2014 Annual Report
March 2015

&EPA
SF6 Emission Reduction
Partnership for Electric Power Systems
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Emission Reduction
Partnership for
Electric Power
Systems

-------
1999
Inception of the "Partnership" with 49 Charter Partners.
2000
1st International Conference on SF6 and the Environment
held in San Diego, CA.
2001-2003
Technical literature developed and made available on program web site
including, "Byproducts of SF6 Use in the Electric Power Industry" and "Catalog
of Guidelines and Standards for the Handling and Management of SF6."
2nd International Conference on SF6 and the Environment
held in San Diego, CA in 2002.
2004
3rd International Conference on SF6 and the Environment
held in Scottsdale, AX (substation tour).
Partners start receiving customized benchmark reports on their progress in the
program. Service Provider directory made available.
2005
Webcast tutorials on estimating and reporting SF6 emissions offered. Field study
on leak rates from circuit breakers manufactured between January 1998 and
December 2002 is completed.
2006
4th International Conference on SF6 and the Environment held in
San Antonio, TX (substation tour). Partnership participation increases
to 77 companies representing 42% of U.S. grid.
2007-2009
The SF6 emission rate continues to drop; by 2007, Partners have reduced SF6
emissions by more than half of baseline emissions. In 2009, the
Partnership celebrates its 10-year anniversary at the 5th Workshop in Phoenix,
AZ. Partners convene at a Partner Meeting in Chicago in June 2009,
hosted by Partner utility ComEd.
2010
Partner utility Oncor hosts Partner Meeting in May in Dallas, TX.
2012
Partner utility Georgia Power Company hosts Partner meeting in April
in Atlanta, GA.
2014
The lowest SF6 emission rate of the program to-date, 1.9%, is set.
Partner utility Southern California Edison hosts Partner Meeting in May in
Long Beach, CA.

-------
The SF Emission Reduction
Partnership for Electric
Power Systems
Since 1999, members of the U.S. electric power industry and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have been working together to identify and implement
Opportunities to reduce SF(, emissions. The SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for the Electric
Power Systems (the Partnership) is one of the many voluntary public-private partnerships managed by EPA
that aim to reduce or slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Partner utilities voluntarily commit
to reduce emissions of sulfur hexafluoride, or SFg, a potent and long-lived greenhouse gas with a global
warming potential (GWP) 22,800' times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). This means that SF6 is 22,800 times
more effective at trapping infrared radiation than an equivalent amount of CO2 over a 100-year period.
Greenhouse gases range in their potency, and SFg is classified as the highest GWP gas. Although SF6 is
emitted in smaller quantities than many other greenhouse gases, its extremely long atmospheric lifetime of
3,200 years causes it to accumulate in the earth's atmosphere for centuries.
Because of its unique dielectric properties, electric utilities rely heavily on SF6 in electric power systems for
voltage electrical insulation, current interruption, and arc quenching in the transmission and distribution
of electricity. While SF6 should theoretically remain contained within equipment, in reality, the gas is
inadvertently emitted into the atmosphere as leaks develop during various stages of the equipment's
lifecycle. SF6 can also be released at the time of equipment manufacture, installation, servicing, or
de-commissioning. Because there is no clear alternative to SFg, Partners reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions through implementing emission reduction strategies such as detecting, repairing, and/or replacing
problem equipment, as well as educating gas handlers on proper handling techniques of SF<$ gas during
equipment installation, servicing, and disposal. The Partnership fosters information sharing of these better
management practices. This report presents the SF6 emission reduction achievements of the Partnership
through 2013.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Inside the 2014 SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership Annual Report
>¦ Partnership Accomplishments
>¦ Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Rule
> Partner-Reported Emissions Summary
> Partnership Announcements and Updates	New Partners
> Workshop on SF6 Emission Reduction
Strategies, Spring 2014
>- Continued Growth and Success
>¦ List of Partners
> Estimating Nameplate Capacity
1 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
Partner Accomplishments
As part of their commitment to the
Partnership, each year Partners report their SF6
emissions and nameplate capacity estimates to EPA.
(Note: Under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program, Partners with a total nameplate capacity
exceeding 17,820 pounds must report emissions
and nameplate capacity under subpart DD - Use of
Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment.)
EPA collects and aggregates Partner information
to determine the overall accomplishments of the
Partnership. The results of the 2013 reporting
year for the Partnership, including the cumulative
emissions reduction for the program in comparison
to the 1999 baseline year, are presented in the
following section.
Partner-Reported Emissions
Summary
The Partnership's annual average SFg emission
rate, the ratio of SFg emissions relative to total
SFg nameplate capacity (i.e., the total quantity
of SF6 contained in electrical equipment), is a
benchmark metric by which achievements of
the Partnership are tracked. As illustrated in
Figure I, the annual average SFg emission rate of
Partners has decreased drastically since 1999. In
the past five years, the emission rate has halved,
from over 4 percent to just below 2 percent.
Overall, the annual average SF6 emission rate
for the Partnership is down approximately 87
percent from the 1999 baseline emission rate
of 14.2 percent to 1.9 percent in 2013. Table
1	summarizes the Partnership's aggregate SF6
emissions, nameplate capacity, and emission rate
for the 1999 to 2013 reporting years.2
2	The SF6 emission rate is a valuable assessment of Partnership
trends because it allows for a normalized comparison. While
Partners vary in total SF6 nameplate capacity, a larger utility,
although using more SF6, will not necessarily have a higher
emission rate than a smaller utility.
Estimation Methods
Results in Table 1 are
based ori Partners
in the program
in 2013 as the
representative population size for estimates
for the entire time-series (1999-2013). To
estimate emissions and nameplate capacity
not reported by Partners, a set of assumptions
was developed. For example, if a Partner
reported for 2011 and 2013 but not for 2012,
2012 estimates were determined through
linear interpolation.
Additionally, Partnership emission estimates
for all years have been revised to reflect the
global warming potential (GWP) provided
in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
(IPCC 2006). International reporting standards
now require the use of AR4 GWP values,
which reflect an updated understanding of
the atmospheric properties of greenhouse
gases. Prior Partnership estimates
benchmarked the IPCC Second Assessment
Report (SAR) (IPCC 1996). The AR4 GWP value
for SF6 of 22,800 is lower than the SAR GWP
(23,900), leading to an overall decrease in
emissions across the Partnership time series.
The atmospheric lifetime of SF6 is estimated
to be 3,200 years.
*GWP is a measure of the total energy that a
gas absorbs over a particular period of time
(usually 100 years) compared to CO2.
Sources: IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme, The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T
Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds.). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
IPCC (1996) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T.
Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A.
Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. (eds.). Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
Figure 1: SF6 Emission Rate Trends
T 15%
-- 12%
-- 9% j2
-- 6%
-- 3%
9,000,000 ¦
8,000,000 ¦
7,000,000 ¦
6,000,000 ¦
2 5,000,000 ¦
4,000,000 ¦
3,000,000 ¦
2,000,000 .
1,000,000 ¦
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total SF6 Emissions (lbs)	Total Nameplate Capacity (lbs)
~~•— SF6 Emission Rate (%)
From 2012 to 2013, total SF6 emissions have decreased to 160,523 pounds, while the Partnership
nameplate capacity increased to 8,459,306 pounds. Both of these changes led to an overall decrease in
the annual average Partnership SF6 emission rate. A summary of the Partnership's SF6 emissions and
reductions are presented in Table 2. The SF6 emission reductions, presented in terms of pounds of SF6
and million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCChe), were calculated using a baseline year
of 1999.
TABLE 1: Summary of Partnership SF6 Emissions, Nameplate Capacity, and Emission Rate

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total SF6
Emissions
(lbs)
695,738
648,883
622,759
544,614
536,596
497,348
460,694
378,872
311,181
270,761
282,950
257,474
202,774
174,769
160,523
Total
Nameplate
Capacity
(lbs)
4,896,316
4,962,428
5,024,421
5,339,647
5,632,412
5,694,533
5,954,138
6,084,171
6,136,808
6,182,346
6,370,735
6,810,708
7,634,502
8,128,139
8,459,306
SF6 Emission
Rate (%)"
14.2%
13.1%
12.4%
10.2%
9.5%
8.7%
7.7%
6.2%
5.1%
4.4%
4.4%
3.8%
2.7%
2.2%
1.9%
Note: Historical estimates have been updated based on the estimation methodology used by EPA and data made available by Partners.
a Emission rate is defined as total emissions divided by total nameplate capacity (i.e., the total quantity of SF6 contained in electrical equipment).
TABLE 2: Summary of Absolute Partnership SF6 Emission Reductions

1999b
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total Partner-Reported
SF6 Emissions (lbs)
695,738
648,883
622,759
544,614
536,596
497,348
460,694
378,872
311,181
270,761
282,950
257,474
202,774
174,769
160,523
Total Partner-Reported SF6
Emissions (MMTC02e)
7.19
6.71
6.44
5.63
5.55
5.14
4.76
3.92
3.22
2.80
2.93
2.66
2.10
1.81
1.66
Reduction from
Baseline (lbs)

46,855
72,979
151,124
159,142
198,390
235,044
316,866
384,557
424,977
412,788
438,264
492,964
520,969
535,215
Reduction from
Baseline (MMTC02e)

0.48
0.75
1.56
1.65
2.05
2.43
3.28
3.98
4.39
4.27
4.53
5.10
5.39
5.53
Percent Reduction from
Baseline

6.7%
10.5%
21.7%
22.9%
28.5%
33.8%
45.5%
55.3%
61.1%
59.3%
63.0%
70.9%
74.9%
76.9%
Note: Historical estimates have been updated based on the estimation methodology used by EPA and data made available by Partners.
b Baseline year.
3 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
To date, Partners have decreased absolute emissions of SF6 by 75 percent. Annual SF6 reductions
collectively made by Partners from 2011 to 2012 were 28,235 pounds, or the C02 equivalent of
0.31 MMTC02e. From 1999 through 2012, Cumulative Partnership emissions reductions totaled close
to 3.8 million pounds of SF6 or 41 MMTC02e (i.e., based on the sum of "Reduction from Baseline" as
provided in Row 3, Table 2). If the Partnership's SF6 emission rate of 14 percent remained unchanged
since 1999, then the total amount of emissions emitted to the atmosphere since 1999 would be 6.1
million pounds greater than has actually occurred.
Figure 2 displays the distribution of Partners according to their emission rate. As illustrated, around
85 percent of Partners are below an emission rate of 5 percent, and around 70 percent of all Partners
have achieved an emission rate of 2.5 percent or less. Emission rates of Partners vary due to a number
of factors such as total nameplate capacity within their system, transmission miles, age and geographic
location of equipment, and the number of years participating in the Partnership.
Figure 2: SF6 Emission Rate Trends
100%
£ 90%
a>
¦§ 80%
(0
70%
o
c 60%
O
50%
40%
a>
> 30%
"5 20%
i 10%
u
0%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0%
2%
SF6 Emission Rate
Cumulative SF6 emissions reductions of 4,390,000 pounds relative
to the 1999 baseline are equivalent to C02 emissions reductions from:
>	9.6 million passenger cars not driven for one year
>	105.6 million barrels of oil not used
>	11.9 coal-fired power plants not used for one year
Because SF6 has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years (100-year lifetime, reported in
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report), the benefits of reducing emissions accrue for many
generations.
Source: http://www.epa.gov/deanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
4 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
Partnership Ann
and Updates
This section covers updates on
outreach events, the latest developments in
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, and
new Partners to the program.
2014 Workshop:
Long Beach, CA
2014 Workshop on SF6 Emission
Reduction Strategies
On May 6-7, 2014, the Partnership held a
workshop on SFg emission reduction strategies at
the Hilton Long Beach Hotel in Long Beach, CA.
This workshop brought together 129
participants from Partner utilities, service
providers, gas producers and distributors, and
equipment manufacturers. Sessions were held
on various topics, including leak detection and
monitoring, inventory systems, and an update
on climate science and policy. A roundtable
discussion was held, allowing an open forum for
Partners in attendance to discuss improving SF6
emission and nameplate capacity estimates, best
management practices, and mitigation strategies
for SF6 emission reductions and the future of the
SFg partnership. Presentations are available on
the Partnership website.
Workshop participants were also offered a site
tour of Southern California Edison's Distribution
Apparatus Shop, located in Westminster, CA.
The shop serves the utility's 50,000-square-
mile territory and is responsible for storing new
SBj equipment, servicing and decommissioning
equipment, storing and dispatching carts and
leak detectors, and weighing and inventorying
SF6 cylinders.
EPA would iike to specially recognize arid
thank Partner utility Southern California
Edison (SCE). This successful workshop
would not have been possible without
the hard work and hospitality of SCE.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON
An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company
The workshop was also supported by the
following sponsors:
>	Electric T&D SF6 Coalition
(NEMA)
>- Proline Utility Technologies
>	Solon Manufacturing
>	WIKA
5 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
At the workshop, EPA presented Partnership recognition awards to two Partners:
• Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) for
their organizational and team leadership.
ComEd is a unit of Chicago-based Exelon
Corporation which is an electric and gas
utility holding company. ComEd is the largest
electric power delivery service company in
Illinois, providing service to more than
3.7 million customers across Northern Illinois.
ComEd does not own or operate electric power
generation facilities.
• New York Power Authority (NYPA) for their excellence in SF6 inventory and data collection system.
NYPA is one of New York State's leading suppliers of electricity, operating 16 generating facilities
and more than 1,400 circuit-miles of transmission lines. NYPA is a state-owned and -operated public
power organization and sells electric power to government agencies, community-owned electric
systems and rural electric cooperatives, companies, private utilities for resale to their customers, and
neighboring states.
ComEd's SFg emission reduction efforts are
led by a team that is responsible for setting
annual program targets and reduction goals
for SFg as part of ComEd's overall corporate
environmental goals. The team meets at the
beginning of each year to review progress and
identify continuous improvement opportunities
and then meets throughout the year to track
actions and accomplishments. As a result of
its enhanced SFg reduction strategic planning,
ComEd has decreased its SFg leak rate in each of
the past ten years. While industry average leak
rates (emissions/total nameplate capacity) are
3.8 percent, ComEd's leak rate was 0.55 percent
for 2012 and 0.25 percent for 2013. Joining in
1999, ComEd was one of the founding Partners
of the program.
Sally Rand, EPA, with Marvin Landeros, Lorinda Alms,
and Mark Slezak from ComEd
John Kahabka from New York Power Authority with
Sally Rand, EPA
NYPA was awarded for its recognition of the importance of high quality data for use not only in
required reporting but in the trending of equipment. NYPA embarked on an effort to design a system
to track SF6 information in an easy to use format while providing data reports required for external
and internal greenhouse gas reporting programs.
6 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
Estimating Nameplate Capacity
Since 2012, EPA, Partners, the original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of SF6-
insulated electric transmission and distribution
equipment (GIE), and other industry
representatives have studied and worked through
identifying best practices for collecting consistent
and comparable nameplate capacity data, a
key component used to estimate emissions.
The nameplate capacity of GIE refers to the
full and proper charge of gas in the equipment,
in pounds, which is determined based on
density, psig/degree C, per manufacturer's filling
instructions. This is referred to as the stated
nameplate capacity, as it is determined by the
equipment manufacturer and identified either on
a label on the GIE and/or in the manufacturer's
specifications. Reportedly, the manufacturer's
stated nameplate capacity may not always be
representative of the mass, in pounds, needed
to reach the full and proper charge of the
equipment. Industry has noted that the following
two practices are
taking place:
•	Underfilling, i.e., filling to a density which
results in a mass, in pounds, that is lower
than the stated nameplate capacity, and
•	Overfilling, i.e., filling to a density which
results in a mass, in pounds, that is higher
than the stated nameplate capacity.
These inconsistencies and uncertainties can lead
to errors in emissions estimates. Preventative
measures to avoid discrepancies can be taken to
reduce estimation error. These measures include:
At Purchase:
•	Account for any partial charge.
» Equipment users should account for any
partial charge, the value of which should
be conveyed by the OEM.
At Installation:
•	Discontinue overfilling and underfilling.
» Discontinue the practice of knowingly
overfilling or underfilling GIE to any
density other than the stated
nameplate capacity.
•	Use accurate measuring devices and
filling techniques.
» Ensure that all filling GIE (e.g., regulator,
hose assembly) and temperature and
pressure gauges used at installation are
properly calibrated and accurate.
» Gauges supplied with breakers reportedly
are not always accurate.
•	Confirm the filled density.
» Ensure that GIE is filled to the stated
nameplate capacity, which is determined
based on density (psig/degree C) per the
manufacturer's filling instructions.
At Servicing and Refurbishment:
•	Discontinue overfilling and underfilling.
» Discontinue knowingly overfilling or
underfilling GIE to any density other than
the stated nameplate capacity.
» With refurbishment, clearly document any
change in the internal volume of GIE. Any
adjustment to nameplate capacity should
be referenced through the lifetime of the
equipment for servicing and retirement.
•	Use accurate measuring devices and gas
recovery and filling techniques.
» Personnel should have an understanding
of the recovery process, as a significant
amount of gas can remain in equipment
even when the equipment is drawn down
to a vacuum.
•	Confirm the filled density.
7 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
At Decommissioning:
•	Use accurate measuring devices and gas
recovery and filling techniques.
•	Conduct a density check before recovery.
» Measure temperature and pressure of
the gas prior to recovery and compare to
temperature-adjusted pressure to which
GIE is supposed to be filled.
This practice facilitates identifying
whether a discrepancy exists between
the mass of gas recovered and the stated
nameplate capacity, which may be due to:
-	leaks;
-	underfilling/overfilling (e.g., during
the most recent servicing of the
decommissioned equipment); or
-	an inaccuracy in the
nameplate capacity.
These measures can help mitigate data quality
concerns but may not address all challenges.
Partners subject to mandatory reporting
must adhere to any applicable regulation for
compliance. In EPA's voluntary program, Partners
are encouraged to share examples of their
experiences with nameplate capacity data and to
continue the exchange of information, successes,
and lessons learned with industry peers.
Reporting requirements for Partners as well as
other electric power systems, as set forth under
Subpart DD of the regulation rule, can be found
on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
website at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/.
Emissions from electric power systems are
covered by the rule if the total nameplate
capacity of SF^-conraining equipment exceeds
17,820 pounds of SF6, which is estimated to
be the equivalent of an emissions threshold of
25,000 metric tons of C02eq per year.
Electric Power Systems subject to this rule must
submit mandatory reports covering calendar
year 2014 by March 31, 2015. GHGRP facility-
specific emissions data are available at
http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do.
New Partners
In 2014, the Partnership welcomed two new
Partners—Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power and Vermont Electric Cooperative.
The Partnership has continued to grow in
size, nearly doubling from 49 members to
86 members as of December 2014. Charter
members are specially recognized in the complete
Partner list, which can be referenced at the end
of this report.
Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Rule
In response to the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law
110-161), in 2009, EPA issued the Final
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Rule. The rule requires reporting of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from large sources and
suppliers in the United States, and is intended
to collect accurate and timely emissions data to
inform future policy decisions.
8 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
Continued Growtl
and Success
When EPA and the electric power
industry launched the Partnership in
1999, the challenge to reduce SF6 emissions in
technically and economically feasible ways was
at hand. EPA and Partners met this challenge
making significant reductions primarily by
identifying and replacing or repairing old,
leaking breakers. Over the years, Partners
advanced their strategies to reduce SF6
emissions, examining their systems for all
possible sources of potential emissions;
purchasing new laser leak-detection cameras;
working with their vendors to receive SFg
inventory-related reports; tightening their
gas cylinder inventories; purchasing more
recycling carts; introducing software systems
to better monitor and manage inventory; and
improving on their overall management and
training procedures. Voluntary action under
the Partnership has yielded impressive results.
In this reporting year, SFg Partners collectively
reduced the average SFg emission rate to 1.9
percent compared to 3.8 percent in 2010 and
14.2 percent in 1999. SF6 emissions in the 2013
reporting year are 87 percent lower than in the
1999 baseline year. Cumulatively, over the course
of the Partnership, SF6 Partners have prevented
the escape of approximately 4.4 million pounds
of SFg or 45 MMTCOie. Preventing the loss of
this much gas into the atmosphere translates into
an equivalent of $35.1 million to $52.7 million
of avoided SFg purchases to replace such losses.3
EPA applauds all Partners for the program's
success and encourages Partners to continue
setting and working towards ambitious reduction
goals with the program.
For additional information
please contact:
Sally Rand
Program Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Climate Change Division (6207A)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (202) 343-9739
Email: rand.sally@epa.gov
Based on an SF6 gas cost range of $8 to $12 per pound.
Estimated cost savings does not consider other potential cost
savings that might be realized indirectly, such as savings from
reduced labor and maintenance expenditure or potential annual
SF6 cylinder rental fees.
9 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
List of Partners
^Charter Partner
Subsidiaries are bulleted under parent companies
m
(as of December 2014)
American Electric Power
(AEP)*
Columbus, OH
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'1'
Henderson, KY
Bonneville Power
Administration*'"
Portland, OR
CenterPoint Energy *
Houston, TX
Central Maine Power
Company*''
Augusta, ME
Central Vermont Public Service
Corporation*"'
Rutland, VT
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA
Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. *
New York, NY
CPS Energy (formerly San
Antonio City
Public Service Board)*''
San Antonio, TX
Duquesne Light Company*''
Pittsburg, PA
Edison International
Rosemead, CA
El Paso Electric Company*''
El Paso, TX
Entergy Corporation
New Orleans, LA
Eugene Water and Electric
Board''
Eugene, OR
Exelon Energy Delivery (EED)
>	ComEd Energy Delivery*''
Chicago, IL
>	PECO Energy Delivery
Philadelphia, PA
FirstEnergy Corporation''
Akron, OH
>• Allegheny Power
Greensburg, PA
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority*''
Fort Pierce, FL
Grand Island Utilities
Department''
Grand Island, NE
Hastings Utilities''
Hastings, NE
ITC Transmission
Novi, MI
Kings River Conservation
District*
Fresno, CA
Louisville Gas and Electric
Company (LG&E) and
Kentucky Utilities Company
(KU)
Louisville, KY
Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power
Los Angeles, CA
Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA)
Austin, TX
Maine Public Service
Company*''
Presque Isle, ME
Manitowoc Public Utilities*
Manitowoc, Wl
Memphis Light, Gas & Water
Division
Memphis, TN
Menasha Utilities''
Menasha, WI
MidAmerican Energy
Des Moines, IA
Montana-Dakota Utilities
Bismarck, ND
Muscatine Power 8c Water*''
Muscatine, IA
Nashville Electric Service (NES)
Nashville, TN
National Grid
>- Granite State Electric
Northborough, MA
> Massachusetts Electric
Northborough, MA
>- Nantucket Electric
Nantucket, MA
>- Narragansett Electric
Providence, RI
>- New England Power
Company
Westborough, MA
10 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------
>¦ New England Electric
Transmission Corporation
Westborough, MA
>¦ New England Hydro-
Transmissions Company
Inc.
Westborough, MA
>¦ Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation
Syracuse, NY
Nebraska Public Power District
Columbus, NE
New Hampshire Transmission-
Seabrook Station
Seabrook, NH
New York Power Authority
New York, NY
New York State Electric and
Gas
Ithaca, NY
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
NSTAR Electric and Gas
Westwood, MA
>¦ Boston Edison Company
Boston, MA;
>¦ Cambridge Electric Light
Company
Boston, MA
>¦ Commonwealth Electric
Company
Boston, MA
Oglethorpe Power
Tucker, GA
Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Corporation* (OG&E)
Oklahoma City, OK
Oncor (formerly TXU)*
Dallas, TX
Otter Tail Power Company
Fergus Falls, MN
Pacificorp
Portland, OR
>¦ Pacific Power
Portland, OR
> Rocky Mountain Power
Salt Lake City, UT
Pacific Gas and Electric
Corporation (PG&E)*
San Francisco, CA
PNM Resources
Albuquerque, NM
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
Corporation
Rochester, NY
Salt River Project**
Phoenix, AZ
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego, CA
Seattle City Light
Seattle, WA
Silicon Valley Power*
Santa Clara, CA
South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company
Columbia, SC
Southern Company*
Atlanta, GA
State of California -
Department of Water Resources
Sacramento, CA
Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)
Knoxville, TN
Texas Municipal Power
Agency*
Bryan, TX
Vermont Electric Cooperative
Johnson, VT
VT Transco LLC
Rutland, VT
Wallingford Electric Division*
Wallingford, CT
We Energies*
Milwaukee, WI
Westar Energy
Wichita, KS
** Salt River Project is a Charter Partner that left the Partnership, but rejoined in 2009.
11 www.epa.gov/electricpower-sf6
2014 Annual Report - March 2015

-------

-------
£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Climate Change Division (6207J)
www.epa.gov
March 2015

-------