-------
                Preface—The SF$  Emission Reduction
                 partnership for Electric  Power^ystems
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is 23,900 times more effective per
molecule in trapping infrared radiation in the Earth's atmos-
phere than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
over a 100-year period. With an atmospheric lifetime of
3,200 years, this virtually indestructible gas is accumulating
in our atmosphere and contributing to the threat of global
climate change.

Nearly 80 percent of all SFg produced is used by the electric
power industry in high voltage equipment such as electrical
switchgear and circuit breakers. Because of its extremely sta-
ble molecular structure, high dielectric strength, powerful
arc quenching abilities, and excellent insulation properties,
SF6 is the industry's preferred chemical used in high-voltage
equipment applications and designs.

  With a high global warming

  potential (GWP) of 23,900,

  SF$ is  the most potent

  greenhouse gas.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched
the voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for
Electric Power Systems in 1999 to assist utilities in develop-
ing and implementing cost-effective options to reduce SF6
emissions. As part of a suite of voluntary industry program
offerings within EPA's Climate Change Division, the SF6
Emission Reduction Partnership is based on the premise
that companies can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
through sound management principles in a cost-effective
manner.

This annual report documents the Partnership's fourth year
of progress in abating SF6 emissions through cost-effective
practices and technologies. Cumulative SF6 emissions avoid-
ed by partners since 1999 are presented, as well as the lat-
est results reported by partners for 2003.
Three ma/or groups or types
of high GWP gases exist:
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulfur hexafluoride
In 20Q2, SFfi emissions f/om the
electric power industrw^accounted
for approximately  I/I percent of
the total high GWP emissions
                      2
industrial processes.
                                     m
For more information on high GWP gases, visit EPA's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/hgwp/index.html.
2EPA. 2004. "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-04-003.

-------
In 2003, companies in the SF6 Emission Reduction
Partnership continue to make important accomplishments
in reducing SFg emissions. Partners cite various measures
that have enabled them to achieve emission reductions.
Successful strategies and activities include tracking company
uses of SF6 annually, establishing an emission reduction
goal, developing SF6 management protocols, training
employees on the handling of SF6 gas, identifying and
repairing SF6 leaks, replacing older, leaking equipment with
newer, tighter gas-insulated equipment, and implementing
SF6 recycling. This section presents the results of Partners'
efforts for 2003 and overall.
2.1  Partner-Reported Emissions
In 2003, over 80 percent of Partners reported. SF6 emissions
from these utilities totaled 444,424 pounds; total reported
nameplate capacity reached 4,268,148 pounds. Table 1 pro-
vides a summary of total nameplate capacity and SF6 emis-
sions for all reporting Partners between 1999 and 2003.

The emission rate, calculated by dividing total emissions by
total nameplate capacity, equals 10.4 percent for 2003,
down slightly from the previous year's rate of 11 percent.
The continuing decline of this metric illustrates the continu-
ing success of Partners in implementing strategies that
reduce SF6 emissions. Since the number of reporting
Partners varies from year to year, the emission rate is a valu-
able assessment of Partnership trends because it normalizes
SFg emissions relative to the total amount of SFg-containing
electrical equipment used by the utility. Figure 1 illustrates
the declining trend of emission rate since the Partnership's
inception in 1999.
ono/
18% -
lAO/n
"MO/
190/n _
o
1 U 7U -
•° fiO/n -
^ o/o
^ A0/n _
4%

^1
1
\ \

















\\


































1999 2000\\ ' 2001 2002 2003
Figure 1. SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership
Emission RaMrend, 1999-2003

              Table 1: Aggregated Statistics  for all Reporting  Partners

Reporting Partners
Total Name-Plate Capacity (Ibs.)
Total Sp6 Emissions (Ibs.)1
Sp6 Emission Rate
1999
79%
3,465,872
594,902
17%
2000
82%
3,858,884
583,523
15%
2001
85%
3,918,809
555,867
14%
2002
74%
4,382,961
478,299
11%
2003
84%
4,268,148
444,424
10%
'Since several reporting Partners have not provided data for consecutive years, the aggregated statistics should not be used
 to compare annual SF6 emissions.

-------
Table 2 presents a summary of total annual SF6 emissions
reductions achieved by Partners through 2003. The informa-
tion presented is derived by evaluating emissions data pro-
vided by reporting Partners for each year (see Table 1), and
is not adjusted to account for Partners who have not report-
ed consecutively. Emissions reductions are also presented in
terms of million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) and assume that 1999, the start of the
Partnership, is the baseline year.

As shown in Table 2, 2003 SFg emissions from reporting
Partners are 25  percent lower than emissions in 1999. These
Partners have reduced SF6 emissions by 1.63 MMTCO2e in
2003 from the Partnership's emission baseline; since 1999
cumulative emission reductions have totaled 3.44
MMTCO7e.
   FrorH\] 999 through 2003,\
   Porfnetehave saved $7.9 foA$2.9
   million aq^/ars' in SF& purchases
   by preventing the escape of 3\44
   MMTCO2e,  d^317,495 pouncMpf
      , into the atmosphere.
    'Assuming SFg costs between $6.00 to $9.00
    per pound.
These successes translate into remarkable environmental
benefits. The emissions reductions reported by Partners
have significantly contributed to improving the environment
by decreasing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
released to the atmosphere and, subsequently, decreasing
the electric power industry's impact on climate change.
The 2003 Partner-reported
emissions reduction of 1.63
MMTCO2G are equal to:

   • 353,000 Passenger cars NOT
     driven for one year; or

   • ] 3,370 Acres of forest preserved
     from deforestation; or

   • 209,375 Household electricity use
                                         3
     for one  year  (no. of households).
                Table 2: Partner-Reported SF6 Emissions Reductions

Total Partner-Reported SF6 Emissions (Ibs)
Total Partner-Reported SF6 Emissions (MMTCC>2e)
Reduction from Baseline (MMTCO^e)
Percent Reduction from Baseline
19991
594,902
6.45
—
—
2000
583,523
6.32
0.12
2%
2001
555,867
6.03
0.42
7%
2002
478,299
5.18
1.26
20%
2003
444,424
4.82
1.63
25%
'Baseline year.
 Source: http://www.usctcgateway.net/tool/

-------
2.2 2003 Emission Reduction Activities
This year, several Partners shared information on activities that contributed to significant SF6 emission reductions.
The following observations were noted for each activity:
   Equipment — Leak Detection and Repair
   Ten Partners mentioned the use of various leak
   detection devices including soap and water solu-
   tions, snoop, hand-held halogen leak detectors,  and
   laser leak detection cameras. Equipment is moni-
   tored and inspected on a routine basis; for exam-
   ple, one respondent noted that the pressure of SF6
   circuit breakers is routinely checked while others
   noted that the re-filling of equipment with SF6 was
   closely tracked. Partners reported that leak detec-
   tion activities have enabled them to repair minor
   gas leaks, justify the replacement of older leaking
   equipment, and identify leaks in equipment that
   were previously overlooked, such as gas carts
   and gauges.
   Equipment Upgrades and the Replacement of Old
   with New Equipment
   Nine Partners cited conducting equipment upgrades and
   replacing numerous SFg circuit breakers as effective SFg
   emission mitigation strategies. One respondent stated
   that equipment replacement was the biggest factor in
   reducing SFg emissions. When equipment is deemed
   impractical for repair, respondents reported replacing
   faulty equipment with low volume breakers; one
   respondent reported a replacement of an old leaking
   SFg substation.
Training of Employees to Safely Handle,
Manage, and Monitor SF&
Twelve Partners reported that training is provided
through various measures including on-the-job, at
department meetings, and in classroom settings.
Apprentice electricians, foremen, and journeymen were
cited as those employees who receive training, which
covers servicing and monitoring SFg equipment, emer-
gency response procedures for breaker failures, safety
precautions, and operating gas carts. Respondents noted
that these factors all contribute to SFg emission reduction.


Other Emission Reduction Strategies
Ten Partners offered information on other activities that
contributed to significant SF6 emission reductions. The
most common "other" strategy provided by respondents
was the purchase and use of SF6 gas recycling carts, fol-
lowed by sending contaminated gas to a disposal facility
or the gas supplier for recycling. Respondents also
noted the benefits of carefully tracking the use of SF6
gas cylinders and returning partial cylinders to vendors.
 Employee  Training
             SF6  Management
     Equipment Replacement

-------
In 2004, EPA is working to continue to grow the Partnership
and provide technical information on successful strategies
for reducing SFg emissions to Partners through new studies
and upcoming conferences. This section details the latest in
these advancements.
3.1  New Partners
EPA is continuously seeking new Partners to continue to
target reductions of SFg emissions from the electric utility
industry in the United States. Over the past year, EPA has
been actively identifying companies to join the SFg Emission
Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems, meeting
with representatives, and explaining the financial and envi-
ronmental benefits that can be achieved through the power
of voluntary action.

In late  2003 and  early 2004, EPA
welcomed the  following three new
Partners into the SF^  Emission Reduction
Partnership for Electric Power Systems:

   ]. Arizona Public Service Company
      (APS)—Phoenix, AZ

   2. MidAmerican Energy—Des Moines, IA

   3. National  Grid—Wesfborough, MA
      The parent company to a current Partner,
The Partnership now totals over 70 partners. For a current
list, please refer to Appendix A.
3.2 SF6 Field Study
In early 2004, EPA launched a study examining SF6 leak
rates in circuit breakers manufactured between January
1998 and December 2002. The objective of the study is to
investigate equipment leak rates and to help both electric
utilities and equipment manufacturers better understand
the size and common sources of leaks in new equipment
operating in the field. The study is anticipated to be com-
pleted by the end of 2004; results from the study will be
presented at this year's conference.


3.3  The 2004 International Conference  on
SF6  and the  Environment

Companies from the electric utility and magnesium indus-
tries will come together again this year for the Biannual
International Conference on SFg and the Environment.
Sponsored by the EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), the International Magnesium Association (IMA), the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the National
Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA), the confer-
ence will take place on December 1st through 3rd in
Scottsdale, Arizona. Partners are encouraged to participate
and share their experiences.

Conference breakout sessions specific to the use of SF6 in
electrical switchgear and circuit breakers include:
• SF6 Management Services
• SF6 Gas Analysis
      Niagara Mohawk, National Grid signed an    * On-site vs. Off-site Recycling
      MOU with EPA for seven additional of its
      subsidiaries located throughout
      Massachusetts and one  in Rhode Island.
• SF6 Equipment Field Study

• Equipment Issues: Repair vs. Replacement

The Partnership's Web site houses up-to-date information
on this year's conference including key dates for submitting
abstracts and making reservations. For more information, please
visitwww.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6/workshops.html

-------
The SF$ Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems is successfully

reducing SF^ emissions from electrical transmission operations by implementing

cost-effective and technically feasible measures.  Cumulative emission reductions

since 1999 total 3.44 M/VlTCC^e, the potential environmental value of which is

equivalent to 28,210 acres of forest preserved from deforestation. As the SF$

Emission Reduction Partnership enters its fifth year, EPA not only supports but

strongly encourages Partners to continue to implement SF^ emission reduction

activities in order to further abate emissions of this potent greenhouse gas.  In

accomplishing this goal, electric utilities are also improving operational efficiency,

saving money,  and providing reliable power in an environmentally responsible

manner.

For additional information please  contact:

Jerome Blackman
Program Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Climate Change Division
Washington, DC 20460
Tel. (202) 343-9630
Email: Blackman.Jerome@epamail.epa.gov
www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6

-------
Allegheny Power
Greensburg, PA

American Electric Power
Columbus, OH (including West Texas Utilities Co - Abilene,
TX and Southwestern Electric Power Company -
Shreveport, LA)

Arizona Public Service Company (APS)
Phoenix, AZ

Athens Electric Department
Athens, AL
Austin Energy
Austin, TX

Bangor Hydro-Electric Company
Bangor, ME

Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Henderson, KY

Bonneville Power Administration
Portland, OR

CenterPoint
formerly Reliant Energy HL&P

Central Maine Power Company
Augusta, ME

Central Vermont Public Service Corporati
Rutland, VT

Cinergy Power Generation Services, Inc.
  Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company—Cincinnati,
  PSI Energy, Inc.—Cincinnati, OH

City of Monroe
Monroe, NC

Columbia River People's Utility District
St. Helens, OR

Commonwealth Edison
Chicago, IL

Commonwealth Electric
Wareham, MA

Connecticut Light and Power Company
Berlin, CT

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
New York, NY

Grand
Grand Isla
Hastings Ut
Hastings, NE
Kings River Cor
Fresno, CA
Crisp County Power Commission
Cordele, GA

Duquesne Light Company
Pittsburgh, PA

Edison International
Rosemead, CA

El Paso Electric Company
El Paso, TX

Eugene Water and Electric Board
Eugene, OR

FirstEnergy Corporation
Akron, OH (including GPU Energy - Reading, PA)
Florida Power and Light Compan
Juno Beach, FL

Fort Pierce Utilities Authority
Fort Pierce, FL
ind Utilities Department
  NE
   ties
       jrvation District
Lower Colorado River Authority
Austin, TX

   ine Public Service Company
Prei^ue Isle, ME

Manitowoc Public Utilities
Manitowoc,

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division
Memphis, TN

Menasha Electric and Water Utilities
Menasha, WI

MidAmerican  Energy
  es Moines, LA

Montana Power Company
Butte, MT

Muscatine Power & Water
Muscatine, LA

-------
Nashville Electric Service
Nashville, TN

National Grid
   Granite State Electric—Northborough, MA
   Massachusetts Electric—Northborough, MA
   Nantucket Electric—Nantucket, MA
   Narragansett Electric—Providence, RI
   Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation—Syracuse, NY
   New England Power Co.—Westborough, MA
   New England Electric Transmission Corp.
   (NEET)—Salem, MA
   New England Hydro-Transmission Electric Co. Inc.
   (NEHTEC)—Westborough, MA

Nebraska  Public Power District
Doniphan, NE

New York Power Authority
New York, NY

North Atlantic Energy
Juno Beach, FL

Northeast  Utilities Services Company
   Connecticut Light and Power Company—Berlin, CT
   Public Service Company of New Hampshire—Manchester, CT
   Western Massachusetts Electric Company—
   West Springfield, MA

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)
Merriville, IN

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co (OG&E)
Oklahoma City, OK

Oncor, formerly TXU
Dallas, TX

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
San Francisco, CA

Paragould City Light & Water
Paragould, AR

Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County
East Wenatchee, WA

Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County
Newport, WA

Rochester Gas and Electric  Corp.
Rochester, NY
Salt River Project Power District
Phoenix, AZ

San Antonio City Public Service Board
San Antonio, TX

Silicon Valley Power
Santa Clara, CA

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Columbia, SC

Southern Company
Atlanta, GA

Tennessee Valley Authority
Knoxville, TN

Texas Municipal Power Agency
Bryan, TX

Village of Prairie du Sac
Prairie du Sac, WI

Wallingford Electric Division
Wallingford, CT

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage Dist.
Wellton, AZ

We Energies, formerly Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Milwaukee, WI

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Climate Change Division
Washington, DC 20460

-------