United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-008 May 1981
Project Summary
Ohio River Basin
Energy Study (ORBES)
The goals of the Ohio River Basin
Energy Study (ORBES) are (1) to
identify and evaluate the potential
consequences of various levels, rates,
and patterns of future energy devel-
opment in the Ohio River Basin, (2) to
formulate policy alternatives that
could mitigate the undesirable conse-
quences or reinforce the desirable
consequences, and (3) to summarize
this information and present the results
throughout the ORBES region.
Phase I of ORBES, conducted from
August 1976 through August 1977.
was a preliminary assessment of the
potential impacts of four plausible
energy development scenarios for the
lower Ohio River valley. Phase II,
which began in September 1977 rep-
resents an extensive in-depth assess-
ment based on the issues identified
during Phase I.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Office of Environ-
mental Engineering and Technology,
Washington. D.C. to announce key
findings of an interagency energy/
environmental study that is fully doc-
umented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).*
The ORBES Project
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study
(ORBES) began in the fall of 1976 in
'Figures and Tables in the Project Summary carry
numbers preceded by the letters ES, for "Executive
Summary" which is an integral part of the final
report and from which this summary was excerpted.
order to assess the potential environ-
mental, social, and economic impacts of
proposed concentration of power plants
in a portion of the basin. The U.S.
Senate Appropriations Committee had
mandated the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) to carry out this
study just after the Arab oil embargo
(1973-74) in response to citizen concern.
At that time several utility companies
had announced plans to construct addi-
tional generating units in the Ohio River
Basin.
The Ohio River region offered the
electric utilities (and related industries)
some of the nation's most suitable
power plant sites, particularly since
coalfields containing almost half of the
nation's reserves by tonnage are within
easy reach (see figure ES-1). Some
citizens, however, questioned the ne-
cessity of addfng such a large number of
generating facilities, particularly near
the Ohio River itself. They also pointed
out that the proposed new plants would
transmit much of their electricity far
from the immediate area.
In an effort to identify the implications
of locating future energy conversion
facilities in this particular part of the
Ohio River Basin, the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee directed EPA to conduct
a study "comprehensive in scope, in-
vestigating the impacts from air, water,
and solid residues on the natural envi-
ronment and [on the] residents of the
region. The study should also take into
account the availability of coal and other
energy sources in the region."
-------
Eastern
Interior
Coal Province
Appalachian
Coal Province
Figure ES-1. ORBES-Region coalfields.
General Regional
Characteristics
The ORBES region covers 190,377
square miles in 423 counties in the
states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
(see figure ES-2). The predominant land
use in the region is agriculture, which
accounts for 54 percent of regional
acreage. The types of farming range
from vast corn and soybean tracts in
Illinois to smaller tobacco farms in
Kentucky. Mixed mesophytic, northern
hardwood, beech-maple, oak-hickory,
and other forests cover another third of
the region.
The regional river systems and aquatic
life are as diverse as can be found in the
United States. These regional water
systems range from.Whitewater canoe
and mountain trout streams to deep,
clear lakes popular as recreational
spots, major rivers both navigable and
free flowing, and numerous wetlands
and sloughs. These water systems
Figure ES-2. Ohio River Basin energy study (ORBES) region.
2
support more than 250 fish specie;
with several of the navigable rivel
containing at least 90 species and som
large lakes containing over 125.
The ORBES region contains about 1
percent of the national population an
accounts for about 10 percent of th
gross national product. The major ecc
nomic sector in the region is manufac
turing, which accounts for about 3
percent of the gross regional produc
followed by trade (16 percent), goverr
ment (12 percent), and finance, insui
ance, and real estate (11 percent). Th
remaining 5 sectors each accounts fc
less than 11 percent of the gross re
gional product (see figure ES-3); th
coal-mining and agricultural sector
constitute 3 percent and 4 percen
respectively.
Coal is the most significant indigenot
fuel in the ORBES region and account
for two-thirds of national productior
Coal also is the primary fuel used in th
region. Coal use accounts for about ha
of the total regional fuel consumptioi
and the electric power industry in th
region consumes about two-thirds (
this coal. About 95 percent of regioni
electrical generating capacity is co
fired. Nonfossil fuels, in general, accoui
for less than 1 percent of the tot;
conventional fuel use in the region-
approximately the same percentage i
in the nation.
Regional Air, Water, and Lam
Status in Mid-1970s
Air
Perhaps because of the high coal usi
air quality standards for sulfur dioxid
and particulates were not being met i
several locations in the ORBES regio
during the study's base period (the mic
1970s). Several other locations wer
close to violation. For example, in 197"
11 ORBES-region counties violate
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide, and a
additional 13 counties did not hav
available the full prevention of signif
cant deterioration (PSD) increment fc
sulfur dioxide to accommodate ne\
sources; the ambient concentrations i
these counties were at or just below th
NAAQS. In the same year, 130countie
in the region violated the NAAQS fc
total suspended particulates (TSP), an
an additional 5 counties had less tha
the full PSD increment available. Man
of the counties that violated the TSP an
sulfur dioxide NAAQS were clustered i
extreme southwestern Ohio and alon
-------
manufacturing
trade
government.
30.7%
-16.2%
11.5%
finance, insurance, real estate 10.1%
services and other 10.1%
transportation, communication
utilities 9.2% K^ farm 4%
construction 4.1% C^ mining 3%
Figure ES-3. Sectoral contributions to ORBES gross regional product.
the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia
border. However, since over 50 percent
of the counties in the ORBES region are
without monitoring for sulfur dioxide or
TSP, the number of 1977 violations
probably is underestimated.
In all probability, ORBES-region gen-
erating units contribute substantially to
sulfur dioxide concentrations since they
produce about 80 percent of regional
sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, in
1975, regional utility sulfur dioxide
emissions constituted 52 percent of
national utility sulfur dioxide emissions
and 32 percent of national sulfur dioxide
emissions from all sources. In contrast,
during that same period, about 36
percent of the national coal-fired elec-
trical generating capacity was located in
the ORBES region.
ORBES-region utilities contributed
smaller but significant shares of the
1975 regional nitrogen oxide and par-
ticulate emissions—about 47 percent of
regional nitrogen oxide emissions from
all sources and about 22 percent of
regional paniculate emissions from all
sources.
However, regional data indicate that
long-range tr9nsport of emissions, even
over distances of several hundred kilo-
meters, was and is an important factor
in regional pollutant concentrations. At
several locationsthroughoutthe region,
between 30 to 50 percent of the 25
highest daily sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions are associated with transport by
extremely persistent winds. Moreover,
under certain meteorological conditions^
sulfur dioxide is transformed into sul-
fates, thereby contributing to regional
sulfate concentrations. In addition,
since sulfates are, by definition, the
total water-soluble component in TSP,
such transformation of sulfur dioxide
into sulfates ultimately affects the TSP
concentrations. Data from the base
period confirm the importance of both
sulfates and their transport in TSP
concentration levels.
It is important to understand the
relationship among the transport of
sulfur dioxide, its transformation, and
regional sulfate episodes. Sulfur dioxide
concentrations of 130 micrograms per
cubic meter (one-tenth of the secondary
three-hour standard) in the presence of
current ozone levels have been linked to
vegetation damage and crop loss. Also,
a growing body of evidence supports the
hypothesis that the annual average
exposure to sulfates—or something
closely related to them—results in an
increased mortality rate. In addition,
sulfate episodes are correlated with
acidic precipitation episodes; acidic
precipitation is believed to be due
primarily to the presence of sulfate and
nitrate ions. Finally, sulfate episodes
often are associated with the occurrence
of reduced visibility over large areas.
An examination through mathemat-
ical modeling of four representative
regional sulfate episodes between 1974
and 1976 reveals similarities among the
episodes. In general, sulfur dioxide
emissions in the lower ORBES region
contributed significantly (between 50
and 90 percent) to the sulfate concen-
trations in the upper region. Moreover,
of the sulfate concentrations in the
upper region attributable to emissions
in the lower region, utility sulfur dioxide
emissions in the lower region contrib-
uted at least half; in at least two of the
four episodes, these emissions contrib-
uted over 90 percent. (The lower ORBES
region consists of the ORBES state
portions of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
and western Ohio; the upper region, of
the ORBES portions of eastern Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.) Simi-
lar results are found when the annual
sulfur dioxide and sulfate concentrations
are examined.
Thus, both data and modeling confirm
that long-range transport from the
lower region contributes significantly to
the concentration averages in the upper
region and to violations of NAAQS in
that region.
Finally, when the relationship between
ORBES-region sulfur dioxide emissions
and Canadian concentrations is exam-
ined, utility sulfur dioxide emissions
from the ORBES region are shown to
contribute about 50 percent of the sulfur
dioxide and sulfate concentrations
estimated to occur in southeastern
Canada.
Water
An analysis of the regional water
quality in 1976 indicates the presence
of high pollutant concentrations. These
pollutants can be further concentrated
by the diminished flow that occurs
under 7-day-10-year low flow. In gen-
eral, the minimum of the water quality
standards in the ORBES states was
used as a guide (since these standards
vary from state to state and even from
river to river). Approximately 19 of the
region's 24 largest streams would have
violated at least 3 of the 20 pollutant
standards at some time in 1976 under
7-day-10-year low flow conditions.
Moreover, if such conditions had occur-
red, aquatic habitat impacts could have
been heavy on 14 of these 24 streams.
(Heavy impacts are defined as entailing
eutrophication, a concentration of heavy
metals, possible stream dessication,
local fish kills, and a recovery period of
possibly five to seven years.)
Land
If all energy-related land uses are
considered, such land use through
1976 had affected 1.86 million acres in
the ORBES region, or 1.5 percent of the
regional land area. Land use for past
and present surface mining of coal
represents 86.9 percent of this figure
(1.6 million acres); electrical generating
facilities, 7.6 percent (140,700 acres);
and transmission line rights-of way, 5.5
percent (103,000 acres). In general, the
reclamation of surface-mined land for
permanent land use tends to be a slow
process. Data are available only for a
quarter of the region's 1.6 million
affected acres. These data show that
this portion has been affected for 10
years and has not yet been fully reclaimed.
-------
The Issue Areas of Concern in
the ORBES Project
The ORBES study investigated possible
impacts of an expanded generating
capacity in the context of a number of
issues. In the area of air quality, the
study focused on the regional effects of
changes in pollutant concentrations as
a result of different levels of electrical
generation, different control technol-
ogies, emission limitations, generating
unit retirement schedules, and other
factors. Examined in the context of the
air quality analysis were the cost of
electricity to the consumer, capital costs
for pollution control devices, losses in
agricultural output as the result of air
pollution, and health impacts related to
sulfates. In terms of land impacts, the
study focused on land displacement for
energy-related uses and the amount of
land affected by surface mining. Another
area investigated was water quality and
quantity, including water consumption
by electrical generating units, the effects
of this consumption on pollutant con-
centrations (which increase as the
water quantity decreases), and the
effects of pollutant concentrations on
aquatic habitats. The social areas chosen
for analysis included labor demand for
coal mining, labor demand for power
plant construction and operation, and
occupational death, disease, and dis-
ability from coal mining, processing,
and transportation.
These topics were examined through
a technology assessment approach. A
variety of scenarios, all regionally based,
were decided on and examined. Each
scenario is thus an "as if" statement
that does not predict what might happen.
Rather, a scenario represents what one
future might be like if assumed condi-
tions are present in the ORBES region.
Nine scenarios are compared in this
report. First, those scenarios that assume
an emphasis on coal as a fuel are
compared. Next, those scenarios that
assume a substitution of other fuels for
coal or that emphasize conservation are
compared with each other and with the
coal-dominated scenario designated as
the base case. The assumed economic
and energy growth rates, as well as the
assumed regional electrical generating
capacity under each scenario in the year
2000, appear in table ES-1.
Coal-Dominated Scenarios
The five scenarios chosen for the
most detailed analysis assume that coal
will continue to be the dominant fue
used for regional electrical generaticJ
through the year 2000. The primar
scenario of these five is the base case
the scenario to which all others arc
compared. Variations in base cas<
environmental controls characterize
two of the remaining four scenarios-
the strict environmental control cas<
and the noncompliance case. Variation;
in base case electricity demand growtl
account for the remaining two scenarios
the high electrical energy growth cast
and the electricity exports case. The
latter case is so named because it als<
assumes that additional installed ca
pacity in the ORBES region will transmi
electricity to the northeastern Unitec
States to replace oil-fired capacity ir
that part of the country.
For the three scenarios that assume
the same environmental standards—
the base case, the high electrical energy
growth case, and the electricity export!
case—air and land standards are def inec
in terms of what currently exists a!
applied to present and future sources o
pollution; in other words, these three
scenarios reflect the full implements
tion of current air and land environ
mental policies. For water, the standard:
Table ES-1. Growth Rates and Installed Capacity, ORBES Region, Annual Averages (1974-2000), by Scenario
Scenario
Refined
Economic Electricity Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Energy Installed Capacity
Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Year 20OO (MWe)
Base Case
Strict
Environmental
Controls
Noncompliance
with State
Implementation
Plans
High Electrical
Energy Growth
Exports of
Electricity
Natural Gas
Substitution
Nuclear Fuel
Substitution
Alternative
Fuel
Substitution
Conservation
Emphasis
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
2.47%
3.13%
3.13%
3.13%
3.90%
3.20%
2.00%
3.11%
2.69%
0.90%
2.40%
2.47%
2.40%
N/A
2.77%
0.74%
1.52%
1.73%
0.20%
-0.40%
-0.40%
-0.40%
-0.40%
-0.39%
3.55%
-0.40%
-1.20%
-0.31%
0.37%
0.37%
0.37%
0.37%
0.43%
0.51%
0.37%
0.15%
-0.54%
1.49%
1.53%
1.53%
N/A
1.73%
1.61%
1.50%
0.95%
0.10%
153,245
153,245
153,245
178,372
173.395
113,595
145,295
134,395
104.495
-------
onsist of current practices for the
design and construction of industrial
and municipal facilities. Power plant
effluents, however, were assumed to be
uncontrolled. The strict environmental
control case, on the other hand, calls for
more stringent environmental regula-
tions. In the case of air, strict controls
mean that the generally stringent pollu-
tant emission standards for urban
areas—which are set by current (as of
September 1978) state implementation
plans (SIPs)—would be applied through-
out a state. For water, power plant
effluent levels were assumed to be
ibout 5 percent of base case levels.
Strict environmental controls on land
reclamation call for interim and perma-
nent performance standards under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
:ion Act of 1977, but with strengthening
of site-specific applications. Special
nterim and permanent standards are
ipplied to steep-slope mining, moun-
aintop removal, the mining of prime
armland, and the surface effects of
underground mining. Under the non-
compliance case, it is assumed that
emission limits in state implementation
)lans will not be met, but that the water
and land environmental policies will be
he same as under the base case.
Three of the five coal-dominated
scenarios assume the same electricity
demand growth rate: the base case, the
strict environmental control case, and
the noncompliance case assume an
average annual rate of 3.13 percent
through the year 2000. The electricity
exports case, however, assumes an
electricity demand growth rate of 3.2
percent, and the high electrical energy
growth case assumes a rate of 3.9
percent. The high rate of electricity
demand growth under the latter scenario
is that suggested in recent estimates
made by the National Electric Reliability
Council (NERC).
The coal-dominated scenarios are
further defined by a variety of energy
and fuel use characteristics; growth
rates for various sectors under each
scenario appear in table ES-1. Also
given in table ES-1 is the regional
installed capacity that is projected to
occur by 2000 under each scenario
beca use of the electricity demand growth
rates.
The same population, fertility, and
economic growth rates were assumed
for all five coal-dominated scenarios.
Similarly, all scenarios assume that the
coal to supply regional generating units
will come from Bureau of Mines (BOM)
districts in the six ORBES states (districts
1 through 4 and 6 through 11). All
scenarios also assume that the regional
generating units announced by the
utility companies as of December 31,
1976, including both coal-fired and
nuclear facilities, will be built as planned
and that these facilities will come on-
line on the dates announced by the
utilities. Finally, all scenarios assume
that sulfur dioxide emissions will be
controlled through the use of flue gas
desulfurization systems (scrubbers) or
the use of local, blended low- and high-
sulfur coals.
Comparison of Coal-
Dominated Scenarios
Emissions, Concentrations,
and Air-Quality-Related
Impacts
For all of the coal-dominated scenarios,
utility emissions are the most important
regional factor since their magnitude
and their distribution consistently cor-
relate with ambient air concentrations
and, thus, with crop losses and mortality
related to air quality. Under all coal-
dominated scenarios, utility sulfur dioxide
emissions would decrease by the year
2000 from their 1976 levels. However,
the rate of decrease and the actual
10-
9-
i:
i «-
i SH
£ 4-
3-
2-
/-
totals in 2000 would vary among the
scenarios (see figure ES-4). Because of
the scenario assumptions that produced
the differences charted in figure ES-4,
several observations can be made about
possible strategies to reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions at the individual plant
level from their high 1976 levels. A
discussion of mitigation strategies in an
organizational context appears later in
this summary.
Sulfur Dioxide
SIP Compliance
First, the base (compliance) case, the
high electrical energy growth case, and
the noncompliance case demonstrate
how sensitive regional sulfur dioxide
emissions are to compliance with and
enforcement of SIP standards. Both the
base case and the high growth case
assume that complete SIP compliance
will occur by 1985. As a result, under
both scenarios, sulfur dioxide emissions
are reduced continuously and dramati-
cally between 1976 and 1985, and at
about the same rate (see figure ES-5).
The noncompliance scenario, however,
assumes that there would be no utility
compliance schedule; the SIP units
would continue burning historical coals
and using emission controls as in 1976.
Thus, under this latter case, sulfur
8
Base Case (BC)
-SEC
Sfr/cf Environmental Controls (SEC!
SIP Noncompliance (SIP-N)
High Electrical Energy Growth (HEG)
*Electrical Exports, emissions in 2000
1976
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Figure ES-4. Electric utility sulfur dioxide emissions in the ORBES region, coal-
dominated scenarios.
-------
I
-------
ver, the rate of decrease would be
nore rapid (see figure ES-4).
Least Emissions Dispatch
Another way to achieve a more bal-
anced emission-generation ratio would
>e to use least emissions dispatching.
At present, and under all of the coal-
dominated scenarios, generating units
re loaded (brought on-line) in order of
operating costs. As a result, SIP units
jenerally are the first units dispatched,
lince, as discussed previously, newer
jnits are more expensive to operate.
jnder the high growth case, a variation
/vas examined that assumed coal-fired
jnits would be dispatched according to
east emissions of sulfur dioxide. Under
he least emissions criterion, trie units
imitting the most sulfur dioxide (on a
)er Btu basis) would be loaded last.
Jnder one such dispatching order, for
ixample, RNSPS units might be dis-
>atched first, then NSPS units, then
jrban SIP units, and finally rural SIP
jnits. However, such a dispatching
>rder may not always be feasible.
Under this least emissions policy,
otal regional utility sulfur dioxide
imissions would be 55 percent lower
han they would be under the least cost
)olicy in the year 2000 (see figure ES-7).
SIP emissions alone would be 35 percent
ower under the former case than under
he latter case. Moreover, in the year
2000 under the least emissions dis-
jatching variation, a more balanced
imission-generation ratio would be
ichieved. Under least emissions dis-
10
17
I6
*,5
I 4
1
Least Cost Dispatching
Least Emissions Dispatching
1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure ES-7.
Electric utility sulfur
dioxide emissions in
the ORBES region,
dispatching variations
under high electrical
energy growth.
patching, SIP units would emit 1.5 mil-
lion tons of sulfur dioxide—or 45 per-
cent of all utility sulfur dioxide emis-
sions—and generate about 171 million
megawatt hours. Under the least cost
policy, on the other hand, SIP units
would emit 4.32 million tons of sulfur
dioxide—or 71 percent of the total
emissions—and generate only about
162 million megawatt hours.
As this discussion of sulfur dioxide
emissions under the different coal-
dominated scenarios thus has revealed,
the current emission standards, if com-
plied with, would reduce total sulfur
dioxide emissions between 1976 and
1985 from the 1976 levels. Any further
reductions would be determined by the
lifetime of SIP plants. As will be dis-
cussed shortly, such further reductions
would be important since episodic con-
centrations still would result from the
1985 emission levels of most of the
scenarios. Before such concentrations
7.75
1.50-
IT i-25
s
c
,o
:5
H 1.00-
I
I
I .75
I
|
§. .50-
.25-
are discussed, however, paniculate and
nitrogen oxide emission trends under
these coal-dominated scenarios are
examined.
Paniculate Emissions
Utility paniculate emissions would be
reduced significantly by the year 2000
from the 1976 levels under all of the
coal-dominated scenarios except the
noncompliance case. Moreover, except
under the latter scenario, paniculate
emissions would be reduced at about
the same rate and would be about the
same in 2000—nearly five times lower
than the 1976 emissions (see figure ES-
8). In addition, such variations as least
emissions dispatching would result in
emissions about the same as those
charted in figure ES-8. Noncompliance,
however, would result in increased
paniculate emissions through 1985. In
2000 under noncompliance, paniculate
emission levels would be only slightly
SIP-N
Base Case (BCJ
Strict Environmental Controls (SEC)
SIP Noncompliance (SIP-N)
High Electrical Energy Growth (HEG)
* Electrical Exports, emissions in 2000
1976
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Figure ES-8. Electric utility paniculate emissions in the ORBES region, coal-
dominated scenarios.
-------
lower than the 1976 levels. These
scenarios thus suggest that current
particulate standards—which are the
same in urban and rural settings—will
be effective. One major reason for this
effectiveness, however, is that particu-
late removal technology is assumed to
be between 85 and 94 percent efficient
depending on when the unit was built.
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
All scenarios would result in increased
utility nitrogen oxide emissions. Simi-
larly, except under the high electrical
energy growth scenario, utility nitrogen
oxide emissions would increase at
about the same rate through 1985 and
would be nearly the same in 2000—
approximately 35 percent higher than
1976 emissions (see figure ES-9). There
are two reasonsfor the similarity among
scenarios. First, nitrogen oxide emission
limits do not exist for SIP plants in the
ORBES region, except in the urban areas
of Illinois. Second, the same emission
limits were assumed for new units
under all scenarios. Thus, nitrogen oxide
emissions would increase from the
1976 levels primarily in proportion to
electricity demand growth and to the
lifetime of SIP units. This fact also
explains why, after 1985, nitrogen oxide
emissions would increase under the
high electrical growth case at a,faster
rate than under the other scenarios: the
high growth case has the highest elec-
tricity demand growth and assumes 45-
year SIP unit lifetimes instead of the 35-
year lifetimes assumed under the other
coal-dominated scenarios.
Pollutant Concentrations
The magnitude of changes in utility
sulfur dioxide emission levels under
each scenario corresponds to changes
in annual average {or long-term) and
episodic (short-term) regional sulfur
dioxide and sulfate concentrations.
Moreover, since, as discussed earlier,
the transformation Of sulfur dioxide into
.§
2.5-
2.0-
1,,
c
01
I
1.0-
0.5
.HEG
SEC
Base Case (BC)
Strict Environmental Controls (SEC)
SIP Noncompliance (SIP-N)
High Electrical Energy Growth (HEG)
* Electrical Exports, emissions in 2000
1976
Figure ES-9.
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Electric utility nitrogen oxide emissions in the ORBES region, coal
dominated scenarios.
sulfates contributes to concentrations
of total suspended particulates, reduc-
tions in both utility particulate emissions
and utility sulfur dioxide emissions
could reduce measured TSP concentra-
tions. However, the ratio of the lower
ORBES region's contribution to concen-
trations in the upper region is not likely
to change from the ratio during the base
period under any of the scenarios.
Many of the same statements made
about emissions under the various
scenarios also apply to comparisons of
the scenarios and their annual concen-
trations. For example, regardless of
scenario, the regional sulfur dioxide and
sulfate concentrations in 2000 attribut-
able to utility emissions would be lower
than the present concentrations. Again,
it is the strict environmental control
case that would reduce the annual
average concentrations the most and
that would reduce them more rapidly
than any of the other scenarios (see
table ES-2). Similarly, the high electrical
energy growth case and the noncom-
pliance case would result in the least
reduction by the year 2000. In fact, the
1976 concentrations would even in-
crease through 1985 under the non-
compliance case. In general, most con-
centration reductions would occur by
Table ES-2. Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfate Annual Average Concentrations, ORBES Region, Percent Change from 1976, Highest
Concentration Region
Pollutant
Concentration,
1976 (fjg/m3)
Year
Base Case
Strict
Environmental SIP High Electrical
Controls Noncompliance Energy Growth
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfates
Sulfates
25.88
25.88
9.2
9.2
1985
2000
1985
2000
-28
-50
-27
-49
-62
-71
-56
-66
+16
-18
+13
-20
-30
-29
-25
-25
-------
985—regardless of scenario—if SIP
plants have complied by that date.
Figures ES-10 and ES-11 illustrate the
reductions in annual average sulfur
dioxide and sulfate concentrations
under the base case in 2000 as compared
with the 1976 concentrations.
Another benefit of lower utility sulfur
dioxide emissions is the probable reduc-
ion of the concentrations that would
occur under episodic conditions. If the
characteristics of the August 27, 1974,
mlfate episode were to be repeated in
2000 under any of the scenarios, the
Dredicted utility-related, short-term sul-
ur dioxide and sulfate concentrations
would be reduced from the utility-
•elated, short-term concentrations that
were registered during that episode (see
able ES-3). However, since these short-
erm concentrations were quite high
luring the August 27 episode (the most
requently occurring type of episode in
he ORBES region) even the 49 and 51
lercent reductions that would occur in
!000 under the base case would result
n short-term sulfur dioxide levels on
he order of 30 micrograms per cubic
neter and in short-term sulfate levels
hat would be considered marginally
ipisodic—that is, on the order of 15
nicrograms per cubic meter over a large
irea. On the other hand, the strict
nvironmental control case would lead
o reductions of such magnitude that
he short-term levels of sulfur dioxide
md sulfates no longer would be con-
idered episodic. As can be deduced,
herefore, the noncompliance and the
ligh growth cases, which reduce emis-
lions the least by 2000, would result in
elatively high episodic concentrations.
Annual average and episodic concent-
rations are important in terms of both
•egional crop loss impacts and regional
tealth impacts (among other things)
tince the reductions in concentrations
;onsistently correlate with less crop
oss and fewer health impacts.
Figure ES-10. Annual average sulfur dioxide concentrations, electric utility
contribution.
Figure ES-11. Annual average sulfate concentrations, utility contribution.
'able ES-3.
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfate Episodic Concentrations, ORBES Region, Percent Change from August 27, 1974,
Episode, Highest Concentration Region
Concentration,
1976 (ug/m3)
Year
Base Case
Strict
Environmental
Controls
SIP
Noncompliance
High Electrical
Energy Growth
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfates
Sulfates
94.04
94.40
40.10
40.10
1985
2000
1985
2000
-31
-49
-25
-51
-68
-75
-76
-78
+ 18
-13
+J6
-30
-34
-30
-23
-18
-------
Physical Crop Losses
In terms of agricultural impacts,
studies have indicated that sulfur dioxide
concentrations as low as 130 micro-
grams per cubic meter (one-tenth of the
secondary three-hour standard) in the
presence of moderate ozone levels (0.06
to 0.1 parts per million) can affect
vegetation. Thus, three coal-dominated
scenarios—the base case, the noncom-
pliance case, and the high growth case—
were examined to determine the regional
acreage that could be affected by the
sulfur dioxide concentrations attributable
to ORBES-region utility emissions. Each
of these three scenarios also was exam-
ined to determine the impact of such
affected acreage on crop yields, and it
was found that crop yield losses would
not be as high in both 1985 and 2000 as
they were in 1976. However, because
utility sulfur dioxide emissions would be
higher under the noncompliance case
and because more acreage would be
affected by the resulting sulfur dioxide
concentrations of 130 micrograms per
cubic meter, noncompliance would
result in the highest losses. Neverthe-
less, regardless of the scenario, physical
crop losses related to utility sulfur
dioxide emissions would represent less
than 1 percent of the expected regional
yield in any given year. Thus, from this
regional perspective, the direct effects
of sulfur dioxide emissions in the ORBES
region on agricultural losses can be
thought of as negligible under all three
of these scenarios.
The majority of regional crop losses
are the result of oxidants formed from
hydrocarbons and from nitrogen oxide
emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions in
the ORBES region originate primarily
from transportation and from electrical
generation. However, it is projected that
nitrogen oxides from transportation will
decrease significantly by the year 2000.
Thus, utility nitrogen oxide emissions
will begin to constitute a larger propor-
tion of the regional nitrogen oxide emis-
sions, especially since nitrogen oxide
standards do not yet exist for SIP units in
the ORBES region and since SIP-unit
emissions are projected to account for
the majority of all utility emissions. Asa
result, the rate of decrease in ozone
production as well as the rate of decrease
in ozone-related crop losses may be
dictated by utility nitrogen oxide
emissions.
In general, regardless of the scenario,
losses due to oxidants would constitute
about 99 percent of all the losses
expected because of sulfur dioxide and
ozone. Moreover, the distribution of the
losses due to oxidants would vary
among state portions. However, the
ORBES state portions of Illinois, Indiana,
and Ohio would account for about 95
percent of both sulfur dioxide and ozone
losses. Finally, the distribution of all
crop losses due to air pollution is not
merely a local problem—that is, merely
in the vicinity of a power plant—but,
because of pollutant transport, these
losses may occur in areas removed from
major point sources. The dollar losses
related to crop losses due to sulfur
dioxide and all oxidants are given.
Mortality
Substantial controversy exists about
the quantification of deaths related to
air quality. Yet increasing evidence
exists to support the hypothesis that the
annual average exposure to sulfates—
or something closely related to them—
results in an increased mortality rate.
Therefore, cumulative sulfate-related
deaths between 1975 and 2000 were
projected for the coal-dominated sce-
narios. Such projections depend on the
damage function employed since rates
between 0 and 9 per 100,000 persons
exposed per microgram of sulfates per
cubic meter are found in the literature. If
a rate of 3 is used, it becomes clear that
the magnitude of utility emissions is a
dominant factor: the strict control case
would result in the lowest number of
cumulative deaths, while the noncom-
pliance case and the high growth case
would result in the most such deaths.
Cumulative sulfate-related deaths under
the latter two scenarios also would be
nearly 34 and 13 percent higher, re-
spectively, than would the deaths under
the base case.
Economic Impacts Related to
Air Quality Impacts
The costs to the utilities and to the
consumer of the possible reductions in
emissions and other air-related impacts
also were projected for the five coal-
dominated scenarios as well as for the
least emissions variation and the high
electrical energy growth case with a 35-
year lifetime variation. Agricultural
monetary losses also were estimated
for three scenarios—the base case, the
noncompliance case, and the high
growth case. Knowing these costs
permits comparisons among the sce-
narios in terms of the social benefits
derived from reduced emissions versu
the economic impacts of such reduction;
Utility Costs
Figure ES-12 charts the costs to th
utilities of installing new coal-fire
generating capacity, of installing polk
tion control devices on these new unit!
and of retrofitting existing units. A
shown in this figure, the base case, th
strict control case, and the noncompl
ance case would result in the sam
capital costs but in different pollutio
control costs. The differences in polk
tion control costs among these thre
scenarios would result entirely fromth
retrofitting of existing SIP plants wit
pollution control devices. Thus, the toti
cumulative pollution control costs fc
the base case would be higher tha
those under the noncompliance cas
because under the base case about on*
third of existing capacity would be retrc
fitted. Under the strict control case, o
the other hand, almost all of the existin
capacity would be retrofitted, resultin
in the highest cumulative pollutio
control costs of the three scenarios.
The high growth case and its variatior
and the export case would result i
higher costs to the utilities than woul
the first three scenarios. These highi
costs, however, would be due to th
costs of installing the expanded gene
ating capacity and the pollution contr
devices on this new capacity. Thus,
the proportion of pollution control cos
to total capital costs is examined, tr
base case and the high growth case ai
similar: under both scenarios, pollutic
control costs would total about 21 to 2
percent of the total costs. It should t
noted, however, that these total capit
costs do not reflect the operating cost
The operating costs are included in tt
calculation of the price of electricit
which reflects all the costs borne by tt
utilities each year. Thus, for exampl
while the high growth scenario and tt
high growth least emissions variatic
are projected to have the same capit
costs, there would- be differences
their operating costs since the lea
emissions dispatching variation wou
require increased operation of pollutic
control devices and the burning
greater quantities of cleaned or lov
sulfur coals.
Consumer Costs
The direct costs to the consum
would increase regardless of scenar
In the short run, however, some sc
10
-------
130-
120-
110-
100-
SO-
SO-
I
-§ 70-
£
£ 60-
**»
SN.
£ SO-
o
J40-
30-
20-
10-
/;
/ 14.20 1 14.20
6
5.6
=
—
™™"
^^^
i
7
6.12
12.55
670
99.;
§2
=
=
==
=
=
7
6.12
8
16.58
67.0
0.1
cm
m
•^^
/
2
2.79
10.33
670
03.
m
g&
on
-
=
—
4
6.7
14.8
81.9
.-.
—
~-
T*~"
=
=
=
—
— —
=
p-
==
7.04
76.75
90.35
n
^
=:
—
—
—
=
—
—
—
—
—
=
^^
—
—
=
7.04
16.78
90.38
26.2
i
^—
•—
^^
—
—
==
=
—~-
~~~
— —
=
—
-
=
^^
i
7.67
18.5
100.04
Base Strict SIP Electrical 45-year 45-year 35-year
Case Environmental ft/on- Exports Least Cost Least Least Cost
Controls Compliance (EX) \ Emissions
X (LED)
Cumulative
sulfur dioxide and
paniculate
control costs
Scenario
BC
SEC
SIP-N
EX
HEG
LED
35 -Year
costs
billion
$
18.67
22.7
13.12
21.5
23.82
23.82
26.17
%
total
costs
21.8
25.3
16.4
20.8
20.9
20.9
20.7
D
High Electrical Energy
Growth
Cumulative capital costs to install new
coal-fired generating capacity, 1976-2000
Cumulative costs for sulfur dioxide
control, 1976-2000
I Cumulative costs for paniculate
\control. 1976-2000
Figure ES-12. Cumulative capital costs, coal-dominated scenarios, 1976-2000.
narios may result in a faster rate of
increase in the price of electricity (see
figure ES-13). Several observations can
be made about the electricity prices and
their rate of increase. For one, between
1976 and 1985, the price of electricity
rises according to the added costs of
complying with SIP emission limits,
paying for rising fuel and capital costs,
and meeting electricity demand. Thus,
as figure ES-13 indicates, the price of
electricity between 1976 and 1985
would rise similarly when nearly the
same degree of compliance is assumed—
that is, under all the scenarios but the
noncompliance case. The strict environ-
mental control case, however, would
result in the greatest increase in elec-
tricity prices since complying with
stricter SIP standards would cost the
utilities more. The price of electricity
under the noncompliance case, of course,
reflects the absence of such control
costs.
Between 1985 and 1995, the rise in
electricity prices depends on the annual
electricity demand growth rate, capacity
replacement, and capacity expansion.
Since the base case, the strict control
case, and the noncompliance case
assume nearly the same replacement,
expansion, and growth rates, the price
of electricity would rise little between
these years. Under the high growth
scenario and its variations, however,
the price of electricity rises between
1985 and 1995 since more capacity
expansion is projected under these
scenarios. The greater operating costs
of least emissions dispatching also are
reflected in the higher price of electricity
under this variation.
Between 1995 and 2000, all scenarios
show a rise in the price of electricity.
This increase would result because
additional generating units must be
constructed to satisfy electricity demand
after the year 2000 and because a
significant number of SIP units will
retire during these years and must be
replaced.
Because some scenarios would cause
electricity prices to be higher in the
short run, the cumulative costs to
consumers between 1976 and 2000
give a better idea of the total consumer
costs than the price of electricity in a
given year. Under the compliance or
base case, such cumulative revenues
required from consumers would total
$525 billion (1975 dollars, or approxi-
mately $709 billion in 1979 dollars).
Compared to the base case revenues.
-------
6-]
1 5.
O)
2
x
.^
u
S 2-
0)
-------
lortages of the skilled labor necessary
o power plant construction and opera-
ion—such as boilermakers, pipefitters,
md electricians—might accompany the
ligh growth case. In general, however,
killed labor shortages would not be a
najor problem for the region under any
if the other coal-dominated cases,
ilthough local shortages could possibly
ccur.
Annual coal production in the region
or all purposes and mining employment
vould increase under the base case, the
trict environmental control case, and
ie electrical exports case. However,
nnual coal production would be much
igher in 2000 under the electrical
xports case than it would be under the
ther two scenarios. Thus, regional
lining employment would rise similarly
nder the base case and the strict
ontrol case, from a minimum of 36
ercent to a maximum of about 226
ercent, depending on the county. Such
mployment would increase from a
linimum of 42 percent to a maximum
f 270 percent under the electrical
xports case. It is also projected that at
iast 79 to 88 of the 152 ORBES counties
/ith a concentration in coal mining
/ould experience boom-town effects
jrowth over 200 percent) under all
tree of these scenarios.
Jealth
Under all of the coal-dominated sce-
larios, the health impacts related to
upplying coal to ORBES power plants
vould increase. This increase results
iecause, under all scenarios, coal
iroduction as well as electric utility coal
Consumption would rise from current
evels. In 1985, the increases in the
lealth impacts in the coal-mining and
loal-processing sectors would be the
ame under all coal-dominated scenarios.
n 2000, three of the scenarios—the
iase case, the strict control case, and
he noncompliance case—would result
n similar health impacts in these sectors,
while the high growth case and the
ixports case would result in impacts
ibout 17 percent higher. The health
mpacts in the coal transportation sector
were analyzed only for the base case
md the strict control case and only for
he year 2000. Both cases would result
n an increase in the fatalities associated
with transport to ORBES electrical
jenerating facilities, but in the same
lumber of injuries as currently since
railroad injuries are projected to decline
at a greater rate than fatalities.
Water Quality
A comparison of the water quality
analyses condupted for the coal-domi-
nated scenarios, reveals that none of
these scenarios would result in aquatic
habitat impacts very different from each
other or from those that could have
occurred in 1976 under 7-day-10-year
low flow conditions. Thus, whether
historical municipal or industrial growth
continues, or whether low, high, or base
case electricity demand occurs, the
region already appears to have the
potential to experience its most serious
aquatic habitat impacts under 7-day-
10-year low flow conditions. However,
although overall aquatic habitat impacts
change little under most of these sce-
narios, under the strict control case and
the high growth case, some rivers
would register perhaps slightly less or
more stress than they would under the
base case.
Background Concentrations
The reason why the majority of the
streams would experience the same
impacts under the scenarios as they
would under 1976 conditions concerns
the high background concentration
levels that exist in the region. As noted
under the base period discussion, 19 of
the 24 streams studied could have
violated several of the study's reference
concentrations under 7-day-10-year
low flow at some time in 1976. Further,
the overwhelming majority of these
high background concentrations are
estimated to be geochemical or to
originate from nonpoint sources under
conditions of higher flow. Since the
likelihood of bringing nonpoint sources
under control during the time frame of
this study is considered almost impos-
sible by most experts, background levels
in the ORBES streams were projected to
remain constant between 1975 and
2000 under all scenarios except the
strict control case. Under the strict
control case it was assumed that back-
ground levels would be reduced by half
by the year 2000. (It also was assumed
under this case that power plant effluent
loadings would be reduced 95 percent
from the base case loadings.) Such
calculations reveal that if such a reduc-
tion were to occur, aquatic habitat
impacts would remain about the same
although slightly less stress would be
experienced on all rivers. The results
under the strict control case thus sug-
gest that background levels are so high
that they would have to be reduced by
more than half to avoid serious aquatic
habitat impacts under 7-day-10-year
low flow conditions.
Loadings
The influence of these background
concentrations is further indicated
when the effluent loading assumptions
of these scenarios are compared. Under
all of the coal-dominated scenarios
except the strict environmental control
case, power plant effluents were not
limited. The strict control case, however,
along with its assumption of reduced
concentrations, assumed that energy
conversion facilities would operate at 5
percent of base case levels. However, a
comparison of the strict control case
with the other coal-dominated cases—
the base case, for example—reveals
little difference because of the loading
assumptions. Although slightly less
stress would occur on all rivers under
strict controls, aquatic habitat impacts
remain the same as under the base case
on all but four rivers. If the impacts
under the strict control case then are
compared to those that could have
occurred in 1976, only two rivers would
register changes from the 1976 aquatic
habitat impacts. Thus, since loading is
not a significant factor, background
concentrations appear mainly respon-
sible for the substantial impacts that
could occur under 7-day-10-year low
flow conditions.
Consumption
Power plant consumption would be
important on those of the region's
smaller streams where little municipal
and industrial consumption occurs and
where flow under 7-day-10-year low
flow conditions would be curtailed
drastically. However, if background con-
centrations were not so high on these
small streams, power plant consumption
might have little impact. Thus, once
again the high background levels are
more important than the consumption
source.
What the impacts on these small
streams suggest is that alternative
siting or technology could alleviate
almost all power-plant-related impacts
on water quality under all scenarios.
There is, however, one, perhaps signifi-
cant, problem with alternative siting of
power plants. Although water quality
would be protected, air quality would
suffer since most of the suitable alter-
native sites in terms of water quality are
located along the Ohio River main stem.
13
-------
where air quality problems exist. A fur-
ther concentration of power plants in
this area thus could exacerbate these
air quality problems.
What can be done to avoid the com-
bined effects of natural forces and high
background concentrations thus is hard
to pinpoint, especially if it is unlikely that
nonpoint sources can be brought under
control. Preventing the rather minor
power-plant-related impacts would
necessitate the tradeoff just discussed.
Avoiding the potentially significant
impacts of municipal and industrial
consumption also would involve trade-
offs. If, for example, regulatory bodies
were to implement siting restrictions
that prohibit the siting of any entity that
consumed water along streams having
7-day-10-year low flows less than 100
cubic feet per second, a number of rivers
would not be available for growth of any
kind. This condition would result in a
very limited number of sitesfor industry,
especially for power plants. Thus, as
this brief outlining of some possible
steps and their limitations suggests,
improvements in water quality may
require some environmental, social,
and economic tradeoffs that would have
their own repercussions.
Mitigation Strategies
On a regional scale, existing institu-
tional mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate air quality impacts, many of
which transcend political boundaries
both inside and outside the ORBES
region, particularly to the northeast.
Technical Strategies
A variety of technical strategies,
usually applied on a plant-by-plant
basis, could be more effective if imple-
mented regionally. Among the technical
strategies discussed in the context of
the ORBES scenarios are the use of flue
gas desulfurization systems, or "scrub-
bers"; least emissions dispatching;
modified plant retirement schedules;
and stricter environmental standards.
Techno-Organizational
Strategies
In contrast to technical strategies,
which usually are applied at single
generating units or within a single utility
service area, techno-organizational
strategies are broader and could be
developed on an interstate, multistate,
or regional scale. The need for such
strategies arises from transboundary air
pollution transport, which can be divided
into two types: (1) local transboundary
air pollution transport (the movement of
air masses is over relatively short
distances across state lines and the
contributions from individual plant
sources usually can be identified) and
(2) long-range transboundary air pollu-
tion transport (the air masses travel
longer distances, often across several
state lines, and the contributions from
individual sources are difficult to isolate).
Local Transboundary Transport
Local transboundary air pollution
transport is treated in the Clean Air Act,
in provisions that attempt to make a
state responsible for pollution that
originates within its borders but is trans-
ported short distances into other states.
At present, action is pending on at least
three petitions filed by several ORBES-
region states in regard to air pollution
generated by power plants in neighbor-
Ing states. Protracted legal proceedings
on related local transboundary pollution
questions also have taken place in the
region within the context of the Clean
Air Act.
Long-Range Transboundary
Transport
Long-range transboundary air pollu-
tion transport, on the other hand, is not
covered specifically in the Clean Air Act.
However, as discussed previously, long-
range transport contributes to violations
of NAAQS in the upper ORBES region.
Thus, air quality in the ORBES region
and beyond could be improved if there
were a regionwide techno-organiza-
tional strategy for determining expected
emissions from coal-burning plants,
siting new plants, and operating both
existing and new facilities. A coordinated
strategy is necessary because of the
interdependency of emission reductions,
siting, and operations.
A coordinated siting mechanism could
help to reduce pollutant concentrations
at local "hot spots," where these con-
centrations are highest. However, total
regional pollutant loadings would remain
the same whether a regional siting
mechanism is developed or not. Thus,
regional coordination appears to be
required to reduce pollutant loadings
and/or to reduce concentrations from
long-range transboundary pollution in
the ORBES region and beyond.
Utilities and State Governments
If new organizational approaches are
to be devised in a meaningful way, both
the states and the electric utilities mus
participate. Voluntary cooperatio
among utility companies is one possibi
ity, but it may not be realistic to expe<
utilities in different states to wor
together in activities aimed at th
mitigation of negative transboundary a
quality impacts. Moreover, cooperatio
would have to encompass operations t
well as siting if extraregional impaci
were to be mitigated.
If utilities were to agree upon th
desirability of cooperation in eithc
siting or operations across state line
the most appropriate organization;
arrangements are not clear. At preser
utilities are regulated by individu;
states, and most utility service aret
follow state lines. Thus, voluntary ci
operation across state lines probab
would be difficult. Yet the utilities c
engage in interstate cooperation i
several other areas, principally in U
assurance of electric power reliability.
is conceivable that regional reliabili
councils now in operation could stimi
late further cooperation. Indeed, tt
expansion of existing federal legislatic
might encourage cooperative siting,
not cooperative operations. Cooperatk
among the states in this regard ah
should be examined, but prospects i
not appear promising. In only one ORBE
state, Ohio, has the legislature mai
dated administrative leaders to set
cooperation with other states in devc
oping mitigation strategies. Ohio is all
the only ORBES state with a "one-sto|
siting procedure; if similar arrangemen
existed in other ORBES states, th<
might provide a vehicle for intersta
discussions on siting problems.
Interstate Compacts
Another potential vehicle is the intc
state compact. For example, an exist!)
compact, the Ohio River Valley Wat
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCC
might be expanded in scope to pern
supplementary agreements, betwe<
two or more member states, to resol
transboundary air pollution conflic
and other problems related to intersta
facility siting and possibly operations
No interstate compact to mitiga
long-range transboundary air pollutii
is known to operate anywhere in tl
country at this time. However, tl
Delaware River Basin Compact h
organizational elements that could I
relevant in the consideration of such
mechanism for the ORBES region. F
example, the Delaware compact h
-------
m instrumental in obtaining inter-
ate approval of power plant sites.
ther Regional Bodies
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
nnot be ignored in any consideration
mitigation strategies. A portion of
mtucky is included in the TVA area,
id problems of long-range transbound-
y air pollution transport are shared by
e TVA area and the ORBES region. In
:t, the two areas are connected in so
ny ways as to make separate treat-
mt impossible.
Other regional bodies that should be
nsidered in this context are the Ohio
ver Basin Commission and the Ap-
lachian Regional Commission (ARC).
ime have suggested that the ARC's
nctions be expanded so that this
janization could address air impacts
the Ohio River valley and perhaps
rticipate in interstate siting. However,
i proposal has found little support.
deral Action
'he most likely federal initiatives will
iter on the Clean Air Act; an upcoming
bate in Congress will review the
tire act, including the 1977 amend-
mts. The most extreme possibility,
deral preemption, is considered
likely.
el Substitution and
mservation Scenarios
:our scenarios investigate energy
j fuel use characteristics that differ
m those of the coal-dominated sce-
•ios (see table ES-1). Three of the
IBS assume relatively less emphasis
coal use for electrical generation
:ause of partial substitution by other
sis. In the natural gas substitution
e, natural gas is substituted for other
its whenever practicable, but not to
i utility boilers. In the nuclear fuel
jstitution case, nuclear-fueled elec-
trical generating capacity substitutes
directly for coal-fired capacity. In the
alternative fuel substitution case, a
variety of alternative fuels, including
biomass and solar energy, partially
replace coal-fired capacity. The fourth
case assumes that energy growth in the
ORBES region is significantly less than
under all other scenarios because of the
implementation of conservation mea-
sures. All four cases are compared with
the coal-dominated base case.
The same regional population, fertility,
and economic growth rates are assumed
in the four scenarios discussed here as
are assumed in the coal-dominated
case. Moreover, base case environmental
controls are assumed under all four
scenarios. Finally, the same assump-
tions as under the coal-dominated
scenarios are made concerning the
mining for utility coal and the utility-
announced capacity.
Comparison of Fuel
Substitution and Conservation
Scenarios
An analysis of these fuel substitution
and conservation scenarios suggests
that all of these scenarios would reduce
the emission-related impacts that are
projected to occur under the coal-domi-
nated base case. Other across-the-
board comparisons, however, are more
difficult to make.
Emissions, Concentrations,
and Air-Quality-Related
Impacts
Emissions
Utility sulfur dioxide emissions would
be only slightly lower in 2000 under the
fuel substitution and conservation sec-
narios than under the base case (see
table ES-4) even though substantially
fewer coal-fired units would be added
under the substitution and conservation
scenarios. The conservation case would
reduce sulfur dioxide emissions the
most (resulting in emissions 11 percent
lower than under the base case), and
the nuclear substitution case would
reduce them the least (resulting in emis-
sions only 3 percent lower).
The expanded use of SIP generating
units under each of the fuel substitution
and conservation scenarios explains
why these scenarios would result in
sulfur dioxide emissions quite similar to
those of the base case. Under both the
conservation emphasis case and the
natural gas substitution case, fewer
new generating units would be built
than under the base case; under the
nuclear fuel substitution case, new
units added after 1985 would be nuclear
fueled rather than coal fired. As a result,
SIP-regulated generating units would
be used more than they would under the
base case, where some of the electrical
generation shifts to the new, cleaner
RNSPS units. For example, under the
natural gas substitution case, SIP units
would account for 32 percent of the
electrical generation in the year 2000,
whereas they would account for 25
percent under the base case. Thus,
while sulfur dioxide emissions from
SIP-regulated units would account for
67 percent (or 2.93 million tons) of the
sulfur dioxide emitted in 2000 under the
base case, under the natural gas case
such emissions not only would be
higher (3.05 million tons) but also would
account for more of the total emissions
(78 percent of the 3.93 million tons
emitted).
Paniculate emissions also would be
lower under all of the fuel substitution
and conservation scenarios than they
would be under the base case. However,
again because of the expanded use of
SIP units to generate electricity, these
emissions would be only slightly lower
than under the base case.
'\le ES-4. Sulfur Dioxide, Paniculate, and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, ORBES Region, Fuel Substitution and conservation
Emphasis Scenarios, Year 2000
976
ase Case
Natural Gas Substitution
luclear Fuel Substitution
Conservation Emphasis
Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions
8.94
4.35
3.93
4.21
3.87
Paniculate
Emissions
(millions of tons)
1.38
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.16
Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions
1.49
2.00
1.51
1.84
1.47
tote: Emission levels were not calculated for the alternative fuel substitution case.
15
-------
Utility nitrogen oxide emissions would
not increase as much under the fuel
substitution and conservation scenarios
as under the base case (see table ES-4)
since such emissions rise in proportion
to increased generating capacity, and
less generating capacity is added under
all of the substitution and conservation
scenarios than under any of the coal-
dominated scenarios.
Although annual and episodic con-
centrations, crop losses, and emission-
related mortality were not examined
thoroughly under these fuel substitution
and conservation scenarios, a few
general observations can be made using
the patterns developed under the coal-
dominated scenario analyses.
Concentrations
Since the magnitude of sulfur dioxide
and particulate emission reductions
consistently correlates with reductions
in annual and episodic sulfur dioxide
and particulate concentrations, and
since all of the fuel substitution and
conservation scenarios would reduce
these emissions more than the base
case would, concentrations should be
lower in 2000 under any of the fuel
substitution and conservation scenarios
than under the base case. This observa-
tion is confirmed by calculations per-
formed for the natural gas substitution
case. Under the natural gas case, episodic
sulfur dioxide and sulfate concentrations
would be 25 and 15.6 percent lower,
respectively, in the year 2000 than they
would be under the base case in that
year. Annual average concentrations
would be about the same in 1985 and
about 7 percent lower in 2000 than
under the base case.
Physical Crop Losses
Similarly, physical crop losses in the
year 2000 due to utility sulfur dioxide
emissions should be lower under any of
the fuel substitution and .conservation
cases than they would be under the
base case. However, even under the
base case such crop losses would
represent less than 1 percent of the total
regional yield.
It is the crop losses due to oxidants
that these substitution and conservation
scenarios should reduce the most. As
will be recalled, increased utility nitrogen
oxide emissions under the coal-domi-
nated base case could contribute signif-
icantly by the year 2000 to crop losses.
Thus, since the fuel substitution and
conservation scenarios would result in
utility nitrogen oxide emissions signifi-
cantly or substantially lower than those
under the base case, related crop losses
also should be significantly to substan-
tially lower under these scenarios.
Mortality
Finally, mortality related to air quality
should decrease under all of these fuel
substitution and conservation scenarios.
An analysis of sulfate-related deaths
under the natural gas substitution case
bears out this observation. Under this
case, cumulative sulfate deaths related
to ORBES-region electrical generation
would be 21 percent lower between
1975 and 2000 than they would be
under the base case.
Economic Impacts Related to
Air Quality Impacts
Utility Costs
In terms of the monetary costs to the
utilities and to the consumer for the
lower emissions, all three of these
substitution and conservation scenarios
should result in lower cumulative pollu-
tion control costs and lower cumulate
capital costs to install new coal-fire
capacity than would the base case (sc
figure ES-15). These reductions are tt
direct result of decreased coal-fir*
generating capacity under all of the;
scenarios. However, when the costs
installing nuclear-fueled capacity a
added, the nuclear fuel substitute
case results in total costs about 1
percent higher than the total cos
under the base case. The nuclear su
stitution case would result in the
higher costs because the cost of bull
ing a nuclear-fueled plant is appro;
mately 20 percent higher than the cc
of building a comparable coal-fired plai
Consumer Costs
Consumer costs were calculated or
for the natural gas substitution cas
Thus, the exact economic benefits f
the consumer of reduced pollution co
trol costs and of reduced capital cos
are unknown for the other fuel su
stitution and conservation scenario
Under the natural gas substitution cas
however, the total revenues collect
Note: The same nuclear capacity was assumed under all scenarios but
the nuclear fuel substitution case. For all scenarios but the
nuclear case, cumulative capital costs for nuclear-fueled capacity
were $8.3 billion.
p=i Cumulative Capital costs to install new coal-fin
Hi generating capacity, 1976-2000
90-
80-
u> 70-
1 60-
10
rx
05 50-
fi
o
c, 40-
c
:§
!§ 30-
20-
70-
8
5.6
^
• —
==
=E
—
—
=
EE:
=
^ —
==
I — -"
-7 1 — 1 Cumulative costs ior si
\ 1 control, 1976-2000
vj&s Cumulative costs for p<
.,,..- Ka control, 1976-2000
I4.BO
54.70
67.0
?K
««
=
-—
=
^=
JZZ7
^
=
5.05 49.22
S- 77 42.23
40.94
m
ssss
^
^
EE:
4.77
7.72
30.4
m
4.94 <
7.98
36.3
!6.>
EE
—
—
EE
EE
—
^
=
Case Qas Emphasis fired Fueled
Substitution (CON)
(NG)
Cumulative qutfur dioxid
and particulate control
costs
Scenario
BC
NG
CON
NF
Costs
billion $
18.67
13.76
11.83
12.92
%tot
cost,
21.i
25.1
28.1
26..
Figure ES-15.
Nuclear Fuel Substitution (NF)
Cumulative capital costs, base case, fuel substitution scenari
and conservation emphasis scenario, 1976-2000.
16
-------
om consumers between 1976 and
XX) would be lower (by about 26 per-
ent) than the total revenues collected
inder the base case during the same
'ears. Yet the actual price of electricity
12000 under the former case would be
nly 0.2 percent lower in 2000 than it
/ould be under the coal-dominated
ase case. The reason for this similarity
i the year 2000 can be traced to the fact
lat similar electricity demand growth
ites were assumed for these two
:enarios between 1985 and 2000.
ther Impacts Related to
xpanded Capacity
ealth and Land
As a result of decreased generating
pacity, decreased coal production,
id decreased utility coal consumption
ider the fuel substitution and conser-
ition scenarios, fewer health impacts
lated to coal mining, coal processing,
id coal transport would occur than
ould occur under the coal-dominated
enarios. Similarly, land conversion
juld be lower under these substitution
id conservation options than under
ise case. However, even under the
se case, land conversion would repre-
nt less than 1 percent of regional
reage, although some state portions
juld be more affected than others.
•nployment
Since coal-fired power plant construe-
in and operation would not increase
>idly under the fuel substitution and
nservation scenarios, neither would
lated employment under any of these
ses. Compared to the coal-dominated
se case, for example, the number of
instruction and operation workers
teded would be much lower (see
ure ES-16). However, employment
teds related to the increased use of
tural gas, nuclear power, or alternative
els were not calculated; in fact, these
ieds could compensate for the lower
imand for coal-fired power plant
orkers.
Again because fewer coal-fired gen-
ating facilities are sited and because
owth is lower in all sectors, less coal
ould be needed under all of the fuel
bstitution and conservation scenarios
an under the coal-dominated cases,
hough such coal demand would be
imewhat higher than at present (see
ble ES-1). Thus, coal-mining employ-
ent for all purposes would increase
om current levels at a slower rate
under the substitution and conservation
scenarios. Moreover, if county-level
population increases should exceed the
employment increases, negative county-
level population increases should exceed
the employment increases, negative
county-level impacts that might have
been avoided under coal-dominated
scenarios might be felt under the substi-
tution and conservation cases.
Water
Regional water quality impacts would
be about the same under both the fuel
substitution and conservation scenarios
and the coal-dominated scenarios. In
fact, no changes would be registered in
base case protection levels and base
case aquatic habitat impacts for any
river under any of the fuel substitution
and conservation scenarios. This across-
the-board similarity, as discussed pre-
viously, results primarily from high
background concentrations alone or in
conjunction with municipal and indus-
trial consumption: In comparison, power
plant consumption would have only an
incremental impact on most of the
streams under all scenarios.
Institutional Considerations:
Nuclear Energy, Alternative
Fuels, and Conservation
It is considered unlikely that either
nuclear energy or alternative fuels will
contribute substantially to energy sup-
plies in the ORBES region or the nation,
at least by the end of this century. One
reason is that a major increase in the
proportion of electricity generated by
nuclear fuels is not expected to occur in
the coal-dominated ORBES region. A
second reason is that a major shift to
alternative fuels would require more
extensive technological and institutional
changes than are considered possible in
the next 20 years. However, conserva-
tion could make significant inroads by
the end of the century. Conservation
would require improvements in end-use
efficiencies and changes in lifestyle, but
no radically new technologies. (Existing
institutional mechanisms would be ade-
1750O
15000
\
§
12500
o
£ 10000
o
7500-
5000\
Note: Same starting point in 1970 assumed.
The number of construction workers
required under the nuclear fuel sub-
stitution case was not calculated.
BC
— Base Case (BC)
•— Natural Gas Substitution (NG) \
— Alternative Fuel Substitution (AF) V.
— Conservation Emphasis (CON)
^~"—CON
1975
Figure ES-16.
1980
1985
1990
1995
Construction workers, base case, fuel substitution scenarios, and
conservation emphasis scenario, 1975-95.
17
-------
quate to handle a major increase in the
use of natural gas.)
Nuclear Energy
Within the ORBES region, opposition
to the use of nuclear energy for electrical
generation is particularly visible in Ken-
tucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Among the factors leading to this oppo-
sition are the doctrine of federal pre-
emption, controversy over the health
effects of low- and high-level radiation,
and growing dissatisfaction with the
economics of nuclear energy.
With regard to preemption, the central,
unresolved question is whether a state
may legally pass legislation to control
the placement of nuclear facilities or the
transportation or storage of nuclear
materials within its borders. With regard
to the economics of nuclear-fueled
generation, nuclear-fueled units are
slightly more expensive to build than are
coal-fired units under the current fiscal
and regulatory schemes prevalent in the
ORBES region. In addition, at least in a
representative portion of the region, the
cost advantage of coal would be sub-
stantially greater without present federal
tax and other fiscal policies that favor
capital-intensive production (including
the nuclear industry).
Alternative Fuels
The alternative fuels case considers
the partial substitution of direct and
indirect solar energy processes for coal-
fired electrical generation in the ORBES
region.
Solar Energy
Three broad groups of institutional
issues are associated with the introduc-
tion of solar energy: legal and physical
access to sunlight, integration with
existing energy infrastructures and in-
stitutions, and government program
implementation and management.
The solar access barrier stems from
the basic orientation of real property law
toward the development of land. That is,
the potential investor in a solar energy
system is not guaranteed permanent
access to sunlight. Changes in nuisance
law, zoning, solar easements, and
restrictive covenants offer possible
remedies. At present, limited solar
access laws have been enacted in Illinois
and Ohio.
The integration of solar energy sys-
tems into existing energy infrastructures
and systems raises a number of issues,
including (1) the rates paid by utilities
for power sold to the grid as well as for
back-up power and other services pro-
vided to on-site generators, (2) the legal
status of on-site generators, (3) the
financing and ownership of dispersed
capacity, and (4) utility management
problems and perceived risks. The first
two issues are dealt with in part by the
Public Utility Regulatory Practices Act of
1978 (PURPA), part of the National
Energy Act. The third issue is handled
somewhat by the National Energy Con-
servation Policy Act. For the fourth issue
to be dealt with, utility management
techniques would have to change to
accommodate a transition to dispersed
capacity.
Finally, the present management of
government solar programs is hampered
by a number of deficiencies within the
Department of Energy's Conservation
and Solar Energy Programs, such as a
constantly changing organizational
structure.
Wind Energy
As with solar and other dispersed
electric energy systems, the widespread
introduction of wind energy conversion
systems would raise a number of legal
and institutional issues. These include
financing, siting, tort liability, and en-
vironmental problems.
Biomass
Although biomass is a promising
energy source for the ORBES region, its
use on a wide scale also would entail
the solution of unresolved institutional
questions. An issue common to all
bioenergy sources is the need to develop
programs to provide information and
technical assistance to bioenergy users.
Also needed is the establishment of
reliable supply infrastructures for direct
energy uses of biomass resources. In
both public and private operations, long-
range energy and resource planning
and proper resource management would
have to take place. Institutional changes
would be required to link bioenergy to
conventional energy supply infrastruc-
tures and users. For example, where
biomass is used to produce electricity,
provisions must be made to sell surplus
power to the grid at equitable rates and
to supply back-up power to producers of
bio-electricity. Finally, federal adminis-
tration of bioenergy research, develop-
ment, and implementation would have
to be improved.
Each form of biomass entails addi-
tional issues. The primary institutional
issue associated with the use of wi
as energy is the management and c
of the resource base, that is, for
lands. The primary institutional issi
associated with intensive agriculti
production for energy are the integral
of energy demand for crops into exist
markets and the potential for envir
mental damage. The use of munic
solid wastes for energy raises inst
tional issues related to the remova
barriers to resource recovery.
Conservation
Only one conservation measur
cogeneration—was quantified for us
an ORBES scenario. Economic fac
are the primary institutional considi
tions associated with the introductio
cogeneration by industries, notably
rate of return on investment in cogei
ation technology. The most impor
cost consideration is the savings real
from cogeneration when compared v
the alternative costs of separate op>
tions for in-house steam production
purchased electricity. Other conce
are effects on the environment
potential regulatory constraints.
Concluding Note
One important insight gained by
ORBES researchers is that the si
region, part of which is known popu
as the Ohio River Valley, is far n
diverse than they had suspected
probably more so than most pu
officials realize. Failure to recognize
diversity most certainly will dooi
failure any attempt at basinwide ins
tional innovations. There is inc
balkanization within the ORBES re<
and with a continued emphasis on i
ideological divisions probably wil
come more pronounced.
The local and long-range transbo
ary movement of air pollutants ac
state lines is the single issue withii
broad context of continued (and perl
increased) reliance on coal that c
produce the most conflict. Since OP
began in 1976, this issue has ga
increased attention in the regie
affects employment levels in the i
mining industry as well as in Indus-
general. It triggers emotions tha
easily translated into political controv
But many of the ORBES research*
air pollution experts, economists,
yers, political scientists, and othe
believe that institutional mechan
can be devised that will permi
region to enjoy the benefits of
18
-------
aasonably clean air and a degree of
conomic growth. The creation of such
mechanisms will require the highest
echnological competence, as well as
ocial and political imagination. If there
s any single finding of the Ohio River
asin Energy Study, it is that steps
:oward both clean air and economic
jrowth in the region can be taken only if
ways can be found to unite the various
actions. Many residents of the region
lave recognized this reality, but they
amain separated by ideology. Some
elieve that the steps should be initiated
iy government, while others favor
ction within the private sector. It is not
le responsibility of ORBES researchers
> recommend which path should be
>llowed. But it is our responsibility to
/arn that inaction could result in eco-
omic stagnation and accompanying
ocial problems capable of draining
luch-needed vitality from the region
nd from the nation at-large.
This Project Summary was authored by the ORBES Core Team. University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.
Lowell Smith is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)," (Order
No. PB 81-161 788; Cost: $24.50, subject to change) will be available only
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Program Integration and Policy Staff
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
19
» U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1961 -757-01J/7190
-------
M
c
O H
j»WOP3O
O ZSSO
oo
10
50 H
Pi O
P3 «
H
m
z
O
Hi
\
m >
-o
------- |