proposal to provide
information with regard to reports that were filed under those Guidelines (The General
Guidelines and supporting documents may be accessed at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/guidelines.html.) The Guidelines were intentionally

flexible to encourage the broadest possible participation. They permit participants to

decide which greenhouse gases to report, and allow for a range of reporting options,
including reporting of total emissions or emissions reductions or reporting of just a single
activity undertaken to reduce part of their emissions. From its establislunent in 1995
through the 2001 reporting year, 365 entities, including utilities, manufacturers, coal
mines, landfill operators and others, have reported their greenhouse gas emissions and/or
their emission reductions to EIA.
On February 14, 2002, the President announced a series of programs and
initiatives to address the issue of global climate change, including a greenhouse gas
intensity reduction goal, energy technology research programs, targeted tax incentives to
advance the development and adoption of new technologies, voluntary programs to

CEQ 013859

promote actions to reduce greenhouse gases, and international initiatives. In addition, the
President directed the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to propose improvements to the current Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program required under section 1605(b) ofEPACI'. These
improvements are to enhance measurement accuracy, reliability, and verifiability,

. comment: Page: 6
One COIDIIICIII suggested this SCDII:OCC

working with and taking into account emerging domestic and international approaches.

be reinserted iota the texL Because the

proposed guidcUoes would oat

aCIXImplish lhese suggested refonm, it is
rccommeodl:d that this suggested challge
1101 be adopted.

On May 6, 2002, DOE published a Notice oflnquiry soliciting public comments

' Deleted: Ia addition, the P

on how best to improve the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (67 FR
30370). Written comments were received from electric utilities, representatives of
energy, manufacturing and agricultural sectors, Federal and State legislators, State
agencies, waste management companies, and environmental and other non-profit research

Deleted: I

Deleted: resident din:cu:d the Secrclary

of Energy 10 recommend n:fonns to
e = that businesses aod individuals
that n:port reductions recopized by
DOE's registly are not penalized Wider a
tillllrc climau: policy aod to give
lmlsfenblc credits to companies that can
show real reductions.

and advocacy organizations.

On July 8, 2002, after considering public comments, the Secretaries of Energy,
Commerce and Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency provided the President with ten reconunendations on improvements to the
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The four agencies also outlined a public
process for developing specific revisions to the program Guidelines. Following are the
ten recommendations for improving the greenhouse gas reporting program:
Develop fair, objective and practical methods for reporting baselines,
reporting boundaries, calculating real results, and awarding
transferable credits for actions that lead to real reductions.

CEQ 013860

Standardize widely accepted, transparent accounting methods.

Support independent verification of registry reports.

Encourage reporters to report greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per
unit of output) as well as emissions or emissions reductions.
Encourage corporate or entity-wide reporting.
1

Provide credits for actions to remove carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere as well as actions to reduce emissions.

Develop a process for evaluating the extent to which past reductions

may qualify for credits.
Assure the voluntary reporting program is an effective tool for
reaching the 18 percent goal.
Factor in international strategies as well as State-level efforts; and
Minimize transaction costs for reporters and administrative costs for
the Government, where possible, without compromising the
foregoing recommendations.
DOE held public workshops in Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and
Houston during November and December of2002 to receive oral views and information
from interested persons. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored two
meetings in January ~003 to solicit input on the accounting rules and guidelines for
reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the forestry and agriculture sectors. These

CEQ 013861

DOE held public workshops in Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and
Houston during November and December of 2002 to receive oral views and information
from interested persons. In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored two
meetings in January 2003 to solicit input on the accounting rules artd guidelines for
reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the forestry and agriculture sectors. These
workshops and meetings explored in greater depth many of the issues raised in the Notice
of Inquiry and addressed in the written comments. The public comment covered a broad
range ofissues and views diverged widely on some key issues. Generally, there was
substantial support for revising the current General Guidelines to enhance their utility and
to accomplish the President's climate change. goals.
DOE today is proposing revised General Guidelines, and subsequently will
propose Technical Guidelines, that when effective will modify and replace the guidelines
for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases issued by DOE in October 1994. The
proposed revised General Guidelines would continue to provide procedures for entities to
report their greenhouse gas emissions inventories and a wide range of actions they have
taken to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the proposal
would enable entities that meet criteria established by DOE to register such reductions in
a database maintained by the Energy Information Administration. The criteria
established by DOE will ensure that units of registered reductions will be W'comparable
s~J"-rctt e.f..quaijty with reg,a.r.d to their accuracy, reliability, and verifiabilitv. ~egistered reductions
will be recorded in a publicly accessible database.
The Secretary of Energy has approved issuance ofthis notice.

8
CEQ 013862

workshops and meetings explored in greater depth many of the issues raised in the Notice
of Inquiry and addressed in the written comments. The public comment covered a broad
range of issues and views diverged widely on some key issues. Generally, there was
substantial support for revising the current General Guidelines to enhance their utility and
to accomplish the President's climate change goals.
DOE today is proposing revised General Guidelines, and subsequently will
propose Technical Guidelines, that when effective will modify and replace the guidelines
for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases issued by DOE in October 1994. The
proposed revised General Guidelines would continue to provide procedures for entities to
report their greenhouse gas emissions inventories and a wide range of actions they have
taken to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the proposal
would enable entities that meet criteria established by DOE to register such reductions in
a database maintained by the Energy Information Administration.
The Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this notice.
B. Process for Finalizing and Implementing Guidelines. After full consideration

of the public comments received, DOE will develop and issue final revised General
Guidelines. In paralle~ DOE intends to propose Technical Guidelines that will, when
fmalized, specify the methods and factors to be used in measuring and estimating

----------..

,..{ Deleted: and

greenhouse gas emissions~.r.!!!!~~~~E-.r~~.l}rt~.~--~~~l?.~~-~~9.l}~~~J!Q~... -f.~~1H!~~!!Y. .... / '-----'-----------'

with development of the General and Technicai Guidelines, DOE's Energy Information

..

Administration will, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), solicit public comment on the reporting elements to be contained in the

CEQ 013863

existing 1994 General Guidelines, DOE intends to publish a Federal Register notice of
termination on the same day that DOE publishes the notice of final rulemaking setting
forth the revised guidelines under section 1605(b) ofEPACf. Both the notice of
termination and the notice of final rulemaldng will contain an effective date, which will
be the beginning of a future reporting period.
II.

Discussion of Proposal and Requests for Comments

The following section describes the proposed revised General Guidelines,

summarizes the rationale for the key elements of the proposal and solicits public
comments on a wide range of specific issues.
A. Overview. The proposed revisions to the Guidelines are designed to enhance

the accuracy, measurement and verifiability of information reported under the 1605(b)
program and. to contribute to the President's climate change goals. The proposed revised
Guidelines will continue to provide considerable fleXIbility to entities that wish to report
emissions or emission reductions in the future as they have in the past. However, to
demonstrate and register emission reductions made during or after 2003, reporting
entities with substantial emissions (average annual emissions of over 10,000 tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent) will need to report their total emissions and calculate the net
reductions associated with entity-wide efforts to reduce emissions or sequester carbon.
Entities that have average annual emissions ofless than 10.000 tons of CO~ eguivalent

vJ\1\.~ ~

rjp

0 V-

(small emitters) are eligible to register emission reductions associated \vith specific
activities without reporting an inventory of the total emissions. Several different methods

CEQ 013864

of calculating emission reductions, including emissions intensity and project-based

methods, would be permitted, so long as the report demonstrates a net decrease in entitywide emissions (after taking into account changes in outputl,.J,!.';l,q~~-c~!F:iE.... -----.------------
circumstances,

Deleted: including emissions iDICDSity

and pmject-based (rccboology or attioD
specific} methods would be pcnoiar:d.

T.,e.P.~IEE.8.~?.!!!!~~-~-~!!.m>~!!.!l:':l.~-~~g_i_~!~.X:.<:m!~~-i-~?.-~~~~rt~l!--~!"!!<:!~ .............

achieved in the U.S. by a third party11............................................................................

<. /
~{:~::..:

Deleted:R
Deleted: , as long as lhc reporting
Clllity bas a conttactual agreement with
lhc olher pany that assill"S it reporting
and registration rcspousibhitics, and bolh
parties have fulfilled lhe requirements
oeceSIU}' for

-.~~-:' Deleted: direct

The proposed revised Guidelines would enable and encourage entities to report

', Deleted: reporting and registering to

(but not register) emission reductions achieved prior to 2003.

\ DOE

' Inserted: and n:gisiCring

would also permit entities to report (but not register) the emission reductionS associate
with specific actions taken to reduce emissions - sometimes referred to as projects - even

if these reports do not meet the criteria established by DOE for registering reductions.
Emission reductions calculated using anv of the other methods identified in the guidelines
could also be reported, even if the reporting entity did not submit a full entity-wide
accounting of their emissions and emission reductions, or qualify as a small emitte.r.
The chief executive officer of the company or institution, an agency head, head of
household or other resppnsible official would be required to certify that the reporting
entity accurately followed the revised Guidelines for determining emissions, emission
reductions and sequestration. Entities would be encouraged to obtain independent
verification of the accuracy of their reports, and their compliance with DOE Guidelines.
For the convenience of the readers, the basic elements of the proposed revised
guidelines are graphically represented in Figure I. DOE solicits public comments on this
approach and any suggestions of alternative means of achieving the objectives outlined

above.

10

CEQ 013865

. Deleted: a!

institution, household or other entity that will be submitting reports. At a minimum

./ Deleted: uulividual,

......... ................:..................................... -----(:::::: ~~;..,;...;..;;..-===-======~

Inserted: individual.

entities would have to be legally distinct businesses, institutions, organizations or

households, although reporters would be encouraged to define themselves at the highest
meaningful level of aggregation. The legal basis for detennining whether an entity (or its
subparts) is distinct could be derived from any Federal, state or local law (or regulation)
governing the entity, including regulations applicable to corporations, partnerships,

ec.c:::

cooperatives, government agencies, non-profit organizations. households. or other

entities. This approach would permit a legally-distinct company, plant or activity to
defme itself as an entity, even if it is partially or wholly-owned by another company. In
such cases, any registered reductions would accrue only to the reporting entity, rather
than the parent company.
Given the flexibility inherent in this definition, some companies and institutions
could be all or part of a reporting entity at any one of several different levels. For
example, an individual electric power generating plant might be owned by a partnership
of several different companies or individuals. One of these partners might be an electric
utility that owns and operates several other electric generating plants, and a transmission
and distribution system. And this utility might, in turn, be owned by a regional holding
company that also owns other utilities, as well as other non-electric generating
companies. In this case, the reporting entity could be defined as the electric generating
plant, the utility or the holding company. The program encourages reporting entities to
report at the highest level of meaningful financial and operational control, which in this

11

CEQ 013866

case is likely to be either the utility or the holding company. DOE solicits comment on
whether the proposed guidelines are likely to cause entities to establish boundaries that
reflect a higher level of corporate or institutional aggregation, as is desired. DOE also
solicits recommendations on what additional provisions might preserve flexibility in the
establishment of boundaries while also preventing or further discouraging the shifting of
re .,,tc-bla.
arts of the enti in order to achieve
reductions.

definition of entities, such as a requirement that entity definitions correspond to those

used for Federal tax purposes.
The Guidelines would require that the name chosen to represent the entity
generally correspond to the activity covered by the report. For example, a large multiproduct manufacturer should not use its corporate name to report the emissions and
emission reductions of just one of its many subsidiaries. However, there may be
instances when some, but not all subsidiaries of a large corporation may want to report as
a single entity. One reason to report as a single entity might be that certain subsidiaries
have a common business activity, while others do not. However, another reason might be
that some subsidiaries could demonstrate emission reductions, while others could not.
DOE solicits comments on how the Guidelines might provide the flexibility needed by
entities with special circumstances, while discouraging abuses of this flexibility that
could produce misleading impressions of entity performance.
Another question concerns the possible role of trade associations and other third
parties as consolidators of entity-specific reports into an aggregate report to DOE ..~!~~~- _../
associations may report information collectively for their memberships under the current

12

.A Delete!i: Under the current guidelines,

<')

~.6~3-.
h~ve i"'fl.c~t.""'>
~
,.... . ::~r-u..-1-"
\
guidelines. this may &s iiiQQa&isteshitl:! taa ebjeetice ofasswingthe accuracv and
i ,...:;;->~ 1 : """""'-k...V' S I()~

reliability- and transparency of reports submitted under the revised guidelines. Should
trade associations and other third parties be required to submit some or all of the entityspecific data that might be required by the revised Guidelines? Should the CEOs, other
senior officials, or heads of entities be reqUired to certify the accuracy of their
companies' reports when submitted to or through trade associations? Should trade

~covered by their entity-wide reports.

::I

Such operation._~~!-!~~-iE-~!!-!g~-~'?~C?.~~!?JJY....../

owned and operated by the entity, and might include those operations,~t~~~.P.~~~~Y:: ....... /

...{ Deleted: facilities

-~
_)

owned, leased or operated by the entity. Entities would be required to coordinate with
{ Deleted: facilities

other entities that shared ownership of particular operations.!~.?~.l!f~.~~~-~~--~~~1>.1~ ........../

counting occurred. Entities would also have to ensure that each annual report
consistently used the boundaries identified in prior year reports, unless an explicit
description of any changes made and their effects on emissions accompanied the report.

In cases where an entity undergoes a sienificaut structural change. it may have to

establish a new base year for all or part of its operations. or. in the case of acquisitions.
recalculate its original baseline based on the prior year emissions of the acquired plant.

).'-~r.L
D. Emission Sources and

Covered. Reports would be able to cover any

greenhouse gas or sink that is consistent with the definitions established in the General

4.)(1913

CEQ 013868

~L.
Guidelines, but only those reductions affecting the greenhouse gases specified in tlte
guidelines would be eligible for registration. An entity-wide inventory would need to

? vJ ~Jot' *-'S

cover all significant (determined by share of total emissions or absolute quantity of

emissions), anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources within the entity's defined
..-{oeleted:R

boundaries. Entity-\.vide ~.P..l?~-~1.}.!!.1!!~.<?.'.?~~~-~~-~-i~!!~!.~.~-~!~~-.!~:.. _g_J?tjtx-..........wide ~P.<?~-~I.}.!!.C:!!~.C?!!!P.I!~~~-1!~.~~-I!!!.~.i?!-.W.~.C:~<?-~.c:.g~,!~~-~P.~~!~~~-~-fuc:__________ ...

...----:----------.,

A Deleted:R

guidelines, whether emitted directly by facilities and vehicles within the boundaries of
J

the entity, or indirectly in the generation of purchased electricity, steam or hot (or chilled)
water used by the entity. Other gases, particles and indirect emissions could be added, at
the discretion of the reporter, but must be reported separately and could only be included
in registered emission reductions if explicitly recognized by DOE Technical Guidelines

the reporting and review process. Siflee re'tised gnidelmes would not permit the emjssjon
Sliuctiono.associated wjth such emissions to he rcgistctecttAn alternative approach might
e to restn
. DOE solicits comments on whether such a more
restrictive approach would be preferable.

E. Entity-Wide Reporting of Emissions Inventories, To be eligible to register

emission reductions, entities with substantial emissions <in excess of 10.000 tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent) would need to report annual entity-wide inventories of their
emissions and sequestration. Such inventories would provide a basis for assessing the
significance of reported emission reductions relative to the entity's total emissions.

14

CEQ 013869

F. Entity-wide Emission Reductions. To register emissions reductions, entities

with average annual emissions over 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent would be required to
demonstrate, to the maximum extent practicable, that the reported reductions represent an
actual net decrease in entity-wide emissions, as calculated using one or more of the

.. ADeleted: se

methods allowed by theGeneral and Technical Guidelines. Some entities, such as

................................................................................................
electricity generators, would be expected to calculate net emission reductions for their

/
v

entire entity (using one or more of the methods described below and in the Technical
Guidelines). Others, such as multi-product manufacturers, may not be able to detennine
the net emission reductions achieved by all elements of their entity using the methods
allowed by the Guidelines. These types of reporters could report the net emission
reductions for as much of their entity as was practicable, in addition to reporting their
entity-wide emission inventories.
Example: A multi-product manufacturer bas instituted company-wide efforts to
reduce emissions, but because its U.S. output is growing rapidly, its absolute U.S

emissions have not declined. By using different calculation methods (intensity for many
facilities and absolute emissions for others, as well as some project-specific calculations)

.{Deleted: bas
---------1
D-e-leted--:-i.-d---~=-~

.<-;.

it@ quantifY the emission reductions associated with 90% of its total emissions. It

'f. ............ !t............................................................................................'t ......................................................... 7 ........................;::...

.. :.:~

would report its total emissions and quantified emission reductions to DOE, and explain
that it is not practicable to quantifY the emission reductions associated with the remaining
''".''" 0

......... ... M

.....

Deleted: achieved ill

Deleted: operations

... '-D_e_leted
__
: c_h_iev_cd_in_ _ _ _ _..l

10% of its operations because there are no year-to-year measures of output for these
operations (because they involved the production oftotally new products). In this case,
the entity could register its reported emission reductions, but the data submitted in its
.i Deleted: registered

report would c\earlv indicate that these reductions were based on an assessment ofjyg

/ _>---...;;,""""'-~~===<

< 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.

Deleted: would be accompanied by a

noll: that they

15

CEQ 013870

90 percent of the entity's emissions.

Net emission reductions achieved by thir~es (offsets) could be included in an

entity's report and be considered a registered reduction as long as the third party or other
entity involved observed all of the rules that would have applied bad it chosen to report
its net emission reductions directly, and the entities involved have agreed that the
reporting entity can register the emission reductions identified (see section II.0.5 below
for additional discussion on the treatment of offsets).
The proposed Guidelines indicate that the owner of the facility, land or vehicle
that generated the emission reductions or sequestration is the entity presumed to have the
right to report and register any emission reductions or sequestration. For example, the

I
.{ Deleted: fann

owner of a wind~turb~~-~-~!~!!~. .i-~P.C?~~U.!?.~~.w.!~J~.P.~~!JE:I:l~g__t_C?.~.Y~-~~.ng!J:~~!?....... /

register such resulting emission reductions, even though this wind-generated electricity
might be purchased at a premium by a local utility and, ultimately, resold at a premium
rate to a local manufacturer. This presumption can be altered, however, if there is a
written agreement between the entities involved to transfer this right.
G. Guidelines for Small Emitters. Entities with average annual emissions ofless
than 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent, such as many farms and forest operations, small }
businesses and individuals, could report and register emission reductions that have
,..{ Deleted: since 2002

occurred .~~U!.l!!!~.~tf~~}QQ;,_~_tE!-!!l.~.~~~~~~g-*-~-~~-~l;l}.~.~X.I!~-~~!!!Y.:~~!: .......... ........ /

emissions inventory or an entity-wide assessment of the annual changes in their
emissions, avoided emissions and sequestration. Entities reporting under this provision
would be required to determine the total annual emissions and sequestration associated
with the type of activities on which they choose to report, the net emission changes

16

CEQ 013871

associated with the specific activities, and to certify that the changes reported were not
caused by actions likely to cause i11creases in emissions elsewhere within the entity's
operations. Small emitters would be required to use the same methods for calculating
emission reductions available to other reporters . .B\)e's Teelmieal Guidelipes will
e e

cuso

. Itis

{Deleted:,
be exempt from the requirement to submit entity-wide inventories. The use of a multiyear average rate of emissions is intended to enable certain small entities that have
periodic spikes in their annual emissions (for example, a land owner that periodically
harvests trees) to qualify for this exemption. Comments are specifically solicited on (1)
whether 10,000 tons of C02-equivalent emissions would be the appropriate threshold

,..{ Deleted: and

quantity to achieve this objective,_(~l.fu~-~PP.~~P.~~-~~-p-~!"J.~~-~(~~-~-Y~~-Y!'JH~~!!!~tt:~......../

should be permitted to average their annual emission rates,~n~.OlhRW.~~ rll!i.\.;l.t:C: !~~~---------/

{,..------------.,
. , Fonnatted

reductions reported by small emitters are not a result of shifting emissions to non~
...{Deleted: 'I
reporting parts ofthe entity~:.Pm!s~~~_n-~ct~'!:<:E-~~ ~J~pl~~~~s: ..~JJ_~-~P..~!-~t7"--- ... ---/

tfied below, together with the procedures to be set forth in DOE's Technical
Guidelines. The proposed revised General Guidelines recommend the use of emission
intensity indicators as the basis for determining emission reductions, but would permit
the use of several other methods to calculate emission reductions and sequestration as
long as the method used excludes reductions caused by reductions in output. Regardless
of the method used, a reporting entity would have to certify that none of the reported
emission reductions were~ double counted by the reporting entity (or, to its knowledge,

17

CEQ 013872

 { Deleted: ,

bv any other reporting entity)e_~-~-~~~~-~~-~~~tE~-~f-~~~-i:If-~P.~~~~~-~-~-~~yJ~-~'?~.. --.. /

one part of the entity to another part of the entity, or to outside the boundaries of the
entity. Entities would be required to report each emissi()n reduction and sequestration
calculation, indicate the types of~~~~~-~~!1-~~~~~-t~~-i:If.!!!~!~~~~-~~~!~~----------/

{ Deleted: provide a bricf5UJilll1aiY of

._lh_c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

reduction, and explain the selection of each indicator of output used. Comments are
invited on the appropriateness of each of the methods described below and on the
definitions provided in the proposed Guidelines. Additional guidance on each of these
methods will be provided in the Technical Guidelines, including lists of possible output

indicators. calculation methods for determining reductions associated with agricultural,

forestry and geologic sequestration, methods and eniission factors for calculating avoided
emissions, and project-based methods, among others .
1. Reductions in emissions intensity, as long as the reporting entity demonstrates
that the intensity metrics used are based on measured (or estimated) emissions and

,..{ Deleted: possibly

measured indicators of output that accurately represent the physical (or. in some cases ..... ___ .. /

--,

economic) output associated with the covered emissions, and that acquisitions, divestures
or changes in products have not contributed significantly to the reductions.
2. Absolute reductions in emissions, as long as the entity demonstrates that these
measured reductions were not caused by declines in its U.S. output.
3...Jil!lcasLltcarbon storage (for actions within entity boundaries), as long as the
entity demonstrates the sequestration measured or estimated represents a net increase in
the quantity stored by the entity and has not been re-released to the atmosphere
(continuous reporting would be required).

18

CEQ 013873

4. Avoided emissions (for actions within entity boundaries that reduce emissions
outside entity boundaries) that reflect the indirect emission reductions achieved as a result
of a measured increase in the net sales of energy generated by low- or no- emission
technologies.
5. Project emission reductions (for actions taken to reduce direct or indirect

emissions within entity boundaries), as long as they exclude any reductions that might
have resulted from reduced output or from shifting emissions to operations not included
in the reported projects, and are derived from measured performance data or by using
estimation methods consistent with DOE Technical Guidelines. In the context of entitywide reports, this last calculation method is intended only for use when none of the other

methods is practicable.

, Comment: Page: 20
:'

[Offsets?Jl ........................................................................................................./

Ollc comment staled: We suggest tbat

~~~=:!~'::~~==tion

n:ductions. We suggest adding a nwnber

6. "Offsels, or emission reductions
achieved by others, as long as tire entity

I. Recordkeeping. Report Certification, and Verification. Reporters under the

thot achieved the reductions mel all ofthe

applicable requirements and both entitles
indit:Died thor they had an agreement
stlpulartngwhowouldreportrhoemtulon
reductions.'

existing program must certify the accuracy of their reports, but are not required to
maintain records. Under the proposed revised Guidelines, the chief executive officer,

This suggested change was not adopted

because 'officts' are nola calculation
melhod. but ralher an exception to lhe
general rule that all reductions musr come
from the reporting entity.

agency head, head of household or person responsible for the reporting entity's
compliance with environmental regulations would certify that reports are complete,
accurate an consistent with DOE guidelines, and that sufficient records will be
maintained t1 at least three years to enable independent verification. Reporting entities
=="b"'ncouraged to obtain independent verification of their reports. The proposed

Guid lines describe what would constitute independent verification, including a

description of the types of firms or institutions that might be qualified to independently

19

CEQ 013874

verify the entity's reports, and the elements of an entity's records and reports that should

o-rd corr-P f'""'""

be verified.
The proposed General Guidelines

waul~"~
~arts to EIA that are
7:'"1~v

.A Deleted: check

sufficiently detailed to enable EIA to-~:~v!~.\~-~l?.f~~-~-- -~~-i.'?.~-~~E-~~~-l?-.1!-~~W:~~~~-f~~---/

'

r,-----------,

l~,..D:...;e::.leted::..:.::.:~:_ve:...;ri...:.fY_ _ _ _ __

each method and output measure utilized, and to review ---~-~!!!~~-9.f.~f!!!Y.~~~~I?~.~~~.f<?~-----/

each category of greenhouse gas covered and for electricity-related use or emissions
avoidance, by region. EIA's review of the data submitted would be intended to assure
consistency with the requirements specified in the General and Technical Guidelines.
This level of reporting would indicate the basic components of each entity's emission

inventory and of its entity-wide emission reductions. Entities would be required to

maintain more detailed records, sufficient to permit an independent verification. The
proposed levels of data reporting and recordkeeping represent a middle ground between
the views of stakeholders who favor summary data and those stakeholders who prefer
more detailed data that would be the basis for independent verification.

The~~~9.~~l.Y!~!!.~~!?..~~~I?~~C?P.!!!&!C?9~~!?.~~1:J:t..t.'?.~~~-Y.C?~~:..QJ_c::~~~~t ... .....(

, Deleted: Office of Management and

, Budget, under the Papenvork Reduction

reporting entities may keep their records for a longer period of time if they deem it in

=~r:::;:l:!!~:~ :X'?eeds

lhrcc years, so the

Deleted: would

~----------------~

their interest to do s0 .
The proposed Guidelines would require that the chief executive officer or other
senior official of the repo~g entity certify the accuracy, consistency and completeness
of all reports. In addition, the Guidelines would encourage, but not require, independent
verification of all reports. The proposed Guidelines would provide only general

guidance on what DOE considers the necessary qualifications of verifiers and the

20

CEQ 013875

infonnation that they must verify. This guidance is intended to provide some assurance
that such verifiers are independent and appropriately qualified, while still giving entities
considerable flexibility in the selection of the type of firm most appropriate to perform
such an independent verification. DOE invites comments on whether the general
guidance provided is sufficient to achieve this objective.
While some stakeholders believe that independent verification should be required
of all reports, many felt that independent verification is only necessary if entities seek to
sell their registered emission reductions and, in such cases, private markets are likely to
specifY the type of independent verification required. While DOE received many
comments that questioned the credibility of many of the emission reductions reported
under the existing program, most of these concerns related to the methodology used to
calculate the reported reductions, rather than the validity of the data used or reported.
DOE believes that requiring a senior officer to certify reports will assure that the data
reported are reliabl

;bufsoli.Cifi,:'fibtur:~tolrii:rieiifori:. -~1t.h~~"-,~ ':~:!:"~f.: ht~~ '/

1. Starting to Report. Under the proposed revised Guidelines, entities would be

permitted to begin reporting their prior-year emissions and emission reductions at any

~..\

timl.'{i)c!tirst full ~ear for which an emissions inventory is available normally~ be

Comment: Paso: 22
/

One comment suggested that we solicit

public comment on whelhcr independent
verification should be required. The .
intmgency policy group discussed and
Rje=d lhe option of requiring
independent verification. In addition,
since the statute specifies that nportcTS
should certiJY the accuracy of their
reports, requiring independent
verification tmY not be consistent with
the statutory aulhority for this prognm.

~r\i"'K

Gt:msieeretl the entity's base y't!ar. This base year may be derived from a single year's
record of emissions, but DOE would encourage entities to determine their base year by
calculating the average emissions or emissions intensity during a base period of up to
four years in length. This flexibility would permit a reporter to select the most

re

..

"-v-~<......e

ase ear or base eriod. DOE solicits comments on whether this flexibilit

is appropriate and. if not, what steps might be taken to limit this flexibility. To focus the

21

CEQ 013876

program on current and future efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, entities would
be pennitted to register only those emission reductions calculated using a base year !!Q
.{ Deleted: of

earlier than.~~9J.J~~-~~~~- P_!:.rt~~-~f. !J.Jl. _t<?.f.<?~!~-~~9.~~~~~~~-X\r,~~~..~!~~.iES. ~9-~~!.l.i.O:!". ~~-- ....... ..-

r----------.

.~ Deleted: 1999

previous years, as long as any prior year emission reductions are calculated using a base
year no earlier than 1990 (or a base period no earlier than 1987-1990). To be accepted as
entity-wide reports under the revised Guidelines, emission reductions already reported to
the 1605(b} registry must be recast to fully comply with the revised Guidelines.

IM.9Xt.~.!RJI.fJ!r!'.!l~.~.~~~tipp !-1.._ ........... ._ .........................................................../

..

K-. ~eRq~ A_cc~R!l1Jle:..QPQ~I.~~!=}P!J ,RJA .~Q~~~ -~~~!~.~-~.l.l.~~P.!?.~~-!~.~~~~-- ...... ,

I

consistency with the revised Guidelines. If..gi~\.~~J.~!'!!!!~~~__t~~-~~PQr..f.q~!~~~-~~----------- \

.. ''

.Q~n~ral, ~~~-~~~l_l!H~~J.YP..i~~~~~~,-~!1.9. ~~!.\:tB-~R<?.I:t.tT}R. t9.~mJIJ,S rr!-!9tJRns;,~C?-~.'=P.<?.~ ...... --..\\

would be classified as either an entity-wide report or otherwise, and accepted.

\.\\\

\:.\\

k.!t~s-~~!r~~<?.~-~f.~~~~-i.'?~.B-~d_w;t~~w.~:. A~-~~P~~~ -~~~!Y.:~.i~~-~~P.~~-~~~-~~P.<?~~.-... \~

..

\\.,~.\

from small emitters would then be further reviewed to determine if reductions were

Deleted: K. S!!ll!!i!!inB ri;ntitt RSI!S!!li

g[l!miu.i!!ll!i 11!1!1 :f;miui!!ll B!:!luGU!!!!~
To n::gister emission n::duetions in any
fu!Uie year, an eatity would be required
to Sllbmit coolilluous annual n::pons that
doc:UIIICIII the uc~ ewnulativc emission
n::ductioos achieved n::lative 1o the
entity's base year (or base period). Only
additions 1o cumulative emission
mluetions (n::latiVl: to the eboscu base
year or bale period) would be n:cognized
in fu!Uie years. This rcquirem0111 would
limit the ability of cutiriesto register
transitory n::ductions that are offset by
emission increases in subsequent years.
Coutilluous n::porting is also necessary 1o
ensure sequestration is being sustained.
Deleted:L

---:
I
.J

Deleted: DOE
Deleted: DOE

Deleted: measutemen~ ca leu Ia lion and

certification

Deleted: g
, Deleted:M

eligible to be registered. Entity-wide reports and reports from small entities that have

'

Deleted: Entities thai have submined

entity-wide tepOitS and

Reporting Form Insnuctions, to demonstrate they have achieved emission reductions

after 2002 and have met.J!l!.~W.~!-~J?P.!!~-~~!~.!.~Il~}X~~~-l!!~.~Q~I~-~Y-~.~C:..!~~~!!fi_!:.L ........

~ Deleted: additional

..-:< . .

o..:e..:leted;;;.;;....:..;:ir;___ _ _ _ _ _.

reductions registered in the 1605(b) database under the name of reporting entity and the
year the reduction was achieved.

22

CEQ 013877

Registering only reductions that are achieved after 2002 would focus the program

on those reductions most likely to contribute to the achievement of the President's goal
for reducing U.S. emissions intensity Qy_18% between 2002 and 2012. In addition,

because all of the

d~!>ta required

to register reductions would-be relatively recent, it would

help ensure that all entities have an equal opportunity to register emission reductions
under the new program. Nevertheless, the revised Guidelines would continue to permit
entities to report entity-wide emission reductions back to 1991, the earliest year permitted
by the authorizing statute, and reports that comply with the Guidelines would be made
publicly available by EIA. DOE solicits public comments on this approach and any
suggestions of alt~mative means of achieving the objectives outlined above.
M. Sustaining Entity Rrnorts of Emissions and Emission Reductions. To register
emission reductions in any future year. an entity would be required to submit continuous
annual reports that document the net, cumulative emission reductions achieved relative to
the entity's base year (or base period}. Only additions to cumulative emission reductions
(relative to the chosen base year or base period) would be recognized in future years.
This requirement would limit the ability of entities to ret,rister transitory reductions that
are offset by emission increases in subsequent years. Continuous reporting is also
necessary ~o ensure sequestration is being sustained.
N. EIA Database and Summary Reports. The EIA Administrator would establish
a public database including all data that meets the definitional, measurement, calculation
and certification requirements of the revised Guidelines. The database would provide

..

summary information on each reporting entity's greenhouse gas emissions and its

23

CEQ 013878

registered emission reductions, by year, according to the categories described above. The
database would also provide access to all accepted reports.
0. Cross-cutting and Other Important Issues. This section discusses various
issues that affect more than one provision of the proposed revised Guidelines or were not
highlighted in any of the preceding sections. DOE is seeking public comment on all of
these issues, and certain specific questions are posed.
l. Entity-wide v. Sub-Entity or Project-only Reporting. The proposed Guidelines

would highlight the net contribution of reporting entities to reducing greenhouse gas
,..{ Deleted: specific projeciS or

emissions, rather than sub-entity reductions resulting fromP.-E~9.~.t.~~n iL9D1X.~~ll1~.......... /

parts (rather than the whole) of the entity. This reflects the Administration's interest in
fostering broad efforts by corporations, institutions and other entities to reduce their total
emissions. Over time, individual companies and other entities often take many actions
that either increase or decrease their emissions of greenhouse gases. It is the net effect of
all of these actions on an entity's emissions that is the most important indicator of an
entity's contribution to the President's goal of reducing U.S. emissions intensity. Under
the revised Guidelines, most reporters would be able to register emission reductions only
if they could demonstrate they had achieved a net reduction in their total emissions,
relative to their physical or economic output. Small emitters, such as households, and
.~ Deleted:

and

reductions achieved in just one area of activity, such as building operations or forestry,
,..{ Formatted

rather than accounting for all of their emissions~ so long_iJ:S thex ~ert}fY.J!t~~- the~~-------------/
reductions aren't a product of shifting emissions to non-reporting parts ofthe entity. In
addition, the proposed Guidelines would continue to provide a mechanism for large

24

CEQ 013879

 ..{ Deleted: paJ1itipanlS

emitters...~'?. !.~P.~.~- R~! .~'?~. !.~~~!~~t-~~ X~.~~!=.~i.<?~.F.C:~~!P.!!I.~~-~-~~b'i~~~LI!~.~-C?~.~L ......../

projects affecting a part of the entity's emissions, even if they could not demonstrate that
they had achieved a net reduction in their total emissions. relative to their economic
Comment: Page: 26
These sca=ccs were delcll:d bcawsc
they were POl considered DccessaJy to
discussion oflhe issue being addressed in
Ibis stetiim: lhe discussion ofcotity-wide
v. sub-cotilylptoj~ tq>011ing and lhe
solitilatioa of lhe public c:olliiiiQII OP Ibis
topic.

::::;~====~::::~~~~~::~:::::~===----<\
might be registered in the absence of net entity wide reductionsL .....................................
2. Treatment of Certain Small Emissions. The proposed Guidelines would permit
reporters to exclude certain fttlti:lmpoge&ie-emissions that are comparatively small. ~
~-anthro~Iic Cfllisig~!: ..~.P.~~-t~C:~~b,.~.I?!!!!!Y...C:~~c_l.~~c;!!!~I?.~~!~~Q~..ti:Qm.\,

multiple sources (and multiple gases) as long as the total emissions excluded that didnot
exceed 3% of its total emission inventory or 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent, whichever
was smaller. This exclusion is intended to enable entities to exclude small, and possibly

Deleted: All rcpons would be reviewed

by EIA and cksignaled as entity-wide

rcpons or olhcnvisc. Entity-wide rcpons

would be Wnber n:viewed 10 dcwmine
whether idcalilied emission mluctions
quaUficd 10 be n:gisu:rcd. The cmi5sions
invco10rics and regisrcred emission
RdnttioPs idcalilied by accepled entitywide repons would be made available in
a fonn lhat was distinct fioin lhe
\ information tonllillcd ill other reports.

Comment: Page: 26
Que COIIUIICIII suggested chatlhis pluase
be dropped. 11 idealities an issue chat is
likely to be cspcciaUy importaniiO a
number of siab:boldm.
', Deleted: or Pawrally occurring

..

widely dispersed, emissions that are likely to be especially costly to monitor and report,
but which would have little effect on the total emissions or emission reductions reported.
However, this approach has some potential drawbacks. For example, very large emitters,
such as large power generators or large energy intensive industries applying this standard
would have to account for a very high percentage of their total emissions (in some cases
over 99.9%). Accounting for such a high percentage of total emissions could be
burdensome and would have little effect on the totals reported. Several possible
alternatives exist. One option might be to provide for uniform percentage exclusion, such
as permitting all entities to exclude up to 3 percent of their emissions. This could lead
some large utilities or industries to exclude large quantities of emissions that would be
relatively easy to include in their reports. Another possible alternative is the addition of a

25

CEQ 013880

minimum percentage exclusion, such as 1 percent. Still another alternative might be to

pennit firms to exclude up to 3 percent or 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent. whichever is
greater. DOE solicits comments on the approach proposed, as well as various
alternatives approaches.
3. Excluding the Effects of Changes in Output on Emissions. The proposed
Guidelines would strongly encourage the use of emissions intensity indicators as the basis
for calculating emission reductions and would require that any method used to calculate
emission reductions ensure that reductions caused by declines in the reporting entity's
output be excluded. This would require entities to develop useful physical (and/or
possibly economic) indicators of the output associated with the emissions being assessed.
For power generators supplying electricity to the grid, the preferred measure of output is
{ Deleted: have

clear: kilowatt hours. Certain large manufacturers~~~~.h.~x~ .\'{~_IJ.~~!~~~i-~~C?~-~fE~~~~~-~L

output that have already been widely used for many years, such as tons of cement. But
many product manufacturers may have some difficulty identifYing useful output
indicators especially if they desire to develop indicators that represent the output
associated with a large a number of different processes and products. Broad physical
units, such a pounds of product (sometimes used by chemical manufacturers), often
encompass a wide range of different products, and a similarly wide range of production
processes and product values. As a result. some important shifts between processes or
product types may not be captured by such a broad indicator. As an alternative, some
entities might consider the use of economic indicators, although analysis of some entitylevel economic indicators suggests that they may be significantly affected by changes in
market conditions and may serve as poor indicators of production-related changes by

26

CEQ 013881

individual. entities. DOE intends to identify in the Technical Guidelines various output
indicators and provide guidance on the selection of appropriate indicators. DOE may
specify the use of particular indicators for certain types of economic activity, but is likely
to give most reporters the flexibility to adopt the best indicators for their particular
circumstances. Given the potential deficiencies of some output indicators, DOE invites
public comment on what information entities should be required to provide to justifY the
selection of their output indicators and what criteria DOE should use to detennine
whether a particular output measure is acceptable.
A related issue concerns entities that base their emission reductions on changes in
their "absolute" emissions. The proposed Guidelines would require such entities to
demonstrate that any reported reductions were not associated with declines in the output
associated with those emissions. Because entities should only use this approach if they
I

could not develop an output indicator that would enable them to track their emissions
intensity, they may have difficulty demonstrating that their output had not declined.
Again, DOE is interested in receiving comments on what output measures or other
information such entities should be required to provide to demonstrate that their outptlt
has not declined and what criteria DOE might use to determine whether the information
provided was sufficient.
4. Emissions and Reductions Associated with Electricity Generation and Use.
Several key provisions of the Guidelines deal with how entities are to report emissions
and emission reductions associated with electricity generation and use. Approximately
32 percent of total U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases are released in the generation of
electricity. As there are substantial opportunities to reduce the emissions associated with

27

CEQ 013882

both the generation and use of electricity, it is important that the program cover both
electricity generators and consumers. In doing so, however, it is also important to ensure:
(1) that electricity-related emissions and emission reductions are not double counted; (2)
that the conversion factors used to translate kilowatt hours into emissions are accurate
indicators of the actual emissions associated with the generation of the electricity; and (3)
that recognition for reductions is given to those entities primarily responsible for those
reductions. Both these proposed General Guidelines and the Technical Guidelines, to be
proposed subsequently, will attempt to achieve these objectives.
To avoid double counting, the proposed General Guidelines would require users
to distinguish between the "indirect" emissions associated with electricity purchases (as
well as purchased steam, and chilled/hot water) and their direct emissions. This will
enable entity-level emission inventories to include such indirect emissions, while
pennitting DOE to exclude such emissions from compilations of multiple reports, if
desired. In the Technical Guidelines, DOE will specify the factors to be used to convert
purchased electricity use to greenhouse gas emissions. For the purposes of emission
inventories, DOE is likely to specify a factor based on the average emissions per kilowatt
hour for the region in which the electricity was consumed. However, for the purpose of
calculating emission reductions associated with reduced electricity demand, DOE may
specify an alternative factor, such as one based on the emissions associated with regional
electricity supplies at the margin {largely excluding electricity generated by hydro or
nuclear power plants, which tend to be fully utilized, regardless of changes in regional
demand for power). These factors might change annually and could be required to be

28

CEQ 013883

used by all consumers of purchased electric power, unless the reporter could demonstrate
special circumstances.
There may be two methods for detennining emission reductions associated with
the generation of electricity. One method might be used to calculate reductions in the
emissions intensity of existing power production (e.g., through fuel switching or
increased efficiency) and the other might be used to calculate the indirect reductions (or
avoided ~tmissions) that result from increasing the electric power generation from nonemitting or low-emitting sources. DOE is seeking to provide recognition to existing
power generators that reduce their emissions intensity, while also establishing a level
playing field among producers of new or additional power supplies, and end-users of
electricity that reduce their demand.
DOE intends to provide, through its Technical Guidelines, clear direction on how
to calculate emission reductions associated with the generation and purchase of
electricity. While the specific methodologies and factors to be used have yet to be
defined, DOE is soliciting suggested approaches that would achieve the objectives
identified, as well as specific recommendations on how to develop the conversion factors
described and bow to most appropriately distinguish between existing and new power
production and emissions.
5. Recognizing Emission Offsets. As proposed, the General Guidelines would
permit entities to report and register emission reductions achieved by others, as long as
the entity that achieved the reductions observed all of the requirements applicable to

::

reporters and the entities involved indicated that they had an agreement stipulating who

29

CEQ 013884

would report the emission reductions. These provisions are designed to enable and
encourage large emitters to support efforts to reduce emissions outside the boundaries of
their entities. DOE believes this may be especially desirable when the opportunities for
reducing emissions within an entity's boundaries are comparatively limited or costly.
However, these provisions raise a number of issues upon which DOE is seeking public
comment.
Most of these issues concern the information that must be submitted by a
reporting entity about the emission reductions achieved by a non-reporting entity. For
example, must the reporting entity provide all of the information that the non-reporting
entity would have been required to submit directly, including an Entity Statement, an
emissions inventory (unless exempted), and an entity-wide assessment of emission
reductions (unless exempted)? Must the chief executive officer or other senior manager
of the non-reporting entity certify to the accuracy of all of the information reported by the
reporting entity? Could a non-reporting entity enter into agreements permitting some of
its emission reductions to be registered by one entity and the remainder by one or more
other entities? Must the reporting entity demonstrate that it helped flnance or manage the
achievement of the emission reductions achieved by some other entity? One approach
that might avoid many of these potential issues would be to require direct reporting by all
entities that generate emission reductions. This would ensure that a complete report is
available on all registered emission reductions, but might discourage support for offset
reductions by entities that are unwilling to report directly. DOE solicits conm1ents on
this approach.

30

CEQ 013885

~. International Emission Reductions. The proposed revised Guidelines do not

address either the reporting of non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions or the
registration of non-U.S. emissions reductions. DOE is soliciting public comments on
whether non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions should continue to be eligible for
reporting under the revised program, recognizing that the current guidelines provide for
reporting of international activities 1 DOE is also soliciting public comments on whether
non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions should qualify for registration and, if so,
what procedures and requirements should be establis~ed for registration of such
emissions and emission reductions.
Many factors are relevant to how non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions
should be treated under the program with respect to both reporting and registration. Since
1994, many entities have reported on overseas activities; many companies likely to
participate in the revised program have substantial business operations both inside and
outside the United States. At the same time, reporting and registration ofnon-U.S.
emissions and emission reductions raise certain issues that do not arise in the context of
the reporting and registration ofU.S. emissions and emission reductions. (For example,
certifYing the acc.uracy of data may be more complicated.)
In addition to requesting comment on the overall issue of whether to include
international activities, DOE specifically requests comment on the following questions:
How would the concept of"entity-wide" reporting be extended to include non-U.S.
activities? Should an entity wishing to report non-U.S. emission reductions achieved in
its own non-U.S. operations be required to inventory and report on all non-U.S. emissions
1

Since the current Guideline became effective in f994, DOE has interpreted the Congressional intent

31

CEQ 013886

and to assess changes in its emissions worldwide? Or should such entity only be required
to report on its non-U.S. operations in specific countries? What requirements should
third-party non-U.S. offsets be required to meet? To be eligible for registration. should
reports of non-U.S. emissions reductions require independent verification? What would
be the implications, including for participation in the 1605(b) program, if non-U.S.
activities were excluded from reporting and/or registrationt ............................................... /
7. Relationship of Proposed Guidelines to Climate VISION, Climate Leaders and
Other Voluntary Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DOE, the
Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have established programs
to encourage compauies, trade associations and other non-government organizations to
take voluntary actions to reduce, sequester, or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. For
example, industry participants in DOE's "Climate VISION" program, a Presidential
initiative launched in February 2003, and EPA's Climate Leaders program have made
voluntary commitments to reduce GHG emissions or emissions intensity by a specified
amount, and to monitor and report on their progress.
The Administration intends to use the l605(b) program to docwnent, whe
possible, the progress of participants in these voluntary Federal programs. This'is
consistent with the President's desire that the 1605(b) registry be a "tool that goes handin-hand with voluntary business challenges ... by providing a standardized, credible

Comment: Pap: 33
One colD1llCIII on Ibis secticm staled:
With R$J!eCI to reporting inctmatiollal
emissiolls n:ducliOIIS, our concern is that
act inchldingo~ busillcss
opm~tioas might lead a firm to shift
emisslon-intmsive ptOductica overseas
and re!Pstcrthe reduclions dcmeslically.
On lhc other hand, if reporting
intcmational reducticms is allowed,
may choose to n:duce emissions
intcmatioaaUy iaslcad ofn:ducin
emisslOIIS domcslicaUy, an acli ihat
wollld no1 help lhe U.S.
e
Pmidcct's goal or an 18
uclion in
domestic emissions in sity. It is
i.mportallt chat lhe d ominator (output)
Ia lhc iatccsil:y
net include the
inb:I'Jiational o ut or tho cnlity when
only lhe do tic emissions are beiug
calcula
We suggest addiag a line at
the
orthe first paragraph on page 29:
arcing and registration or non-U.S.
Ions and emission red11ctions raise
certain issues that do not arise in the
conrcxt of the reporting and registration
oru.s. emissions aod emission
reductions. (For CXIIIIqlle, cenil}'ing !he
aceuracy of clata may he more
compUcated.) A./so, pumluingflml$ to
report tVId regfsrtr lntl!rtllltlonal em/;ssion
reduclions moy mean that fl1171$ .substitute
I!Uernal/onaJ emhsfon reductions for
rrductlons they moy have mode
domatlct~lly. In thiS =e. the reglst'Y
would do leu to help meet the Pruidenl 's
goof ofon 18% reduction In damurlc
emhllons illlenslry by 2012. On the other
htVId, nor requiring reporting and
regl$tmrton ofoveniiiU emissions and
emhslon reductions might lead a firm to
shift emiJIIon-lntensiveproduction roan
OVUSIIIU component ofirs bus/nus and
regl$ter milleadillg reductions
domallct~lly."

vehicle for reporting and recognizing progress." However, additional reporting may be

Becausc the wonlillg of this section was

carefuDyuegctialed after extmsive
disc:ussilms be!WiiCD the Dtpartmcnt of
State and the Council on Enviroumculal
Quality, we do not believe auy tiutbor
cbangctohollld be made. ID addition, the
conce111s regarding the trcatmc:at or
mtcmatiooal oo.tput are not wamnled
[the proposed pidclines Rquire ou1p111
indicators to be tied din:etly 10 lhe
emissions covered).

required for other specific voluntary Federal programs in order to provide distinct
benefits to program participants.
underlying the statute to allow for the reporting of international activities.

32

CEQ 013887

DOE is soliciting comment on the merits of using the 1605(b) program for
documenting progress of participants in voluntary Federal programs towards meeting
their emissions reduction goals.
ill.

Opportunity for Public Comment

A. Written Comments. You should submit written comments by [INSERT

DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Because we continue to

experience occasional mail delays due to extra processing required for delivery of mail to
Federal agencies, we encourage you to submit comments electronically by e-mail at
1605bgeneralguidelines.comments@hq.doe.gov. We will consider comments received
after the comment deadline only to the extent practicable. Comments should be
submitted to the e-mail or street addresses given in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. Written comments should be identified on the documents themselves and on the
outside of the envelope, or in the e-mail message, with the designation [insert name of
rulemak.ing and docket number]. All comments received and transcripts of any public
workshop held will be available for public inspection at the following website:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingghgregistry/proposedGuidelines/comments. Persons
without access to the internet can obtain such access to this website by visiting the DOE
Freedom oflnformation Reading Room, Room lE-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3142, between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public
disclosure, you should submit one complete hardcopy and two hardcopies from which the

33

CEQ 013888

information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. DOE
is responsible for the final determination with regard to disclosure or non-disclosure of
th~

information and for treating it accordingly under the DOE Freedom oflnformation

Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.

B. Participation in Public Workshop. You will find the time and place of the
public workshop at the beginning of this notice. We invite any person who has an
interest in today's notice, or who is a representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, to participate in the workshop. Because space may be limited,
persons wishing to participate in the workshop should inform DOE by identifying the
person or persons likely to attend, an e-mail or phone number for follow-up contacis, and
providing a brief description of the specific issues of particular interest. This information
may be provided electronically at the following website:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/proposedguidelines/generalguidelines.
html or may be provided in writing to the person listed in the beginning of this notice.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the workshop, and may also use a
professional facilitator to facilitate discussion. The workshop will not be conducted
under formal rules governing judicial or evidentiary-type proceedings, but DOE reserves
the right to establish procedures governing the conduct of the workshop. The workshop
will be organized so as to encourage the open discussion of specific issues by the range of
stakeholders and government representatives present. Prior to the workshop a draft
agenda, identifying specific issues for discussion, will be made available at the following
website:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/proposedguidelines/generalguidelines.

34

CEQ 013889

html. There will also be opportunities during the workshop for the identification and
discussion of issues not specifically identified on the agenda. The presiding official will
announce any further procedural rules, or modification of the above procedures, needed
for the proper conduct of the workshop. Statements for the record of the workshop will
be accepted at the workshop.
DOE will make the entire record of the rulemaking, including the workshop
transcript, available for inspection at the following website:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/proposedguidelines/generalguidelines.
html. In addition, any person may purchase a copy of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
IV. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866.

Today's action has been detennined to be "a significant regulatory action" under
Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review" (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under that Executive Order by the
Office oflnformation and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an
initial regulatory fleXIbility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, "Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking"
35

CEQ 013890

(67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies to ensure that
the potential impacts of its draft rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaldng process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), and has made them available on
the Office of General Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. DOE has reviewed
today's proposed Guidelines under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. Although section
1605(b)(l) ofEPACT mandates a public comment opportunity before Guidelines can be
issued, the proposed guideline provisions are policy statements and procedural rules.
They are not substantive regulatory requirements that would have an economic impact on
small entities. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed Guidelines,
if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this rulemaking.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Energy Information Administration previously obtained Paperwork
Reduction Act clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for forms
used in the current Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases program (OMB Control
No. 1905-0i94). EIA will prepare new forms to implement the revised general
. (I.AO

C..):>Qc:\'c..krJ...

Guidelines for the program, and it will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comment on the new forms in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A). After considering the public comments, EIA will request OMB approval
of the revised forms pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(l).
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

36

CEQ 013891

DOE bas concluded that this proposed rule falls into a class of actions that would
not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as
determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). This action deals with the procedures and policies for
entities that wish to voluntarily report their greenhouse gas emissions and their reduction
and sequestration of such emissions to the Energy Information Administration. Because
the proposed Guidelines relate to agency procedures and impose no substantive
requirement on those entities wishing to report, the proposed Guidelines are covered
under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A6 to.subpart D, 10 CFRpart 1021.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required.
E. Review under Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 13132, "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations
that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such
actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it
will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE bas examined
today's proposed action and bas determined that it does not preempt State law and does

37

CEQ 013892

not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relations~p between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government APJ'ropriations Act 2001.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C.
3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued
by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent
with applicable policies in those guidelines.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988.
With respectto the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new
regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform" (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996}, imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the
following requirements: ( 1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations
to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect,
if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides
a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms;

38

CEQ 013893

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship tmder
any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988
requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that,
to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on state, local,
and tribal governments, and the private sector. The Department has determined that
today's regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on state, local or tribal
governments or on the private sector.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment
for any rule that may affect family well-being. These proposed guidelines would not
have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211.

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires

39

CEQ 013894

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB, a Statement of Energy Eff~cts for
any proposed significant energy action. A "significant energy action" is defined as any
action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: {1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3).is designated by the Administrator ofOIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must
give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 300

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Gases, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on _____., 2003.

Robert G. Card
Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment

40

CEQ 013895

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend Chapter n of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 300 to Subchapter Bas
set forth below.
1. The title for Subchapter B is revised to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER B-CLIMATE CHANGE

2. Part 300 is added to read as follows: PART 300-VOLUNTARY GREENHOUSE
GAS REPORTING PROGRAM: GENERAL GUIDELINES
Sec.
300.1 General.
300.2 Definitions.
300.3 Guidance for defining the reporting entity.
300.4 Selecting operational boundaries for reporting.
300.5 Submission of an entity statement.
300.6 Emissions inventories.
300.7 Net entity-wide emission reductions.
300.8 Calculating emission reductions.
300.9 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
300.10 Certification of reports.
300.11 Independent verification.
300.12 Acceptance of reports and registration of entity emission reductions.
Appendix A to Part 300- Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Under
. 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of1992: General Guidelines (October 1994}.

..

Authority: 42 U.S. C. 7101, sa~ and 42 U.S.C. 13385(b}.

300.1 General.

41

CEQ 013896

(a) Purpose. These Guidelines govern the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse

Gases Program authorized by section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 13385(b)). The purposes of the Guidelines are to: (l) establish the procedures and
requirements for filing voluntary reports, and (2) encourage corporations, government
agencies, non-profit organizations, individuals and other private and public entities to
submit annual reports of their net greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions, and
sequestration activities that are complete, reliable and consistent. Over time, it is
anticipated that these reports will provide a reliable record of the contributions reporting
entities have made to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
(b) Registration and reporting options. An entity may choose to register or report

emissions and emission reductions as follows.

(1)

Registration. An entity may have entity~wide emissions and emissions

reductions registered by conforming to the requirements of this part, including the

registration standards set forth in 300.6 and 300.7 of this part.
(2) Reporting. If an entity does not choose to report emissions in a manner that

conforms to the registration requirements set forth in 300.6 and 300.7 of this part, then
the entity may choose to report on any emissions or any emissions reductions by
complying with the requirements of this part other than 300.6 and 300.7.
(c) Forms. Annual reports of greenhouse gas emissions, emission'reductions, and
sequestration must be made on forms or software that are available from the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy (EIA).
(d) Status of reports under previous General Guidelines. EIA will continue to
maintain in its Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases database all reports received

42

CEQ 013897

pursuant to DOE's October 1994 General Guidelines. For the convenience of the readers,
those Guidelines are included as Appendix A to this part 300.

300.2 Definitions.
Tliis section provides definitions for commonly used terms in the Guidelines.
...{Fonnatted

A~li!~Jr9.~.JE.i;;~!~~~.l_1~~~-':l.~.tl.l_~-~~~~-~~~s:'-~.~J.~p_~~~~.lJ.Y.}~!f.I:~!!~S~.!~.~-IZ.~~~~!.~~!~~---
and sale of electricity. steam. hot water or chilled water produced from energy sources .
that emit fewer greenhouse gases per unit than other competing sources of these forms of

...{ Fonnatted

distributed energy..__ .................................... -- ........................................................-..Biogenic emissions means emissions that are naturally occurring and produced
Deleted: not significantly alfec:c.d by

independent of human actions,.__ ................................................................................... _..... /

activities of the reporting entity

De minimis emissions means emissions from one or more sources and of one or
more gases that when summed are less than 3 percent of the total annual C02 equivalent
emissions of a reporting entity or less than 10,000 metric tons of C02 equivalent,
whichever is smaller.
DOE or Department means the U.S. Department of Energy and, as appropriate in
context, includes the Energy Information Administration.
Direct emissions means greenhouse gas emissions resulting from stationary or
mobile sources within the organizational boundary of an entity, including but not limited
to emissions resulting from combustion of fossil fuels, process emissions, and fugitive
emissions.
Emissions means direct and specified indirect emissions of greenhouse gases from

..

any anthropogenic (human induce-d) source.

43

CEQ 013898

Emissions intensity means emissions per unit of output - usually the quantity of
physical output, but sometimes a non-physical indicator of an entity's output activity.
Entity means the business, organization or

househol4,~~-P.~~!P.~~t?~. .ll.!.~C:.......... ..,-/

~.

program by submitting reports on its emissions and emission reductions.

'\:::..,

Fugitive emissions means unintended releases of greenhouse eases from the

Comment: Page: 4S
One commtlll suggested that illdividuals
be used as an cumplc of au entity.
While individnals may n:pmcut 1111
r::olity, 1111 Clllity is ultimately some
ldealific:d coiJeclion ofcm.issioll sources,
&Uch as a household or a business.
Deleted: , or individual
Inserted:, or individual

processing, transmission. and/or transportation of fossil fuels or other materials. such as

HFC leaks from refiigeration. SF6 from electrical power distributors. and methane from

.f Deleted: emissions that arc not

...:;n~onna......;.II::..Y.;;.m::.::o.asmed~-=------

solid waste landfills. among other,.___ ......................................... c..................................... /

Greenhouse gases means:
a. Carbon dioxide: C02
b. Methane: CHi
c. Nitrous oxide: N20
d. Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs
e. Perfluorocarbons: PFCs
f.

Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6

g. Other gases or particles that have been demonstrated to have significant,

quantifiable climate forcing effects when released to the atmosphere in significant
quantities.
_..{ Deleted: resulting

lydirect emissions means greenhouse gas emissionsf!~~-~!~~.i.9!!1'f..~~-~!9.~j_l,ct.. :.....

sources outside the organizational boundary of an entity, including but not limited to the
generation of electricity, steam and hot/chiiied water, that are the result of an entity's
,.{ Deleted: !he

energy use or other J!~_!;J-~~~l?tr. .......................................................................................-::::.

Del~: orlheeotityparticipatingin
the Vo""'tary Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Program but that occur as direct
\
emissions ftom anolher 011tity or 011tities
' Deleted:

44

CEQ 013899

Net emissions or net entity-wide emissions means the net annual contribution of
the greenhouse gases specifically identified in section 300.6(f) to the atmosphere by an
entity: total, entity-wide emissions, both direct and indirect, minus entity-wide
sequestration.
Net emission reductions or net entity-wide emission reductions means the sum of
all annual changes in emissions, sequestration and avoided emissions of the greenhouse
gases specifically identified in section 300.6CQ, determined in confonnance with 300.7
and 300.8 of these Guidelines.
Offsets means an emission reduction that meets the reguirements of these
guidelines. but is achieyed by a party other than the entity that reports or registers the

,----------------.,'

A Fonnatted
reduction. .................................................................................................................../
===,..
Sequestration means the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, either through
biologic processes or physical processes, including capture, long-term separation,
isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as through cropping

_.-{ Deleted: fon:stAtion

practices, forest and forest products management,~~-!!li!?E!!C!.IJ:.~~~-~!-!.~.4~~~~\.:lP.-4............./

..f./7

Lj.r

reservoir.
Source means an identifiable discrete physical process, occurring at a particular
location, set of locations, or area, by which a greenhouse gas is emitted.
_..{ Fonnatted

~~l?.~~~!!!X.~~-~~E~-~-!?'?!IIR~lf.C:l~~.9K~!l..~~-~-1X,.~~Jh -~~-~ .~.i~9!~F!:.~~}J~!:~s_J!!!f:t ......... ...-

facility. plant. vehicle fleet, or energy using system, which has associated with it
emissions of greenhouse gases that: can be distinguished from the emissions of all other
components of the same entity; and. when summed vvith the emissions of all other sub.--CFO""~---------

entities. equal the entitv's total emissions ...................................... ..................................... /

45

CEQ 013900 .

A reporting entity must be composed of one or more legally distinct businesses,

institutions, organizations or households, ~lthough reporters are strongly encouraged to

m.,
:
define themselves at the highest level of aggregation appropriate. L~~~J.~g~~-~~i~.!.<:!r___ ....../

, Comment: PaS~=: 47
Ostccoi1UIICIItsuBJP!.edtheadditionor
"slmlsJy"IO Ibis phmse. TbJs
RCOIDIIlCIIdadoD was adopll:d. Allolher

::;:=z~e;:'~a::,:~sbcst

meauluglid level ofaggresillicm.

AllowingcolillcscoKporutlowcrlcvets
opco.s up the door Cor shifting of high
coUssions intcoSity opcntiDDS liom the
rcpattillgcolitytoanothcrentitytbatwt11
DOt n:porl, lhos rcgislcling I false
n:ducliou. This self-definition males a

determining whether a reporting entity or its components are distinct can be derived from
any Federal, State or local law or regulation governing the entity, including regulations
applicable to corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, government agencies, non-profit

leakage problem."

'!'be possibility of &w:b a requimncol was

organizations. households.,_9~-~~E~~-t:!!!'!!!~~: ..'J11J.~Jt:8!i.l.~!~!~..~!-!~!.!:!~.~~~~-'i~.t:~-~-~:.. ....... :

t,~~~~ff.=:U~~:!~Y

entity statement required by 300.5 ofthese Guidelines.

,
,

300.4 Selecting operational boundaries for reporting.

(a) An entity must determine, document, and maintain its operational boundary for
\: :,

accounting and reporting purposes. Because of the large number of different operational
structures, reporting entities are given some flexibility to set their operational boundaries
in a manner that best suits their circumstances. However, all reports submitted should

adhere to the following:

,

(1) To the extent feasible, reporting entities should establish operational boundaries in

a manner that is consistent with the entity's existing legal, managerial and financial
,
,

structure; and

(2) The reporting entity should establish operational boundaries that will result in

,
:

:
:
\
\
'

accurate and comprehensive reports of its greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration.

ia~er&gcocy groups. lfwcadopted the

approachrec:ommcolkd.wewouldface
two cboiccs: either !:ave "blgbest
meaningflll lcvcl"IDidcf.incd 111d
lhc:rcfcnc 'unenfon:eable', or try 10 dcf.ine
it- fonually (in tho 'tulo') or iDfo11113Uy
(ill the pmmblc). Ifwe tried to define
this tt:rm, we would bave 10 address
several dill'crcot possible intcrpn:tations
of"meauiuglbl":
Since output measures arc key to
dcll:nlllniag reductions, does
"meaninglhl" mcao a conunon producl'l
('l'bls intcrpn:talion could be quire
limiting fur multi-produc1
mauufaCIIIJ'Ct'S.)
Since the level of equity and operational
coottol of emissions may dcrcnninc lhc
ability of an catity 10 affect a particular
facilities operations, sbould 'meauingtill'
only be required to eucompass those
opcntions that arc wholly-owned 111d
opcrall:dbythunlity'l [Cata.ill
companies, sucll u AilS, are domiaared
by partiaUy-owncd tmlitles.
Should 'meanillgflll' be tied 10 tax
respoasibility? [IDIIIY l'acilities with split
OW!Icrship bave spUt tax responsibilities)
Should meauinglid apply to legal
liability foreuviroomenral complilllce
[Ibis too may vary widely 111d, of cou.tSe,
would nise olher SCIISitivities).
'l'bo lack ofwarbblc sallllionsro these
problems was one of the n:uous dlis
IIIDfC prescriptive approach was rejecrcd.
Ill addition, rhcre are several J110vlslons in
the ~lines that are ialaldcd to prevent
or mir11mize the types ofleaka111= 111d
gamiogidcntilicdin thccomment[e.g.,
sr;quiml !dcntificatioll of cbanges in
entity operations, required ch111ges ill
baselines ifst'81=i.ticau1 changes o=r,
entityu=iDg roquircments, etc.)

Deleted: individuals,

46

CEQ 013901

(b) In general, a reporting entity should select operational boundaries so as to

encompass all emissions and sequestration associated with facilities and vehicles that are
wholly owned and operated by the named and defined entity. Emissions from facilities
or vehicles that are partially owned or leased, or not directly controlled or managed by
the entity, may be included at the entity's discretion, provided that the entity has taken
reasonable steps to assure that doing so does not result in the double counting of
eJirissions, sequestration or emission reductions.
300.5 Submission of an entity statement.

(a) Initial entitv statement requirements. When an entity first reports under these
Guidelines, the reporting entity must provide the following information in its entity
statement:
(1) The name to be used to identify the reporting entity. This should be the name
commonly used to represent most of the activities being reported, as long as it is not also
used to refer to substantial activities not covered by the entity's reports.
(2) The names of any parent or holding companies the activities of which will not
be covered comprehensively by the entity's reports;
(3) The names of any large subsidiaries or organizational units that will be
covered comprehensively by the entity's reports;
(4) A description of the entity and its primary economic activities, such as
electricity generation, product manufacturing, service provider, freight transport, or
household operation;

47

CEQ 013902

(5) A description of the types of operations. facilities, processes, vehicles and

other emission sources or sinks covered in the entity's inventories;
(6) The names of the entities that share the ownership or operational control of
significant facilities or sources included in the reporting entity's report, and certify that, to
the best of the preparer's knowledge, the direct greenhouse gas emissions and
sequestrations in the entity's report. are not included in the 1605(b) report of any of those
other entities for the same calendar year;
(7) Identification of the first year for which the entity will report emissions and
the base year or base period from which emission reductions will be calculated.
(b) Reasons {or changing the scope of entity re_uorts. From time to time, entities
may choose to change the scope of activities included within the entity's reports or the
level at which the entity wishes to report. An entity may also choose to change its
operational boundaries, its base year (or base period) or, since many entities are dynamic
by nature, other elements of its Entity Statement or reporting methods. For example,
companies buy and sell business units, and equity share arrangements evolve. The
dynamic nature of economic activity may pose a challenge for the objective of a
comprehensive and accurate documentation of greenhouse gas emissions and
sequestrations from year to year. In general, DOE encourages changes in the scope of
reporting that expand the coverage of an entity's report and discourages changes that
reduce the coverage of such reports unless they are caused by divestitures or plant
closures. Any such changes should be reported in amendments to the Entity Statement
and major changes may warrant or require changes in the reporting entity's base year or

48

CEQ 013903

base period. The Technical Guidelines under this part provide more specific guidance on
how such changes should be reflected in entity reports and emission reduction
calculations.
(c) Documenting changes in amended entity statements. A reporter's Entity
Statement in subsequent reports should focus primarily on changes since the previous
report. Specifically, the subsequent Entity Statement should report the following
information:
(1) Significant changes in the entity's organizational (geographic or operational)

boundaries. In particular, the entity statement should document:

(i) The acquisition or divestiture of discrete business units, subsidiaries, facilities,
and plants;
(ii) The closure or opening of significant facilities;
(iii) The transfer of economic activity to or from specific operations outside the

U.S.;
(iv) Significant changes in land holdings (applies to entities reporting on
greenhouse gas emissions or sequestration related to land use, land use change, or
forestry);
(v) Whether the entity is reporting at a higher level of aggregation than it did in
the previous report, and if so, a listing ofthe subsidiary entities that are now aggregated
under a revised conglomerated entity; and

49

CEQ 013904

(vi) Changes in its activities or operations(~ changes in output, contractual

, Deleted: cocoun.g.:d

f Comment: Pag.:: 52

arrangements, equipment and processes, outsourcing or insourcing of significant

One c:oJIIIIIOIIl oa this section stated:

'1'hc 1Dct lhar cotilios w/ averaae IIIIJ1WII

i : emissions ofless than 10,000 1005 of

i ! C02 equivalent an: eligible to register

activities) that are likely to have a significant effect on emissions, together with an

: : emission rcdw:tiOilS wloalleporlillg an

invattoty of total emissions combinecl

i !

i i
:' i

explanation of how it believes the changes in economic activity influenced its reported
emissions or sequestrations.

with lhc tleldbility ofreportas to choose

any c!Clillitioa ofcatity lhar ihey'd like
: : could lead to subcalegorizati sw:h !hat
1 DO ODC reports cotity ~. '!bus, thill
1 exclusion across reportas could RSUlt
: in a sigpifieaotllllllcr-reportingoftotal
: emissions in the inWDillly. This liiJiher
, supports lhc lll'lliiiDenl dill reportas
should he required to choose the highest
level of aggregadoa.

an

(2) If very substantial changes have occurre~ then the reporting entity is requirecJ..J

to submit a new Entity Statement that provides a complete and current entity overview.

Ju additiOD, while it ill Ulldcr51DIIdablc

thai some small Clltides may have

300.6 Emissions inventories.

.
.
.
.

Ka) General. The objective of the entity-wide reporting standard is to provide a

comprehensive inventory of an entity's total net greenhouse gas emissions, including all
six greenhouse gases listed in paragraph (f) of this section and all sequestration. The
reporting entity should report all of the covered greenhouse gas emissions from within
the entity, using the methods specified in the Techuical Guidelines (to be issued
subsequently). Entity-wide reports are a prerequisite for the registration of emission

reductions by entities with average annual emissions of more that 10,000 tons of C02
equivalent. Entities that have average annual emissions of less than 10,000 tons of C02
equivalent are eligible to register emission reductions associated with specific activities

without also reporting an inventory of the total emissionsL ........................................... J

(b) Direct emissions inventories. (1) Direct greenhouse gas emissions that must
.
....,.....J.or~
be reported are those emissions resulting from stationary or mobile sources within the
physical and organizational boundaries '?fan entity, including but not limited to
emissions resulting from combustion of fossil fuels, process emissions, and fugitive

difticulty in qumlif)'ing lhcir emissions

(dw: to limilcdresollll:CS). why should we

exempt large 011tides llom 1q10rti!lg as

much ofdteidnvcutocy as poSS1'ble7 Isn't
lhc issue of fugitive md other hard-toQl13111ilY eurlsslons liom large entities
already covmd by tho "maximum extr:ul
practicable" provision'/"
Th "10,000 tOllS of C02 cquivalmt"
excmpti011 for small cmittm was added
at the urgiag ofUSDA mdotbm
cooccmecl that the requirements for
cotity-widc iawotorict aad emissl011
reduction assessmcotwould likely
cliscoumgc IMIIY smaU cotities llom
panidpating. The 10,000 tollS lilllit was
chosea because it is aclually quite smaiiCOIISiderably smaUcr than a single
coDIJllCfclal electric power pcrating
plant, refbmy or largc manufie\llring
plant - so any ofthese types of reporting
eotides could DOt usc 1hls approach to
escape submitting a full emissions
iu'JC!Itol)'. Pahaps an CVCD mon:
compcUingRa5011 why most colitiesarc
unlila:ly to takt: this approach is it would
pi'CVCiltdiem liom piling corporate level
n:co!Piit!011 for their efforts. Olle lcey
elcmcot of the revised program is that
n:cogaition is ouly providecl to lhc
defined cotity aad the 11ame of this entity
must roughly corn:spcmd to the
opm.tiaas actually n:portcd npoa.
Page: 52
As ciJai\ed, eo lilies wishing to tcgislz:r
IIDIStlnvattol)' llld n:portemissiiiiiS !hat
c:aa he lllf:a51lled or esiimall:d uslog
teclmiques idmtified by DOB (esseatially
all emiss!oas). The ou!y excmptioll is Cor
small cmissiOIIS totaling less lhaiiiO,OOO
lOllS or 3 % oflhcir total, which ever is
less (ditrc is DO to the maximum aii:Dl
practicable" qualifier; thiJ quali1ier ouly
appUes to the cooduet of 111 Clltity-widc
assc:ssment or emissioa reductions]. The
inteat of this exeliiSioo is to P,Cmtit
entities some lati!Ude to exclude er::TtT

50

CEQ 013905

emissions. Process emissions should be reported (e.g., PFC emissions from aluminum
production) along with fugitive emissions (~.g., leakage of greenhouse gases from
equipment).
(2) Entities should separately report emissions of greenhouses gases from
combustion ofbiomass fuels or biomass-based fuels (e.g., wood waste, landfill gas,
ethanol from com, charcoal). The Technical Guidelines (to be issued subsequently) will
specify the applicable list ofbiomass fuels or biomassbased fuels.
(c) Inventories of indirect emissions associated with purchased energy. (1) To
provide a clear incentive for the users of electricity and other forms of purchased energy
to reduce demand, the consumption of purchased electricity, steam, and hot or chilled
water must be included in a reporting entity's inventory

as indirect emissions. To avoid

double counting among entities, the reporting entity must report all indirect emissions (as
defmed in 300.2) separately from its direct emissions. Reporting entities should use the
methods for quantifying indirect emissions specified in the Technical Guidelines.
(2) Reporting entities may also choose to report other forms of indirect emissions,
such as emissions associated with employee commuting, materials consumed or products
produced, although emission reductions associated with such other indirect emissions are
not eligible for registration. All such reports of other forms of indirect emissions must be
clearly distinguished from reports of indirect emissions associated with purchased
energy. The Technical Guidelines also address the repotting of these other types of

..

indirect emissions.

51

CEQ 013906

(d) Entity-level inventories of sequestration. Sequestration should be

comprehensively reported across the entity and represent the net changes in emissions
across the entity. In other words, activities that lead to the release of carbon to the
atmosphere must be reported along with activities that sequester carbon. This is
necessary to provide an accurate entity-wide estimate of net greenhouse gas emission

ADeleted: PartE or

reductions. Entities should use the methods for estimating sequestration specified in the
, ._ _

,./

4 4 - .. ~

Technical Guidelines (measurement).

/

( ) T tm t f d . . .
. .
d
trati
Alth h th
I f
/ .
e rea en o e muunu~!IDSSlO~.fHl. ~~.911~_s .. .9!-!:.r.. ---..c.?-~JL ...~.gc.?~..Q. ..... -<'.<:.

,.--- ....
Deleted:,

Deleted: fugitive and bjggenjc

Deleted: (I)
~--~~-----------J

the entity-wide reporting Guidelines is to provide a~ accurate and comprehensive

estimate of total entity-wide emissions, there may be small emissions from certain

Deleted: or arc nallllally occulTing and

sources that are costly or difficult to

quantify,_~r~.P.!J~B-~.I!-~~-~Y..~~~~l.:l.4~.P~~~-I!L ....;.. ... ...: ~~~:taC::O~:!.:~~~~~!rc

listed in lhe Tedmiul Guidelines) or the

sources of emissions or sequestration ifthe total quantities excluded represent less than 3

:;::n~~:::"~~='!:~~:!
entity rnay exclude them fiom its

~~~:a!:;:Jt~;:!~j:::=tian

percent of the total annual C02 equivalent emissions of the entity or less than 10,000

as to why an estimate has not bc:en

metric tons of C02 equivalent, whichever is less.

\. f~~Jiion,

Deleted: a

(f) Covered gases. (LL~J!.!i)).':-~~-~-~-IJE:'l.~!Q.~.~y~~~!JE.~~-m~~~.!!!~J~!!~-~!! .......... ____ ....... ._o_e_leted

_ _: <"'il________,

emissions of the following greenhouse gases:

(ii)

IC02
........ { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

!.Yl__HFCs
!.Yi)_PFCs

(yli}__SF~......................................................................................................f ~:~n~:

54

52

CEQ 013907

..{ Deleted: or panicles

@Entities may also choose to report other greenhouse gases. as defined in

T .. ,. ..................................................

..{ Deleted: as well,

section 300.2, but such gases are to be reported separately and any emission reductions

../

associated with such other gases are not elieible for registration.

..............................................................................................................

-----------------------------

_.l._D_;el_eted
__
:--------'

(g) Units for re_porting. Emissions and sequestration should be reported in terms
of the mass (not volume) of each gas, using metric units (e.g., metric tons of methane).
Entity-wide and sub-entity summations of emissions and reductions from multiple
-{ Deleted: calculated

sources shall be convertec\.~~-~~~9.IJ..~!~~~~-C:9~!Y.I!!~t?~.).!~~-~!!!&.~~.S.~'?~~.~~8 ....

potentials for each gas. Entities should specify the units used (e.g., kilograms, or metric
tons). Where necessary, reporting entities must use the standard conversion factors
specified in the Technical Guidelines to convert existing data into the common units
required in the entity-level report. Consumption of purchased electricity must be
reported by region (from a list to be provided by DOE in the Technical Guidelines).
Consumption of purchased steam or chilled/hot water must be reported according to the
type of system and fuel used to generate it (from a list provided by DOE in the Technical
Guidelines). Purchased energy will be converted to carbon dioxide equivalents using
conversion factors in the Technical Guidelines.
300.7 Net entity-wide emission reductions.

(a) Assessing entity-wide emission reductions. (l) Entity-wide reports are a

CAc\J
~~

prerequisite for the registration of emission reductions by entities with average annual

"""'"

emissions ofmore that 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent. Net annual entity-wide emission

e..s~bl\sl....;-~

reductions must be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on a full assessment and

C,a.,\e,. oNL+'
G.o"'\i">Si~

sum total of all changes in an entity's emissions, avoided emissions and sequestration

53

CEQ 0139p8

relative to the entity's established base year (or base period), plus any emission offsets. .
All changes in emissions, avoided emissions, and sequestration must be determined using
methods that are consistent with the guid~lines described in 300.8 of this part, and in
compliance with all other relevant DOE guidelines.
(2) If it is not practicable to assess the changes in net emissions resulting from
certain entity activities using at least one of the methods described in 300.8 of this part,
the reporting entity may exclude them from its estimate of net entity-wide emission
reductions. The reporting entity must describe the sowcesJ:~~l~4~~-J<?L~~--~C?~~~~-~~~----/

Deleted: iu its report !he rota I quantity

orcmissionsorscquesuation

.. {Deleted: and must dcscn1x:

~e entity's assessment of its net emission reductions, JP..!l..X:C:~~~~~-~~Y.Jt~Y!!~.!!!?L ...............

practicable to assess the changes that had occurred, and the appl'oximate quantity of
emissions or sequestration not assessed.
(3) A reporting entity should also exclude from the entity-wide assessment of
changes in emissions, avoided emissions and sequestration any emissions or
sequestration that have been excluded from the entity's inventory because they are de
minimis or biogenic.
Kb) Assessing the emission reductions of entities with small emissions. Entities
with average annual emissions ofless than 10,000 tons ofC02-equivalent emissions are
not required to inventory their total emissions or assess all changes in their emissions,
avoided emissions and sequestration in order to register their reductions. They may
register the emission reductions that have occurred since 2002 and that are associated
with certain activities, as long as they perform a complete assessment of the annual
emissions and sequestration associated with all of the activities of the same type,

54

CEQ 013909

determine the changes in the emissions, avoided emissions or sequestration associated

with these activities, and certify that the reductions reported were not caused by actions
likely to cause increases in emissions elsewhere within the entity's operations. For
example, a farmer may report emission reductions associated with tree plantings on a
single wood lot, but must assess and report the net sequestration resulting from the
/

fanner's management of all woodlots within the entity's boundaries.l. ............................/

. COmment: Page: 56
One commcatoa this ~on stated that:

~m':!!\~..X:C:~'::a

Corcntilles with small emissions, lhc

definition ofopmlioo (or activity) c:a11 be
in~ 100 uarrowly. I woullluguc
dlat this example should be rcwrillr:D so
tbat laod m.magcmcatlusc generally is the
"opcnllion" IUid thai !he repcn1cr should
have to look at total land usc IUid the
associated emissions, rcdul:lioDJ, and
sequestraliml (c.~ crop land vs. gming
land vs. wood loiS)."

(c) Net emission reductions achieved by third parties (offsets). Net emission
reductions achieved by third parties may be included in an entity-wide assessment of
emission reductions as long as:

Tho example used. crop land vs. gming

laod vs. wood loiS, may be a good way of
Cl<plainiDJ why sw:h 111 exemption was
CODSidr:red u=ssary. It is lila:ly to be
fairly difficult to accouat fully for certain
fum..rdatcd emlsslouJ aad sinlcs. A
flll'lllCI' may be able 10 easily account for
the sequestradoll aasoclaiCd with undllcd
fields IUid woodlands, but find it much
more diflicult 10 ICCOUDI Cor emissions
associated with tillage, liveslock, maaurc
piles, farm equipment 111d tinm buDdings.
The policy group ~ldod thsl requiring
Ill)' fllrmcr 10 aceouat lblly for all of their
emlss!oos IUid sequestration acdvidcs
would be laO hiP ora hurdle and would
lila:ly redueo particlpatioa substantially:_

(1) The emission reductions reported were calculated using the same method(s)
that would have been applicable if the third party that achieved the emission reduction
had chosen to report it directly to DOE.
(2) All of the reporting entities or other parties involved certify to DOE that the
reporting entity should be recognized as the entity responsible for the reduction.
(d) Adjusting for year-to-year increases in net emissions. Net annual emission
reductions are calculated normally relative to an entity's base year (or base period).
However, if the entity has experienced a net increase (relative to the base year) in
emissions for one or more intervening years, these increases must be subtracted from net
emission reductions reported in future years.
300.8 Calculating emission reductions.

55

CEQ 013910

(a) Calculation methods. Entities must calculate any change in emissions,

avoided emissions or sequestration using one or more of the methods described in this
section. All changes must be calculated relative to a base year or base period established
by the entity, unless the change results from an offset (see subsection 300.7(c)). In
general, entities are encouraged to use changes in net emissions intensity as the primary
basis for calculating c_hanges in net, entity-wide emissions.
(1) Changes in emissions intensity. A reporting entity may use reductions in the
rate of emissions per unit of output (emissions intensity) as a basis for determining
emission reductions as long as the reporting entity demonstrates in its report that the
measure(s) of output used in the emissions intensity metric is a reasonable indicator of
the physical output or economic value produced by the activity associated with these
emissions, and that acquisitions, divestures or changes in products have not contributed
significantly to changes in emissions intensity.
(2) Changes in absolute emissions. A reporting entity may use changes in the
absolute (actual) emissions (direct or indirect) as a basis for determining net emission
reductions, as long as the entity demonstrates in its report that any reductions derived
from such changes were not achieved as a result of reductions in U.S. output, or major
shifts in the types of products or services produced.
(3} Changes in carbon storage (for actions within entity boundaries). A reporting
entity

may use changes in carbon storage as a basis for determining net emission

reductions as long as the reporting entity uses estimation a~d measurement methods that

56

CEQ 013911

comply with DOE Technical Guidelines, and has included an assessment of the net
changes in all sinks included in its inventory.
(4) Changes in avoided emissions (for actions within entity boundaries). A
reporting entity may use changes in the avoided emissions associated with the sale of
electricity, steam, hot water or chilled water generated from non-emitting or low-emitting
sources as a basis for determining net emission reductions as long as,;,

ill the measurement and calculation methods used comply with DOE Technical
Guidelines, and

ilil the reporting entity certifies that any increased sales were not attributable to
the acquisition of a generating facility that had been previously operated, unless the entity
utilized base year generation values derived from records of the facility's operation prior

...ADeleted:

to its acquisition............................................................................................................
K5) Project-based emission reductions (for actions within entity boundaries).

Emission reductions may be estimated based on analysis of the expected effects on

emissions of a specific action (measure), as long as the reporting entity demonstrates that
the analysis:
(i) Uses output, utilization and other measures or estimates that are consistent, to
the maximum extent practicable, with the measure's actual perfonnance in the year for
which reductions are being reported;

57

CEQ 013912

(ii) Excludes any emission reductions that might have resulted from reduced

output or were caused by actions likely to be associated with increases in emissions

elsewhere within the entity's operations; and
(iii) Uses methods that are in compliance with DOE Technical Guidelines.
Entity-wide reporters should use this project-based approach only if it is not possible to
measure accurately emission changes by using one of the methods identifies in

, COmment: Page: 59
One coauiiCIII oudlis section swcd:
"l'lojcc:t-bascd RCOgJiition ofmluclioos
provic&:suoillformadonaboutact
mlllctioPS- What is lhe Ublily of this
illfonuation? How is it ccnsis!CIIt with
the maadalc 10 provide for registratioo of
"real n:duetions''?"

/
1

paragraphs (a)( I) through (a)(4) of this sectionL ........................................................../

(b) Summary description of actions taken to reduce emissions. Each reported

Then: was considerable dcba1e rclaled 10

Ibis i$suc iD the staff and poUc:y-lcvcl
groups that developed the proposed
guidelines. Some pmject-bascd emission
reductions could lit easDy iuto cotitywido assessmcots ofemiQioo reductions,
whila olhers appeared 10 be much more
prdblematlc Wind farms that genmte
'avoided emissions', various types of
biolilel produclioo and most scqucsnrion
projects an would fit cuny Into the
entity-wide approach cboKD. On the
olher hmd, tccbnology-specific cmiQion
reductions, sucb as more energy efficient
lighting, would be more problematic.
While considCI'Ition was given to
e~cludiog them, they were ultimaiCiy left
iD lhe IIJiilklines to pres em: this option as
a lastn:sort for those cotilics that fo1111d it
cliffic:ult or impossible 10 usc any ofthc
other approaches. One can imagine
scvml cimmlstanccs under whicb lhis
approach might work (md might be
needed). !'or example, a company might
choose 10 base its cstimales or cmiQion
reductions usociatcd with outside
lightingnotonlhc mcll:n:d electricily
consumptioo of lhcse lights, but on !he
fact !hat they Wldcrtook a 'projecl' to

emission reduction must be accompanied by an identitication of the types of actions,._~~~---

were the likely cause of the reductions achieved.
(c) Emission reductions associated with plant closings, voluntary actions and
government requirements. Each report of emission reductions shall indicate whether the
reported emission reductions were the result, in whole or in part, of plant closings,
voluntary actions, or government requirements.
(I) If emission reductions were associated, in whole or part, with plant closings,

the report should include an explanation of how such emission reductions did not result
from a decline in the U.S. output of the reporting entity.

iostslla new, more energy cflicicncy

(2) Ifthe reductions were associated, in whole or part, with government

requirements, the report should identify the government requirement involved and
'
'
,
;
\
:

describe the type of effect these requirements had on the reported emission reductions.

lighting tcclmolo8)'. An B!WYsls based

on die cbaractcristics oflhe old and new
ligll!ingtcclmolo8)' could yield an
acauate eslimale oflhc resulting saviDg1
and thcsc:cmissi011 rCducliOIIS could be
alldcd to the Iota!, as laos as the emission
redw:tions assacialed with these lights
wm not also included in any other part
of !he t;l!lillcs assessment. While
feasible:' this technology-specific
approscb should be used only as a last
resort, as iudicatcd iD the guidelines.
Deleted: brief summary description of
the actions

58

CEQ 013913

(d) Determining the entity responsible for emission reductions. The entity
presumed to be responsible for emission reduction, avoided emission or sequestered
carbon is the legal owner of the facility, land or vehicle which generated the affected
emissions, generated the energy that was sold so as to avoid other emissions, or was the
place where the sequestration action occurred. If ownership is shared, ownership of the
associated emission reductions should be determined by agreement between the entities
involved, and this agreement must be reflected in the entity statements filed and in any
report of emission reductions. DOE will presume that an entity is not responsible for any
emission reductions associated with a facility, property or vehicle excluded from its
entity statement.
300.9 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Starting to report under the revised Guidelines. ( 1) Entities may report
emissions and sequestration on an annual basis beginning in any year, but no earlier than
the base period of 1987-1990 specified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. To be
recognized under these revised Guidelines, all reports must conform to the measurement
methods established by the Technical Guidelines. This requirement applies to entities
that report to the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program registry for
the first time as well as those entities that have previously submitted emissions reports
pursuant to section 1605 (b) of tb.e Energy Policy Act of 1992.
(2) Entities may submit initial reports or corrected reports for previous calendar
years at any time. For example, an entity may choose to begin reporting in 2005 and may
choose, at that time, to submit reports on prior year emissions back to 2002. Also, if a

59

CEQ 013914

change in the emissions calculation method is made for 2005, an entity may submit
revised estimates for its previous reporting years to ensure that a consistent method is
used across the whole time-series. Entities may also submit revised reports to reflect
agreements with other entities regarding the appropriate entity to designate as the entity
responsible for certain registered emission reductions.
(b) Continuing to re.port. Reporting entities are strongly encouraged to report
emissions on an annual basis, starting from the first year they submit a report under these
revised Guidelines. Annual entity reporting is encouraged so that changes in emissions
and sequestration over time can be tracked and verified. If a reporting entity chooses not
to submit a report in any given year, the next report made should include reports for
intervening years. or the reporting entity must establish a new base year from which to
cal~ulate

all future emission reductions.

(c) Defmition and deadline for annual reports. Entities should report emissions on
an annual basis, from January 1 to December 31, although exceptions to these dates may
be granted by DOE. To be included in the earliest possible DOE annual report of
greenhouse gas emissions reported under section 1605(b), entity reports must be
submitted to DOE no later than Ju]y.._t[~X:-~~~-*~-~-~-~g-~.C:.P.X:~.'!~~~~-c.a~~n4~rxc:ar.

.~~

...

,..{ Deleted: ne

(d) Recordkeeping. Entities must maintain adequate records for at least three
years to enable independent verification of all information reported. Such records must
include:
(1) A full description of the process and methods used to gather emissions
data;

60

CEQ 013915

(2) A full description of the process and methods used to calculate emission
reductions;
{3) The primary data upon which the data included in the any report to DOE
was based; and
(4) A full description of any internal quality control or other verification
measures taken to ensure that the data reported was in compliance with all
relevant DOE Guidelines and other measurement protocols.
300.10 Certification of reports.

(a) The chief executive officer, agency or household head, or person responsible
for the reporting entity's compliance with environmental regulations must, for each report
of such entity, certify that:
(1) The information provided to DOE is complete and accurate, in accordance
with DOE's revised Guidelines, and is consistent with all prior year reports submitted by
that entity (unless otherwise indicated); and
(2) Adequate records will be maintained for at least 3 years to enable independent
verification of the information reported.
(b) If the report has been independently verified in accordance with DOE's

Guidelines, the certification of the report by the' entity reporting should so indicate.
300.11 Independent verification.

61

CEQ 013916

(a) Reporting entities are encouraged to have their annual reports verified by
independent and qualified auditors.
(1) "Independent", as used in this paragraph (a), means that the verifiers must not
be owned in whole or part by the reporting entity, nor should they provide any ongoing
operational or support services to the entity, except services consistent with independent
financial accounting or independent certification of compliance with government or
private standards.
(2) "Qualified", as used in this paragraph {a), means that verifiers must be
certified by independent and nationally-recognized certification programs for the types of
professionals needed to determine compliance with DOE's reporting Guidelines, such as
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the American National Standards
Institute and Registrar Accreditation Board's (ANSI-RAB's) National Accreditation
Program, or the Board Of Eirvironmental, Health, and Safety Auditor Certification
(BEAC).
(b) The independent verifier must provide a written description of the relevant
qualifications and professional certifications of the persons that performed the
independent verification and must certify that:
( 1) The information provided to DOE is complete and accurate, in accordance with
DOE's revised Guidelines, and is consistent with all prior year reports submitted by that
entity (unless otherwise indicated); and
(2) Adequate records have been maintained by the reporter to enable further
independent verification in the future.

62

CEQ 013917

 300.12 Acceptance of reports and registration of entity emission reductions.

(a) Acceptance ofn;ports. Upon receipt, DOE will review all reports to ensure
they are consistent with the revised Guidelines. If DOE determines the report follows the
definitional, measurement, calculation and certification Guidelines, the report will be
classified as either an entity-wide report or otherwise, and accepted.

.~Deleted: mtilx

determine any eligible emission reductions that were achieved relative to the reporting
entities' base year (2002 or later) or base period (1999-2002, or later), and to ensure that
the reports meet other relevant DOE requirements. DOE will notify entities that the
reductions that meet these requirements have been registered.
(c) EIA database and summary reports. The Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration will establish a publicly accessible database composed of all
reports that meet the definitional, measurement, calculation and certification

----- ..

.. t Deleted: separate
requirements of these Guidelines. A portion ofthe~~~-~~-~.'Yi~tP~~X~~C?.~~n'.............. /

'

------.1I

information on the emissions and emission reductions of each reporting entity that has
qualified to register emission reductions.

..

63

CEQ 013918

Page 50: [1] Comment

Valued Gateway Olent

9/'13/2003 9:38PM

Page: 52
One comment on this section stated: "The fact that entities w/ average annual emissions
of less than 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent are eligible to register emission reductions
w/out reporting an inventory of total emissions combined with the flexibility of reporters
to choose any definition of entity that they'd like could lead to subcategorization such
that no one reports entity wide. Thus, this exclusion across all reporters could result in a
significant under-reporting oftotal emissions in the inventory. This further supports the
argwnent that reporters should be required to choose the highest level of aggregation.
"In addition, while it is understandable that some small entities may have difficulty in
quantifying their emissions (due to limited resources), why should we exempt large
entities from reporting as much of their inventory as possible? Isn't the issue of fugitive
and other hard-to-quantify emissions from large entities already covered by the
"maximum extent practicable" provision?"
The "1 0,000 tons of C02 equivalent" exemption for small emitters was added at the
urging ofUSDA and others concerned that the requirements for entity-wide inventories
and emission reduction assessment would likely discourage many small entities from
participating. The 10,000 tons limit was chosen because it is actually quite smallconsiderably smaller than a single commercial electric power generating plant, refinery or
large manufacturing plant --so any of these types of reporting entities could not use this
approach to escape submitting a full emissions inventory. Perhaps an even more
compelling reason why most entities are unlikely to take this approach is it would prevent
them from getting corporate level recognition for their efforts. One key element of the
revised program is that recognition is only provided to the defined entity and the name of
this entity must roughly correspond to the operations actually reported upon .
.Page: 52
As drafted, entities wishing to register must inventory and report emissions that can be
measured or esti'mated using techniques identified by DOE (essentially all emissions).
The only exemption is for small emissions totaling less than 10,000 tons or 3% of their
total, which ever is less [there is no "to the maximum extent practicable" qualifier; this
qualifier only applies to the conduct of an entity-wide assessment of emission
reductions]. The intent ofthis exclusion is to permit entities some latitude to exclude
certain small and/or highly dispersed emissions that might be difficult to track, such as
entity-owned vehicles or small or remote structures operated by large utilities. Thts
exclusion is much more restrictive (smaller) than most other existing registries, such as
the California climate registry (which permits any entity to exclude up to 5% of total
emissions).

CEQ 013919

FIGURE 1
VOLUNTARY REPORTING OF GREENHOUSE GASES
REPORTING AND REGISTERING EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

All voluntary reporting entities provide:

1. Baseline Entity Statement (ES) fully documenting operational boundaries on the basis of:
300.5
Legal structure, managerial structure, and financial structure;
300.4(a)(1}
Examines ownership and control of leased and partially owned facilities;
300.5(a)(6}
Confers with other entities to ensure no double-counting; and
300.5(a)(6)
Statement of changes to the entity statement for each reporting year.
300.5(c)
2. Certification statement indicating:
300.10
Report is accurate and complete on the basis of the ES and consistent with all prior year reports;
All information reported follows the calculation methods described in the revised General.and Technical
Guidelines;
Verifiable records will be kept for a minimum of 3 years; and
Report was/was not independently verified.

To register reductions, entities must demonstrate that the emissions reductions

and removals occurred after December 31, 2002. 300.7(b)
Large entities (average annual
emissions of more than 10,000 tons C0 2
equivalent) must provide:
Entity-wide Emissions Inventories of:
Direct emissions; 300.6(b)
Indirect emissions associated
with purchased energy;
300.6(c}
Sequestration; 300.6(d)
List and describe deminimis,
fugitive, and biogenic emissions;
indicating if they are included in
the emissions & sequestration
inventories; 300.6(e)
Calculate net entity-wide reductions
on the basis of all changes in an
entity's emissions, avoided
emissions and sequestration relative
to the entity's base period, plus any
emission offsets. 300.7

Small entitles must provide:

A complete assessment of
annual emissions and
sequestration associated
with all of the activities of the
same type;
Determine the associated
reductions; and
Certify that th~ reductions
reported were not caused by
actions likely to cause
increases in emissions
elsewhere within the entity.
300.7(b)
.

To report reductions, entities

must demonstrate that the
emissions reductions and
removals occurred after
December31, 1990.
300.9(a)

Entities seeking to only

regort emissions and/or
reductions, should describe
emissions, sequestration,
and reductions using the
calculation methods
described in the revised
General and Technical
Guidelines.

r'\. ,_-_ . -..: . ,- - ... -.-.-..

~--

'

'

'j

'

~1

~'

'

L:, ,~:~..

. . . .1

CEQ 013920

of iedu1c~ogy Profiles and

ng Research and Development at
Participating IFedera~ Agencies

CEQ 013939

CEQ 013940

U.S. Climate Change Technology ProgramKey Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Under the leadership ofPresident Bush, the United States is now embarked on a long-term
technical challenge - guided and paced by science, and undertaken in partnership with others - to
explore and develop innovative and advanced technologies that could make a significant contribution
to meeting climate change goals. The president directed the research and development (R&D) agencies
of the federal government to apply their resources to this challenge and established a new Cabinetlevel management structure to guide and oversee the effort. Under the auspices of this Cabinet-level
management structure, the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is charged with
coordinating and focusing these R&D activities among the participating federal agencies.
This report, titled "U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near
and Long Term," presents summary descriptions, or profiles, of key technologies or technology areas
believed to offer significant potential for contributing to the president's near- and long-term climate
change goals. This collection is not exhaustive, but representative of more than $1.6 billion in federal
R&D invested annually in climate change technology development. Federal investments are further
augmented by those of states, local governments, the private sector, and governments abroad. To the
extent possible, the CCTP seeks to leverage and coordinate the federal investments with those ofothers.
In total, there is a robust portfolio of R&D now underway in the United States and worldwide.
From these R&D investments, undertaken together, pragmatic technological opportunities will arise to
fundamentally transform and dramatically improve our 21st century energy system, with significantly
reduced greenhouse gases emissions as a result.
In this report, more than 80 key technologies are
identified. They are organized within a series of goals
Standard Technology Profile
aimed at developing advanced technologies that, if
Outline
successful, could enable: (i) reduced emissions from
energy end use and infrastructure; (ii) reduced
Technology Description
- System Concepts
emissions from energy supply; (iii) the capture and
- Representative Technologies
sequestering of carbon dioxide (C02); (iv) reduced
- Technology Status/Applications
potential climate-related effects ofnon-C02 greenhouse
Current Research, Development,
gases; and (v) enhanced capabilities to measure and
and Demonstration
monitor greenhouse gases emissions. To ease reading
RD&D Goals
and cross-referencing, a standard format for the profiles
- RD&D Challenges
was adopted (see inset).
- RD&D Activities
Most technology profiles discuss prospects for
Recent Progress
commercialization and deployment and venture some
Commercialization and
estimates, where possible, of the potential climate
Deployment Activities
change-related benefits. These estimates indicate
Potential Benefits
potential benefits, but are not certain, nor predictive.
Key Technology Challenges
Before such benefits could be realized, most of the
technologies described herein would require further
R&D to improve performance and reduce costs, followed by significant private-sector investment to
commercialize them and have them successfully implemented on a broad scale in the marketplace.
Additional information about the key technologies may be obtained by contacting the federal
agency and R&D program office identified as responsible for the R&D. All profiles may be found electronically, in formats suitable for electronic transfer, at the Web site http://climatetechnology.gov.

CEQ 013941

CEQ 013942

page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1
l.l.l

1.1.2
I. 1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7

1.0 REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY END USE AND

INFRASTRUCTURE
Transportation

..

.~:.. <~~(.

1
5
8
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Light Vehicles - Hybrids, Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles

Heavy Vehicles
AltematiNe-Fueled Vehicles
To be prepared by the Department of Transportation
To be prepared by the Department of Transportation
To be prepared by the Department of Transportation
To be prepared by the Department ofTransportation

1.2

uilndmes

1.2. 1
1.2.2
1.2.3

Building Equipment, Appliances, and Lighting

Building Envelope (Insulation, Walls, Root)
Intelligent Building Systems

1.3

Intrastrildure

1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
1.3.6

High-Temperature Superconductivity
Transmission and Distribution Technologies
Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power
Energy Storage
Sensors, Controls, and Communications
Power Electronics

1.4

lildusti:y_

1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4

Energy Conversion and Utilization

Resource Recovery and Utilization
Industrial Process Efficiency
Enabling Technologies for Industrial Processes

'

~'

11

..

:'.

..

14
17

..

..

20
23
26
29
32
35

..

..

38
41
44
48

2.0 REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY SUPPLY

2.1
2.l.l
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
:;2~:z..;

2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6

2.3.
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6

tolV' Eriiissioiis~Fcissn.:nakea. power and: FuelS .

..

Zero-Emission Power, Hydrogen, and Other Value-Added Products

High-Efficiency CoaVSolid Feedstock
High-Efficiency Gas Fuel CelVHybrid Power Systems
Large, Unconventional Natural Gas Resources

,Hfdtt6gn

1.': .::: \,::;--

\!, .\;:,\',-\:~ ,:, , ~.

'

..

,.

..

~i

,... ..

:;:r

54
57
60
64
~ ~ ::~;:,

~~

Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Fission and Fusion

Integrated Hydrogen Energy Systems
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Storage and Distribution
Hydrogen Use
Hydrogen Infrastructure Safety R&D- to be prepared by the Department of Transportation

'Renewable :Eneri!Y and Fuels

Wind Energy
Solar Photovoltaic Power
Solar Buildings
Concentrating Solar Power
Space Solar Power
Biochemical Conversion of Biomass

68
70
74
77
80
TBD
.

83
86
89
92
95
97

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page i

CEQ 013943

page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3:7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10

Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass

Photoconversion
Advanced Hydropower
Geothermal Energy

2.4.'
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5

..

:,

100
104
107
110

112

Existing Plant Research and Development

Next-Generation Fission Energy Systems
Near-Term Nuclear Power Plan Deployment
Improving the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel
Fusion Power

n5

117
120
122

3.0 CAPTURING AND SEQUESTERING CARBON DIOXIDE

...

3.1
3.1.1

3.1.2
3.1.3

~::.~

126
129
131

C02 Capture and Separation

C02 Storage in Geologic Formations
Novel Sequestration S~tems

.. .

3.2
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.1.3
3.2.1.4
3.2.1.5

3.2.1.6
3.2.1. 7
3.2.1.8
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.2.3.
3.2.3.1
3.2.4

3.2.4.1
3.2.4.2

132

Land Management
Cropland Management and Precision Agriculture
Converting Croplands to Reserves and Buffers
Advanced Forest and Wood Products Management
Grazing Management
'
Restoration of Degraded Rangelands
Wetland Restoration, Management, and Carbon Sequestration
Carbon Sequestration on Reclaimed Mined Lands
Beneficial Technologies for Cities
Biomass Production
Biomass Residues
Energy Crops
Biotechnology
Biotechnology and Soil Carbon
Improved Measurement and Monitoring
Terrestrial Sensors, Measurements, and Modeling
Measuring, Monitoring, and Verification System for Forests

132
134
136
139
141
143.
145
147
150
150
153
156
156
158
158
160
.,

3.3.1
3.3.2

Ocean Sequestration- Direct Injection

Ocean Sequestration- Iron Fertilization

3.4.1

Conversion of Biomass to Bioproducts

'

.:

.:t~ ...

164
166

.. .~. ~:::ry~;.;:~
TBD

4.0 REDUCING POTENTIAL FOR CLIMATE EFFECTS OF NON-C02

GREENHOUSE GASES

Methane EmiSsidns from iieti!'Y'and:Waste

4.1.1
4.1.2

4.1.3
4.1.4

4.1.5
4.1.6

Anaerobic and Aerobic Bioreactor Landfills

Conversion of Landfill Gas to Alternative Uses
Electricity Generation Technologies for Landfill Gas
Advances in Coal Mine Ventilation Air Systems
Advances in Coal Mine Methane Recovery Systems
Measurement and Monitoring Technology for Natural Gas Systems

.... .
:

168
171
174
177
180
183

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page ii

CEQ 013944

page

4.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Methane and Nitrous Oxide~Eiriissioiis from .Agriculture

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3

Advanced Agricultural Systems for N20 Emission Reduction

Methane Reduction Options for Manure Management
Advanced Agricultural Sy_stems for Enteric Emissions Reduction

186
189
192

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6

Semiconductor Industry: Abatement Technologies

Semiconductor Industry: Substitutes for High GWP Gases
Semiconductors and Magnesium: Recovery and Recycle
Aluminum Industry: Perfluorocarbo'n Emissions
Electric Power Systems and Magnesium: Substitutes for SF6
Supermarket Refrigeration: Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions

196

;: .....

199
202
204
207
210

4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
.4.5

Nitrous Oxide Abatement Technologies for Nitric Acid Production

Nitrous Oxide Abatement Technologies for Transportation

211

4.5.1

Abatement Technologies for Emissions of Tropospheric Ozone Precursors and Black Carbon

215

213

5.0 ENHANCING CAPABILITIES TO MONITOR AND MEASURE

EMISSIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7

5.8

Hierarchical MMV Observation System

MMV for Energy Production
MMV for Energy Efficiency
MMV for Geologic Carbon Sequestration
MMV for Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration
MMV for Ocean Carbon Sequestration
MMV for Other GHG
MMV for Novel Concepts

218
221
223
225
228
231
233
235

U.S. Climate (;hange Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page iii

CEQ 013945

CEQ 013946

1. REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY END USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1.1 TRANSPORTATION
1.1.1 LIGHT VEIDCLES- HYBRIDS, ELECTRIC, AND FUEL CELL VEIDCLES

Tectinolo

5.4%

Rolling
R&S !stance
5.1%

Inerti-a

'

Ehoaf(lng
2.5%
Conventional vehicle energy audit used as
baseline for analysis of advanced design options.

Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) use a combination of electric and mechanical power. An HEV with a
compression ignition, direc~-injection (CIDI) engine could offer low carbon emissions and peak energy
efficiency more than 70% greater than available from present-day gasoline engines. (Advanced combustion
engines could reduce fuel consumption by 50%. Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) directly convert fuels to electricity.
Although FCVs may initially run on gasoline or other fuels reformed to produce hydrogen, in the long term
they will be powered by hydrogen stored onboard. FCVs using onboard hydrogen produce only water as a
tailpipe emission. The fuels used and how they are produced will determine the degree of carbon-emissions
reduction compared to conventional vehicles.
System Concepts
HEVs that provide limited power-assist during acceleration can dramatically reduce peak engine size,
resulting in substantial fuel economy benefits.
HEVs have led to the introduction of"idle-off" strategies using a combined alternator/starter. The engine
automatically turns off when the engine is idling or under low-load- such as decelerating or coasting. In
such cases, stored energy is required to operate the ancillary loads, such as cabin climate control.
FCVs can either store a liquid fuel onboard that uses a reformer or other chemical reaction to produce
hydrogen, or it can directly store hydrogen in gaseous or liquefied (cryogenic) form.
Representative Technologies
HEVs and FCVs will require energy storage systems, including some high-power storage that may
include electrochemical batteries, ultracapacitors, or other forms of energy storage.
HEVs also use an internal combustion engine such as CIDI, gasoline direct-injection, as well as efficient
electric motors.
Technology Status/Applications
GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler are developing HEVs and intend to sell them by model year 2004.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or ihe Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page I

CEQ 013947

Toyota and Honda have sold more than 140,000 HEVs in Japan and the United States since 1997. Some
auto makers have announced target sales of HEVs of 500,000 in less than 10 years.
Although several versions ofEVs were available, the cost of manufacturer support coupled with limited
demand and high battery pack cost has nearly eliminated EVs as an option for consumers.
Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells are being demonstrated on developmental vehicles and buses.
Sales of vehicles with CIDI engines have exceeded 35% of the new light-duty vehicle sales in Europe and
sales are more than SO% in some countries. U.S. sales may be limited due to impending Tier 2 emissions
regulations. J.D. Power believes that diesel sales could be 12% ofthe U.S. market by2010.

RD&D Goals (by 2010)

To ensure reliable systems for future fuel cell powertrains, with costs comparable with conventional
internal-combustion engine/automatic transmission systems, the goals are:
o

Electric-propulsion system with a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 55 kW for 18 seconds
and 30 kW continuous at a system cost of$12/kW peak.

o 60% peak energy-efficient, durable fuel cell power system (including hydrogen storage) that
achieves a 325 W/kg power density and 220 W/L operating on hydrogen. Cost targets are $45/kW
by 2010, $30/kW by 2015.2

To enable clean, energy-efficient vehicles operating on clean, hydrocarbon-based fuels- powered by

either internal combustion powertrains or fuel cells- the goals are:
o

Internal combustion systems that cost $30/kW, have a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and
meet or exceed emissions standards.

o Fuel cell systems, including a fuel reformer, that have a peak brake engine efficiency of 45% and
meet or exceed emissions standards with a cost target of$45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015.1-.J.

To enable reliable HEVs that are durable and affordable, the goal is:
o Electric drivetrain energy storage with 15-year life at 300 Wh with discharge power of25 kW for
18 seconds at a cost of$20/kW.

To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy, ensure widespread availability ofhydrogen fuels, and
retain the functional characteristics of current vehicles, the goals are:
o Demonstrated hydrogen refueling with developed commercial codes and standards and diverse
renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Targets: 70% energy efficiency well-to-pump; cost
of energy from hydrogen equivalent to gasoline at market price, assumed to be $1.50 per gallon
(2001 dollars). 4

o Hydrogen storage systems demonstrating an available capacity of 6 wt% hydrofen, specific

energy of 2000 Wh/kg, and energy density of 1100 Wh/L at a cost of $5/kWh.
o Internal combustion systems operating on hydrogen that meet cost targets of$45/k:W by 2010 and
$30/kW in 2015, have a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and meet or exceed emissions
standards.

To improve the manufacturing base, the goal is:

o Material and manufacturing technologies for high~volume production vehicles that enable and
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 2

CEQ 013948

support the simultaneous attainment of:

50% reduction in the weight of vehicle structure and subsystems,

affordability, and

increased use of recyclable/renewable materials.

Notes:
.1. Cost references are based on CY 2001 dollar values. Where power (kW) targets are specified, those targets
are to ensure that technology challenges that would occur in a range of light-duty vehicle types would have to
be addressed.

2. Does not include vehicle traction electronics.

3. Includes fuel cell stack subsystem, fuel-processor subsystem, and auxiliaries; does not include fuel tank.
4. Targets are for hydrogen dispensed to a vehicle assuming a reforming, compressing, and dispensing system
capable of dispensing 150 kg/day (assuming 60,000 SCF/day of natural gas is fed for reforming at the retail
dispensing station) and servicing a fleet of300 vehicles per day (assuming 0.5 kg used in each vehicle per
day). Targets also are based on several thousand stations, and possibly demonstrated on several hundred
stations. Technologies may also include chemical hydrides such as sodium borohydride.
5. Based on lower heating value of hydrogen; allows over a 300-mile range.
RD&D Challenges
All advanced vehicles face the challenge of achieving competitive cost, reliability, and consumer
acceptance.
HEVs and FCVs need affordable, durable, lighter, and more compact energy storage.
Power electronics, required by all high-voltage systems, are expensive, need active cooling, and require
significant space.
All energy-efficient vehicles face a severe fuel economy penalty when ancillary loads are applied.
Nonpropulsion related loads must be reduced.
FCVs have no existing infrastructure for refueling or repair.
On board storage of hydrogen in quantities sufficient to meet range requirements is a challenge.
Significant reductions in catalyst materials or inexpensive substitutes are needed for fuel cells.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
DOE, through the FreedomCAR Partnership, is working with industry and other local, state, and federal
government agencies on vehicle-systems analysis, combustion technologies, materials R&D, fuels R&D,
and technology introduction through fleet testing and evaluation.

DOE is working on light vehicles through FreedomCAR that includes component and vehicle simulation,
ancillary load reduction, component testing, energy storage, advanced engines, and lightweight materials.
DOE's RD&D budget for the vehicle technology portion of the FreedomCAR Partnership was $74.5
million in FY2003 and $91.1 million was requested for FY2004.

GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler have developed a variety of hybrid-electric vehicles. The technical
feasibility of these concepts has matured, although cost remains an issue.
Advances in energy storage systems- including hybrid storage consisting of batteries and ultracapacitors
,
- show promise.
Prototype FCVs are being tested.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 3

CEQ 013949

HEVs: The biggest competition for gasoline HEVs are advanced combustion conventional vehicles. In
Europe, high-efficiency diesel vehicles have demonstrated fuel economies similar to that of gasoline
HEVs. Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay a little more for a more fuel-efficient, hightechnology vehicle is key. HEVs use conventional fuels, with no refueling infrastructure challenges.
Some HEVs have long ranges, appealing to consumers who dislike frequent refueling stops.
FCVs: FCVs have the zero emissions of an EV but not yet the range of conventional vehicles. Fuel cell
vehicles have the potential to require less maintenance due to fewer moving parts and lower operating
temperatures. However, cost, hydrogen storage, a.ild infrastructure r~uirements are substantial barriers.

GHG Reductions

In 2025, light vehicles are projected by EIA (AEO 2003) to generate 517 mmtce. The carbon reduction
potential of all these technologies by 2025 is about 50%. Therefore, the potential carbon reductions would
be about 258 mmtce. If fuel cell vehicles operating on hydrogen (from net-zero carbon sources) took over
all the light vehicle market by 2040, the carbon reductions could be more than 500 mmtce in that year.
Market
The market for these technologies is all light vehicles (cars and light trucks). To be successful in the
marketplace, these technologies need to be made less expensive and more attractive to new vehicle
buyers.
:

.....

'

'1

Key Technology Chidlenges ;: ..

"
:'.

. ;':

Reducing technology cost.

Installing the needed hydrogen infrastructure.
Attaining performance and durability levels of technology at a competitive cost.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 4

CEQ 013950

.: . :

...

...

. .. :

~:

..

Freight vehicles (Class 7 and 8 trucks and rail) and commercial delivery vehicles (Class 2b through Class 6) are
essential to the economic vitality of the nation. Diesel engines are the dominant motive source for these
vehicles. Vehicle efficiency could be increased by as much as 100% if all current research such as new
generation of ultra-high-efficiency diesel engines (using advanced emissions-control technology), reduced
aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and parasitic power losses is successful. Development and
commercialization of engines with higher efficiency will significantly reduce transportation oil use, emissions
(including C02), and related costs to the economy. Increased use of lightweight materials will contribute to
these goals.
Total Energy Used per Hou.r
(Q; mph. fully loaded,leNel roa:l for one hour)
Base= 400 kWh (6.6 mpg) Ta-get 255.6 k\'lh (1Q3 mpg)

Engine Losse-s
Base= 240 kWh
Target= 149 k'MI .

Aerodyumie Lo!I.S()S
Base=SSkWh
Target= 68 kWh

.....

_ __
..

Engine Efficiency
Base=4aK.
Terget=44%

............

Rollint: Jhwistuec

Base= 61 kWh

~------------~ Ta~~=30SkWh
WaL>:!Itlllll'u & ~iatos

Fig. 4.1. Class 8 truclt enerl!)' audit.

System Concepts

Four-stroke, direct-injection diesel engines (with high peak-cylinder pressures, thermal barrier coatings,
high-pressure fuel injection systems, and turbocharging) are being developed.
Lightweight materials, truck aerodynamics, and advanced tires are being developed to improv~; overall fuel
economy.
Hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking may have application in local delivery vehicles.
Vehicle electrification can reduce parasitic losses from auxiliary loads and help reduce idling losses.

Representative Technologies

High-pressure, common-rail fuel injection, bottoming cycles, and friction and wear reduction.
Software technology to improve vehicle aerodynamics.

Technology Status/Applications

Virtually all heavy-duty trucks and the entire fleet of locomotives are diesel powered, and there is an
increasing trend to convert medium-duty trucks to diesel fuel as well. Advanced combustion conceptsresulting in higher efficiency and lower emissions while maintaining power density- are needed. New-,
advanced technolo ies for emission controls are re uired.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 5

CEQ 013951

Fuel cells are considered a long-tenn option. A locomotive fuel cells program is being pursued by industry .
Software tools are being developed to provide design guidance to reduce aerodynamic drag.

Current Research, Development, and Demonstration

RD&D Goals
Engine systems including the integration of fuel, engine, and aftertreatment. Specific technology goals are:
- Development and demonstration of a commercially viable, emissions-compliant engine system for
Class 7-8 highway trucks that improves the system efficiency by 20% (from current 42% to 50%) by
2010 and demonstrate 55% efficiency in the laboratory by 2012.
- Identification of a commercially viable, domestically produced non-petroleum diesel-blending agent
that would enable a 5% displacement of diesel fuel by 20 I 2.
Parasitic losses account for 40% of the total fuel energy used to move a heavy vehicle down the. road .
These. losses arise from aerodynamic resistance, rolling resistances, drivetrain, and auxiliary load losses.
Specific 2012 technology goals are:
- Develop and demonstrate advanced technology concepts that reduce the aerodynamic drag of a Class 8
tractor-trailer combination by 20% (from current 85 kWh to 68 kWh) in a practical, efficient, and
commercially viable manner.
- Develop and demonstrate commercially viable technologies that reduce auxiliary loads by 50% (from
current 15 kWh to 7.5 kWh) for Class 8 tractor-trailers.
- Develop and demonstrate a I 0% reduction (from current 51 kWh to 46 kWh) in tire-rolling resistance
values vs. existing best-in-class standards without compromising cost or performance.
- Develop and demonstrate commercially viable lightweight material and manufacturing processes that
lead to a 5,000-pound reduction in Class 8 tractor-trailer combinations (a 15-20% weight reduction)
- Develop and demonstrate commercially viaple technologies that increase heat-load rejected by thermal
management systems by 20% without increasing radiator size.
Class
7 and 8 trucks, alone, consume more than 825 million gallons of diesel fuel per year when idling.

Technology goals are to reduce fuel use and emissions from idling heavy vehicles by greater than 65%.
Specific technology goals are:
- Development and demonstration of a commercially viable 5 kW, $200/k:W, diesel-fueled, internalcombustion engine auxiliary power units by 2007 (0.2 gallons of diesel fuel per hour; 200 lbs. weight;
maximum 0.5 cubic-meter size; meeting prevailing emission standards; cooling and fuel systems
integrated into vehicle platform, less than 65 dB noise inside cab; noise, vibration, and harshness as
good or better than the prime mover engine).
- Develop and demonstrate a commercially viable fuel cell auxiliary power unit system in the 5-30kW
range, capable of operating on diesel fuel at a delivered cost of $400/k:W by 2012.
RD&D Challenges
Technical challenges exist to improving engine efficiency, thus reducing C02 emissions, while meeting
emission regulations.
Advanced technology often involves more durable materials, additional components, or additional

manufacturing processes, all of which can add cost and weight

Meeting tighter emissions regulations can result in an additional load on the engine- such as additional
backpressure- which can increase fuel consumption.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
DOE is working closely with industry in the 21 51 Century Truck Partnership
The Environmental Protection Agency's National Vehicle Fuel Emissions Laboratory plans to add
advanced heavy diesel cycle engines and innovative hybrid drive-train systems for urban delivery trucks ~o
its Advanced Automotive Technology Program.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 6

CEQ 013952

Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, California Energy Commission, and the
California Air Resources Board cosponsor R&D projects with DOE.
DOE sponsors analytical and modeling work.
DOE's truck-related RD&D budget is $70 million in FY2003, and $57.5 million was requested for
FY2004.
Recent

..

ProJ!I'ess

New conceptual model of in-cylinder soot formation has been developed .

Advanced multicylinder engine demonstrated more than 90% reduction in NO,. and particulate matter.
Demonstrated 51% reduction in aerodynamic drag for Class 8 trucks in wind tunnel tests .
Electrification of underhood components- such as air compressors, water pumps, and oil pumps- was
shown to reduce fuel consumption by up to 18%.
. .
com~ercialiZaiioliand.DeploYoie~tA:ctivities. :::: . ,.... :: .. :: f;:.;:..

The diesel engine is the workhorse of all the heavy-duty transport modes that are responsible for most of
the nation's intercity freight movement, the lifeblood of the economy. Because oflow fuel consumption,
high reliability, and long service life, it is widely acknowledged that the diesel engine will continue to
dominate heavy-duty transport propulsion for many years.
The strong coupling between efficiency and emissions controls is a significant barrier. Many of the engine
design options currently available to manufacturers for emissions reductions involve a fuel economy
penalty of 10%-20%. In the absence of significant technology advancements, future emission regulations
could detrimentally affect the historical trend toward higher diesel-engine efficiency.
All new technologies must meet high durability requirements .
1;}
; ...
'
Potential Benefits

GHG Reductions
In 2025, heavy trucks are projected by EIA (AEO 2003) to generate about 133 mmtce. The potential
reduction of these emissions by 2025 is about 50%. Therefore, about 66 mmtce could be eliminated with a
successful program to increase fuel economy by 50% during the next 20 years.
Market
Stiff domestic and international competition from European and Japanese diesel-engine manufacturers has
reduced domestic market share. U.S. manufacturers have limited resources to identifY, research, develop,
and commercialize many of the promising advanced emissiol) technologies. Effective partnership with
national labs is essential for successful completion of advanced automotive research activities .

,.

~ ~~.:J:~'j.,r~.P.~~;~~~-:~:

.. . :. :,. ~ ; .<; . \:} :~c~;~.Kt;Y'teCtiliO.lOgi:tCii&lleiig~:s.r~:~/~.~: ~~-~}~r-::s~.~~r-:~;~~;r_:~~:7!tf~~~{~--~ .~-~~5-~,,~.,:.r.;::~~. '!: ::<.

Reducing the cost of improved technology.

Achieving 50% engine system efficiency in a commercial vehicle.
Developing commercially viable nonpetroleum-based fuel component that will displace 5% of the diesel
fuel.
'

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 7

CEQ 013953

A school bus in New Jersey runs on biodiesel (right). United Parcel

Service maintains a natural gas compressor station and CNG fueling
island at several facilities in Connecticut (left).

Alternative fuels that will be important during the transition to hydrogen include electricity, ethanol, biodiesel,
liquefied petroleum gas, and compressed natural gas. These fuels offer near-term carbon reductions of 19%44% for a variety of vehicles.
System Concepts
" Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) are similar to today's vehicles, except for certain fuel- and
emission-related systems.
o
Vehicles operating on gaseous fuels like natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas require specific fuel system
components including fuel regulators, an air and fuel-mixing apparatus, and modified fuel injectors.
Modifications to the fuel tank and fuel supply and infrastructure are also required.

Representative Technologies
Compressed natural gas buses are widely used by transit fleets nationwide.
Auto makers offer several models of compressed natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas, and ethanol
flexible-fuel vehicles.
o
Heavy-duty alternative fuel engines are offered as options to the commercial market for trucks and buses.
Technology Status/Applications
o Light-duty AFVs have shown good in-service emissions performance and similar levels of fuel economy in
federal fleet demonstrations. AFV purchase costs vary; natural gas vehicles have significant incremental
costs over conventional vehicles.
o Heavy-duty AFVs have shown reductions in particulate emissions. Maintenance costs are higher but are
likely to decrease with experience. Natural gas is the alternative fuel of choice in these classes ofvehicles
when considering I 00% replacement of fuel.
o

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 8

CEQ 013954

Current Re5eareh, Develop~ent, atid-Dem(lnstration. :~::.; ; .~:::: . . : \' '. ~ :_,:...

RD&DGoals
Develop light- and heavy-duty engine and fuel technologies that utilize transitional alternative fuels and
have as good or better perfonnance than conventional engine technologies to meet future emissions
standards.
By 2004, develop two heavy-vehicle engines that use natural gas and achieve emission compliances while
being fully competitive with their diesel counterparts.
RD&D Challenges
AFVs must be developed to meet cost, perfonnance, and future environmental and energy efficiency goals
over the lifetimes of the vehicles. Specific areas of concern include cost, range, refueling convenience,
cold-start performance, and engine efficiency.
Natural gas, while providing national energy security benefits, contributes to global wanning due to higher
methane emissions.
Some alternative fuels have lower energy content, which can reduce the range of the vehicle- particularly
if a gaseous fuel is used.
Challenges to accelerating the integration of AFV technologies into the marketplace must be addressed by
working with industry to eliminate near-term technical barriers and to increase availability, acceptance, and
awareness of AFV technology and equipment:
- Assist with the development of additional vehicle platforms that utilize AFV technologies previously
developed in partnership with DOE in order to ensure ongoing viable product availability.
- Maintain efforts to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve emissions perfonnance of AFV
engines, technologies, and equipment.
- Enhance AFV infrastructure and vehicle development by addressing near-term technical problems as
they are identified and ensure that appropriate solutions are rapidly communicated and adopted in the
marketplace.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
DOE, in collaboration with engine and truck manufacturers and fuel suppliers, is conducting the NextGeneration Natural Gas Vehicle project to develop advanced medium- and heavy-duty natural gas vehicles.
With DOE cofunding, heavy-duty engine manufacturers have major alternative-fuel engine R&D efforts.
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing unique engine designs utilizing renewable fuels and
achieving diesel-cycle efficiency levels while meeting Tier 2 emission standards for light vehicles.
Component manufacturers, national laboratories and research institutions, universities, and state and local
governments have sizable alternative-fuel R&D activities.
DOE's RD&D budget request was $18 million in FY2003 and $6.8 mi.llion in FY2004 for both
FreedomCAR and 21 51 Century Truck.
Biomass and hydrogen fuels are discussed in other Technology Profiles; see the Table of Contents.

Work on the first-generation, ultra-safe and ultra-low-emission school bus powered by compressed natural
gas has been completed, and the bus is now commercially available. More than 100 have been sold in
California, and work on the second generation is underway to improve engine efficiency that reduces
carbon emissions. Natural gas transit buses comprise 25% of new bus orders.
Honda has obtained ultra-low-emission vehicle certification for a dedicated compressed natural gas
automobile.
With DOE assistance, Cummins Engine, John Deere Company, and Mack Trucks have introduced heavyduty natural gas engines with high efficiency, power ratings, and torque that maintain very low emissions.
Light-duty alternative-fuel vehicles are currently available from aiJ major automotive manufacturers.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 9

CEQ 013955

.comn1~;,oci3liZS."tion)iUiaD'e'PI9-nnmt1A:ctiVitfii:.r.;~:-,~:.:'\ ;.~.;::,;:.r :.~:::~;~~ r~:~F., . .~~~:.

-~

Domestic automobile manufacturers have been producing AFVs since 1991. Currently, 29 light-duty and

20 medium- and heavy-duty vehicle models are available, powered by a number of alternative fuels. The
configurations used include flexible-fuel, dual-fuel, and dedicated fuel. Prices for gasoline-ethanol,
flexible-fuel vehicles have decreased to those of their conventional counterparts.
The federal government has more than 50,000 AFVs on the road and is expected to lead the deployment of
new alternative-fuel vehicles under the direction ofDOE, the General Services Administration, and
interagency coordinating committees.
Since its inception in 1991, the DOE-sponsored alternative-fuel, heavy-duty truck demonstration program
has assisted in placing more than 600 heavy-duty data collection AFVs. Data collection continues to
provide valuable feedback to manufacturers and fleets.
The DOE Clean Cities Program actively enables deployment of AFVs through its locally based
government/industry partnership, with a goal of I million light- and heavy-duty vehicles by the end of
2010 in the United States.
~

;,

. -.: ..

'

. :

P:otentiaf:Senefits. ,<.:~"~:~~ ':':: ~ :,

. ~

:.~:~:.

..

....

: :.:, .. ~~: --~ ; -~ ~:

GHG Reductions
Carbon reductions can come from a number of alternative fuels being used to a greater extent than today .
Alternative fuels could reduce life-cycle carbon emissions relative to gasoline (on a per-mile basis) by the
following amounts: domestic natural gas- 27%, propane- 20%, corn-based ethanol- 40%, and methanol
-5%.
Market
The prices of all. .these fuels need to be made more attractive to vehicle users .
..
...

..

. ..

.. .... ~ . :' !'

..

.... ~eyi~e~h~()Iogy: Ch~UeP'f!~s: '.

. . : ......

.. ~.,:. :
~

.;.

..

..

:;.

.I

Vehicle cost reductions

Fuel supply infrastructure
Implementation of current federal mandates (e.g., EPAct)

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 10

CEQ 013956

1.2 BUILDINGS
1.2.1 BUILDING

A school in North Carolina features daylighting, state-of-the-art

lighting controls, and an energy management system, allowing
individual teachers to select optimum lighting levels for each
room.

Energy use
on
to transform fuel or electricity into end-use
services such as delivered heat or cooling,
light, fresh air, vertical transport, cleaning of
clothes or dishes, and information processing.
(The effects of passive and related systems are
discussed in other profiles.} There are energysaving opportunities within individual pieces
of equipment- as well as at the system levelthrough proper sizing, reduced distribution and
standby losses, heat recovery and storage, and
optimal control. Another promising
opportunity lies in multifunction devices
ranging from heat pumps, which provide both
refrigeration and hot water, to an office
appliance that serves as a networked printer,
copier, scanner, and paperless fax machine.
System Concepts
Major categories of end-use equipment
include heating, cooling, and hot water;
ventilation and thermal distribution;
lighting; home appliances; miscellaneous
(process equipment and consumer
products); and on-site energy and power.
Key components vary by type of
equipment, but some crosscutting
opportunities for efficiency include
improved materials, efficient lowemissions combustion and heat transfer,
advanced refrigerants and cycles,
electrodeless and solid-state lighting,
smart sensors and controls, improved
small-power supplies, variable-capacity
systems, reduction of thermal and
electrical standby losses, cogeperation
based on modular fuel cells and
microturbines, and utilization of waste
heat from fuel cells and microturbines.

Representative Technologies
Residential gas-fired absorption heat pumps, centrifugal chillers, desiccant preconditioners for treating
ventilation air, heat-pump water heaters, proton exchange membrane fuel cells, heat pump water heaters,
solid-state lighting, and lighting controls.
Specia;{zed HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning) systems for research laboratories,
server/data systems, and other buildings housing high technology processes.
Technology Status/Applications

duri
and
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 11

CEQ 013957

better controls- have improved efficiencies in lighting and equipment by 15% to 75%, depending on the
type of equipment. Efficiencies of compact fluorescent lamps are 70% better than incandescent lamps;
refrigerator energy use has been reduced by more than three-quarters during the past 20 years; H-axis
clothes washers are 50% more efficient than current minimum standards. Electronic equipment has
achieved order-of-magnitude efficiency gains, at the microchip level, every two to three years.
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
RD&D Goals
By 2025, research, develop, and demonstrate marketable and advanced energy systems required to achieve
"net-zero" energy use in new residential and commercial buildings through a 70% reduction in building
energy use- via high-performance lighting, HVAC, and appliances- with the balance of energy needs met
by renewable energy sources.
By 2010, heat pumps for residential and small commercial applications are 40% more efficient than
condensing gas furnaces.
By 2010, reduced standby losses, improved heat pump water heating, and application of heat-recovery
techniques reduce energy use for domestic water heating by 60% over electric storage water heaters.
By 2020, photovoltaics offer cost-competitive alternatives to grid electricity, enabling the construction of
net-zero energy homes/buildings, when combined with -70% whole building load reductions.
By 2020, alternative refrigeration equipment with low greenhouse warming potential (e.g., Stirling cycle,
Brayton cycle, acoustic, magnetic, thermal electric) will be commercially introduced.
By 2008, develop a portfolio of distributed generation technologies (including microturbines) that show an
average 25% increase in efficiency (compared to 2000 baseline) with NOx emissions less than 0.15
lbiMWh.
By 2013, develop solid-state lighting for general illumination applications with luminous efficacy of90
lumens per watt by 2008, and 160 LPW by 2013
By 2030, all aspects of the building envelope, equipment, and appliances will be integrated and combined
with on-site microcogeneration and zero-emission technologies.
The basic RD&D needed ranges from materials science to solid-state electronics, and from a better
understanding of combustion fundamentals to advances in control theory. Research is also needed on
behavioral and ergonomic dimensions ofthe user-machine relationship.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
Most federal R&D on building equipment is performed by DOE.
International funding is less relevant than state activities such as currently ongoing in California, New
York, and other states. This research is synergistic with and complements the DOE research.
The FY2003 appropriation for the Building Technologies (BT) program was approximately $60M. The
R&D goals identified in this document represent programs funded elsewhere in DOE and also include new
areas of research not currently funded by BT. Funding for these extended efforts is not included in the
$60M.
Recent Progress
~
Recent DOE-sponsored R&D, often with industry participation, includes an improved air-conditioning
cycle to reduce oversizing and improve efficiency; a replacement for inefficient, high-temperature halogen
up-lights (torchieres), which use only 25% of the power, last longer, ami eliminate potential fire hazards;
ozone-safe refrigerants, where EERE supported R&D to solve lubrication materials problems associated
with novel refrigerants and ground-source heat pumps.
ComDJ.ercialization and Deployment Activities
Building equipment, appliances, and lighting systems currently on the market vary from 20% to 100%
efficient (heat pumps can exceed this level by using "free" energy drawn from the environment). This
efficiency range is narrower where cost-effective appliance standards have previously eliminated the leastefficient models.
'
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 12

CEQ 013958

The stock and energy intensity of homes are growing faster than the building stock itself, as manufacturers
introduce -and consumers and businesses eagerly accept- new types of equipment, more sophisticated
and automated technologies, and increased levels of end-use services.
The rapid ti.u-nover and growth of many types of building equipment- especially electronics for computing,
control, communications, and entertainment- represent important opportunities to rapidly introduce new,
efficient technologies and quickly propagate them throughout the stock.
The market success of most new equipment and appliance technologies is virtually ensured if the efficiency
improvement has a three-year payback or better and amenities are maintained; technologies with payback
of four to eight-plus years also can succeed in the market, provided that they offer other customer-valued
features (e.g., reliability, longer life, improved comfort or convenience, quiet operation, smaller size, lower
pollution levels).
Applications extend to every segment of the residential and nonresidential sectors. Major government,
institutional, and corporate buyers represent a special target group for voluntary early deployment ofthe
best new technologies.
Potential Benefits
GHG Reductions
In MtC/year for buildings overall and for this pathway

2010

~~

Buildings
25-50 75-150 100-200
Equipment/appliances 15-35 25-45 35-55
Market Context
Building equipment and appliances represent an annual market in the United States, alone, of more than
$200B, involving thousands of large and small companies. Certain technologies, such as office and home
electronics, compete in global markets with little or no change in performance specifications.
Key_ Technology Challenges
Solid-state lighting and other alternative equipment present significant challenges in terms of cost,
performance, and market acceptability. Institutional challenges also are significant, such as equipment and
appliance standards developed with industry.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 13

CEQ 013959

National laboratory exhibits show the benefits of energyefficient building envelope design (left). This home in
Atlanta, Georgia, (right) will use 58% less energy for
heating and 53% less energy for cooling than a home of
comparable size without energy-efficient design.

The building envelope is the interface between the interior of a building and the outdoor environment. In most
buildings, the envelope- along with the outdoor weather- is the primary determinant of the amount of energy
used to heat, cool, and ventilate. A more energy-efficient envelope means lower energy use in a building and
lower greenhouse gas emissions. The envelope concept can be extended to that of the "building fabric," which
includes the interior partitions, ceilings, and floors. Interior elements and surfaces can be used to store, release,
control, and distribute energy, thereby further increasing the overall efficiency of the buildings.
System Concepts

Control of envelope characteristics provides control over the flow ofheat, air, moisture, and light into the
building. These flows and the interior energy and environmental loads determine the size and energy use of
HV AC and distribution systems.
Materials for exterior walls, roofs, foundations, windows, doors, interior partition walls, ceilings, and
floors that can impact future energy use include insulation with innovative formula foams an~_ vacuum
panels; optical control coatings for windows and roofs; and thermal storage materials, including
lightweight heat-storage systems.
Representative Technologies
o
Superinsulation: Vacuum powder-filled, gas-filled, and vacuum fiber-filled panels; structurally reinforced
beaded vacuum panels; and switchable evacuated panels with insulating values more than four times those
of the best currently available materials should soon be available for niche markets. High-thermal-resistant
foam insulations with acceptable ozone depletion and global warming characteristics should allow for
continued use of this highly desirable thermal insulation.
o
Advanced window systems: Krypton-filled, triple-glazed, low-E windows; electrochromic glazing; and
hybrid electrochromic/photovoltaic films and coatings should provide improved lighting and thermal ~
control of fenestration
ues for
and distribution of

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 14

CEQ 013960

should significantly reduce the need for electric lighting in buildings. Self-drying wall and roof designs
should allow for improved insulation levels and increase the lifetimes for these components. More durable
high-reflectance coatings should allow better control of solar heat on building surfaces.
Advanced thennal storage materials: Dry phase-change materials and encapsulated materials should allow
significant load distribution over the full diurnal cycle and significant load reduction when used with
passive solar systems.
Technology Status/Applications
Building insulations have progressed from the 2-4 hr op ft2/Btulin. fibrous materials available before 1970
to foams reaching 7 hr F ft2/Btulin. Superinsulations of more than 25 op ft2/Btulin. wilt be available for
niche markets soon. Improvements in window. performance have been even more spectacular. In the 1970s,
window thermal resistance was 1 to 2 op ~/Btu. Now, new windows have thermal resistance of up to 6 F
ft2/Btu (whole window performance). Windows are now widely available with selective coatings that
reduce infrared transmittance without reducing visible transmittance. In addition, variable-transmittance
windows under development will allow optimal control to minimize heating, coolin_& and lighting loads.
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
RD&DGoals
By 2025, research, develop, and demonstrate marketable and advanced energy systems required to achieve
"net-zero" energy use in new residential and commercial buildings through a 70% reduction in building
energy use- via high-performance walls, windows, roofs and foundations- with the balance of energy
needs met by renewable energy sources;

Commercial-building, low-slope roof options with high insulation qualities (R-30 to R-40) and extended
lifetimes (30-plus years).
By 2008, demonstrate dynamic solar control windows (electrochromics) in commercial buildings
By 2010, windows with RIO insulation performance for homes are commercially available
Mass-produced (factory-built) customized buildings with integrated envelope and equipment systems
designed and sized for specific sites and climates.
On-site or purchased renewables replacing 15% of purchased energy (see photovoltaics pathway).
A 30% decrease in the average envelope thermal load of existing residential buildings and a 66% decrease
in the average thermal load of new buildings compared to current code requirements.
RD&D Challenges
Foam insulations that retain high thermal resistance while using blowing agents with zero ozone depletion
potential and negligible global warming effect.
Self-drying wall and roof designs to avoid moisture problems such as materials degradation.
Electrochromic window films and electrochromic/photovoltaic hybrid window films to control energy
flows and generate electricity on site.
Techniques to distribute and control daylight to reduce electrical energy use for artificial lighting.
Advanced durable cost-effective superinsulations to reduce heating/cooling loads.
Self-calibrating multifunction microsensors for monitoring building equipment performance al}d air-quality
monitoring.
Thermal storage materials: Typically, thermal s.torage in building components is achieved with
heavyweight materials such as masonry. Advanced thermal-storage materials need to be lightweight to
integrate with elements similar to drywall, floor, and ceiling panels.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
Key agencies doing building envelope R&D are DOE, National Institute for Standards and Technology,
several state agencies, and other institutions such as the Florida Solar Energy Center.
The FY2003 appropriation for the Building Technologies (BT) program was approximately $60M. The
R&D goals identified in this document represent programs funded elsewhere in DOE and also include new
areas of research not currently funded by BT. Funding for these extended efforts is not included in the $60M.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 15

CEQ 013961

Recent Progress
A
DOE-sponsored
RD&D
partnership
with
the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, the

National Roofing Contractors Association, the Society of the Plastics lndustry, and Envirorunental
Protection Agency (EPA) helped the industry find a replacement for chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) in
polyisocyanurate foam insulation. This effort enabled the buildings industry to transition from CFC-11 to
HCFC-14lb by the deadline required by the Montreal protocol.
Spectrally selective window glazings- which reduce solar heat gain and lower cooling loads - and highperformance insulating materials for demanding thermal applications.
Commercialization and Deployment Activities
A critical challenge is to ensure that new homes and buildings are constructed with good thermal envelopes
and windows when the technologies are most cost effective to implement.
The market potential is significant for building owners taking some actions to improve building envelopes.
Currently, 40% of residences are well insulated, 40% are adequately insulated, and 20% are poorly
insulated. More than 40% of new window sales are of advanced types (low-E and gas-filled). In
commercial buildings, more than 17% of all windows are advanced types. More than 70% of commercial
buildings have roof insulation; somewhat fewer have insulated walls.
Building
products are mostly commodity products. A number of companies produce them; and each has a

diverse distribution system, including direct sales, contractors, retailers, and discount stores.
Another critical challenge is improving the efficiency of retrofits of existing buildings. Retrofitting is
seldom cost-effective on a stand-alone basis. New materials and techniques are required.
Many advanced envelope products are cost-competitive now, and new technologies will become so on an
ongoing basis. There will be modest cost reductions over time as manufacturers compete,.
Potential Benefits
GHG Reductions
In MtC/year for buildings overall and this pathway

ll!!.!! W!!

Buildings 25-50 75-100 100-200

Envelopes 5-10 30-60 40-70
Market Context
Building structures represent an annual market in the United States of more than $708/year and involve
thousands of large and small p~oduct manufacturers and a large, diverse distribution system that plays a
crucial role in product marketing. Exporting is not an important factor in the sales of most building
structure products.
Key Technology Challenges
Scaling
electrochromic
window
technology
to commercial-scale window applications .

.u.s. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 16

CEQ 013962

Intelligent building systems (IBS) use data from

design (together with sensed data) to automatically
configure controls and commission (i.e., start-up and
check out) and operate buildings. Control systems use
advanced, robust techniques and are based on smaller,
less expensive, and much more abundant sensors.
These data ensure optimal building performance by
enabling control of building systems in an integrated
manner and continuously recommissioning them using
automated tools that detect and diagnose performance
anomalies and degradation. Intelligent building
systems optimize operation across building systems,
inform and implement energy purchasing, guide
maintenance activities, document and report building
performance, and optimally coordinate on-site energy
generation with building energy demand and the
electric power grid, while ensuring that occupant
needs for comfort, health, and safety were met at the
lowest possible cost.
System Concepts
The system consists of design tools, automated
diagnostics, interoperable control-system
components, abundant wireless sensors and
controls, and highly integrated operation of
energy-using and producing systems.
These components would work together to collect
data, configure controls, monitor operations,
optimize control, and correct out-of-range
conditions that contribute to poor building
performance.
Energy-management system field tests at the Zion
Intelligent building systems would ensure that
National Park Visitor Center (top) and the Bighorn Home
essential information, especially the design intent
Improvement Center complex in Silverthorne, Colorado
and construction implementation data, would be
(bottom). DOE High Perfonnance Buildings Program.
preserved and shared across many applications
throughout the lifetime of the building.
Equipment and system performance records would be stored a5 part of a networked building performance
knowledge base, which would grow over time and provide feedback to designers, equipment '
manufacturers, and building operators and .owners.
Optimally integrate on-site power production with building energy needs and the electric-power grid by
applying intelligent control to building cooling, heating, and power.
Representative Technologies
DOE is developing computer-based building commissioning and operation tools to improve the energy
efficiency of"existing" buildings. It is also investing in the next generation of building simulation
prograt.lS that could be integrated into design tools.
o
DOE, in collaboration with industry. also is developing and testing technologies for combined cooling,
heating, and power; and wireless sensor and control systems for buildings.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 17

CEQ 013963

Technology Status/Applications
Savings from improved operation and maintenance procedures could save more than 30% of the annual
energy costs of existing commercial buildings, even in many ofthose buildings thought to be working
properly by their owners/operators. These technologies would have very short paybacks because they
would ensure that technologies were performing as promised, for a fraction of the cost of the installed
technology.
Savings for new buildings could exceed 70% using integration of building systems and, with combined
cooling, heating and power, buildings could become net electricity producers and distributed suppliers to
the electric power grid.
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
RD&D Goals
Design environments with fully and seamlessly integrated building design tools that support all aspects of
design and provide rapid analysis; design suggestions; quick and easily understood data interpretation;
automatic generation of all design documents; and a building electronic-data structure that supports startup, operation, maintenance, and renovation of the building by intelligent building systems.
Automatic operation of buildings by automatically sensing installed equipment; checking for proper
installation; generating control algorithms; implementing optimal adaptive control; diagnosing and
correcting operating episodes that produce inefficient, unhealthy or uncomfortable conditions; managing
maintenance; and providing performance data in usable forms for operators of new and existing buildings,
facility managers, and owners. Have systems appropriate for homes and other small buildings that require
little operator attention.
Highly efficient combined cooling, heating, and power systems that use waste heat from small-scale, onsite, electricity generation to provide heating and cooling for the buildings, as well as exporting excess
electricity to the grid.
RD4cD Challenges
Design tools: enhanced analytical capabilities, integration with the design environment, automated design
and analysis capability, design databases, visualization, and high-level monitoring and reporting tools.
Automated diagnostics: diagnosticians, plug-and-play capabilities, automated real-time purchasing,
advanced data visualization, automated identification, and correction of the causes of operation problems.
System interoperability and controls: integrated control networks; plug-and-play control components;
adaptive, optimized, self-generating control algorithms; automatic configuration and commissioning of
controls; and advanced control techniques.
Sensors: wireless data acquisition, detection of materials properties, micro-scale sensors, microelectronic
sensors, multiple-sensor arrays, protocols for using new sensors, new sensing technologies, order of
magnitude lower-cost sensor systems, and ubiquitous use of sensors.
Visualization: use of supercomputers, networked personal computer to provide distributed super-computerlevel performance, advanced computational methods, and virtual reality systems to permit real-time
visualization of designs and design changes, including lighting, thermal flows, and air quality.~
Buildings Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power: Technologies for reusing waste energy to provide netelectricity producing buildings.
Early priorities include enhancing design-tool integration; developing automated diagnosticians;
implementing remote data collection and visualization; developing combined cooling, heating, and power;
and developing low-cost, wireless sensor, and control technology.
Advanced building simulation tools to permit better design, construction, commissioning, and operation.
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
DOE is funding work with the California Energy Commission, California Institute for Energy Efficiency,
Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Siemens, Electric Power Research Institute, Southern California Edison, and
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. International efforts include an effort funded by the European Union-to
develop adaptive control techniques for improving the thermal environment for JOULE IIICSEC.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 18

CEQ 013964

Recent Progress
Energy I0: models passive solar systems in buildings.
DOE 2: international standard for whole building energy performance simulation has thousands of users
worldwide.
DOE has recently released Energy Plus, the new standard for building energy simulation and successor to
DOE-2
The International Alliance for lnteroperability is setting international standards for interoperability of
computer tools and components for buildings.
DOE-BESTEST: basis for ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140, Method ofTestfor the Evaluation ofBuilding
Energy Simulation Programs.
Commercialization and Deployment Activities
Design tools for energy efficiency are used by fewer than 2% of the professionals involved in the design,
construction, and operation of commercial buildings in the United States. A larger fraction of commercial
buildings have central building-control systems. Few diagnostic tools are available commercially beyond
those used for air balancing or integrated into equipment (e.g., Trane lntellipack System) and the recently
announced air-conditioning diagnostic hand-held service tool by Honeywell (i.e., Honeywell HVAC
Service Assistant). The Department of Energy- in concert with the California Energy Commission- is
testing a number of automated diagnostic tools and techniques with commercial building owners,
operators, and service providers in an effort to promote commercial use. About 12 software vendors
develop, support, and maintain energy design tools; most are small businesses. Another 15 to 20 building
automation and control vendors exist in the marketplace- the major players include Johnson Controls,
Honeywell, and Siemens.
Deployment involves four major aspects: seamless integration into existing building design and operation
practices and platforms, lowering the cost of intelligent-building and enabling technologies, transforming
markets to rapidly introduce new energy-efficient technologies, and a focus on conveying benefits that are
desired in the marketplace (not only energy efficiency).
Potential Benefits and Costs
GHG Reductions
In MtC/year for buildings overall and this pathway

Buildings
InteJligent building

wo

25-50
5-l 0

75-150
20-45

100-200
30-l 00

Market Context
These technologies would apply to all buildings, but especially to existing commercial buildings and all
new buildings. In addition, new technologies would be integrated into the bvilding design and operation
processes.

Key Technology Challen_ges

The focus of the building design, control, and operation industry is service, not research. In its quest to
serve its customers, it performs very limited R&D. The federal government could provide this industry
with the R&D necessary to demonstrate the viability of intelligent, net-energy-producing buildings and
work with the industry to accelerate transfer of the technology to its markets.
The government could also work with voluntary standards organizations to require energy analysis,
building commissioning, automated performance-assurance tools, and proof of operation in conjunction
with building energy codes. Federal buildings could also be showcase facilities for the testing and
demonstration of these new technologies.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program - Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 19

CEQ 013965

America's ongoing appetite for clean, reliable, and

affordable electricity has increased at a rate that
seriously threatens to exceed current capacity.
Demand is estimated to increase by 9% through 2004
-however, only a 3% increase in transmission is
planned, and there have been no major new
investments in transmission during the past 15 years.
Witnessing the regional outages being experienced
throughout the country - and those most recently
highlighted in the western states- the inadequacies of
the investment in infrastructure investments have, in
effect, issued a wake-up call for enhancement of the
grid. High-temperature superconducting (HTS) wires
can carry many more times the amount of electricity
of ordinary aluminum or copper wires. HTS materials
were first discovered in the mid-1980s and are brittle
oxide, or ceramic-like materials, that can carry
electricity with virtually no resistance losses.
Through years of federal research in partnership with
companies throughout the nation, technology has
developed to bond these HTS materials to various
metals, providing the flexibility to fashion these
ceramics into wires for use in transmission cables,
bearings for flywheels, and coils for power
transformers, motors, generators, and the like.
Superconducting technologies make possible electric
power equipment that is half the size of conventional alternatives, with half the energy losses. When HTS
equipment becomes pervasive, up to 50% of the energy now lost in transmission and distribution will become
available for customer use. HTS also will reduce the impact of power delivery on the environment and is
helping create a new high-tech industry to help meet the challenges due to delays in electric utility
restructuring. Other increased performance benefits include improved stability, reliability, power quality, and .
deferred generation expansion.
System Concepts
HTS cables have almost no resistance losses and can transport 3-5 times as much power as a conventional
cable in the same size conduit.
o HTS power transformers have about 30% reduction in total losses, can be 50% smaJier and ligbter than
conventional units, have a total ownership cost that is about 20% lower, are nonflammable, and do not
contain oil or any other potential pollutant. In addition, there are electrical performance benefits associated
with current limiting capacity and reduced impedance that will yield cost savings to power companies.
Q
HTS Fault Current Limiters can provide power companies with surge protection within the local
distribution system. They are reusable, require minimal maintenance, and do not need replacement after
being activated.
HTS motors more than 750 kW would save enough energy over their lifetime to pay for the motor. The
motors are 50% smaller and lighter than conventional motors, as well.
o
HTS generators with more than 100 MY A wiB be more energy efficient, compact, and lighter than the
conventional
The
has characteristics that
stabilize the transmission

US. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 20

CEQ 013966

System Components
HTS cables consist of large numbers of tapes containing HTS materials operating at 65-77 K, insulated
thermally and electricaJiy. A cryogenic refrigerating system maintains the temperature of the cable,
extracting heat that manages to leak into the assembly.
HTS transformers use the same types of HTS materials as cables, formed into coils and mounted on
conventional transformer cores. Electrical insulation is accomplished by means other than conventional oiland-paper, and typically involves a combination of solid materials, liquid cryogens, and vacuum.
HTS motors, generators, magnetic separators, MRI magnets, and current limiters use HTS wires and tapes
in a coil fonn. Rotating cryogenic seals provide cooling for the rotating machines.
HTS flywheel systems use nearly frictionless bearings made from superconducting "discs,'' cooled below
the transition temperature of the HTS materials.
Technology Status/Applications
HTS wires: First generation "BSCCO" wires are available today in kilometer lengths at about $200/kA-m.
Second-generation "coated conductors" have been made in 1-10 m lengths in the laboratory and are to be
scaled up in 2002-2004 to 100-m lengths. The 1-m tapes carry approximately 50 amperes of current in
nitrogen.
HTS cables: Under the DOE Superconductivity Partnership Initiative, a team led by Pirelli Cable installed
a 120-m cable in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Southwire has instaUed and tested a 30-m prototype cable
that has been powering three manufacturing plants in Carrollton, Georgia, since February 2000.
HTS transformers: Waukesha Electric Systems, with partial DOE funding, demonstrated a 1-MVA
prototype transformer in 1999 and is leading a team developing a 5/1 0-MVA, 26.4-KV/4.2-kV three-phase
prototype scheduled for testing in the third quarter of2002.
HTS motors: RockweJI Automation demonstrated a prototype 750-KW motor in 2000 and is designing a
motor with five times the rating.
. ...
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
RD&D Goals
Performance: Develop HTS wires with 100 times the capacity of conventional copper/aluminum wires.
Design and demonstrate a broad portfolio of electric equipment based on HTS: 50% reduction in energy
losses compared to conventional equipment, and 50% size of conventional equipment with the same rating.
Low-cost, high-performance YBCO coated conductors will be available in 2005 in kilometer lengths.
Cost: Wire cost of$0.01/ampere-meter. Equipment premium cost payback (efficiency savings) will be
achieved in 2-5 years of operation. Equipment total cost payback will be achieved during the operating
lifetime. Coated conductor goals: For applications in liquid nitrogen, the wire cost will be Jess than
$50/kA-m; while for applications requiring cooling to temperatures of20-60 K, the cost will be less than
$30/kA-m. By 2010, the cost-performance ratio will have improved by at least a factor of four.
RD&D Challenges
The manufacture of promising HTS materials in long lengths at low cost remains a key program challenge.
Materials for cryogenic insulation and standardized, high-efficiency refrigerators (approaching,30% of
Carnot efficiency) are required.
Scale-up of national laboratory discoveries for "coated conductors" requires the use of film industry or
semiconductor industry processing expertise and equipment to make electric wires and is a key activity for
the labs and their industry partners
RD&D Activities
DOE funding ofHTS utility technology is about $38 Mfyear, plus an industry cost share of$20Wyear.
DOE funding is used for three key program activities: the Accelerated Coated Conductor Initiative, the
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative, and Strategic Research. Performers include national laboratories,
industry, academia, and other federal agencies.
Germany and Japan each are spending $50 M-$100 Wyear each to develop HTS power equipment.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 21

CEQ 013967

Recent Progress : -: ' ' : .. ..:~ ~. .:. ~~':".:~.::: ~~ ~~:~/h.~.~;~.~~-~~. :~;~ ...
The development at the national laboratories of ion-beam assisted deposition and rolling-assisted, biaxially
textured substrate (RABiTSTM) technologies for producing high-perfonnance HTS film conductors suitable
for cables and transformers, and the involvement of four unique industry-led teams to capitalize on it, was a
major success story for FY 1997.
The world's first HTS cable to power industrial plants exceeded 13,000 hours of trouble-free operation in
Carrollton, Georgia (Southwire Company). The 30-m cable system has been operating unattended since
June 2001.
During the summer of 200 I, Detroit Edison installed a 120-m HTS cable system in an urban substation that
serves 14,000 customers.
Rockwell Automation demonstrated a prototype I000-HP synchronous motor that exceeded design
specifications by 60%, and is now designing a 5000-HP motor.
. .
...
' : ..
CommercialiZation and Deployment Activities
'
High-temperature superconducting cables and equipment: Commercialization and market introduction
requires development of inexpensive wires for transmission and distribution, and end uses such as electric
motors. These wires are now under development under a government-industry partnership but are still
years from wide-scale use. Using high-temperature superconductivity wires to replace existing electric
wires and cables may be analogous to the market penetration that occurred when the United States moved
from copper wire to fiber optics in communications. Some pre-commercial demonstrations have begun, but
the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative could be expanded.

...
Potential Benefits
'
Carbon Reductions and Energy Savings
The carbon reductions attributed to HTS power equipment are estimated to be 2.7 MtC/year in 2020
R&D Expenditures
RD&D on HTS was conducted by DOE at the level of $37M in FY 2001, with an outlay of about $31M in
FY2002.
..
Key Technology Challenges ..
. ::'
Conduct the R&D activities defined in the new 2003 Coated Conductor Roadmap, and for the
Superconductivity Partnership with Industry.
~~

"(1.

.,

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 22

CEQ 013968

The electric utility industry is

restructuring itself from a regulated
environment to operation under
competitive wholesale electricity
markets. However, the electric
transmission and distribution (T&D)
systems remain regulated entities that
connect deregulated generation to the
endwuse customer. Construction of U.S.
transmission above 230 kV is expected to
increase by only 6% (in linewmiles)
during the next I 0 years, while demand is
expected to increase more than 20%. The
resulting increase in the intensity of use
of existing facilities will increase energy
losses and transmission congestion, and
is likely to cause grid reliability problems and threaten the continued growth of wholesale electricity trade.
Energy losses in the U.S. T&D system were 7.2% in 1995, accounting for 2.5 quads of primary energy and
36.5 MtC. Losses are divided such that about 60% are from lines and 40% are from transformers (most of
which are for distribution). Technologies that can improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions are highvoltage DC (HVDC) transmission, high-strength composite overhead conductors, and power transformers and
underground cables that use high-temperature superconductors (see related technology profile). Highwefficiency
conventional transformers also could have significant impacts on distribution system losses. In addition, energy
storage and real-time system monitoring and control systems could improve system reliability and customer
access to competitive generation, including renewable power producers.
System Concepts

HVDC lines are more efficient than conventional AC lines. For example, a 250wmiJe 500 kV AC line
converted to+/- 400kV HVDC operation would lose 33% less energy carrying the same amount of power.
Composite-core, tow-sag transmission conductors can transport two to three times as much power as
conventional conductors over the same rights-of-way and with no tower modifications.
Better core materials and winding design for line transformers can cut losses dramatically.
Energy storage will facilitate more optimal use of existing infrastructure and increase the dispatchability of
renewable resources.
Real-time grid operations using measured data and automatic, intelligent controllers can improve T&D
reliability- and lead to a smart, switchable future network that can anticipate and respond automatically to
system contingencies.

System Components

Compared to an AC system, HVDC converter terminals use mor.e costly solid-state power electronic
switches to convert ACto DC and vice versa, but a DC transmission line with only two conductors instead
of three for AC transmission saves online construction. [Note that Flexible AC Transmission System
(FACTS) controller technologies also use advanced power electronics, and references in this section to
power electronics improvements to HVDC apply equally to FACTS controllers.]
One advanced composite overhead conductor consists of an aluminum metal matrix composite core
(replacing the steel core of a conventional cable) surrounded by temperature-resistant alumin11m alloy
wires.
Such advanced materials as laser-etched silicon steel or amorphous metal ribbon in the iron core of the
transformer can cut distribution transformer core losses, and advanced winding techniques can reduce load
losses.
U,S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near a11d Long Te1m
Reyiew Draft, September 2003- Page 23

CEQ 013969

 Several large" and medium"scale energy-storage systems, using different electrochemistries, have been
developed.

Real"time control uses wide"area measurement systems, synchronized by global positioning system (GPS)

satellite clocks that feed system information to artificial neural net controllers. The controllers reconfigure
the system in real time, preventing system outages and permitting maximum use of available transmission
capacity.
Technology Status/Applications
HVDC conventional thyristor-based systems are commercially available at costs of$220/kW for both
terminals. Advanced voltage-source converters have been tested in the lab, but have voltage and power
limitations.
Aluminum composite-core conductors, terminations, and suspensions have been developed by 3M
Company and demonstrated in the field by leading U.S. and European utilities. Additional field trials in the
United States and accelerated thermal cycling tests are planned in 2003"2005. This extensive mechanical
and electrical testing is required to predict the 40-year life responses of this new conductor technology.
Niche applications including long-span river crossings and short lead-time reconductoring over congested
existing rights"of"way are now cost-effective. In addition, the conductor's core has 25% lower electrical
resistances than steel, enabling higher transmission efficiencies.
High-efficiency
distribution transformers are commercially available, but a cost premium of about 20%

makes them unappealing to commercial and industrial users.

0
Large-scale energy-storage systems are entering field demonstrations.
Wide-area measurement systems used for monitoring, event analysis, and system model studies have been
deployed in the Western United States power grid to help analyze system disturbances.
Current Research,. Development, and Demonstration
RD&D Goals
HVDC voltage source converter terminals costing 50% less than conventional units. HVDC markets
include high-efficiency line capacity upgrades on existing rights-of-way, HVDC underwater cables, and a
large export market in developing countries.
Accelerated
thermal"cycle testing for 3M's composite conductor in 2003"2005. Field-testing of this

conductor began in 2002 on a 230kV transmission line on DOE's Western Area Power Administration
grid. Other advanced conductors are expected to undergo similar high-current and field tests in 2003-2006.
Reduction of high-efficiency transformer core steel costs by 50% and resolution of handling/brittle fracture
problems. The existing distribution transformer market is $1 B/yr.
Demonstration of the reliability of energy-storage systems, and reduction of the cost of such systems by
30%.
Operation of a prototype smart, switchable grid on a region on the U.S. transmission grid by 2010. The
market for conventional utility-control systems approaches $300 M/year.
RD&D Challenges
Cost reduction of SO% for HVDC converters. Switching devices made of silicon carbide or diamond are a
long-term challenge, and further development ofvoltage"source converters is a near-term chaUenge.
Development of large-diameter composite conductors for high-voltage transmission lines that are both lowcost and high capacity, so as to yield the highest payoffs in grid reliability and competitive market
efficiency.
Improved ductility of amorphous metal core steel and high"strength, low"loss winding materials for
reduced costs in the manufacture ofhigh"efficiency distribution transformers.
Energy-storage
systems with reduced costs that can meet several applications while using a single system .

Neural
net
networks
that can be trained in parallel to perform control functions in real-time control

systems.
A regulatory framework that will allow investors to make credible projections of the return on investment
in new transmission capacity.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 24

CEQ 013970

RD&D Activities
There is no active U.S. program for HVDC development. EPRI spends $3-$5 M/yr on high-voltage power
electronics for the related Flexible AC Transmission System technology (FACTS). HVDC R&D is taking
place at offshore manufacturers aimed at sales in India, China, and South America.
For composite conductors, 3M Company is cosHharing on a $7 million DOE effort in FY 2002 and
FY2003 to perform field tests and accelerated, controlled thermal tests on several conductor sizes.
DOE is cost-sharing a $5 million energy-storage effort with industry. EPRI has a newly reformed energy
storage target.
No active research program is underway on improved distribution transformer technologies. EPRI
terminated its program on improvements in amorphous metal core materials in 1995. Allied Signal (the
inventor of amorphous metal transformer core material) and an Indian transformer manufacturer have
agreed to develop and manufacture high-efficiency transformers in India for the burgeoning Asian market.
Recent Successes
DOE's National Transmission Grid Study, releas~d in May 2002, examined issues surrounding U.S.
transmission system upgrades and expansion, and contains 51 recommendations for actions to remove
constraints on the U.S. transmission grid.
Real-time monitoring tools have been developed by DOE and installed in California with funding by the
California Energy Commission, and at the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) to monitor
and display voltage and frequency over wide areas.
Demand response (DR) projects are assisting independent transmission system operators (ISOs) with DR
program design, and identifYing DR capabilities to respond to markets for energy and contingency
reserves.
Commercialization and Deployment.Acti\rities ' :. ./ .

Conventional HVDC using thyristor valves is a mature commercial niche product with 30 GW of installed
capacity in North America. Several HVDC cable projects have been proposed in North America, but are
inhibited by the lack of clear policy to ensure adequate return on investment. The market in China and
India may be up to 100 GW.
Commercial deployment of high-current composite conductors awaits U.S. field trial results, and
manufacturing cost reductions for all but high-value niche applications.
High-efficiency distribution transformers have been offered on the U.S. market for more than 15 years.
However, sales have been declining, and manufacturers are leaving the market as purchasers move to
lower-cost, lower-efficiency transformers.
Carbon Reductions
T&D is crosscutting in that it links electrical-generation technologies to energy end-use technologies. The
carbon reductions forT &Dare only those attributed to an improved T&D system itself. They are estimated
to be 3-4 MtC/year in 2010, 5-6 MtC/year in 2020, and 20-25 MtC/year in 2030.
MD-~b~

DOE funding for composite conductor research was $4 million in FY 2002 and $3 million in FY 2003.
DOE funding for T&D research and development was $4.685 million in FY 2002 and $5.203 for FY 2003.

DOE's National Transmission Grid Study (2002) recommends that DOE accelerate development and
demonstration ofT&D technologies inciuding HVDC, HTS, composite conductors, real-time system
monitoring and control, and demand response. The aim of the federal program is to develop advanced
concepts in conjunction with demonstrations by industry partners.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 25

CEQ 013971

DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
Grid Stability

Remote Power

Peak Shaving
and Power

Power Quality I Reliability

Energy Management

Distributed generation, including combined heat and power (CHP), can be distinguished from central energy
resources in several respects. These distributed energy resources are small, modular, and come in a range of
capacities from kilowatts to megawatts. They comprise a portfolio of technologies that can be located onsite or
nearby the location where the energy is used. They provide the consumer with a greater choice, local control,
and more efficient waste utilization to boost efficiency and lower emissions.
System Concepts

The portfolio of distributed generation technologies includes, for example, photovoltaic systems, fuel cells,
. natural gas engines, industrial turbines, microturbines, energy-storage devices, wind turbines, and.
concentrating solar power collectors .. These technologies can be used to meet a variety of conSl,!mer energy
needs including continuous power, backup power, remote power, and peak shaving. They can be installed
directly on the consumer's premise or located nearby in district energy systems, power parks, and mini
grids.
CHP technologies have the potential to take all of the distributed generation technologies one step further in
pollution prevention by utilizing the waste heat from the generation of electricity for the making of steam,
heating of water, or for the production of cooling energy. The average power plant in the United States
converts approximately one-third of the input energy into output electricity and then discards the remaining
two-th1rds of the energy as waste heat. CHP systems similarly produce electricity, but then capture up to half
or more of this waste heat to make steam, heat or cool water, or meet other thermal needs, thus making use
of two-thirds or more of the input energy. CHP technologies make greater use of the fuel input by producing
multi le roducts- electrici and reusable thermal ener , reachin efficienc levels of70% or eater.
U.S Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 26

CEQ 013972

System Components

Advanced industrial turbines and microturbines- combustion turbines are a class of electric-generation
devices that produce high temperature, high-pressure gas to induce shaft rotation by impingement of the gas
on series of specially designed blades. Simple cycle efficiencies range from 21%to 40%. Turbines
produce high-quality heat and can be used for CHP production. Microturbines are small combustion turbines
with outputs of 25-1,000 kW. Microturbines evolved from automotive and truck turbochargers.
Energy-storage systems -the combination of an energy-storage device (e.g., a battery or a flywheel) and a
power-conversion system to connect the storage device with the local grid.
Concentrating solar power- concentrating solar power systems use suntracking mirrors to reflect and
concentrate sunlight into receivers where it is converted to high-temperature thermal energy, which can then
be used to drive turbines to generate electricity.
Fuel cells- power is produced in fuel cells electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode
and air over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte in producing electricity. The only byproducts
are heat, water, and carbon dioxide.
Natural Gas Engines- the reciprocating engine is widespread and well-known technology. Spark ignition
gas-fired units (the focus here) typically use natural gas or propane. Capacities are typically in the 0.5- to 5megawatt range.
Photovoltaic Systems- photovoltaic systems use semiconductor-based cells to convert sunlight directly to
electricity.
Hybrid Systems- hybrid systems consist of two or more types of distributed energy technologies.
Wind Energy Systems- wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of wind into electricity.

Technology Status/Applications
Industrial gas turbines and natural gas reciprocating engines are existing technologies that are being utilized
and have a great deal of potential.
Microturbines, concentrating solar power, fuel cells, wind energy, photovoltaic systems, and hybrid systems
are currently under development.
CHP is a proven technology, responsible for 8% of U.S. electricity generation. The potential for expanding
the use of CHP in the United States is enormous -the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agen~y have a goal of doubling CHP capacffi'to 92 OW by 2010.
Current Research;'Development;ananemoiiiitration , .. :. . .> . : -: :' :,. ,,: : :.
RD&D Goals
Near-term goals are to develop next-generation distributed energy technologies and address the institutional
regulatory barriers tltat interfere with siting, permitting, and interconnection of distributed energy. The longterm goal for 2020 is to reduce the cost and emissions and increase the efficiency of distributed energy
technologies to achieve 20% of the new electric generation capacity in the United States.
RD&D Challenges
Provide lower cost and more efficient systems.
Improve the reliability.
Solve the institutional and regulatory barriers such as a lack of widely used technical interconnection
standards.
Enhance the implementation ofCHP with technologies such as microturbines, fuel cells, gas turbines and
reciprocating engines
RD&:O Activities
Direct and coordinate a diverse portfolio of research development and demonstration investments in
distributed natural gas technologies.
Conduct supporting RD&D and enabling technologies.
Direct and coordinate a diverse portfolio of RD&D energy generation and delivery systems architecture fQr
distributed energy.
Coordinate activities with RD&D and renewable energy technologies.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 27

CEQ 013973

Conduct system integration, implementation, and outreach activities aimed at addressing infrastructure,
institutional, and regulatory needs.
'.
Recent Progress
DOE's advanced turbine system program has developed an industrial gas turbine with Solar Turbines, Inc.,
for a 48%efficient simple-cycle machine. CHP is currently at 50 GW of installed capacity.
Wind energy systems have been installed in various western and eastern United States locations.
Microturbines have achieved more than 10,000 hours of operations and preliminary tests .
The Southern Company recently accepted a SAFT/SatCon Lilon System developed by the DOE ESS
program that provided three times the lOOkW/1 minute rated performance. Southern agreed to test the
battery system at no cost, because it can supplement a distributed energy resource (in this case a
microturbine) and provide load-following capability.
... "
...'
.
'.
Commercialization
Deployment Activl~ies>,: ~.
...
Advanced industrial gas turbines in the range of I to 50 MW are starting to be deployed .
Natural gas reciprocating engines of 0.5-5 MW with efficiencies of 30%-40% are now being deployed .
The DOE and EPA CHP programs are cooperating to actively promote the use ofCHP to add about 46 GW
of new CHP capacity by 2010.
. '.
Potentiai Benefits
Carbon Reductions
If it is assumed that SO% ofthe distributed generation technologies were noncarbon sources (such as wind,
photovoltaic, etc), the potential market penetration of 100 GW generation capacity could reduce carbon
emissions by 25-38 MtC/yr.
RD&D Expenditures
DOE funding for distributed generation and CHP was approximately $80 million in FY2002 .
Markets
Distributed generation, including CHP, is currently helping the U.S. economy and has the potential to
enhance the electric infrastructure. These technologies could produce more than I00 GW of generated
capacity for the U.S. electric system.
...
.. .. .:' .
-:; ......... .:-;.:
:
.,
Key Technology Challenges
Address critical technology barriers.
Encourage commercialization and deployment of the technologies through government/industry
partnerships.

and

.. i~ . ..

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologl'esfor the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 28

CEQ 013974

Advanced storage technologies

under active development
include processes that are
mechanical (flywheels,
pneumatic), electrochemical
(advanced batteries, reversible
fuel cells, hydrogen,
ultracapacitors), and purely
electrical (superconducting
magnetic storage). Energy
storage devices are added to the
utility grid to improve
productivity, increase reliability
or defer equipment upgrades.
Energy storage devices must be
charged and recharged with
electricity generated elsewhere.
Because the storage efficiency
(output compared to input
energy) is less than I00%, on a
kilowatt-per-kilowatt basis,
A 5-MVA battery energy-storage system for power quality and peak shaving.
energy storage does not directly
decrease C0 2 production. The exception to this rule is the use of advanced energy storage in conjunction with
intermittent renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaics and wind, that produce no direct C0 2 Energy
storage allows these intermittent resources to be dispatchable.
Energy-storage devices do positively affect C02 production on an industrial output basis by providing highquality power, maximizing industrial productivity. New battery technologies, including sodium sulfur and flow
batteries, significantly improve the energy and power densities for stationary battery storage as compared to
traditional flooded lead-acid batteries.
System Concepts
o
Utilities: The efficiency of a typical steam plant falls from about 38% at peak load to 28%-31% at night.
Utilities and customers could store electrical energy at off-peak times, allowing power plants to operate
near peak efficiency. The stored energy could be used during high-demand periods displacing lowefficiency peaking generators. C02 emissions would be reduced ifthe efficiency of the energy storage were
greater than 85%. Energy storage also can be used to alleviate the pressure on highly loaded components in
the grid (transmission lines, transformers, etc.) These components are typically only loaded heavily for a
small portion of the day. The storage system is placed downstream from the heavily loaded component.
This reduces electrical losses of overloaded systems. Equipment upgrades also are postponed allowing the
most efficient use of capital by utility companies.
o
Industrial: The operation of !TIOdern, computerized manufacturing depends directly on the quality of power
the plant receives. Any voltage sag or momentary interruption can trip off a manufacturing line and
electronic equipment. Industries that are particularly sensitive are semiconductor manufacturing, plastics
and paper manufacturing, electronic retailers, and financial services such as banking, stock brokerages, and
credit card-processing centers. If au interruption occurs that disrupts these processes, product is often lost,
plant cleanup can be required, equipment can be damaged, and transactions can be lost. Any Joss must be
made up decreasing the overall efficiency of the operation, thereby increasing the amount of C0 2
production required for each unit of output. Energy-storage value is usually measured economically with~.
the cost of ower-qualit losses, which is estimated in excess of$1.5 B/year in the United States alone.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 - Page 29

CEQ 013975

Industry is also installing energy-storage systems to purchase relatively cheap off-peak power for use
during on-peak times. This use dovetails very nicely with the utilities' interest in minimizing the load on
highly loaded sections of the electric grid. Many energy-storage systems offer multiple benefits. (An
example is shown in the photo.) This 5-MVA, 3.5-MWh valve-regulated lead-acid battery system is
installed at a lead recycling plant in the Los Angeles, California, area. The system provides power-quality
protection for the plant's pollution-control equipment, preventing an environmental release in the event of a
loss of power. The system carries the critical plant loads while an orderly shutdown occurs. The battery
system also in discharged daily during the afternoon peak (and recharged nightly), reducing the plant's
energy costs.
Representative Technologies
For utilities, the most mature storage technology is pumped hydro; however, it requires topography with
significant differences in elevation, so it's only practical in certain locations. Compressed-air energy storage
uses off-peak electricity to force air into underground caverns or dedicated tanks, and releases the air to drive
turbines to generate on-peak electricity; this, too, is location specific. Batteries, both conventional and
advanced, are commonly used for energy-storage systems. Advanced flowing electrolyte batteries offer the
promise oflonger lifetimes and easier scalability to large, multi-MW systems. Superconducting magnetic
energy storage (SMES) is largely focused on high-power, short-duration applications such as power quality and
transmission system stability. Ultracapacitors have very high power density but currently have relatively low
total energy capacity and are also applicable for high-power, short-duration applications. Flywheels are now
commercially viable in power quality and UPS applications, and emerging for high power, high-energy
applications.
Technology Status- Utilities
Technology
Pumped hydro
Compressed gas
SMES
Batteries
Flywheels
Ultracapacitors

Efficiency [%)Energy density [W-h/kg]Power density lkW/kgJSizes [MW-hl

Comments
75
0.27/100 m
low
5,00020,000 37 existing in U.S.
70
0
low
2502,200
I U.S., I Gennan
90+
0
high
20 MW
high-power applications
70-84
30-50
0.2-0.4
17-40
Most common device
90+
1530
1-3
0.1-20 kWh US & foreign development
90+
210
high
0.1-0.5 kWh High-power density

System Components
Each energy-storage system consists of four major components: the storage device (battery, flywheel, etc.); a
power-conversion system; a control system for the storage system, possibly tied in .with a utility SCADA
(Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system or industrial facility control system; and interconnection
hardware connecting the storage system to the grid. All common energy-storage devices are DC devices
(battery) or produce a varying output (flywheels) requiring a power conversion system to connect it to the AC
grid. The control system must manage the charging and discharging of the system, monitor the state of health
of the various components and interface with the local environment at a minimum to receive on/off signals.
Interconnection hardware allows for the safe connection between the storage system and the local grid.
RD&DGoals
Utilities require high reliability, and costs less than or equal to those of new power generation ($400$600/kW). Compressed gas energy storage can cost as little as $1-$5/k.Wh, while pumped hydro ranges
from $10-$45/k.Wh. Battery storage systems range from $300-$2000/k.W.
RD&D Challenges
The major hurdles for all storage technologies are cost reduction and developing methods of accurately
identifying all the potential value streams from a given installation. Advanced batteries need field
experience and manufacturing increases to bring down costs. Flywheels need further development of failsafe designs and/or lightweight containment. Magnetic bearings could reduce parasitic loads and make
flywheels attractive for small uninterruptible power supplies and possibly larger systems using multiple individual units. Ultracapacitor development requires improved large modules to deliver the required larger
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 30

CEQ 013976

energies. Advanced higher-power batteries with greater energy storage and longer cycle life are necessary
for economic large-scale utility and industrial applic.
RD&D Activities
The Japanese are investing heavily in high-temperature, sodium-sulfur batteries for utility load-leveling
applications. They also are pursuing large-scale vanadium reduction-oxidation battery chemistries. The
British are developing a utility-scale flow battery system based on sodium bromine/sodium bromide
chemistry. DOE's Energy Storage Systems Program (about $6 Mlyear) works on improved and advanced
electrical energy storage for stationary (utility, customer-side, and renewables) applications. It focuses on
three areas: system integration using near-term components including field evaluations, advanced
component development, and systems analysis. This work is being done in collaboration with a number of
universities and industrial partners.
..
Commei'ci~lization and Deploym~ntActivitie!J." .
For
utilities,
only
pumped
hydro
has made a significant penetration with approximately 37 GW .

Approximately
150
MW
ofutility
peak-shaving batteries are in service in Japan.

Two
10-MW
flow
battery
systems
are under construction- one in the United Kingdom and the other in tbe

United States.
Megawatt-scale power quality systems are cost effective and entering the marketplace today .
Potential Benefits
Carbon Reductions
The use of energy-storage devices in stationary applications can lead to carbon reductions. The reductions
can be significant if a storage device enables a renewable or other low-carbon electricity generation
technology, or for high-value manufacturing processes. The estimated carbon reductions are accounted for
in the profiles that would use energy-storage devices, including building equipment and appliances; light
vehicles; wind energy; solar photovoltaic power; and concentrating solar power.
RD&D Expenditures
RD&D on energy-storage devices is conducted by the DOE Office of Electric Transmission and
Distribution.
, ;.
.. . . .... ' ' ..: . : \' ..
.. ,
...
. Key Technology Cliallenges
'
Study the potential impact of requiring that any expansion of utility energy production be based on total
life-cycle cost; including fuel and potential rises in fuel cost.
Study the potential impact of requiring that at least 5% of any added utility power production expansion be
renewable.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 3/

CEQ 013977

1.35 SENSORS, CONTROLS, AND COMMUNICATIONS

~",

. .~'11\'

t-~r-"""'!"'1~ .,..

~-"'-~-"'
~!t

.. ~.

~"'-~~
Central Generation

----p,-r.eo.....,...eanoUnk

Sensors and controls will play a key role in the development of the nation's next-generation electric
transmission and distribution system. In the grid of the future, distributed energy resources will be fully
integrated into grid operations, providing a robust energy infrastructure enhanced by local protection and
control measures. The communication and control challenges associated with this evolution are significant.
Local system conditions will be sensed, and local intelligent agents will process the data and communicate
decision commands to local controllers for problem rectification and performance optimization. These local
sensors and distributed software agents will assess adequacy and security with only high-level oversight from
the central control authority. Distribution system and transmission grid reliability will be significantly
improved by higher levels oflocal distributed energy generation using power electronics to control and manage
two-way power tlow.as directed by local sensors and intelligent agents.
System Concepts
In the future, there must be a rapid, widespread measurement and control system that enables distributed
energy generation to provide highly reliable services under all disturbance scenarios. Local cOf.ltrol of such
highly reliable services will improve local power quality and improve the efficiency of the distribution
system. This will be done with local sensors and "intelligent agents" that monitor local conditions and
provide local responses.
Conventional utility sensors, while robust and reliable, are quite expensive. Low-cost, reliable and robust
sensors must be developed that can monitor current flow, voltage, and phase angle throughout the
distribution system. These sensors would provide the intelligent agents with the information they need to
make rapid, correct decisions.
Representative Technologies
Low-cost physical sensors will be used to measure voltage, current, temperature, phase angle, and for other
electric distribution and grid system characterization a lications.
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 32

CEQ 013978

The system architecture will be dependent on the ability of intelligent agents to diagnose and forecast local
faults. This will involve placing a number of sensors, intelligent agents, and controllers at strategic
locations.
The sensing, communication, and information analysis required for intelligent decision making must
happen in real time or near real time (in seconds), sufficiently faster than the time required to affect
coordination, control, and protection schemes.
Communications must take place to advise the central controller of the local system status, perform critical
nonrepudiating functions to manage the electricity commerce, and enable real-time markets for energy and
ancillary services.
Technology Status/Applications
The variety of transduction methods and the capability to fabricate small, rugged sensor devices has
advanced tremendously during the past five years. Modem techniques for fabricating electronic devices
allow unprecedented miniaturization of sensors and electronic controls.
Rapid analysis of sensor data and feedback control is also advancing, often enabled by microprocessor
technology.
Rapid, low-cost communications methods are also undergoi.ng fast-paced advancement in wireless and
fiber-optic technologies.
r..
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
RD&D Goals
The first step in the research plan will be to develop computer simulation models of the distribution system
to assess the alternative situations. To validate these models, prototype sensors and communication
systems, as well as assessment methods for the intelligent agents, will be required. The simulation models
will be tested in the laboratory and then in the field. When the models have been validated on a sufficiently
large scale, the functional requirements and architecture specifications can be completed, and final
technology solutions that conform to the established architecture. can be explored.
RD&D Challenges
A challenge will be the development of cost-effective fault detection and control systems that can be
readily implemented in the nation's power grid. The electricity market with an ever-increasing dem.and for
highly reliable services is a key factor in the development of the new control system.
In response to market communications, distributed energy generation ~ust be capable of supplying the
highly reliable services presently provided by large turbine generators, such as spinning reserves, reactive
power supply, and voltage and frequency regulation. The entire control scheme is now based on the
response of the large generation stations to supply these services. Traditionally, it has been considered to be
too difficult to use distributed energy generation to supply these services because there are simply too
many units to control reliably and quickly.
RD&D Activities

Within DOE, sensor and control programs are being developed to focus on issues related to system
arch~tec.ture, distributed intelligence, interconnection technologies and standards, simulation apd modeling
of the distribution system, load/demand management, and aggregation testing and control of a~suite of
distributed energy resources.
Workshops have been held with utilities; energy service companies; and providers of communications,
sensor, control, and information technologies to plan strategies and develop roadmaps.
..

' :Reeen.tProuess .. ,,.:
'
.\
A Grid-Friendly appliance controller, based on the gate array chip, is being developed to monitor the
power grid while controlling on-off operations of household appliances (refrigerators, air conditioners,
water heaters, etc.) in response to power grid overload. This device has been tested in a laboratory
environment and is ready for installation"in the next generation of appliances.
A wireless end-device controller is being installed at more than 200 facilities in southwest Connecticut, ~
with the goal of controlling 2-3 megawatts of electricity on a real-time dispatchable basis. The controller
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 33

CEQ 013979

collects real-time energy-use information and controls end-use loads (lighting, vending machines, etc.) to
manage system peak demand. .
..
. Commercialization and Deployment Activities'
There are more than 4,200 sensor and control companies in the United States. Commercialization of sensor
technology depends on demonstrating economic viability at a level commensurate with the risks small
businesses can assume.
.. , ..
' ...
Potential Benefits
RD&D Expenditures
Sensor technology development is usually embedded within larger, more visible parts of DOE programs.
An estimate of the current DOE expenditures specifically on sensors and controls applicable to the grid of
the future is more than $15 M/year.
Market
The market for improved sensors and controls cuts across all industrial and transportation sectors. Nuclear,
fossil, and end-use efficiency technologies would all benefit.
Key Technology Chi\llenges
Continue R&D on sensors and controls to meet the needs of the future electric transmission and
distribution system.
.;.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies/or the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 34

CEQ 013980

Power electronics is the technology

is used
to provide the interface between different types
of electrical power, such as DC and 60-Hz AC.
Power electronics equipment transforms
frequency, voltage, and power factor. Power
levels and voltages from a few kilowatts and 120
volts -all the way up to transmission-level
powers and voltages- are now possible with
today's technology. Power electronics can
enable the simple connection of various types of
electrical infrastructure links like distributed
energy resources. It can help to regulate voltage
in the distribution system and transmission grid,
and can solve power-quality and voltage-dip
problems. Most important, power electronics
can provide for an integrated approach to
reliability, where all the components- energy
conversion, energy storage, control, and power electronics- work together.
About 60%-70% of the nation's electrical power is used to drive motors and motors are reasonably efficient at
their designed or rated speed and load. However, efficiencies can be tremendously improved by operating
motors at variable speeds that match the system requirements. Motors driven by power electronics to achieve
variable speed capability are increasing dramatically in numbers as the technologies become available.
Continued development of power electronic devices with higher power-handling capability and reliability will
offer an unprecedented opportunity for U.S. industry and utilities to reduce energy consumption and improve
competitiveness.
Power electronic structures have been developed to overcome shortcomings in solid-state switching device
ratings so that they can be applied to high-voltage electrical systems. The unique structure of multilevel voltage
ource power electronics allows them to reach high voltages with low harmonics without the use of
transformers. This makes these power electronics suitable for flexible AC transmission systems (F AC'I:S) and
custom power applications. The use of power electronics to control the frequency, voltage output (including
phase angle), and real and reactive power flow at a DC/AC interface provides significant opportunities in the
control of distributed power systems.
As distributed power sources become increasingly prevalent in the near future, power electronics will be able to
provide significant advantages in processing power from renewable energy sources using fast response and
autonomous control. Additionally, power electronics can control real and reactive power flow from a utilityconnected renewable energy source. These power electronic topologies are attractive for continuous control of
system dynamic behavior and to reduce power-quality problems such as voltage harmonics, voltage imbalance,
or sags.
System Concepts
Advanced inverter topologies: Inverter circuitry that accommodates and takes advantage of advanced solidstate devices while further improving the overall efficiency, packaging, and performance of the inverter.
Representative Technologies
Soft-switching inverters, multilevel inverters, buck/boost converters, capacitors, magnetic materials, and
other materials for improved power electronics.
Technology Status/Applications
Transportation: Displacement of internal combustion engines and enabling power electronic components
for alternate
to standard vehicle

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 35

CEQ 013981

alternators).
Industrial: Enabling components for more efficient motors and introduction of adjustable speed drives to
match drives to loads for fans, pumps, and compressors.
Utilities: Power-quality systems, high-voltage DC power transmission systems.
Renewable energy: Inverters to convert DC power from photovoltaics and wind turbines to AC power.
Power supplies: Converters embedded in systems to alter the electrical power from one type to another.
Defense: Grid and equipment interfaces to allow for mobile and emergency backup of transmission and
distribution infras.
Line
Energy
Source

Control&
Communication
Module

DC-DC Converter
Module

Inverter Module

Communication 1/0

Power electronics modular building

blocks.

RD&D Goals
Build a power electronic system on a base of modules. Each module or block is a subsystem containing
several components, and each one has common power terminals and communication connections. A
systems engineer can pick up one module to hook up to the system without knowing much detail of what is
inside the module. Each manufacturer can perfect their blocks and work more independently of the other
manufacturers once standardized ratings have been determined.
The figure represents a strategy in which the interface is partitioned into four basic blocks with each one
performing a different system function: (1) DC-DC converter; (2) power electronics, (3) output interface
and filtering; and (4) control, communication, and metering. Each of the power blocks will ha~e their own
control and communication interface such that a group of modules can coordinate their actions to act as an
ideal interface to interconnect distributed energy resources to the utilitx system. Also, with each block
having its own control and communication interface, these modules can be combined to form a multilevel
configuration as well as other series/parallel connections as necessary to meet the voltage and current
requirements for the particular installation. ln addition, this approach will allow for future capacity
increases, enhancement to functionality, redundancy, and reconfiguration.
RD&D Challenges
Smaller, lighter, more efficient, and lower-cost inverters.
Increase reliability and lower cost.
.
Im roved materials and devices: Solders, capacitors, ferrite semiconductors, low-loss drivers, thermal
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 36

CEQ 013982

management, passive devices, DC disconnects, connectors, and new semiconductor materials such as
silicon carbide.
Increase modularity of power electronic components.
Present-day power electronics exhibit a number of serious problems and limitations. Some of the most
significant of these are ( 1) the need for difficult-to-meet switching device ratings (and associated reliability
issues), (2) the need for transformers (and associated design limitations), (3) high cost, (4) control
limitations, (5) limitations on voltages that can be attained, (6) creation of high levels of harmonic
distortion.
US CAR is pursuing the development of electric devices as an enabling technology.
Developing power electronic building blocks .
The federal initiatives in transmission and distribution system long-range R&D were canceled .
RD&D Activities
The DOE Energy Storage Program supports research in power electronics for megawatt-level inverters, fast
semiconductor switches, sensors, and devices for Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS). Projects in
these areas recently won two R&D I 00 awards.
Office ofNaval Research and DOE have a joint program to develop power electronic building blocks.
The military is developing more electricity-intensive aircraft, ships, and land vehicles, providing power
electronic spin-offs for infrastructure applications.
The Superconductivity Technology Program funds R&D of more efficient motor technology under the
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative.
'
Recent Progress
Soft-switching inverter topologies have been recently developed for improved inverter efficiency,
reliability, and performance.
High-power solid-state inverters with improved efficiency and reduced cost and size have been developed .
A multilevel inverter has been developed, which when deployed will allow 26% more energy to be
extracted from photovoltaic or other renewable energy sources.
....
Commercialization and Deployment Activities
USCAR h!lS been formed so that Ford, GM, and Chrysler can better implement technologies developed.
Major U.S. motor and drive manufacturers are beginning to expand their product lines to include improved
power electronics.
U.S. power semiconductor manufacturers are expanding product lines and facilities to regain market
position from foreign competitors.
..
. ..
:, .... ' ;::.
Potential Benefits -
' .
Carbon Reductions
The use of improved power electronics leads to carbon reductions in virtually all electrical generation
technologies and energy end-use technologies.
.
..
... .: 1. ~
..
Key Challeiiees .~ ;.'<.: . ."':i. ...... /~ ., ' . . : ... . .. .. ... : .... ..
Enhance the technology base by addressing critical technical barriers and developing enablingtechnologies
that are in the pre-competitive stages.
Government/industry partnerships encourage commercialization of technologies developed in long-range
R&D programs.

'

'"'

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 37

CEQ 013983

1.4 INDUSTRY
1.4.1 ENERGY CONVERSION AND UTILIZATION
Technology Descriptjon
Energy conversion and use account for a large share of carbon emissions from the industrial sector. An
integrated systems approach to energy conversion and utilization incorporating the best technologies could
significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve industrial competitiveness. Energy
utilization gains can be achieved through the increased adoption of existing technology in the areas of
combined-cycle power generation and cogeneration of power and heat, referred to as combined cooling,
heating, and power (CHP). Many opportunities also exist for improving the efficiency of energy generation,
including advanced combustion technologies, fuel cells, gasification technologies, and advanced steam cycles.
GHG reductions also can be achieved through increased use of fuels with low or no net GHG products, such
as biomass and hydrogen. Opportunities in energy utilization include making economical use of waste heat
and minimizing generation of low-level heat.
System Concepts
The industrial sector could significantly reduce GHG emissions by improving energy utilization
efficiency; switching to low-GHG fuels; gasifying waste materials to create useful fuels; and using highefficiency, distributed g~neration technologies with low-GHG emissions (such as fuel cells).
Modern design techniques and an integrated systems
approach to mill or plant design could minimize the
generation of low-level heat that cannot be used
economically.
Representative Technologies
Energy conversion technologies include high-efficiency
burners and boilers; advanced steam cycles; oxy-fuel
combustion, with or without flue gas recirculation;
gasification of in-plant process streams and cofiring of
biomass with fossil fuels; hydrogen-enriched combustion and
fuel cells; and reforming of liquid and gaseous fuels to
hydrogen, combined with carbon management. As an
A revolutionary super boiler now under
example of DOE-supported technology, ITP is working with
development should substantially reduce
the Gas Technology Institute and other industry partners to
energy use and carbon emissions throughout
develop a revolutionary super boiler that could save several
industry.
h~ndred trillion Btu of energy annually and reduce emissions
(see inset).

Energy utilization technologies include on-site combined heat and power systems and waste heat-recovery
~
systems.

Advances in heat exchangers and furnace design also will allow for the more efficient utilization of energy.

Technology Status/Applications

Technologies with higher efficiencies have been demonstrated in several applications, but have not been
uniformly adopted by industry.

Energy-generation technologies currently used by industry typically have thermal efficiencies ranging
from 25% to 55%; the next generation of energy-generation technologies promises substantially higher
thermalllfficiencies, perhaps ranging from 45% to 80%. This efficiency improvement would significantly
reduce the amount of fuel required for industrial heat and power, thus reducing GHG emissions.
Additionally, a
ssive development and de lo ment of distributed on-site generation technologies

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 38

CEQ 013984

could avoid transmission and distribution losses, which average approximately 7%.
Use of in-plant wastes and residues from production processes to generate energy is a promising area for
reducing energy intensity and GHG emissions. RD&D is needed to increase the use and cost-effectiveness
of this technology.
Current Research, Development, and Demonstration
.. -

:'>

RD&D Goals
Effect an aggressive transition to highly energy-efficient, on-site generation technologies, such as CHP
systems, improved boilers and furnaces, and low- or zero-carbon fuels such as natural gas, biomass, or
hydrogen to support the overall DOE Industrial Technologies Program goal ofcontributing to a 30%
reduction in the energy intensity (Btu per unit of industrial output as compared to 2002) of energy-intensive
industries by 2020. Reductions in energy intensity could significantly reduce industrial GHG emissions.
By 2006, demonstrate a >95% efficient packaged boiler; by 2010, packaged boilers will be commercially
available with thermal efficiencies l 0%-12% higher than conventional technology.
Continue to focus technology development efforts on key energy-intensive industries, which collectively
account for three-quarters of energy use by the industrial sector.
Assist industry efforts to develop advanced glass technologies that will reduce the gap between actual
melting energy use (more than II million Btu to melt a ton of glass as measured in 1996) and the theoretical
minimum (2.5 million Btu per ton) by 50% by 2020.
RD&D Challenges
Better understanding of enabling technologies will allow developments of processes and equipment for
improved energy recovery.

Advanced, low- or zero-GHG-emission, power-generation technologies must be made economically

competitive.
Technical advances are required in gasification technology and noncombustion, high-efficiency, powergeneration techniques such as fuel cells (requiring advances in fuel-reforming technologies).
RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures
DOE is developing and demonstrating advanced, high-efficiency combustion systems, waste heatutilization technologies, a systems approach to mill or plant design, and gasification technologies.
RD&D activities related to this pathway are sponsored by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program, and other federal
agencies. This pathway will work closely with these programs and also leverage past investments.
DOE funding for R&D in this area totaled about $14.2 million in FY 2003 and approximately $8.5 million
of the FY 2004 budget request.

Receii t Progress

.:. ..... :
..
.

-:

..

'

The forced internal recirculation burner is beneficial to all industries that generate steam from natural gas
burners. This new technology combines several techniques to dramatically reduce NOx and carbon
monoxide emissions from natural gas combustion without sacrificing boiler efficiency.

Waste heat was tapped at two refineries to power absorption refrigeration units. The power generated was
used to chill waste fuel streams that contained substantial amounts of propane or heavier hydrocarbons.
With chilling, the refineries were able to condense and recover about half of the valuable hydrocarbons in
the waste streams for increased profits; and, at the same time, reduce the amount of gas flared off as
waste, reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 39

CEQ 013985

Commercialization and Deployment ActiVtti~i .

. .

.,

.. ,.

Industry is already making substantial investments in commercializing and deploying economical

technologies: combusting wastes and residues, fuel switching in combustion systems, employing oxy-fuel
combustion, and energy cascading from high temperature to lower temperature uses within plants.
Availability of capital and competition for R&D and demonstration funds will impact deployment of new
technology. Cost competitiveness with existing technologies will be achieved when the newer
technologies have completed their R&D cycles.
Potential Benefits
GHG Reductions
Based on reductions in combustible fuel use, the potential for reducing carbon emissions in 2025 has been
estimated at 7 MMTCE- nearly equal to all carbon emissions produced by the U.S. metal-casting and
glass industries.
Markets
Markets include all manufacturing industries that use boilers or process heating. In 1998, process heating
and boiler fuel accounted for at least 6.8 quads of fossil energy consumption in the manufacturing sector
alone. Significant potential exists for additional or more efficient on-site generation of electricity in
manufacturing.
Key Technolo2Y Challen2es
Achieving performance and durability levels for more efficient equipment while retaining a competitive cost
position in order to foster industry adoption of clean and efficient technologies.
Reducing capital and operating costs for advanced energy-conversion technologies such as fuel cells and
advanced steam cycles.
Establishing sustainable partnerships among researchers, suppliers, manufacturers, and end users to
accelerate innovation and ensure that the technologies perform well in a systems environment.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 40

CEQ 013986

1.4.2 RESOURCE RECOVERY AND UTILIZATION

Technolo
Resource recovery and utilization
Ught hydrocarbon
technologies help minimize waste
purge
from industrial processes, reducing
energy and material requirements.
Wastes include materials, process
byproducts, chemical reactants,
gases, solvents, diluents, wastepaper,
Oil
plastics, cooling water, and more. .
These materials can be reprocessed
for use as feedstocks, used to make
different products, burned as fuels, or
L.cw-pressure
recycled. These practices mitigate
purge
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
improving plant efficiency and
eliminating the energy required to
treat wastes and to produce the
displaced feedstocks. One example of recovery
Recovery of oletins such as ethylene and propylene reduces
and reuse is a membrane separation process
the use of fuel and feedstocks.
being developed to recover valuable chemicals
from gas streams that are currently burned as
low-value fuel. The process will efficiently and economically separate light hydrocarbons (ethane, methane,
ethylene, propylene) and hydrogen for use as chemical feedstocks, which are two to three times more
valuable than the fuel.
System Concepts
Resource recovery and utilization involves cradle-to-grave stewardship over industrial products. In the
example cited, the recovery of feedstock chemicals mitigates C0 2 emissions because it increases product
yield and displaces some of the fuel energy initially required to produce the feedstock, which is a
petroleum fraction.

The approximate 30 million tons of ironmaking and steelmaking byproducts generated each year- oxide
dusts, sludges, scale, and slags- contain nearly 7 million tons of valuable iron units. Currently, about SO%
of this volume is recovered and recycled. Research leading to increased internal recycling of these residues
can increase the steel industry's primary yield while reducing disposal costs and saving energy.

Resource recovery and utilization can involve advanced separations, new chemistries, improved catalysts,
advanced materials, optimal process and engineering design, sensors and controls, post-consumer
processing, market sensitivity, and close coordination among producers, users, and post-consllmer
processors.
This pathway includes technologies that impact the other three industry technology pathways, particularly
energy conversion and utilization and industrial process efficiency.
Representative Technologies
Recovery technologies include advanced separations, new and improved chemistries, sensors and controls,
capture of methane (coal beds, landfills, agricultural), and the capture of carbon monoxide and NOx.
Reuse technologies include recycling; new and improved chemistries; and closed-loop, sustainable plant
design.
Im roved understandin of fundamental chemist

allows use of carbon dioxide and other recovered

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 41

CEQ 013987

byproducts as feedstocks. Technologies include C 1 chemistry (single carbon) to produce chemicals from
carbon dioxide, and chemistries to. create fuels from plastics and rubber.
Component technologies include advanced separations, improved chemistry, improved catalysts, advanced
materials, optimal process and engineering design, sensors and controls, and post-consumer processing.
An example of DOE-supported component technology is the recovery of thermoplastics via froth flotation,
which enables the recycling of plastics from auto shredder waste.
Technology Status/Applications
Many industries make a concerted effort to reuse wastes to minimize the high cost of handling and disposal.
Others, like the refining and pulp-making industries, rely heavily on byproduct fuels produced on site.
However, there are still many opportunities to reuse wastes and byproducts that are not captured because
technology does not exist, is currently not economical, or is not QrnCtical for other reasons.

Current Research, Development, and Demonstration

RD&D Goals
R&D goals target a range of improved recycling/recovery efficiencies. For example, in the chemicals
industry the goal is to improve recyclability of materials by as much as 30%.
Identity new and improved processes to use wastes or byproducts; improve separations to capture and
recycle materials, byproducts, solvents, and process water; identifY new markets for recovered materials,
including ash and other residuals such as scrubber sludges.
RD&D Challenges

Specifically target the energy-intensive U.S. industries and contribute to their goals of reducing energy,
water use, and toxic and pollutant dispersion per unit of output.

Enhance understanding of advanced computing; modeling capabilities for improved process and
engineering design; and technology transfer.

Develop efficient and economical separation processes~ demonstrate the viability of new markets; improve
sensing and control capabilities; analyze process and engineering design for optimized materials use; and
develop durable advanced materials.

'

RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures

Solicitations by the Industries of the Future program and the National Industrial Competitiveness Through
Energy, Environment, and Economics program have funded projects to improve energy efficiency and
reduce waste; participants include industry, DOE laboratories, small businesses, and academia.
Ongoing activities include novel techniques for effective separation of materials in industrial streams for
recovery and reuse, recycling of water and other liquid and solid-waste streams, recycling of wood
byproducts and pulping waste into high-value products, and recycling of problematic wastes such as
sludges, refractories, slag, and mill scale.

DOE is working with CQ Inc. and other partners to improve energy recovery and reduce waste in coal
processing. By adding a binding agent into the process, mills can improve the physical characteristics of
the coal to create a more acceptable fuel, improve processing efficienc~. and reduce environmental impact.
Federal RD&D expenditures are required for precompetitive, higher-risk R&D that could not be funded by
individual companies without federal support. R&D DOE funding totaled about $10.6 million in FY 2003
and about $6.4 million of the FY 2004 budget request.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 42

CEQ 013988

1:

Recent Progress

A new process has been developed to allow the recovery and reuse of caprolactam from waste carpet.
Discar9ed nylon carpets are converted back to virgin-quality caprolactam and used to make new carpets,
saving nearly 700,000 barrels of oil annually. The process also saves fuel energy and reduces the amount of
carpet that winds up in landfills.

Researchers have developed a process called froth flotation to cost-effectively separate thermoplastics of
various densities without using hazardous chemicals. Recovering and separating various waste plastics can
help industries reduce their costs for raw materials, and the process is environmentally sound as it reduces
the amount of waste plastic sent to landfills.

DOE supported development of an energy-efficient process employing pressure swing adsorption

refrigeration (PSA) for the recovery of olefins from polyolefin plant vent gases. There already are two
commercial applications of the PSA technology. Widespread commercialization could yield a recovery rate
of more than 17 million pounds of olefins per year, as well as energy and emission reductions.

Commercialization and Deployment Activities

Technologies that compete with resource recovery and utilization include waste disposal in landfills,
incinerators, and approved hazardous waste-disposal sites.

The economics of resource recovery and utilization technologies are an important factor in deployment.
Markets and applications for recovered materials must be well-defined if commercialization is to be
successful.

Potential Benefits
GHG Reductions

In 2025, it has been estimated that the carbon reduction potential for resource recovery is 5 MMTCE. This
is based on projected reductions in combustible energy use achieved through the DOE Industrial
Technologies Program technology portfolio, estimated to be about 281 trillion Btu in 2025. he energy
embodied in waste streams throughout industry is much higher than this value; and, if recaptured, could
have substantial energy benefits. More than 7.3 quads was consumed as feedstocks in manufacturing in
1998 -recovering just I 0% of this could potentially represent 0.9 quads of process heat and power, or
about 18 MMTCE.

Markets

Markets for recovered materials are as diverse as the manufacturing industry and the products it creates .
Significant commercial success already has been achieved in various markets, such as the use of recovered
post-use steel, aluminum, paper, glass, and plastic. Several new market opportunities are available in these
-as well as other- areas and are just now being explored.

Key -Techriology ChaUe~ges

Developing economical and energy-efficient technologies and methods for recovery of valuable
components from waste streams to use market drivers in reducing industrial energy and material
requirements.

Economically separating water, oil, and other common contaminants from valuable components of wastes
from metal processing industries (e.g., dusts, sludges, slags).

Devising techniques for converting low-value wastes into useful products or feedstocks for industry or enduse applications.
..

Demonstrating the quality, performance, and overall technical feasibility of new chemistries, processes,
and recovered products.
~

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 43

CEQ 013989

1.4.3 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS EFFICIENCY

T

Industrial process efficiency is affected by a

number of factors: technology design, age
and sophistication of equipment, materials of
construction, mechanical and chemical
constraints, inadequate or overly complex
designs, and external factors such as
operating environment and maintenance and
repair practices. In many cases, processes
use a lot more energy than the theoretical
minimum energy requirement. In the
chemical industry, for example, distillation
columns operate at efficiencies as low as 20~
30%, and require substantially more energy
than the theoretical minimum. In this case,
thermodynamic and equipment limitations
(e.g., height of the column) directly impact
efficiency and increase energy use.
A new one-step furnace operation could revolutionize iron
making and substantially reduce energy use and associated
Technologies under development focus on
emissions.
removing or reducing process inefficiencies,
lowering energy consumption for heat and power, and reducing the associated greenhouse gas emissions. One
example is a revolutionary steelmaking process that uses a one-step furnace operation to produce high~quality
iron, using substantially less energy than conventional processes. The process under development eliminates
the need for the coke oven plant, which is a significant source of emissions in steelmaking.
System Concepts

Process efficiency is improved by optimizing individual processes, eliminating process steps, or

substituting processes within the principal manufacturing steps for primary conversion of raw materials,
secondary or value-added processing, and product separation. Optimizing the overall manufacturing chain
also improves process efficiency, including the material and energy balance.
Representative Technologies

Process redesign can eliminate energy-intensive process steps, as demonstrated by the one-step furnace
operation under development for ironmaking. Smaller changes to a process can also result in increased
process efficiency. For example, DOE is supporting research to modify steel-casting methods that will
reduce energy use and produce cleaner, lower-weight castings of improved quality.

Advanced separation technologies include membrane separation and pressure swing adsorption, where
separation is facilitated by novel materials and is energy-efficient.

Catalysts with higher selectivities enable the conversion of a larger fraotion of the feedstock into the
desired product rather than the less desirable byproduct. Lower byproduct generation also can positively
impact the energy consumption of separation and purification technologies.

Alternative processes involve developing a new route to the same product and can incorporate advanced
separation technologies and new and improved catalysts. An example ofthis is the process currently under
development to convert natural gas to acetic acid using a new biocatalyst.
Technology Status/Applications

Com

CEQ 013990

use today, but many need stronger economics or technical viability to increase their attractiveness to
industry. The biggest opportunities to reduce GHG emissions in industrial processing will come from
introducing revolutionary technologies as replacements for conventional operations. Examples include
direct steelmaking and use of membranes as substitutes for energy-intensive distillation separations. Other
options include developing new processes that increase product yields, reduce byproducts and wastes, or
use alternative manufacturing pathways.

Current Research, Development, and Demonstration

RD&D Goals

Between 2002 and 2020, contribute to a 30% improvement in energy intensity by the energy-intensive
industries through the development and implementation of new and improved processes, materials, and
manufacturing practices.

By 2010, in partnership with industry, assist efforts to implement advanced water-removal technologies in
papennaking resulting in an energy efficiency improvement of 10% in paper production compared to
conventional industry practices.

By 2010, develop advanced aluminum production technologies, such as carbothermic reduction, noncarbon
inert anodes, and wettable cathodes, for a 25%-30% energy reduction- and, in some cases, elimination of
greenhouse gas emissions from primary production.

By 20 I0, develop mining technologies that reduce the energy intensity required to crush a short ton of rock
by 20%-30% (from 1998 baseline).

By 20 I0, in partnership with industry, assist efforts to develop a commercially viable technology that will
eliminate the use of energy-intensive coke as a feedstock in the steelmaking process.

In partnership with industry, assist efforts to enable major technical advances in the metal-casting industry
to implement new design techniques and practices, increase yield, and reduce scrap and energy use .

In partnership with industry, assist efforts to develop separation and new process chemistry technologies
that will increase energy efficiency by up to 30% by 2020, compared to conventional1998 technologies:
Develop advanced chemical reactors, including short contact-time reactors, reactors for nonthermal
processes (plasma, microwave, photochemical), reactors for alternative media or dry processing, and
flexible processing units; improve catalytic processes including selective oxidation, hydrocarbon
activation, byproduct and waste minimization, stereo-selective synthesis, functional olefin polymerization,
and alkylation.

Develop advanced separations technology, including membrane separations (advanced inorganic

membranes, ruggedized membranes, selective membranes, anti-fouling), reactive separations, and
separative reactors for use across various industries (chemicals, refining, pulp and paper).
In partnership with industry, assist efforts to reduce energy consumption in carburizing processes, heat
treatment of castings, welding processes, and aluminum alloy-forging processes.

RD&D Challenges

Specific R&D needs are unique to each individual industry. In general, R&D challenges include economic
and innovative separation techniques, improved understanding and prediction of chemical and material
behavior, materials fabrication methods, in situ and/or rapid analytical protocols and process screening
procedures, advanced computational tools, and more efficient process design.

RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures

RD&D activities relating to these technology areas are sponsored by DOE, the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
DOE has funded projects to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste; participants include industry,
DOE laboratories, small businesses, and academia.
~

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 45

CEQ 013991

..

Ongoing activities include development of technology to enable more efficient processes in the following
industries: aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, steel, metal casting, mining, and supporting
industries such as forging, welding, and others. The primary focus of R&D is the development of
economic, energy~efficient, commercially viable, and environmentally sound manufacturing technology.
Industrial partners are involved with R&D early on to facilitate deployment and commercialization.
Michigan Technological University is leading a dozen industrial partners in developing a Total Ore
Processing Integration and Management System. This novel system will allow mine and mill personnel to
respond rapidly to upstream and downstream changes to optimize the entire mineral processing stream,
reducing mill and mine energy use by 10%.
Federal RD&D expenditures are required for precompetitive, higher~risk R&D that could not be funded by
individual companies without federal support. DOE R&D funding for industrial process efficiency totaled
about $24.8 million in FY 2003 and $14.9 million of the FY 2004 budget request.
Recent Progress
Researchers have developed and tested a nozzle that generates a high-temperature, high-momentum
oxygen jet, which provides superior mixing and combustion conditions for blast furnace coal injection in
steelmaking. This technology enables increased coal injection into the furnace, allowing steelmakers to
displace some of the coke typically used in blast furnaces with coal and thus reduce fugitive emissions
associated with coke-making.
A fiber-optic sensor for on-line measurement of paper basis weight has been developed and tested to
improve wet-end control in papermaking and produce fine paper with more uniform basis weight. The
sensor enables continuous measurements across the full paper sheet and wiH minimize raw material and
energy requirements in the paper industry.

DOE has supported the development of a portable gas-imaging device for an advanced leak-detection

system designed for use in the petroleum and petrochemical industries. The portable gas leak detector
reduces the amount of time required for leak surveys, enabling inspections to be performed more
frequently than with current detection methods. Gas leaks can be identified and repaired more quickly,
reducing emissions.
Commercialization and Deployment Activities

Applications of many of the described technologies already have an impact in the marketplace. For
example, catalytic processes are responsible for about 75% by value of all chemical and petroleum
processing products. Catalytic processes generate about $9008 in products annually. The ready acceptance
of certain applications of these technologies reduces barriers to implementation of process improvements
or their application in new processes. Powerful drivers still exist for implementing advancements in these
technologies for GHG reduction. The estimated total annual consumption of energy (fuels and electricity)
by the U.S. chemical process industries is 5.8 quads; nearly 43% of that (2.5 quads) is required for
separation processes, including distillation, extraction, adsorption, crystallization, and membrane-based
technologies. Any process facilitating such separations will result in enormous savings of both energy and
waste. Given the scale of many relevant industrial processes, the chief barriers to technology deployment
are likely to be the capital expenditures required for any substantial pro'cess modifications.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 46

CEQ 013992

Potential Benefits

'.'. ; -: .. :: .>"' ..

GHG Reductions
The potential GHG reductions from improvements in industrial process efficiency are estimated to be 13
MMTCE in 2025, based on reductions in combustible fuel use. This projection is based on energy savings
achieved through the DOE Industrial Technologies Program technology portfolio, estimated to be about
656 trillion Btu in 2025. Efficiency improvements achieved throughout industry could be as high as 20% of
current energy used for heat and power (about 17.8 quads in 1998), which represents about 63 MMTCE.
Markets

The markets for these technologies are industry-specific. Targets of opportunity are the basic industries,
including aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, mining, steel, and crosscutting industries such as
forging, metal-casting, and welding.
Key Technolol!Y ChallenJZes

Establishing solid governmentfindustry partnerships for R&D in early stages to ensure that industry
priorities and constraints are clearly communicated to researchers from the outset.
Developing or enhancing fundamental understanding of chemical and physical phenomena essential to
design of innovative and economical processes.
_
Adequate demonstration of technical and economic viability of novel processes to build industry
confidence in a new technology.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program- Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 47

CEQ 013993

1.4.4 ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

Technology Description
Improvements in the enabling technologies used broadly throughout industry can provide new operational
capabilities, as well as significant energy and carbon savings. Greenhouse gases can be reduced by increasing
the efficiency of industrial processes, reducing waste and rework of products, and achieving a longer and more
controlled operating lifetime for industrial components. Enabling technologies will increase understanding of
the processes and systems required to make products, facilitate improvement,s, and enable new manufacturing
processes. The technologies range from advanced materials, sensors and controls systems, and chemical
pathways, to systems and product-oriented design and processing that incorporate environmental and energy
benefits in their initial and overall implementation. These types of activities will impact the reduction and more
efficient use of energy in current and new industrial processes.
System Concepts
Enabling technologies will complement and be developed
cooperatively with other technology pathways,
particularly the energy conversion and utilization- as
well as the industrial process efficiency -pathways.
Enabling technologies will have a positive impact in many
industrial areas.
Increased understanding of processes, development of
new materials and control methods, and innovative
techniques for fabricating products will impact the entire
industrial sector.
Representative Technologies
o

Advanced materials with attributes such as improved corrosion resistance and the ability to operate at
higher temperatures and pressures enable more efficient industrial processes. Material categories under
investigation include degradation-resistant materials, materials for separations, metal alloys, ceramics,
composites, polymers, and nano-materials.

Sensors, controls, and automation enable more robust industrial process operations. Areas of emphasis
include real~time, nondestructive sensing and monitoring; wireless technologies; and distributed
intelligence to interpret and integrate data from various sensor types to aid in optimizing process control.

Other enabling technologies with potentially large industrial impacts include new chemical pathways,
combinatorial methods, and modeling and simulations.
Technology Status/Applications

Advances are being made continuously in the development of new materials, including hightemperature
materials, new coatings, smart materials, nano-materials, films, and materials with reactive or selfassembly properties. Abundant opportunities remain for developing new materials that can ma.ke a
significant impact on industrial energy use and emissions (e.g., catalysts, inorganic-organic hybrids, thin
film composites, refractories, sensor materials).

Intelligent controls have been implemented in industry, but are still technically inadequate in a number of
areas. Further impacts can be made in global and remote sensing, and nondestructive on-line evaluation of
process parameters and equipment.

New computational techniques are emerging every day, but have yet to keep pace with the phenomenal
increase in computing power. Experimental methods based on combinatorial techniques- such as those
used in drug discovery -could revolutionize the way new materials and products are developed, but are
on! slow! bein ada ted to industrial use.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003- Page 48

CEQ 013994

The use of model-based control systems and neural networks that can "learn" and improve process/energy
efficiency will lower emissions of GHG from manufacturing ~rocesses.

Current Research, Development, and Demonstration

RD&D Goals
Develop new enabling technologies that meet a range of cost goals depending on the technologies and on
the applications where they are to be used. Cost targets when considered on a system basis are expected to
be between 0.5 to 2 times those of typical technologies.
Develop new classes of advanced materials and sensor and automation technologies.

By 20 I 0, in partnership with industry, develop technology necessary for the aluminum industry to move
from batch production to a continuous process using new sensor systems, starting with a demonstration of
the technology in the aluminum industry in. 2003.

By 2010, in partnership with industry, develop for commercial adoption 20 new materials for hightemperature, harsh, corrosive, and other industrial environments.

RD&D Challenges

Develop functional and protective materials for sensors, actuators, and other devices deployed in industrial
environments.

Develop materials property/engineering databases for materials used in industrial applications.

Validate mathematical models to enable improved and integrated process design and operations.

RD&D Activities and Federal Expenditures

Development of industrial system components including high-temperature and corrosion-resistant
production systems used for melting, heat treating, or combustion systems; chemicals and pulp- and paperprocessing systems; and boilers and gasifiers.

Ongoing R&D activities on enabling technologies include the Advanced Industrial Materials and Sensors
and Automation projects in DOE. Additional applied research activities are in the Department of
Commerce Advanced Technology Program and in the Environmental Protection Agency. Basic research
activities are in DOE's Office of Science and National Science Foundation.

DOE R&D funding totaled about $21.2 million in FY 2003 and approximately $12.8 million in the FY
2004 budget request.

"'

..

.:: .'

Rece:Q.t Progress

Nickel aluminides have been commercialized in several applications. For example, in heat-treating
operations, nickel aluminides are being used by Delphi Automotive Systems in heating trays and fixtures.
Nickel aluminides are also being used in forging dies and steel transfer rolls.

Advances have been achieved in cathodic arc deposition technology; continuous fiber ceramic..composite
immersion tubes; ceramic composite radiant burner screens; and new bearings for high-performance
machinery.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 49

CEQ 013995

Commerciltlizatlon and Deployntedt Aettviti~

.... '

. .. . ,..

':

.. : -~ : : ..
:.::

-~

The industrial segment of the economy is substantial, and enabling technologies are impacting every
industrial sector. New materials are being introduced in the manufacturing of steel; new measurement
systems and in situ temperature measurements in harsh environments have been developed and are being
used in industry; understanding of chemicals processes is leading to improved processes; and new
capabilities in design and modeling methodologies are reducing the energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions of production plants.
The introduction of new technologies is often sensitive to initial cost, and cost benefits must be evaluated
based on life-cycle benefits.
..
.. ..
Potential Benefits

GHG Reductions
In 2025, the carbon reduction potential for DOE Industrial Technologies Program-sponsored enabling
technologies is estimated at 11 MMTCE, based on reductions in combustible fuel use.
Markets
IS
Applications for enabling technologies are many and encompass the various industrial segments of the
economy. Every industry segment will benefit from the activities, and the efforts will be coordinated with
other pathways.
Key Technology Challenges

..

Scaling up of technologies from the laboratory to commerciaf application while achieving anticipated
economies of scale, maintaining performance goals, and ensuring component integrity.
Achieving established targets for equipment service life and performance levels to attract industry interest
and investment.
Assuring compatibility with real-world manufacturing environment to avoid degrading performance of
existing processing and production systems.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program -Key Technologies for the Near and Long Term
Review Draft, September 2003 -Page 50

CEQ 013996

.Meusage

Page I of I

Hannegan, Bryan J.
From:

Hannagan, Bryan J.

Sent:

Thursday, October 02, 200311:30 AM

'Friedrichs, Mark'; Farrell, Amy L.; Kerrigan Bork (~orris (E-mail); Jim Hrubovcak (E
(b) (6)
mail}; Reid
Chrlstine_L._Dobridg...._McDonald,
Christine A.;
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
1re~:~~~~l\!!!!.~k:~bf1ckel@oce.usda.gov;
~an
Reifsny (b) (6) e
.~=:
(E-mail); Cooney, Ph"
;
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Ke~mE~vta~ios;.dcli.ac>v: James.R.Mahone
(b) (6)
pOE~@~JDpia.U'SO~I.QCIV; lndur_Goklany@ios.doi.QOV
Nickerson, William; Bowers, Mike; Strauss, Neal; Fraas, Arthur G.; Noe, Paul R.; Anderson, Margot

To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: Revised Draft Proposed General Guidelines for 1605b, version 9
\

See attached minor comments on pgs. 14, 18, 23,. 25, 30, 44, 45, 50, 52, and 63. Major concern js to agree upon
frequency of reporting "ongoing, annual" vs. "ongoing, periodic". CEQ prefers the former- since ~annual reports
are expected.

Congratulations to Mark and Margot for a great job in synthesizing results of our meetings!
Bryan Hannagan
CEQ

Gree~ho~se Effects/1605(b)
General Gutdehnes Review and Roll-Out

10/2/2003

CEQ 014040

share of total emissions or absolute quantity of emissions), anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emission sources within the entity's defmed boundaries. Entity-wide reports must also
cover all significant emission sinks. Entity-wide reports must encompass, at minimum,
all six greenhouse gases specified in the guidelines, whether emitted directly by the
entity's facilities and vehicle~_O! _il}qi~e_c!IY _it~ fl}~g~n_e!l!t!o_n_~f_p_U;!'i!.a~~~ ~~e~t_rtcjty1 ____ ,- ' '

Deleted: wilhin the bowularies of the

;:cn::n::ty===============:::::

, { Deleted:

steam or hot (or chilled) water used by the entity. Other gases..Q!:..211J!i~~~ that h,tlVe been _, ''
, { Deleted: and indirec1emissions

demonstrated to have significant, quantifiable climate forcing effects (e.g. black sootl_ ___ ,'
could be added, at the discretion of the reporter, but must be reported separately and
could only be included in registered emission reductions if explicitly recognized by DOE
Technical Guidelines (to be proposed subsequently), Indirect
emissions
other......
than those -""\ , '''
==
=
\

specifically cited in the Guidelines also could be reported separately. but not registered.

I
\

Permitting reports to include direct or indirect greenhouse gases (and particles) that are

I
I

Deleted: For example, emission

reductions associlled with reduced
emissions ofblaclc so01 could be reported
f sisnificant, quantifiable climate forcing
effects can be demonslrllled, but such
reductions could only be regist=d if
black soot was added lo the sases
idcnlificd in the <luidelines, after public
notice and opportwlity to commenl.

Inserted: For example, emission

not specifically identified in the guidelines may.. ~o_ll!P..i!c_a!~ ~h~ _r~~f!i!lg _!l!lg !~':i~'.Y ____ ,

reductions associated with reduced

emissions of black soot could be reported
if sisnificanl, quantifiable dimale forcing
effects can be demonstralcd, but such
process . .h,.l} ~l~<:m~~iye_ ~ppr<?~~h_l~t!g_h~ _!)~ .t<.? ~~s!f!~t r~~O.I!S t_o_o_nly ~~o_s~ ~!r.e:?t_ ~n_d_ _ . _\
I
reductions could only be regislerCd if
I\
black sool was added 10 the sases
\I
indirect emissions that are specified in the guidelines and eligible for registration. DOE
,I 1I identified in the <luidelines, after public
notice and opportunil)llo commcnl.
I'
II
Indirect emissions other than those
1
solicits comments on whether such a more restrictive approach would be preferable.
1
specifically cited in the Guidelines also
I'
could be reported sepanllely, but nol
\ I
I '. registered.
I

E. Entity-Wide Reporting of Emissions Inventories. To be eligible to register

\
I

Deleted: will
Deleted: Since revised guidelines

emission reductions, entities with substantial emissions (an annual average in excess of

would nol permit the emission reduclions

associated wi1h such emissions to be
registered, a

Deleted: carbon dioxide

their emissions and sequestration. Such inventories would provide a basis for assessing
the significance of reported emission reductions relative to the entity's total emissions.
F. Entity-wide Emission Reductions. To register emissions reductions, entities
with average annual emissions over I0,000 tons of C02 equivalent would be required to

14

CEQ 014041

entity); or were the result of shifts in operations or activity from one part of the entity to
another part of the entity, or to outside the boundaries of the entity. Entities would be
required to report each emission reduction and sequestration calculation, indicate the
types of actions taken that resulted in the reported emission reduction, and explain the
selection of each indicator of output used. Comments are invited on the appropriateness
of each of the methods described below and on the defmitions provided in the proposed
Guidelines. Additional guidance on each of these methods will be provided in the
Technical Guidelines, including lists of possible output indicators, calculation methods
for determining reductions associated with agricultural, forestry and geologic
sequestration, methods and emission factors for calculating avoided emissions, and
project-based methods, among others .
I. Reductions in emissions intensity. as long as the reporting entity demonstrates
that the intensity metrics used are based on measured (or estimated) emissions and
measured indicators of output that accurately represent the physical (o.r, in some cases,
economic) output associated with the covered emissions, and that acquisitions, divestures
or changes in products have not contributed significantly to the reductions.
2. Absolute reductions in emissions, as long as the entity demonstrates that these
measured reductions were not caused by declines in its U.S. output.
3. Increased carbon storage (for actions within entity boundaries), as long as' the
entity demonstrates the sequestration measured or estimated represents a net increase in
the quantity stored by the entity and has not been re-released to the atmosphere 0naoino,
,'
10
~

"

;:._-

, ~ Deleted: continuous
~
::a;:;
, . Dehnea: periodic

~--~------------~
,f!l}}lUal ~ep.>~~~uJ~ p~ !~q_u_U:.e~). _______________________________________ _, ~ :'- ....
o_e_reted
__
:m
...
s;;...__ _ _ _ ___

18

CEQ 014042

Registering only reductions that are achieved after 2002 would focus the program
on those reductions most likely to contribute to the achievement of the President's goal
for reducing U.S. emissions intensity by 18% between 2002 and 2012. In addition,
because all of the data required to register reductions would be relatively recent, it would
help ensure that all entities have an equal opportunity to register emission reductions
under the new program. Nevertheless, the revised Guidelines would continue to permit
entities to report entity-wide emission reductions back to 1991, the earliest year permitted
by the authorizing statute, and reports that comply with the Guidelines would be made
publicly available by EIA. DOE solicits public comments on this approach and any
suggestions of alternative means of achieving the objectives outlined above.
M. Sustaining Entity Reports of Emissions and Emission Reductions. To register
emission reductions in any future year, an entity would be required to submit ongoing.
, { Deleted: continuous

J:innu_a! reP!'!!~ ~~~t _d9~u~~'::lt. t_!t~ .!l~t, P!.ll)1~!~tlv~ _e}I!i~~i<?J! ~~d_up!i~l)~ ~cJtjc:~e_!i_r~ta!iy~ !~ _, '
the entity's base year (or base period). Only additions to cumulative emission reductions
(relative to the chosen base year or base period) would be recognized in future years.
This requirement would limit the ability of entities to register transitory reductions that
,

are offset by emission increases in subsequent years. Ongoing, annuaL[ep~I}!!l..!ti~ !l~S!J __ _ ,_':-

--

Deleted: periodic
Deleted: continuous

In5erted:" periodic

necessary to ensure sequestration is being sustained.

N. EIA Database and Summary Reports. The EIA Administrator would establish
a public database including all data that meets the defmitional, measurement, calculation
and certification requirements of the revised Guidelines. The database would provide
summary information on each reporting entity's greenhouse gas emissions and its

23

CEQ 014043

emitters to report, but not register, the reductions resulting from individual actions or
projects affecting a part of the entity's emissionie.Y~I! !f:.f!l~X PQ':!l~ _ns>! ~~1!1~~~~~ !l!a! _ -.~ ,_',
'

they had achieved a net reduction in their total emissions, relative to their economic

''

comment: Examples provide~! here

IICIIIa1ly add confilsioa ralhcrtban clarity.
Deleted: (e.g., the iDSiallalion of an
eneraY efficientlighlins system),

' Inserted: (e.g., the installation of an

cneraY efficient ligblillg system)

output. DOE solicits comments on this approach and on possible alternatives to th.is
Deleted: (e.g., the roplacemenl of a

approach, including circumstances under which project-based or sub-entity reductions., ___,' ''

~:'!m~!;~ss by 8

Inserted: (e.g., the roplacemcnt oh

might be registered in the absence of net entity wide reductions.

fossil enell!Y powered process by a

renewable enll!Y process)

2. Treatment of Certain Small Emissions. The proposed Guidelines would permit

Deleted: 111thropogenic

reporters to exclude certain..e_!X!i~~i~I!S_ $~~ !!r~ _C9!,11.P_Il!~t~v~!Y-~J:!ll!l~- ~p~cjti~l!Y.1 !1!:1 ___ . _,_.': Deleted: ,aswellasallnon
111thropogenic emissions

entity could exclude emissions from multiple sources (and multiple gases) as long as the
total emissions excluded that did not exceed 3% ofits total emission inventory or 10,000
tons of C02 equivalent, whichever was smaller. This exclusion is intended to enable
entities to exclude small, and possibly widely dispersed, emissions that are likely to be
especially costly to monitor and report, but which would have little effect on the total
emissions or emission reductions reported. However, this approach has some potential
drawbacks. For example, very large emitters, such as large power generators or large
energy intensive industries applying this standard would have to account for a very high
percentage of their total emissions (in some cases over 99.9%). Accounting for such a
high percentage of total emissions could be burdensome and would have little effect on
the totals reported. Several possible alternatives exist. One option might be to provide
for uniform percentage exclusion, such as permitting all entities to exclude up to 3
percent of their emissions. This could lead some large utilities or industries to exclude
large quantities of emissions that would be relatively easy to include in their reports.
Another possible alternative is the addition of a minimum percentage exclusion, such as I

25

CEQ 014044

reducing emissions within an entity's boundaries are comparatively limited or costly.

However, these provisions raise a number of issues upon which DOE is seeking public
comment.
Most of these issues concern the information that must be submitted by a
reporting entity about the emission reductions achieved by a non-reporting entity. For
example, must the reporting entity provide all of the information that the non-reporting
entity would have been required to submit directly, including an Entity Statement, an
emissions inventory (unless exempted), and an entity-wide assessment of emission
reductions (unless exempted)? Must the chief executive officer or other senior manager
of the non-reporting entity certifY to the accuracy of all of the information reported by the
reporting entity? Could a non-reporting entity enter into agreements permitting some of
its emission reductions to be registered by one entity and the remainder by one or more
other entities? Must the reporting entity demonstrate that it helped fmance or manage the
achievement of the emission reductions achieved by some other entity? One approach
that might avoid many of these potential issues would be to require direct reporting by all
entities that generate emission reductions. This would ensure thatJligher-quality,~ep_ort~ ... ~:.':

--

Deleted: direct
Deleted: a cotDplete
Inserted: direct
Deleted: is
Deleted: support Cor olrset reductions

,
for offset projects,.~}! !,arge emjtt<:~'S.,S!J9h a~ electric utili tie~- P..Q~ !J~licJts_C~!J!.I!.l~I!t~ 9!.1. _,_,_'_ ~
~-app~'?_a_c~,pr~eose~

ppg on po~sible alternatives.._ ___________________________ -

---

Deleted: sw:b lhinJ.party reductions

Inserted: sucb tbirdparty reductions

by large emitters, such as

Deleted: is
Deleted:

6. International Emission Reductions. The proposed revised Guidelines do not

address either the reporting of non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions or the
registration of non-U.S. emissions reductions. DOE Is soliciting public comments on

30

CEQ 014045

,1Deleted: unintended
Fugitive emissions means.r~!e~c:_s_t9 th~ ~t!nqsphere o_f_w~e_n!tp~C::.81!5~~ fr.!l!l! __ , ''
the processing, transmission, and/or transportation of fossil fuels or other materials, such
as HFC leaks from refrigeration, SF6 from electrical power distributors, and methane
from solid waste landfills, among others, that are not emitted via a pipe(s) or stack(s).
Greenhouse gases means:
a. Carbon dioxide: C02
b. Methane: CH4
c. Nitrous oxide: NzO
d. Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs
e. Perfluorocarbons: PFCs
f. Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6

g. Other gases or particles that have been demonstrated to have significant,

quantifiable climate forcing effects when released to the atmosphere in significant
quantities.
Indirect emissions means greenhouse gas emissions from stationary or mobile
sources outside the organizational boundary of an entity, including but not limited to the
generation of electricity, steam and hot/chilled water, that are the result of an entity's
energy use or other activities.
Natural emissions means emissions that are naturallv occurring and produced
independent of human actions. including biogenic (produced bv biological processes),
, { Deleted: ,

geologic and potentially other non-anthropogenic sources.,. _______________________ ,,'

Net emissions or net entitv-wide emissions means the net annual contribution of

the greenhouse gases specifically identified in section 300.6(f) to the atmosphere by an

44

CEQ 014046

entity: total, entity-wide emissions, both direct and indirect, minus entity-wide
sequestration.
Net emission reductions or net entity-wide emission reductions means the sum of
all annual changes in emissions, sequestration and avoided emissions afthe greenhouse
gases specifically identified in section 300.6(f), determined in conformance with 300.7
and 300.8 of these Guidelines.
Offsets means an emission reduction that meets the requirements of these
guidelines, but is achieved by a party other than the entity that reports or registers the
reduction.
Sequestration means the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, either through
biologic processes or physical processes, including captl,lre, long-tenn separation,
isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as through cropping
practices, forest and forest products management P._r_~lepti~~ !t!,t~ !\!:l_U,!l~~r:s!~'!!!.d_______ , ''

,1 Deleted:

reservoir.
Sink means an identifiable discrete physical process, occurring at a particular
location, set of locations or area. by which carbon dioxide is sequestered.
Source means an identifiable discrete physical process, occurring at a particular
location, set of locations, or area, by which a greenhouse gas is emitted.
Sub-entity means a component of any entity, such as a discrete business line,
facility, plant, vehicle fleet, or energy using system, which has associated with it
emissions of greenhouse gases that: can be distinguished from the emissions of all other
components of the same entity; and, when summed with the emissions of all other subentities, equal the entity's total emissions.

45

CEQ 014047

(vi) Changes in its activities or operations~ changes in output, contractual

arrangements, equipment and processes, outsourcing or insourcing of significant
activities) that are likely to have a significant effect on emissions, together with an
explanation of how it believes the changes in economic activity influenced its reported
emissions or sequestrations.
(2) If very substantial changes have occurred, then the reporting entity is required
to submit a new Entity Statement that provides a complete and currentP._v_e~i~~~ ___ , '

, I Deleted: entity

entity's operations. facilities and emission sources.

300.6 Emissions inventories.

(a) General. The objective of the entity-wide reporting standard is to provide a
comprehensive inventory of an entity's total net greenhouse gas emissions, including all
six greenhouse gases listed in paragraph (f) of this section and all sequestration. The
reporting entity should report all of the covered greenhouse gas emissions from within
the entity, using the methods specified in the Technical Guidelines (to be issued
subsequently). Entity-wide reports are a prerequisite for the registration of emission
reductions by entities with average annual emissions of more that 10,000 tons of C02
equivalent. Entities that have average annual emissions of less than 10,000 tons of C02
equivalent are eligible to register emission reductions associated with specific activities
without also reporting an inventory of the total emissions.
(b) Direct emissions inventories. (1) Direct greenhouse gas emissions that must

-.

be reported are those emissions resulting from stationary or mobile sources within the
physical and organizational boundaries of an entity, including but not limited to

50

CEQ 014048

. (d) Entity-level inventories of sequestration. Sequestration should be

comprehensively reported across the entity and represent the net changes in emissions
across the entity. In other words, activities that lead to the release of carbon to the
atmosphere must be reported along with activities that sequester carbon. This is
necessary to provide an accurate entity-wide estimate of net greenhouse gas emission
reductions. Entities should use the methods for estimating sequestration specified in the
Technical Guidelines (measurement).
(e) Treatment of de minimis emissions and sequestration. Although the goal of
the entity-wide reporting Guidelines is to provide an accurate and comprehensive
estimate of total entity-wide emissions, there may be small emissions from certain
sources that are costly or difficult to quantify. A reporting entity may exclude particular
sources of emissions or sequestration if the total quantities excluded represent less than 3
percent of the total annual C0 2 equivalent emissions of the entity or less than 10,000
metric tons of C02 equivalent, whichever is less. The entity must identify the types of

,1

emissions excluded and provide a short justification as to why an estimate was not

Deleted: produced

,,, ~ '.

included in the entitv's report.,

Inserted: produced.

(f) Covered gases. {l) Entity-wide emissions inventories must include all

emissions of the following greenhouse gases:

(i)

C02

(ii)

c~

(iv)

HFCs

(v)

PFCs
52

CEQ 014049

(b) The independent verifier must provide a written description of the relevant
qualifications and professional certifications of the persons that performed the
independent verification and must certify that:
(1) The information provided to DOE is complete and accurate, in accordance with
DOE's revised Guidelines, and is consistent with all prior year reports submitted by that
entity (unless otherwise indicated); and
{2) Adequate records have been maintained by the reporter to enable further

independent verification in the future.

300.12 Acceptance of reports and registration of entity emission reductions.

(a) Acceptance of reports. Upon receipt, DOE will review all reports to ensure
they are consistent with the revised Guidelines. If DOE determines the report follows the
defmitional, measurement, calculation and certification Guidelines, the report will be
~~c~p~e~~

_ . . ___ . __ . ____ . __ ____ . _ . _. __ __ . ___ .. __ __ __ _ __ _ _ ____ __

Deleted: classified u either an entity

' wide report or athorwJse, and
'

, , { Deleted:

(b) Registration of~i~siou reductions._ I.?9J~. ~il! ~e_vJ~~ !l~e.P!~d]_epg~~ ~o- ___ "','
determine any eligible emission reductions that were achieved relative to the reporting
entities' base year (2002 or later) or base period ( 1999-2002, or later), and to ensure that
the reports meet other relevant DOE requirements. DOE will notify entities that the
reductions that meet these requirements have been registered.
(c) EIA database and summary reports. The Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration will establish a publicly accessible database composed of all

reports that meet the defmitional, measurement, calculation and certification

63

CEQ 014050

Privileged and Con~

Draft I0/2/03

Ff\~+-

(Ji~

CLI~

BETW~

I.

Overview 1

This Memorandum J
greenhouse gas (GB
pursuant to this MO'
long-term challenge

VA

>ERSTANDING
POWER SECTOR

~ [~~~'t' ~~
~/\It- J,.
}

vJf\ 1
0 ..,..,... ...,.. ~

L.

-,o LJ. f\J

A/, 1'' - L ~
vl""b\IV" WV"". <1\.

-..n. .....

:RGY

ry framework for improving the

ae framework established
;ION Program to address the

5 ..,.

The Parties to this MOU are six electric power sector trade associations of the United States {as
named below), the Tennessee Valley Authority {TVA), and the United States Department of
Energy (DOE). The six trade associations that are Parties to the MOU are the American Public
Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public
Power Council, Nuclear Energy Institute, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. TV A and the six trade associations, acting through their members, are hereinafter
('\
referred collectively as the "Power Partners 8M."

,r"'\A

The Parties are entering into this MOU to advance a "new approachJ?.. the challenge of global
climate change" that the President announced on February 14, 2004. This new approach is
"designed to harness the power of markets and technological innovation" and "recognizes that
climate change is a complex, long-term challenge that will require a sustained effort over many
generations" and that "sustained economic growth is an essential part of the solution, not the
problem."
Pursuant to this MOU, Power PartnerssM reaffirm the goals, actions and initiatives that are set
forth in their Climate VISION action plans. 1 9ollectively, these action-plans establlsii
effective voluntary framework for improving the GHG emission intensity of the power sector by
voluntarily reducing, avoiding and sequestering GH
'ons {hereinafter referred to as
"emission intensity reductions or improvements"). urthennor , Power PartnerssM agree to take
the actions set forth in this MOU to encourage their tra e association members to achieve the
collective Power Partners'SM goal to improve the power sector's GHG emission intensity, as set
forth under Section II of this MOU.

an---.....

The DOE, in consultation with other federal agencies, is establishing revised reporting guidelines
for the GHG database/registry established under section 1605(b) ofthe Energy Policy Act of
The Climate VISION action plans were transmitted by letter from each of the Power Partners8M
members to the Secretary of the DOE and are attached to this MOU as Attachment l.
1

00j_650
CEQ 014056

. _,-\'
V
.v

Privileged and Confidential

Draft 10/2/03

CLIMATE VISION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

I.

Overview

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth a voluntary framework for improving the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the power sector. The framework established
pursuant to this MOU shall be part of the President's Climate VISION Program to address the
long-term challenge of global climate change.
J.h-( -rv~
, h
/"'
r . -- 1; 1/1"-"~' 1 1)
The Parties to this MOU are six electric power sector trade associations of the United States (as
named below), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United States Department of
Energy (DOE). The six trade associations that are Parties to the MOU are the American Public
Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public
Power Council, Nuclear Energy Institute, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. TV A and the six trade associations, acting through their members, are hereinafter
referred collectively as the "Power Partners8M."
P1

,ir"..,"A ,

The Parties are entering into this MOU to advance a "new approach~ the challenge of global
climate change" that the President announced on February 14, 200f'. This new approach is
"designed to harness the power of markets and technological innovation" and "recognizes that
climate change is a complex, long-term challenge that will require a sustained effort over many
generations" and that "sustained economic growth is an essential part ofthe solution, not the
problem."
Pursuant to this MOU, Power Partners 8Mreaffirm the goals, actions and initiatives that are set
forth in their Climate VISION action plans. 1 Collectively, these action-Piims establishaii --- --effective voluntary framework for improving the GHG emission intensity of the power sector by
voluntarily reducing, avoiding and sequestering GH
'ons (hereinafter referred to as
"emission intensity reductions or improvements"). urthermor , Power PartnersSM agree to take
t!te actions set forth in this MOU 19 encourage their tra e association members to achieve the
collective Power Partners' 8M goal to improve the power sector's GHG emission intensity, as set
forth under Section II of this MOU.
\_\tJ\

The DOE, in consultation with other federal agencies, is establishing revised reporting guidelines

r:{j;/ for the GHG database/registry established under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of
\~-The Climate VISION action plans were transmitted by letter from each of the Power Partners 5M
members to the Secretary of the DOE and are attached to this MOU as Attachment I.
1

CEQ 014057

 1992. As directed by the President, an improved 1605(b) database/registry provides an effective

"tool for companies to publicly record their progress" in improving GHG emission intensity and
that t~js "tool goes hand-in-hand with voluntary business" sec~or initiatives established under the
Climate VISION Program generally and this MOU specifically. In addition. such improvements
o the 1605(b) database/registry are(essential to the furtherance of goals and objectives of this
MOU by "providing public recognition of a company's achievements, and a record ofmitigation
fforts for future policy design."

4
II.

Goals

The overall goal of this MOU is to establish an effective and robust partnership between the
electric pow.~r sector and DOE that is aimed at improving the GHG emission intensity of the
power sector. This partnership is part of a larger economy-wide effort under the Climate
VISION Program to achieve the President's goal of improving GHG emission intensity of the
U.S. economy by 18 per:_~_!lt by the end of2012.
Power PartnerssM collectively support the President and, to this end, commit to encourage jheir
- members to make rn~aningful contributions to the achievement of the President's GHG emission
intensity goal 2 by 2012. However, the apEropriate contribution leyel by the power sector is
difficult to quantify and will depend on future trends and conditions within the power and other
major sectors of the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, prelimina~ estimate of an appropriate
contribution level from the power sector is for Power Partnerss and their members collectively
~o reduce the power sector's GHG emission intensity3 by an equivalent of percent below
levels by the end of2012. 4 Taking into consideration circumstances and experience, Power
P.artnerssM will review their estimate of such a meaningful and appropriate contribution
/P~riodically a_fter issuance of the revised guidelines for the 1605(b) database/registry and may
~vise such estimate to the extent appropriate.

nJJI.~
~f

>

A secondary goal of this MOU is to S.P!!! GHG emission intensity improvements across all
sectors of the economy by working with electricity end-users/customers in the commercial,
iesiaential and transportation sectors.

III.

Principles

The Parties recognize that because climate change is a g_lobal, complex. long-tenn challenge, it
\),\ requires a continuing effort over time to implement a comprehensive strategy for the power
~sector. Key elements ofthis strategy include: (I) accelerated research, development and

,J11
f"

President Bush's intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of national GHG emissions to
gross domestic product (GDP).
3
The power sector's collective intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of carbon dioxide
(C02) emissions to generation (MWH), because the President's metric is inapplicable to the
power sector. Jiowever, Power PartnerssM participants may choose to define their intensity goals
in other ways, such as C02/revenues, C02/energy consumed, C02/fossil fuel generation or even
C02/GDP.
Emissions in the carbon intensity metric will be adjusted, as appropriate, in accordance with
Attachment 2.
2

CEQ 014058

deployment of innovative; (2) cost-effective, zero- or low-carbon emission technologies and

processes; and (3) highly efficient ar1d renewable energy sources and emission intensity
reduction technologies that are equally compatible to the purposes of business and industry and
their workers, other economic sectors, and the well-being of the U.S. economy.
Activities undertaken as part of the Climate VISION program will be voluntary and flexible and
may cover any GHG, while also promoting the energy and environmental enhancement
objectives ofthe program. Participation by Power PartnerssM does not constitute endorsement of
any particular scientific theory on global climate change.
The Parties recognize that the primary responsibility of the Power PartnerssM trade associations
is to facilitat~ their respective members' commitments and action plans. Furthermore, the Parties
recognize that Power Partners8M trade association members and TVA have specific, but varying
circumstances (i.e., diverse growth requirements, power supply demands, fuel mix, geographical
cOiistraulfs, and financial and other resources) that may from influence and affect their operations
and the actions they take and that a collaboration of Power PartnerssM, DOE and other
government efforts will be necessary to achieve the goals and purposes of this MOU.
The Parties recognize that actions taken by trade association members and TV A must be costeffective and take into account impacts on customers, shareholders and other owners, employees
and competitors, as well as environmental, safety and other regulatory and policy requirements
of governments.
IV.

Parties' Joint Actions

As part of the Climate VISION program, the Parties seek to achieve theJoals and purposes of
this MOU in a transearent m~mnerJhro!-!g~ f'!~ilit~!i.!!S Power Partners's specific actionsand ~
developing means for co~sist.~.!_a:~~_p~riC?~i~ ~yalu~tion of progress, uti
s made~-~. 1 1 _
101 (
by the Power Partners ,sM trade association members and TV A to the urrent and revised 1605(b)
databases/registries.
._

Under this MOU, the Parties will work together to:

-

Encourage trade association members to achieve cost-effective GHG emission intensity

Accelerate research, development demonstration and, as soon as practicable, deployment

of cost-effective, zero- or low-carbon electric generation technologies and processes
(including carbon capture and sequestration), advanced high-efficiency electric
generation, transmission, distribution and end-use technologies.
Develop strategies to enable others to reduce GHG emission intensity, such as Power
Partners'SM electricity end-users/customers in the commercial, residential and
transportation sectors of the U.S. economy.
Ren:ove barriers to and promote the dispatch of the most efficient, least-cost generation
sources consistent with grid reliability.
Facilitate the develoement of effective and practicable tools for the voluntary
measurement, reporting and, as appropriate, monitoring and verification ofGHG

r~uctions.

CEQ 014059

emission intensity reductions.

The Parties agree to work together to develop and encourage policies and practices that will
enhance, facilitate, and encourage voluntary efforts for GHG emission intensity reductions and
that will provide in~entives and reduce barriers to such reductions. 5
The Parties agree to Q a t appropriate intervals, on the progress towards achieving the goals
and implementing the other provisions ofthis MOU. During the fourth year after this MOU is
effective, the Parties also s~all jointly evaluate whet_!ler additional actions or other changes to the
MOU may be appropriate in furtherance of the Climate VISION program and the President's
intensity goal. Additional actions or other such changes may be reflected by revising the terms
and provisions ofthis MOU iftheyare mutually agreed to by the Parties based on this joint
evaluation.
The Power Partners 5 M will collaborate with EPRI (including affiliates ofEPRI). DOE and other
federal agencies, as appropriate to (1) establish power sector climate technology research,
development and deploymenf priorities, (2) establish a public-private partnership to carry out
priority power sector climate technology research, development and deployment, and (3)
perform the research, development and deployment contemplated by the partnership. The timing
and responsibilities for, and components of, this program ar~ described in Attachment 4.

V.

Power Partners8M Actions

The Power PartnerssM agree to use their best efforts to achieve, pursuant to this MOU, GHG
emission intensity reductions from the electric power and end-users/customers in other sectors of
the economy.
The Power PartnerssM will take actions to encourage, ~acilitate, and maximize participation by
their trade association members and TVA. One important purpose of this effort will be to
improve the level and depth of participation, through workshops or other means, of their trade
association members and enhance pefformance and reporting.
The Power PartnerssM will encourage their trade association members to achieve the goals,
actions and initiatives described in their Climate VISION action plans that have been submitted
to the Secretary ofthe DOEand set forth in Attachment 1.

An overView of such policies, incentives, and practices that Power PartnerssM believe should
guide this effort IS provided in Attachment 3.

"Power sector technology research, development and deployment" means research,

development and deployment of advanced zero- or low-carbon emission electric generation
technologies (including carbon capture and sequestration) and advanced high-efficiency electric
generation, transmission, distribution and end-use technologies.
4

CEQ 014060

In the case of trade association members and TVA, the Power PartnerssM will encourage them to
achieve the g_~al~ actiQ!} [or commitments] seUot:th i~ this ~OU through company or
.
utili_!YP!!-!1ic!I?_a~io1_!_k_~_9!'~f!t detail future voluntary actions, programs, activities, c_.;;_L<-/
plans or goals that shall be undertaken and achieved pursuant to this MOU. Such participation
j}_J
l~ers.o.r.agreements shall be submitted by companies of the trade association members or TV A
('!o the DOE for accept~ as consistent with the MOU and may be tailored and detailed in
accordance wtth such members' circumstances.

The activities contained in the Climate VISION action plans and company or utility participation
letters or agreements are to c9ver a wide 'range of actions to be undertaken and reported over the
term of this MOU to achieve GHG emission intensity reductions and may include domestic as
well as intel)lational projects and research and development efforts.
The Power PartnerssM will develop and promote power sector initiatives that will allow
participants ~pool their resources and collaborate collectively on joint, industry-wide programs
and activities to reduce GHG emission intensity.
VI.

DOE Actions

DOE will annually manage its programs, policies, regulations, budgets and legislative proposals
in support of the goals and purposes of this MOU.
DOE will, on a continuing basis, ~ best effo~ith governmental agencies and
organizations to h_:m!!Q!!.ize policies and procedures; lift or moderate barriers; encourage and
provide fiscal, regulatory, and other actions and incentives; and otherwise promote an
atmosphere that en~ourages and supports Power PartnerssM in their efforts to develop and apply
diverse actions, means and measures that are cost-effective, safe, environmentally sound,
(~- \
practicable and that contribute to achieving the goals and purposes of this MOU. A list of such
'C) -~ policies, incentives, and practices that Power PartnerssM believes should guide this effort is
provided in Attachment 3. DOE will assure that co_llection and reporting of data and other
. ) informaf annuall throu h th~ Energy Info~tion Administration (EIA) generally and under
~~; ~~ ..... e improved 1605(b) database/registry specifical!}' are f~cused and material to the achievement _
\U.
of the Power Partners' 3M goals and the President's overall climate change objectives of February
14,2002.
DOE will provide information in a consistent and transpamnt manner on the scope and objectives
of the Climate VISION program and on implementation of the revised 1605(b) reporting
guidelines.
DOE will provide recognition under revised 1605(b) guidelines to Power PartnerssM and their
members that make substantial contributions to GHG emission intensity reduction research,
development, and deployment and will meet periodically with Power Partners8Mto address such
research, development and deployment and related funding.

J lJ

f1'

~~

~'"''P'

0~

~- OE will provide t~ to the Power Partners Mto~e demand-side

8

management, energy efficiency, and utilization of e1ectrotechnology applications by customers

and other end-users.
"D 1/;U.
)6~
,J

CEQ 014061

VII.

General Provisions

Parties agree to work together to: promote public and congressional awareness and confidence
in the Climate VISION program and this MOU; resolve in a mutually satisfactory manner
interpretative and other problems that may arise in the implementation ofthis MOU; and each
designate a high-level contact person for these purposes and otherwise facilitate implementation
ofthis MOU.
This voluntary MOU expresses the non-binding, good-faith intentions of the Parties and
recognizes that any Party or participants may, after reasonable notice, terminate the agreement
without penalty or critiCism, and without being subject to any judicial action.
It is understood that upon issuance of the final revised guidelines for the l605(b)
database/registry, any Power PartnerssM participants may, in lieu of a termination ofthis MOU,
choose to withdraw as a participant in Power PartnersSM if the participant finds the revised
guidelines unacceptable to it for the purposes of this MOU.
The provisions of section l605(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 regarding the confidential
treatment of trade secrets and commercial or financial information shall apply to information and
reports made pursuant to this MOU.

Date: January_. 2004

/signatures/
/names of trade association and TVA heads/names of trade associations and TVN

Attachments (3)

CEQ 014062

Draft I 0/02/03

Attachment 2

Factors in Carbon Intensity Metrics

Changes in carbon intensity relating to the power sector can occur from on-system or offsystem actions.
I. On-system activities could include (but are not limited to):

Changes in fuel mix.

Generation performance improvements (including nuclear, hydro or other
renewables).
Changes in emissions due to improvements in efficiency of electricity use.
Reductions in transmission and distribution losses.

II. Off-system activities, both domestic and international, that should be considered
could include (but are not limited to):

Offset credits from carbon sequestration, methane reduction or utilization, and

other activities that reduce or avoid GHG emissions.
Offset credits from purchased power.
Carbon reductions in other sectors due to product substitution (e.g., cement).
Reductions in direct fuel use in other sectors due to electrotechnologies (e.g., fleet
vehicle conversion to electric or hybrid).
Credits from net purchases of transferable credits.
Credits for prior actions.

Depending on the level of reporting and referenced baseline, some of these activities may
not be reflected in carbon intensity estimates. If not, they should be considered
adjustments to that data.

as

CEQ 014063

Responsible Parties: EPRI, DOE, Power PartnerssM, individual utilities.

Funding:

To be detennined.

Deliverables:

By July 15, 2004, DOE and EPRI will sign and

be prepared to implement (contingent on Federal funding)
cooperative agreements or CRADAs to which DOE, its
laboratories, and EPRI are parties. Under the cooperative
agreements, DOE, its laboratories, and EPRI will develop a
detailed RD&D plan by September 15, 2004, [subject to the
review and approval of the Power PartnerssM].

Phase Ill.

Implementation

Objective:

Carry-out priority power sector climate technology RD&D

public/private partnership.

Responsible Parties: DOE and its laboratories, Power PartnerssM through EPRI
Funding:

Shared DOE and industry through EPRI.

Deliverable:

Contingent on Federal funding over five fiscal year period

beginning with FY 2006 (or earlier, if feasible based on
availability of funding)-

( 1) carry-out public/private partnership agreement

executed in Phase II, and
(2) analyze and report results, and recommend any
further power sector climate technology RD&D.

CEQ 014064

EPICI Timeline for Development of the Power Sector/DOE MOU

DRAFT- 9/19/03
Days From
Rollout

Calendar
Date

Event/Activity

- 126

9115

Circulate draft MOU within EPIC! for review and comment (2 weeks)
EPIC! Plenary meeting {9/18)

- 112

,..----.
0}_129

----

10/01 - 05?
- 109

(iQ&,.

EPIC! comments due; revise initial draft MOU

..----------_

:qraft revised 1605(b) reporting gui~lines released for comment (60 days)
Discuss draft MOU with DOE; ask.D~:>E for comments (2 weeks)

(pgE commen~ dt;;:.:

-95

10116

- 84

10/20-31

Incorporate DOE comments into draft MOU

11/01?

Public workshop on draft revised 1605(b) reporting guidelines

-77

11/03

Circulate revised draft MOU to DOE and EPIC! for review (2 weeks)

- 63

11/17

EPICI and DOE comments due on revised draft MOU

-56

11/24-28

Final EPICI Plenary & DOE review of draft MOU for approval

12/01?

Comments due on draft revised 1605(b) reporting guidelines

12/01-05

Agreement by EPIC! & DOE staff working group on

-49

Begin Roll-out Prep: Agenda, activities, participants, media/communications

Materials
[Begin drafting model company agreementsnetters - it has been suggested this be deleted]

-28

12/22-26

Establish event venue, agenda, activities, participants, media outreach

- 14

1/05-09

Associations and DOE .each approve MOU

..\

Roll-out invitations sent

-7

1112- 1/16

Media/Communications materials on-hand

1/19 - 23

Program Roll-out

Agreement at the staff working group level would still require that DOE and EPICI members gain approval by member
companies and senior agency officials on the final MOU. Further, agreement on a final MOU by EPICI will depend on
acceptable revisions to the l605(b) reporting guidelines.

CEQ 014065

,,

Hannegan, Bryan J.
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Towcimak, Natalie
Friday, October 03, 2003 1:07 PM
Hannegan, Bryan J.
Cooney, Phil
FW: Clarification re CCTP Current Activities Report - for review

FYI, see websites below for information that cannot be emailed. Thanks!
-----Original Message----From:
Fitter, E. Holly
Sent:
Friday, October 03, 2003 12:55 PM
To:
Wuchte, Erir;~; Lyon, Randolph M.; Radzanowskl, David P.; Neyland, Kevin F.; Fairweather, RobertS.; Irwin, Janet E.; Erbach,
Adrienne C.; Mertens, Richard A.; Reilly, Thomas; Kulikowski, James M.; Foster, Gillian J.; Smith, Bryan R.; Mertens, Steven M.;
Lobrano, Lauren C.; Peacock, Marcus; Nee Lrm; Cea Lrm; Joseffer, Daryl L.; Kaminski, Amy; Rothenberg, Jason; Newstead, Jennifer
G.; Rossman, Elizabeth L.; Hurst, Kevin D.; Cooney, Phil;
Robert;
Lrm; Ceq Lrm;
(b) (6)
usdaobpaleg@obpa.usda.gov;
energy.gc71@hq.doe.gov;
il.epa.gov; CLRM@doc.gov; (b) (6)
(b) (6) state(b) (6)
(b) (6)
i (b) (6)
dot.legislation@ostdot.gov;
Subject:
Oari ca on re CTP Current Activities Report - for

Regarding the document you are being asked to review under LAM EHF198, the zip drives containing report will not go
through the e-mail buffer.
Please use the websites below to access the pieces of the document. Thanks.
Again, the following info should be shared only with Federal employees who need access.

----(62MB)

URL:
http://www.cctp.gov <http://www.cctp.gov>
User 10:
cctpintranet
Password: cvnrao
The report can be found under "Library'' and "2003".
(44MB)

URL:
http://www.cctp.gov <http://www.cctp.gov/>
User ID:
cctpintranet
Password: cvnrao
The report can be found under "Library" and "2003", item #8.

CEQ 014072

u.s. Climate Change Technoloov Program: Research and Current ActiVities

Page

Table of contents
Introduction
Presidential Commitment and U.S. Approach
Selected Administration Actions to Date
Role lor Technology and Innovation

Reducing Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure

FreedomCAR
Fuel Cell Veh1de Systems
Hydrogen Infrastructure

Advanced HeavyDuty Vehicle Technologies

ZeroEnergy Homes and Commercial Buildings
SolidStal! Lighting
Superconductivity

Reducing Emissions from Energy Supply

FutureGen
H~rogen Fuel Initiative
LargeScale Hydrogen Production from Foss1l Fuels
Nuclear Hydrogen 1n1tlat1ve
Fuel Cell S1stems

Intern allonal Pa rtnershlp lor the Hydrogen Economy

Renewable Energy
wmd
Solar Photovolta1c (PV)
Advanced Biotechnology

Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Power Generat1on IV
Nuclear Power 1010
Advanced Fuel Cycle lmtiatiVe
International Thermonuclear E~perunental neactor (ITER)

Capturing and Sequestering Carbon Dioxide

15

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

Carbon Sequestration Program
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

Reducing Potential for Climate Effects of Other-C0 2 Greenhouse Gases

19

Methane Recovery from Coal Beds

SF6from Magnesium Production

Enhancing Capabilities to Monitor and Measure Emissions

21

Amerillux
Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS)
Remote Sensing

Conclusion

25

US. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014073

U.S. Oimate Change Technology Program

U.S. Department of Energy (Lead-Agency)

U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce, including
National Institute of Technology and Standards
U.S. Department of Defe1100
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of State, including
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Other Participating Research and Development Agencies

Executive Office of the President, including

Council on Environmental Quality .
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of Management and Budget

II

..
. .
U.S CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014074

.be.. o- v..~

c M.-rJ'1

ct..:.~.l\e.-~~

lobal climate cnange is a major, long-term challenge that will

;t!r~e&fftfJI165 the 21st century. President George W. Bush recognizes
this challenge and is committed to taking bold action to move
beyond mcremental improvements in the current energy system and help
galvanb:e an energy technology revolution that can provide substantial ben
efit to the entire global commumty.
This report, U.S. Climate Clumge TecJrnology Program: Researc/1 and Current
Actr'vitie$re1ects the new approach to climate change the United States (U.S.)
is taking under President Bush's leadershrp. The report highlights some of
the Bush Administration's actions and profiles a number of the most promising, cuttmg-edge technologies found in today's robust U.S. climate change
technology portfolio.

"Amerir:ds the leadtr in technology and innovation.

\flil all believt technology offers great promise to
sigtrificantfy t~duce greenbouse gas emissiom."
President George \fl: Busb
}UIIt 11, ZOO/

he
U.S. has achi~e::v::e:;d-;t~hi~s-:;d;;:is::ti:n::cti:;:.o:n:-:d:;:u-::e:-:t::o:-:i.:ts:-:e::n:;:tr:::ep=re=ne:::u=n!':a,.-::sp::n:r;t:-:a::n:;d~unrivaled national invesbnent in reseanh and development (R&D). President
Bush has great faith in American Innovation and recognizes that targeted
R&D invesbnents are crudal to strengthening our ability to meet the climate
change challenge. Accordingly, President Bush's approach to climate change
- backed by unprecedented R&D invesbnents - emphasizes both long and
short-term technology solutions informed by vigorous scientific knowled:!le.
The May 2.001 National Energy Policy: Reporl of tile National Energy Policy
Development Group provides the policy context for President Bush's climate
change approach. The report outlines policies to enhance Pr r." ecunty
while redudng greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and recommends aggressively developing clean fuels and hydrogen, advancing carbon sequestration
technologies, and promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy.

11le Natiorml Energy Policy provides the

Busll Admi11istratiorr's policy cotrtext for
addressing climate clra11ge.
(lrttp:/lruww.wlritclrouse.gov/errergy/Natfona/Energy
-Policy.pd/)

- . -- -- - -

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014075

Based on the National nergy Policy's ~~!Commendations,

President Bush announced m June 2001 his commitment to
developmg science-based climate change policy and largeting
'breakthrough technologies." By stimulabng American innovabon with strong investments in key areas of the Federal
R&D portfolio, President Bush is positioning the US. as a
world leader in pursuit ovolutionary, game changijlrolu
lions to meet the chmate change challenge by sigruficantly
reducing GHG emiss1ons.

Secretmy Donald Evans to lead the CCCSTI. The CCCSTI is

chartered to provide recommendations to the President on climate change science and technology and address funding and
implementation issues related to th~9i iuitiatiges:

,a.a .... ;"':s c "'"""""k t.~

Ollce ollho Pmldont

}',...,

~)

Clmalo C11onge

SdoncePIIIQIBIII

and conservation. Moreover, h

bold new climate change reseanh initiatives, enhanced international collaboration, and established the first Cabinet-level
climate change management slnlcture. Major Administration
actions include:

Interagency Climate Change Initiatives:

U.S. Climate Change Strategy: President Bush unveiled has

Administration's new climate change approach on February
2002

On June 11, 2 1,

President Bush initiated

. two complementary reseanh effort.;..
- --,~~m~~~~~;l!!t~rnn~;;~iriiieii~~:ili:J
: Improvements in the
a scaence-focused Chmate Change Research Initiative (CCRI),
,
h
L Federal GHG reduction registry; facilitating transferable credand a teehnologyocused ~l Climate C angenv,
:\bU~ for GHG emissions reductions and sequestration; and
Technology Initiative CCn). The Jl\....cn was chartered to:
.
.

encouragmg vo1untary actions by mdustry to reduce emassions. Key to achieving voluntary reductions is Oimate
Evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change
technology R&D;
VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities
Now), a multi-agency public-private partnersl:up engaged with
Provide guidance on strengthening reseanh at
universities and national labs;
the major, energy-intensive sectors of the American economy to
Develop opportunities to enhance applied R&D
reduce emissions while sustaining strong economic growth.
partnerships;
Make recommendations for funding demonstration
Interagency Working Group on Climate Change: In July 2002.
projects with cutting-edge technologies, and
the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and Energy, and the
Develop improved technologies for measuring and
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
monitoring GHG emissions.
(EPA), reported that the CCCSTI was operational and indud
ed a Deputy-level Inte.ragency Working Group '\vith dilt!ct
New Management Structure: In January 2002, President Bush
oversight over two new multi-agency R&D coordination
mechanisms:
established a new Cabine~-level management structure, the
Committee on Climate ~hange Science and Technology
Integration (CCCSTI), to guide and oversee his
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
Administration's climate change activities. The President
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCfP)
d i reeled Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Commerce

clc

'1.

2
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014076

Hydrogen Initiative: President Bush launched the nation's first

comprehensive hydrogen initiative during his State of the
Union Addre;s on January 28, 2003. The $1.2 billion
FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives will facilitate
commerdalizatlon of hydrogen-powered fuel rell vehicles by
2015. The National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, announced by
Secretary Abraham in November 2002, is a fodudation of these
mitiahves
o.J~ 1-'-.! ~ ~.,";"t.."i:.

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP):

The goal of the CCSP is to sharpen the focus of long-term
research earned out under the 10-year old U.S. Global 01mate
Change Research Program (USGRCP) and to enhance it with a
short-tenn focus on reducmg sdentlftc uncertainty. On July 23,
2003, the CCSP released its strategic plan. (http: /lwww.climatesaence.gov I L1brary I stratplan2003/ default.htm)

__ _
. ----....... _
........
------
------.,
.

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP):

~t ~

_...,.

Working closely w1th the CCSP, the CCfP's goal is to accelerate the development of key technologies that may achieve substantlal GHG emiss1ons reductions. The CCil' coordinates climate technology R&D activities across all of the ~levant
Federal agenaes. The CCTP is currently:

NAnONAL HvOiloGEN

'

EtUR.GY RoAChW

,_.._

......

._

....

\fVI.d .s-(""

The Natiortal Hydrogen 'Energy

Roadrnap is the foundation for
tire aruntry's first conzpnhen si~t hydrogen irlitiati~e.

~.:

. ----

revtewing and making recommendations on the Federal

chmate change technology R&D portfolio;
conducting economic and technical analysis; and
coordinating among and wtthin federal agencies.

Gltlp:l/tuww.ecre.ertetgy.gov/IJydrogennndfuelcellslpdfs/rrati
onnl_lr2Jolldmap.pd/)

The CCTP and its parhcipating Federal R&D agencies are

working to meet the cl1mate change challenge through focused
research aligned with one or more of the following goals:

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum:

Secretary Abraham
and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Paula
Dobriansky rolled out the first ministerial-level international
organization for addressing carbon sequestration technologies
and policy issues on February 'Zl, 2003. CSLF is coordinating carbon caphlre and storage R&D with international partners and
private industry.

reducing emissions from energy end-use and

infrastructure;
reducing emissions from energy supply;
capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide (C{)z);
reducing the potential for climate effects of other
GHGs;and
enhancing capabilities to measure and monitor GHG
emissions.

FutureGen: Concurrent with the CSLF, the Bush

Administration unveiled FutureGen, a $1 billion, to-year public-private demonstration project to create the world's first
coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power
plant

While a number of the most promising technologies that

may achieve these goals are described later in this CCil'
report, President Bush and DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham
announced the following major technology initiativesin 2003
alone:

International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy:

Secretary Abraham announced the International Partnership
for the Hydrogen Economy on April 28, 2003, at the
International Energy Agency Ministerial Meeting in Paris. The
Partnership will coor4inate international efforts to
develop a hydrogen economy by facilitating collaborative R&D
and common codes and standards for hydrogen fuel.

us

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLO-GY

PROGR.AM

CEQ 014077

Role for Technology and Innovation

"Our approach tnust he consistent with the long-term goal ofstabi
lizing gmmbouse gttsconcentratl'ons in the tttmosphtre. Our ttctions
sbould be mettsurtd as we learn from science and build on it. Our
approach must be fltl.-ible to adjust to new infortTkltion tmd take
advantage oftechnowgy.
President George lV. Busb

uncertainty about the precise role that

may play in affecting the climate, and about the level
and timeframe that an atmospheric stabilization goal must be
achieved, the Bush Administration is moving forwasd

-'CDII:nm!l'd1!trei6iin, investment in a diverse portfolio of technologies must be made today and technologies with the potential to achieve substantial GHG reductions given highest prior
ity. The climate change technologies highlighted in this report
have tremendous potential to bring about the type o~me
changi;;;l energy revolution that can dramatically improve our
globJ1ilst century energy system IVlth significanUy reduced
GHG emissions as a result.

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014078

~:

_::;~. ~~~~.:;:.:~~:~~-} ,.~_.J_!_"'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J.:._..::...;;;;;..;.~1i~::!!2

...

enetgy

ne of the major opportunities to reduce emissions from

enduse and reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil is to
transform our Nation's fossil fuel dependent economy to a clean
hydrogen economy. President Bush's FreedomCAR initiative is one component of a two-part strategy to
of hydrogen-

2015.

Improving
energy
end-use
energy consumption and associated missio
reduce vulnerability to supply disruptions, ce spikes
and threats to electriaty infrashucture. Technology
innovation in transmission and distribution, including
such areas as high-temperature supen:onductivity. has
the potential to help alleviate these problems. It can create a more relial;le, rob~t el~~c V,id with greater effiaen<:yN~JtJIItty and Security.

National 'Energy
Pj)llcy's recommif!djltions to overhaul
the national gJ:id. NOAA satellite pic
ture abo11e shows the blackout in tlle
.Nortlreastern U.S. take11 A11g. 14,
2003, at 9:03 P:1f' EDT.

.. .

I~

..

) ..

u:s.-ci.lN\.A:;:e'cH"A.N<Hi
NoLo.Gv PROGRAM
. . . .
. ;:ect-i
.
~.

CEQ 014079

COz. The only e,.;haust is pure water.

FreedomCAR

Fuel cell vehicles can be fueled with pure hydrogen gas stored
onboard in high-pressure tanks. They also can be fueled with
hydrogen-rich fuels-such as methanol, natural gas, or even
gasoline-that are converted into hydrogen gas by an onboard
device called a "refonner." Before fuel cell vehicles make it to
local auto dealerships, significant R&:D is required to reduce

"FrmlomCAR imt .zn automobile, it~ a new approa'h to powering

the cars ofthe future ... The gas-gr=kr will be a thing ofthe part."
Er:ergy Semtary Spencer Abraham
Janu.zry 9, J002
The C-A-R m FreedomCAR stands for Cooperative Automotive
Resean:h. DOE is leadmg this ambitious, cost-shared, govemment-mdustry R&D partnership with the U.S. Council of
Automotive Research, a cooperative research aganization
formed by Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation,
and the DaimlerChrysler Corporation. FreedomCAR's goal is the
development of cars and trucks that are:

A fuel cell works like a

battery b11t does 11ot run
down or req1zire reclzarg
lng. It can use /zydrogen
or lzydrogenriclz fuels.

cheaper to operate;
pollution-free;
competitively priced; and
free from imported oil

cost and improve performance. Furthermore, effective ways

must be found to produce and store hydrogen and other fuels.

Hydrogen Infrastructure
Widespread commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
will require development of an accompanying hydrogen infrastructure. Currently, hydrogen delivery systems exist only for
the merchant hydrogen market in the chemical and lt!fining
industries. In the transformation to a hydrogen economy, this
system will be insufficient for expected hydrogen fuel needs of
the future. This infrastructult! will require changes that
address all transport and safety concerns.

from transportation will dechne significantly as

rs and trucks replace those in today's fleet. DOE
ers are pursuing R&D in fuel cells, hydrogen pro-

Hydrogen Safety

o~

fos demonstrated that hydrogen can be

For decades industry

used safely in a wit~a:ety of applications and conditions.

However, handling compressed hydrogen will be new to most
consumers. In order to instill a robust safety culture to support a national hydrogen infrastzucture, developers must optimize new fuel storage and delivery systems for safe everyday
use, and consumers must become familiar with"'hydrogen's
properties and risks. DOE and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) are working together to assemble technology partnership; with industry to collaborate on codes and
standard; requirld for safe and effective hydrogen delivery
and utilization.

new
velzicle, t1ze first drive-by-win fuel cell vehicle prototype. 111 tl1e
HyWire, tile driver operates tlze ve/1/cle via ar1 electronic control
11nlt rather thana steerl11g wl1eel and pedals.
duction and storage, and safety.

Fuel Cell Vehicle Systems

Fuel cell vehicles represent a radical departure from vehicles
with conventional internal combustion engines. Automobiles
powered by pure hydrogen fuel cells emit no pollution and no

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014080

A recent DOT and DOE collaboration proved the concept of a

viable fuel cell bus. DOT has extended its efforts and plans to
have 13 buses in demonstration projects nationwide by the end
of 2004. These efforts are helping to lay the foundation for the
commercial vtability of heavy-duty vehicle fuel cells and their
supporting infrastructure.

Successful
Commerclallxatlon

Witlz support from DOE

and DOT's Frduai
Transit Ad111i11istratio11
(FTA1 a 30-foot fuel ""
lzybrid bns combining
sevual Cllftillg-edge tecll nologies was developed.
17re bns is '''"e11tly i11
reve11ue service opera tion.

Research, Development & DemonstraUon

Several steps, rmzgiug from R&D t/1tonglz aeating design and

perfonuance standards, are uecessary to aclzieue iusurable com mercia/ systems. R&D is tlze 1110st i111portant ele111ent of tlze
safety pyramid becazzse it provides tlze aitlcal data needed to
aeate perfonrzance standards.

Zero Energy Homes & Commercial Buildings

Hydrogen Storage &Delivery

DOE's Zero Energy Homes (ZEH} initiative is bringing a new

concept to U.S. homebuilders. ZEH combines revolutionary,
energy-efficient construction techniques an~{es ~~
commercially available renewable energy~ ~ as
solar-water heating and solar electricity. The current goal is to
enable new homes to perfonn at least 50 percent more efficiently than homes built to current minimum efficiency standards, but the longer-tenn goal is to construct net "zeroenergy" building systems.

Storing hydrogen is a unique techrucal challenge because 1t has a

low energy densz~ mearung, a lot of fuel is needed to provide a
reasonable vehicle drivmg range resulting in larger and heavier
fuel tanks. Low cost, energy efficient off-board storage of hydrogen will also be needed throughout the hydrogen dehvery system
infrastructure.
ln December 2002, Air
Products and Cl~t~nicals,
lrrc. introduced a new
hydrogrn fueling system at
the Las Vegas Energy
Station. The new system
can be relocated to meet the
changing needs of cus
tomers,

Advanced Heavy-Duty Vehicle Technologies

17re 820-aae Cillano neighborhood near Trzcson, Arizo11a iUas

designed to promote economic growtlz and ecological harmony.

Civano is minimizing the use of natural resources, in part by using
renewable energy and aeating building designs that IU'e energy effi cient. Allllze homes in the community use less tl1a11 50 prrm! r'
tire energy of a conventionally built home.

DOT supports heavy-duty vehicle technology R&:D ranging

from locomotives to large trucks to inter-city buses. Some of
the most exciting work involves fuel cell transit buses, which
run on set routes, refuel at a limited number of locabons, and
are maintained by expert technicians, making them ideal for
testing new technology.

CEQ 014081

Solid-State lighting
DOE's Solid State Lighting Program IS pursuing dramatic
changes in lighting technology that will fundamentally alter
the way we view artificial light. Lighting currently accounts
for about 20 percent of US. electricity consumption. The most
widely used sources of artificial light are incandescent and Ruorescent lamps, but this is about to change. Solid-state lighting
is a new technology that has the potential to become 10 times
more energy efficient than incandescent hghting. Accordingly,
this technology will revolutionize the illumination of homes,
offices, and pubbc spaces.

Unlike COIIVtlltiorud ligllti11g, solid-state

liglrtirrg creates liglrt witlrout produci11g
heat. A semi"'o11drrrnrrg material srtdras
a liglrt-emittirrg diode (LEDs) cmwerts
electricity directly i11to liglrt a11d is
extremely errergy elficieJJt. DOE's Sandia
Natiorral Laboratory, a leader i11 solidstate lig/1ti11g, llosts a web sitewitl1 cm11 prelltllsive iufonrratiorr orr LEOs. (llttp:l/lightillg.stmdia.gov)

....

. ''~'.:

..

'

Superconductivity
Superconductivity has the potential to revolutionize our electric transmission systems in the same way f1ber optics revolutionized the communications industry. Unlike conventional
wires made of materials such as copper, superconducting wires
made of advanced materials have the ability to carry large electrical current without resistance losses. Hi~ture
Superconductors (HTS) conduct electricity wi~gh
efficiency. When an electrical conductor is cooled sufficienty, electrical resistance disappears. This allows a very large electrical current to flow through it, in tum generating a powerful magnetic
field.

~ .. .. i

. :'..

..... ~:

~ ...

,.

DOE is at tile forrftont ofworldwide tfforts to dtlltlop new proctSsts for

rna~rufocturing lliglr quality, high temperaturr superrorulucting materials.
Researdlli'S at Los Ala111os National Labomtory hllllt dweloped super co11ducting tape shown ablll/e that corries high electrical cumnts that arr
200 times greater than copper wire.

..... ,
,'...,,-"'

U.S.

CLIMATE

;/~'

..

CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014082

Reducing Emissions from Eneruv Supplv

4c~~.:rr

J!~r.~L

~!Is,

urrent
energy supphes are dominat by fossil
namely, coal, oil and natural gas. Transition I a low carbon future
will require the pursuit of multiple
. Further improvements 1n efficiency of eneJW supply technologies and deployment of
renewables are essential. 9!liz,.shift &em ltiglt clll'l>eR to low carbon fuelS>
(e.g. natural gas, synthesis gas and hydrogen) and nuclear energy can also
play important roles. Moreover, developments in advanced coal-based
power generation that enable the production of both electricity and large
quantities of hydrogen while capturing and sequestering COz would allow

ll:IWEft ef the fulun Ia be IIYill BR EUR'SRI infta!llactaTI\

("o.,4: .. ~cl u'lr'(.. of- -

-l't-;-.)

t""' d

"

'"t' ,

le.-..1'

.,...e

~_I
't... 1"""4

The Washbash Ri11er Coal Gasification Repowering Project, an

Integrated Gasification Combi11ed Cycle (lGCC) facility, is cons ill
ered one of the cleanest coal-based power generation facilities in
tl1e world. It is owned l1y General Energy and Cinergy.

9
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014083

energy. The Initiative is exploring all of these options with the

goal of producing hydrogen with zero emission technology and
ensuring that the required infrastructure is commercially available to deliver hydrogen safely to its end-use.

FutureGen
"Today I am pleas~d to annou11Ct tbat tbe United States will
sponsor a S 1 hi/l;on, 10-ytar demonstf'rltion project to mate
the world's first coal-based, :ero-tmissio111 electricity 11nd
hydrogen power p!llnt... "

Large-Scale Hydrogen Production from Fossil Fuels

Pnsidmt George \V. Bush

Febru11ry 27, 2003
FutureGen is a public-private initiative to build the world's
first integrated sequestration and hydrogen production power
plant. When operational, the prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world. The plant will be a 1iving prototype" with future technology innovations incorporated into the design as needed. An industrial consortium representing the U.5. coal and power industries will lead the project
and other countries will be invited to participate through the
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.

DOE is investigating promising new research to produce large

quantities of moderate-cost hydrogen from natural gas and
coal while capturing and sequestering~ in the process. One
exciting technology for hydrogen production from natural gas
is the advanced Ion Transport Membrane (ITM), which produces and uses oxygen in a single step to generate synthesis
gas. DOE is also advancing technologies that can utilize coal,
one of America's most abundant natural resources, for large-scale
production of hydrogen.

Tire world's first l1ydrogen e~rergy station featuring the co-produc tion ofhydrogen Jutland electric power will set'l/t as a commercial
demonstration oflrydrogen liS a safe and clean energy alternati-oe.
1111 project is a public-pri-oate portnership between DOE, tlze City
of Las Vegas, Air Products and Chemicals, lnc., and Plug Power.

Fu tiUIGtll, when oprr~~tiomll, will be the world's first zero emis sion fossil fuel power plant. Tire coal-llased Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle UGCC) plant will produce electricity
and hydrogen and lie configured to capture its COz emissions.

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

The. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative complements the FreedomCAR
Initiative by focusing primarily on researdt to produce hydrogen. Although hydrogen is the most abundant natural element,
rt must still be produced or reformed. Steam reforming of natural gas is currently the most widely used and economical hydrogen production method. Hydrogen can also be produced from
diverse sources, including coal and oil, or nuclear and renewable

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative

The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative intends to demonstrate by
2015, economic, commercial-scale hydrogen production using
the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) nuclear energy
design. The VHTR is designed to generate both heat and el~~octric.
power. Since very high temperature heat is requtred to1!Mp
the chemical bonds needed to release hydrogen, the reactor is
ideal for producin{~el. The VHTR reactor will
power an adjacent hydrogen plant, where one of two chemical
processes will produce 10 tons of hydrogen an hour, and tum
turbines to make electricity, all without producing any GHG
emissions.

10
U 5. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014084

International Partnership for the Hydrogen

Economy

Fuel Cell Technology

A cornerstone activity of DOE's fuel cell program is the publicprivate Solid State Energy Conve1'51on Alhance (SECA). Headed
by DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETI..) and
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, SECA is working to
develop and demonstrate solid oxide fuel ceU (SOFC) power systems that could be configured for a broad array of applications
with minimal drfferences in core module components. Through
the use of this mass customization tedmique, DOE and its partners hope to help bring about dramatic cost reductions
required for fuel cells to be more competitive wrth traditional
power sources.

"...working together with i11ttma

tiona/ partners, we can leverage
scarce resources and advance tbt
schedule for researrh, devewpment,
and tkployment ofhydrogen produc tion, Ttonzgt, transport, anrl end-use
technologies."
E11trgy Stmtr:try Spencer Abraham
Under DOE leadership, the International Partnership for the
Hydrogen Economy (!PHE) now involves more than 60 countries. IPHE is helprng to make the hydrogen economy a rea lity by organizing and implementing focused researdt internationally. By leveraging resources and collecting the world's
best minds, IPHE will advance cooperative R&:D and commertial uses of hydrogen production, storage, transport and
distribution. IPHE will facilitate the establishment of common
codes and standards and undertake activities to promote
hydrogen and fuel cell programs.

Key to SECA's ambi tious fuel cell cost

reductiozr goal is tile
dwelopme11t of a com
pact, Iiglrtweiglzt, 310
kilowatt
"building
block" module tlrat ca11
be mass prodr~eed.

The Department of Defense (DOD) also has a strong commitment to developing fuel cells. One of DOD's key R&:D efforts
is the development of a logistics fuel reformer I processor for
mobile electric power (MEP) fuel cells. The logistics fuel
reformer I processor could provide the ability to reform fuels
to hydrogen in place of conventional generators. This would
result in power generation systems that would not only
increase troop mobility but also lower noise levels, increase
efficiency and lower emissions .

Renewable Energy
Renewable energy encompasses a range of different technologies that can play important roles in reducing GHG emissions.
Leading options include wind and solar photovoltaic (PV}, as
well as a new frontier known as advanced biotechnology.

Wind
Wind energy is the Nation's fastest growing renewable energy
resource. Over the last two decades, wind power has made
great leaps in technology and price competitiveness, but there
is room for more technology improvements. One challenge
for wind power is to develop cost-effective win~tfiat
can generate electricity in low-wind areas. DO~est
ments in this area hopes to !Jpen a vast wind resource for the
nation.

Fuel
could prtroide a rer~olutionary 11ew option for
genaating electricity with efficiencies, reliability and tn11iromm11
tal perfomumu unmatched by con11tntional electricity genaating
approaches.

11

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014085

Advanced Biotechnology

Genetic saence is progressing at breathtaking pace yet the vast

majority of discoveries in the biosdences and biotechnology have
yet to be made. \".brk at DOE that could be called "Advanced
Biotechnology" seeks to revolutionize the applications of biotechnology to produce new fuels and reduce GHG emissions.

A wind tl11'bi11e's drive-train components ge11trators, gearbox

es, shafts and bearings - co11vert tire slow-rotating meclranical
tllef8Yfro111 tlrt rotor to electrical energy. DOE a11d its irrd11stry
partrrers are studying these components to make tlrern more
effective tllld less e.rperrsive to lllllllllfacture, operate and mairr
tain.

One of DOE's advanced biotechnology partnerships is with

the lnsbtute for Biological Energy Alternatives (mEA). mEA
is applymg the same strategy applied to the Human Genome
Project by genetically mapping an enbre ecosystem. A key
area of mEA's work is dissecting the genetic code of miaoor
ganisms that consume CO:! and release hydrogen. By study
ing the genetic instructions of the microorganisms, mEA
hopes to create simili~re efficient, man-made organisms.
Th1s advancement wobttallow scientists to use micro-organisms to generate hydrogen Ser e!fieienl fttel: for example, or-{;o
b rmk down C02 fran power-plant emissions.

Solar Photovoltaic {PV)

DOE is investing a significant share of its renewable energy
R&D in solar photovoltaic (PV). 1\vo primary types of PV
technologies available commercially are crystalline silicon
and thin film. Thin-film photovoltaic technologies are being
developed as a means
of substantially reducing the cost of PV systems. Today, much
progress has been
made. With further
progress, thin films
could result in truly
low-cost PV elecbicty
that can.J!eo-strttt-fntj;r...

By testing, analy:ing and mapping microbial DNA, nnarclrers at

IBEA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos Nt~tional
Laboratory are ad11ancing biotechnology to store carbolUind produce
hydrq:tn.

Tlrilr film PVis a leadi11g investment irr DOE's renewable errer

gy R&D portfolio. Researclrers at tire Natio11al Renewable
EneTllJ Laboratory are networki11g to reduce the cost of tlris
teclmology, making for a wide range of new products.

12
U.S CliMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014086

-t~'(. "f

-~~ ~""

...,;f:~~

Ad_., """"""""'
genetically modifying a plant's metabolism to
COz and thus sequester additional carbon in soils.

Nudear Power Gen<ratlcn N

more

The next generation of safe, emission-free and poliferation

resistant nuclear power plants 1s being developed under DOE's
Nuclear Power Generation IV initiative with nine other participating countries. Wlule today there are about 400 nuclear power
plants operting worldwide, further advances in technology may
broaden opportunities for expanded nuclear energy use in the
future.

Advance plant growtl tech11iqrres developed by rese/II'Chers at Los

Alamos National Laboratory call increase plant growtl1 rates,
biomass volrmre, and C02 uptake, Wl1icl1 increases tl1e 11rnormt of
carbon seqrrestend ill terrestzi11l ecosystems.

Nuclear Energy

~-'f<u ....._

t"''";';'"' ~

:A:::: -4t-

Nuclear e~ergy).: : ~:o:ii}:!:

:~~wge tecluaol~
S portfrdm berii.L.oi~- -a;...aeilt
uce large quantities of reliable, affordable electricity without GHC emissions. It
can also be harnessed to produce vast quantities of hydrogen to

help fuel a hydrogen economy. However, the expanded use of nuclear energy
must also satisfactoraly
address a number of other
unique and important
issues, such as nuclear
waste management Both
technology advances and
these issues are being
addressed through DOE's
advanced nuclear energy
The energy generated by one
pound of nuclear fuel ca11 pro technology programs.
vide the hydroge11 equivale11t of
250,000 gallo11s ofgasoline witlt out lillY GHG emissio11s.

--- -

0
GEN IV" refers ta tilt 11ext ge11eratio11 of safe IIUdellr power
plants tl1at nre being developed to produce low-cost electricity
and l1ydroge11 witltOitt 1111y GHG emissio11s

Some advanced design GEN IV concepts include high temperature reators that are two-to-three times more efficient than
contemporary reactors, have on-site waste processing, and are
mechanically simpler for improved reliabihty . Unlike earlier
designs that were intended simply as electricity poduction
facilities, the additional heat from high temperature reactors
could provide hot water for nearby communities or energy to
~seawater desalinization or hydrogen production.

ower 2010 Pr?gram, unveiled by DOE Secretary

Abraham in Feb
cost-shared effort aimed a entifying new sites for nuclear
power plants, developing advan
lant technologies, and

13

US. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014087

Nuclear Power 2010 1s to test a one-step licens1

e the private
sector to reach a deds1on by 2005, on whe r or not to order
any new nuclear power plants for depl ment in the U.S. by
approximately 2010. DOE is also pro ing limited, but critical
support for private companies 1villi to test this new regulatory structure.

pment of add1t1onal nuclear power

er the management and dasposal of
nuclear waste. T DOE Advanced Fuel Cycle ln.it1ahve
(AFC!) is develo ng a technology base for waste transmutation, that is, t e transformation of long-lived radioactive
materials m short-lived or non-radioactive materials.
Transmuta on technology has the potential to extract energy
from nu ear waste and make it available to the national
power rid. This technology represents a potentially huge
of energy. AFCI intends to demonstrate its practicali-

R Project is a unique international collaboration de-tei-to meet the world's

..W:I4fi~rsron as a practical source of energy

Scientists predict that successful demonstration of sion energy, as envisioned by ITER, would change e energy Iande in the second half of the 21st cen

Tire machines to be built by l1ER aitn to itnproue " IIUmber

of aspects of tire fusioll process. Fusion is tire nuclear process
by which two hydrogen nuclei u11ite, usually under co11di tio11s of extreme he~rt ~rnd pressure, to create a single lrelinm
1mcleus, releasing enormous amounts of energy. ~

.. 14

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014088

Capturing and Sequestering Carbon Dioxide

"\f~ all believe technology offers grerJt prom

ise to signijic.ntly reduce [greenhouse gas]
emissio111 especially carhon Ct1pture, rtor11ge
and sequestratzim technologies."

ossil fuels will hkely remain

the mainstay of global energy production well into the
21st Century. "Carbon sequestration" is the' term given to a suite of
technologies that can remove ~
f ron large point sources, such as
power plants, oil refineries and
industrial processes, or from the air
itself. The C02 can then be stored
in geologic formations such as
depleted oil and gas reservoirs,
deep coal seams or saline aquifers.
It can also be stored in plants, trees
and soils by increasing their natural
C02 uptake.

Pmidmt Gtorge \~ Bush

Jullt II, ZOO!

Because carbon sequestration holds the potential to significantly mitigate the release of GHGs into the atmosphere,
sequestration research at the DOE has grown over the last five
years from small-sc:ale, largely conceptual studies to one of the
highest single technology priorities in the agency's energy
research programs. DOE is also working closely with USDA
in teriestrial sequestration, has partnered with the U.S.
~urvey on geologic sequestration, and is exploring

C02 emissions can be captllred from fossil fuel power

plants and trariSported for storage in geologic fonna tioriS suclr as sali11e aqrlifers or Rflarido11ed oil resenoirs.
C02 nptake can also be iru:reased i11 nahtral ecosystems.
USDA estimates that over 12 millio11 toriS of carbon
eqr~iva/erlt carr be redrrced fry 2012 tlrro11glr carbon seq11es tration arrd GHG emissio11S reductiorrs nrrder its corrser vatiorr programs.

~or bre..a=k~th~ro~u;gh;;,c;o;nc;e~p~ts~WI~th;.~th~E;.~N~ati:'o~,n:a~k,..
Academies of

Sci~

15
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014089

The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

Established by the US. State Deparbnent and DOE in February
2003, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (C:SLF) coordinates data gathenng,
R&:D and joint projects to
advance the development
and deployment of carbon
sequestration technologies
worldwide. C:SLF held 1ts
first ministerial-level meeting on carbon sequestration in June 2003. Highlevel representatives from
14 countries, the 'European
Commission, and over 400
members of the international energy, busmess and
government commumties
partici paled.

Core R&:D efforts emphasize technologies that directly capture

C02 from large point sources and store the emissions in geologic formations. Reducing net COz emissions from these
facilities with COz capture technology represents an opportunity to achieve substantial emissions reductions. Storing C02
in geologic formations is considered an attracbve option for a
number of reasons. In the case of depleted oil resevoirs or
deep coal seams, COz can be used to enhance oil recovery or
produce methane thus providing economic incentive to store
carbon. Furthermore, saline aquifers are geographically located througout the world and have the capacity to store vast
amounts of COz.

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

"Thm pamtmhips...will htcnm~ the centerpiece ofour

sequestnttian pragram.
Energy Stcrttary Spmcer Ahrabam
Navemher 21, :zoo:z
On August 16, 2003, DOE named seven regional partnerships

of state agencies, universities, and private companies to form

the core of a nationwide network designed to determine the
best approaches for capturing and permanently storing GHGs.
Collectively, the partnerships include more than 140 organizations spanning 33 states, three Indian nations, and two
Canadian provinces.

Carbon Sequestration Program

The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program encompasses all aspects
of carbon sequestration and is composed of three elements: a core
R&:D program; FutureGen and the Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships. Core R&D efforts are aimed at
developing a portfolio of technologies to capture and permanently store CO:l These technologies will provide the technical
base for the program's two initiatives.

The Partnerships will develop a framework to validate and

potentially deploy carbon sequestration technologies with a
focus on determining which sequestration approaches are best
suited for each geographic region. They will also study regional regulations, safety and environmental concerns, and the
infrastructure that would be required if sequestration technologies were to be deployed. At the end of the first, two-year
phase, the partnerships will recommend tech.fiologies for
.small-scale validation testing in a Phase n competition expected to begin in 2005.

CArbon a~p_ture tech11olog!es llre being developed 1111der

DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program to caP.ture CO..z

e1!1issions from large point so11rces such as the oil re}llli!T!J

p1ctured above.

16
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014090

DOE's swtn regio11al carbo11 sequestration partnerships, annormced

i11 August 2003, will investigate tire pote11tialfar carbon sequestra tlo11 i11 theirregion. Tltey will also identify any infrastructure, safe ty a11d enviomne~~tal issues tlrat rnust be addressed in arder to e11srue
that C02can be safely and perrna11ently stored.

17
M

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014091

;.

I=:,.~~- ::
<'
'

,I

..... -.

:-' t.~ ~

.
18
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014092

Reducing the Potential for CliiDate Enacts

of Other Greenhouse Gases

ther greenhouse gases cover a broad array of gases other than COz.
Usually, other GHGs or "non~ GHGs" refer principally to
methane (ai4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexatlouride (SF6) and a
number of high-global warming potential (GWP) gases. These other GHGs are
more potent as energy absorbers than C~ (per unit weight) and have cumulatively contributed between one-nfth and one-third of the total estimated
anning potenhal since pre-industrial times. Therefore, reducing nonissions would be an important component of any GHG mitigation

The U.S. is a world leader in reducing emissions of non-C02 GHGs. By

working closely with specific emitting sources, voluntary programs have
demonstrated the value of technology in reducing GHG emissions in two key
areas: mining from coal-bed methane operations, and SF6 from magnesium
produchon.

~ect, thec:rmc:eptofglob

a/ wanning pote11tia/ (GWP) was devel

oped to compare tl1e ability of eRcll GHG
to trap l1eat ill tl1e at111ospl1m reltive to
mrother gu. In tllis cue, C02 is the ref
ere11c:e cRse. Metha11e, for example, has a
GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. 711is
means t11at on a kilogram for kilogram
basis, metl1a11e is 23 times more pote11t
tha11 C02 durning tills period.

C02 from bumiug fossil fire/; is the domiiiRIIt GHG source cRtegor/ill

tire U.S. (2000), typically comprisi~rgclose to sa percent of all GHG emis

sious. However, otller GHGs, witlr their high wannirrg potentials aud
loug lifetimes ill the atlnosplrm, must not be overlooked. DOE, EPA,
and USDA are working closely wit/1 industry and Rgriculture to aclrieve
vol1111tary reductions throug/1 11ew IIIRIIRgnneut practices a11d techno/a
gy.

19
U.S CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014093

Methane Recovery from Coal Beds

SF6 from Magnesium Production

Methane is liberated during underground and surface coal

mining as part of normal mining operations. Most emissions
result from natural degasification or ventilation systems
employed at underground rrunes to ensure that methane levels
remain within safe concentrations. ~~e President's
Oimate VISION Inihative are working w1th the coal industry
to reduce emissions by recovering methane gas hberated during mining. Innovative technologies are being developed to
capture and produce coalbed methane (CBM) and coal mine
methane (Q{M). Furthermore, the development of advanced
drilbng technologies such as m-mine and surface directional
dnlling systems may enable fewer wells to produce more gas,
thus increasing efficiency and reducing emissions.

For more than 25 years, magnesium metal producers and casting companies have used SF6 mixed with dry air and/ or C02 as
a protective cover gas to prevent the oxidation and burning of
molten metal. EPA and the U.S. magnesium industry, with the
support of the International Magnesium Association (IMA), are
working in a voluntary partnership to eliminate SF6 emissions.
Promising new cover gas alternatives are now commercially
available and are undergoing further evaluation in pmductionscale trials. The partnership's early success has led to growing
mdustry optimism that it can eliminate all SF6 emissions by
2010, as part of the President's Oimate VISION Initiative.

EPA a11d DOE are worki11g cooperatively with CONSOL Ermgy

to demoustrate then11al oxidatio11 of veutilatioll air metha11e
rrsir1g Megtec's Flow Reversal Reactor. Verrtilatio11 air metlra11e
equip111e11t, suc/r as tire Megtec Vocsidizer, uses 11p to 100 ptretllt
of tire metha11e released from a rni11e Ve11tiltztio11 slraft. It ge11er ates Jreat tlrat ca11 be 11sed for power prod11ctio11. (Photograph
courtesy of BHP Billito11 Ltd.)

20

SF., a potent GHG, is used as a couer gas in tire mag11esiu111

indrrstl'y to preve11t the llumi11g of mol tell metal. Altenratiue
cover gas tec/mologies are 11ow being dneloped tltat meet or
exceed tlllTellt perfonnallce requirements tmd offtJ siguificant
e11viroumenta1 be11e[its. Tire top photograpll uses a cover gas
w/rile the seco11d photo is without a cover gas. (Photographs
co11rtesy of 3M TM !'erfonnar~ce Materials Divisiorr.)

U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014094

Enhancing Capabilities to Measure and

Monitor GHG Emissions

wide array of GHG sensors, measurement platforms, monitoring

and mventorying systems, and inference methods will likely be

needed to meet basic GHG emissions measurement requirements

of the future.Measunmnt systems must be developed that can establish
baselines and measure carbon storage and GHG fluxes on various scales,
from indtvidual projects to large geographic areas. Improved measurement
and monitoring technologies and capabilities can also inform the
state of climate science and help to identify and guide future
opportunities for technology development.
Current R&D is focused on improvements to extsting technologies u~ed to make land-based background measurements.
HoweJer, significant advances in the science of remote sensing,
which ~an be coupled wtth land-based measurements, are creating new opportunities to measure and monitor GHG emissions
and better understand GHG inventories and flows.

NASA satellites wit/1 new and i111praued seiJSOrs will be mount ed in Earth obsUDing satellites to prauide ualuable data an
GHGs tl1at can improve 1mderstanding of their impacts an eli mate change.

21
U.S CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014095

laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy

(LIBS)

Ameriflux

With support hom NASA, USDA and DOE, LIDS is one of the
longer-running success stories of Federally funded R&D. In
July 2003, resean:hers hom Los Alamos National Laboratory
received an unprecedented 4th R&D 100 Award for a novel LIDS
application called CAR1SS (Compositional Analysis by Raman
Integrated Spark Spectroscopy). This application is the only
field-deployable Instrument that can fit into a briefcase and pro
vide a complete chemical analysis of a material, including soil
carbon, at various depths. With this breakthrcugh, the time
and cost of soil carbon measurements has been reduced by at
least a factor of 100. Kansas State University will soon lead
the tesbng protocol validation of LIBS for sod carbon meas
urement, which will be instrumental in fadlitating its rap1d
commercialization.

USl>A.l>OE a11d NETt urr working to impro11e rneasruirrg and

monitoring of GHG errrissioriS arrd changes ill sol/ carllorr.
Supported by all tlrree age11cies arrd NASA, UBS is a !rea k through carbon measurement technology. Its ability to quickly and
cost elfecti'llely measurr carbon in soils will be key to the monitor ing oftetnStrial sequestration projects.

DOE's Amenflu.x is a network of researchers engaged in dired

and long-term measurements of COz and water vapor fluxes
between terrestrial ecosystems and the abnosphere. Teams are
comprised of USDA's Forest Service, the Deparbnent of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Abnospheric Administration
and a number of universities, with additional teams planned
for the near future. Ameriflu.x is networked internationally and
there are currenUy IS long-term flux measurement forest sites in
the US., United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany,
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Iceland.

Ameriflux towers sudr as the one picturrd abo11e are taking longtenn measurements of COz and water 11apor fluxes in 15 sites
tlwug/1out tilt world, including the U.S. l>afll gathered from these
measurerntnt sites are important to understand .interactions
between the atrnospherie and tl!lTestrial systems.

22
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014096

Remote Sensing
Remote sensing is the sdence of acquiring information about
the Earth's surface without actually bemg in contact with it.
Remote sensing provides data cntical to weather prediction,
agricultural forecasting, resource exploration, and environmental monitoring. Under development at NASA, new and
improved sensors will be mounted in Earth observing satelhtes. This new family of sensing technologies includes chemical, laser, infrared, radar, light detecting and rangmg, mulbspectral video, and mass spectrometers. Additionally, computing power capable of handling large amounts of technology IS being applied to meet the challenges of data analyss

and intre p relation.

Satellitls provide valuable data

arrd metlrarre.

011

CO:z. aerosols, water clouds,

23
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY-PROGRAM

CEQ 014097

24
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

CEQ 014098

nder President Bush's leadership, the U.S. is now embarked on a

long-tenn ~ challenge, guided and paced by science, to
explore and develop innovabve and advanced climate change technologies. These technologies are expected to make a significant con!ribution
to meetmg the President's climate change goals, near- and long-term.
President Bush made a commitment to pursue a sensible, science-based
approach to climate change and build on America's capacity to iMovate and
develop technology. The President directed the Federal agencies to apply
their R&D resources to both the science and the technology. He established a
new Cabinet-level management structure to guide and oversee this mulbagency effort. He d1rected hts Cabinet Secretaries to enhance international
collabora!ton, wh1ch has resulted in several bold new irutiatives.

These actions, illummated further by the projects htghlighted in this report,

signal a serious, long-tenn comm1tment to move forward in addressing climate change. They evidence strong Federal leadership in engaging Amenca's
researdt enterprise to spur innovabon. Sustained investment over time, if
well focused, can help bring about revolutionary technologies that lead will to
dramatically reduced GHG em1ssions.
The Oimate Change Technology Program continues to coordinate R&D
efforts among all the participating Federal agencies. As reflected in this
report. there are a number of promising, cutting-edge technologies already
well underway in today's U.S. climate change technology portfolio. F'rom
these R&D investments, undertaken in partnership with others, opportunities
will arise to fundamentally transfonn <!fld dramatically improve our 21st
Century energy system, with significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions
as the result.

25
US. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY Pfl.OGRAM

CEQ 014099

Message

Page 1 ofl

Hannegan, Bryan J.
From:

Hannegan, Bryan J.

Sent:

Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:46 PM

To:

'Anderson, Margot'

Subject: RE: 1605{b) release materials

Margot - please find attached minor edits to the press release and talking points. In addition to the changes in the
documents, I wonder if we are sufficiently describing why reporters would seek to register reductions in the first
place. From these materials there is nothing to motivate someone to say "wow, this ability to register reductions is
a great thing because {.... )" and I wonder if we could craft something that highlights what is really a major
innovation in the program.
Comments to follow shortly on the FAQ.

Thanks,
Bryan

Greenhouse Effects/1605(b)
General Guidelines Review and Roll-Out

10/2/2003
CEQ 014108

DRAFT: Press Release 1605(b) Revised General Guidelines

Today, the Department of Energy releases- for a 60-day comment period -proposed
revised General Guidelines for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and
reductions (provide the web site). The proposed revisions fulfill the President's
February 14th, 2002 directive to enhance DOE's existing voluntary reporting program
and reward companies that demonstrate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed revisions would enable the Department of Energy to provide special
recognition to those companies and other entities that provide a full and accurate
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reductions. The revisions
represent a key element In the Administration's efforts to encourage and document
voluntary efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed Guidelines are intended to improve the accuracy, reliability, and
verifiability of greenhouse gas emission data reported under the program and aid in
achieving the President's climate change goals. Under the revised program, large
entities, such as utilities, manufacturers, state and local governments, would be able to
register greenhouse gas emissions reductions if they provide entity-wide emissions data
and demonstrate entity-wide emission reductions after 2002. Other provisions are
designed to help small entities -; ~~~~ ~~ J!.o_u_s~~9~d_s_ ~~<"! ~~ll_~u_sl!!~s_s~!5 _-: ~e_gj~t~~ ___ ~ _- -(._Del~eted..;.;....;:-----~
emission reductions. Reporters not seeking to register reductions can continue to report
emissions and emission reductions without meeting the new entity-wide requirements
for emissions and emissions reductions.
To Implement the President's directive, DOE led extensive interagency consultations,
issued a public Notice of Inquiry, established a website to distribute background
analyses and receive stakeholder comments, held four public workshops (USDA hosted
two additional workshops on agricultural and forestry issues), and met with numerous
stakeholder groups.

-.

CEQ 014109

DRAFT
1605(b) Talking Points
Overview

Today, the Department of Energy releases for comment, draft General

Guidelines for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and
reductions.

The proposed revisions focus on providing special recognition to those

companies and other entities that provide a full and accurate accounting of
greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reductions.

The voluntary reporting program is a key element in the Administration's

efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions intensity.

The draft guidelines provide a range of mechanisms by which firms may

report their emissions inventories, account for emission reductions, and
record the results of their ,e_f[o_r!s)p_r~_!JP! -~l!llS_S!C?.f'!.S_ thiQ1:!9~ !Q~ !J'~ _q_f ______ ~ .. - ,..o_el_eted_:_se_re_cte_d_ _ _ _-<
carbon sequestration, improved efficiency; and low- or zero- emitting
-- ,__;;o:...;;el;;;.eted;;;;.;...;.:....;;m;;;.ad.;;.:e_ _ _ _
technologies.
_...J

The national registry will provide a central program for recording J~~ _________ ~. ~ i-...;.o..;..et..;..et_ect_:_wh_e_re_ _ _ ___,
achievements of a range of voluntary emission reduction programs, such as
the Administration's Climate VISION program,. __________________________ ~ .. -{ Deleted:. can be recorded

Background

Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to establish a
voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program. Guidelines were issued in
1994. Currently, about 220 participan~ rJtpp.rt_ I:!IJ~~r-99_1;.'~ P!99~a_11],_'!JbLc_h____ -- {Deleted: reporters
is managed by DOE's Energy Information Administration.
On J:e_b!!J~IY..li-~QQ~.-tfl~-~r~_sic!~l'!.t _dja:_e_c!~~ p_q~ _t9 J~~~ !1!1.iDte!~9~D~~ ____ ~. - [._D_et_et_ect_:,_4_ _ _ _ _..J
effort to enhance the existing voluntary reporting program. A senior level
interagency policy group met several times to decide on key policy issues.
Since the President's directive, DOE held interagency consultations, issued a
public Notice of Inquiry, established a website, and held four public
workshops {USDA held 2 additional workshops on agricultural and forestry
issue).:. _1~9f:_t]~~ r~q~iy~g PY!!r .)99_~~t~ pf P!JP!i~ P9!1li!'~DtS.:--------------- -1 Deleted:
To meetthe requirements of the President's directive, the proposed General
Guideline~ contain significant revisions to the current reporting guidelines, but
maintain consistency with 1605{b) statutory requirements.

wereheldbyUSDA

CEQ 014110

DRAFT

Key Features of Proposed Revised General Guidelines

Under the revised program, most reporters will be able to register greenhouse
gas emissions reductions if they provide entitywide emissions data and can
demonstrate they achieved entitywide emission reductions after 2002.
Small entities;_such as ho!z!seholds and small businesse._._ ~r:.e_ ~llgil;_>l~-~o- __ . ___ register reductions for actions taken without filing full entitywide reports,
,-,-although other reporting requirements apply.

?De;..;....leted.....;:_ _ _ _ _ _-"'
Deleted: those without significant
greenhouse gas emissions

Deleted:

Reporters not seeking to register reductions can continue to report on

emissions and emission reductions without having to provide and an entity
wide inventory and account for entity-wide emissions.

Companies are encouraged to report at the highest level but may report at a
subsidiary or affiliate level. Registered reductions, if applicable, always
accrue to the reporting unit.
CEOs are required to sign reports. maintain records for three years.
Independent verification is encouraged, but not required.

DOE is developing revised measurement and accounting methods, consistent

with the General Guidelines, which will be released for public comment over
the next several months.

CEQ 014111

Hannegari, Bryan J.
Cooney, Phil
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11 :27 AM
Fitter, E. Holly; Lii.Owen@hq.doe.gov
Hurst, Kevin D.; Sandoli, Robert; Hannagan, Bryan J.
.
RE: DOC comments on DOE Oversight Testimony on Climate ChangeTechnology]

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Bryan and I discussed ~hem this morning and we should be providing comments shortly- thanks, Phil
---original Message-From:
Rtter, E. Holly
Sent:
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:05 AM
To:
UI.Owen@hq.doe.gov
Cc:
Hurst, Kevin D,; Sandoli, Robert; Cooney, Phil
Subject:
DOC comments on DOE OVersight Testimony on Oimate ChangeTechnology]
Deletion on page 4 from DOC.

Phil: Will CEO have any comments on the Conover testimony. Once I get the OMB comments I will be clearing.

~~

"''=:::::::::'U.!...v;,.~-~'

Record Type:

KBrown@osec.doc.gov
11/04/2003 11:01 :32 AM

Record

Comment: on page 4 of the testimony, second paragraph under the heading Climate Change Energy Technology
Priorities. The sentence states,
"Although there remains considerable uncertainty within the scientific community about the level at which
greenhouse gas concentrations should be stabilized, the CCTP intends to develop the technological capability that will
enable both sustained economic growth and reduced risk of potential climate change."
This sentence implies that the Administration has decided that greenhouse gas concentrations should be stabilized
and you are just questioning the levels. Has the Administration agreed that greenhouse gas concentrations should be
stabilized? To avoid confusion, we suggest that the first part of the sentence be omitted and begin the sentence with,
"The CCTP intends to develop ... "
Otherwise, the testimony was comprehensive and the links to climate change science were well-stated.

CEQ 014426

House Science hearing

Page 1 of 1

Hannegan, Bryan J.
From:

Conover, David (David.Conover@hq.doe.gov)

Sent:

Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:11 AM

To:

Sandoli, Robert; Hurst, Kevin D.; Hannegan, Bryan J.

Cc:

Marlay, Robert

Subject:

House Science hearing

Importance: High
We were given a preview of some likely questions that may come up in tomorrow's hearing. Attached are our
prepared answers, which I will deliver orally. Let me know if you have concerns with any of this, please.
Science Qs (1234) Rev2.wpd
Dave Conover
Director, Climate Change Technology Program
US DOE
202-586-3994 (voice)
240-381-6506 (wireless)
202-586-0092 (fax)

1115/2003

CEQ 014459

"What are the Administration Priorities for Climate Change Technology?"

Energy Subcommittee, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Thursday, November 6, 2003

Question #I: If the big initiatives are medium to long-term, what are we doing in the
technology area to meet the 18% goal?
Answer:

The Administration continues to support a strong and diversified program of R&D

in energy efficiency and renewable energy, two areas with high near-term
potential for significant contributions. In the FY04, the Administration requested
a total of $444 million for renewable energy technology, where further advances
in the technologies are expected improve competitiveness and expand growing
markets for wind, photovoltaics and geothermal energy technologies. In FY04,
excluding Weatherization and State Energy grants, the Administration requested
$548 million for technology programs in the area of energy efficiency.
Many of these R&D programs are cost-shared with non-Federal partners. This
tends to focus efforts on technologies with potential for relatively near-to-market
adoption. Others have been in the R&D pipeline for some time and the
Administration's continued support can accelerate completion. Many of these.
technologies can be expected to make contributions to the President's 2012 goal.
In addition, to help realize near term potential, the President's FY04 budget
proposed tax incentives, totaling $4.2 billion through FY08, to spur the use of
clean, renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.
Consistent with the President's National Energy Policy, the tax incentives include
credits for the purchase of hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating
systems, energy produced from landfill gas, electricity produced from alternative
energy sources such as wind and biomass, and combined heat and power systems.
Some of these technologies will be available only in the future. But many, such
as solar heating systems, wind and biomass generating systems are available
today. The tax incentives will encourage their use now and creative incentives for
improvements in the future.
Further, the Administration's voluntary programs- Climate Vision, Climate
Leaders and the Registry for Reporting GHG Reductions- will also help focus
business on today's, as well as tomorrow's, opportunities to reduce emissions.
In February 2003, President Bush announced that twelve major industrial sectors

and the membership of the Business Roundtable have committed to work with
four of his cabinet agencies (DOE, EPA, DOT, and USDA) to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the next decade. Participating industries included America's ~
electric utilities; petroleum refiners and natural gas producers; automobile, iron
and steel, chemical and magnesium manufacturers; forest and paper producers;

CEQ 014460

..
railroads; and the cement, mining, aluminum and semiconductor industries.
Finally, near-term impacts can be expected to come from the the DOE
Weatherization and State Energy Grant programs. In FY 2004, DOE requested
$357.0 million for Weatherization & Intergovernmental Activities, $42.5 million
more than appropriated in FY 2003.
The Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program activities support the
President's National Energy Policy recommendations for rapid deployment of
clean energy technologies and energy efficient products. The program's funding
request also supports the President's commitment to increase funding by $1.4
billion over 10 years for the Weatherization Assistance Program, whicli improves
the energy efficiency of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans.
Based on historical data, the program anticipates that low-income families will

save $1.80 in energy costs for every dollar invested over the life of the efficiency
improvements.

CEQ 014461

..
"What are the Administration Priorities for Climate Change Technology?"
Energy Subcommittee, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Thursday, November 6, 2003

Question #2: What's the distribution of resources between the big initiatives, efficiency
programs, and more basic research?
Answer:

Based on information drawn from the Administration's FY04 budget request, and
using criteria adopted for identifying CCTP contributing activities, the CCTP is
developing a funding baseline for DOE and the other participating Federal
agencies. Although not yet complete, preliminary data for DOE provide some
insights with respect to the subject distribution, as follows;
(a) Energy efficiency, less the "big initiative" known as FreedomCAR, including
the Weatherization and State Energy grants programs, is the largest sector of
investment. In the FY04 request, this category totals $706 million.
(b) "Big initiatives", including FreedomCAR, FutureGen, the Hydrogen Fuel

Initiative, Nuclear Generation IV, Fusion Energy's ITER, Nuclear Power

2010, and sum ofthe Carbon Sequestration Initiatives is next largest. In the
FY04 request, this category totals $546 million.
(c) Basic research is third, totaling $283 million. This consists of the remainder
of the fusion energy sciences program, less ITER, augmented by a collection
of specific CCTP-related supporting basic research activities in Office of
Science programs of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and Biological and
Environmental Research (BER), which were not counted elsewhere.

Originator:
Org. Code:
Contact#:
Date:
Approved:

R. Marlay
DOE/PI-45
586-3900
November 4, 2003
Date:

CEQ 014462

"What are the Administration Priorities for Climate Change Technology?"

Energy Subcommittee, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Thursday, November 6, 2003

Question #3: What drives the program, the stabilization goal or something else?
Answer:

The Climate Change Technology Program is driven by the President's near- and
long-term climate change goals. The near-term goal is that of reducing intensity
of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic output. The long-term goal is
that of the UNFCCC, which the U.S. ratified and the President reaffirmed, which
is to achieve" ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system."
The Program is also guided by several basic principles. The Program's activities
must contribute to and ensure continued economic growth and prosperity; be
flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new technology;
pursue market-based incentives and spur technological innovation; and be
measured, as we learn more from science, and build on it.
Within these broad guidelines, the CCTP intends to develop the technological
capability that will enable both sustained economic growth and reduced risk of
potential climate change. The CCTP aims to accelerate the development of new
technologies that can significantly contribute to the accomplishment of these
Presidential goals, near- and long-term.

Originator:
Org. Code:
Contact#:
Date:
Approved:

R. Marlay

DOE/PI-45
586-3900 .
November 4, 2003
Date:

CEQ 014463

'

.
"What are the Administration Priorities for Climate Change Technology?"
Energy Subcommittee, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Thursday, November 6, 2003

Question #4: What is the relationship between NCCTI and CCTP? Is NCCTI a $40M grant
program or something larger?
Answer:

The President's National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) is more

than a $40 million competitive solicitation program. The NCCTI is an ongoing
and continuing, comprehensive review and discussion process, coordinated across
all Federal R&D agencies, aimed at assessing R&D needs and focusing Federal
technology R&D on the President's climate change goals, near- and long-term.
As such, NCCTI builds on an existing and robust base of Federal R&D in climate
change technologies. NCCTI works to improve this base by identifying new and
emerging priorities to which funds may be redirected from lower priority areas. In
this way, the broad base of climate change related funding can be strengthened.
The Climate Change Technology Program is a multi-agency, R&D coordination
activity, organized under the auspices of the Cabinet-level Committee on Climate
Change Science and Technology Integration (CCCSTI). The CCTP is responsible
for supporting the CCCSTI as it carries out the. President's NCCTI. Participating
Federal agencies include the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, and Transportation, as well
as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
As part of the President's overall Initiative, the Administration requested funds
($20M in FY03; and $40M in FY04) for a competitive solicitation program, in
which technology research ideas would be funded on the basis of their potential to
reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. In Congressional actions
taken in both fiscal years, the relevant Committees did not appropriate funds for
this solicitation. Since then, however, the Administration completed a public
Request for Information (RFI) regarding interest in such a solicitation, should one
had gone forward, received 180 responses from 79 different entities. The RFI
provided the CCTP with additional information. The Administration is now
considering a number of alternative approaches to achieve similar ends.

Originator:
Org. Code:
Contact#:
Date:
Approved:

R. Marlay
DOE/PI-45
586-3900
November 4, 2003
Date:

CEQ 014464

'IY.lessage

Page 1 of 1

Cooney, Phil
From:

Hannagan, Bryan J.

Sent:

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:40PM

To:

Cooney, Phil; Perino, Dana M.; Holbrook, William F.

Subject: 1605(b) Q and A

Can you review for any red flags and let me know if you agree these are ready to go? I am inclined to agree with
Margot and go ahead and post the last two questions (since we know we are going to get these anyway .... )
The goal here is to standardize response to media and potential participant enquiries.
No idea on timing of release yet.
Thanks.
Bh
-----Original Message----From: Anderson, Margot [mailto:Margot.Anderson@hq.doe.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 4:10PM
To: Hannegan, Bryan J.
Cc: Friedrichs, Mark
Subject: Questions. for roll out of draft guidelines
1605b Q and A (FAQ and Backgrounders) vB.doc
Bryan -our GC reviewed and finds your language okay on the "penalty" question. I made a few very small edits
(not In track changes). Plans our still to post these when the time comes. I am thinking the last two questions
should be posted as well. Comments?

11/13/2003

Greenhouse Effects/1605(b)
General Guidelines Review and Roll-Out

CEQ 014482

DRAFT
FAQs for Proposed 1605 b) Guidelines
1. How will the voluntary r istry help address climate change? The proposed
Guidelines will help U.S. ompanies and institutions undertake comprehensive
reviews of their greenhouse gas emissions and take actions to reduce these emissions.
By emphasizing the importance of providing a full accounting of all greenhouse gas
emissions and emission reductions, the revised Guidelines will help identify and
encourage cost-effective emissions reductions that will help make substantial
progress toward the achievement of the President's goal of reducing the greenhouse
gas intensity of U.S. economy, and to global efforts to address the risk of global
climate change.
.L , ~
~{\h ~ \....1 OJ.. rJ. ~ -1t.t- 'Pt-l.s 1 ~ 1...1 'i' 0
J-

Ur/\..'1'

.,J

1,

...

2. Why should entitie report on their greenhouse gas emissions? An important step
towards achieving e President's goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity ofthe
U.S. economy is encourage companies and institutions to inventory their
greenhouse gas
issions and track annual changes in emissions per unit of output.
Through the rev; sed 1605(b) program, participating entities will gain an improved
understanding f their own emissions, identify cost-effective opportunities for
voluntary e sions reductions, and demonstrate to their stockholders and customers
that they are t'ftkiag r.espgRsible aQtioa te :ntmiage the poteatial..risks of climate
change. The revised 1605(b) guidelines will provide a mechanism for entities to
demonstrate that they are taking action to inventory and reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions.

3. What are the key features of the proposed revised General Guidelines? The
proposed revisions to the Guidelines are designed to enhance the accuracy,
measurement and verifiability ofinfonnation reported under the 1605(b) program and
to contribute to the President's. climate change goals. The Guidelines continue to
provide considerable flexibility to entities that wish to report emissions or emission
reductions in the future, as they have in the past.
The Guidelines will provide special recognition for those entities able to meet
additional requirements necessary to register emission reductions achieved aft 20Q2\
For large ~mitters, these requirements include providing an inventory of their "
\1
emissions and calculating the net reductions associated with entity-wide efforts tOJ '
reduce emissions or sequester carbon. Small emitters would be eligible to register
emission reductions associated with specific activities without rer-rt~ng an inventory
of the total emissions or demonstrating a net decrease in entity-wide emissions.
Small emitters would be required to provide a full accounting of the emissions and
emission reductions associated with each category of their activity on which they
choose to report.

The Guidelines would enable entities to report (but not register) emission reductions
achieved prior to 2003 and report (but not register) emission reductions associated

1
CEQ 014483

with specific actions taken to reduce emissions - sometimes referred to as projects even if these reports do not meet the criteria established by DOE for registering
reductions.
The chief executive officer of the company or institution, an agency head, head of
household or other responsible official would be required to certify that the reporting
entity accurately followed the revised Guidelines. Entities would be encouraged to
obtain independent verification of the accuracy of their reports and their compliance
with DOE Guidelines.

4. What are the key differences betweelt the existing program and the proposed
revisions? First, the proposed revised program increases reporting transparency.
Transparency is improved by focusing on entity-wide reporting. Entities will need to
identify and fully describe the entity on which they are reporting, such as a utility,
manufacturer, commercial business or institution. The current program only requires
identifying those facilities or projects the entity is reporting on. Under the revised
program, entities would need to describe their entity boundaries and structure in an
entity statement; report changes, if any, to those entity boundaries each year; and
ensure no double counting occurs.
Second, the proposed revised program offers utilities, manufacturers and other large
emitters an opportunity to receive special recognition for their efforts to reduce
emissions after 2002 if they provide a comprehensive accounting of their emissions
and their emission reductions. To receive such recognition, entities with total average
annual emissions greater than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent must
report on all emissions and emission reductions within their entity boundaries.
Entities with annual emissions of less than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent, such as farms, small businesses and households, would not be required
complete a comprehensive accounting of all of their emissions, but would still be
required to meet other new requirements. For example, a farm wanting to report
sequestration associated with conservation practices on one field must report on
conservation practices on all fields, but would not need to provide emissions or
emissions reductions data on its other activities, such as livestock operations. .
Third, the proposed revised program increases reporting accuracy and verifiability by
proposing more uniform calculation methods; specifying the need for three-year
record-keeping; and requiring a senior official to certify data accuracy.

5. What does "entity-wide" mean? The term "entity-wide" ~efers to all greenhouse gas
emissions or emission reductions by a company, utility, manufacturer or other
reporting entity, as defined by its entity statement.

6. What does an "entity-wide emissions inve1ttory" require? An entity-wide emissions

inventory is a record all direct emissions, indirect emissions from purchased energy,
net emission changes due to sequestration, and a description of any de minimis
emissions excluded. This record must encompass all activit!es and emissions within

2
CEQ 014484

the entity boundaries as defined in the entity statement. All six greenhouse gases
specified by the guidelines must be covered.
7. What is the difference between "reported" and "registered" emission reductions?
All emission reductions, whether reported or registered, must be calculated using the
methods outlined in the General and Technical Guidelines and the reporting entity
must file a baseline entity statement, identify any changes to its entity statement
annually and certify that its reports are accurate.

Entities interested in obtaining special recognition for reductions must provide

additional information, which allows their reduction to be classified as "registered".
Entities with average annual emissions of more than 10,000 tons of C02 equivalent
(referred to as "large" entities), must file an entity-wide emissions inventory and an
entity-wide assessment of all changes in its emissions, including indirect emissions,
avoided emissions and sequestration.
Small entities are not required to file entity-wide inventories of emissions and
reductions. Instead they must report information only on all emissions and reductions
associated with the specific types of activities on which they have chosen to report.
For example a farm with estimated average annual emissions of 8,500 tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent may want to report only on reductions achieved through carbon
sequestration from improved soil management. In this case the fat:rn would report on
all of its soil management practices, not just those that have produced reductions. If
the reporting entity does not supply this additional information, the reductions would
not be eligible to be registered.
8. Can a .firm participate in the registry if it does not want to register reductions? Yes.
Entities not seeking to register reductions can report emissions and reductions for
specific activities, facilities, or selected components of their entity provided they file
a baseline entity statement, use the methods outlined in the General and Technical
Guidelines, and certify their reports. Many firms may not yet be prepared to report at
the more comprehensive level. This option would enable such firms to participate
immediately and to begin registering emission reductions in the future, when they
were able to meet the additional requirements.
9. Please explain the different methods for calculating reductiom. There are many
different ways to limit or reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as by reducing
direct emissions, increasing sequestration, or reducing emissions indirectly by
increasing the generation of electricity from non-emitting sourc~-:: 1;1ce renewable or
nuclear energy. In trying to assess an entity's efforts to reduce emissions, it is also
important to take into account how the entity's economic activity may have changed.
A company that is reducing emissions only because it is reducing U.S. production
does not warrant special recognition for its efforts, while a company that has
expanded rapidly, but kept its emissions flat does deserve recognition. To accurately
account for these different types of reductions and the impacts of changing economic
output, it is necessary to use multiple methods of calculating reductions. In most

3
CEQ 014485

situations, emissions intensity is likely to be used to detennine when an entity has

reduced its emissions relative to its output. For example, an electric utility that
reduced its rate of emissions per kilowatt hour would use the emissions intensity
method to demonstrate that it had achieved an emission reduction. But a wind power
generator that increased the amount of electricity it produced from wind could not use
emissions intensity to demonstrate that it had reduced emissions (because it never had
produced any direct emissions). In this case, the wind generator would have to useJ
ar:zJ
different method, one capable of calculating the "avoided emissions" resulting from
the increased generation of wind power.

l.:J

10. Why is DOE focusing on output- or "intensity"- adjusted reductions? Changes in

the level of production or output of a utility, manufacturer or institution directly affect
the level of greenhouse gas emissions, but such changes in output are not a good
indicator of the efforts to reduce emissions by a specific entity. For example, a
manufacturing firm with increasing production could experience a net increase in
absolute entity-wide emissions even though it is undertaking substantial investments
to reduce greenhouse emissions. On the other hand, a firm may reduce its output by
closing a plant. In this case, the firm's absolute emissions would decline because its
output declines, but the emissions of a competitor that increased market share might
go up simultaneously. Use of output-based measures ensures that true reductions in
the emissions intensity of the U.S. economy are recognized and rewarded, consistent
with the President's emissions intensity reduction goals.
11. Why do the guidelines require continuous annual reporting? Continuous annual
reporting is necessary to ensure that all emission reductions achieved since the
entity's initial base year are real and verifiable. Only through continuous reporting
can an entity demonstrate that it has not increased its emissions during a break in their
reporting record. If a break does occur, entities could fill in the gap later or begin
again by establishing a new base year from which to calculate future reductions.
12. How does 1605(b) relate to the Presideltt's Climate VISION program and EPA's
Climate Leaders program? The Administration intends to use the 1605(b) program
to document, where possible, the progress of participants in these voluntary Federal
programs. This is consistent with the President's desire that the 1605(b) registry be a
"tool that goes hand-in-hand with voluntary business challenges ... by providing a
standardized, credible vehicle for reporting and recognizing progress." Howev"er,
additional reporting may be required for other specific voluntary Federal programs in
order to provide distinct benefits to program participants. DOE is soliciting comment
on the merits of using the 1605(b) program for documenting the progress of
participants in voluntary Federal programs toward their emissions reduction goals.
13. HcJw does 1605(b) treat emissiolts or reductions that occur outside the United
States? The proposed revised General Guidelines do not address explicitly the
question of reporting and registering non-U.S. emissions and emission reductions.
DOE is soliciting public comments on whether non-U.S. emissions and emission
rductions should continue to be eligible for reporting under the revised program,

4
CEQ 014486

recognizing that the original guidelines provide for reporting of international

activities. DOE is also soliciting public comments on whether non-U.S. emissions
and emission reductions should qualify for registration and, if so, what procedures
and requirements should be established for registration of such emissions and
emission reductions.
14. How do the proposed Guidelines compare with other reporting programs? The

proposed General Guidelines focus on obtaining a full accounting of the total

emissions and emissions reductions of utilities, manufacturers, businesses, institutions
and other large entities that choose to report. While the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Initiative (sponsored by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council
on Sustainable Development) and several State reporting programs focus on entitywide emission inventories, none provide a mechanism for assessing entity-wide
emission reductions that excludes the effects of increasing or decreasing output (as
would the proposed revision to the 1605(b) guidelines). Several states have created
programs that collect state-wide inventories of emissions, though many ofthe
inventories are only for one year. Several States have also begun to develop
emissions reporting guidelines, but again most are not very extensive.
15. Does DOE require independent verification? No. The statute establishing the

1605(b) program specifies that entities should self-certify the accuracy of their
reports. DOE believes that third-party, independent verification would be desirable in
many instances, and the proposed guidelines would strongly encourage entities to
take this extra step. But DOE does not believe it is necessary to require all .
participants to have their reports independently verified. We expect that the proposed
revisions will substantially improve the transparency and credibility of the reports
submitted to the 1605(b) program, even without a requirement for independent
verification. JAle reeegniZ!le that as pe*eHtial mm:kets de\1 elep fer emission reaae*ie~ _9----'
mm:ket part:ieipallts might re exa.miHe the need fer ftftti ,ali:UJ eftflinl party ox
mdepeH:dent vedfication.-

16. The originall605(b) program allows entities to report on projects. How are
projects treated within the revised guidelines? The revised Guidelines would

provide special recognition only to those large emitters that provide a full accounting
of their entity-wide emissions and emission reductions, rather than to those entities
that report on just individual projects. DOE believes that only through a full ~
accounting of all emissions and emission reductions can a participating entity
effectively demonstrate its contribution to the national effort to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Nevertheless, those companies or other entities tha+ nrp not yet
prepared to provide such a full accounting of their emissions and emission reductions
may still report, but not register, project-level efforts to reduce emissions.
17. What happens to the emissions and emission reductions previously reported
under the existing program? Can entities register them under the revised
1605(b)? All data previously reported under the 1605(b) program will be maintained
by DOE and will continue to be accessible to the public. However, under the

s
CEQ 014487

proposed revised Guidelines, reductions recorded under the original reporting

guidelines would not be eligible for registration under the revised program unless the
reduction was achieved during or after 2003, and the report met all of the
requirements of the new guidelines. While only those reductions achieved during or
after 2003 would be eligible for registration, entities would be permitted to "recast"
prior year reports to make them consistent with the new reporting guidelines.
18. Isn't it true that some of the reductions eligible for recognition under the revised
program would have occurred anyway, even without any extra effort by the
reporting entities? Because technology and productivity are continually improving,
most utilities, businesses, institutions and households are expected to gradually
reduce their emissions per unit of output over time. However, new, more efficient
means of production and energy technologies must still be deployed in order for these
reductions to actually occur. The revised program will provide incentives to do so by
providing a mechanism for recording emissions inventories over time, as well as
emissions reductions through specific efforts. This should provide a good indication
of the relative contribution individual entities are making toward this national
objective.
19. How much will it cost a typical entity to comply with the revised program

guidelines? Costs could vary widely depending largely on the characteristics of

individual entities and the decisions they make on how best to account for their
emissions. Entities that emit greenhouse gases mainly as a result of fuel consumption
can prepare an emissions inventory by compiling their fuel use data and applying
conversion factors specified by DOE. If the entity has a single measure of its basic
output, such as utilities that produce kilowatt hours or cement producers that produce
tons of cement, they can calculate their reductions using their records of annual fuel
consumption and arumal output. Firms that produce multiple products may have to
calculate their reductions by matching the emissions and output of different elements
of their business, which would increase the costs of participating in the 1605(b)
program.

20. Who did DOE consult with developing these Guidelines? DOE took a number of
actions to encourage broad public input into the development of these guidelines,
including: issuing a Notice of Inquiry (which resulted in over 80 sets of written
comments); hosting four DOE workshops across the United States and two USDA
workshops focusing on terrestrial sequestration; and meeting with groups ranging
from private sector firms, trade associations, environmental groups, and States. DOE
staff has also made a large number of presentations to a variety of different groups on
the 1605(b) process over the last year.
21. The existing program has reductions registered from school children as part of

class projects. How will they register in this program? Those who have reported
to the 1605(b) program in the past will continue to be able to do so under the revised
Guidelines. However, in order to seek registration of emissions reductions, an entitywide emissions inventory will be required for large emitters, while small emitters

6
CEQ 014488

(such as classes of school children) may in certain circumstances register emissions

reductions from specific projects.

22. When is DOE publishing tbe technical guidelines? DOE will publish the technical
guidelines early in 2004 following a public comment period.

7
CEQ 014489

Background Only- not for Public Release

I. Tlte President said t/ze revised 1605(b) program should provide firms registering

real reductions with transferable credits and protection against a future climate
policy. How do these proposed Guidelines do that? .:Ille Ie, iud: gdddjnenlo.

-::pn Br ' 1 'edit~ proposed revised guidelines will provx e an

increased level of transparency, rigor, and comprehensiveness in reporting, which
we expect will increase the credibility of the emission reductions registered under
the program. As a result, such reductions may be more attractive to entities
participating in private emissions trading markets.
DOE believes that registration of emissions reductions under the revised 1605(b)
program may provide some protection against penalty under any future climate
change policy to those entities that register emissions reductions, by providing
future policymakers with the data necessary to give such reductions full
consideration in any future policy decisions.
2. Is the Administration planning to allow firms to register reductions in black
soot, as some press reports have suggested? The revised 1605(b) guidelines do

not allow entities to register emissions reductions for black soot, or any other
gases or particles other th~ explicitly listed in the guidelines. DOE is
seeking guidance on whict~hould be added to the registry and how such
gases might be added.
t \.c..,S

\0.. rrl-i

{;oO ~-,
\(' :O";

8
CEQ 014490

\~ 5U q -

&9

.~ '.

>;

:,t' :.

'-:~

...

-~

.. .. :

'<

.'

..

Cti~ate VlSt,Glii~

"
;
'
"

.Lari~a:Dobri~;~~;f:::,

. . ~.:.1st:::ear R~~~.~,
. ' .

. ... .

.:.

~':'""

'<

.:; .. - .. . ..

':.:_.'

',"_'

'

: ~ / ' ~

>

. .: _:-~--.>_.. ~- _:_~~-~-. -----: o:e.pu~yi:\s,sistanti~c~~t~fy:~--.:.::--:_- . :-:.~~-"-:_:_-._-_;

. ,.. ::--:: .: :.~-:~<:~i_:: <:>NatJonaiEqergy Poli_cyOffie::;~, -.; _ _ _. _,

.~

-.. ,~- :~: :.- Offi~e: of: Poi icy andJnternatiqnaf~ffa_fr~:: .: . :_ -~ ,_" ..,, . ._
.. -.. . ----- .~-~:_. .(J.;s~:.pepartment of _Ehergy : !._.. . . . ... . ') .. : !

..

': . . .

'

_.
. . .

.-.-

'

.~.

- Chmate C_hange:-"Siue_ Box"Jv1eet_tng:

.;

. .

;.

; ... ,

:January 27;;go.o4_ _. --/ .':.:- . "'-... <-...

.

_:..

..

-~.

.. :_...

..._. ,.

::

....

:. :.'

. :,.

..

.-.:
.:

.~

..;

. : .

'

... '

,.,v

,0
0

.......

Vl

~I

::.. . "'..
~ {'

..:_~; >; .. _

: ..
"'.:.

.._

:. ::;-.'

-._:_, . . -:
;.~
.

....

..
Climate "'JSIO~. . 11- ~~~~
History and Objectives

Strategies for Success

President Bush set a goal to reduce U.S. GHG emissions intensity 18%
by 2012 and Issued challenge to American businesses to reduce GHG

Climate VISION Is designed to:

Intensity.

- lde!ilifv and Implement cost-effective ways to reduce GHG

emissfons;

Climaie VISION-Voluntary Innovative 5ecfor Initiatives: 9Pportunl!les

Now-launched as a Presidential Initiative on February 12, 2003.

- encourage actions trult can accelefate the development and

adoption of advanced tedmologies;

Public-private partnership that wort<S with trade associations and other

industry groups with an initial focus on energy intensive Industries.

- develop s~gles to_enable those In other sectors (e.g

commercial bulldlngs, residential, and transportation) to reduce

Thousands of CO[!IPanles from 12 industry sectors-accounting for 40.

45% of U.S. GHG emissions-represented through their assoCiations.

G_HGs; and .

- assist in developing tools for calculating,lnventcirylng. and

reporting emisSIOnS.

Participating ageilc!es Include: Department of Energy (Lead);

Department of Transportation; Environmental Prote<:llon Agency; and
Department of Agriculture.

...

~ '

Climate VISION

II til~ B

Partners Making Commitments

A!Uance of Automobile
Manufacturers

Aluminum Association

ii
m.

American 1- orest & Paper

Assoc!allon

'S::f;.f American r ~lemlstry Council a=.f.~- .J American Petroleum l~ute

Ci.)

Assoc!aUon of American
Rallroads

Business Roundtable
International Magnesium
Association

Iron & Steel Association

National Mining Association

PEl\.

Poruand Cement AssOclauon

PoWer Partners

... ,.

........ Semiconductor Industry

Association
3

AnaiYzed contnbuuori of as~Uon commllmlints to President's goal

Individual S3 meetings with aD of DOE's partners by 1" year
ari(llversary. .. , ~ .
.
All associations have work plans undeJWay
Website taunched dUI1ng COP-9
.
~itirig new rnerriblirs (e.g., lime. irlsu!a1ion manufacturers)
Reviewing furidlng support .
ManY d8Yel0plng repO(ting protocols
.
.MOst !Ocreaslng piutldpation cif members In program
Identifying Slrategles to reduce GHG emissions In other sectors (e.g.,
'bulldlngs)
..
. .
.
lden1ifylng !leW !JSBS for products to reduce GHG emissions

'

...

Cliniate,VISION

11

~ill
1st Year Anniversarv Events

Issues

No single event; "calendar of events" throughout February

andMarch
.
Examples of activities and announceables" include:

Research &development funding

-launch.ofwebsite

Climate VISION program capacity funding

Potential impact of natural gas prices on meeting

commitments

- Completion of Work plans

- Completion of MOU with utility sector
- Recruitment of new partners
- Concrete case examples of Industry activities to
reduce GHG emissions
- Conferences on voluntary actions
- New strategy to get gains from building sector
leveraging existing DOE programs

--~---~-

------------ ---- ..

.'

CLIMATE VISION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC PO.WER SECTOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
I.

Overview

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes a voluntary umbrella framework for

. reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the power sector. This framework
shall be part of the President's Climate VISION ("Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives:
Opportunities Now'') program, which was established on February 12, 2003, as a public-private
partnership to address the long-term challenge of global climate change and to make a
meaningful contribution to the President's goal of reducing the GHG intensity of the United
States' economy by 18 percent by 2012.
This MOU is entered into by and between each of the six electric power sector trade associations
of the United States (as named below), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United
States Department of Energy (DOE), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." The six
trade associations that are Parties to the MOU are: American Public Power Association, Edison
Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Nuclear Energy Institute. TVA and the six trade
associations, acting through their member companies, are hereinafter collectively referred. to as
the "Power PartnerssM."
II. Goals

The overall goal of this MOU is to support the President in his efforts to reduce the GHG
emissions intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by the end of2012. To this end, the
Power Partners5Mand DOE agree to work collectively to establish an effective and robust
partnership between the electric power sector and DOE that is:

Part of a larger economy-wide effort under the Climate VISION program and other
voluntary programs to reduce the GHG emission intensity of the U.S. economy;
Intended to make a meaningful contribution by the power sector to ensure the
achievement of the President's GHG emission intensity goal 1 by 2012; and
Intended to facilitate actions by the Power PartnerssM and their member companies to
reduce collectively the power sector's GHG emission intensicyl by an equivalent of 3 to 5
percent below 2000-2002 baseline levels, as measured over the 2010-2012 period;
The Power PartnerssM emissions intensity reduction3 goal is based on anticipated future trends
and conditions within the power sector and other major sectors of the U.S. economy.4 In
1
President Bush's intensity goal is defined in terms ofthe ratio of national GHG emissions to gross domestic
froduct (GDP).
,
.
The power sector's collective intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of carbon equivalent emissions to
generation (MWH). However, the Power Partner:;SM member companies that choose to set company-specific
intensity goals may express their goals in other ways, such as by using other intensity metrics.

00:1G59
CEQ 014617

addition, the goal ajrflies to the entire electric power sector and does not apply individually to
the Power Partners or their member companies.
As a secondary goal of this MOU, the Power Partners8 Mand DOE agree to work collectively to
spur GHG emission intensity reductions across all sectors of the economy through collaborations
with electricity end-users/customers in the industrial, commercial, residential and transportation
sectors.
ID. Principles

By entering into this MOU, the Parties agree to undertake a robust public-private partnership for
the purpose of advancing the "new appro!lch to the challenge of global climate change" that the
President announced on February 14,2002. This new approach is designed to harness the power
of the markets and technological innovation to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
The Parties recognize that climate change is a global, complex, long-term challenge that will
require a sustained effort over many generationS. One essential element of an effective U.S.
response entails promoting the research, development and commercial use of innovative,
economic, zero- or low-emissions technologies for the electric power and other sectors, inchiding
technologies for carbon capture and sequestration.

Activities undertaken as part of the Climate VISION program will be voluntary and flexible and
may cover any GHG, while also promoting the energy and environmental enhancement
objectives of that program. Participation by the Power PartnerssM does not constitute
endorsement of any particular scientific theory on global climate change.
The Parties recognize that the primary responsibility of the Power PartnerssM is to facilitate
actions by their member companies, in accordance with the framework established in the MOU,
for the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives set forth in the MOU. However, the Parties
recognize that the Power PartnerssM trade association member companies and TVA have
specific, but varying circumstances (i.e., diverse growth requirements, power supply demands,
fuel mix, geographical constraints, and financial and other resource limitations) that will
influence and affect their operations and the actions they take.
IV. Parties' Joint Actions

As part of the Climate VISION program, the Parties seek to achieve the goals and purposes of
this MOU in a transparent manner. Such efforts will include consistent and periodic evaluations
of progress by the Parties and encouragement of the submission of reports by the Power
Partners8 Mtrade association member companies and TVA under section 1605(b) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "1605(b) program'').
Under this MOU, the Parties will work together to:
3

References to "reductions" in this MOU include avoidances and sequestrations.

Emissions in the carbon intensity metric will be adjusted, as appropriate, in accordance with the Work Plan
developed under this MOU.

. 2

CEQ 014618

Promote economic GHG emission intensity reductions.

Encourage expanded use of current low-emission or no-emission technologies, such as
nuclear; hydroelectric, wind and other renewables; highly efficient natural gas; and clean
coal technologies.
Pursue approaches that will complement and continue to promote the research,
development, demonstration and, as soon as practicable, widespread commercial u8e of .
economic zero- or low-carbon 'electric generation technologies and processes (including
carbon capture and sequestration) and of advanced, high-efficiency electric generation,
transmission, distribution and end-use technologies.
Develop strategies to assist others in reducing GHG emission :iiltensity, such as Power
Partners8Mmember companies' electricity end-users/customers in the industrial,
commercial, residential and transportation sectors of the U.S. economy.
Facilitate the development and use of tools for measuring and reporting power sector
GHG emissions and emissions reductions.
.
. The Parties agree to work together to develop and encourage policies and practices that will
enhance, facilitate and encourage voluntary efforts for GHG emission intensity reductions and
that will provide incentives and reduce barriers to such reductions. In particular, it is the aim of
the Parties to advance the goals and objectives of this MOU by promoting policies that:

Provide investment stimulus on an equitable ba8is to all segments ofthe power sector in
order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies, deploy advanced
technologies and maintain America's critical energy infrastructure.
Create and maintain regulatory stability, and minimize regulatory uncertainty and delay.
Remove unnecessary constraints that may inhibit implementation of voluntary GHG
reductions and use of lower-emitting technologies.
Spur investment in the short term and long term through a balanced and progressive
research, development and deployment portfolio.

One such policy of importance to Power PartnerssM and their member companies is the revision
of the guidelines for reporting and registering GHG emission intensity reductions under the
160S(b) program.
The Parties will jointly coord.iliate the development of a "living document" Work Plan that
mutually reflects, to the greatest extent possible, the flexible implementation strategies -md
actions for achieving the goals of this MOU. The Power Partners8M contribution to such a Work
Plan shall be based on the activities and initiatives described in their action plans submitted to
the Secretary of Energy in connection with the initiation of the Climate VISION program on
February 12, 2003.
The Parties agree to confer, at reasonable intervals, on the progress towards achieving the Power
Partners8MGHG inte~ity reduction gQal and implementing the other provisions established
under this MOU. Additional actions or other such changes may be reflected by revising the
tenns and provisions of this MOU if they are mutually agreed to by the Parties.

CEQ 014619

The Power Partners5Mand DOE view the development and use of advanced techn~logies as
critical to the achievement of the President's goal to reduce U.S. GHG intensity by 18 percent by
2012. The Parties agree to work collectively to develop a process, subject to the availability of
private sector and publ!c sector funds and applicable provisions of law, for (i) identifying highpriority areas for power sector research, development, demonstration and deployment
(RDD&D)5 associated with technologies that would contribute to the achievement of the
President's greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal and would contribute ultimately to
surpassing this goal, and (ii) recommending steps to carry out power sector RDD&D in the
identified high-priority areas, including, fll:! appropriate, strengthening existing and establishing
new public-private partnerships. This process will seek to identify: (i) climate technology needs
for the electric power sector; (ii) gaps in currentpower sector climate technology RDD&D; (iii)
priority areas for new or supplemental power sector climate technology RDD&D; and (iv)
options for potential funding mechanisms for early commercial use of advanced technologies.
This process will be facilitated by the Office of the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and
Environment and will include the Office of National Energy Policy and appropriate DOE
Program Offices.6
.
.
V.

The Power PartnerssM, Actions

The Power PartnerssM will take actions to encourage and facilitate maximum participation in the
Climate VISION program by their trade association member companies and TV A. The
.importarit purposes of this effort will be to improve the level and depth of participation, through
workshops or other means, and to enhance performance and reporting.
The Power Partners5Mwill encourage their trade association member companies to achieve
collectively the goals, actions and initiatives described in the associations' Climate VISION
action plans, which were transmitted by letter from each of the Power PartnerssM to the Secretary
of Energy. Collectively, these action plans serve as the starting point for the establishment of an
effective voluntary framework for reducing the GHG emission intensity of the power sector.
The Power Partners5Mwill use best efforts to achieve their GHG intensity reduction goal under
this MOU by facilitating their memberships' undertaking of activities that contribute to
achieving this ~oal, including those described in the "living document'' Work Plan that the
Power Partners M develop with DOE. Trade associations and TVA individually or Power
Partners SM collectively may develop additional programs, strategies and initiatives for inclusion
in the Work Plan. The activities contained in the Work Plan will cover a wide range of.:.actions
that may be undertaken over the term of this MOU to achieve GHG emissions intensity
reductions.
Trade association member companies and TVA may memorialize their voluntary actions,
programs and activities through company-specific plans tailored and detailed in accordance with
their circumstances and submitted to the Power PartnerssM and DOE. Member companies and .
5
This power sector RDD&D can include research, development, demonstration and deployment of advanced zero- ~
or low-carbon emission electric generation technologies (including carbon capture and sequestration) and advanced,
high-effi~iency electric generation, transmission, distribution and end-use technologies.

6
These DOE program offices include.the Offices of Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; Electric Transmission and
Distribution; and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

CEQ 014620

TVA are encouraged to use the 160S(b) program for reporting and registering GHG emissions
intensity reductions achieved under company-specific plans and this voluntary program.
The Power PartnerssM will develop and promote initiatives that will allow their member
companies and TVA to pool their resources and collaborate collectively on joint, industry-wide
programs and activities to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
The Power PartnerssM will prepare an annual report on activities and accomplishments under this
MOU, beginning two calendar years after this MOU is signed by the Parties. This report shall
present the actions taken and results achieved through the Climate VISION progiam during the
preceding year and shall include an analysis that explains how these activities and
.accomplishments represent a meaningful contribution by the power sector to the President's 18
percent GHG emission intensity reduction goal. In support of this effort, the Power PartnerssM
will develop a standardized metric for annual reporting to measure progress in reducing carbon
emission intensity for the electric power sector. This report and accompanying analysis will
reflect trends and conditions within the power sector and other major sectors of the U.S.
economy.

VI. DOE Actions

Because future trends and conditions within the power sector are affected by government
policies, DOE will use its best efforts to develop and implement programs, policies, regulations,
budgets and legislative proposals in support of the goals and purposes of this MOU.
DOE will use its best efforts to: promote the harmonization of governmental policies and
procedures; promote the minimization of regulatory barriers and uncertainties; encourage
supportive fiscal and other actions and incentives; and otherwise promote an atmosphere that
encourages and supports Power Partners8Min their efforts to achieve the goals and purposes of
thisMOU.
DOE, in consultation with other federal agencies, is reyising the reporting guidelines for the
1605(b) program. As directed by the President, the revised reporting guidelines.are intended in
part to provide im effective "tool for companies to publicly record their progress" in reducing
GHG emission intensity. The policy material accompanying the President's February 2002
climate change speech stated that this ''tool goes hand-in-hand with voluntary business" actions,
such as those to be undertaken by the Climate VISION Program generally and this MOU
specifically. To this end, DOE will strive to assure that collection and documentation of
information through EIA under the 1605(b) program are consistent with, and support the
achievement of, the President's overall climate change objectives of February 14,2002, and the
goals and objectives of this MOU.
Through .the Climate VISION program, DOE will provide recognition to the Power Partners8M
and their member companies for making substantial contributions to GHG emission intensity
reductions through the 1605(b) program and by other means. DOE will also proviae recognition
to the Power PartnerssM and their member companies that make financial contributions to GHG
emissi~ns reduction research, development and commercial use of advanced technologies and

CEQ 014621 .

practices that help achieve the 18 percent national emissions intensity reduction goal and look
toward future time frames.
DOE shall offer technical assistance to the Power Partners8M and their member companies and
TVA in support of the goals, activities and actions undertaken pursuant to this MOU. This
assistance can include DOE support in the development of:

Voluntary commitments, actions, programs and other such strategies under this MOU for
reducing GHG emission intensity;

Tools for measuring and reporting GHG emissions intensity reductions and for achieving
energy savings; and

Strategies to assist others to reduce the overall GHG emission intensity of the economy,
such as by demand-side management, energy efficiency, and utilization of
electrotechnology applications by customers and other end-users.

VII. General Provisions

The Parties enter into this MOU under the authority provided to DOE in the Department of
Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-91), section 203,42 U.S.C. 7133, and section 646, 42
u.s.c. 7256.
The Parties agree to work together to promote public and congressional awareness and
confidence in the Climate VISION program and this Mou: The Parties also agree to attempt to
resolve in a mutually satisfactory manner issues with respect to proposed amendments,
interpretative and other matters that may arise in the implementation of this MOU.
Each Party shall designate a point of contact for the foregoing purposes and otherwise facilitate
implementation of this MOU. Any Party shall notify all other Parties of any change in its
designated contact person.
Any Party may, after 30 days notice in writing to other Parties, terminate its participation in the
agreement without penalty or criticism, and without being subject to any judicial action. . .
This MOU is not a binding contract but is a memorandum of understanding which states the
Parties' basic understandings of the voluntary tasks and methods for performing the taSks stated
herein. This MOU is not legally enforceable and shall not be construed to create any legal
obligation on the part of any Party or any third party or person.
Nothing in this MOU authorizes or is intended to obligate the Parties to expend, obligate,
exchange, or reimburse fu.Q.ds, services, or supplies or transfer or receive anything of value or to
enter into any contract, agreement, or other financial obligation.
Trade secret and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential and that i!!
contained in reports submitted to DOE pursuant to the 1605(b) program and its implementing
guidelines shall be protected as provided in section 552(b)(4) of title 5, U.S. Code.
6

CEQ 014622

,.,.

'

This MOU shall become effective as of the date the last Party duly executes it below:
Date: October , 2004

Secretary,
United States Department of Energy

President,
Edison Electric Institute

President and Chief Executive Officer,

American Public Power Association

ChiefExecutive Officer,
National RuraJ Electric Cooperative Association

President and Chief Executive Officer,

Nuclear Energy Institute

President,
Electric Power Supply Association

Chairman,.
Large Public Power Council

Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority

CEQ 014623

WORK PLAN TO IMPLEMENT POWER

PARTNERSsM, CLIMATE VISION MOU

The overall objective of this Work Plan is to support the President's goal in reducing the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by the end of
2012. Specifically, this Work Plan outline.c:: the proposed implementation actions by the power
sector to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 2012 (as set forth in the MOU) and
time frames for achieving those actions. As such, it is a "living document" subject to ~e
revisions and u~dating. The Department of Energy (DOE) will work in collaboration with
Power Partners Mto facilitate the activities below designed to accomplish the Power Partners8M
goal.

)> Element 1: Emissions Measurement and Reporting Protocols

Trade association members and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) curr~ntly report the vast
majority of their emissions (greater than 99 percent) through the use of continuous emissions
monitors and fuel-use estimated data that are transmitted to the Envirolllllental Protection
Agency (EPA) and then subsequently published annually at a sector level by both EPA and the
Energy Information Administration. Moreover, member companies and TVA currently plan to
continue reporting their GHG reduction activities under the 1605(b) program. Reporting under
these regimes is the functional equivalent of a monitoring and reporting protocol for the power
sector. The Power Partners5Mwill assess the need to develop a sector-specific. reporting protocol
in the futUre.
As described in the MOU, the Power PartnerssM will prepare an annual report on activi~es and
accomplishments. That report will include the standardized metric for measuring progress in
. reducing carbon emission intensity for the electric power sector.

>

Element 2: Identify/Implement near-term cost':"effective GHG reduction opportunities

Climate VISION aims tQ work with industry groups/sectors to identify and implement near-term,
cost-effective GHG reduction opportunities. Therefore, the Power PartnerssM and DOE will
work together to enhance, facilitate and encourage voluntary efforts and practices for achieving
GHG emission intensity reductions.

~
The Power PartnerssM Resource Guide

One example of how industry "best practices" and energy-efficiency opportunities will be
promoted and communicated among members, comBanies and customers in the sector and
outside stakeholders is through the Power Partnerss Resource Guide. The Resource Guide is a
Web-based resource tool to help companies undertake individual actions to reduce GHGs or
emission intensity. The Resource Guide will guide companies to best practices and
efficiency/reduction opportunities by helping users find state-of-the-art information on a variety
of topics through the use oflinks to credible Websites, and by creating a forum for dialog

001G6o
CEQ 014625

between companies that have successfully implemented projects and companies interested in
pursuing similar efforts through the use of a registration section. DOE and the Power PartnersSM
have already been actively developing the Resource Guide for dissemination on the Climate
VISION Website. In the immediate term, the Power Partners8M will finalize the initial version of
the Resource Guide. In consultation with DOE, the Power PartnersSM Will develop a process for
the regular update and dissemination of information in the Resource Guide, including possibly
through conferences.
Time line

2003
= Power Partners Resource Guide developed by the Power Partners8M and DOE
Q3 2004 = Resource Guide "published"
Q2 2005 = Resource Guide updated
2006 - on = Resource Guide updated annually
Promotion of Best Practices/Energy Efficienc;y

The Power Partners8M will take actions to encourage and facilitate participation in the Climate
VISION program by their trade association members and TVA. The important purposes of this
effort will be to improve the level and depth of participation, through workshops or other means,
of their trade association members and TVA and to enhance performance and reporting.
The.Power Partners8M and DOE will establish a partnership, workinf with other federal agencies,
to identify areas of additional collaboration and create opportunities for further promoting
adoption of ind~stry best practices.
Time line

Q42004 =
QI2005
Q12005
20051

=
=
=

Establishment of partnership
Discussion/selection of additional promotional activities
Partnership sign-offs
Initiation of activities
Continuation of activities

Such opportunities could include, for example:

Cosponsored events on energy-efficiency opportunities
Development and dissemination of information, tools and resources
Commercialization of emerging technologies
Trade journal articles
Publications, communications and outreach
Participation in public events
Case study referrals
Website coordination and development
Development of periodic reports on member participation in the Power Partners5M and documentation of
the types of actions taken

Expansion of membership participation in other federal government programs, such as Climate Leaders,
Natural Gas Star, Coal Combustion Products Partnership and the SF6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for
Electric Power Systems.

. CEQ 014626

Government Partnerships
The Natio.nal Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to identify and advance technologies
that will help achieve the President's 13 percent goal. Initially, NRECA is working with its
members and USDA to eliminate technical and market barriers to the use of low-emission
renewable energy, such as agricultural waste-to-electricity through the use of systems approaches
and the development of decision-support tools.

Industry-wide Initiatives
The Power PartnerssM will develop and promote power sector initiatives that will allow their
member companies and TVA to pool their resources and collaborate collectiv~ly on joint,
industry-wide programs and activities to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
Since 2002 the Power Partners8 Mhave been assessing and developing a series of industry-wide
initiatives in support of the President's goal and to help the power sector reduce its carbon
intensity. The following activities are being pursued to assist in achieving the sector-wide .
carbon intensity goal:

PowerTree Carbon Company: PowerTree Carbon Company is a new reforestation effort

in the lower Mississippi River valley. This project has now received sponsorship from 25
U.S. power generators- investor-owned utilities, a rural electric cooperative and TVA-who have committed more than $3 million for six projects that will remove and store
more than 1.5 million tons of C02: On April 19, the first PowerTree Carbon Company
project was announced. .
.

Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2): This government partnership and crosssector initiative- involving the electric utility, highway and building construction
industries -has a goal of increasing the use of coal combustion byproducts in lieu of
usinRlimited natural resources from approximately 14 million tons to 20 million tons of
C02 annually by 2010, .and to increase the utilization rate from 32 percent to 45 percent
by 2008. To date, 40 utilities have become C2P2 Champions, and 19 utilities have
pledged additional funding to help meet the C2P2 goals.

International Power Partnerships (!PP): This program works with DOE and th;State
Dep~ent to identify GHG reduction opportunities overseas, and is. committed to fund
projects promoting use of.renewable energy and clean coal technologies. IPP began three .
international GHG'reduction projects in 2003; more projects will be pursued during 2004.

Technology and Other Initiatives: Further reductions in GHG emission intensity in the
medium term to long term will depend upon the development and availability of costeffective technologies that allow for a stable, reliable and affordable supply of energy.
Working with EPRI, two initiatives focusing on long-term actions are underway- "PilotScale Test Centers for Engineering, Economic, and Environmental Evaluation of C02
Capture and Containment" and "Advanced Coal Plant Partnership."
3

CEQ 014627

Time line

2002
=
2003
=
Q2 21 ,04 =
2004=

Industry initiatives developed by the Power Partners8M

Industry initiatives activities begin
PowerTree Carbon Company announces first set of projects (April)
Continue initiatives

Public Power Initiatives and Actions

Hundreds of public power systems have developed a wide-ranging set of actions and programs to
help systems reduce their GHG intensity as well as reduce, avoid and sequester GHG emissions
off-system. The following examples are provided to illustrate some of the many
accomplishments so far achieved as well as future initiatives and efforts now underway.
American Public Power Association (APPA) and the Large Public Power Council (LPPC) are
currently taking concrete steps to maximize the participation of our systems and will provide, in
the near future, more complete summary of accomplishments, initiatives and efforts of public
power systems.
Public power systems are sequestering substantial GHG emissions through the use and expansion
of APPA's TREE POWER program. Currently, more than 230 utilities, serving nearly 50
percent of public power's 19.1 million customers, participate in the TREE POWER program.
To help public power utilities calculate the environmental benefits of their tree planting
programs, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District developed the Tree Benefits Estimator. The
Estimator, now posted on the APPA Web site, can be used to estimate the amount of energy and
capacity a utility can save (or has saved) through its tree-planting program. It also estimates how
many pounds of carbon and C02 will be sequestered.
APPA, through its subsidiary Hometown Connections, offers public power utilities a way to
develop their own green power programs efficiently through Green Mountain Energy, a wellknown provider of renewable energy.
In addition to these and other industry-wide initiatives, many public power systems are
undertaking significant 'green' programs. A few examples include:

Austin Energy's commitment to meet up to 35 percent of its energy needs.by the year
2020 through renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. The utility will launch
the nation's most ambitious solar energy initiative involving the installation of up to 100
MW of solar installations by 2020.

The Iowa Association ofMunicipal Utilities is exploring the construction of a 100 to 200
MW compressed air energy storage plant in Iowa. The air would be compressed in an
underground aquifer using inexpensive off-peak electricity, possibly generated at a new
wind farm. It would then be released and used in a natural gas-fired plant that woUld be ~.
among the cleanest ever.

CEQ 014628

Seattle City Light is the first major utility to meet all energy needs with "zero net'' greenhouse
emissions. Seattle City Light will meet all future load growth through conservation and
renewable energy sources.

Many public power systems are planning to install and use new wind resources. One
such example is the Nebraska Public Power District'sefforts to develop a 60-MW fann,
with other public power systems participating in the project.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has set a goal tQ reduce, by the year 2011, its
entity-wide GHG emissions by 15 percent below its 1990 levels. The achievement of this
goal will result in a 38 percent reduction in GHG emissions intensity for the SMUD
system

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power decided to meet future load growth
through renewable resources instead of new coal-fired power generation.

Company Actions [Subsequent versions of this living document will contain new and

updated information.]
Company and TVA actions will be the cornerstone of success for the Power PartnerssM,
voluntary initiative. In furtherance of the objectives of this Work Plan, the Power PartnerssM
will encourage trade association members and TVA to undertake specific commitments,
including achieving a voluntary GHG intensity reduction goal, along with developing a plan to
implement such commitments. Trade association members and TVA are encouraged to use the
1605(b) program for reporting and registering GHG emission intensity reductions achieved
under their company-specific commitments and this voluntary program.
The following types of activities are being pursued by trade association members and TVA in
order to help achieve the sector-wide carbon intensity goal:

Nuclear Programs
-

The performance of U.S. nuclear power plants improved dramatically during the
1990s. The average capacity factor of U.S. nuclear plants was more than 90 percent
in 2003. The increase in output from U.S. nuclear plants in the last 10 yea:rS- from
610 billion KWH in 1993 to 762 billion KWH in 2003 -is roughly equivalent to
bringing 19 new 1,000-MW power plants (operating at a 90 percent capacity factor)
into service. This improved performance has made a substantial contribution to
reducing the electric sector's greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, high levels
of performance from U.S. nuclear plants must be sustained in order to meet the
challenge of reducing the GHG intensity of the U.S. economy.
- Throughout the nuclear energy industry, approximately 2,198 MW of power uprates
have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Cominission (NRC) in the last several
years and either have been completed or will be completed soon. In addition, based
on information from nuclear plant operators, the NRC expects applications for an
5

CEQ 014629

additional 1,886 MW ofuprates in the 2004-2008 period. Uprates already approved

and completed or planned thus total4,084 megawatts. This additional capacity
. displaces carbon emissionS that would otherwise be emitted by other sources of
electric generation burning fossil fuels.
To date, 26 plants have applied for and been granted license extensions, 18 more have
submitted applications and app.1oximately 20 have submitted letters of intent seek
license renewal. These license extensions represent capacity maintenance that iflost
would be replaced mainly by electric generation burning fossil fuels and increasing
C02 emissions.
.
Three .companies (Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon) are obtaining early site
permits, part of the new licensing regime created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPAct), as part of a broad-based industry program leading to construction of new
nuclear plants in the U.S.
Three industry-consortia have responded to a DOE request for proposals to share the
cost of obtaining a combined construction/operating license for new nuclear plants.
The single license for construction and operation is also part of EPAct. The three
consortia include the following companies: in one team, Dominion, AECL
Technologies, Hitachi ~erica, Bechtel; in a second team, Constellation, Duke
Power, EDF International North America, Entergy, ~xelon, FP&L, Progress Enez:gy,'
Southern, GE, TVA, Westinghouse; in a third team, TVA, GE, Toshiba, USEC,
Global Fuel-Americas, Bechtel.
TV A announced the restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit I, the extended power
uprate of all three Browns Ferry Units to 120 percent of their original licensed power,
and a request for a license extension for the Browns Ferry Units to the Nuclear
Regulatory. Commission.

to

Biologic and Geologic Sequestration

-

Southern Longleaf Legacy Program: Southern Company is working with the

National Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the longleafpine-wiregrass ecosystem,
sequester C02 and conserve biological diversity in ecosystems. The project will
leverage a $3 million contribution by Southern with matching funds to facilitate up to
$8 million in restoration efforts. The initial phase of this project will be 2004-2008.
- Entergy's Lower Mississippi River Valley Sequestration Project: Entergy is
providing financial assistance to the Winrock International TREE (frees R~oring
Economy & Environment) program, which encourages small, private landowners to
retire marginal cropland by replanting it into bottomland hardwood trees. This
project will sequester more than 200,000 metric tons of C02 during its 80-year
lifetime.
- Cinergy participates in many tree-planting programs designed to sequester
atmospheric carbon. Some notable efforts include UtiliTree Carbon Company and
PowerTree Carbon Company and tree-planting programs in partnership with Ducks
Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy.
- Exelon Corporation through its subsidiary Commonwealth Edison (CornEd) is
working with The Nature Conservancy to support scientific research into quantifying
the carbon sequestration value of prairie grass plantings. In addition, CornEd has
6

CEQ 014630

restored more than 100 acres of natural prairies on its buffer lands and rights-of-way.
Finally, CornEd has funded the One Million Trees venture with the illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Illinois Conservation Foundation,
4wherein 200,000 seedlings per year were planted at IDNR nurseries. Once the trees
are a foot tall, IDNR will plant them at various sites throughout the state.
Exelon Corporation through its subsidiary PECO Energy is working with the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to restore tree cover
in the five-county Greater Philadelphia area through the public-private partnership
lmown as TreeVitalize.
TVA and project cooperators have planted nearly 3.1 million mixed hardwood and
coniferous seedlings on about 8000 acres of public and private land throughout the
Tennessee River watershed as a part of land reclamation, reforestation, watershed
protection, habitat enhancement and riparian soil erosion projects.
TVA in cooperation With DOE is conducting a demonstration project called Carbon
Capture and Water Emissions Treatment Systems. This project" has planted about
68,000 commercial grade hardwoods on 100 acres of marginally reclaimed mine land
adjacent to a coal plant, and used gypsum from flue gas desulfurization systems at the
plant as a soil amendment, and plant wastewater for irrigation. TVA is in the fourth
year of a 5-l 0 year project.
TVA has also provided a grant to The Nature Conservancy to evaluate terrestrial
carbon sequestration in southwest Virginia. Based on their findings, The Nature
Conservancy is working with the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
to assess reforestation efforts on abandoned coal-mine lands.
CARE/Guatemala Reforestation: An offset project that plants 'trees on more than
10,000 hectares over a 10-yearperiod, and provides local farmers with technical
support in areas such as soil conservation and tree planting.
OXFAM America Forest Preservation: This project protects 1.2 million acres of
tropical forest from deforestation in the Amazon region of Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia.
The Nature Conservancy Forest Preservation: This project protects 143,000 acres of
South American Rain Forest in Paraguay. It also protects the homeland of the Ache
Indians, a tribe ofhunter-gatherers who were discovered in 1976.
Lal Pir Mass Afforestation Program (Pakistan): This project will plant an average of
200 acres/year for 30 years, mainly jojoba trees. The project cultivates semi-desert
and provides employment for local people.
Carbon Sequestration Research in the Philippines (sponsor)- This is a par.tr.iership
with the University of the Philippines-Los Banos' College of Forestry. This involves
supporting its five-year program carbon sequestration of forestry projects, including
mangrove reforestation and the Binahaan Watershed Rehabilitation at the Pagbilao
generating plant.
American Electric Power is a partner is three large forest carbon sequestration
projects- Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (Bolivia, 4.2 million acres),
Guaraquecaba Climate Action Project (Brazil, 20,000 acres) and Catahoula National
Wildlife Refuge (Louisiana, 120,000 acres).
American Electric Power's Geologic Sequestration Initiative with DOE: American
Electric Power-is providing its own facility for use as a test center in hosting a joint
7

CEQ 014631

research initiative with DOE to prove the efficacy of geologic disposal of C02
emissions.
AES 's Shady Point C02 recovery facility produces food-grade C02 for use in food
processing, freezing, beverage production and chilling by extracting C02 from the
flue gas steam and then liquefying it.

Renewable Energy Programs

-

Hydro
o Exelon Generation, an Exelon company, has made efficiency improvements at its
Conowingo Hydroelectric Station and its Muddy Run Pumped Storage facility
that have yielded more than 1 million tons of C~ avoidance.
o 1VA is completing a long-tenn program to modernize existing hydro facilities to
increase efficiency and output. This effort will result in approximately 750 MW
of additional generating capacity in the system.
Solar
o Arizona Public Service solar programs have resulted in nearly 5 MW of
commercial solar installations, including a 2-MW facility in Prescott, Arizona.
Arizona Public Service also operates the industry-leading Solar Test And
Research center (STAR) facility, which conducts research on solar technology.
o Puget Sound 38-KW photovoltaic (PV) system
o Commonwealth Edison (Exelon) solar programs, including partnership with the
City of Chicago.
o TVA has established PV systems to generate solar power at 15 sites across the
Tennessee Valley.
o Solar Electrification Project in Philippines. Targeting electrification of 1,OOQ
remote villages throughout the Philippines. Partnering with the U.S. AID to
establish the Alliance for Mindanao Off-Grid Renewable Energy (AMORE).
o AmerenUE is participating in "Missouri Schools Going Solar," a project that will
install photovoltaic solar arrays on school grounds.
Wind
.
o FPL Energy (nation's largest wind portfolio)
o MidAm.erican (largest land-based wind project in world)
o Xcel Energy (largest green pricing program- "WindSource"- in the U.S. in
terms of number of participants)
o Exelon (largest marketer of wind energy east of the Mississippi River; 2004
launched PECO WIND, Pennsylvania's first retail wind energy product) .
o Arizona Public Service purchases wind energy from Arizona's first 15-MW wind
plant.
o American Electric Power owns wind generation facilities totaling 330 MW of
generating capacity.
o The following companies are also undertaking wind power projects: Avista, ,
Madison Gas & Electric, Public Service New Mexico, Tampa Electric Company
o TVA.- wind power ~ite near Oak Ridge, Tennessee currently has about 2 MW ofcapacity, with expansion underway for an additional 27 MW.
Biomass

CEQ 014632

..
o Cinergy has designed and built a combined heat and power (CHP) plant that
utilizes wood waste, and is conducting research into burning biomass in
combination y.rith coal in its large electric generating units in Indiana, Kentucky
and Ohio.
o TVA is co-firing fue1s with coal, including wood wastes and wastewater treatment
digester gas (methane).
.
o Arizona Public Service supported the development of Arizona's first commercial
3-MW biomass plant in Springerville, Arizona.
o Southern Company is also undertaking biomass projects.
- Geothermal
o Calpine operates the nation's largest geothermal generating fleet (850 MW).
Landfill Gas
o Exelon Power's. Fairless and Pennsbury Power Plants utilize landfill methane to
generate electricity, thereby capturing an energy source that otherwise would have
gone to waste and avoiding more than 21 million C02-equivalent tons of
emissions.
o Arizona Public Service is completing plans to purchase 15 MW of landfill gas for
use at its gas generating plants.
- Other
o Ameren annually bums about 2 million tires as chips, which offsets coal C02 and
has the additional benefits of reducing area landfill usage and eliminating a
potential breeding ground for disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Green Power/Pricing Programs

-

PacifiCorp issued one of the largest renewable energy request for proposals ever in
February 2004, seeking to purchase 1,000 MW of renewable energy by 2010
- Arizona Public Service developed Arizona's first green pricing. program with more
than 4,000 customers participating.
- The .following companies also offer green power/pricing programs: Alabama Power,
Duke Power, Progress Energy, Dominion Resources, Georgia Power, NorthWestern
Energy, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Green

Mountain Power, Florida Power & Light

- TVA and local public power companies, working with input from the environmental
community, have created a program called Green Power Switch to produc~

electricity from cl~aner, greener sources and add it to TVA's power mix.

Energy-efficiency and Demand-side Management Programs

Constellation Energy Group: EPA 2002 WasteWise Partner of the Year in Climate
Change category for innovative, cost-effective waste management strategies that
avoidGHGs.
- Southern Cal Edison, Minnesota Power, Nevada Power, San Diego Gas & Electric,
CenterPoint Energy, Sierra Pacific Power: received 2004 Energy STAR awards for
making outstanding contributions to reducing OHG el,llissions through energy
efficiency.
-

CEQ 014633

..
Cinergy's subsidiaries PSI in Indiana and Vesar work with electricity end-users
throughout the U.S. and Canada to reduce and conserve their energy usage.
- Commonwealth Edison and PECO Energy (Exelon) offer energy efficiency and
demand-side management programs under the Smart Returns programs.
- AmerenUE provides a Web-based "Energy Savings Toolkit." The toolkit allows
customers to calculate energy savings or costs for everything from installing
insulation to buying new appliances.
-

SF6 Programs
- Currently more than 70 electric utilities participate in the EPA SF6 Emissions
Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems program.

Fossil Fuel Technology-related Efforts

- Natural gas programs: Many EPSA member companies' generating fleets operate at
emissions rates less than 50 percent of the U.S. fossil fuel average. Continuing
progress in raising utilization ofthese units will decrease U.S. C02 emissions
intensity. EPSA and its members will work to maximize low-emitting technologies
to allow low-emitting generation to operate ai a higher capacity factor through all
available means.

o Calpine has purchased or constructed a fleet of more than 23,000 MW of natural

gas-frred electric and non-emitting geothermal generation that collectively has a
C02 emissions rate almost 65 percent lower than the average U.S. and which
Calpine expects to expand to greater than 29,000 MW by 2006. Calpine is also
implementing electric generation heat rate efficiency improvement projects.
o Cinergy has purchased or built more than 2,500 MW of natural gas-frred electric
generation, including the repowering of a 150-MW coal-fired electric generator.
Cinergy is also implementing projects to improve the heat rate efficiency ofits
electric generation. Cinergy's subsidiary Cinergy Solutions designs, builds and
currently operates more than 20 CHP facilities for industrial customerS increasing
their fossil fuel usage efficiency to more than 70 percent..
o Ameren has built more than 1800 MW of natural gas-fired electric generation and
has repowered a 190-MW coal-fired facility into a 520-MW combined cycle
natural gas-fired facility.
- Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC): As a hydrogen generator, cleaner
and more efficient power generator and carbon-capture friendly technologyrtbis coal
technology offers a promising solution for reconciling environmental concerns with a
robust coal future. Power Partners8M member companies are participating in a variety
of efforts to advance this technology. For exa.-mple, Cinergy operates its Wabash
River Unit 1 on syn-gas produced through coal gasificahvit, and is in the process of
designing a second coal gasifier to repower its Edwardsport electric generating
facility.
FutureGen is an initiative to build the world's frrst zero-emissions integrated
sequestration and hydrogen production research power plant. The initiative is a
response to President Bush's directive to draw upon the best scientific research to
address the issue of global climate change and help ensure America's energy security
10

CEQ 014634

by develCWing technologies that utilize a plentiful domestic resource. Power

Partnerss member companies are participating in this effort.

Company-specific Reduction Commitments

- Short-terin commitments
o American Elec,;tric Powei,3: total cumulative reduction of 17 MMTCOz by end of
commitment period (2003-2006)
o Cine~: 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2010
o FPL Group2: reduce GHG emission rate 18 percent/kWh between 2003 and 2008
eompared to a 2001 baseline
o Public Service Electric & Gas2: reduce C02 emission rate 18 percent/kWh below
2000 levels by 2009
o Xcel Energy: reduce C02 emission intensity 7 percent below 2003levels by 2012
o Enter~t: stabilize domestic COz emissions at 2000 levels through 2005
o TECO : reduce GHG emissions 4 percent below the average of its 1998-2001
baseline by 2006
- Medium-term commitments (will contribute to achievement of the President's and
sector's goals even tho"Qgh targets extend beyond 20 12)
o FPL Group 5: Improve energy efficiency 15 percent by 2020
o Other power sector participants in WWF PowerSwitch! effort

:> Element 3: Develop cross-sector projects for reducing GHG emissions

Climate VISION aims to encourage .cross-sector projects that reduce GHG emission intensity.
DOE and the Power PartnerssM will seek to broaden participation in and increase the impact of
the Climate VISION program by exploring cross-sector and intergovernmental enabling
initiatives to help improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emission intensity.
Clean Coal Technologies

New clean coal technologies offer a number of advantages, but certain factors inhibit more
widespread commercial use. The Power PartnerssM and DOE will work together and with other
key stakeholders to explore partnerships that could accelerate commercial adoption of advanced
clean coal power systems and gasification technologies. One initial effort in this area will
involve ~olding a multi-stakeholder workshop, including Power PartnerssM, DOE,_ the mining
sector and environmental groups, to explore issues of opportunity and concern in advancing
clean coal technologies.

Undertaken as participant in EPA Climate Leaders program in which Exelon, We Energies, NiSource and Calpine
are also participating.
3
AEP and TECO's commilments are also part of their participation in the Chicago Climate Exchange.
4 Entergy's commitment is part of its participation in Environmental Defense's Partnership for Climate Action.
5
FPL Group's commitment is part of its participa~ion in World Wildlife Fund's PowerSwitch! program.

11

CEQ 014635

>,

-~-

'" .. ~

. ' ... ......

r-~

.......

.~-

-~,,.,

'\"~,

"'

'''_~
..,t
.. t.;.:
':
....
., l

~.:....

,.

' ~,~-'l-~~}
. ..._.....-\~

Climate Change Technology

Program Update

CCTP Federal RDD&D

Investments

FY2004 Program Goals

>f.

~-

- R&D portfolio analysis and input

Need IWG assistance

-Strategic Plan
- NCCTI Competitive Solicitation Program
-IPCC Working Group 111 (Miti~-

"'.... '

..

FY2004 Resources

.....

.....

".,.;~~ l'fr~~"~:
.. ~ ~-

,_.

2111/ZII04

CJ~

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

"11/-{..,.

JA~''f, o/

,fl,~

:!

150

~
!i

100

159

).A'DJ
0

0
0

Q
(D

'1
1-4

FY2004

I; ~ 'fJ?o

I~

250

l!!2.00
~
:& 1111

m'1

253
~

"'l'i
~-

-~

~~

~II~

--~ ~

"'
~~

100

~fiJ: ~n,'li1X z

~.. .. ~'11'~+
'

'"'

--------------

~-.

211

300

'<:',~

FY2005

' \.

l'f'l~

350

\?''

50

t.l'

Total Hydrogen Investment

~~---------,~------,
200

.~

\.)

--.1.-

....~

....

f.~

1,;0

FY2II03

-~.~c~\~h4 \.~o;,W~

....,

FY2004

---- ..

--~

..
~

;l.

50

~~

FY2005

------ .. - ----~

....

----------- -~- ~~--

. ;;~ .

----

J,

Climate Change Technology

Initiative Updates - GS~

Climate Change Technology

Initiative Updates - GEN IV

Technical and Policy Groups'~et 1922 Janu~

in Rome
Outcomes:

Generation IV International Forum negotiated

muHi-lateral agreements 26-27 January in
Switzerland

- Project Recommendation Guidelines

- Terms of Reference and Procedures
- Technical Group reviewing 13 proposed projects and
revisinglechnical Roadmap
- Secretariat to develop Action Plan Issue papers

- Based on us-prepared draft agreement recently

cleared in inter-agency review

Technology Review Group (US, Japan, France,

Euratom) evaluating leading reactor technology
concepts for NGNP

Next ministerial will announce endorsed projects

- Increased sustainability/waste minimization; safety;

proliferation-resistance; economics

- Melbourne, Summer/Fall 2004

211112004

211112004

Climate Change Technology

Initiative Updates - ITER
Current parties to negotiation- US, China, EU,
Japan, Russian Federation, South Korea
- Canada withdrew December 2003 due to lack of
Federal Government support

Two sites in contention with cost sharing

agreement: Rokkasho (Japan), Cadarache
(France)
Meeting to attem~t to break site deadlock
Vienna February 2004
Comprehensive lntemational Agreement for 35
year program to be completed April 2004
pending site agreemt:tnt

211-112004----------------------

\..:
I'

... 4,

.. . -+--

10

-. ""\ .... :.., \ .., .....

~

.,

"r ,;_

I\

.-......

\.

..

I;'JI<t~ ~......... ,~, ,:;

..

.....

CCTP Strategic Plan

Proposed Outline
- Introduction: Comprehensive US climate change
strategy and description of CCTP
- CCTP Mission, Goals and Approaches
- Scenario Analysis
- Goal Chapters
Context
Role for Technology
Portfolio Rationale & Current Emphasis

Fulul'e R&D Opponunlties

PotenHal Contributlons

- Fortifying Foundations
- Conclusion and Appendices
---~~+------------

--------------ta

-:If.rY\. 6
CCTP Strategic Plan

CCTP Review of IPCC Nominations

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2004-2007
IPCC Working Group Ill (MIUgaUon)- 13 Chapters

Proposed Timeline
- WGs reviewing chapters
-OMB Interagency review March 24-31

- Cooldlnallng Lead Aulhon (CU.) and Review EdliDrs (REI

- Lead Autlors (LI.)
- Conblbullng Aulllonl, Expert Ravlewenl

CCTP Deputy Olreclor Mal1ay & Interagency Team Reviewed 80+

Csndldates, with Distinguished Technical or Academic camera

-IWG review April9-16

- Public draft release April 30
- Engage In public, primarily web-based
dialogue through September 30
- Respond to comments/revise draft by
December31
2111/ZIXI4

19forctA&REJobs

- Racammended 37 for LA Jobs

- Focused on CIL 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 (Pollcy,lasual,llnd Scenarios)
- Focused on Ch. 4. 5, 8, 9 (Energy Supply, Trsnaport.Aa. & Forsstly)

Intensive Effort. Quick Tum-Around, Over Holiday Period

- Kudos 111 Bob. Dina Kruger, Mk:haal SIIBiby, Linda Lawson, Kan!gan
Balk, Roo Bkk. BID Hcllansteln. Ted Gayer, Tllg Tallsy
CCTP Can Lead Interagency Coord. on IPCC WG Ill (Mitigation)
13

14

2111/ZIXI4

''/3tc .Solan fl....f,~_,;,

k /t.d.. K-f!' ~?

----------..------------. --

--

.,

TALKING POINTS: REVISING 1605(B)

Program Structure. DOE will recognize different levels of effort but will provide
credits only for U.S. entity-wide reductions that occur after 2002.

Under EPACT 1605 (b}, DOE must allow reporting of annual reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions achieved through any measure. DOE will provide full
recognition (transferable credits and/or baseline protection) to entities reporting total
U.S. emissions and demonstrating entity-wide emission U.S. reductions relative to
2002.

DOE will encourage entities to report (but not provide credits): 1) reductions
associated with specific actions, even if actions did not result in entity-wide
reductions; 2) reductions achieved prior to 2002; and 3) reductions achieved overseas.

A reporting entity is defined as a legally distinct business, institution, organization or

household; reporters are encouraged to define themselves at the highest meaningful
level of aggregation.

Reporting Inventories and Calculating Reductions

Report entity-wide emission inventories, including: all significant and measurable

greenhouse gas emissions and sinks; 6 UNFCCC gases; direct emissions; indirect
emission that occur in the generation of purchased electricity, steam or hot (or
chilled) water used by the entity.

Entities with no significant or measurable emissions are exempt from the inventory
requirement (cover households, small businesses and small farms or landowners).

Emissions reductions must represent, to the maximum extent practicable, the net
effects of entity-wide efforts to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Entities may
calculate entity-wide reductions one or more of the following methods:
1. Absolute reductions (reductions cannot be claimed ifbased on reductions in U.S.
output or major shifts in the types of products or services produced).
~
2. Reductions in emissions intensity (mtensity metrics must accurately represent
output associated with the covered emissions; acquisitions, divestures or changes
in products cannot be sole cause of reductions).
3. Project-based emission reductions (for projects within entity boundaries), as long
as they do not adversely affect output and are derived from actual measured data,
or by using estimation methods consistent with DOE guidance.
4. Increased carbon sequestration (for projects within entity boundaries), as long as
the entity demonstrates that the sequestration claimed represents a net increase in
the quantity sequestered by the entity and is unlikely to be re-released to the
atmosphere.

C: \TEMP\Strawman Summary. doc

CEQ 015022

5. Avoided emissions (for projects within entity boundaries) that reflect the indirect
emission reductions achieved as a result of an increase in the net sales of energy
generated by low- or no- emission technologies.
6. Net emission reductions achieved by other entities (offtets) as long as the other
entity observed all of the same rules that would have been applicable if it had
chosen to report its net emission reductions directly and the reporting entity
demonstrates that it has the legal right to claim the reductions.

Entities certify report is accurate and consistent with DOE guidelines; maintains
adequate records for at least five years. Optional: independent verification.

Entities may begin reporting prior year emissions at any time. The first year of
reported emissions is the base year (may be single year's record of emissions or an
average over several years). Base years may be no earlier than 1990 and base periods
no earlier than 1987-1990. An entity may begin claiming emission reductions under
the revised guidelines for the year immediately following its first full yeat: of
emission reports (i.e., no earlier than 1991). To be accepted under the revised
guidelines, emission reductions already reported to the 1605b registry must be recast
to fully comply with the revised guidelines.

To prevent entities from claiming credit for reductions that are offset by emission
increases in intervening years, entities must submit contiguous annual reports that
demonstrate cumulative emission reductions achieved relative to the entity's base
year (or base period).
DOE Review and Recognition and Recordation

DOE reviews reports for compliance with guidelines. Accepted reports are reviewed
to determine form of recognition:
1. Credits: Entities who submit inventories and claim entity-wide U.S. emissions
reductions after 2002 receive a certificate indicating they had earned emission
reduction credits the Administration believed were worthy of recognition under
any future climate policy.
2. Recognition ofReductions: Entities submitting inventories and demonstrating
entity-wide emissions reduction prior to 2003 or through action taken overseas
receive a certificate indicating they had reduced their entity-wide emission
reductions in ghgs by reported amount.
3. Recognition ofActions: Entities not submitting an entity-wide emissions
inventory or not demonstrating entity-wide U.S. reductions, receive a certificate
indicating they had taken actions to reduce emissions.

The Administrator of the EIA will establish a database including all data that meets
the definitional, measurement, calculation and certification requirement of the revised
guidelines.

C: \TEMP\Strawman Summary. doc

CEQ 015023

'

All Reporters

Full Recognition (Credits

Re~~~;;-; R~ductions -~-

Submit entity-wide inventory;

Calculate entity-wide reductions using choice
of methods;
Demonstrate reductions occurred outside U.S.
or before 2002;
Certify report ( may be independently verified).

tTJ
tO

Vl

0
N

..j:>.

Submit comprehensive entity-wide inventory;

Calculate entity-wide reductions using choice
of methods;
Demonstrate reductions occurred in U.S. and
after2002;
Certify report, may be independently verified.

Prepare inventories and emission reductions

using DOE revised guidelines;
Certify report (may be independently verified).

I I
\

Recognition

o~tions-

_j

Calculate reductions for any component of the anti

Demonstrate reductions that occur inside or
outside U.S.,before or after 2002;
Certify report, may be independently verified.

is\

0 2)- Ot8

~~""

~~

.p

(,.!Ww ,}.. C
'f'l>v.a 0

lSION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

n~ 1 w ~EN THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

I.

Overview

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes a voluntary umbrella framework for

reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the power sector. This framework
shall be part of the President's Climate VISION ("Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives:
Opportunities Now") program, which was established on February 12, 2003, as a public-private
partnership to address the long-tenn challenge of global climate change and to make a
meaningful contribution to the President's goal of reducing the GHG intensity of the United
State~' economy by 18 percent by 2012.
This MOU is entered into by and between each of the six electric power sector trade associations
of the United States (as named below), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United
States Department of Energy (DOE), hereinafter collectively referred to as the ..Parties." The six
trade associations that are Parties to the MOU are: American Public Power Association, Edison
~;;;
.. ;;;;;s;;_.,hlectric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Nuclear Energy Institute. TVA and the six trade
associations, acting through their members, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Power
PartnerssM."

~I. Goals
The overall goal of this MOU is to support the President in his efforts to reduce the GHG
emissions intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by the end of2012 .. To this end, the
Power PartnerssM and DOE agree to work collectively to establish an effective and robust
partnership between the electric power sector and DOE that is:

Part of a larger economy-wide effort under the Climate VISION program and other
voluntary programs to reduce the GHG emission intensity of the U.S. economy;
Intended to make a meaningful contribution by the power sector to ensure the
achievement ofthe President's GHG emission intensity goal 1 by 2012; and
Intended to facilitate actions by the Power Partners8Mand their members and TVA to
reduce collectively the power sector's GHG emission intensitl by an equivalent of 3 to 5
percent below 2000-2002 baseline levels, as measured over the 2010-2012 period.

President Bush's intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of national GHG emissions to gross domestic
product (GDP).

001.655
CEQ 015108

.'

Final Draft
5-28-04

CLIMATE VISION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

I.

Overview

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes a voluntary umbrella framework for

reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the power sector. This framework
shall be part of the President's Climate VISION ("Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives:
Opportunities Now") program, which was established on February 12, 2003, as a public-private
partnership to address the long-term challenge of global climate change and to make a
meaningful contribution to the President's goal of reducing the GHG intensity of the United
States' economy by 18 percent by 2012.
This MOU is entered into by and between each of the six electric power sector trade associations
of the United States (as named below), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United
States Department of Energy (DOE), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." The six
trade associations that are Parties to the MOU are: American Public Power Association, Edison
~<Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply Association, Large Public Power Council, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Nuclear Energy Institute. TV A and the six trade
associations, acting through their members, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Power
Partners 8M."

The overall goal of this MOU is to support the President in his efforts to reduce the GHG
emissions intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by the end of20l2. To this end, the
Power PartnerssM and DOE agree to work collectively to establish an effective and robust
partnership between the electric power sector and DOE that is:

Part of a larger economy-wide effort under the Climate VISION program and other
voluntary programs to reduce the GHG emission intensity of the U.S. economy;
Intended to make a meaningful contribution by the power sector to ensure the
achievement ofthe President's GHG emission intensity goal 1 by 2012; and
Intended to facilitate actions by the Power Partners8Mand their members and TV A to
reduce collectively the power sector's GHG emission intensiti by an equivalent of 3 to 5
percent below 2000-2002 baseline levels, as measured over the 2010-2012 period.

1
President Bush's intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of national GHG emissions to gross domestic
product (GDP).

CEQ 015109

The Power Partners5 M emissions intensity reduction 3 goal is based on anticipated future trends
and conditions within the power sector and other major sectors of the U.S. economy. 4 In
addition, the goal arJ>lies to the entire electric power sector and does not apply individually to
the Power Partners or their members. Because future trends and conditions within the power
sector are affected by government policies, DOE will use its best efforts to develop and
implement programs and policies in support of the goals and purposes of this MOU and Work
Plan (Attaclunent 1).
As a secondary goal of this MOU, the Power Partners5 Mand DOE agree to work collectively to
spur GHG emission intensity reductions across all sectors of the economy through collaborations
with electricity end-users/customers in the industrial, commercial, residential and transportation
sectors.

III. Principles
By entering into this MOU, the Parties agree to undertake a robust public-private partnership for
the purpose of advancing the "new approach to the challenge of global climate change" that the
President announced on February 14, 2002. This new approach is designed to harness the power
of the markets and technological innovation to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
The Parties recognize that climate change is a global, complex, long-term challenge that will
require a sustained effort over many generations. One essential element of an effective U.S.
response entails accelerating the research, development and commercial use of innovative,
economic, zero- or low-emissions technologies for the electric power and other sectors.
Activities undertaken as part of the Climate VISION program will be voluntary and flexible and
may cover any GHG, while also promoting the energy and environmental enhancement
objectives of the program. Participation by the Power PartnerssM does not constitute
endorsement of any particular scientific theory on global climate change.
The Parties recognize that the primary responsibility of the Power PartnerssM is to facilitate
actions by their members and TV A, in accordance with the framework established in the MOU,
for the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives set forth in the MOU. However, the Parties
recognize that the Power PartnerssM trade association members and TV A have specifi~, but
varying circumstances (i.e., diverse growth requirements, power supply demands, fuel mix,
geographical constraints, and financial and other resource limitations) that will influence and
affect their operations and the actions they take.

The power sector's collective intensity goal is defined in terms of the ratio of carbon dioxide (C0 2 emtsstons to
generation (MWH). However, the Power Partners5M members that choose to set company-specific intensity goals
'
may express their goals in other ways, such as by using other intensity metrics.
3
References to "reductions" in this MOU and attachments include avoidances and sequestrations.
4
Emissions in the carbon intensity metric will be adjusted, as appropriate, in accordance with the Work Plan
(Attachment I) and Appendix A to the Work Plan developed under this MOU.

CEQ 015110

IV. Parties' Joint Actions

As part of the Climate VISION program, the Parties seek to achieve the goals and purposes of
this MOU in a transparent manner. Such efforts will include consistent and periodic evaluations
of progress by the Parties and encouragement of the submission of reports by the Power
PartnerssM trade association members and TVA under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "1605(b) program").
Under this MOU, the Parties will work together to:

Promote economic GHG emission intensity reductions.

Encourage expanded use of current low-emission or no-emission technologies, such as
nuclear; hydroelectric, wind and other renewables; highly efficient natural gas; and clean
coal technologies.
Pursue approaches that will help to accelerate research, development, demonstration and,
as soon as practicable, widespread commercial use of economic zero- or low-carbon
electric generation technologies and processes (including carbon capture and
sequestration) and of advanced, high-efficiency electric generation, transmission,
distribution and end-use technologies.
Develop strategies to assist others in reducing GHG emission intensity, such as Power
PartnerssM member companies' electricity end-users/customers in the industrial,
commercial, residential and transportation sectors of the U.S. economy.
Facilitate the development and use of tools for measuring and reporting power sector
GHG emissions and emissions reductions.

The Parties agree to work together to develop and encourage policies and practices that will
enhance, facilitate and encourage voluntary efforts for GHG emission intensity reductions and
that will provide incentives and reduce barriers to such reductions. In particular, it is the aim of
the Parties to advance the goals and objectives of this MOU by promoting policies and incentives
that:

Provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to all segments of the power sector in
order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies, deploy advanced
technologies and maintain America's critical energy infrastructure.
Create and maintain regulatory stability, and minimize regulatory uncertainty !gld delay.
Remove unnecessary constraints that may inhibit implementation of voluntary GHG
reductions and use of lower-emitting technologies.
Spur investment in the short term and long term through a balanced and progressive
research, development and deployment portfolio.

One such policy of importance to Power Partners5 Mand their members is the revision of the
guidelint>') for reporting and registering GHG emission intensity reductions under the 1605(b)
program.
The Parties will jointly coordinate the development of a "living document" Work Plan that
mutually reflects, to the greatest extent possible, the flexible implementation strategies and
3

CEQ 015111

actions for achieving the goals of this MOU. The Power PartnerssM, contribution to such a Work
Plan shall be based on the activities and initiatives described in their action plans submitted to
the Secretary of Energy in connection with the initiation of the Climate VISION program on
February 12, 2003.
The Parties agree to confer, at reasonable intervals, on the progress towards achieving the Power
Partners 5 MGHG intensity reduction goal and implementing the other provisions established
under this MOU. Additional actions or other such changes may be reflected by revising the
terms and provisions of this MOU if they are mutually agreed to by the Parties.
The Power Partners 8M and DOE view the development and use of advanced technologies as
critical to the achievement of the President's goal to reduce U.S. GHG intensity by 18 percent by -.
2012. The Parties agree to work collectively to develop a process, subject to the availability of r'"f-.~
funds and applicable provisions oflaw, for (i) identifying high-priority power sector research,
Y"s.~.r
development and deployment associated with technologies necessary to attaining the Power
Partners8M GHG intensity reduction goal specified in section II of this MOU 5 and ultimately to
surpass this goal ("power sector RD&D"), and (ii) carrying out the identified, high-priority
power sector RD&D. This process will provide for:

Joint review by the Power Partners5 M(through EPRI and its affiliates) and DOE of power
sector RD&D priorities, with particular attention to technologies necessary to attain the
Power Partners' GHG intensity reduction goal specified in section II of this MOU and to
further extend the transformation of electricity production, transmission, distribution and
consumption with advanced technologies. DOE's review would be facilitated by the
National Energy Policy Office (NEPO) and would involve the Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP) and appropriate DOE Program Offices. 6

Joint recommendations by the Power Partners SM (through EPRI and its affiliates),
NEPO, CCTP and appropriate DOE Program Offices of steps to carry out the identified
power sector RD&D priorities, including where appropriate an RD&D plan.

To the extent these joint recommendations so provide, strengthening existing and

establishing new public-private partnerships for the purpose of carrying out the highpriority power sector RD&D.

Subject to the availability of appropriations and of non-federal funding, performing the

high-priority power sector RD&D through such partnerships.

Evaluating potential new policy mechanisms to support early commercial uses of the
technologies developed under the power sector RD&D program, once they are
commercially demonstrated.

s This power sector RD&D can include research, development-and deployment of advanced zero- or low-carbon,
emission electric generation technologies (including carbon capture and sequestration) and advanced, highefficiency electric generation, transmission, distribution and end-use technologies.
6
These D)E program offices include the Offices of Science; Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; Science and
Technology; Electric Transmission and Distribution; and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

CEQ 015112

The timing, responsibilities and components of this program are described in Attachment 2.
V.

The Power PartnerssM, Actions

The Power Partners 5Mwill take actions to encourage and facilitate maximum participation in the
Climate VISION program by their trade association members and TV A. The important purposes
of this effort will be to improve the level and depth of participation, through workshops or other
means, of their trade association members and TV A and to enhance performance and reporting.
The Power Partners 5Mwill encourage their trade association members to achieve collectively the
goals, actions and initiatives described in the associations' Climate VISION action plans, which
were transmitted by letter from each of the Power Partners'sM members to the Secretary of
Energy. Collectively, these action plans serve as the starting point for the establishment of an
effective voluntary framework for reducing the GHG emission intensity of the power sector.
The Power PartnerssM will use best efforts to achieve their GHG intensity reduction goal under
this MOU by facilitating their membership to undertake activities that contribute to achieving
this goal, including those described in the "living document" Work Plan develo~ed with DOE.
See Attachment 1. Trade associations and TV A individually or Power Partners Mcollectively
may develop additional programs, strategies and initiatives for inclusion in the Work Plan. The
activities contained in the Work Plan will cover a wide range of actions that may be undertaken
over the term of this MOU to achieve GHG emissions intensity reductions.~adt acti\1ities may.
include domestic and intematieaal actions, iacluding actions tg assist those in other sectors to
reduce tlre:h Gl~ intensit~':J
Trade association member companies and TV A may memorialize their voluntary actions,
programs and activities through company-specific plans tailored and detailed in accordance with
such members' and TVA's circumstances and submitted to the Power PartnerssM and DOE.
Member companies and TV A are encouraged to use the 1605(b) program for reporting and
registering GHG emissions intensity reductions achieved under company-specific plans and this
voluntary program.
The Power PartnerssM wili develop and promote initiatives that will allow their member
companies and TV A to pool their resources and collaborate collectively on joint, industry-wide
programs and activities to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
The Power Partners5 Mwill prepare an annual report on activities and accomplishments under this
MOU, beginning two calendar years after this MOU (with attachments) is signed by the Parties.
This report shall present the actions taken and results achieved through the Climate VISION
program during .the preceding year and shall include an analysis that explains how these
activities and accomplishments represent a meaningful contribution by the power sector to the
President's 18 ~ercent GHG emission intensity reduction goal. In support ofthis effort, the
Power Partners Mwill develop a standardized metric for measuring progress in reducing carbon
emission intensity for the electric power sector. This report and accompanying analysis will ~.
reflect anticipated future trends and conditions within the power sector and other major sectors Of
the U.S. economy.
5

CEQ 015113

VI. DOE Actions

DOE will use its best efforts to develop and implement programs, policies, regulations, budgets
and legislative proposals in support ofthe goals and purposes of this MOU.
DOE will use its best efforts to: promote the harmonization of governmental policies and
procedures; promote the minimization of regulatory barriers and uncertainties; encourage
supportive fiscal and other actions and incentives; and otherwise promo.te an atmosphere that
encourages and supports Power PartnerssM in their efforts to achieve the goals and purposes of
thisMOU.

'P"\..~ ~~.s ~ rele~~ \.-. ~2-

DOE, in consultation with other fede al agencies, is revising the reporting guidelines for the
1605(b) program. As directed by the resident, the revised reporting guidelines are intended in
part to provide an effective "tool for ompanies to publicly record their progress" in reducing
GHG emission intensity. The

stated that this "tool goes hand-in-hand with voluntary

business" actions, such as those to be undertaken by the Climate VISION Program generally and
this MOU specifically. To this end, DOE will strive to assure that collection and documentation
of information through EIA under the 1605(b) program are consistent with, and support the
achievement of, the President's overall climate change objectives ofFebruary 14, 2002, and the
goals and objectives of this MOU.
Through the Climate VISION program, DOE will provide recognition to the Power Partners5 M
and their members for making substantial contributions to GHG emission intensity reductions
through the 1605(b) program and by other means. BOE will !tlse provitie reeegaitiolt to the
-Power Partners5Mand their memb~ that make financial eontributiuns to GHG emlSSlonsrednctian reseat=ch, def'elopment and eommereial use ufad'Y'aneed teolm&legiss and praetiees ~at
-help aGhieve tbe I g percent national emissions intensity reduction goal and look toward future
time frames.
--.
DOE shall offer technical assistance to the Power Partners5Mand their member companies and
TVA in support of the goals, activities and actions undertaken pursuant to this MOU. This
assistance can include DOE support in the development of:

Voluntary commitments, actions, programs and other such strategies under this MOU for
reducing GHG emission intensity;

Tools for measuring and reporting GHG emissions intensity reductions and for achieving
energy savings; and
. ,1
hA.

o.f 1''C. e~
~tl'ategies to assist others to reduc~GHG emission intensit~uch as by demand-side

~I)~

management, energy efficiency, and utilization of electrotechnology applications by

customers and other end-users.
VII. General Provisions

The Parties enter into this MOU under the authority provided to DOE in the Department of
Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-91), section 203,42 U.S.C. 7133, and section 646,42
u.s.c. 7256.
6

CEQ 015114

'

The Parties agree to work together to: promote public and congressional awareness and
confidence in the Climate VISION program and this MOU. The Parties also agree to resolve in a
mutually satisfactory manner interpretative and other problems that may arise in the
implementation of this MOU. In addition, each Party shall designate a point of contact for these
purposes and otherwise facilitate implementation of this MOU. Any Party shall notify all other
Parties of any change in its designated contact person.
Any Party may, after 30 days notice in writing to other Parties, terminate its participation in the
agreement without penalty or criticism, and without being subject to any judicial action.
This MOU broadly states the basic understandings of all Parties of voluntary tasks and the
methods for performing such tasks described herein and is not to be considered a binding
contract. This MOU shall not be used to obligate or commit funds or as the basis for the transfer
of funds.
Trade secrets and commercial or financial information contained in reports made pursuant to
section V ofthis MOU shall be subject to the applicable provisions of section 1605(b) ofthe
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
This MOU shall become effective as ofthe date the last Party duly executes it below:
Date: June_, 2004
/signatures/
/names of trade association and TVA heads/names of trade associations and TVA/Secretary of
Energy

Attachments (2)

CEQ 015115

Final Draft
5-28-04
Attachment 1 to MOU

WORK PLAN TO IMPLEMENT POWER

PARTNERSsM, CLIMATE VISION MOU
The overall objective of this Work Plan is to support the President's goal in reducing the GHG
emissions intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by the end of2012. Specifically, this
Work Plan outlines the proposed implementation actions by the power sector to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 2012 (as set forth in the MOU) and time frames for
achieving those actions. As such, it is a "living document" subject to future revisions and
updating. DOE will work in collaboration with Power Partners5M to facilitate the activities
below designed to accomplish the Power Partners 5 M goal.
).> Element 1: Emissions Measurement and Reporting Protocols

Trade association members and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) currently report the vast
majority oftheir emissions (99.9 percent or more in most cases) through the use of continuous
emissions monitors and fuel-use estimated data that are transmitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and then subsequently published annually at a sector level by both
EPA and the Energy Information Administration. Moreover, member companies and TV A
currently plan to continue reporting their GHG reduction activities under the 1605(b) program.
Reporting under these regimes is the functional equivalent of a monitoring and reporting
protocol for the power sector. The Power PartnerssM will assess the need to develop a sectorspecific reporting protocol in the future.
~~
~~ ~

"+

One key policy development is the establishment of revised guideli s for reporting and
registering GHG emission intensity reductions under section 1605 ) of EPA ct. In revising the
I605(b) guidelines, DOE and other federal agencies -v.'ill geasidet ) registration of stand-alone,
credible projects and 2) baseline..protection.or re~stration of past and future actions. ~
issues are very important to the Power Partnerss , both during and subsequent to the current
revision of the 160S(b) progra : I

""'

As described in the MOU, the Power Partners5M will prepare an annual report on activities and
accomplishments. That report will include the standardized metric for measuring progress in
reducing carbon emission intensity for the electric power sector. See Appendix A.
~

Element 2: Identify/Implement near-term cost-effective GHG reduction opportunities

Climate VISION aims to work with industry groups/sectors to identify and implement near-terirt,
cost-effective GHG reduction opportunities. Therefore, the Power PartnersSM and DOE will

001.657
CEQ 015116

work together to enhance, facilitate and encourage voluntary efforts and practices for achieving
GHG emission intensity reductions.

The Power Partners 8M Resource Guide

One example of how industry "best practices" and energy-efficiency opportunities will be
promoted and communicated among members, companies and customers in the sector and
outside stakeholders is through the Power Partners 5 MResource Guide. The Resource Guide is a
Web-based resource tool to help companies undertake individual actions to reduce GHGs or
emission intensity. The Resource Guide will guide companies to best practices and
efficiency/reduction opportunities by helping users find state-of-the-art information on a variety
of topics through the use of links to credible Websites, and by creating a forum for dialog
between companies that have successfully implemented projects and companies interested in
pursuing similar efforts through the use of a registration section. DOE and the Power PartnerssM
have already been actively developing the Resource Guide for dissemination on the Climate
VISION Website. In the immediate term, the Power PartnerssM will finalize the initial version of
the Resource Guide. In consultation with DOE, the Power PartnerssM will develop a process for
the regular update and dissemination of information in the Resource Guide, including possibly
through conferences.

Promotion of Best Practices/Energy Efficiency

The Power PartnerssM will take actions to encourage and facilitate participation in the Climate
VISION program by their trade association members and TVA. The important purposes of this
effort will be to improve the level and depth of participation, through workshops or other means,
of their trade association members and TV A and to enhance performance and reporting.
The Power Partners 8 Mand DOE will establish a partnership, workinf with other federal agencies,
to identify areas of additional collaboration and create opportunities for further promoting
adoption of industry best practices.

Time lines
2003
1

Power Partners Resource Guide developed by the Power Partners8M and DOE

Such opportunities could include, for example:

Cosponsored events on energy-efficiency opportunities

Development and dissemination of information, tools and resources

Commercialization of emerging technologies

Trade journal articles

Publications, communications and outreach

Participation in public events

Case study referrals

Website coordination and development

Development of periodic reports on member participation in the Power Partners 5M and documentation of
the types of actions taken

Expansion of membership participation in other federal government programs, such as Climate Leaders,
Natural Gas Star, Coal Combustion Products Partnership and the SF6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for
Electric Power Systems.

CEQ 015117

June 2004
Mid-2004

=
=

Fall 2004 =
151 Q 2005 =

Resource Guide "published"

Establishment of partnership
Discussion/selection of additional promotional activities
Partnership sign-offs
Initiation of activities

Industry-wide Initiatives
The Power PartnerssM will develop and promote power sector initiatives that will allow their
member companies and TV A to pool their resources and collaborate collectively on joint,
industry-wide programs and activities to reduce GHG emissions intensity.
Since 2002 the Power PartnersSM have been assessing and developing a series of industry-wide
initiatives in support of the President's goal and to help the power sector reduce its carbon
intensity. The following activities are being pursued to assist in achieving the sector-wide
carbon intensity goal:

PowerTree Carbon Company: PowerTree Carbon Company is a new reforestation effort

in the lower Mississippi River valley. This project has now received sponsorship from 25
U.S. power generators- investor-owned utilities, a rural electric cooperative and TVA-who have committed more than $3 million for six projects that will remove and store
more than 1.5 million tons of C02. On April 19, the first PowerTree Carbon Company
project was announced.

Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2): This initiative increases the use of coal
combustion byproducts in lieu of using limited natural resources. This program hopes to
increase such use from approximately 14 million tons to 20 million tons of C02 annually
by 2010, and to increase the utilization rate from 32 percent to 45 percent by 2008. To
date, 40 utilities have become C2P2 Champions, and 19 utilities have pledged additionaL
funding to help meet the C2P2 goals.
C2P2 is also a government partnership and cross-sector program, involving the electric
utility, highway and building construction industries.

International Power Partnerships (IPP): This program works with DOE and th_e State
Department to identify GHG reduction opportunities overseas. IPP is committed to fund
projects that promote use of renewable energy and clean coal technologies. IPP began
three international GHG reduction projects in 2003; more projects will be pursued during
2004.

Technology and Other Initiatives: Further reductions in GHG emission intensity in the
medium term to long term will depend upon the development and availability of costeffective technologies that allow for a stable, reliable and affordable supply of energy.
Working with EPRI, two industry-wide initiatives focusing on long-term actions are ~
underway- "Pilot-Scale Test Centers for Engineering, Economic, and Environmental
Evaluation of C02 Capture and Containment" and "Advanced Coal Plant Partnership."
3

CEQ 015118

A third initiative, "Climate Contingency Roadmap Phase II," is also under development
by EPRI.

Company Actions [Subsequent versions of this living document will reflect company actions
in addition to those supplied by EEl, NEI, NRECA and TVA.]
Company and TV A actions will be the cornerstone of success for the Power Partners sM.
voluntary initiative. In furtherance of the objectives of this Work Plan, the Power PartnerssM
will encourage trade association members and TVA to undertake specific commitments,
including achieving a voluntary GHG intensity reduction goal, along with developing a plan to
implement such commitments. Trade association members and TVA are encouraged to use the
1605(b) program for reporting and registering GH G emission intensity reductions achieved
under their company-specific commitments and this voluntary program.
The following types of activities are being pursued by trade association members and TV A in
order to help achieve the sector-wide carbon intensity goal:

Nuclear Programs
-

Throughout the nuclear energy industry, approximately 2,198 MW of power uprates

have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the last several
years and either have been completed or will be completed soon. In addition, based
on information from nuclear plant operators, the NRC expects applications for an
additional 1,886 MW ofuprates in the 2004-2008 period. Uprates already approved
and completed or planned thus total 4,084 megawatts. This additional capacity
displaces carbon emissions that would otherwise be emitted by other sources of
electric generation burning fossil fuels.
Three companies (Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon) are obtaining early site
permits, part of the new licensing regime created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EP Act), as part of a broad-based industry program leading to construction of new
nuclear plants in the U.S.
Three industry consortia have responded to a DOE request for proposals to share the
cost of obtaining a combined construction/operating license for new nuclear plants.
The single license for construction and operation is also part of EPAct. The three
consortia include the following companies: in one team, Dominion, AECL
Technologies, Hitachi America, Bechtel; in a second team, Constellation, Duke, EDF
International North America, Entergy, Exelon, Southern, GE, TVA, Westinghouse; in
a third team, TV A, GE, Toshiba, USEC, Global Fuel-Americas, Bechtel.
TVA announced the restart ofBrowns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1, the extended power
uprate of all three Browns Ferry Units to 120 percent of their original licensed power,
and a request for a license extension for the Browns Ferry Units to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

CEQ 015119

Biologic and Geologic Sequestration

-

Southern Longleaf Legacy Program: Southern Company is working with the

National Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the longleafpine-wiregrass ecosystem,
sequester C02 and conserve biological diversity in ecosystems. The project will
leverage a $3 million contribution by Southern with matching funds to facilitate up to
$8 million in restoration efforts. The initial phase of this project will be 2004-2008.
Entergy's Lower Mississippi River Valley Sequestration Project: Entergy is
providing financial assistance to the Winrock International TREE (Trees Restoring
Economy & Environment) program, which encourages small, private landowners to
retire marginal cropland by replanting it into bottomland hardwood trees. This
project will sequester more than 200,000 metric tons of C02 during its 80-year
lifetime.
American Electric Power's Geologic Sequestration Initiative with DOE: American

Electric Power is providing its own facilities for use as test centers in hosting a joint
-

research initiative with DOE on geologic sequestration to prove the efficacy of

geologic disposal of C02emissions.
TVA and project cooperators have planted nearly 3.1 million mixed hardwood and
coniferous seedlings on about 8000 acres of public and private land throughout the
Tennessee River watershed as a part of land reclamation, reforestation, watershed
protection, habitat enhancement and riparian soil erosion projects.
TV A in cooperation with DOE is conducting a demonstration project called Carbon
Capture and Water Emissions Treatment Systems. This project has planted about
68,000 commercial grade hardwoods on 100 acres of marginally reclaimed mine land
adjacent to a coal plant, and used gypsum from flue gas desulfurization systems at the
plant as a soil amendment, and plant wastewater for irrigation. TVA is in the fourth
year of a 5-l 0 year project.
TVA has also provided a grant to The Nature Conservancy to evaluate terrestrial
carbon sequestration in southwest Virginia. Based on their findings, The Nature
Conservancy is working with the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
to assess reforestation efforts on abandoned coal-mine lands.

Renewable Energy and Green Power Programs

-

Hydro
o TV A is completing a long-term program to modernize existing hydro facilities to
increase efficiency and output. This effort will result in approximately 750 MW
of additional generating capacity. in the system.
Solar
o Arizona Public Service STAR (Solar Test And Research center) facility
o Puget Sound 38 kW photovoltaic (PV) system
o TV A has established PV systems to generate solar power at 15 sites across the
Tennessee Valley.
Wind
o Florida Power & Light (nation's largest wind portfolio)
o MidAmerican (largest land-based wind project in world)
5

CEQ 015120

o Xcel Energy (largest green pricing program- "WindSource"- in the U.S. in

terms of number of participants)
o Avista, Arizona Public Service, Madison Gas & Electric, Public Service New
Mexico, Tampa Electric Company
o TV A has constructed a wind power generating site on Buffalo Mountain near
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Initially wind power will add about 2 MW of capacity
to the TVA power system, but plans for expansion by an additional 20 MW
are underway.
Biomass
o Arizona Public Service, Cinergy, Southern
o TV A is co-firing fuels with coal, including wood wastes and wastewater
treatment ciigester gas (methane).
Green Power/Pricing Programs
o PacifiCorp issued one of the largest renewable energy request for proposals
ever in February 2004, seeking to purchase 1,000 MW of renewable energy by
2010
o Alabama Power, Duke Energy, Progress Energy, Dominion Resources,
Georgia Power, NorthWestern Energy, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, Wisconsin
Public Service Corporation, Green Mountain Power, Florida Power & Light
o TV A and local public power companies, working with input from the
environmental community, have created a program called Green Power
Switch to produce electricity from cleaner, greener sources and add it to
TV A's power mix.

Energy-efficiency and Demand-side Management Programs

-

Constellation Energy Group: EPA 2002 WasteWise Partner ofthe Year in Climate
Change category for innovative, cost-effective waste management strategies that
avoided GHGs
Southern Cal Edison, Minnesota Power, Nevada Power, San Diego Gas & Electric,
CenterPoint Energy, Sierra Pacific Power: received 2004 Energy STAR awards for
making outstanding contributions to reducing GHG emissions through energy
efficiency.

SF6 Programs
- EPA SF6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems

fossil Fuel Technology-related Efforts

- Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)- As a hydrogen generator, cleaner
and more efficient power generator and carbon-capture friendly technology, this coal
technology offers a promising solution for reconciling environmental concerns with a
robust coal future. Power Partners5M member companies are participating in a variety
of efforts to advance this technology ..
- FutureGen'is an initiative to build the world's first zero-emissions integrated
sequestration and hydrogen production research power plant. The initiative is a
response to President Bush's directive to draw upon the best scientific research to
6

CEQ 015121

address the issue of global climate change and help ensure America's energy security
by develoJ>ing technologies that utilize a plentiful domestic resource. Power
Partners 5 member companies are participating in this effort.

Company-specific Reduction Commitments

- Short-term commitments
o American Electric Power2 : 10 percent below average 1998-2001 baseline by
2006 (Chicago Climate Exchange)
o Cinergy: 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2010
o FPL Group 2 : reduce GHG emission rate 18 percent/kWh between 2003 and
2008 compared to a 2001 baseline
o Public Service Electric & Gas 2 : reduce C02 emission rate 18 percent/kWh
below 2000 levels by 2009
o Xcel Energy: reduce C02 emission intensity 7 percent below 2003 levels by
2012
o Entergy 3: stabilize domestic C02 emissions at 2000 levels through 2005
(Environmental Defense Partnership for Climate Action)
Mediwn-term commitments (will contribute to achievement of the President's and
sector's goals even though targets extend beyond 2012)
o Florida Power & Light4 : Improve energy efficiency 15 percent by 2020
(World Wildlife Fund (WWF) PowerSwitch!)
o Other power sector participants in WWF PowerSwitch! effort

Government Partnerships
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to identify and advance technologies that will
help achieve the President's 18 percent goal. Initially, NRECA is working with its members and
USDA to eliminate technical and market barriers to the use oflow-emission renewable
energy, such as agricultural waste-to-electricity through the use of systems approaches and the
development of decision-support tools.
Other government partnerships include EPA's SF 6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for Electric
Power Systems and the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2).

2
Reflects commitment as participant in EPA Climate Leaders program. Exelon, We Energies and NiSource are
also participants in Climate Leaders. AEP's commitment is also part of its participation in the Chicago Climate
~
Exchange.
3
Entergy's commitment is part of its participation in the Environmental Defense Partnership for Climate Action.
4
Florida Power & Light's commitment is part of its participation in the World Wildlife Fund PowerS witch!
program.

CEQ 015122

Element 3: Develop cross-sector projects for reducing GHG emissions

Climate VISION aims to encourage cross-sector projects that reduce GHG emission intensity.
DOE and the Power PartnerssM will explore innovative projects among the power sector and
other sectors to help improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emission intensity.

Utility Hybrid Truck Initiative

For example, significant opportunities exist to improve fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions
through the development of an electric utility hybrid "bucket" truck, which will ultimately have
significantly broader market potential. The core chassis, once hybridized, is ideal for not only
cable and telecommunications operations but also urban cargo, delivery, dump and other truck
applications. The goal is to develop a commercial hybrid work truck and meet 201 0 emissions
standards three years ahead of the federal goal, while improving fuel economy 50 percent (and
thereby reducing emissions).

Cross-sector Protects Partnership

DOE and the Power Partners 5Mseek to broaden participation in and increase the impact of the
Climate VISION program by exploring cross-sectoral and intergovernmental enabling initiatives,
involving arrangements between. the public and private sectors, to increase the market share for
energy-efficient homes and clean coal power technologies.

Clean Coal Technologies

New clean coal technologies offer a number of advantages, but certain factors inhibit more
widespread commercial use. The Power PartnerssM and DOE will work together and with
other key stakeholders to explore a public-private partnership initiative that would accelerate
commercial adoption of advanced clean coal power systems and gasification technologies to
bring down costs and ensure reliability.

Initiative for New Homes

The building sector is responsible for a significant portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Upgrading the energy performance of U.S. homes can help meet the President's emissions
intensity goal by 2012. The Power PartnerssM and DOE will work together and with other
interested parties to explore partnerships to achieve greater market penetration of energyefficient new homes. This effort will involve a wide range of stakeholders in the private and
nublic sectors across the new homes transactional chain.

Time lines
2003
41h Q 2003

Feb. 2004

=
=

Identify and agree on key performance parameters for common hybrid chassis for
utility fleets. Core group of utilities agree to pursue purchase of first 15 or more
pre-production trucks to place into service and assessment.
Initial meetings with DOE and other sectors to discuss Initiative for New Homes
RFP issued by Hybrid Truck Working Group

CEQ 015123

151 Q 2004 =
Mid-2004 ::;:
End 2004 =::
2006/2007 =
~

Additional multi-sector meetings on Initiative for New Homes

Purchase agreement finalized for hybrid trucks
First hybrid bucket trucks enter service and assessment
2d round ofp1,1rchase for greater number ofhybrid vehicles/fleets to be developed

Element 4: Develop bridges to accelerate investment in advanced, cutting-edge

~
Breakthrough Technology through R&D
qriveJ'~~

f.J.t.."t.

S~r

The Pow~PartnerssM and DOE view the develop ent and use of more advanced energy
technolo es as critical to the achievement of the resident's goal to reduce U.S. GHG intensity
by 18 per ent by 2012. The Parties agree to wor collectively to develop a process, subject to
available nds and applicable provisions of law for (i) identifying not later than [__j months
after the effective date of the MOU high-priority power sector research, development and
deployment associated with technologies necessary to attaining the Power PartnerssM, GHG
intensity reduction goal specified in section II of the MOU and ultimately to surpass this goal
("power sector RD&D"), and (ii) carrying out the identified, high-priority power sector RD&D
as des,9lbed in t~ MOU.
The timing. responsibilities and components of this program are described in Attachment 2 to the
MOU.

c;)j;
V

Appendix

CEQ 015124

---.

Final Draft
5-28-04

FACTORS IN CARBON INTENSITY METRICS

Changes in carbon intensity relating to the power sector can occur from on-system 01 off-system
actions.

I. On-system activities could include (but are not limited to):

r

1Changes in fuel mix.

1Generation performance improvements (including nuclear, hydro or other renewables,

':and use oflower-emitting fuels).
ichanges in emissions due to improvements in efficiency of electricity production or use.
!Reductions in transmission and distribution losses.
/'Reductions in SF6 releases.
I Avoidances that result from substituting low-emitting or zero-emitting generation for
:higher-emitting generation.

II. Off-system activities, both domestic

ot limited to):
include (but

e considered could

or utilization, and other activities

]?

DepenG.;llg on the leve freporting and referenced baseline, some ofthese ac 'ties may not be
~s to that
reflected in carbon tensity estimates. If not, they should be considered as adjus
data.

CEQ 015125

Final Draft
5-28-04

Attachment 2 to MOU
The Power Partners 5 Mand DOE view the development and use of more advanced energy
technologies as critical to the achievement of the President's goal to reduce U.S. GHG intensity
by 18 percent by 2012 and of reductions in future time frames. This document describes the
timing, responsibilities and components of the Climate Technology RD&D Partnerships.

POWER SECTOR CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY RD&D 1 PARTNERSHIPS

Phase 1:

Recommendation of Research Priorities and of Funding Mechanisms

Objective:

bo~ r.J...(,.e ~ .rv,.;l-e,.

Identify (i) future c mate technology needs for the electric power
sector, (ii) gaps or nder-funding in current power sector climate
technology researc , development and deployment (power sector
RD&D) programs, (iii) priorities for new or supplemental power
sector climate technology RD&D, and (iv) options for potential
funding mechanisms for early commercial use of advanced
technologies.

Responsible Parties: Power Partners 5 Mparticipants, EPRI and DOE. NEPO will
facilitate participation by appropriate DOE program offices and
CCTP.
Funding:

EPRl and DOE (subject to availability of funding)

Deliverable:

EPRI will work with Power PartnerssM participants and DOE (i) to
identify high priority power sector RD&D, (ii) to provide not later
than [__J months after the effective date of this MOU
recommendations for carrying out these priorities including, as
appropriate, new or supplemental power sector climate t~chnology
RD&D programs to be jointly funded by Power PartnerssM
participants and DOE and to be carried out beginning in FY 2006
(or earlier, if feaSible) based on availability of funding, and (iii) to
identify by such date options for new mechanisms to provide
funding for early commercial use of advanced power sector
climate technology.

The phrase "climate technology RD&D" can include research, development and deployment of advanced zero- or
low-carbon emission electric generation technologies (including carbon capture and sequestration) and advanced,
high-efficiency electric generation, transmission. distribution and end-use technologies.

00:1656
CEQ 015126

Phase II:

Design Public/Private RD&D Partnership

Objective:

Establish one or more public/private partnerships where there is a

joint recommendation to conduct mutually agreed-upon, priority
power sector climate technology RD&D through such partnerships.

Responsible Parties: EPRI, DOE (including NEPO, CCTP and appropriate program
offices) and Power PartnersSM participants.
Funding:

To be determined.

Deliverables:

By [_j months after the effective date of this MOU, for projects
for which there is a joint recommendation to do so, DOE program
offices and EPRI will sign and be prepared to implement
(contingent on federal and non-federal funding) cooperative
agreements or CRADAs to which DOE program offices, DOE
laboratories, and EPRI are parties. Under the cooperative
agreements or CRADAs, DOE program offices, DOE laboratories,
and EPRI will develop a detailed RD&D plan by [_j months
after the effective date of this MOU, subject to the review and
comment by Power Partners 5Mparticipants.

Phase III.

Implementation of RD&D Program

Objecti-ve:

Carry-out priority power sector climate technology RD&D

public/private partnership.

Responsible Parties: EPRI, DOE program offices, DOE laboratories, Power Partners8M
participants through EPRI
Funding:

Shared DOE and industry through EPRI.

Deliverable:

Contingent on availability of appropriations and of non-federal

funding, over the five-fiscal-year period beginning with FY 2006
(or earlier, if feasible) based on availability of funding, public/
private partnerships will(1) carry-out public/private partnership agreement executed
in Phase II, and
(2) analyze and report results, and recommend any further
power sector climate technology RD&D. l.n n_
"-~L

~ &J~J.n

~ ~ (J_JYVV

~ (?l)CY"J~--~~r~ ~ldf4
2

CEQ 015127

Phase IV. ... Facilit!ilting Early Commercial Use

'-

Objective: . ..~-. Epsure early commercial use

,, publi~/private partne~s s
,,
..
/
Responsible Parties: NEe~ ~d~OE program offices, Power PartnerssM participants
andE~(
..
,;.,...

Funding:
Deliverable://

........ ~..

. . ~

.-"~be dete~i~d. ..(fitvcvk.. .seof..o r y.:> FL \

Once a

//
..,./

CEQ 015128

SNr"e..'t

e.')Ci.f~ i

of

A.

.5[.......11

j).

DP

C.

f=.-MF
.

~.

A.

13.

c.

.Q.....AoJ\.i-s$1~.:~

~cU~...e...r 1 o~

eh.
~

L~HerJI\S

C~r~

...,JJI.

N....tW- +1--- o..ll

La.......r~Jl...

'/~L-.. oU) l ~ '1

S:lr-k.

"'Po-1--"-+"i ~>-1

.Gp-Lt i t:i c.

T .e. e L

:p~-H...

F,.,rJ

Co..-....tl...J"'-1~

CEQ 015130

CEQ 015131

To the Reader:
We are pleased to present for review and comment this Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)
Draft Strategic Plan. This Plan describes a major realignment and expansion of the U.S. Government's
considerable technology research and development (R&D) effort to address climate change, and it
outlines guidance for future actions. Federal investments in R&D for climate change technology now
exceed $2 billion annually-the largest such governmental investment in the world.
The technology-related activities undertaken through CCTP form an integral part of a comprehensive
U.S. approach to climate change that rests on three pillars: science, technology, and international
collaboration. This Plan should be seen as a complement to the Climate Change Science Program's
strategic plan released in July 2003, and it highlights the need for cooperation internationally.
As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United
States shares with many countries its ultimate goal: stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations
in the Earth's atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. This
Plan takes a realistic look at the nature of this challenge and potential technological solutions. The
overwhelming majority of anthropogenic GHGs that will be emitted over the course of the 21st century
will come from energy, industrial and other infrastructure not yet built, a circumstance that poses
significant opportunities for the United States and the world, if we are prepared to take them.
The advanced technologies envisioned in this Plan have the potential to provide economically rational
technology options for addressing these opportunities. Some could alter fundamentally the way we
produce and use energy. All may be characterized by low or near net-zero GHG emissions. Together,
they could simultaneously lead us to a prosperous future, powering and sustaining future economic
growth, and make progress toward the UNFCCC goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.
This Draft Strategic Plan proposes to advance this vision by identifying potential roles for technology
and providing a framework for organizing and guiding future Federal support for climate change
technology R&D. It describes a rationale for an extensive portfolio of ongoing work; highlights areas
receiving current emphasis; points the way to promising new directions in future research; and portrays a
long-term vision of what might be possible with sustained innovation and leadership.
It is our hope that by seeking comments on this Draft Strategic Plan, we can generate an energetic
dialogue among the research community, industry, and the public to help shape the future of CCTP and
expand opportunities for R&D cooperation and collaboration. Public comments may be submitted to:
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC 20585. For more information on the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
and additional ways to participate in the Plan's development, please visit the CCTP website at_
http://www.climatetechnology.gov.
The United States is working to ensure a bright energy and economic future for our Nation and a healthy
planet for future generations. Through a combination of near-term actions, improved scientific
understanding of climate change, advanced technology development, and international cooperation, this
future can become a reality.

Spencer Abraham
Secretary of Energy

Donald L. Evans
Secretary of Commerce

John H. Marburger III. Ph.D.

Director, OSTP ~

CEQ 015132

May28, 2004

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program

Draft Strategic Plan

Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 The Climate Change Challenge .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Econoxnic Growth and Energy Demand ................................................................................. 1-4
1.3 The Role ofTechnology ......... ,............................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Benefits of Adopting Near-Term Technologies ..................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Long-Term Transformation through Advanced Technology .................................................. 1-5
1.6 U.S. Leadership and Presidential Commitment. ..................................................................... 1-6
1.7 U.S. Climate Change Technology Program............................................................................ 1-8
1.8 About This Plan ...................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.9 Request for Public Comment. ............................................................................................... l-10
2

Mission, Goals and Approaches .......... :...............................................................................................2-1

2.1 CCI'P Goals ............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Approaches .............................................................................................................................2-5
2.3 The CCTP Strategic Planning Process ............................................. :....................................... 2-8
2.3.1 Planning Under Uncertainty ....................................................................................... 2-9
2.3.2 Other Planning Considerations ................................................................................. 2-10
2.3 .3 Portfolio Analysis ............... ,..................................................................................... 2-11
2.3.4 Criteria for Prioritizing CCTP Portfolio Investments ............................................... 2-11

Exploring Alternative Futures: Energy, Emissions and Advanced Technology ................................. 3-1
3.1 Sources ofGHG Emissions Today ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Projected Growth in GHG Emissions ..................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Projected Growth in Energy Demand ......................................................................... 3-5
3.2.2 Projected Growth in C02 Emissions .................................................................... .-...... 3-7
3.2.3 Projected Growth in Exnissions of Other Greenhouse Gases .................................... 3-10
3.3 Stabilizing Concentrations -Implications for Emissions ..................................................... 3-12
3.4 Alternative Advanced Technology Futures .......................................................................... 3-15
3.4.1 CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios ................................................................... 3-16
3.4.2 The CCTP Scenario Analysis Approach.................................................................... 3-17
3.4.3 Scenarios Results -Energy Supply and End-Use ..................................................... 3-19
3.4.4 Scenario Results- Etnissions Reductions ................................................................ 3-23
3.4.5 Scenario Results- Economic Benefits and Reduced Costs ...................................... 3-25
3.5 Insights for Strategic Planning .............................................................................................. 3-28

Reducing Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure .......................................................... .4-1

4.1 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 4-2
4.1.1 Potential Role of Technology ..................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.2 Technology Strategy .............................................................................................. ~: .. 4-4
4.1.3 Current Portfolio .........................................................................................................4-4
4.1.4 Possible Research Directions .............................................................................. ;: .... ..4-5

CEQ 015133

May28,2004

4.2

4.3

4.4

Buildings .................................................................................................................................4-6
4.2.1 Potential Roles for Technology ................................................................................. .4-7
4.2.2 Technology Strategy ...................................................................................................4-8
4.2.3 Current Portfolio .........................................................................................................4-8
4.2.4 Possible Research Directions ...................................................................................... 4-9
Industry ................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.1 Potential Roles for Technology ................................................................................4-10
4.3.2 Technology Strategy .................................................................................................4-11
4.3.3 CurrentPortfolio .......................................................................................................4-11
4.3.4 Possible Research Directions ....................................................................................4-12
Electric Grid and Infrastructure ............................................................................................4-13
4.4.1 Potential Roles for Technology ................................................................................4-14
4.4.2 Technology Strategy .................................................................................................4-15
4.4.3 Current Portfolio .......................................................................................................4-15

4.4.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 4-17

4.5

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 4-18

Reducing Emissions from Energy Supply ...........................................................................................S-1

5.1 Low-Emission. F~ssii-Based Power ....................................................................................... S-3
5.1.1 Potential Role ofTechnology .................................................................................... .S-3
5.1.2 Technology Strategy .......... :.............................................................................. ~ ......... S-4
5.1.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... :~ ............... .S-4
5.1.4 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... S-6
5.2 Hydrogen ................................................................................................................................ S-6
5.2.1 Potential Role of Technology ..................................................................................... S-6
5.2.2 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................... S-8
5.2.3 Current Portfolio ............................ :............................................................................ 5-9
5.2.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 5-10
5.3 Renewable Energy and Fuels ................................................................................................ 5-11
5.3.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ................................................................................... 5-15
5.3.2 Technolosy Strategy ..........................................................................:...................... 5-15
5.3.3 Current Federal Portfolio ........................................ ;.................................................. 5-17
5.3.4 Future Research Directions .......................................................................................S-19
5.4 Nuclear Fission .................................................................................. :.................................. 5-21
5.4.1 Potential Role of Technology ................................................................................... 5-21
5.4.2 Technology Strategy ...................................................................................... :.......... 5-22
5.4.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 5-23
5.4.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 5-26
5.5 Fusion Energy ....................................................................................................................... 5-27
5.5.1 Potential Role of Technology ................................................................................... 5-27
5.5.2 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................. 5-28
5.5.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 5-30
5.5.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 5-30
5.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... S-33

ii

CEQ 015134

May28. 2004

Capturing and Sequestering Carbon Dioxide ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Carbon Capture ....................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.1 Potential Role of Technology ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.3 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.4 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 6-5
6.2 Geologic Storage .................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.1 Potential Role of Technology ..................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.2 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.3 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.4 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 6-9
6.3 Terrestrial Sequestration ........................................................................................................ 6-10
6.3.1 Potential Role of Technology ................................................................................... 6-10
6.3.2 Technology Strategy .................................................................................................. 6-11
6.3.3 Current Portfolio ... :................................................................................................... 6-l2
6.3.4 Future Research Directions .......................................................................................6-14
6.4 Ocean Sequestration ............................................................................................................. 6-15
6.4.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ...................................................................................6-16
6.4.2 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................. 6-17
6.4.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 6-17
6.4.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 6-18
6.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 6-20
6.6 References ............................................................................................................................. 6-20

Reducing Emissions ofNon-C02 Greenhouse Gases ..........................................................................7-1

7.1 Methane Emissions from Energy and Waste .......................................................................... 7-5
7.1.1 Landfills ......................................................................................................................7-6
7.1.1.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ...................................................................... 7-6
7.1.1.2 Technology Strategy......................................................................... :.......... 7-6
7 .1.1.3 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................... 7-7
7.1.1.4 Future Research Directions ......................................................................... 7-7
7.1.2 Coal Mines .................................................................................................................. ?-7
7.1.2.1 Potential Role of Technology ...................................................................... 7-8
7.1.2.2. Technology Strategy.................................................................................... 7-9
7.1.2.3 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................... 7-9
7.1.2.4 Future Research Directions ............................................................ _. .., ........7-9
7.1.3 Natural Gas and PetroleumSystems .......... '" .............................................................7-10
7.1.3.1 Potential Role ofTechnology .................................................................... 7-10
7.1.3.2 Technology Strategy ..................................................................................7-11
7 .1.3 .3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... 7-11
7.1.3.4 Future Research Directions ................................... ;................................... 7-11
7.2 Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agriculture ....... :............................................7-12
7.2.1 Advanced Agricultural Systems for Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reductions ..............7-12
7.2.1.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ....................................................................z-13
7.2.1.2 Technology Strategy..................................................................................1.:.13

iii'

CEQ 015135

May28,2004

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.2.1.3 Current Portfolio ................................................ ;...................................... 7-14

7.2.1.4 Future Research Directions .......................................................................7-14
7.2.2 Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Livestock and Poultry
Manure Management ................................................................................................ 7-15
7.2.2.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ....................................................................7-15
7.2.2.2 Technology Strategy.................................................................................. 7-15
7.2.2.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... 7-16
7.2.2.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................... 7-16
7.2.3 Methane Emissions from Livestock Enteric Fermentation ...................... ~ ................7-16
7.2.3.1 Potential RoleofTechnology ............................................................. :......7-16
7.2.3.2 Technology strategy............................................................................... ,..7-17
7.2.3.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... 7-17
7.2.3.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................... 7-17
7.2.4 Methane Emissions from Rice Fields ....................................................................... 7-18
Emissions of High Global-Warming Potential Gases ........................................................... ?-18
7.3.1 Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) ............................................... 7-19
7.3.1.1 Potential Role ofTechnology .................................................................... 7-19
7.3.1.2 Technology Strategy ..................................................................................7-19
7.3.1.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... 7-19
7.3.1.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................... 7-20
7.3.2 Industrial Use of High GWP Gases ..........................................................................7-20
7.3.2.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ....................................................................7-20
7.3.2.2 Technology Strategy .................................................................................. 7-21
7.3.2.3 Current Portfolio .......................................................................................7-21
7.3.2.4 Future Research Directions .......................................................................7-22
Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Combustion and Industrial Sources .................................... 7-23
7.4.1 Combustion ............ :.:~ .............................................................................................. :7-23
7.4.1.1 Potential Role of Technology ....................................................................7-23
7.4.1.2 Technology Strategy .................................................................................. 7-24
7.4.1.3 Current Portfolio .................................................................................. ,.... 7-24
7.4.1.4 Future Research Directions .......................................................................7-24
7.4.2 Industrial Sources ..................................................................................................... 7-25
7.4.2.1 Potential Role ofTechnology ....................................................................7-25
7.4.2.2 Portfolio Rationale or Strategy .................................................................. 7-25
7.4.2.3 Current Portfolio Emphasis ..............................................................:......... 7-25
7.4.2.4 Future Applied Research Needs ................................................................ 7-25
Emissions of Tropospheric O~one Precursors and Black Carbon ........................................7-26
7.5.1 Potential Roles of Teelmology .................................................................................. 7-26
7.5.2 Technology Strategy;.L .............................................................................................. 7-26
7.5.3 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 7-27
7.5.4 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 7-27
Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 7-28

IV

CEQ 015136

May28,2004

Enhancing Capabilities to Measure and Monitor Greenhouse Gases .................................................. 8-1

8.1 Potential Role of Technology ................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Energy Production and Efficiency Technologies ................................................................... 8-3
8.2.1 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.2 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................................... 84
8.2.3 Future Research Directions ........................ :................................................................ 84
8.3 C02 Capture and Sequestration .............................................................................................. 8-5
8.3.1 Geologic Sequestration ............................................................................................... 8-5
8.3.1.1 Technology Strategy ..... :.............................................................................. 8-5
8.3.1.2 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................... 8-6
8.3.1.3 Future Research Directions ......................................................................... 8-6
8.3.2 Terrestrial Sequestration .................................................................................... ;........ 8-7
8.3.2.1 Technology Strategy................................................._. .................................. S-7
8.3.2.2 Current Portfolio ......................................................................................... 8-7
8.3.3 Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 8-9
8.3.4 Ocean Sequestration ................................................................................................. 8-10
8.3.4.1 Technology Stnltegy.................................................................................. 8-10
8.3.4.2 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................... 8-10
8.3.4.3 Future Research Directions ....................................................................... 8-11
8.4 Other Greenhouse Gases ....................................................................................................... 8-12
8.4.1 Technology Strategy ................................................................................................. 8-12
8.4.2 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 8-12
8.4.3 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 8-13
8.5 Integrated Measurement and Monitoring SystemArchitecture ............................................ 8-lS
8.5.1 Technology Strategy ................................................... ~ ............................................. 8-16
8.5.2 Current Portfolio ....................................................................................................... S-16
8.5.3 . Future Research Directions ....................................................................................... 8-17
8.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 8-18

Fortifying the Basic Science Contributions to Climate-Related Technology Development ............... 9-1
9.1 Basic Science in Support of Applied Research and Development ......................................... 9-2
9.1.1 Physical Sciences ....................................................................................................... ,9-2
9.1.2 Biological Sciences ..................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.3 Environmental Sciences .............................................................................................. 94
9.1.4 Advanced Scientific Computation ........._..................................................................... 9-5
9.1.5 Fusion Energy Sciences .............................................................................................. 9-6
9 .1.6 Basic Science Research in Support of CCfP Goals ................................................... 9,-6
9.2. Integrative R&D Planning Process ....................................................................................... 9-12
9.3 . Exploratory Research on Innovative Concepts and Enabling Technologies ........................ 9-13

10 Conclusions and Next Steps ........................................ ~ ........................... ,..... ;................................... 10-1

10.1 CCTP Actions to Date .......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Summary ofPreliminCII}' Insights ......................................................................................... l0-2
10.3 Application of Prioritizing Criteria ....................................................................................... l04
10.4 Portfolio Priorities and Future Research .............................................................................~.'l0-6
'10.4.1 Energy End Use ........................................................................................................ 10-6
10.4.2 Energy Supply ........................................................................................................... I()..7

CEQ 015137

May28,2004

10.4.3 Carbon Capture and Sequestration............................................................................ l0-7

10.4.4 Other Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................... 10-8
10.4.5 Measurement and Monitoring ................................................................................... 10-8
10.4.6 Basic Science Support to Climate-Related Technology Development ................... 10-10
10.5 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 10-10
10.5.1 Strengthen Climate Change Technology R&D ....................................................... 10-10
10.5.2 Strengthen Basic Research at Universities and Natiqnal Laboratories ................... I0-11
10.5.3 Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships ................................................................. 10-11
10.5.4 Increase International Cooperation ......................................................................... 10-11
10.5.5 Support Cutting-Edge Demonstrations ................................................................... I0-11
10.5.6 Ensure a Viable Technology Workforce of the Future ........................................... I0-11
10.5.7 Provide, as Appropriate, Supporting Technology Policy ....................................... 10-12
10.6 Closing ................................................................................................................................. 10-12
Appendix A Federal Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Investment
Portfolio for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, with Budget Request Information for
Fiscal Year 2005, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program ........................................... A-1
Appendix B CCTP Scenario: Additional Analysis .................................................................................. B-1

Figures
1-1
1-2
3-1
. 3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16

Radiative Forcing of Various Atmospheric Constituents and Relative Uncertainties ................... 1-3
Cabinet-Level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration .................... l-7
U.S. C02 Emissions, by Source, 2002 ........................................................................................... 3-3
U.S. C02 Emissions, by End-Use Sector, 2002 ............................................................................. 3-3
U.S. Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases, by Source, 2002 ...................................................... 3-4
World Primary Energy Demand, 1990-2100: CCTP Reference Case .......................................... 3-7
Projections of World C02 Emissions, 1990-2025 .......................................................................... 3-8
Projections of U.S. C02 Emissions, 1990-2025 ............................................................................. 3-9
The Range of Reference Cases in the IPCC Analysis ...................................... :............................ :3-9
World C02 Emissions from Fossil Fuels, 1990-2100: CCTP Reference Case ........................... 3-10
Other Greenhouse Gases in the CCTP Reference Case ......................................................... :..... 3-11
Radiative Forcing of Greenhouse Gases in the Reference Case .................................................. 3-12
World C02 Emissions for the Reference Case and Four Alternative Emissions
.
Constraints ................................................................................................................................... 3-13
World C02 Intensity for the Reference Case and Four Alternative Emissions
Constraints ................................................................................................................................... J-13
World Non-C02 GHG Emissions for the Reference Case and Four Alternative
Emissions Constraints ................................................................................................................. 3-14
World Non-C0 2 GHG Emissions Intensity for the Reference Case and Four
Alternative Emissions Constraints............................................................................................... 3-14
World Primary Energy Demand Under CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios
(High Emission Reduction Trajectory) ........................................................................................ 3-20
World Primary Energy Demand Under CCTP Advanced Technology Scenarios
(High Emission Reduction Trajectory) ........................................................................................ 3-22

vi

CEQ 015138

May28,2004

3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21

4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
6-1
8-1
8-2
8-3
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5

Varying Patterns of Energy Supply and Use in 2100 under Three CcrP Advanced
Technology Scenarios and Four Alternative Emissions Constraints ........................................... 3-22
Cumulative GHG Emission Reductions, Beyond the Reference Case, Under CCfP
Advanced Technology Scenarios ................................................................................................ 3-24
Non-C0 2 GHG Emissions in the Very High Emissions Constraint Case .................................... 3-25
Annual Costs of Meeting Emissions Constraints (Real2002$) ................................................... 3-27
Curimlative Contributions between 2000 and 2100 to the Reduction, Avoidance, Capture
and Sequestration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Three Advanced Technology
Scenarios, Under Varying Degrees of Emission Constraints ...................................................... 3-29
Projected Energy Consumption in U~S. Highway Vehicles .......................................................... A-3
Refrigerator Energy Efficiency ......................................................................................................4-7
Four Possible Pathways to Increased Industrial Efficiency ........................................................ .4-11
A Distributed Energy Future ........................................................................................................ 4-16
World Electricity Generation ......................................................................................................... S-2
World Primary Energy Supply ....................................................................................................... S-2
Coal-Based Eriergy Complex ......................................................................................................... 5-5
Timeline from the DOE Hydrogen Posture Plan ., ......................................................................... 5-9
Global Wind Capacity Growth .. ~ .................................................................................................. 5-12
U.S. Biomass Resources ...................................................................... :....................................... 5-13
U.S. Solar Resources .................................................................................................................... 5-13
U.S. Wind Resources ................................................................................................................... 5-14
U.S. Geothermal Resources ......................................................................................................... 5-14
Bioenergy Cycle ........................................................................................................................... S-15
Photovoltaic Performance Goals .................................................................................................. 5-16
Nuclear Reactors Under Construction ................................................ :........................................ 5-23
Future Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................... 5-25
Overlapping Scientific and Technological Challenges Associated with Fusion
Energy Production ......................................................... ;............................................................. 5-29
Potential Storage Capacity for C02 Sequestration Approaches ..................................................... 6-2
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for Assessing the Efficacy, Durability, and
.
Environmental Acceptability of Emission Reduction and Stabilization Technologies ................. 8-2
Integrating System Architectural Linking Measurement and Monitoring

Observation Systems to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Actions ..................................................... 8-15

Hierarchical Layers of spatial Observation Technologies and Capabilities ................................. S-16
Carbon Nanostructure .................................................................................................................... 9-3
Human Genome ............................................................................................................... :............. 9-3
Ameriflux ....................................................................................................................................... 9-4.
Advanced Computer Simulation Combustion Shockwave ............................................................ 9-5
Magnetic Fusion Energy .................................:.............................................................................. 9-6

vii

CEQ 015139

May28, 2004

Tables
1-1
3-1
3-2
. 3-3
4-1
. 4-2
4-3
4-4
6-1
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
8=1
8-2

Federal Agencies Participating in the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program ....................... 1-9
U.S. GHG EID.issions by Source, 2002 .......................................................................................... 3-2
World Energy Demand and C02 Projections, 1990-2025 ............... :............................................. .3-5
EID.ission Constraint Trajectories ExaiD.ined in the CCTP Analysis ........................................... .3-14
COz EID.issions in the United States by End-Use Sector, 2002 ..................................................... .4-2
COz EID.issions in the United States from Transportation, by Mode, in Z002 .............................. .4-3
Residential and Coqnnercial C02 Emissions in the United States, by Source, in 2002................ .4-6
COz EID.issions in the United States from Industrial Sources in 2002 ................ .-........................4-10
Summary of Estimates of the Annual Potential for Carbon Sequestration and
Offsets for Major Land Uses Within the United States and Globally ......................................... 6-12
Target Areas for Reducing EID.issions ofNon-C02 GHGs ............................................................ 7-4
U.S. and Global Methane EID.issions from Energy and Waste in 2000.......................................... 7-5
Change in U.S. Methane EID.issions from Energy and Waste 1990- 2000 ................................... 7-:5
U.S. and Global Methane and N20 EID.issions from Agriculture .................................................?-12
U.S. and Global EID.issions of High GWP Gases ......................................................................... ?-18
U.S. and Global N20 Eniissions from Combustion and Industrial Sources ................................. ?-23
Proposed R&D Portfolio for Measurement and Monitoring of Energy Production
and Use Technologies.................................................................................................................... 8-4
Proposed R&D Portfolio for Measurement and Monitoring Systems for
Geologic Sequestration .................................................................................................................. S-6

viii
CEQ 015140

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Introduction

Although the scientific understanding of climate change is incomplete, the potential ramifications of
increasing accumulations of carbon dioxide (C02) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth's
atmosphere have heightened attention on anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions and various means for
mitigation. Should global climate change become a major long-term environmental challenge, solutions
would likely require fundamental changes in the way the world produces and uses energy, as well as in
many other GHG-emitting aspects of industry, agriculture, land use and other activities associated with
modem civilization. New and revolutionary technologies could potentially facilitate such changes over
the course of the 21 sr century, by reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering GHG emissions, while
also continuing to provide the energy-related and other services needed to sustain economic growth.
The United States is committed to leading the development of these new technologies. This report, in
draft form for public review and comment, presents the U.S. Government's plan for guiding its future
investments in research, development, demonstration, and deployment (R&D) of these technologies. 1

1.1

The Climate Change Challenge

Most long-term, prospective analyses of the global climate change challenge project significant increases
in anthropogenic emissions of GHGs over the next 100 years. These increases are primarily the result of
population growth and continued expansion of world economic activity, accompanied by a continuation
of existing patterns and trends in energy use (combustion of fossil fuels), land use changes, and industrial
and agricultural production. Growing concern over GHG emissions and their increasing concentrations in
the atmosphere led to the adoption in 1992 by more than 170 countries, including the United States, of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC's central goal is
the " ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system", which forms the context for this work.
This Plan Is not based on any specific level
The "stabilization" of GHG concentrations at any
of stabilized GHG concentrations. Further
atmospheric coneentration level implies that global
scientific research is required to determine
additions of GHGs to the atmosphere and global
the level that would prevent dangerous
withdrawals of GHGs from the atmosphere must come
anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.
into balance. This means that net emissions of GHGs
would need to slow in growth, eventually peak, begin a
long-term decline, and ultimately approach levels that are low or near zero. While the specificconcentration level implied by the UNFCCC goal is not known, and remains a key planning uncertainty,
the general direction and scope of the requirements for future technologies needed to facilitate progress
toward eventual attainment of the UNFCCC goal, at any level, are reasonably clear. This Plan is not
based on any specific stabilized GHG concentration level. Further scientific research is required to
determine the level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

The timing and pace of actions that may be needed to attain the UNFCCC goal, or to facilitate progress
toward the goal, are also uncertain. Actions that may eventually be deemed necessary could require~
1

Throughout this report, the use of the term "R&D" is meant to include research, development, demonstration, and
deployment, and may be used interchangeably with the term "RDD&D."
1-1

CEQ 015141

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

decades or more to be fully implemented, take effect,

and achieve desired results. On any one of the many
possible paths toward stabilization of GHG
concentrations, the primary sources of GHG
emissions would likely need to undergo a
transformation toward low or near-zero emission
technologies. The commercial readiness of these
technologies would need to precede this
transformation, adding emphasis to the need for
R&D.
The scope and magnitude of such a transformation
would be significant. In the year 2000, world energy
demand was about 400 exajoules (EJ/year). Based on
various assumptions about long-term future economic
development, demographic and technological trends,
many studies project energy demand to grow to levels
between 800. EJ and 2000 EJ/year by the end of the
21 51 century. In the year 2000, the world emissions of
associated C02 were approximately 6.5 gigatonnes
9
(10 tonnes or metric tons) of carbon (GtC). By the
end of century, unconstrained C02 emissions could
increase to as much as 35 GtC/year.
-

May28,2004

Box1-1

How Big is a Gigaton?

Actions that provide 1 Gigatonlyear of carbon
mHlgation using today's technology:
Coal Plants. Build 1,000 "zero-emission" 50Q-MW coal
plants (in lieu of new unsequestered coal plants)
Geologic Sequestration. lnstall3,700 sequestration
sites the size of Norway's Sllepner project (.27 MtC/year)
Nuclear. Build 500 new power plants, each 1 GW in size
(in lieu of new unsequestered coal plants) .
Efficiency. Deploy 1 billion cars at 40 mpg instead of
20mpg
Wind. lnstall150 times the current U.S. wind generation
(in lieu of unsequestered coal)
Solar Photovoltaics. lnstall10,000 times the current
U.S. solar PV generation (in lieu of unsequestered coal)
Biomass fuels from plantations. Convert a barren area
>15 times the size of Iowa's fannland to biomass crop
production

Storage in a new forest. Convert a barren area

For the purposes of illustration, if the world were to
>40
times the size of Iowa's fannland (approximately 33
pursue a goal of stabilizing C02 concentrations in the
million acres) to forest
atmosphere, at any one of a wide range of plausible
concentration levels, net emissions of C02 from all
world sources would need to be reduced to within a range of 3 to 9 GtC/year by the end of the century.
Stated another way, such emissions would need to be within a range of 0.5 to 1.5 times that of today,
despite a two- or three-fold (or more) increase in energy production and use. Compared to typical
unconstrained C02 emission cases, as projected by many of the same studies noted above,2 meeting this
range of emissions could require an overall reduction in annual C02emissions of between 20 and
30 GtC/year by the year 2100.

The examples in Box 1-1 illustrate measures, in terms oftoday's technology, that could provide a
reduction of one GtC/year. A future challenge for science and technology, therefore, is to find ways that .
can fundamentally alter the way energy i~ produced and used, meet growing energy needs, spur economic
growth, and significantly reduce C02emi;ssions, while f;:': maintaining safety and environmental quality.
Other than C02, several other gases have warming or cooling effects on the atmosphere. Each can
contribute to climate change. Each is attended by its own set of technological opportunities for reducing
emissions. Among the non-C02 gases, the more significant are methane (CH4) from natural gas
production, transportation and distribution systems, bio-degradation of waste in landfills, mining, and
2

From as high as 35GtC/year to somewhere'between 3 and 9 GtC/year.

.i
.I

1.-2

.'. ~ .- :.

CEQ 015142

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

agricultural production; nitrous oxide (N20) from industrial and agricultural activities; certain fluorinecontaining halogenated substances (e.g., HFCs, PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)3 states that
well-mixed non-C02 gases. including methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other gases with
high-global warming potentials (GWPs) may be responsible for as much as 40 percent of the estimated
increase in radiative climate forcing between the years 1750 to 2000 (see Chapter 7 for more detail). 4 In
addition, other actors, including black carbon (soot), tropospheric ozone precursors, and other aerosols
can have effects on the Earth's overall energy balance, but less is known about these effects. Figure 1-1
shows the estimated relative contributions of selected greenhouse gases and other actors. A comprehensive strategy for technology development aimed at addressing concerns about climate change needs to
address both C02 and non-C02 components of the challenge.
Global Mean Radiative Forcing (Wm-2)
Greenhouse Gases

3
Halocarbons
Ol

c:

Aerosols

Np

Black
Carbon
from

CH4

"i

...

+ Clouds

r-------------------,

Fossil-

Tropospheric

C02

Fuel
Burning

Ozone

Mineral
Dust

Aviation
Contrails Cirrus

:;;~;,_

Sulfate

Ol

.5 1

(.)

Organic
Carbon
Irom
FossilFuel
Burning

Land Use
(albedo only)

2
The height of a bar Indicates a best estimate of the rorclng, and the
accompanying vertical line a fikely rarge or valUes. Where no bar Is present
the vertical line only Indicates lhe range In ~est.estlmates wtth no Ukeunood.
LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC
UNDERSTANDING

High

Medium Medium

Low

Very
lOW

Very

low

Aerosol
Indirect
Effect
Very

low

Very

toVI

Very
low

Figure 1-1. Radiative Forcing of Various Atmospheric Constituents and Relative

Uncertainties (IPCC, Climate Change 2001)

3
4

The IPCC was established in 1988 as a joint body of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). IPCC Climate Change, Cambridge Press, 2001.
Radiative forcing is a measure of the overall energy balance in the Earth's atmosphere. It is zero when all energy
flows iii and out of the atmosphere are in balance, or equal. If there is a difference, it is usually expressed in terms
of watts per square meter (W/m2), averaged over the surface of the Earth. When it is positive, there is a net
"force" toward warming, even if the warming itself may be slowed or delayed by other factors, such as the heatabsorbing capacity of the oceans or the melting of large natural ice sheets.

1-3

CEQ 015143

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Globally, human activities other than fossil fuel use, such as land conversion and agricultural practices,
are also contributing to radiative forcing. During the past 150 years, land use and its associated changes
were responsible for an estimated one-third of all human emissions of carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2000). Over
the next century, land use change and deforestation are expected to account for another 10 percent of
human-caused C02 emissions. These changes include the conversion of forest and grassland to crop. and
pastureland and the depletion of soil carbon through agricultural and other land management practices.
Practices such as liv~tock grazing, manure management, and soil fertilization also affect emissions of
other GHG gases, such as methane (CliJ) and nitrous oxide (N20). It is estimated that humans have
altered more than one half of the Earth's surface over the past two centuries. Using similar arguments,
conversely, there are large opportunities to increase carbon storage on land through improved land
management practices that can restore depleted carbon stocks.

1.2 Economic Growth and Energy Demand

Energy has been an engine of economic growth for modern civilizations since the industrial revolution.
Likewise, future growth of the world's economies will depend on sustained, secure, and reasonably priced
energy. Apart from its importance to economic growth, energy also lies at the root of solutions to many
other challenges facing 21 51 century civilization. Ensured access to clean water, adequate food supplies,
and shelter; improved sanitation and human health; and expanded opportuni_ties for less developed
reg~ons-all could be made more easily achievable by the existence of abundant, affordable, reliable, and
secure energy supplies.
Forecasts of long-tenn energy demand suggest multi-fold increases in world energy consumption by
2100. If world gross domestic product (GDP) were to grow modestly at a rate of one percent per year for
the next 100 years, assuming current trends in technology improvement and energy-use patterns, world
energy demand would be eltpected to nearly triple by the end of the century. If world GDP were to grow
at a rate of two percent per year, which would be more in line with most forecasts, world energy demand
by 2100 could increase by a factor of nearly seven. Demand for electricity is expected to grow faster than
demand for heat and fuels, calling attention to how electricity will be produced and used. Structural
changes in the world economy and accelerated improvement in energy efficiency could slow growth in
energy demand, but even under these conditions, demand for fuels and power is expected to grow
significantly.

1.3 The Role of Technology

Most energy supply today is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. If the favorable economics of
these fuels persist, they will likely supply much of the world's energy demand well into the 21 51 century
and beyond. Given the extent of energy-related activity and the fossil fuel-based infrastructure, any
approach to addressing climate change by significantly reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering
GHGs on a global scale would be a significant long-term challenge. Yet, the long view of history
suggests that technological innovatioD;S on such a grand scale-as have been achieved in agriculture,
medicine, b.dustrial processes, aerospace, computation, information and communication, and production
and use of energy--can lead to significant progress if given sufficient time and motivation, aided..by ,
sustained leadership in innovation.

1-4

CEQ 015144

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Advances in the science of climate change can be expected over time to reduce uncertainties about causes
and effects of climate change and clarify the potential benefits and risks, with finer resolution, of various
courses of action proposed to address climate change. Similarly, advances in technology can be expected
to bring forth an array of future options that can meet the needs of society while also reducing emissions,
and do so at comparatively lower costs than if the same were done today. As risks and benefits become
more clearly known, and as ways and means for action become more effective and less costly, the world's
ability to address climate. change will improve. The role of advanced technology, therefore, is to
complement the expanded understanding of climate change science, and provide the means for enabling
and facilitating such progress.

1.4 Benefits of Adopting Near-Term Technologies

While emphasis on the UNFCCC stabilization goal and the long-term nature of the climate change
challenge is sensible, near-term actions are also important. Reductions or avoidances.in GHG emissions
today can help slow the rate of growth of their accumulating concentrations, essentially investing in a
reserve margin of risk avoidance and mitigating the potential burdens on future generations. Further,
technologies that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions, or sequester carbon can provide other
important and near-term benefits - for example, actions to improve energy efficiency can reduce
emissions of air pollutants and lessen other environmental impacts of energy services.
Adoption of the best available, low-emission technologies today can have beneficial effects long into the
future. Many such actions are cost-effective today or compelled by other reasons. For C~ cost-effective
near-term actions include the adoption of energy efficient technologies that reduce totallifecycle costs by
lowering annual energy costs, increased deployment of terrestrial sequestration, and investment in C02free energy supply technologies, such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy. For the non-COz gases, benefits
unrelated to climate change, such as reducing soot, decreasing air pollution, or capturing and using
methane, all provide opportunities for GHG reductions. For example, when methane (the main
component of natural gas) is captured or retained and not released into the atmosphere, it can have
significant economic value in the marketplace.

1.5 Long-Term Transformation through Advanced Technology

Beyond the advantages oftoday's best available technologies, advanced technologies afford the potential
of transforming the longer-term energy future. They can deliver future energy services at comparable or
higher value (energy secwity, productivity, cost, environmental protection, safety, health, and amenities)
and with little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Some major advances that could dramatically-affect the
way energy is used include use of hydrogen in transportation, bio-based industrial processes, arid
integrated systems architecture in buildings. Other advances promise ways to close the loop on carbon,
building on existing fossil-based infrastructure, while avoiding almost all of the associated C02
emissions. Some afford the potential to build a new energy backbone around advanced renewable and
nuclear concepts. Still others extend beyond the standard suite of known technologies into realms of
virtually inexhaustible energy supplies.
Adding to the need to develop such technologies is the emerging demand for energy in developing
countries. Much of the developing world is now building its future infrastructure. Once built,
infrastructure is slow to change. For more than a century, the world energy system has grown

~.

1-5

CEQ 015145

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

dramatically, incorporating an ever-expanding suite of new energy sources. Yet throughout this period,
the amount of energy supplied by more t(aditional energy forms, such as wood and coal, have not
declined significantly. Populations demonstrate a natural tendency to rely on traditional fuels and readily
available end-use technologies. Production centers, power plants, factories, buildings, and cities last a
long time. Power plants can continue to operate economically for more than a half century.
Early adoption of advanced technologies can avoid decades of emissions from older technologies. While
the results of R&D are not possible to predict a priori, investments in R&D across a diversified portfolio
of technologies can increase the likelihood that an energy system with the desired characteristics will
evolve successfully, sooner, and at lower cost.

1.6 U.S. Leadership and Presidential Commitment

On June 14, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, with participation of the United States and more than 170 other
countries, the United Nations Conference on Environment ~d Development adopted the international
treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. On October 15, 1992,
the U.S. Senate ratified this treaty. On February 14,2002, President Bush reaffnmed the U.S. commitment to work with other nations toward the attainment of the UNFCCC's central goal (see Section 1.1).
The United States has since formulated and is now implementing a comprehensive strategy on climate
change, consistent with this goal. This strategy takes a global, century-long perspective. It is sciencebased, encourages innovation and scientific and technological breakthroughs, harnesses the power of
markets, and encourages global participation. It embraces the idea that sustained economic growth is
central to the solution, not the problem, because economic growth makes possible the needed investment
in research and development to advance technology and creates of the capital required for technology
implementation. The U.S. strategy presents opportunities for developed and developing nations alike to
address this global challenge. Its longer-term elements are augmented by an array of policy measures,
fmancial incentives, voluntary and Federal programs aimed at slowing the growth of U.S. GHG emissions
and reducing GHG-intensity per unit of economic output in the near-teirn. 5
On June 11, 2001, President Bush launched his National Climate Change Technology imtiative. 6 In his
Rose Garden remarks, the President expressed his great faith in American innovation and underscored the
importance of Federal investments in R&D to strengthening the nation's ability to address climate change
concerns. Backed by unprecedented Federal R&D in this area, the Presidential initiative aimed at
stimulating American innovation, strengthening associated research and education, and positioning the
U.S. as a world leader in pursuit of energy technologies that can meet this global challenge.
In January 2002, to give substance to his policy and initiatives, the President established a Cabinet-level
Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration (CCCSTI) as shown in Figure 1-2.
The President charged CCCSTI with developing innovative approaches, in accord with a number of basic
principles: (1) be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere; (2) be measured, as more is learned from science, and build on it; (3) be flexible to adjust to
new information and take advantage of new technology; (4) ensure continued economic growth and _
5
6

White House Fact Sheet on Climate Change: www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-4.html.

White House Rose Garden speech: www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/200 l/06/200106!1-2.html.
1-6

CEQ 015146

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

prosperity; (5) pursue market-based incentives and spur technological innovation; and (6) base efforts on
global participation, including developing countries. The CCCSTI makes recommendations to the
President on matters concerning climate change science and technology plans, investments and progress;
provides Federal coordination across multi-agency R&D funding issues; and works closely with the
Office of Management and Budget on implementing its recommendations.

.Climate Change P~licy and Progl'alll Review

by NSC, DPC, NEC

Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration

Chair: Secretary of Ene!JJY"

Vice Chair: Seaetary of Commerce

Executive Director: OSTP Director

Secretary ot State
Secretary of Agriculture
EPA Administrator
OMS Director

Secretary of HHS

Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Defense
CEQ Chainnan
NSF Director

Interagency Working Group on

Ch;;nf]f S(irnrr ;;nrJ TPrhnol0(1)'

(:Jim.~lc

lntPinfl1tOrHJI/<(I1Vlll('~
(rc~;.Jcw~s !l)t) ~

NEC Director
NASA Adminlslralor
Secretary of lhe Interior

uct

on ln!Nna\1cno1 En~rgy Cooperation)

DOS, DOE, USAID,

and Olher Agencies

Chair: Deputy/Under SecretaJy of Commerce'

Vice Chali: Deputy/Under Secretary of Energy"
Executive Secretary: OSTP Associate Director for-Science
MembeiS DSIUS level:
CEO, DOD, DOl, DOS, DOT, EPA.
HHS, NASA. NEC, NSF, OMB, USDA

Climate Change Science Program

Climate Change Technology Program

Director: Assistant Secretary of Commerce

for Oceans _and Atmosphere

Director: Senior-Level Appointee,

U.S. Department of EnetQy

ell air and Vic:! ChRir oi Commillee and Working Group rotate annually.

Figure 1-2. Cabinet-Level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology

Integration

1-7

CEQ 015147

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28, 2004

Under the auspices of the CCCSTI, two multi-agency programs were established to coordinate Federal
activities in this area, known respectively as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), led by
the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), led by the
Department of Energy.
The CCSP is coordinating an effort of $2 bilpon per year in scientific research to advance the
understanding of climate variability, the potential response of the climate system to growing GHG
concentrations, and management options for natural environments. The CCSP aims to advance
knowledge and understanding of key phenomena and reduce scientific uncertainty. It hopes to illuminate
the causes and effects of climate change, better understand climate variability and system response to
human-induced changes, and apply such knowledge to guide technology development and meet the
information needs of decision-makers. The CCSP' s Strategic Plan was issued in July 2003. It may be
viewed on the Internet at: www.climatescience.gov.

1.7 U.S. Climate Change Technology Program

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) coordinates climate change mitigation technology
research and development activities across the Federal R&D agencies (see Table 1-1). The CCTP is
chartered by the President to:. "(1) evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change technology R&D
across all participating agencies and make recommendations for improvement; (2) provide guidance on
strengthening basic research at universities and national laboratories; (3) develop opportunities to enhance
private-public partnerships in applied R&D and expedite innovative and cost-effective approaches to
reduce GHG emissions; (4) make recommendations for funding demonstration projects for cutting-edge
technologies; (5) develop improved technologies for measuring and monitoring gross and net GHG
emissions; and (6) enhance coordination across Federal agencies, and among the Federal Government,
universities, and the private sector."7

In carrying out its charter, the CCI'P was directed by the CCCSTI and its Interagency Working Group to
formulate a multi-year strategic plan to guide future Federal investments related to climate change
technology RDD&D. As an interim step, CCTP was directed to provide a preliminary report, in the form
of a draft strategic plan for public review and comment. The resulting CCTP Draft Strategic Plan
outlines a proposed strategy for advancing climate change technologies, under a range of planning

assumptions and uncertainties.

The CCfP aims to accelerate the development of key energy technology options that could significantly
reduce GHG emissions, over the near and long term. The CCI'P strives, through its R&D programs, to
create or improve key technologies, enhanpe their performance and reduce their cost. In doing so. the
CCTP hopes to strengthen the technology:fomponent of the U.S. climate change strategy and inspire
private sector interest and international cooperation in a sustained program of research and investment
aimed at accomplishing the U.S.-ratified UNFCCC goal of stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases
in the Eart.'Is atmosphere.

White House, Climate Change Policy Review -Initial Report, June 11. 200 l,
www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/200 l/o6/climatechange.pdf.
J1'
!.~.

"' . r

1-8

CEQ 015148

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Table 11 Federal Agencies Participating in the U.S. Climate Change Teehnology Program
Agency

Selected Climate Change-Related Technology R&D Programs

USDA

Carbon Fluxes in Soils, Forests and other Vegetation, Carbon Sequestration, Nutrient
Management. Cropping Systems, Forest Management, Livestock, and Waste Management,
Biomass Energy and Bio-based Products Development

Commerce
Defense

Instrumentation, Standards, Ocean Sequestration, Decision Support Tools

Aircraft, Engines, Fuels, Trucks, Equipment. Power, Fuel Cells, Lasers, Energy Management,
Basic Research

Energy

Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Nuclear Fission and Fusion, Fossil Fuels and Power,
Carbon Sequestration, Basic Energy Sciences, Hydrogen, Bio-Fuels

HHS*

Environmental Sciences, Biotechnology, Genome Sequencing, Health Effects

Interior

Land, Forest, and Prairie Management, Mining, Sequestration, Geothermal, Terrestrial

Sequestration Technology Development

State*

International Science and Technology Cooperation, Oceans, Environment

Transportation

Aviation, Highways, Rail, Freight, Maritime, Urban Mass Transit, Transportation Systems,
Efficiency and Safety

EPA

Mitigation, Energy Star. Other GHGs, Methane Emissions. Voluntary Partnership Programs,
including Energy STAR, Methane and High-GWP Gases, Transportation, GHG Emissions
Inventory

NASA

Earth Observations, Measuring. Monitoring, Aviation Equipment Efficiency

NSF

Geosciences, Oceans, Nanoscience, Nanotechnology, Computational Sciences

International Assistance, Technology Deployment, Land Use, Human Impacts

US AID

* Funding for these agencies is not shown in Appendix A, but they participate in CCI'P Working Groups.
1.8 About This Plan
The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) Draft Strategic Plan. is a proposed plan for federal
leadership in a U.S. technology R&D program. The Plan is not a policy document. nor is it policydependent. It is not a GHG mitigation plan. Rather, it explores the potential roles for innovation and
technology in reducing the risks of climate change. It sets forth for public review and comment. in an
open and transparent process, a draft plan for a long-term, sustained Federal investment in a portfolio of
technology research and development activities related to climate change. It is aimed at spurring
innovation, expanding technical options, testing and demonstrating feasibility and perfonnance, and
reducing costs of adoption.

Although the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan is a U.S. Government plan, it is set within a global context a'fia
is intended to provide a basis for U.S. participation and leadership with others and a means to encourage
the formation of collaborations and partnerships, domestically and internationally.

1-9

CEQ 015149

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan lays out a long-term vision and goals, and approaches to attain them. It is
organized into ten chapters. Chapter 2lays out the six goals of the CCI'P and seven approaches to
achieving those goals. The goals are:
Reduce emissions from energy end use and infrastructure
Reduce emissions from energy supply
Capture and sequester carbon dioxide (C02)
Reduce emissions of non-C02 greenhouse gases
5. Enhance capabilities to measure and monitor greenhouse gas emissions
6. Fortify basic science contributions to related technology development.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Chapter 3 explores various scenarios of the future, developed using a long-term energy-economic model,
which illustrate the potential role of technology in both reducing emissions and lowering the costs of
emissions reductions. Chapters 4 through 9 provide details on the technology development plans for
achieving each of the six goals. Conclusions and next steps are presented in Chapter 10.

1.9 Request for Public Comment

The United States, in partnership with others, is now embarked on a near- and long-term global challenge,
g':lided by science, and facilitated and enabled by new and advanced technology development. To expand
the current set of technologjcal options, improve their performance, and reduce their costs, the President
directed his Cabinet to pursue a National Climate Change Technology htitiative, for which the U.S.
Climate Change Technology Program is now its multi-agency implementing ann. The CCTP Draft
Strategic Plan, presented here, seeks public input on its overall direction and completeness, recognizing
that not all potentially important technologies can be pursued simultaneously.
Public comments are invited during the planned period of public dialogue and comment, through
November 30, 2004. CCTP' s ability to effectively address comments would be facilitated if conimenters
could use a standard template, found at: http://www.climatetechnology.gov . Alternatively, comments
may be submitted by emaii to CCTP@hq.doe.gov, or in writing by mailing to:
Director
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

1-10
CEQ 015150

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Mission, Goals and Approaches

Within the context of the U.S.-ratified, United

Box21
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
CCTPVIsion
Change, discussed in Chapter 1, the CCI'P
The CCTP vision is to attain on a global scale, in
Draft Strategic Plan sets forth: (i) a vision for
partnership with others, a technological capability that
can simultaneously provide abundant, clean, secure
the role of advanced technology in addressing
and affordable energy supplies and more efficient
climate change; (ii) a mission for participating
end-use services that will be needed to encourage
Federal R&D agencies in leading programs of
and sustain economic growth, while substantially
associated research and technology development
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and the
(see Boxes 2-l and 2- 2); {iii) a set of goals; and
risks of potential climate change.
(iv) a number of approaches, based on principles
laid out by the President, that guide CCfP portfolio plannjng and execution.
Specifically, the CCfP formulated six goals and seven approaches. These are explained in the frrst two
sections below. The final section of this chapter describes the strategic planning process used by CCfP to
develop the Plan and that will be used in the future to recommend adjustments to the research portfolio.

2.1 CCTP Goals

Under the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan, the CCfP
agencies will pursue research appropriate to their
specific agency missions and develop climate
change technologies that could enable and
facilitate attainment of the six CCfP goals
"below:

Box2-2

CCTP Mission
The CCTP inlsslon is to stimulate and strengthen the
scientific and technological enterprise of the United
States, through improved coordination of multiagency Federal climate change technology programs
and investments and, In partnership with others,
provide global leadership to accelerate the
development of new and advanced technologies that
would attain its vision.

Goall: Reduce Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure

One of the major sources of carbon-dioxide (C0 2) emissions is the use of energy in transportation,
residential and commercial buildings, and industrial processes. Improving energy efficiency and reducing
GHG-emissions intensity in these economic sectors through a variety of technical advances and process
changes presents a large opportunity to decrease overall GHG emissions. In addition, application of
advanced technology to the electricity transmission and distribution (f&D) infrastructure (the "grid..) can
have a dual effect on reducing GHG emissions -first, a direct contribution to energy and C02 ieductions
resulting from increased efficiency in the transmission and distribution system itself, and second, an
indirect contribution by enabling, through modernized systems, the use of low-emission or COrfree
electricity generating technologies (such as such as wind, nuclear, and solar power) and the better
management of energy supply and demand. In the analysis of various scenarios, emissions reduction
from energy efficiency gains and reduced energy use feature among the most important contributors to
any successful technology strategy aimed at overall carbon dioxide emissions reduction. The types of
technological advancements applicable to this goal include:

2-l

CEQ 015151

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Efficiency, Infrastructure and Equipment Development and increased use of highly efficient
motor vehicles, transportation systems, equipment, building envelopes, and industrial combustion
and process technology can significantly reduce C02 emissions, avoid other kinds of environmental
impacts, and reduce the life-cycle costs of delivering the desired products and services.

Transition Technologies. So-called "transition" technologies, such as high-efficiency natural-gas. fired power plants, are not completely free of GHG emissions, but are capable of achieving

significant reductions of GHG emissions in the near- and mid-term by significantly improving or
displacing higher GHG-emitting technologies in use today. Ideally, transition technologies would
also be compatible with and advanced future GHG-free technologies.

Enabling Technologies. Enabling technologies contribute indirectly to the reduction of GHG

emissions by making possible the development and use of other important technologies. The
example of a modernized electricity grid, described above, is an essential step enabling the
deployment of more advanced end-use and distributed energy resources needed for reducing GHG
emissions. Another example is storage technologies for electricity or other energy carriers.

Alternatives to Industrial Processes, Feedstocks, and Materials. The economic activities within
any future economy, including manufacturing, mining, agriculture, construction, and services, will
require feedstocks and other material inputs to production. Replacing current feedstocks with lower
or carbon-neutral ones, reducing the average energy intensity of material inputs, and developing
alternatives to current industrial processes and products present opportunities for C02 and other
GHG emissions reductions.

Goal 2: Reduce Emissions from Energy Supply

Current global energy supplies are dominated by fossil fuels -coal, petroleum products, and natural gas,
which produce C02 when burned. A transition to a low-carbon future would likely require the
availability of multiple energy supply technology options characterized by low .or near-net-zero C02
emissions. Many such energy supply technologies are available today or are under development. When
combined with improved energy carriers, they offer prospects for both reducing GHG einissions and
improving overaU economic efficiency. For example:

Electricity. Electricity will likely be an important energy carrier in all future economies. While
substantial improvements in efficiency can offset some of the anticipated future electricity demand,
increasing electrification and growing demand, especially in the developing regions of the world,
will require significant increases in electricity supply. Reducing GHG emissions from electricity
supply could be achieved through further improvements in the efficiency of fossil-based electricity
generation technologies, deplo'," ~~!lt of renewable technologies, increased use of nuclear energy,
and development of fusion or other novel power sources.

Hydrogen and Low-Carbon Fuels. Future economies will likely have continuing needs for
portable, storable energy carriers for heat, power, and transportation. An emerging energy carrier is
hydrogen, which can be produced in a variety of ways, including carbon-free or low-carbon ~
methods using nuclear, wind, hydroetectric, solar energy, biomass, or fossil fuels combined with
carbon capture and sequestration. Hyd~ogen and other carriers, such as methanol, ethanol, and

2-2

CEQ 015152

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

other biofuels, could serve both as a means for energy storage and as energy carriers in
transportation and other applications:
Goal3: Capture and Sequester Carbon Dioxide (COll
Fossil fuels will likely remain amainstay of global energy production well into the 21st century.
Transfonning fossil-fuel-based combustion systems into low- or carbon-free energy processes would
enable the continued use of the world's plentiful coal resources. Such a transformation would require
further development and application of technologies to capture C02 and store it in safe and acceptable
means, which would remove it permanently from the atmosphere. There are large opportunities to
remove C02 from the atmosphere and sequester it on land, or in oceans, including increased carbon
storage through improved management and land use practices, forestation, via changes in products and
materials, and other means. Two focus areas are:

C02 Capture and Storage. Advanced techniques are under development that could capture
gaseous C02 fro111 such sources as coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, hydrogen production
facilities, and various high-emitting industrial processes. Carbon capture would be linked to
geologic storage - permanent disposal in geologic formations, such as depleted oil and gas
reservoirs; deep coal seams; saline aquifers; or other deep injection reservoirs. Carbon capture can
also be linked to ocean storage.

CO:z Sequestration. Land-based, biologically assisted means for removing COz from the
atmosphere and sequestering it in forests, soils, or other organic materials have proven to be lowcost means for long-term carbon storage. Ocean sequestration may also play a role as a carbon
"sink", as science advances the understanding of the potential effects.

Goal4: Reduce Emissions of Other Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, including methane (C~). nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) and others are more potent as radiant energy absorbers than C02 (per unit weight). In
addition, the atmospheric c~ncentration of troposphere ozone, another greenhouse gas, has been increased
by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Oimate Change has estimated that the cumulative
effects of such gases since pre-industrial times account for about 40 percent of the anthropogenic forcing
from greenhouse gases. Reducing emissions of these other greenhouse gases is an important climate
change goal and key component of an overall climate change technology strategy. There are many
categories of technologies relevant to the attainment of this goal (see Chapter 7). Highlights iiiclude:
. Methane Collection and Utilization. Improvements in methods and technologies to collect
methane and detect leaks from various sources, such as landfills, coal mines, natural gas pipelines,
and oil and gas exploration operations, can prove cost-effective, because the collected methane is a
fuel that can be used directly or sold at natural gas market prices.

Reducing NzO and Methane Emissions from Agriculture. Improved agricultural management
practices and technologies, including use of fertilizers for crop production, dealing with livestock
waste and management practices in ric(! production, are a key component of the strategy to reduce
other greenhouse gases.

2-3

CEQ 015153

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft" Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Reducing use offfigh Global-Wan:Ding-Potential (GWP) Gases. Hydrofluorocarbons and

perfluorocarbons have. substituted for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons in number of industries,
including refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing, solvent cleaning, fire suppression and
aerosol propellants. These gases have a potential radiative forcing effect. These and other high
GWP synthetic gases are generally used in applications where they are critical to complex
manufacturing processes or provide 5afety and system reliability, such as in semiconductor
manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium production and
casting. Methods to reduce leakage and use of these chemicals are being explored, as well as the
development of alternatives to achiev~the same purposes.

Goal 5: Enhance Capabilities to Measure and Monitor GHG Emissions

Improved technologies for measuring, estimating, and monitoring GHG emissions and the flows of GHGs
across various media and boundaries will help characterize emission levels and progress in reducing
emissions. With continuing progress in GHG measuring and monitoring systems, future strategies to
reduce, avoid, capture, or sequester C~ and other GHG emissions can be better supported, enabled, and
evaluated. Key areas of technology R&D related to this goal are grouped into four areas, including:

Anthropogenic Emissions. M~asurement and monitoring technologies can enhance and provide
direct and indirect emissions measurements for point and mobile sources using data transmission
and archiving, along with inventory-based reporting systems and local-scale atmospheric
measurements or indicators.

Sequestration. Advances in measurement and monitoring technologies for geologic sequestration

can assess the integrity of subsurface reservoirs, transportation and pipeline systems, and potential
leakage from geologic storage. Measurement and monitoring systems for terrestrial sequestration
are also needed to integrate carbon sequestration measurements of different components of the
landscape (e.g., soils and ecosystems) across a range of spatial scales.

Other Greenhouse Gases. Monitoring the emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon
aerosols, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6 is important because of their high
greenhouse warming potential and, for some, their long atmospheric lifetimes. Advanced
technologies can make an important contribution to direct and indirect measurement and
monitoring approaches for both po~nt and diffused sources of these emissions.

Integrated Measuring and Monitoring System Architecture. An effective measurement and

monitoring capability is one that cafl collect, analyze and integrate data across spatial and temporal .
scales, and at many different levels of resolution. This may require technologies such as sensors
and continuous emission monitors;:protocols for data gathering and analysis, development of
emissions accounting methods, and coordination of related basic science and research in
collaboration with the Climate Change Science Program.

Goal 6: Fortify the Basic Scientific Contributions to Climate-Related Technology Developmenr

Basic scientific research is fundamental to applied technology research and development. The dual
challenges-addressing global climate change, and providing the energy supply needed to meet future

.j

.~

'

2-4

'

CEQ 015154

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

demand and sustain economic growth-will likely require discoveries and innovations well beyond what
today's science and technology can offer. Science must not just inform decisions, but provide the ;
knowledge foundation on which new technologies are built. The CCTP framework aims to strengthen the
basic research enterprise so that it will be better prepared to find solutions and create new opportunities.
Two ways to meet this goal include:

Strategic Research. The CCTP portfolio includes a broad set of ongoing applied technology R&D
programs, and more are poised to start in the future. These ongoing and future research activities
need to be supported by basic scie~tific research that could lead to fundamental discoveries (e.g.,
new properties, phenomena, or materials) or scientific understanding, which could then be applied
to solving specific problems impeding the technical progress and advancement of technologies in
energy supply and end-use, carbon sequestration, other GHGs, and monitoring and measurement.

Exploratory Research. Innovative concepts are often too risky or multi-disciplinary for one
program mission to support. Sometimes they do not fit neatly within the constructs of other
mission-specific program goals. Therefore, not all of the research on innovative concepts for
climate-related technology is, or should be, aligned directly to one of the existing Federal R&D
mission-related programs. The climate change challenge calls for new breakthroughs in technology
that could dramatically change the way energy is produced, transformed, and used in the global
economy. Basic, exploratory research of innovative and novel concepts is one way to uncover such
''breakthrough technology" and strengthen and broaden the R&D portfolio.

2.2 Approaches
The CCTP envisions employing the following seven approaches to achieve the above-stated goals. The
CCTP Draft Strategic Plan provides details primarily on the frrst approach- strengthening climate
change technology R&D. However, the other approaches are interwoven in the strategies presented in the
technical programs outlined in Chapters 4 through 9, and form the organizing framework for next steps
(Section 10.5).
Approach 1: Strengthen Climate Change Technology R&D
The Federal Government is engaged in a wide range of ongoing research activities that directly or
indirectly contribute to meeting the President's climate change goals. The breadth and depth of this
portfolio is evidenced by the Federal expenditures, amounting to more than $2.2 billion per year in related
technology RD&D, and another $0.8
billion in deployment (see Appendix A).
On June 11, 2001 , President George W. Bush. created the
Key aspects of these investments are
National Climate Change Technology Initiative. He charged the
Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, working with other
summarized in the technology sections
agencies, to:
of the CCTP Strategic Plan, and in
Presidential Charge #1:
more detail on 80 specific technologies,
as available in the publication,
"Evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change technology
Technology Options for the Near- and
R&D and make recommendations for improvements."
Long-Tenn, accessible at
See:
http://www .cl i matetechnology .gov.
http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/200 1/06/2001 06112.html

2-5

CEQ 015155

May28, 2004

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

To strengthen the current state of the U.S. climate change technology R&D, the CCIP reviewed the
current Federal R&D portfolio, vis-a-vis the stated CCTP goals, and the results are reported in this Plan~ .
The CCIP has made, and will continue to make, periodic recommendations to the Cabinet-level CCCSTI
to strengthen the focus of and support for climate change technology R&D to match the mix and level of
R&D investment required by the nature of the technical challenge.
Approach 2: Strengthen Basic Research at Universities and National Laboratories

A base of supporting fundamental research must underlie the applied R&D for technology development.
The CCTP framework will strengthen basic research in the national laboratories and academia by
focusing efforts on key areas needed to develop insights or breakthroughs relevant to climate-related
technology R&D. A strong and creative science program is necessary in several arenas, such as biology,
nanoscience, computational modeling and simulation, physi~al processes, and environmental sciences.
Fundamental discoveries can reveal new properties and phenomena
that can be applied to development of new energy technologies and
systems: These can include breakthroughs in our understanding of
biological functions, properties and phenomena of nanomaterials and
structures, computing architectures and methods, plasma science, and
many more that are currently on the horizon.
Developing new technologies and systems will require an abundance
of intellectual talent, well versed in the concepts and technologies of
modem science. Workforce development and education is therefore a
key role for the science enterprise.

Presidential Charge #2:

"Provide guidance on
strengthening basic research at
universities and national
laboratories, including the
development of the advanced
mitigation technologies that offer
the greatest promise for low-cost
reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions:

Approach 3: Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships

With regard to the development and adoption of climate change technologies, Federal research is but one
element of the over.i.Il approach.. Engagement in this process by private entities, including business,
industry, agriculture, construction and other sectors of the U.S. economy, as well as by non-Federal
governmental entities, such as the States and non-governmental organizations, is essential in order to
focus scarce R&D investments wisely and expedite innovative and
cost-effective approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Presidential Charge #3

"Develop opportunities to
enhance private-public
partnerships in applied R&D to
expedite innovative and"costeffective approaches to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions."

Partnering facilitates the transfer of technology to the marketplace,

once the technology R&D is completed. Partnering can also help
guide and improve the productivity of Federal research. Private
partners also benefit, as those who are engaged in Federal R&D gain
rights to intellectual property, which can help motivate further
investment in the commercialization of technology.

Today, partnering is a common. mode of operation in most Federal R&D programs, but the partnering
process can be improved. Opportunities exist for private participation in virtually every aspect of Federal
R&D. With respect to climate change technology R&D, the CCTP seeks to expand these opportunities,
in R&D planning, program execution, and technology demonstrations.

2-6

CEQ 015156

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Approach 4: Increase International Cooperation

May28,2004

Presidential Charge #4:

Develop an uapproach based

Given the global nature of the challenge, and in recognition of the
on global participation, including
contributions being made by others abroad, the CCfP seeks to engage
that of developing countries."
other nations-government to government-in large-scale cooperative technology research initiatives. Such cooperation can prove to be
important to the success of U.S. technology development initiatives. In certain areas of climate change
technology R&D, such as advanced wind turbine design and fusion energy research, many advanced
technical capabilities reside abroad, as well as in the United States. Since 2000, bilateral agreements
have been executed with 13 governments, including a number in the developing world.
Technology development can benefit from international cooperation, through leveraging of resources,
partitioning of research activities addressing large-scale and multi-faceted complex problems, and sharing
of results and knowledge created. Under the auspices of the Cabinet-level CCCSTI, the CCfP has
contributed to several multi-lateral alliances, including the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
(16 governments and the European Conunission), the Generation IV International Forum (10
governments and Euratom), the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor- ITER (5
governments), and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (16 governments and the
European Commission).
Approach 5: Support Cutting-Edge Technology Demonstrations

Demonstrations of cutting-edge climate change technologies are an

important aspect of the goal of advancing climate change technologies. They can help bridge between the R&D phase of a technology
development project, where a concept may have been proven in
principle or shown to work in the laboratory, but is still uncertain,
and the commercialization phase, where substantial investment,
motivated by clear and expected financial returns is required.

Presidential Charge #5
uMake recommendations for
funding demonstration projects for
cutting-edge technologies."

Technology demonstrations afford unique opportunities to reduce investment uncertainty by unveiling the
parameters affecting a technology's cost and operational performance and the areas needing further
improvement or cost reduction. Technology demonstrations also demonstrate Federal leadership in the
technology development process, which can strongly influence decisions of private-sector investors and
other non-government parties.
Approach 6: Ensure a Viable Technical Workforce of the Future

Addressing the climate change challenge cannot be done without a new generation of young people,
tectiDically trained and dedicated to the search for innovative and cost-effective ways to bring the
concepts for advanced and innovative technologies to reality. The CCTP mission and goals provide a
unique opportunity to strengthen Federal investments across all participating agencies in scit;nce, math,
and engineering education and to attract new, young talent to focus their careers on this global endeavor.
Such endeavors could be coordinated with others in other countries, and particularly in emerging
-,
economies of the developing world, where much of 21st century emissions will be concentrated.

2-7

CEQ 015157

May28,2004

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

Approach 7: Provide, as Appropriate, Supporting
Technology Policy
The CCTP Draft Strategic Plan is not a policy document.
It is a roadmap for prioritized Federal investments in
technology R&D needed to reduce the risk of climate
change. The Plan is an integral part of a comprehensive
U.S. strategy on climate change that rests on three pillars science, technology, and international cooperation- and is
complemented by an array of other policy measures,
financial incentives, and voluntary programs aimed at
slowing the growth of GHG emissions in the near-term.
CCfP recognizes that widespread adoption of advanced
technologies on the global scale envisioned may not likely
come about in isolation. In the near-term most of the
CCI'P-supported advanced technologies will likely be ,
more expensive to implement than today's technologies,
which emit GHGs to the atmosphere with few constraints.
Although many of the advanced technologies may have
superior attributes in other dimensions, which would
connnend their adoption, it is likely that some marketbased government technology policies will eventually be
needed to motivate the capital investment required.
Building consensus for the adoption of such policies is
expected to be difficult, in part, because the risks and
benefits of various courses of action or inaction are poorly
understood and, in part, because the advanced technologies
required for the job are not ready or are too costly. Further
progress in climate change science may illuminate such
risks and benefits, and do so at increasingly more
meaningful scales of resolution. Further progress in
climate change technology development, similarly, may
enable new paths to lower emissions at significantly
reduced costs. In this light, sustained Federal leadership in
climate change technology R&D, as outlined in the CCTP
Draft Strategic Plan, coupled with expected progress over
time in both the CCSP and CCI'P endeavors, can be seen

Box2-3
CCTP Working Groups
Energy Efficiency- Led by DOE

Transportation
Buildings
Industry
Energy Production - Led by DOE

Hydrogen
Renewable and Low Carbon Fuels
Renewable Power
Nuclear Fission Power
Fusion Energy
Low Emissions Fossil-Based Power
Electric Grid and Infrastructure

Sequestration - Led by USDA

Capture
Geologic Storage
Terrestrial Sequestration
Ocean Storage
Products and Materials

Other Gases- Led by EPA

Energy & Waste - Methane

Agricultural Methane and Other Gases
High Global-Warming-Potential Gases
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone Precursors and Black Carbon

Measuring and Monitoring- Led by NASA

Application Areas
Integrated Systems Architecture
Basic Research - Led by DOE

Strategic Research
Exploratory Research
Integrative Processes with Applied R&D

n~
:;;t~

not as substitutes for other policies or action, but as essential and enabling prerequisites.

2.3 The CCTP Strategic Planning Process

As a framework for guiding Federal R&D investments in advanced technology needed to reduce the risk
of climate change, the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan presents an opportunity for dialogue and further input
to the continuing planning process. The Plan is flexible. It will incorporate new knowledge as it

2-8
CEQ 015158

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

becomes available from scientific research activities, resulting from the CCSP, public input and
knowledge and experiences arising from ongoing technology R&D projects carried out under the CCI'P.
A continuing evaluation of the CCfP R&D portfolio is planned, so that resources may be channeled to
the mostproductive and promising areas. The CCTP Working Groups (see Box 2-3) serve as facilitating
focal points within the Federal Government for gathering and weighing input, assessing the current R&D
portfolio, coordinating reviews of current R&D priorities, and making recommendations. It is expected
that the CCTP Strategic Plan, once final, would be periodically updated, at least once every four years.
Beyond these processes, the CCTP seeks input and active participation from business, industry and the
public. Such participation helps to infonn the process. is a valued source of information, technical or
otherwise, and helps to accelerate technology development and commercialization. It also serves to add
perspectives for Government policy-makers regarding public and business concerns associated with the
implementation of the new technologies. The CCI'P must also work internationally to accelerate
development and diffusion of climate change technologies, especially in developing countries, where
much of the future growth in GHG emissions is expected over the next 100 years.
Apart from the broad-based expert reviews, workshops and public input, the process for developing and
updating the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan employs complementary analytical tools-scenario analysis and
portfolio analysis. The results of the scenario analysis are covered in Chapter 3. These scenarios provide
an analytical means for addressing a range of uncertainties, as discussed below (Section 2.3.1). Other
planning considerations are also taken into account (Section 2.3.2}. The results of the portfolio analyses
are presented in Chapters 4 through 9. A generalized discussion of portfolio analysis is provided in
Section 2.3.3. Section 2.3.4 further expands on the principles of prioritization, including the criteria for
evaluating technical concepts and R&D planning proposals for the CCTP portfolio.

2.3.1 Planning Under Uncertainty

For technology development planners, a major source of uncertainty is that the greenhouse gas concentration level implied by the UNFCCC goal is not known. Progress on climate change science is expected
to reduce uncertainty on this question, as well as to illuminate the benefits and risks at higher levels of
geophysical resolution. What is known is that stabilizing GHG concentrations at any level 1 implies that
global emissions of GHGs, and particularly for the longer-lived GHGs, such as C02, net emissions of
GHGs would, ultimately, need to approach levels that are low or near zero. While the general direction is
reasonably clear, uncertainty surrounds the magnitude and timing of the improvements required to make
progress toward attainment of the UNFCCC goal.
Regarding magnitude, analyses using models and alternative advanced technology scenarios can assist by_
exploring a range of options, under a range of GHG emissions constraints. The results can provide
insights into the roles that could be played by various classes of technologies under different assumptions
and, conversely, to what extent the envisioned technologies would need to perfonn in order realize
meaningful contributions.
Regarding timing, historical data and experience on rates of technical change, market penetration of new
technologies, and turnover of capital stock indicate that inertia exists in the world energy system. Actions
1

This plan is nQt based on any specific stabilization concentration level. Further scientific research is required to
determine the level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

2-9

CEQ 015159

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

taken in response to the UNFCCC goal would likely require decades or more to be fully implemented,
take effect, and achieve measurable results. While it is uncertain when advanced technologies might be
needed, it is clear that many would take decades or more t.o develop to commercial readiness.
Another uncertainty is cost. Given the performance characteristics of today' s technologies, the cost of
reducing GHG emissions could be high. Using models and data from many sources, as applied to
different GHG concentration levels,2 the 1PCC gathered information suggesting that the total cost,
accumulated in constant dollars over 100 years might be many trillions of dollars. An important objective
for advanced technology planning is to lower such costs significantly.
Finally, the outcome of research itself is uncertain. Although it is presumed, based on experience from
history, that investments in research and innovation can lead to technical advances, one must imagine that
certain potentially attractive suites of technologies may not be successful, or if they were, the extent of
their market success may be limited to below desired levels. The magnitude of the climate change
challenge suggests that the cost impact of having but a few options could be high.

2.3.2 Other Planning Considerations

Aside from uncertainties, portfolio planning can also take into account facts. Significant progress can be
made toward CCfP goal accomplishment by employing today' s technologies, independent of climate
change considerations. For example, the adoption of energy efficient technologies aimed at reducing
energy costs also reduces energy-related C02 emissions. Many low- or near net-zero GHG emitting
technologies available today are cost-effective under certain conditions. Renewable energy can be costeffectively deployed in some locales. In many regions of the world, wind power is a fast growing
electricity generation technology. Ultra-low emission, high efficiency, alternative fueled, and hybrid
transportation vehicles are beginning to penetrate automobile and light truck markets. Nuclear power is a
cost-effective energy source in many countries. fu 2004, there were 440 nuclear power plants operating
in 31 countries, representing more than 350 GWe of installed capacity. Adoption of clean and energyefficient technologies are often motivated by business strategies, superior performance. characteristics in
special settings, criteria pollution abatement or other environmental benefits, and other factors not direCtly
related to climate change.
Under United Nations forecasts, global urbanization is a future trend. By 2050, as much as 85 percent of
the world's population may be concentrated in large urban areas. By 2100, urban dwellers may comprise
as much as 95 percent of the world's population. Urban planning under such circumstances will likely
consider infrastructure needs, transport systems, and air quality factors, which wiD be influenced by
increasing populations, higher per capita :~ncomes, and growing transportation demands. These trends
could lead to actions, independent of clima~ change, that would strongly benefit climate change strategic
goals.

For the nc'.1-C0 2 gases, benefits unrelated to climate change, such as improving air quality through the
introduction of more efficient combustion technologies or economically capturing and reusing landfill
methane, provide further opportunities for. significant near-term reductions in GHG emissions and
2

Estimating costs over 100 years is a complex modeling problem, involving many assumptions about technology
supply curves. as well as applying appropriate discount rates to net present value. Often discount rates for public
benefits over long-term planning horizons are less than those used for commercial investment purposes.

2-10

CEQ 015160

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

slowing growth or reducing net contributions to radiative forcing. For example, methane (the main
component of natural gas) currently has significant value in energy markets. In order to form a more
complete planning context, all such factors should be taken into consideration.

2.3.3 Portfolio Analysis

Under the CCfP, six interagency working groups reviewed and evaluated the Federal climate change
technology R&D portfolio and conducted portfolio analyses. Each CCTP working group assessed the
elements of the portfolio with respect to strategic goals and examined the adequacy of the overall
portfolio with respect to strategy, potential contributions, and likelihood of success. Each working group
focused on a particular CCI'P goal, and with respect to that goal, examined the various major components
of the portfolio. The working groups gathered input from R&D planning processes ongoing within
individual agencies. They organized and held technical workshops, inviting experts from universities,
industry, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and others to examine and critique
ongoing Work. In addition, the CCTP held a crosscutting integration workshop of technical experts to
explore and compare the opportunities and limits of various technologies collectively.
The working groups' tasks included the development, for each class of technology, of a long-term vision;
a characterization of the role of technology in reducing emissions of GHGs; as well as an image of the
desired end-state of the technology and its potential contribution to reducing GHG emissions. The
working groups identified key technologies and developed profiles, describing: current and priority R&D
areas; collaborative activities with industry and international stakeholders; technology transfer and
commercialization activities; and supporting basic research needs for technological progress. The
synthesized results of these reviews are included in Chapters 4 through 9.

2.3.4 Criteria for Prioritizing CCTP Portfolio Investments

The six CCfP strategic goals drive the technology portfolio planning and prioritization process. Within
constraints of available resources, CCfP strives to support a balanced and diversified portfolio, with
sufficient and well-focused investments needed to maintain adequate technical progress on each of the six
CCfP strategic goals. Within this process, a number of criteria are applied, as listed and described in
Box 2-4.
Given the uncertainties associated with the climate change challenge and its century-long planning
horizon, the CCfP planning process is not easily reduced to standard cost-benefit analysis. Insights can
be gained from tools used for planning under uncertainty, including scenario analysis, long-term
forecasting, expert opinion, modeling and other types of data and infonnation. Decisions regarding broad
strategic thrusts, however, are largely based on experienced judgment of senior technical managers

seeking to meet program goals and objectives, as informed by inputs from many sources.
Once broad thrusts are chosen, the CCTP planning process considers the merits of individual competing
investments based on their expected benefits versus costs, such as maximizing potential climate change
related benefits per dollar of Federal investment (Criteria #1) within a set of screens for appropriateness
(Criteria #2). Because expected benefits of many of the longer-term, higher-risk climate-change
technoiogies are likely to occur far in the future, the CCTP planning process must adequately resolve how
to "discount" future benefits, as well as how to balance near- and long-term components of the portfolio.

2-11

CEQ 015161

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Draft Strategic Plan

May28,2004

Some of the approaches being pursued under the CCfP are expected to have cost and benefit streams
over a 100-year period, under a variety of planning assumptions and technology scenarios. The CcrP
estimates present values of costs and benefits using a variety of discount rates ranging from zero to five
percent. The CcrP also compares benefits and costs at various points of time in the future- such as in
2025, 2050, and 2095 in constant dollars, and compares the costs and benefits to other reference
baselines, such as world GDP. Often, the quantitative estimates themselves are not nearly as important as
relative comparisons, robust information under ranges of conditions, and the qualitative insights gained.
In this way, individuid investment options are characterized with respect their uniqueness, or
alternatively, their robustness, under varying circumstances.

In addition, due to the magnitude of this global challenge, the limited resources, and the risk of portfolio
dilution (by spreading resources across too many areas), the CCTP process focuses on technologies with
potentials for large-scale application (Criteria #3). Technologies that are expected to have limited impact
on overall GHG emissions are to be 'given priority only if they can deliver earlier in the century and/or be
particularly cost compelling. The timing of investments is also an important part of the CCTP decision
process. The CCTP planning process gives weight to considerations of logical sequencing (Criteria #4)
of research, where the value in knowing whether a technological advance is or is not successful has a
cascading effect on the sequencing of other investments.
Given that the risks associated with certain technologies are high and that limiting future options could be
costly, the CCTP planning process strives to achieve robustness under Varying futures. The collection of
individual R&D investments should constitute a diversified portfolio (Criteria #5). Finally, CCfP
portfolio planning must be also attentive to a number of other system wide and non-technical
considerations (Criteria #6). Bach technology must be integrated within a larger technical system and
infrastructure, not just as a component.
The CCTP portfolio today (see Appendix A) reflects the current status and ongoing realignment and
expansion of Federal technology development efforts aimed at addressing climate change-related
concerns and pursuing priority opportunities for reducing, avoiding, capturing or sequestering GHG
emissions. Both the CCTP Draft Strategic Plan and its portfolio of RDD&D investments are continuing
to evolve.
This Draft Strategic Plan presents, for review and comment, this process as it is unfolding. Further
analysis and prioritization will be conducted over the course of the coming months, assisted and informed
by technical workshops and public meetings organized by CcrP and its Working Groups.

2-12

CEQ 015162