------- 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 ------- |