ESL-TR-09-02-02
ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS CALCULATORS FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ON DISPLACED EMISSION REDUCTIONS (CEDER)
ANNUAL REPORT
2008 Annual Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Bahman Yazdani, P.E.; Charles Culp, Ph.D., P.E.; Jeff Haberl, Ph.D., P.E.; Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Ph.D.; Sung Lok Do
February 2009 modified in March 2009
ENERGY SYSTEMS LABORATORY
Texas Engineering Experiment Station Texas A&M University System
Page 2
Disclaimer
This report is provided by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) as required under Section 388.003 (e) of the Texas Health and Safety Code and is distributed for purposes of public information. The information provided in this report is intended to be the best available information at the time of publication. TEES makes no claim or warranty, express or implied, that the report or data herein is necessarily error-free. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Energy Systems Laboratory or any of its employees. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station or the Energy Systems Laboratory.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 3
ANNUAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS CALCULATORS FOR NATIONAL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ON DISPALCED EMISSION REDUCTIONS (CEDER)
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In August 2004, the USEPA issued guidance on quantifying the air emission benefits from electric sector energy efficiency and renewable energy. Because there was no clear best strategy, the EPA’s guidance provided a framework and the basic requirements needed to demonstrate air quality improvements or emission reductions with adequate certainty to be incorporated into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving or maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Energy Systems Laboratory, with guidance from both the US EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), developed the first comprehensive engineering toolkit and database that satisfies the EPA guidelines. The value of this unique tool was demonstrated in 2005 when the Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL), at the request of the TCEQ, used it to develop integrated emissions estimates for all state agencies participating in the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). Building on this expertise, the US EPA has established a National Center of Excellence on Displaced Emission Reductions (CEDER) at the Energy Systems Laboratory to research and gather the state-of-the-art on air pollution quantification techniques for Energy Efficiency / Renewable Energy (EE/RE) projects; provide technical support and customized analysis for state and local agencies seeking to estimate the environmental benefits from clean energy policies and programs; and to document how a user-friendly tool, based on e2Calc, can be used by clients to fulfill their needs to quantify emission reductions from energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.
The Energy Systems Laboratory, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, submits this annual report, “Analysis of Emissions Calculators for National Center of Excellence on Displaced Emission Reductions (CEDER)” to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The report is organized in several deliverables: • Summary Report, which details the progress of tasks; • Appendix, which shows the survey documentation, screenshots of emissions calculators, and screenshots for the test of each online emissions calculator.
The three main tasks that have been performed in 2008 are as follows: • Task 1: Review existing emissions calculators from U.S. Department of Energy’s EE/RE Building Energy Software Tools Directory. • Task 2: Review and test currently available emissions calculators from the World Wide Web. • Task 3: Assistance with the estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 3 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 2.1. Statement of Work for USEPA’s Center of Excellence for Displaced Emissions Reductions (CEDER) ...... 6 2.2. Progress up to Date ...... 6 APPENDIX A. Review for Emissions Calculator from U.S. Department of Energy EERE’s Building Energy Software Tools Directory ...... 17 APPENDIX B. Review for Emissions Calculators from World Wide Web ...... 31 APPENDIX C. List of the Online Calculators for the Emissions Test...... 33 APPENDIX D. Screenshots of Emissions Calculators...... 34 APPENDIX E Estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals ...... 115
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Number of Emissions Calculators According to Annual CO2 Emissions from Electricity Use...... 12 Figure 2. Annual NOx Emissions from the Electricity Use of a Residential Building...... 13 Figure 3. Annual SOx Emissions from the Electricity Use of a Residential Building ...... 13 Figure 4 Number of Emissions Calculators According to Annual CO2 Emissions from N.G. Use ...... 15 Figure 5. Annual NOx Emissions from the N.G. Use of a Residential Building...... 16 Figure 6. Annual SOx Emissions from the N.G. Use of a Residential Building...... 16
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Summary for Currently Available Emissions Calculators in the 2007CEDER Report...... 7 Table 2. Characteristics of Web-based Emissions Calculator Tools...... 9 Table 3 Emissions estimates from the Web based tools: Electricity Use only...... 11 Table 4 Summary Table for Test of Emissions Calculators: Natural Gas Use Only...... 14
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 6
2. INTRODUCTION
In August 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued guidance on quantifying the air emission benefits from electric sector energy efficiency and renewable energy. Because there was no clear best strategy, the EPA’s guidance provided a framework and the basic requirements needed to demonstrate air quality improvements or emission reductions with adequate certainty to be incorporated into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Energy Systems Laboratory, with guidance from both the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), developed the first comprehensive engineering toolkit and database that satisfies the EPA guidance. The value of this unique tool was demonstrated in 2005 when the ESL, at the request of the TCEQ, used it to develop integrated emissions estimates for all state agencies participating in the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). Building on this expertise, the EPA has established a National Center of Excellence on Displaced Emission Reductions (CEDER) at the Energy Systems Laboratory to research and gather the state-of-the- art on air pollution quantification techniques for EE/RE projects; provide technical support and customized analysis for state and local agencies seeking to estimate the environmental benefits from clean energy policies and programs; and to document how a user-friendly tool, based on e2Calc, can be used by clients to fulfill their needs to quantify emission reductions from energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.
2.1. Statement of Work for USEPA’s Center of Excellence for Displaced Emissions Reductions (CEDER)
This summary report covers the Laboratory’s work in 2008. This work is intended to cover the basic work outline included below:
• Task 1: Review existing emissions calculators from U.S. Department of Energy’s EE/RE Building Energy Software Tools Directory.
• Task 2: Review and test for currently available emissions calculators from the World Wide Web.
• Task 3: Assistance with the estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals.
2.2. Progress up to Date
Task 1: Review existing emissions calculators from U.S. Department of Energy’s EE/RE Building Energy Software Tools Directory.
This task proposes to review existing emission calculators from U.S. Department of Energy’s EE/RE Building Energy Software Tools Directory. The EE/RE Building Energy Software Tools Directory provides information on 344 building software tools for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability in buildings. The information provided for each software tool includes a short description of the tools, users, audience, input, output, computer platforms, programming language, strengths, weaknesses, technical contact, and availability.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 7
Thirteen tools having capabilities to calculate energy-related pollution emissions have been found and summarized. The 13 tools are categorized by the subject, atmospheric pollution. The software tools are listed in the revised appendix A in this report presents brief information of the inputs/outputs of the 13 software tools.
Task 2: Review and test currently available emissions calculators from the World Wide Web.
This task includes three parts: 1) check the current status of emission calculators found in the previous 2007 CEDER report, 2) search emissions calculators for update of the previous emissions calculators’ lists, and 3) test the newly found emissions calculators.
From the 2007 CEDER report, 24 online emissions calculators were located on the internet. These calculations continue to be available, until now, but there exist some changes in the localization of two calculators; the website address for Bonneville Environmental Foundation seems to be changed, however its emissions calculator is still available at the changed address and the emissions calculator of Leonardo Academy appears to have been divided into two calculators.
The summary table for the current availability of emissions calculators in the 2007 CEDER report is presented in the Table 1:
Table 1 Summary for Currently Available Emissions Calculators in the 2007CEDER Report.
Check Availability No. Name Website Institute or Company (Jan/9/2009)
Online Emission Calculators 1 Power Profiler http://www.epa.gov/solar/powerprofiler.htm EPA Yes 2 Household Emissions Calculator http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html EPA Yes 3 The Cleaner and Greener Pollution from Electricity Use Calculator Leonardo Academy Yes (Devided) 3.1 Emissions Calculator http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/resources/pollutioncalculator.htm 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/resources/emission_reductions.htm 4 AirHead Emissions Calculator http://airhead.cnt.org/Calculator/ AirHead Yes 5 Carbon Pollution Calculator, Electric Power Pollution Calcula http://www.infinitepower.org/calculators.htm Texas State Energy Conservation Office Yes 6 Non‐Flash carbon footprint calculator http://www.bp.com/carboncalculator.do?categoryId=9015635&contentId=7032696 BP Yes 7 NETZERO Emissions Calculators http://www.cleanairconservancy.org/calculator.php Clean Air Conservancy Yes 8 NOx Calculator http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/ozonecapstone/noxcalculator.htm ESA 21 Yes 9 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator http://www.10percentchallenge.org/rezcalculator.php Earthlogic, Inc. Yes 10 Climate Change Calculator http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/index.php AMERICAN FORESTS Yes 11 Terrapass emissions calculator http://www.terrapass.com/home/homecalc.php?recalc=1&zip=77840 TerraPass Inc Yes 12 Calculate your impact http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/ Climatecrisis Website Yes 13 Carbon Calculator (Before) https://www.greentagsusa.org/GreenTags/calculator_intro.cfm Bonneville Environmental Foundation No (Changed) 13. BEF Carbon Calculator (After) https://www.b-e-f.org/offsets/calculator/ 14 Emissions Calculator http://www.abraxasenergy.com/emissions/ Abraxas Energy Consulting Yes 15 Carbon Calculator https://www.econeutral.com/carboncalculator.html Ecosystem Restoration Associates Yes 16 eCalc http://ecalc.tamu.edu/ Energy Systems Laboratory Yes 17 Carbon Footprint Calculator http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx Carbon Footprint Ltd (UK Based) Yes 18 Carbon Calculator http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/ The Nature Conservancy Yes 19 SafeClimate carbon footprint calculator http://www.safeclimate.net/calculator/ World Resources Institute Yes 20 Calculated your personal impact http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm Environmental Defense Yes 21 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator http://reference.aol.com/planet-earth/global-warming/calculator AOL Yes 22 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation http://www3.iclei.org/co2/co2calc.htm ICLEI Yes 23 Travel Matters Emissions Calculators http://www.travelmatters.org/ TravelMatters Yes 24 CarbonCounter http://www.carboncounter.org/offset-your-emissions/personal-calculator.aspx The Climate Trust Yes
In addition, more online emissions calculators were found through search engines on the internet. Table 2 shows the summary of the attributes related to the new calculators, which include: Name of the tool, Institute or Company, Energy Source (Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Renewables), End Use (Residential building, Commercial building, Industrial, Transportation, Municipal), Emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx for Annual), Emission Data or Rate (U.S. Average, State Average, or County Average). In addition, screenshots of each tool were added in the Appendix D.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 8
Findings from this review are summarized as follow:
• As of February 2009, 48 emissions calculators have now been found. • 40 calculators are online tools, and the remains are software tools that can be downloaded. • Most of the online tools provide emissions calculation for electricity use (40 tools), for natural gas use (35 tools), and for heating oil use (28 tools) in residential buildings. • Each calculator uses emissions factors to calculate emissions impact. 19 calculators use the U.S. average emission factors, 16 calculators use the state averages, and 5 calculators use the county or city averages. • Some calculators provide the source of the emissions calculations. Most of them reported using emissions factors published in the EPA’s eGRID (1999, 2004 and 2006 version) and US DOE data.
Appendix B provides the list of the existing emission calculators found on the internet.
All of the working emissions calculators were tested; two input parameters (i.e., annual electricity and N.G. use) were selected and tested through the available 38 websites.
The following assumptions have been used for the testing of the web tools:
• The number of occupants is two if a calculator has an option to enter the number of occupants. • Two sets of tests: Electricity use only and N.G. use only. • Annual electricity consumption is 12,000 kWh ($1,200, at a cost of 0.1$/kWh). • Annual N.G. consumption is 96 MCF or 984 therms ($1,320, at a cost of 13.75$/MCF or 1.34$/therms).
• Carbon emission (CO2) is the most commonly assessed pollutant (39 tools), only a few calculators have the capability to calculate NOx (9 tools) and SOx (8 tools) emissions. Only 8 tools can calculate all three types of the pollution emissions impact. • Regional emissions estimation option: some calculators have state-level calculation options; for comparison purposes, Texas (i.e., Zip 77840) should be selected. For others without this option, the U.S. should be chosen. • Other energy use options such as bulb types, transportation were ignored. If the emissions calculator requires other specific energy use options, these were not tested for comparison with other calculators. • The emission calculators were tested just for cases that consider energy use in a single family residential building.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 9
Table 2. Characteristics of Web-based Emissions Calculator Tools. Energy Source End Use Emissions Emission Data Renewables CO2 SOx NOx (Emission Rate) No. Name Institute or Company Residential Commercial Industria Elec.N.G. Oil (Wind, Transportation Buildings Buildings l Solar, etc.) U.S. State County Annual Annual Annual Averag Averag Averag Online Emission Calculators 1 Power Profiler EPA x x x xxxx x 2 Household Emissions Calculator EPA xxxx x x x x 3.1 Emissions Calculator Leonardo Academyx x x x xxx x 3 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator Leonardo Academyxx x x x xxx x 4 AirHead Emissions Calculator AirHead xx x x xxxx Carbon Pollution Calculator, 5 Texas State Energy Conservation Office x x x x x x x x x Electric Power Pollution Calculator 6 Non‐Flash carbon footprint calculator BP x x x x x x x x 7 NOx Calculator ESA 21 x x x x x x 8 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator Earthlogic, Inc. x x x x x x x x 9 Climate Change Calculator AMERICAN FORESTS x x x x x x x 10 Terrapass emissions calculator TerraPass Inc x x x x x x x 11 Calculate your impact Climatecrisis Website x x x x x x x x 12 BEF Carbon Calculator Bonneville Environmental Foundation x x x x x x x
13 Emissions Calculator Abraxas Energy Consulting x x x x x x x x 14 Carbon Calculator Ecosystem Restoration Associates x x x x x x x 15.1 eCalc (using 2007 eGrid) Energy Systems Laboratory x x x x x x 15 15.2 eCalc (using 1999 eGrid) Energy Systems Laboratory x x x x x x 16 Carbon Footprint Calculator Carbon Footprint Ltd (UK Based) xxx x x x x 17 Carbon Calculator The Nature Conservancy xx xxx 18 Calculated your personal impact Environmental Defense xx x x x x 19 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator AOL xxx x x x x 20 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation ICLEI xxx x x x x 21 CarbonCounter The Climate Trust xxx x x x x 22 Carbon Calculators Carbonfund xxx x x x x 23 Carbon dioxide emissions calculator Carbonify xxx x x x x 24 Impact calculator Low Impact Living xxx x x x x The Berkeley Institute of the 25 CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator xxx x x x x Environment, UC-Berkeley SafeClimate, World Resources 26 SafeClimate Calculator xxx x x x x x Institute 27 Carbon Calculators ClimateCare xxx x x x x x 28 Business CO2 Calculator ClimateCare xxx x x x x 29 Earthlab carbon calculator Earthlab xxx x x x x x 30 Carbon Calculators Azcentral.com xxx x x x x 31 Carbon Calculators Natural Gas xx x x x 32 Personal GHG Emission Calculators GreenRegistry (Canada) xx x x x x 33 GHG emissions calculation Zero GHG xxx x x x x 34 Office Footprint Calculator The Green Office xxx x x x x x 35 Carbon Emissions Calculator DTE Energy xx x x x x 36 Carbon Calculator MSN Microsoft xxx x x x x x 37 Personal Carbon Emission Calculators SMECO xxx x x x x 38 Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calcula CarbonZero xxx x x x x
Offline Emission Calculators 39 EcoCalculator Athena Institute 40 the Campus Carbon Calculator Clean Air‐Cool Planet 41 Clean Air and Climate Protection Software ICLEI xxxx x x x x xxxx 42 MARKAL EPA x x x x x x x x x x 43 CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) CARMA x xx 44 HEED UCLA xx x x x Energy and Environmental Economics, 45 GHG Tool for Buildings in California xx x x Inc. 46 FEDS (Cannot get the program) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory x x x x x xxx x
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 10
Table 3 shows the summary table that presents the results from annual electricity use. As described earlier, most of the calculators provide CO2 emission calculations, while a few can calculate NOx and SOx emissions. The summary table shows that the CO2 emissions, calculated due to the electricity consumption, vary significantly from calculator to calculator in a range between 6,000 to 26,000 lbs/year.
The average CO2 emissions value across the emissions calculators is 16,788 lbs/year. The average NOx emissions value of the results (through 8 emissions calculators) is about 21 lbs/year, whereas the average
SOx emissions value (through 6 emissions calculators) is about 25 lbs/year. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are bar graphs for the CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions results from annual electricity use, respectively.
Table 7 shows the summary that presents the emissions numbers from annual N.G. use. As in the case of the emissions coming from electricity use, the CO2 emissions calculations, due to the N.G. consumption, vary greatly in the results across the emissions calculators (between 1,000 to 13,646,440 lbs/year). Specifically, 3 emissions calculators (calculator numbers 14, 20, and 33) gave unusual results; a problem in the unit denomination seems to be the cause. The average result of annual CO2 emissions values, excluding the three unusual results, is 13,303 lbs/year. Whereas, the average values of the NOx and SOx emissions values across the calculators are 11 lbs/year and 0.6 lbs/year, respectively. It might be not reasonable to compare the NOx and SOx emissions results with other calculators, because there is only one
SOx emissions calculator and three NOx emissions calculators, while only one calculator can provide the
CO2, SOx, and NOx emissions calculations. Figures 8, 9, and 10 show bar graphs for the CO2, NOx, and
SOx emissions results from annual N.G. use, respectively.
Appendix C provides the online calculators list which shows which existing emissions calculators were tested. Appendix D shows the screenshots for the existing emissions calculators and for the tests of each calculator.
Task 3: Assistance with the estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals. This task include three assignments: a)documentation of the current eGRID calculations procedures, which requires holding discussions with Art Diem, followed by the development of information flow charts and testing of procedures on existing 2007 eGRID data; b)Assembly of EPA, PUC, TECQ data inputs for eGRID that involves the assembly andinput of new input data from EPA, TCEQ and PUC for inclusion into the new eGRID for Texas, including a review of the assembled data with the EPA; and c) Compile the new eGRID database for Texas and review with EPA, TCEQ and PUC.
Appendix E includes the report generated in relation to the task 3.
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 11
Table 3 Emissions estimates from the Web based tools: Electricity Use only Number Annual Elec. Nox SOx CO2 Emissions Calculator Institute or Company Region of Notes Consumption (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Occupants 12000 kWh 1Power Profiler EPA Texas (77840) (Monthyl 1000 N/A 11 41 16,870 Elec. Only kWh) 12000 kWh 2Household Emissions Calculator EPA Texas (77840) (Monthyl 1000 2 N/A N/A 19,089 kWh) Elec. Only (Annual 10,979 3.1 3.1 Emissions Calculator Leonardo Academy Texas $100/month N/A 13 37 17,325 kwh) The value in SOx section 3.2 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator Leonardo Academy Texas 12000 kWh/Year N/A 10 10 17,208 represents 2SO 4AirHead Emissions Calculator AirHead Result is aggregate emissions 12000 kWh Carbon Pollution Calculator, Elec. Only, The value in SOx 5 Texas State Energy Conservation Office Texas (Monthyl 1000 N/A 13.68 0.072 15,360 Electric Power Pollution Calculator section represents SO2 kWh) 6Non‐Flash carbon footprint calculator BP United States N/A 2 N/A N/A 25,800 Samall apartment(1‐2bed) 7NOx Calculator ESA 21 United States 12000 kWh/Year 2 23.04 N/A N/A Nox Only 8 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator Earthlogic, Inc. United States $1200/Year 2 N/A N/A 14,700 9Climate Change Calculator AMERICAN FORESTS United States 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 18,000 10 Terrapass emissions calculator TerraPass Inc Texas (77840) $100/month N/A N/A N/A 13,140
11 Calculate your impact Climatecrisis Website Texas (77840) 100$ ‐ $150/month 2 N/A N/A 10,300 12 BEF Carbon Calculator Bonneville Environmental Foundation Texas (77840) 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 18,587 The value in SOx section 13 Emissions Calculator Abraxas Energy Consulting Texas 12000 kWh/Year N/A 46.8 56.4 18,600 represents SO2. 14 Carbon Calculator Ecosystem Restoration Associates Texas $100/month 2 N/A N/A 10,620 15.1 15.1 eCalc ( 2007 eGrid) Energy Systems Laboratory Texas (77840) 12000 kWh/Year N/A 17.04 10.93 14,305 Using 2007 eGrid 15.2 15.2 eCalc ( 1999 eGrid) Energy Systems Laboratory Texas (77840) 12000 kWh/Year N/A 32.25 19.52 15,907 Using 1999 eGrid 16 Carbon Footprint Calculator Carbon Footprint Ltd (UK Based) Texas 12000 kWh/Year 2 N/A N/A 15,920 By number of people, Source 17 Carbon Calculator The Nature Conservancy Texas N/A 2 N/A N/A 22,000 data for Elec. Only By number of people, Single 18 Calculated your personal impact Environmental Defense Texas N/A 2 N/A N/A 19,000 Family, 2 Bed rooms 19 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator AOL United States $100/month 2 N/A N/A 18,476 Household Income($50,000 or 20 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation ICLEI College Station 12000 kWh/Year 2 N/A N/A 13,596 more), Age(25‐44) 21 CarbonCounter The Climate Trust Texas 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 15,460 22 Carbon Calculators Carbonfund United States 12000 kWh/Year 2 N/A N/A 14,120 1 ton=2000 lbs 12000 kWh 23 Carbon dioxide emissions calculator Carbonify United States (Monthyl 1000 2 N/A N/A 26,000 kWh) 24 Impact calculator Low Impact Living Conditions are different The Berkeley Institute of the 25 CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator Texas $100/month 2 N/A N/A 18,000 Environment, UC‐Berkeley 12000 kWh 26 SafeClimate Calculator SafeClimate, World Resources Institute Texas (Monthyl 1000 2 N/A N/A 17,520 kWh) 27 Carbon Calculators ClimateCare United States 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 12,880 28 Business CO2 Calculator ClimateCare For commercial bldgs 29 Earthlab carbon calculator Earthlab Texas (77840) $100/month 2 N/A N/A 6,000 Single Family, 2 Bed rooms 30 Carbon Calculators Azcentral.com United States $100/month 2 N/A N/A 18,476 31 Carbon Calculators Natural Gas Conditions are different 32 Personal GHG Emission Calculators GreenRegistry (Canada) Conditions are different 33 GHG emissions calculation Zero GHG Texas 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 16,940 34 Office Footprint Calculator The Green Office For commercial bldgs 12000 kWh 35 Carbon Emissions Calculator DTE Energy United States (Monthyl 1000 N/A N/A N/A 24,000 kWh) Same as Climatecrisis 36 Carbon Calculator MSN Microsoft Website 37 Personal Carbon Emission Calculators SMECO United States $100/month 2 N/A N/A 18,476 38 Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calculator CarbonZero United States 12000 kWh/Year N/A N/A N/A 14,540 39 EcoCalculator Athena Institute Offline emissions calculator 40 the Campus Carbon Calculator Clean Air‐Cool Planet Offline emissions calculator 41 Clean Air and Climate Protection Software ICLEI Offline emissions calculator 42 MARKAL EPA Offline emissions calculator 43 CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) CARMA Offline emissions calculator 44 HEED UCLA Offline emissions calculator 45 GHG Tool for Buildings in California Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Offline emissions calculator 46 FEDS (Cannot get the program) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Offline emissions calculator
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 12
Number of Emissions Calculators : Electricity Use 20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6 Number of Emissions Calculators
4
2
0 0 ~ 5,000 5,000 ~ 10,000 10,000 ~ 15,000 15,000 ~ 20,000 20,000 ~ 25,000 25,000 ~ 30,000 Annual CO2 Emissions (lbs/year)
Figure 1 Number of Emissions Calculators According to Annual CO2 Emissions from Electricity Use
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 13
Annual NOx Emissions : Electricity Use Annual NOx (lbs) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Annual NOx Emissions (lbs/year) Emissions Annual NOx 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3.1 3.2 15.1 15.2 Number of Emissions Calculators Figure 2. Annual NOx Emissions from the Electricity Use of a Residential Building.
Annual SOx Emissions : Electricity Use Annual SOx (lbs) 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Annual SOx Emissions Emissions (lbs/year) Annual SOx 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3.1 3.2 15.1 15.2 Number of Emissions Calculators Figure 3. Annual SOx Emissions from the Electricity Use of a Residential Building
March 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 14
Table 4 Summary Table for Test of Emissions Calculators: Natural Gas Use Only
Annual N.G. Number Nox Sox Emissions Calculator Institute or Company Region CO2 (lbs) Notes Consumption: of Occupants (lbs) (lbs) 1Power Profiler EPA No N.G. Option 2Household Emissions Calculator EPA Texas (77840) 984 therm (82 therms Monthly) 2 N/A N/A 13,555 3.1 Emissions Calculator Leonardo Academy No N.G. Option 3 The value in SOx section 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator Leonardo Academy Texas 984 therm/Year N/A 15 0 11,521 represents SO2 4AirHead Emissions Calculator AirHead Result is aggregate emissions Carbon Pollution lculator,Ca 5 Texas State Energy Conservation Office Texas 984 therm (82 therms Monthly) N/A N/A N/A 11,799 Electric Power Pollution Calculator 6Non ‐Flash carbon footprint calculator BP United States N/A 2 N/A N/A 16,000 Samall apartment(1 ‐2bed) 7NOx Calculator ESA 21 United States 984 therm/Year 2 4.53 N/A N/A Nox Only 8 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator Earthlogic, Inc. United States $1320/Year 2 N/A N/A 21,600 9 Climate Change Calculator AMERICAN FORESTS United States 984 therm/Year N/A N/A N/A 11,554 10 Terrapass emissions calculator TerraPass Inc Texas (77840) $110/Month N/A N/A N/A 12,500 11 BEF Carbon Calculator Climatecrisis Website Texas (77840) $110/Month 2 N/A N/A 8,600 With Elec = 0$ ‐25$/Month 12 Carbon Calculator Bonneville Environmental Foundation Texas (77840) 984 therm/Year N/A N/A N/A 11,521 The value in SOx section 13 Emissions Calculator Abraxas Energy Consulting Texas 984 therm/Year N/A 14.8 0.6 11,600 represents SO2 Unit Problem ! 14 Carbon Calculator Ecosystem Restoration Associates Texas 96 MCF (8 MCF Monthly) 2 N/A N/A 13,646,440 (1 ft3=28.3168 liter) 15 15.1 eCalc (Year 2007) Energy Systems Laboratory No N.G. Option 15.2 eCalc (Year 1999) Energy Systems Laboratory No N.G. Option 16 Carbon ootprint F Calculator Carbon Footprint Ltd (UK Based) Texas 984 therm/Year 2 N/A N/A 10,680 17 Carbon Footprint Calculator The Nature Conservancy Source data for Elec. Only By number of people, 18 Calculated your personal impact Environmental Defense Texas N/A 2 N/A N/A 19,000 Single Family, 2 Bed rooms 19 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator AOL United States $110/Month 2 N/A N/A 13,547 Unit Problem ! 20 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation ICLEI College Station 96 MCF/Year 2 232,320 N/A N/A (1 MCF = 1000 ft3) 21 CarbonCounter The Climate Trust Texas 984 therm/Year N/A N/A N/A 10,760 22 Carbon Calculators Carbonfund United States 984 therm/Year 2 N/A N/A 11,640 23 Carbon dioxide emissions calculator Carbonify United States 96 MCF (8 MCF Monthly) 2 N/A N/A 11,149 24 Impact calculator Low Impact Living Conditions are different The Berkeley Institute of the 25 CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator Texas $110/Month 2 N/A N/A 18,000 Environment, UC ‐Berkeley 26 SafeClimate Calculator SafeClimate, World Resources Institute Texas 984 therm (82 therms Monthly) 2 N/A N/A 12,828 With Elec = 1 kwh/yr 27 Carbon Calculators ClimateCare United States 984 therm/Year N/A N/A N/A 11,840 28 Business CO2 Calculator ClimateCare 29 Earthlab ca rbon calculator Earthlab Texas (77840) $100/Month (No option for $11 0 2 N/A N/A 14,000 W ith Elec = Use regional averag e 30 Carbon Calculators Azcentral.com United States $110/Month 2 N/A N/A 13,548 31 Carbon Calculators Natural Gas Conditions are different 32 Personal GHG Emission Calculators GreenRegistry (Canada) Conditions are different 33 GHG emissions calculation Zero GHG Texas 96 MCF/Year N/A N/A N/A 1,000 34 Office Footprint Calculator The Green Office For commercial bldgs 35 Carbon Emissions Calculator DTE Energy United States 96 MCF (80 CCF Monthly) N/A N/A N/A 10,560 1 CCF=0.1 MCF 36 Carbon Calculator MSN Microsoft Same as Climatecrisis Website 37 Personal Carbon Emission Calculators SMECO United States $110/Month 2 N/A N/A 13,548 38 Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calculator CarbonZero United States $1320/Year N/A N/A N/A 17,920 39 EcoCalculator Athena Institute Offline emissions calculator 40 the Campus Carbon Calculator Clean Air ‐Cool Planet Offline emissions calculator 41 Clean Air and Climate Protection Software ICLEI Offline emissions calculator 42 MARKAL EPA Offline emissions calculator 43 CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) CARMA Offline emissions calculator 44 HEED UCLA Offline emissions calculator 45 GHG Tool for Buildings in California Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Offline emissions calculator 46 FEDS (Cannot tge the program) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Offline emissions calculator
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 15
Number of Emissions Calculators : N.G. Use 20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6 Number of Emissions Calculators Number Emissions of
4
2
0 0 ~ 5,000 5,000 ~ 10,000 10,000 ~ 15,000 15,000 ~ 20,000 20,000 ~ 25,000 25,000 ~ 15,000,000 Annual CO2 Emissions (lbs/year)
Figure 4 Number of Emissions Calculators According to Annual CO2 Emissions from N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 16
Annual NOx Emissions : Natural Gas Use Annual NOx (lbs) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Annual NOx Emissions (lbs/year) Emissions Annual NOx 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3.1 3.2 15.1 15.2 Number of Emissions Calculators Figure 5. Annual NOx Emissions from the N.G. Use of a Residential Building.
Annual SOx Emissions : Natural Gas Use Annual SOx (lbs) 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Annual SOx Emissions Emissions (lbs/year) Annual SOx 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3.1 3.2 15.1 15.2 Number of Emissions Calculators Figure 6. Annual SOx Emissions from the N.G. Use of a Residential Building.
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 17
APPENDIX A. Review for Emissions Calculator from U.S. Department of Energy EERE’s Building Energy Software Tools Directory
Appendix A presents the detailed information of the 13 emissions calculators reported in U.S. Department of Energy EERE’s Building Energy Software Tools Directory. The 13 tools are located in a subject name of the atmospheric pollution. The original documents of this information could be found in http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/.
Name of the software tool Institute/Company
1 3E Plus North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
2 AIRPACK ANSYS, Inc.
3 BEES National Institute of Standard and Technology Sustainable Energy Development Authority, NABERS Building Greenhouse Rating 4 (the National Australian Built Environment Rating System) 5 DOE-2 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
6 e-Bench Energy and Technical Services
7 EMISS National Institute of Standards and Technology
8 EnergyPlus US Department of Energy
9 FEDS Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
10 HEED Energy Design Tools Group at the UCLA
11 LISA University of Newcastle
12 REEP Engineering Research Development Center-CERL
13 SOLAR-5 Department of Architecture and Urban Design
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 18
1. 3E Plus
Name of the 3E Plus software tool Industrial energy management tool to simplify the task of determining how much Description insulation is necessary to use less energy, reduce plant emissions and improve process efficiency • Insulation Keywords • Insulation thickness Validation/Testing N/A Expertise No training is required to use it Required Users More than 6000 downloads, mostly in the US Audience Facility managers, energy/environmental managers, industrial process engineers Specific data about the system being analyzed for an insulation upgrade, including base Input metal type, various process and operating temperatures, wind speed, pipe sizes, surface geometry, fuel type, annual operation hours and the type of insulation under consideration • How much insulation is necessary to use less energy, reduce plant emissions and improve process efficiency • For determining the return on investment of an insulation upgrade on pipes, ducts, tanks, Output and boilers • Output comes in preformatted reports, and can be exported to spreadsheets designed by NAIMA for further analysis Computer PCs running Windows Platform Program Visual Basic Language It gives a very clear picture on the return on investment of an insulation upgrade on pipes, Strengths ducts, tanks, and boilers Weaknesses N/A Contact North American Insulation Manufacturers Assoc • 3E Plus and its user manual can be downloaded at no charge from www.pipeinsulation.org. Availability • Hard copies of the program and manual can be ordered at cost from the web site: http://www.pipeinsulation.org/
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 19
2. AIRPACK
Name of the AIRPACK software tool • Simply-powerful airflow modeling at your fingertips • Airpak is virtual prototyping software that lets you Description accurately model airflow, heat transfer, contaminant transport, and thermal comfort in your ventilation system as well as external building flows • Airflow modeling, contaminant transport, room air distribution, Keywords • Temperature and humidity distribution, • Thermal comfort, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Validation/Testing N/A Expertise You can learn to use Airpak in one day Required Users North America, Europe & Asia Engineers, architects, and designers who need to assess/diagnose the performance of real or Audience conceived ventilation system designs • Build models with Airpak's object-oriented model building tools or with imported CAD geometries Input • Specify the ventilation system design • Define thermal boundary conditions • Full-color animations, pictures, and plots of ventilation airflows showing airflow patterns, air turbulence, room air distribution, temperature distribution, thermal comfort Output conditions, and contaminant distribution • The ability to automatically generate detailed quantitative reports specified by the user Computer Windows NT/2000, Unix, Linux Platform Program C++ and Tcl Language • Rapid model building/meshing Strengths • Fast and accurate simulation of airflow, heat transfer and contaminant transport • Powerful visualization of the results Weaknesses N/A Contact ANSYS, Inc. • Contact Fluent at the above address, 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766, US Availability • Visit for more information the website: http://www.ansys.com/products/airpak/default.asp?name=p1
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 20
3. BEES
Name of the BEES software tool • Powerful technique for selecting cost-effective, environmentally preferable building products Description • The Windows-based decision support software, aimed at designers, builders, and product manufacturers • Environmental performance • Green buildings, life cycle assessment Keywords • Life cycle costing • Sustainable development Validation/Testing N/A Expertise Required None Users Over 9000 copies in over 80 countries Designers, specifiers, builders, product manufacturers, purchasers, researchers, and policy Audience makers • Synthesizing up to 12 environmental impact scores into an environmental performance score • Discounting future costs to their equivalent present value Input • Combining environmental and economic performance scores into an overall performance score • Default values provided for all of this windows-based input • Weighting is optional • Summary graphs depicting life-cycle environmental and economic performance scores for competing building product alternatives Output • Detailed graphs also available depicting physical flow quantities for each environmental impact (e.g., grams of carbon dioxide for the global warming impact), embodied energy, and first and future costs Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, or XP personal computer with a 486 or higher microprocessor, Computer 32 Megabytes or more of RAM, at least 110 Megabytes of available disk space, and a Platform printer Program Language CA Visual Objects • Offers a unique blend of environmental science, decision science, and economics. It uses life-cycle concepts, is based on consensus standards, and is designed to be practical, flexible, and transparent • Practical in its systematic packaging of detailed, science-based, quantitative Strengths environmental and economic performance data in a manner that offers useful decision support • Flexible in allowing tool users to customize judgments about key study parameters • Transparent in documenting and providing all the supporting performance data and computational algorithms Includes environmental and economic performance data for only 200 building products Weaknesses covering 23 building elements. Contact National Institute of Standard and Technology • BEES 3.0 downloadable free of charge from the web site: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/ Availability • BEES 3.0 CD and printed documentation available free of charge through the EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse at (202) 566-0799 or [email protected]
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 21
4. Building Greenhouse Rating
Name of the Building Greenhouse Rating software tool • Provides assessments of the greenhouse intensity of office buildings by awarding a star rating on a scale of one to five Description • Buildings identified by the Australian Building Greenhouse Rating scheme with a high star rating will be more energy efficient and cheaper to run, and will result in lower greenhouse gas emissions • Operational energy Keywords • Greenhouse performance • National benchmark Validation/Testing N/A Expertise • For self assessment, no expert knowledge required Required • Official ratings can only be performed by trained Accredited Assessors Users More than 2000 downloads and more than 200 official ratings (all Australia) Australian property market stakeholders - Building owners, managers, tenants, investors, Audience developers, designers • Requires building operational data - size in Net Lettable Area (NLA) • Location of the building • Number of occupants Input • Number of computers in regular use • Number of hours per week that the building is occupied • 12 months of billing data for all energy sources in the building • The user enters data via text inputs • Report on greenhouse rating (stars) • Normalized greenhouse emissions (kgCO2/m2) and energy consumption (MJ/m2) Output • The report shows what the star rating of the building means in terms of actual performance against the national benchmark Computer Internet-based Platform Program Java Language • Unique tool for providing insight into the actual energy and greenhouse performance of your office building against the national property market Strengths • Enabling informed decision making on energy efficiency improvements • Useful for determining actual savings from implemented energy efficiency measures, by normalizing the operational data for changes in usage patterns Normalizing curves available for Australian office buildings only - will not provide Weaknesses meaningful results for other building types or locations without further industry benchmarking Contact Sustainable Energy Development Authority Availability Available as a free download from the web site: http://www.abgr.com.au
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 22
5. DOE-2
Name of the DOE-2 software tool Hourly, whole-building energy analysis program calculating energy performance and life- Description cycle cost of operation • Energy performance Keywords • Design, retrofit, research, residential and commercial buildings Validation/Testing N/A Expertise Recommend 3 days of formal training in basic and advanced DOE-2 use Required • 800 user organizations in U.S. Users • 200 user organizations internationally; user organizations consist of 1 to 20 or more individuals Architects, engineers in private A-E firms, energy consultants, building technology Audience researchers, utility companies, state and federal agencies, university schools of architecture and engineering Input Hourly weather file plus Building Description Language input • 20 user-selectable input verification reports Output • 50 user-selectable monthly/annual summary reports • User-configurable hourly reports of 700 different building energy variables Computer PC-compatible; Sun; DEC-VAX; DECstation; IBM RS 6000; NeXT; 4 megabytes of RAM; Platform math coprocessor; compatible with Windows, UNIX, DOS, VMS Program FORTRAN 77 Language • Detailed, hourly, whole-building energy analysis of multiple zones in buildings of Strengths complex design • Widely recognized as the industry standard Weaknesses High level of user knowledge Contact Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • Cost $300 to $2000, depending upon hardware platform and software vendor Availability • For a list of vendors and services, visit the website: http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirsoft/d2vendors.html
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 23
6. e-Bench
Name of the e-Bench software tool • Desktop computer tool for comprehensively measuring the energy, utility and environmental efficiency of a facility or process and comparing it to established benchmarks Description • It is a management tool that will create financial savings through reduced energy use and improved load management, and improve indoor environmental quality • Energy & environmental benchmarking • Energy audit Keywords • Invoice verification and reconciliation • Performance contract verification • Benchmarking corrections Validation/Testing • Validation of data entry is undertaken when populating the database • Populating the database with invoice consumption information is relatively straight forward Expertise Required • Collection and entering the facilities or processes attribute data requires a technical knowledge of the specific building or process The majority of New Zealand's universities, many government departments, hospitals, Users schools, local authorities, property management companies and a number of key industry sector participants Audience Public, commercial and industrial organizations • Required data on energy and utility consumption • Physical attributes, i.e. the floor areas, construction of walls, floors, roof, their Input materials, thickness, orientation, shape, etc. • Utilization information • Probably requires more initial data than any other type of database • The range of outputs is limitless and is capable of being fully customizable by the user. • It verifies and reports on any errors in invoices and/or any unexpected variations in consumption • It reports by individual buildings, process segments and provides it in an easily Output interpreted format of $, CO2 and kWh • It compares like facilities or processes against the sample average, best and worst and quantifies these differences again in $, CO2 and kWh. • Information is available both graphically and in individual reports Computer Web-based Platform Program Language Java and Sybase database engine • A one-stop-shop capable of meeting ALL energy and environmental efficiency requirements Strengths • e-Bench can include ALL energy sources, including electricity, reticulated gas, diesel, on site solar generation, biomass etc. Weaknesses No significant weaknesses Contact Energy and Technical Services The cost is a few hundred dollars plus a percentage of the total energy expenditure that is Availability capped at a value depending on the country the user is based
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 24
7. EMISS
Name of the EMISS software tool • Generates a file of local air-pollution emission coefficients • Used with the BLCC life-cycle cost program to estimate reductions in emissions Description associated with energy conservation projects • Three types of emission factors are currently included: carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide • Atmospheric pollution Keywords • Energy-related pollution emissions Validation/Testing N/A Expertise Required None required Users Distributed in connection with the BLCC life-cycle cost program to several thousand users • Federal Energy Managers and energy coordinators Audience • Engineers and architects • Budget analysts and planners Input • Regional or local emissions factors or fuel-specific end-use data Output • Preformatted tables of computed emission factors by type of fuel Computer PC-compatible. DOS version 3.0 or higher, Windows 3.x. No special graphics or hardware Platform is required Program Language Basic • Emission factors for fossil fuels can be regionalized or localized • Program contains state-specific electricity emission factors and U.S. average sulfur Strengths content of fossil fuels as default data • Users guide included as file with program The quality of the emissions factors depends on the user's knowledge of the factors that Weaknesses contribute to these emissions Contact National Institute of Standards and Technology Available for download from the FEMP web site: Availability http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/information/download_blcc.html
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 25
8. EnergyPlus
Name of the EnergyPlus software tool • Next generation building energy simulation program that builds on the most popular features and capabilities of BLAST and DOE-2 • Innovative simulation capabilities including time steps of less than an Description hour, modular systems simulation modules • Input and output data structures tailored to facilitate third party interface development • Energy simulation, load calculation, simulation Keywords • Building performance, energy performance • Heat balance, mass balance Validation/Testing EnergyPlus has been tested against the IEA BESTest building load and HVAC tests Expertise • High level of computer literacy not required Required • Engineering background helpful for analysis portions Users Over 46,000 copies of EnergyPlus downloaded Mechanical, energy, and architectural engineers working for architect/engineer firms, Audience consulting firms, utilities, federal agencies, research universities, and research laboratories • A simple ASCII input file Input • User-friendly interfaces • A number of ASCII output files - readily adapted into spreadsheet form for further Output analysis Computer Available for Windows 2000/XP and Linux. Platform Program Fortran 90 Language • Accurate, detailed simulation capabilities through complex modeling capabilities • Input is geared to the 'object' model way of thinking • Successful interfacing using IFC standard architectural model available for obtaining Strengths geometry from CAD programs • Extensive testing (comparing to available test suites • Weather data for more than 1250 locations worldwide available on the web site Weaknesses Text input may make it more difficult to use than graphical interfaces Contact US Department of Energy • EnergyPlus Version 3.0.0 was released in November 2008. Availability • Weather data for more than 2000 locations worldwide can be downloaded at no cost from the EnergyPlus Web site: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 26
9. FEDS
Name of the FEDS software tool • A comprehensive method for quickly and objectively identifying energy improvements that offer maximum savings • An easy-to-use tool for identifying energy efficiency measures, Description selecting minimum life-cycle costs, determining payback, and enabling users to prioritize retrofit options and compare alternative financing options • Multibuilding facilities and energy simulation • Retrofit opportunities Keywords • Emissions impacts • Life cycle costing and alternative financing Validation/Testing N/A • Minimal using readily available information Expertise Required • Requires two or more hours depending on number of buildings Users Over 1,500 Energy and facility managers, architects-engineers, utility planners, building technology Audience researchers, educators, federal agencies, and energy consultants • Location, building types, operating hours, age, square footage, fuels used by facility Input and energy price data are required • Numerous detailed engineering parameters are optional • Fuel-neutral analysis with full life-cycle costing of retrofit options (ECMs) for the on- site buildings Output • Output data includes energy and cost savings, emissions reductions, and a wide range of economic measures Computer PC-compatible, operating Windows 3.1x/9x/NT/2000. A Pentium-based (or equivalent) Platform processor or higher is recommended Program Language C • Allows but does not require input of engineering parameters • Energy/economic analysis • Models peak demand Strengths • Optimizes retrofit opportunities • Performs analysis that meets unique Federal needs • Accepts unlimited number of buildings • Engineering and economic parameters provided are user adjustable Weaknesses Not a building design tool Contact Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Version 4.1 available free to Federal agencies through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Availability Energy Clearinghouse, 1-800-DOE-EREC (363-3732)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 27
10. HEED
Name of the HEED software tool User-friendly energy design tool shows how much money can save by making Description changes to your home
• Whole building simulation • Energy efficient design and climate responsive design Keywords • Energy costs • Indoor air temperature HEED has been validated against the BESTEST protocol (ASHRAE Standard 140), and Validation/Testing against the results of experimental test cell data • No special expertise is required in the Basic Design section Expertise • The Advanced Design and Evaluation sections are intended for designers familiar Required with energy efficiency issues, and for energy consultants and engineers working on smaller buildings Users As of May 2007 more than 7800 download • Homeowners and ratepayers will be comfortable with the Basic Design section of Audience HEED which requires no special vocabulary or expertise • Designers and Energy Consultants, familiar with energy efficiency issues • To start HEED only four facts are required: building type, square footage, number of stories, and location • From this the expert system creates the two basecase buildings called "Meets Energy Code" and "More Energy Efficient" Input • The Basic Design information are things that any homeowner would know, and are input by click and drag or by selecting from radio button lists of building components • The Advanced Design inputs are tabular inputs of thermal characteristics, dimensions, schedules, etc. • HEED is unique in that most of its performance data is presented graphically, in a wide array of formats • The basic output is a bar chart of gas and electricity annual costs, based on local Output utility rates, for up to nine different schemes • Advanced outputs includes 3D plots for each hour of dozens of different variables • 3D bar charts comparing over 40 variables against up to 9 schemes and tabular data Computer Windows, from 95 to XP, and also on Mac OS 10.2 or later Platform Program Java, C, and Fortran Language • Simplicity of use, ease of input data, a wide array of graphic output techniques, computational speed, and the ability to quickly compare multiple design alternatives • Uses a sophisticated 8760 hour whole-building heat balance simulation algorithm, Strengths includes an intelligent whole-house fan thermostat and window-dependent daylighting controls, and calculates the air pollution implications of design decisions • Automatically manage up to nine schemes in up to 24 different projects • Limited to single-zone buildings and generic HVAC systems • Basic Design is limited to four types of residential buildings, but Advanced Design Weaknesses users can input data for any building type • Currently contains only California electric rates, but they can be user modified Contact Energy Design Tools Group at the UCLA Availability No cost from the web site: http://www.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 28
11. LISA
Name of the LISA software tool Description Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) decision support tool for construction • Life cycle analysis • Sustainability Keywords • Utilization • Embodied energy Validation/Testing N/A Expertise No special training required Required Users 400 Audience Architects, construction industry professionals, educators, and researchers • Bill of Materials & Quantities, work Schedule, fuel consumption by construction equipment Input • HVAC, services and fittings • Utilization schedules • Output is in graphical and table form showing the environmental impact of each stage in terms of: resource energy use in GJ, GGE in tones of equivalent CO2, SPM, NMVOC, Output water, NOx, and SOx • Base Material Data and a Bill of Material Quantities are also reported Computer PC, Pentium class or higher with Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP Platform Program Visual Basic Language • LCA Strengths • Highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a building in terms of energy Weaknesses Doesn't do thermal modeling Contact University of Newcastle Availability Free Download from the web site: www.lisa.au.com
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 29
12. REEP
Name of the REEP software tool • Performs large scale (national, multi-installation, installation-wide) analysis of energy and water conservation projects in the Department of Defense (DOD) • REEP (Renewables and Energy Efficiency Program) analyzes 104 energy- and water- Description efficiency technologies at 210 DOD installations • The technologies are evaluated for their energy savings potential, financial viability, and pollution abatement potential • Energy- and water-efficiency strategies • Economic analysis Keywords • Pollution abatement • DOD installations Sustainability Validation/Testing N/A Expertise • Ability to run Windows-type menu-driven interface Required • Some knowledge of resource-saving technologies and economic analyses Users Approximately 200 DOD energy managers, associated contracting firms, and high-level Federal budget analysts, Audience private sector businesses Input None required • Succinct energy, financial, pollution, executive and graphical reports available along with very detailed output Output • The output can be sorted, printed, displayed, loaded to disk, or exported to spreadsheet format Computer PC-compatible, 486 or higher microprocessor, 16 Mb RAM or more, 10 MB of hard drive Platform space, Windows 9x or higher operating system Program Visual FoxPro 6.0 Language No input required, ease of use, fast runtime, comprehensive technology coverage, flexible Strengths report output, and extensive on-line help • Accuracy of analysis is only as good as the accuracy of the installation data and default parameters Weaknesses • Analysis below the National level should include on-site fine tuning of input data • Works only at DOD domestic installations Contact Engineering Research Development Center-CERL Availability Available at no cost from the web site: http://owww.cecer.army.mil/reep/reep.html
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 30
13. SOLAR-5
Name of the SOLAR-5 software tool • Displays 3-D plots of hourly energy performance for the whole building or for 9 schemes and any of 40 different components • SOLAR-5 also plots heat flow into/out of thermal mass, and Description indoor air temperature, daylighting, output of the HVAC system, cost of electricity and heating fuel, and the corresponding amount of air pollution • Design Keywords • Residential and small commercial buildings Validation/Testing SOLAR-5 has been validated against DOE-2 and BLAST using the BESTEST procedure Expertise • Intended to be self-instructional, with built-in help options Required • Requires only basic familiarity with computers and with architectural vocabulary Estimated in the thousands; known to run in over a third of the schools of architecture in the Users U.S. and in dozens of architectural firms Audience Architects, students of architecture, building managers, knowledgeable homeowners • From only four pieces of data initially required (floor area, number of stories, location, and building type) Input • The expert system designs a basic building, filling in hundreds of items of data • User can make subsequent revisions, usually beginning with overall building dimensions, window sizes, etc • Dozens of different kinds of 3-D plots, tables, and reports. • Displays heat gain/loss for over a dozen different building components • Heat flow into and out of the thermal mass of the building Output • The output of the heating and air conditioning systems • Air temperatures (outdoors or indoors) and air change rates • The cost of heating fuel and electricity • The building's air pollution 'footprint' for six gasses Computer All Windows platforms and emulators; needs 2 megabytes of RAM Platform Program Visual Fortran Language • Intended for use at the very earliest stages of the design process Strengths • Extremely user friendly and extremely rapid, calculating all 8760 hours of the year using TMY data in condensed format Weaknesses Not intended for complex mechanical system design or equipment sizing Contact Department of Architecture and Urban Design • SOLAR-5 has now been incorporated in HEED, Home Energy Efficient Design, a newer and more user-friendly version. SOLAR-5 was mostly recently updated in June Availability 2000 and is free • HEED and SOLAR-5 can be downloaded from the web site: http://www2.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools/
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 31
APPENDIX B. Review for Emissions Calculators from World Wide Web
The review of emissions calculations and the detailed description were illustrated in the section 2.2 “Task 3: Review and test existing emissions calculators from World Wide Web” in this report.
The screenshots of the following 46 emissions tools are shown in Appendix D.
Following is the list for the existing emissions calculators:
1 Power Profiler 2 Household Emissions Calculator 3.1 Emissions Calculator 3 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator 4 AirHead Emissions Calculator 5 Carbon Pollution Calculator, Electric Power Pollution Calculator 6 Non-Flash carbon footprint calculator 7 NOx Calculator 8 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator 9 Climate Change Calculator 10 Terrapass emissions calculator 11 Calculate your impact 12 BEF Carbon Calculator 13 Emissions Calculator 14 Carbon Calculator 15.1 eCalc (Using 2007 eGrid) 15 15.2 eCalc (Using 1999 eGrid) 16 Carbon Footprint Calculator 17 Carbon Calculator 18 Calculated your personal impact 19 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator 20 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation 21 CarbonCounter 22 Carbon Calculators 23 Carbon dioxide emissions calculator 24 Impact calculator 25 CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator 26 SafeClimate Calculator 27 Carbon Calculators 28 Business CO2 Calculator 29 Earthlab carbon calculator 30 Carbon Calculators 31 Carbon Calculators 32 Personal GHG Emission Calculators 33 GHG emissions calculation 34 Office Footprint Calculator
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 32
35 Carbon Emissions Calculator 36 Carbon Calculator 37 Personal Carbon Emission Calculators 38 Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calculator 39 EcoCalculator 40 the Campus Carbon Calculator 41 Clean Air and Climate Protection Software 42 MARKAL 43 CARMA 44 HEED 45 GHG Tool for Buildings in California 46 FEDS
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 33
APPENDIX C. List of the Online Calculators for the Emissions Test
The test results of emission calculations and the detailed description were illustrated in the section 2.2 “Task 2: Review and test existing emission calculators from World Wide Web” in this report.
The screenshots for the tested calculators are shown in Appendix D.
Following is the list of the 33 emissions calculators which were tested for this report:
1 Power Profiler 2 Household Emissions Calculator 3.1 Emissions Calculator 3.2 Emission Reductions Calculator 5 Carbon Pollution Calculator, Electric Power Pollution Calculator 6 Non-Flash carbon footprint calculator 7 NOx Calculator 8 Residential Calculator & Business Calculator 9 Climate Change Calculator 10 Terrapass emissions calculator 11 Calculate your impact 12 BEF Carbon Calculator 13 Emissions Calculator 14 Carbon Calculator 15.1 eCalc (Using 2007 eGrid) 15.2 eCalc (Using 1999 eGrid) 16 Carbon Footprint Calculator 17 Carbon Calculator 18 Calculated your personal impact 19 America Online's Personal Impact Calculator 20 ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation 21 CarbonCounter 22 Carbon Calculators 23 Carbon dioxide emissions calculator 25 CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator 26 SafeClimate Calculator 27 Carbon Calculators 29 Earthlab carbon calculator 30 Carbon Calculators 33 GHG emissions calculation 35 Carbon Emissions Calculator 37 Personal Carbon Emission Calculators 38 Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calculator
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 34
APPENDIX D. Screenshots of Emissions Calculators
Appendix D presents the screenshots of 48 Emissions Calculators to show how the emissions calculators are look like and how they were tested. However, this appendix does not show screenshots of 15 emissions calculators for the emissions test due to several reasons: not applicable for residential energy use, out of supposed conditions, not a web-based calculator, and so on. The list of the 48 emissions calculators is same as the list in the Appendix B. The test list of the 33 online emissions calculators is shown in Appendix C.
1. Power Profiler
Institute or Company EPA
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 35
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 36
2. Household Emissions Calculator
Institute or Company EPA
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 37
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 38
3. 3.1 Emissions Calculator
Institute or Company Leonardo Academy
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 39
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 40
4. 3.2 Emissions Reductions Calculator
Institute or Company Leonardo Academy
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 41
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 42
5. AirHead Emissions Calculator
Institute or Company AirHead
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Emissions result is the value for total emissions of (Emissions result is the value for total emissions of CO2, NOx, CO, SO2, and others) CO2, NOx, CO, SO2, and others)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 43
6. Carbon Pollution Calculator, Electric Power Pollution Calculator
Institute or Company Texas State Energy Conservation Office
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 44
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 45
7. Non-Flash carbon footprint calculator
Institute or Company BP
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 46
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 47
8. NOx Calculator
Institute or Company ESA 21
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 48
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 49
9. Residential Calculator & Business Calculator
Institute or Company Earthlogic. Inc.
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 50
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 51
10. Climate Change Calculator
Institute or Company American Forests
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 52
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 53
11. Terrapass emissions calculator
Institute or Company TerraPass. Inc.
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 54
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 55
12. Calculate your impact
Institute or Company Climatecrisis Website
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 56
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 57
13. BEF Carbon Calculator
Institute or Company Bonneville Environmental Foundation
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 58
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 59
14. Emissions Calculator
Institute or Company Abraxas Energy Consulting
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 60
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 61
15. Carbon Calculator Institute or Company Ecosystem Restoration Associates
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 62
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 63
16. 15.1 eCalc (Using 2007 eGrid)
Institute or Company Energy System Laboratory
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 64
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 65
17. 15.2 eCalc (Using 1999 eGrid)
Institute or Company Energy System Laboratory
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 66
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 67
18. Carbon Footprint Calculator
Institute or Company Carbon Footprint Ltd
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 68
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 69
19. Carbon Calculator
Institute or Company The Nature Conservancy
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 70
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 71
20. Calculated your personal impact
Institute or Company Environmental Defense Fund
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 72
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 73
21. America Online's Personal Impact Calculator
Institute or Company AOL
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 74
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 75
22. ICLEI Personal CO2 Calculation
Institute or Company ICLEI
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 76
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 77
23. CarbonCounter
Institute or Company The Climate Trust
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 78
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 79
24. Carbon Calculators
Institute or Company Carbonfund
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 80
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 81
25. Carbon dioxide emissions calculator
Institute or Company Carbonify
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 82
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 83
26. Impact calculator
Institute or Company Low Impact Living
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Out of Conditions) (Out of Conditions)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 84
27. CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator
Institute or Company The Berkeley Institute of the Environment
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 85
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 86
28. SafeClimate Calculator
Institute or Company SafeClimate, World Resources Institute
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 87
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 88
29. Carbon Calculators
Institute or Company ClimateCare
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 89
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 90
30. Business CO2 Calculator
Institute or Company ClimateCare
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Out of Conditions) (Out of Conditions)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 91
31. Earthlab carbon calculator
Institute or Company Earthlab
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 92
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 93
32. Carbon Calculators
Institute or Company Azcentral.com
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 94
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 95
33. Carbon Calculators
Institute or Company Natural Gas
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Out of Conditions) (Out of Conditions)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 96
34. Personal GHG Emission Calculators
Institute or Company GreenRegistry
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Out of Conditions) (Out of Conditions)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 97
35. GHG emissions calculation
Institute or Company Zero GHG
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 98
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 99
36. Office Footprint Calculator
Institute or Company The Green Office
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (For Commercial Building) (For Commercial Building)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 100
37. Carbon Emissions Calculator
Institute or Company DTE Energy
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 101
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 102
38. Carbon Calculator
Institute or Company MSN Microsoft
Screenshot for the webpage or software
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
N/A N/A (Same as #11 Calculator, Climatecrisis Website) (Same as #11 Calculator, Climatecrisis Website)
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 103
39. Personal Carbon Emission Calculators
Institute or Company SMECO
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 104
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 105
40. Household Carbon Dioxide Emission Calculator
Institute or Company CarbonZero
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 106
Screenshot of the Test for Elec. Use Screenshot of the Test for N.G. Use
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 107
41. EcoCalculator
Institute or Company Athena Institute
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 108
42. The Campus Carbon Calculator
Institute or Company Clean-Air-Cool Planet
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 109
43. Clean Air and Climate Protection Software
Institute or Company ICLEI
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 110
44. MARKAL
Institute or Company EPA
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 111
45. CARMA
Institute or Company CARMA
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 112
46. HEED
Institute or Company UCLA
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 113
47. GHG Tool for Buildings in California
Institute or Company Energy and Environment Economics. Inc.
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 114
48. FEDS
Institute or Company Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Screenshot for the webpage or software
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Page 115
APPENDIX E Estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals
Estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals
Presented to the Public Utility Commission of Texas
By the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Systems Laboratory
December 2008
February 2009 Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University System
Estimation of Annual Reductions of NOx Emissions in ERCOT for the HB3693 Electricity Savings Goals
Presented to the Public Utility Commission of Texas
By the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Systems Laboratory
December 2008
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...... 3
I. Summary...... 4
II. Introduction and Background ...... 4
A. Texas House Bill 3693 ...... 5
B. Previous Uses of this Methodology...... 5
III. Methodology, Data, and Assumptions ...... 7
A. Assigning Energy Savings to CM Zones...... 7
B. Assigning Generation Reductions within Each CM Zone to Individual Plants...... 11
C. Determining Plant Specific NOx Emission Rates...... 13
D. Final Steps of Analysis – Putting the Pieces Together...... 14
IV. Results ...... 15
IV. Conclusion ...... 19
VI. References...... 20
Appendix A. Additional Figures: Estimate NOx Emissions Reductions by Utility Specific Energy Savings Targets...... 22
Appendix B. Abbreviations and Acronyms...... 27
Tables
Table 1: 2010 Energy Savings Targets by ERCOT Utility by Zone (30 Percent Reduction Scenario)...... 9 Table 2: 2015 Energy Savings Targets by ERCOT Utility by Zone (50 Percent Reduction Scenario)...... 9 Table 3: Year 2007 Generation Data by CM Zone ...... 10 Table 4: Power Energy Flow Data between the CM Zones in Year 2007 (MWh)...... 10 Table 5: Results of Analysis Including and Not Including Energy Losses ...... 15 Table 6: Distribution of the Emission Reductions per CM Zone for each County (Year 2010) ...16 Table 7: Distribution of the Emission Reductions per CM Zone for each County (Year 2015) ..17
Figures
Figure 1: ERCOT Congestion Management Zones, Year 2007 ...... 8 Figure 2: Utilities in ERCOT...... 8 Figure 3: Assignment of electricity consumption to reduced generation in each CM zone...... 11 Figure 4: Capacity Factor Relationship...... 13 2 Figure 5: Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for ERCOT (Year 2010)...... 18 Figure 6: Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for ERCOT (Year 2015)...... 18 Figure A- 1: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for AEP Central by County 22 Figure A- 2: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for AEP North by County ....22 Figure A- 3: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for Centerpoint by County...23 Figure A- 4: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for Oncor by County ...... 23 Figure A- 5: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for TNMP by County...... 24 Figure A- 6: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for AEP Central by County 24 Figure A- 7: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for AEP North by County ....25 Figure A- 8: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for Centerpoint by County...25 Figure A- 9: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for Oncor by County ...... 26 Figure A- 10: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for TNMP by County ...... 26
Acknowledgements
This report was developed by Art Diem and Denise Mulholland of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State and Local Clean Energy-Environment Program Branch, and by Jim Yarbrough of EPA Region 6, and by Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Ph.D., Piljae Im, and Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D., P.E., of Texas A&M University’s Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL). EPA greatly appreciates the substantial contributions provided by Jess Totten, Theresa Gross, and Richard Greffe of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT); Warren Lasher of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT); Cory Chism, Ron Thomas, and Barry Exum of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); and Dub Taylor and Steven Ross of the Texas State Energy Conservation Office.
3 I. Summary
Increasing the level of energy efficiency in Texas, as proposed by House Bill 3693, an Act related to energy demand, energy load, energy efficiency incentives, energy programs and energy performance measures, would reduce the amount of electricity demanded from Texas utilities. Since approximately eighty-eight percent of electricity generated in Texas is from plants powered by fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, this decrease would also reduce the air pollution that would otherwise be associated with burning these fuels. This report presents the potential emission reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would occur in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region if new energy efficiency targets for investor owned utilities are established for 2010 and 2015. These energy efficiency targets are the subject of a feasibility study as prescribed by Texas House Bill 3693. This report describes the details of the methodology, data and assumptions used, and presents the results of the analysis.
The total energy savings targets for utilities within ERCOT are 745,710 megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2010 under the 30 percent reduction of growth scenario and 1,788,953 MWh by 2015 under the 50 percent reduction of growth scenario. The total projected annual NOx emissions reductions from these electricity savings are 191 tons in 2010 and 453 tons in 2015, or converting the annual totals into average daily avoided emissions totals, 0.5 tons per day by 2010 and 1.25 tons per day by 2015. The average avoided emission rate is approximately 0.51 pounds (lb) of NOx reduced per MWh of electricity savings.
While House Bill 3693 is an Act related to energy and does not target emissions levels, the energy efficiency improvements would achieve air pollution benefits that could positively affect air quality and human health. The emissions reductions projected to result in 2010 and 2015 are comparable to the Texas Emission Reduction Program (TERP) Energy-Efficiency Grants Program, which does target emission reductions and estimated 2005 annual NOx emissions reductions of about 89 tons. While the projected emissions reductions are small compared to the total emission reductions needed to bring the state’s non-attainment areas into attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, they can be a part of an overall strategy to reduce emissions and improve human health in Texas.
II. Introduction and Background
Approximately 88 percent of electricity generated in Texas is from plants powered by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas (EPA, 2008). The combustion of fossil fuels for electric generation produces primary criteria air pollutants which include: particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx. In the presence of sunlight, VOCs, NOx and CO react with other compounds in the air forming ozone (O3). NOx and SO2 react in the atmosphere forming fine particulate matter (PM2.5). O3 and PM2.5 are linked most frequently with a variety of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and premature death. The combustion of fossil fuels also produces greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming.
Using energy efficiency to serve the growth in energy demand in Texas will reduce the amount of electricity that would otherwise be generated by fossil fuels and reduce the amount of pollution in Texas associated with that generation. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the amount of NOx emissions reductions that are likely to occur in 2010 and 2015 under the
4 scenarios being explored by the PUCT. These reductions would achieve air quality benefits and human health benefits for the state of Texas and can be considered as the state considers expanding its energy efficiency programs.
A. Texas House Bill 3693
Texas House Bill 3693, signed into law June 15, 2007 by Governor Rick Perry and effective September 1, 2007, is an Act relating to energy demand, energy load, energy efficiency incentives, energy programs, and energy performance measures. This Act called for, among other things, utility administered programs and incentives for increasing energy efficiency. Specifically, the utilities are to achieve or facilitate energy efficiency improvements for residential and commercial customers equivalent to at least:
• 10 percent of the electric utility’s annual growth in demand of residential and commercial customers by December 31, 2007; • 15 percent of the electric utility’s annual growth in demand of residential and commercial customers by December 31, 2008, provided that the electric utility’s program expenditures for 2008 funding may not be greater than 75 percent above the utility’s program budget for 2007 for residential and commercial customers, as included in the April 1, 2006, filing; and • 20 percent of the electric utility’s annual growth in demand of residential and commercial customers by December 31, 2009, provided that the electric utility’s program expenditures for 2009 funding may not be greater than 150 percent above the utility’s program budget for 2007 for residential and commercial customers, as included in the April 1, 2006, filing;1
The Act also called for the Public Utility Commission to conduct a study, to be submitted to the Legislature not later than January 15, 2009, that evaluates the feasibility of achieving an increase in the goal to using energy efficiency to achieve 30 percent of the growth in demand for each affected utility by December 31, 2010 and 50 percent of the growth in demand for electricity by December 31, 2015.
B. Previous Uses of this Methodology
The basic elements of the methodology used in this report have precedent in a number of reports regarding NOx emission reductions in the ERCOT region. This methodology has been used to estimate NOx emission reductions for the Dallas Fort Worth State Implementation Plan, and by TCEQ and ESL to estimate NOx reductions from various energy efficiency and renewable energy programs implemented in the ERCOT region.
On March 5, 2003, TCEQ submitted its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control of ozone air pollution for the Dallas/Fort Worth non-attainment area which included an analysis of NOx emission reductions from energy efficiency programs2. The energy efficiency measures in this SIP revision encompassed the energy efficiency mandates pursuant to Senate Bill 7 of the 76th Texas Legislature and pursuant to Senate Bill 5 of the 77th Texas Legislature.
1 See HB3693, section 22 which describes how the utilizes code is amended http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB03693F.HTM 2 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/mar2003dfw.html, specifically “Appendix A: Description of the Methodology for Determining Credit for Energy Efficiency” 5 Additionally, this methodology was used in several reports prepared by the Energy Systems Laboratory, some of which were submitted to the Texas Legislature, including: - Preliminary Report: Integrated NOx Emissions Savings From EE/RE Statewide, Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Impact (ESL, 2008a) - NOx Emissions Reduction From Continuous Commissioning® Measures for the Dallas- Fort Worth International Airport (ESL, 2008b); - 15% Above-Code Energy Efficiency Measures for Residential Buildings in Texas (ESL, 2007a); - 15% Above-Code Energy Efficiency Measures for Commercial Buildings in Texas (ESL, 2007b); - Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables: A Report to the TCEQ for Sept. 2006 - Aug. 2007 (ESL, 2007c); - A Methodology for Calculating Emissions Reductions from Renewable Energy Programs and its Application to the Wind Farms in the Texas ERCOT Region (ESL, 2007d); - A Methodology for Calculating Integrated NOx Emissions Reduction from Energy- Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE/RE) Programs across State Agencies in Texas (ESL, 2007e).
6 III. Methodology, Data, and Assumptions
This analysis uses a simplified dispatch approach of the ERCOT grid to estimate NOx emission reductions across the ERCOT region in Texas. The simplified dispatch method reduces the generation from plants that are expected to be operating in future years and reduces NOx emissions at these plants by the expected reduction in output emission rate of these plants. This method does not use an electric system planning model, or an electric system dispatch model, which could more fully reflect some of the dynamics of the electricity system than is presented here.
Based on the reduction targets identified by the legislature for investor owned utilities, this study assigns the electric generation reductions at specific fossil fuel fired plants that currently exist and to plants that are scheduled to be online in the years examined in this analysis, 2010 and 2015. Step one of the method assigns the potential energy savings targets of each affected investor owned utility in ERCOT, which are then applied to the respective congestion management (CM) zones based on the proportion of the utility’s load in each CM zone. The second step applies the energy savings to generation from each CM zone based on year 2007 generation and power flows across these zones. The third step applies the CM zone specific reductions in generation to each plant within the CM zone based on the amount of the plant’s generation that could be affected by energy efficiency measures, which is derived from a function of the plant’s capacity factor. The fourth step is to apply a plant specific output NOx emission rate to the expected reduction in electric generation. These emission rates are based on year 2005 EPA’s eGRID emission rates and TCEQ’s most current baseline emissions inventory for year 2005 and for projected year 2018. The last step is to sum the plant specific emission reductions to the county level. The potential emissions reductions are presented for each of the investor owned utilities and in aggregate for all five ERCOT utilities under the year 2010 and 2015 energy savings scenarios. The specific steps, assumptions, and data sources and results are described below.
A. Assigning Energy Savings to CM Zones
Assigning ERCOT 2010 and 2015 investor owned utility savings targets to CM zones
ERCOT is currently divided into four CM zones that are defined by their impact on commercially significant constraints (CSC) between the zones. These CSCs limit the flow of energy from one of the major zones in the ERCOT Region into another. There were four CM zones in ERCOT in 2007: Houston (H), North (N), South (S), and West (W). There are limits on the amount of power that can flow between these zones. ERCOT currently structures its balancing energy market based on CM zones. Figure 1 shows the CM zones for the year 2007.
7
Figure 1: ERCOT Congestion Management Zones, Year 20073
North West
South Houston
This study apportioned the energy savings from each ERCOT utility into each congestion management zone based on a historical proportion of consumption in each zone. The utilities examined in this analysis and the location of their service territories are found in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Utilities in ERCOT4
3 Source of graphic: http://www.tractebelenergyservices.com/Marketfund/ERCOT.aspx 4 Source of graphic: http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/maps/map.cfm (as updated 06/05/2007).
8 Tables 1 and 2 show each utility’s total energy saving target in MWh and the percentage of total energy savings within each zone used in the analysis. For AEP Central, AEP North, and Centerpoint, the consumption is assumed to be completely in the South, West and Houston zones, respectively. For Oncor and TNMP, the consumption percentages were based on the average actual loads for each utility in each CM zone on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1, 2008, as provided by ERCOT. For example, the energy savings target for Oncor is distributed about 85% to the North (N) CM Zone, about 12% to the West (W) Zone, and about 3% to the South (S) Zone.
Table 1: 2010 Energy Savings Targets by ERCOT Utility by Zone (30 Percent Reduction Scenario) Target 2010 Percent of savings in each CM Zone Energy Savings (MWh) H N W S AEP Central 68,760 100.00% AEP North 1,860 100.00% Centerpoint 408,311 100.00% Oncor 220,803 84.97% 11.87% 3.16% TNMP 45,976 64.03% 28.67% 7.31% Total 745,710 58.70% 26.93% 4.21% 10.16%
Table 2: 2015 Energy Savings Targets by ERCOT Utility by Zone (50 Percent Reduction Scenario)
Target 2015 Percent of savings in each CM Zone Energy Savings (MWh) H N W S AEP Central 118,300 100.00% AEP North 9,200 100.00% Centerpoint 864,428 100.00% Oncor 734,264 84.97%11.87% 3.16% TNMP 62,761 64.03%28.67% 7.31% Total 1,788,953 50.57% 35.88% 5.64% 7.91%
Power flows across CM zones
Since electricity flows between CM zones, the energy savings targets that occur in one CM zone will reduce generation within and outside the CM zone. This analysis calculates the proportion of generation in each zone for consumption in a particular zone by examining the 2007 generation in each CM zone and the 2007 power flow between each CM zone. A set of four equations with four unknowns that simultaneously balances annual generation and annual interchanges between each zone was solved using matrix algebra. Table 3 contains the year 2007 generation data by CM zone as provided by ERCOT.
9 Table 3: Year 2007 Generation Data by CM Zone CM Zone Data Gen (MWh)
Houston 57,359,385
North 138,182,204 West 20,834,067 South 91,407,605 Total 307,783,261
Table 4 contains the power flow data (ERCOT, 2008). In this table, the rows are the importing zones and the columns are the zones from which the energy is imported. For example, in the first row, 12,986,824 MWh were imported to the Houston (H) CM zone from the North (N) CM Zone, and 9,943,695 MWh were imported to the Houston (H) CM zone from the South (S) CM zone.
Table 4: Power Energy Flow Data between the CM Zones in Year 2007 (MWh) Importing Zones Below Exporting Zones Right H N W S Total Import H 12,986,824 9,943,695 22,930,519 N 6,701 825,555 1,182,743 2,015,000 W 1,057,394 1,057,394 S 871,989 807,564 1,679,553 Sum Export 878,690 14,851,783 825,555 11,126,438
Figure 3 shows the results of the calculation of simultaneous equations. To read Figure 3, each stacked bar shows how much electricity consumption of the labeled bar is sourced from generation in each zone. For example, for the Houston zone, 71.52 percent of consumption originates from generation in the Houston Zone, 16.07 percent originates from the North Zone, 0.09 percent from the West Zone, and 12.31 percent from the South Zone. The percentages in Figure 3 are used to assign consumption reductions from energy efficiency to the generators in each CM zone.
10
Figure 3: Assignment of electricity consumption to reduced generation in each CM zone
Assignment of Consumption Reductions to Generators in each CM Zone 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% CM zones10% 0% Houston North West South Houston 71.52% 0.01% 0.00% 0.67% North 16.07% 98.60% 4.76% 1.01% West 0.09% 0.56% 95.20% 0.01% South 12.31% 0.83% 0.04% 98.32%
The results show that most of the electricity savings occurring in each zone would result in reductions of generation from plants within that same zone. However, because of the relatively large amount of power that is imported into the Houston Zone, a larger proportion of energy savings in the Houston area would reduce generation at plants outside of the Houston Zone, particularly from the South and North Zones.
This 2007-based pattern of power flow is assumed to be the same for both years of the analysis, 2010 and 2015. In the forthcoming nodal market, which will replace today’s CM zones, the ERCOT grid will have more than 4,000 nodes. This change will likely have some influence over how electricity flows within the grid, however, the fundamental locations of electricity production and consumption are not expected to change drastically. Also, for this analysis, the small amount of interchange between ERCOT and other grids outside of ERCOT is assumed to be zero.
B. Assigning Generation Reductions within Each CM Zone to Individual Plants
The generation reductions within each zone are apportioned to the fossil fuel fired plants in the zone. This analysis assumes that nuclear, hydro-electric, and wind generation will not be curtailed due to reduced electricity consumption from energy efficiency programs. The sources of data for the electric generating units are eGRID2007 (Year 2005 operational data), new and proposed generating units from ERCOT, and from TCEQ’s baseline emissions inventory (year 2005 and projections for year 2018) provided by TCEQ.
11 Some plants are broken down into more than one unit. This is to accommodate new units at existing plants and the reality that the dispatch of electricity frequently occurs at the unit level, rather than at the plant level.
The emission factors and capacity factors at units that are scheduled to have increased capacity, that is “uprates,” are kept the same, and only the capacity and annual generation are increased according to the number of megawatts (MW) scheduled.
This analysis assigns a 25 percent capacity factor for new gas units and a 75 percent capacity factor for new coal units. According to eGRID, the year 2005 total weighted average capacity factor for all plants in ERCOT that generated electricity from coal was 76.2 percent. The 75 percent assumption for new coal plants approximates the year 2005 value for coal plants. According to eGRID, the year 2005 total weighted average capacity factor for all plants in ERCOT that generated at least 90 percent of electricity from natural gas was 26.1 percent. The 25 percent assumption for new natural gas plants approximates this year 2005 value.
Use of capacity factor to assign generation reductions to individual plants and units
The amount of generation that could potentially be affected by efficiency is determined by a function of the unit’s capacity factor. The capacity factor is a measure of how much generation the unit produces compared to running at its maximum rated capacity for the entire year. In this step, plants that have a capacity factor of 0.8 or greater are considered to be baseload units and none of their generation would be affected by energy efficiency measures. In addition, plants that have a capacity factor of 0.2 or less are considered to be “peaking” units and all of their generation would be affected by energy efficiency measures. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between capacity factor and how much of each plant’s generation could be affected by energy efficiency. For example, a unit with a capacity factor of 25 percent would have about 92 percent of its generation that could be affected by efficiency measures, and a unit with a capacity factor of 75 percent would have about 8 percent of its generation that could be affected by efficiency measures.
Within each zone, all of the generation that could be affected by energy efficiency measures is summed. Each plant’s available generation reductions are then divided by this total amount, expressing the values as a percent of the CM zone total. This procedure assumes that there are no transmission constraints within each CM zone. However, grid loss factors are accounted for later in the procedure.
12 Figure 4: Capacity Factor Relationship 110
100
90 EE that
80 by
70 60
Generation 50 Affected
Measures of
be 40
30
could 20 Percent 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Capacity Factor
The energy savings in each zone are applied to each unit’s generation in proportion to the amount of “non-baseload” generation determined by the capacity factor relationship.
C. Determining Plant Specific NOx Emission Rates
The annual NOx emission rate for each plant or unit was determined in this step. The original annual emission rate in lb/MWh from the eGRID year 2005 data was used as a baseline. Some of the power plants were broken into individual units in a similar fashion with the previous step, and the individual emission rate for the unit was used for the calculation.
Then, the daily NOx emissions in tons for each plant and unit from the TCEQ baseline year 2005 and 2018 (scenario B) were used to bring the eGRID 2005 emission rates to current level. The projected emission inventory 2018 scenario B used in this analysis is a NOx emissions inventory forecast for electric generators without the Clean Air Interstate Rule. This is a scenario proposed by TCEQ for sensitivity purposes in its ongoing HGB SIP modeling work as of October 2008. Scenario B includes more pending permit fossil fuel fired electric generating units than in Scenario A. For the existing plants, the eGRID 2005 emission rate was multiplied by the annual emission from 2018 scenario B over the emission from 2005 scenario.
a = b % (c / d)
Where: a: Calculated NOx emission rate (lb/MWh) b: Annual NOx emission rate from the eGRID 2005 (lb/MWh) c: Daily NOx emissions from the TCEQ 2018 scenario (Tons) d: Daily NOx emissions from the TCEQ 2005 scenario (Tons)
After calculating the NOx emission rate using the equation above, if the calculated NOx emission rate was larger than the rate from the eGRID 2005, the rate from the eGRID 2005 was assigned instead. This procedure ensures that any reductions in plant emission rates since the year
13 2005 are incorporated into the analysis. If (c / d) is greater than one, then the eGRID emission rate for year 2005 is used. For new plants or units, the NOx emission rate from the TCEQ 2018 scenario was assigned. Since the TCEQ scenario provides emissions in tons of NOx per typical day, the emission rate in lb/MWh was calculated as shown below.
e = ( f % 2000) / (g % 24 % h)
Where: e: Plant annual NOx emission rate (lb/MWh) f: Typical daily NOx emissions from the TCEQ 2018 scenario (Tons per day) g: Plant nameplate capacity (MW) h: Plant capacity factor
The NOx emission rate of the new power plants that were not found in the TCEQ data was assumed to be 1 lb/MWh.
D. Final Steps of Analysis – Putting the Pieces Together
As a final step of the analysis, the information from the previous steps (that is, power energy flow data between CM zones, percent generation reduction in CM zone, and the NOx emission rate) are combined so that the generation reductions and the corresponding NOx emission reductions for each “non-baseload” plant within ERCOT are determined for a given amount of electricity demand savings that is implemented in a particular CM zone. Then, the plant level data were summed into countywide totals.
The NOx emission reductions calculated using this analysis can be determined with or without grid loss factors. In the conservative case, 1 kWh reduction in consumption relates to about 1 kWh of generation reduction. In the case considering the transmission and distribution loss factor, 1 kWh of reduction in electricity consumption relates to 1.0618 kWh of generation reduction. The Texas specific 6.18 percent factor is from eGRID2007 (year 2005 data). This eGRID value is calculated from various EIA sources, specifically, EIA Electric Power Annual state specific generation and electric sales data, and EIA-861 data.
14 IV. Results
The analysis showed that the total energy savings targets of 745,710 MWh by 2010 under the 30% reduction of growth scenario and 1,788,953 MWh by 2015 under the 50% reduction of growth scenario would achieve total projected annual NOx emissions reductions of 191 tons in 2010 and 453 tons in 2015. By converting the annual totals into average daily avoided emissions totals, another way to present this is that the electricity reductions would reduce NOx emissions 0.5 tons per day by 2010 and 1.25 tons per day by 2015. The average avoided emission rate is approximately 0.51 pounds of NOx reduced per MWh of electricity savings.
The estimate above takes into account the transmission and distribution losses that occur between the points of generation and the points of consumption. As discussed in section III D above, the grid loss factor used in this analysis is 6.18%. If the energy losses that occur during transmission and distribution of electricity are not factored into the results, the avoided emissions avoided would be smaller. Table 5 displays the total estimated emission reduction results for years 2010 and 2015, including and excluding the grid loss factor.
Table 5: Results of Analysis Including and Not Including Energy Losses 2010 2015 Including Without Including Without energy energy losses energy losses energy losses losses Annual NOx Emission 191 180 453 427 Reductions (tons) Average Daily NOx Emission 0.52 0.49 1.24 1.17 Reductions (tons/day) Total NOx Emission Reductions divided by Total energy 0.512 0.482 0.507 0.477 savings goal (tons reduced per MWh of savings)
Tables 6 and 7 present the distribution of the emissions per CM zone for each county and for the total energy savings targets under the 2010 and 2015 goals, respectively. Figures 5 and 6 provide graphical representations of the cumulative NOx emission reductions for Texas counties for the savings targets under 2010 and 2015 goals, respectively. These numbers are based on the addition of a factor of transmission and distribution losses of 6.18 percent. As expected most of the NOx emission reduction would come for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area. Similar plots for utility specific year 2010 and 2015 goals are presented in Appendix A.
15 Table 6: Distribution of the Emission Reductions per CM Zone for each County (Year 2010) CM Zones County HNWS (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb Total (lbs) Total (Tons) Andrews 0.000004 1.740 0.000023 4.897 0.003900 130.146 0.000000 0.019 136.8028 0.0684 Atascosa 0.000204 94.703 0.000014 2.930 0.000001 0.022 0.001627 130.854 228.5091 0.1143 Bastrop 0.003378 1,570.200 0.000228 48.577 0.000011 0.367 0.026980 2,169.605 3788.7491 1.8944 Bexar 0.013891 6,456.359 0.000937 199.738 0.000045 1.510 0.110936 8,920.999 15578.6051 7.7893 Bosque 0.002220 1,032.054 0.013621 2,904.167 0.000658 21.954 0.000139 11.175 3969.3500 1.9847 Brazoria 0.056203 26,123.269 0.000007 1.520 0.000000 0.011 0.000527 42.342 26167.1433 13.0836 Brazos 0.002409 1,119.647 0.011231 2,394.456 0.000542 18.101 0.004783 384.623 3916.8262 1.9584 Calhoun 0.000947 439.972 0.000064 13.611 0.000003 0.103 0.007560 607.926 1061.6125 0.5308 Cameron 0.006354 2,953.170 0.000429 91.361 0.000021 0.691 0.050742 4,080.508 7125.7301 3.5629 Chambers 0.020450 9,505.171 0.000003 0.553 0.000000 0.004 0.000192 15.407 9521.1349 4.7606 Cherokee 0.002739 1,273.160 0.016803 3,582.633 0.000812 27.083 0.000171 13.786 4896.6619 2.4483 Coke 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Collin 0.001293 601.065 0.007933 1,691.378 0.000383 12.786 0.000081 6.508 2311.7371 1.1559 Dallas 0.002483 1,153.917 0.015230 3,247.086 0.000736 24.546 0.000155 12.495 4438.0449 2.2190 Denton 0.000127 58.873 0.000777 165.667 0.000038 1.252 0.000008 0.637 226.4306 0.1132 Ector 0.001922 893.118 0.000660 140.794 0.091135 3,041.027 0.014653 1,178.311 5253.2503 2.6266 Ellis 0.002992 1,390.679 0.018354 3,913.326 0.000887 29.583 0.000187 15.059 5348.6469 2.6743 Fannin 0.000004 1.885 0.000025 5.304 0.000001 0.040 0.000000 0.020 7.2488 0.0036 Fayette 0.005187 2,410.781 0.010322 2,200.682 0.000499 16.636 0.028399 2,283.760 6911.8595 3.4559 Fort Bend 0.031346 14,569.784 0.000004 0.848 0.000000 0.006 0.000294 23.616 14594.2536 7.2971 Freestone 0.004764 2,214.467 0.029227 6,231.438 0.001412 47.106 0.000298 23.979 8516.9894 4.2585 Frio 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Galveston 0.022662 10,533.291 0.000003 0.613 0.000000 0.005 0.000212 17.073 10550.9817 5.2755 Goliad 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Grimes 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Guadalupe 0.003203 1,488.704 0.000216 46.055 0.000010 0.348 0.025579 2,057.000 3592.1074 1.7961 Harris 0.148691 69,111.694 0.000019 4.022 0.000001 0.030 0.001393 112.021 69227.7678 34.6139 Hays 0.000833 387.239 0.000056 11.980 0.000003 0.091 0.006654 535.062 934.3715 0.4672 Henderson 0.000691 321.073 0.004238 903.489 0.000205 6.830 0.000043 3.477 1234.8689 0.6174 Hidalgo 0.005372 2,496.710 0.000362 77.240 0.000017 0.584 0.042899 3,449.801 6024.3347 3.0122 Hood 0.005077 2,359.836 0.031145 6,640.503 0.001504 50.199 0.000318 25.553 9076.0903 4.5380 Howard 0.000241 112.072 0.000764 162.907 0.128394 4,284.322 0.000949 76.314 4635.6151 2.3178 Hunt 0.008846 4,111.780 0.004707 1,003.501 0.000227 7.586 0.065282 5,249.745 10372.6119 5.1863 Jack 0.003078 1,430.801 0.018884 4,026.229 0.000912 30.436 0.000193 15.493 5502.9592 2.7515 Johnson 0.000726 337.259 0.004451 949.035 0.000215 7.174 0.000045 3.652 1297.1199 0.6486 Kaufman 0.005972 2,775.718 0.036634 7,810.780 0.001769 59.045 0.000374 30.056 10675.5988 5.3378 Lamar 0.004000 1,859.268 0.024539 5,231.919 0.001185 39.551 0.000250 20.133 7150.8695 3.5754 Limestone 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Llano 0.004031 1,873.818 0.000272 57.970 0.000013 0.438 0.032197 2,589.127 4521.3529 2.2607 McLennan 0.005658 2,629.665 0.034707 7,399.793 0.001676 55.939 0.000354 28.475 10113.8712 5.0569 Milam 0.001269 589.649 0.000086 18.242 0.000004 0.138 0.010132 814.740 1422.7685 0.7114 Mitchell 0.000031 14.469 0.000191 40.714 0.032426 1,082.006 0.000002 0.157 1137.3460 0.5687 Nolan 0.000029 13.598 0.000179 38.264 0.030474 1,016.888 0.000002 0.147 1068.8972 0.5344 Nueces 0.012858 5,976.301 0.000867 184.886 0.000042 1.398 0.102687 8,257.684 14420.2686 7.2101 Palo Pinto 0.003613 1,679.295 0.022164 4,725.483 0.001071 35.722 0.000226 18.184 6458.6840 3.2293 Parker 0.000001 0.571 0.000008 1.608 0.000000 0.012 0.000000 0.006 2.1980 0.0011 Pecos 0.000002 0.916 0.000012 2.577 0.002052 68.473 0.000000 0.010 71.9753 0.0360 Reagan 0.000006 2.751 0.000036 7.742 0.006166 205.744 0.000000 0.030 216.2668 0.1081 Robertson 0.003951 1,836.228 0.005575 1,188.745 0.000269 8.986 0.024617 1,979.599 5013.5587 2.5068 Rusk 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 San Patricio 0.001510 701.827 0.000102 21.712 0.000005 0.164 0.012059 969.741 1693.4447 0.8467 Scurry 0.000027 12.461 0.000164 35.064 0.027926 931.838 0.000002 0.135 979.4977 0.4897 Tarrant 0.000474 220.400 0.002909 620.199 0.000141 4.688 0.000030 2.387 847.6746 0.4238 Titus 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Travis 0.005179 2,406.985 0.000349 74.464 0.000017 0.563 0.041358 3,325.824 5807.8359 2.9039 Upton 0.000003 1.182 0.000016 3.327 0.002649 88.408 0.000000 0.013 92.9292 0.0465 Victoria 0.002119 984.984 0.000143 30.472 0.000007 0.230 0.016924 1,360.991 2376.6777 1.1883 Ward 0.000200 92.737 0.001224 260.958 0.207834 6,935.095 0.000012 1.004 7289.7940 3.6449 Webb 0.004202 1,952.964 0.000283 60.418 0.000014 0.457 0.033557 2,698.485 4712.3240 2.3562 Wharton 0.002110 980.503 0.000142 30.333 0.000007 0.229 0.016847 1,354.798 2365.8632 1.1829 Wichita 0.000012 5.631 0.000074 15.845 0.012619 421.077 0.000001 0.061 442.6130 0.2213 Wilbarger 0.017971 8,352.932 0.110243 23,504.881 0.005325 177.685 0.001125 90.447 32125.9453 16.0630 Wise 0.001020 474.180 0.006258 1,334.328 0.000302 10.087 0.000064 5.135 1823.7299 0.9119 Young 0.007105 3,302.593 0.043588 9,293.391 0.002105 70.253 0.000445 35.761 12701.9989 6.3510 Total 0.441687 205,296.100 0.481501 102,660.654 0.568671 18,975.696 0.684564 55,049.947 381,982.398 190.99120
Energy Savings (MWh) 437,747.6 200,800.3 31,426.4 75,735.6
Total Energy Savings (MWh) 745,709.8
% T&D Loss 6.18 %
* (lb/MWh) are pounds of NOx reduced from one megawatt‐hour of electricity savings in that CM Zone. (lb) are mass of projected NOx emissions reductions from multiplying the total energy savings for the CM Zone at the bottom of the chart by the (lb/MWh) factor in the column to the left.
16 Table 7: Distribution of the Emission Reductions per CM Zone for each County (Year 2015) CM Zones County HNWS (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb (lb/MWh)* lb Total (lbs) Total (Tons) Andrews 0.000004 3.596 0.000023 15.655 0.003900 417.998 0.000000 0.035 437.2851 0.2186 Atascosa 0.000202 194.058 0.000014 9.287 0.000001 0.071 0.001614 242.418 445.8337 0.2229 Bastrop 0.003350 3217.538 0.000226 153.981 0.000011 1.169 0.026753 4019.366 7392.0548 3.6960 Bexar 0.013774 13229.894 0.000929 633.142 0.000045 4.809 0.110002 16526.858 30394.7029 15.1974 Bosque 0.002149 2064.419 0.013185 8986.465 0.000637 68.252 0.000135 20.210 11139.3454 5.5697 Brazoria 0.052595 50518.480 0.001053 717.602 0.000051 5.450 0.000068 10.223 51251.7555 25.6259 Brazos 0.002346 2252.898 0.010872 7409.883 0.000525 56.278 0.004740 712.139 10431.1973 5.2156 Calhoun 0.000939 901.558 0.000063 43.146 0.000003 0.328 0.007496 1126.232 2071.2635 1.0356 Cameron 0.006300 6051.418 0.000425 289.602 0.000021 2.200 0.050315 7559.466 13902.6855 6.9513 Chambers 0.019075 18321.635 0.000002 1.649 0.000000 0.013 0.000179 26.849 18350.1453 9.1751 Cherokee 0.002651 2546.704 0.016265 11085.866 0.000786 84.196 0.000166 24.931 13741.6977 6.8708 Coke 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Collin 0.001252 1202.311 0.007679 5233.689 0.000371 39.750 0.000078 11.770 6487.5200 3.2438 Dallas 0.002403 2308.182 0.014742 10047.574 0.000712 76.311 0.000150 22.596 12454.6625 6.2273 Denton 0.000123 117.764 0.000752 512.631 0.000036 3.893 0.000008 1.153 635.4412 0.3177 Ector 0.001906 1830.818 0.000659 449.376 0.091135 9767.029 0.014529 2182.922 14230.1454 7.1151 Ellis 0.002896 2781.777 0.017766 12109.144 0.000858 91.968 0.000181 27.232 15010.1212 7.5051 Fannin 0.000004 3.770 0.000024 16.411 0.000001 0.125 0.000000 0.037 20.3426 0.0102 Fayette 0.005104 4902.695 0.009997 6813.496 0.000483 51.748 0.028158 4230.482 15998.4210 7.9992 Fort Bend 0.029238 28083.898 0.000004 2.528 0.000000 0.019 0.000274 41.154 28127.6000 14.0638 Freestone 0.004612 4429.600 0.028290 19282.157 0.001366 146.447 0.000289 43.364 23901.5672 11.9508 Frio 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Galveston 0.021138 20303.381 0.000003 1.828 0.000000 0.014 0.000198 29.753 20334.9758 10.1675 Goliad 0.017491 16800.188 0.000002 1.512 0.000000 0.011 0.000164 24.619 16826.3314 8.4132 Grimes 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Guadalupe 0.003176 3050.543 0.000214 145.990 0.000010 1.109 0.025364 3810.755 7008.3963 3.5042 Harris 0.138692 133215.829 0.000018 11.993 0.000001 0.091 0.001299 195.215 133423.1280 66.7116 Hays 0.000826 793.501 0.000056 37.975 0.000003 0.288 0.006598 991.246 1823.0094 0.9115 Henderson 0.000669 642.243 0.004102 2795.699 0.000198 21.233 0.000042 6.287 3465.4619 1.7327 Hidalgo 0.005326 5116.075 0.000359 244.840 0.000017 1.860 0.042538 6391.029 11753.8035 5.8769 Hood 0.004914 4720.382 0.030147 20547.941 0.001456 156.060 0.000308 46.211 25470.5944 12.7353 Howard 0.000240 230.645 0.000764 520.730 0.128394 13760.193 0.000941 141.388 14652.9560 7.3265 Hunt 0.008756 8410.184 0.004569 3114.040 0.000221 23.651 0.064732 9725.418 21273.2926 10.6366 Jack 0.002980 2862.033 0.018279 12458.501 0.000883 94.621 0.000186 28.018 15443.1741 7.7216 Johnson 0.000702 674.619 0.004309 2936.633 0.000208 22.304 0.000044 6.604 3640.1592 1.8201 Kaufman 0.005781 5552.271 0.035460 24169.171 0.001713 183.563 0.000362 54.354 29959.3589 14.9797 Lamar 0.003872 3719.095 0.023753 16189.311 0.001147 122.957 0.000242 36.408 20067.7705 10.0339 Limestone 0.000172 164.730 0.001052 717.073 0.000051 5.446 0.000011 1.613 888.8621 0.4444 Llano 0.003998 3839.690 0.000270 183.756 0.000013 1.396 0.031926 4796.563 8821.4046 4.4107 McLennan 0.009476 9101.765 0.033595 22897.785 0.001623 173.907 0.000380 57.124 32230.5814 16.1153 Milam 0.001258 1208.265 0.000085 57.824 0.000004 0.439 0.010046 1509.371 2775.8985 1.3879 Mitchell 0.000031 29.900 0.000191 130.154 0.032426 3475.139 0.000002 0.293 3635.4857 1.8177 Nolan 0.000029 28.100 0.000179 122.321 0.030474 3265.995 0.000002 0.275 3416.6916 1.7083 Nueces 0.012750 12246.195 0.000860 586.065 0.000042 4.451 0.101823 15298.015 28134.7255 14.0674 Palo Pinto 0.003497 3359.096 0.021453 14622.228 0.001036 111.055 0.000219 32.884 18125.2628 9.0626 Parker 0.000001 1.143 0.000007 4.976 0.000000 0.038 0.000000 0.011 6.1682 0.0031 Pecos 0.000002 1.892 0.000012 8.237 0.002052 219.919 0.000000 0.019 230.0664 0.1150 Reagan 0.000006 5.685 0.000036 24.749 0.006166 660.799 0.000000 0.056 691.2891 0.3456 Robertson 0.003897 3742.805 0.005402 3681.717 0.000261 27.962 0.024409 3667.169 11119.6535 5.5598 Rusk 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 San Patricio 0.001497 1438.132 0.000101 68.825 0.000005 0.523 0.011958 1796.523 3304.0024 1.6520 Scurry 0.000027 25.750 0.000164 112.091 0.027926 2992.837 0.000002 0.252 3130.9295 1.5655 Tarrant 0.000459 440.867 0.002816 1919.105 0.000136 14.575 0.000029 4.316 2378.8630 1.1894 Titus 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.000000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 Travis 0.005135 4932.217 0.000346 236.041 0.000017 1.793 0.041010 6161.353 11331.4027 5.6657 Upton 0.000003 2.443 0.000016 10.635 0.002649 283.943 0.000000 0.024 297.0448 0.1485 Victoria 0.002101 2018.358 0.000142 96.592 0.000007 0.734 0.016782 2521.343 4637.0270 2.3185 Ward 0.000200 191.642 0.001224 834.220 0.207834 22273.828 0.000012 1.876 23301.5659 11.6508 Webb 0.004166 4001.870 0.000281 191.517 0.000014 1.455 0.033274 4999.158 9193.9994 4.5970 Wharton 0.002092 2009.174 0.000141 96.153 0.000007 0.730 0.016706 2509.871 4615.9274 2.3080 Wichita 0.000012 11.636 0.000074 50.651 0.012619 1352.396 0.000001 0.114 1414.7965 0.7074 Wilbarger 0.017395 16708.378 0.106711 72731.982 0.005154 552.394 0.001089 163.568 90156.3224 45.0782 Wise 0.000987 948.503 0.006058 4128.859 0.000293 31.358 0.000062 9.285 5118.0059 2.5590 Young 0.006878 6606.181 0.042191 28756.867 0.002038 218.406 0.000430 64.672 35646.1265 17.8231 Total 0.441552 424118.419 0.468411 319259.869 0.568038 60877.526 0.678325 101912.488 906,168.302 453.08415
Energy Savings (MWh) 904,611.9 641,911.0 100,933.8 141,496.8
Total Energy Savings (MWh) 1,788,953.5
% T&D Loss 6.18 %
* (lb/MWh) are pounds of NOx reduced from one megawatt‐hour of electricity savings in that CM Zone. (lb) are mass of projected NOx emissions reductions from multiplying the total energy savings for the CM Zone at the bottom of the chart by the (lb/MWh) factor in the column to the left.
17 Figure 5: Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for ERCOT (Year 2010)
2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Cumulative 191.0 Tons from 745,710 MWh target energy savings AEP Central 80 AEPNorth Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties Centerpoint 70 Counties Oncor TNMP 60 HGB DFW AUSTIN SA (Tons/yr)
Houston Dallas Austin San Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio 50 Brazoria Marcos Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Webb Nolan Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
Figure 6: Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for ERCOT (Year 2015)
2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Cumulative 453.1 Tons from 1,788,953 MWh target energy savings AEP Central 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other AEPNorth Area Counties Compact Area Counties Centerpoint 70 Counties Oncor TNMP HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 (Tons/yr) Houston Dallas Austin San
Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
18
IV. Conclusion
While House Bill 3693 is an Act related to energy and does not target emissions levels, the energy efficiency improvements would achieve air pollution benefits that could positively affect air quality and human health. The analysis estimates that ERCOT wide annual NOx emissions reductions of 191 tons by 2010 and 453 tons by 2015 are likely to result from the energy savings targets under consideration. When the analysis negates energy losses that occur between the generation of electricity and consumption, the annual NOx emission reductions are estimated to be 180 tons by 2010 and 427 tons by 2015. By converting these values into average tons per day, these emission reductions range from 0.49 to 0.52 tons per day by 2010 and range from 1.17 to 1.24 tons per day by 2015.
These NOx reductions may be most helpful to the Houston Galveston Brazoria non-attainment area, as the reductions within this area are estimated to be 0.17 tons per day by 2010 and 0.34 tons per day by 2015. By comparison, the measure to Controlling Emissions from Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines is estimated to reduce NOx emissions in the HGB area by at least 2.8 tons per day. (TNRCC, 2000). The emissions reductions projected to result in 2010 and 2015 are comparable to the Texas Emission Reduction Program (TERP) Energy-Efficiency Grants Program, which does target emission reductions and estimated 2005 annual NOx emissions reductions of about 89 tons (PUCT 2006). Also, the emission reductions are comparable to those from the statewide adoption of the International Residential Code and the International Energy Conservation Code for residential, commercial, and industrial Buildings, which were included in the Dallas Fort Worth SIP at 0.72 tons NOx per day (TCEQ, 2008).
While the projected emissions reductions are small compared to the total emission reductions needed to bring the state’s non-attainment areas into attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, they can be a part of an overall strategy to reduce emissions and improve human health in Texas.
Future Considerations
This analysis estimates annual emission reductions from annual electricity energy savings targets. If energy savings estimates are broken down into monthly values, this method could be revised to give results in monthly emission reductions values. It is likely that the emission reductions might be greater in the summer, that is, the ozone season, when ozone pollution is of greater concern, than in the winter, especially if a significant portion of the energy saving targets is met by improving the energy efficiency of cooling loads and/or improving building envelopes.
This analysis did not address the presence of the NOx cap and trade program in the Houston area. If such reductions are sought to be incorporated into the SIP for this area of Texas, according to EPA guidance, retirement of NOx allowances or further analysis that demonstrates that changes in emissions due to the efficiency measure would improve air quality without the retirement of NOx allowances (EPA, 2004).
Although NOx was the only pollutant examined in this analysis, the saving of electricity through energy efficiency programs would also reduce other pollution associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, including, but not limited to, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury.
19 VI. References
EPA, 2004: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Guidance on State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures.” August 2004. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ereseerem_gd.pdf.
EPA, 2008: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), Year 2005 Summary Tables, Table 2 State Resource Mix,” September 2008. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2007V1_0_year05_Summa ryTables.pdf
ERCOT, 2008: Electric Reliability Council of Texas. “Commercially Significant Constraint Flows and Limits Annual Reports: 2007 CSC Flows and Limits.” March 2008. From http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/congestion/cscflows/.
ESL, 2007a: Jeff S. Haberl, Charles C. Culp, Bahman L. Yazdani. “15% Above-Code Energy Efficiency Measures for Residential Buildings in Texas.” August 31, 2007. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/Above_Code_15_Percent_Residential_0709 27.pdf.
ESL, 2007b: Jeff S. Haberl, Charles C. Culp, Bahman L. Yazdani. “15% Above-Code Energy Efficiency Measures for Commercial Buildings in Texas.” August 31, 2007. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/Above_Code_15_Percent_Commercial_0709 27.pdf.
ESL, 2007c: Jeff Haberl, Zi Liu, Juan-Carlos Baltazar-Cervantes, Kris Subbarao, Don Gilman, Charles Culp, Bahman Yazdani, Dan Turner. “Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables. Summary Report. A Report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for the Period September 2006 – August 2007 (ESL-TR-07-08-01).” August 2007. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/ESL-TR-07-08-01.pdf.
ESL, 2007d: Zi Liu, Jeff S. Haberl, Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Kris Subbarao, Charles Culp, Bahman Yazdani. “A Methodology for Calculating Emissions Reductions from Renewable Energy Programs and its Application to the Wind Farms in the Texas ERCOT Region.” 2007. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/ESL-IC-07-11-43.pdf.
ESL, 2007e: Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Piljae Im, Jeff S. Haberl, Zi Liu, Jaya Mukhopadhyay, Charles Culp, Seongchan Kim, Don Gilman, , Bahman Yazdani. “A Methodology for Calculating Integrated NOx Emissions Reduction from Energy-Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE/RE) Programs across State Agencies in Texas.” 2007. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/ESL-HH-07-12-02.pdf.
ESL, 2008a: Jeff Haberl, Charles Culp, Bahman Yazdani, Don Gilman, Zi Liu, Juan Carlos Baltazar-Cervantes, Cynthia Montgomery, Kathy McKelvey, Jaya Mukhopadhyay, Larry Degelman. “Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Impact in the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP). Preliminary Report: Integrated NOx Emissions Savings from
20 EE/RE Programs. Statewide Annual Report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. January 2007 – December 2007 (ESL-TR-08-08-01).” August 2008. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/docs/documents/ESL-TR-08-08-01.pdf.
ESL, 2008b: Juan Carlos Baltazar, Jeff Haberl, Bahman Yazdani. “NOx Emissions Reduction from Continuous Commissioning® Measures for the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (ESL-TR-08-09-04).” September, 2008. http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/ESL-TR-08-09-04.pdf
PUCT 2006: Public Utility Commission of Texas. “Emission Reduction Incentive Grants Report to TCEQ.” 2006. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/terp/PUC2006Report.pdf.
TCEQ, 2008: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) CONCERNING OZONE (O3) AND FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM 2.5): TRANSPORT EMISSIONS. DOCKET NO. 2007- 1244-SIP”. April 16, 2008 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/transport/transportsip.html#element.
TNRCC, 2000: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. “Chapter 114 - Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Rule Log Number 2000-011G-114-AITNRCC.” December 2000. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/ruledocs/calispark/00011 g114_ado.pdf
21 Appendix A. Additional Figures: Estimate NOx Emissions Reductions by Utility Specific Energy Savings Targets
Figures A-1 through A-5 below show the county specific estimated annual NOx emissions reductions for the 2010 energy savings targets under the 30% reduction of growth scenario of each ERCOT utility. Figures A-6 through A-10 show the county specific estimated annual NOx emissions reductions for the 2015 energy savings targets under the 50% reduction of growth scenario of each ERCOT utility. 30 Figure A- 1: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for AEP Central by County 2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ AEP Central 25.0 Tons from 68,760 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties 70 Counties
60 HGB DFW AUSTIN SA (Tons/yr)
Houston Dallas Austin San Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Llano Ward Hood Bexar
Collin Travis Harris Webb Dallas Nolan Lamar Young
Milam Brazos Goliad Nueces Tarrant Bosque Denton Fayette Patricio Bastrop Hidalgo Victoria Howard
Brazoria Johnson Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Fort Wilbarger Freestone Chambers Galveston Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Henderson Guadalupe San
Figure A- 2: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for AEP North by County 2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ AEP North 0.6 Tons from 1,860 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other
) Area Counties Compact Area Counties 70 Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA (Tons/yr 60 Houston Dallas Austin San Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Llano Ward Hood Bexar
Collin Harris Travis Webb Nolan Dallas Lamar Young
Milam Brazos Goliad Nueces Bosque Tarrant Denton Fayette Patricio Hidalgo Bastrop Victoria Howard
Brazoria Johnson Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Fort Wilbarger Freestone Chambers Galveston Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Henderson Guadalupe San
22 Figure A- 3: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for Centerpoint by County 2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Centerpoint 95.7 Tons from 408,311 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Compact Area 70 Area Counties Counties Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
Figure A- 4: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for Oncor by County 2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Oncor 58.4 Tons from 220,803 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Compact Area 70 Area Counties Counties Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
23 Figure A- 5: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2010 for TNMP by County 2010 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ TNMP 11.3 Tons from 45,976 MWh target energy savings 80
Non-Attainment Early Action Other 70 Area Counties Compact Area Counties Counties HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20 Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
Figure A- 6: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for AEP Central by County 2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ AEP Central 42.6 Tons from 118,300 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other ) 70 Area Counties Compact Area Counties Counties
(Tons/yr 60
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA Houston Dallas Austin San 50 Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
24 Figure A- 7: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for AEP North by County 2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ AEP North 2.8 Tons from 9,200 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties ) 70 Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA
(Tons/yr 60 Houston Dallas Austin San Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
Figure A- 8: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for Centerpoint by County 2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Centerpoint 202.6 Tons from 864,428 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties 70 Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
25 Figure A- 9: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for Oncor by County 2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ Oncor 189.8 Tons from 734,264 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties 70 Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Webb Nolan Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
Figure A- 10: Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions for 2015 for TNMP by County 2015 Total Projected Annual NOx Emission Reductions ‐ TNMP 15.3 Tons from 62,761 MWh target energy savings 80 Non-Attainment Early Action Other Area Counties Compact Area Counties 70 Counties
HGB DFW AUSTIN SA 60 Houston Dallas Austin San (Tons/yr) Galveston Fort-Worth San Antonio Brazoria Marcos 50 Reductions 40
30 Emission
NOx 20
Annual 10
0 Ellis Jack Hays Wise Hunt Bend Ector Pinto Hood Llano Collin Ward
Bexar Travis
Harris Dallas Nolan Webb Lamar Young Milam
Goliad Brazos Nueces Denton Tarrant Bosque Fayette Hidalgo Patricio Victoria Bastrop Howard Johnson
Brazoria Atascosa Wharton Cameron Cherokee Wilbarger Fort Chambers Galveston Freestone Palo Limestone Robertson McLennan Guadalupe Henderson San
26 Appendix B. Abbreviations and Acronyms
CO carbon monoxide
CM zone congestion management zone
CSC commercially significant constraint
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas
ESL Texas A&M University System Energy Systems Laboratory
HGB Houston-Galveston-Brazoria lb pound lb/MWh pounds per megawatt-hour
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
NOx nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PUCT Public Utility Commission of Texas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TERP Texas Emission Reduction Program
VOCs volatile organic compounds
27